One great feature of trying to maintain a web log is that, over time, you accumulate a lot of thoughts. Two years ago, I would not have guessed that the biggest theme in my web log history would turn out to be democracy. I recently searched through the DaytonOS archive and found these articles. I’m rereading these articles and finding it valuable to refresh my thinking.
- The Ascending Issue In Our Democracy Is Democracy Itself, September 17, 2007
- Our Democracy Must Be Revived — If We Hope To Achieve The Dreams of Our Wisest and Best, November 28, 2007
- The Montgomery Democrats Decide to Suppress Democracy — Just Like the Republicans, December 14, 2007
- For Our Future’s Sake, We Must Transform Our System of Elitism To a System of Democracy, December 20, 2007
- Grassroots Dayton: “Sowing The Seeds Of Democracy”, April 11, 2008
- The Transcendent Challenge Dayton Must Solve In Order To Be Assured Of A Great Future, April 24, 2008
- How Grassroots Dayton Can Build Democracy By Building Community, May 13, 2008
- Non-Partisan Action Is Needed To Strengthen And Support Our Local Democracy, May 28, 2008
- Let’s Bring Back Lincoln Douglas Style Debates To Today’s Campaigns, September 9, 2008
- Showing Leadership On Reapportionment Presents Governor Strickland With Big Opportunity, November 10, 2008
- In Montgomery County, Once Again, Gerrymandering Triumphs Over Democracy, November 10, 2008
- Mike Turner Is A Bum, For Our Democracy’s Sake, Let’s Throw The Bum Out, October 16, 2008
- John Goodlad Says Public Must Agree On “The Democratic Purpose Of Public Schooling”, December 16, 2008
- Congressman Mike Turner’s Failure To Explain His “No” Vote Is More Evidence Our Democracy Is In Deep Trouble, January 29, 2009
- How Can The System Known As The United States Be Made To Work To Provide “Liberty and Justice For All”?, February 5, 2009
- Our Democracy Is Failing And It’s All Your Fault — So, Buy My Book, March 14, 2009
- John Glenn, In 1974, As Un-Endorsed Candidate, Denied Admission To Montgomery County Democratic HQ, February 20, 2009
- President Obama Must Make This Wake-Up Call To Action: Our System Of Democracy Has Failed Us, February 27, 2009
- Mark Owens Says Most Montgomery Dems Approve The Party’s Suppression Of Primary Participation, April 8, 2009
- The “Yes” Vote: Only 14% Of Registered Voters Needed In Kettering In Order For Antidemocratic Forces To Win, May 6, 2009
- Advice For Gary Leitzell And David Esrati: Make The Campaign All About Democracy, System Structure, May 7, 2009
- Our Community’s Success Depends On Whether Residents Can Be Persuaded To Behave Like Citizens, May 12, 2009
- Kettering School Board Members Failed In Their Responsibility To Be Guardians Of “Local Control”, May 26, 2009
- Local School Board Races Offer Grassroot Activist Opportunity — Grassroots Dayton Makes Plans, June 19, 2009
- We Are The Ones To Make A Better Place, July 7, 2009
- Vitalizing Our Democracy Is Advanced — If We Can Make Building Democracy An Entrepreneurial Opportunity, July 10, 2009
- The Kettering School Board’s Biggest Challenge Is To Gain Public Support For Transformation, September 10, 2009
- Kettering Public Education In The Year 2022: How Do We Get To A Great Future?, September 25, 2009
- Incumbents’ Refusal To Participate In Public Forum Reveals The Weak State Of Our Democracy, October 29, 2009
Mike,
Were there any signs of hope for democracy in Kettering during the campaign?
How did Kettering questions of candidates compare to Beavercreek:
http://beavercreek.ohiosteps.org/
Which endorsers most emphasized commitment to democratic principles through their screening process?
Eric
Dear Mike,
How would you define Democracy? I have read many of your articles and you really never come out and say what you think it is.
I took some time and read some of your articles. You sound anti-capitalism. You also sound contradictory saying things such as “a return to the people providing freedom and justice for all”, along with “Because our democracy failed to protect and advance the common good, the last forty years, for great portions of our citizenry, have brought big disappointments.” Following that with a quote about wealthy people being a big concern.
Um….for all is everyone. Not the common good. What if one is not common? If the top 1% makes 22% of the wealth, well, killing them and distributing that money would be for the common good. It would only run slightly contradictory to freedom and justice for all. How do you reconcile your own thought process?
Less government everywhere is the answer. Not Vitalized Democracy where only the educated angels show up to vote on everything for the common good. Government should be protecting our freedoms not encroaching into the economy and hence our lives and trampling our liberty.
Hi Eric, Thanks for the questions. You ask, “Were there any signs of hope for democracy in Kettering during the campaign?”
In Kettering, both the school board election and the city council election were contested. The community was full of yard signs — mostly city council signs. Five school board candidates vied for three seats and in the end, one incumbent school board member was replaced by a challenger. Six city council candidates vied for two positions and in the end, one incumbent city council member was replaced by a challenger. Some Montg County communities had little or no contests for these positions, so, I was proud of Kettering for the effort made by the candidates and their friends.
I was impressed that a lot of Kettering voters seemed to want to put in the effort to study the candidates and issues. One man told me, for example, that he had misplaced his League of Women Voters brochure, so he had made the effort to go the their office to find another copy. A number of voters told me that they had read the DDN articles and the Kettering Oakwood Times articles. But, overall, I didn’t feel the election process even came close to being adequate to really inform voters about the issues or about the candidates. There was only one public meeting for the school board candidates and only one public meeting for the city council candidates — both poorly attended, particularly the school board one — and the League question format produced very superficial responses from candidates. The Kettering Kiwanis Club attempted to sponsor a second meeting for the board candidates, but the incumbents refused to participate. In a better democracy, there would have been a public outcry, but, in Kettering, the incumbents’ anti-democratic refusal seemed to be ignored.
So, yes, there are signs of hope for democracy in Kettering, but the community has a long way to go to have a really vital democracy.
The DDN was the only endorser. I appreciated the newspaper’s effort and time in bringing the five board candidates together for a group discussion and for at least a surface discussion of issues.
Robert Vigh — thanks for reading the articles and for responding. I imagine my definition of democracy is the same as your definition. Probably the best illustration of democracy at work is within a community where each member has a vote and where Roberts’ Rules of Order is followed to assure that every member has a voice and an opportunity to fairly participate. We, of course, have a representative democracy, the idea is that the public at large is not empowered to vote directly as in a pure democracy, but the public is empowered to elect members for school boards, city councils,legislative assemblies, etc. These elected representatives then are suppose to represent the public at large. These representatives, in Lincoln’s phrase, are suppose to be “of the people, for the people,” but in a corrupted system such as ours, representatives usually have a special interest bias.
I am certainly not anti-capitalism or anti-free market. I’ve been pretty clear, for example, that I feel our system of public education needs more free market structure if it has a chance to live up to its potential.
I do think that history is clear that unrestrained capitalism is not a good idea and, historically, when left to its own, capital’s search for greater profits wreaks havoc with the common good and produces pretty horrible results such as child labor, unsafe working conditions, slave wages, environmental degradation, unfair competition, market manipulation, etc.
Our democratic society should be a great place for everyone. We are a rich nation and we need a system where everyone in the system benefits. The only chance for that to happen is via our democracy — via a government of the people, by the people, for the people — not via the control of special interests and certainly not via unrestrained capitalism. We need a system that produces much more wealth, much more opportunity. It’s great, I feel, for individuals to become very rich — but not via a corrupt system that steals from the poor. We need a fair system and in order for fairness and justice to rule, we need a structure to make it happen. Every fair game needs rules, needs an umpire. In order for our economy to work for everyone’s benefit, not just the few, history is not on your side, when you write, “Less government everywhere is the answer.”
My understanding of history is different. I cannot think to examples were unrestrained capitalism lead to the horrific events that you described. What historic events do you speak of? I am well aware that people often confuse criminals in with Capitalism. Capitalism is free markets and does not justify the use of force or destruction of other peoples property. So, bearing that in mind, I am curious to know what you think of when you make this statement.
When you say that history is not on my side, I could point to the USA and note that the fastest acceleration of a country’s growth was in the 1800’s, during a time which had minimized government. My primary point being, if you are going to use idea’s such as “history” to argue your point, you should be prepared with specifics. For, I can just as easily proclaim history to be on my side.
I understand what a democracy is, but I feel we are better served by a constitutional democracy like we have. Democracy is prone to tyranny of the majority.
you said: “Our democratic society should be a great place for everyone. We are a rich nation and we need a system where everyone in the system benefits.”
Please examine what you said. It reads like socialism. Are you saying the man that does nothing and aspires to nothing and creates nothing should benefit from society? Or, are you saying that with Capitalism, everyone is likely to benefit as the market will find a place to service all people? If your statement should be enacted by a free market, then Kudos, you understand that is the most likely way to make it happen. If you think is should happen through government regulation, then ask yourself if it sounds like socialism.
Of the people for the people, had a meaning. It meant for each person individually. The only way to be of each person and for each person was to grant each person the freedom to pursue what they desired. Not simply what the majority desired. Preserve freedom and that preserves this cherished statement.
The reason you view our system as corrupt, is because it now deviates widely from its limited constitutional premise. It should be small and simple, with freedom always being its primary focus. To say that we must regulate our freedoms, opens everything up to degrees of regulation. Once the door is open to degrees, you are now subject to Tyranny of the majority and special interest driving forces. For example, growing up I thought the constitution protected me from corrupt thieves in government. But, through “democracy”, we had a program like “cash for clunkers”. Where, I got to buy other people vehicles, because the “majority” thought it would benefit them to take my labor for themselves.
My definition of Democracy is Capitalism, with equality before the law, and constitution protected rights.
Here is the Gettysburg address. I think his quote has more meaning when in context. The speech is much more about freedom (liberty) and its preservation.
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm
For an example of unregulated capitalism running amok. look at the mortgage debacle, which got us into the economic downturn and is keeping us there.
Dear Stan,
You picked an awfully complicated topic to proclaim was unregulated capitalism. Here are some counterpoints:
#1) The fed would not exist in we were pure capitalism
#2) Fractional reserve banking would not exist allowing unchecked credit expansion into the economy.
#3) Sarbanes Oxley would not exist, forcing all banks to re-evaluate their assets every 3 months
#4) Fannie mae and Freddie Mac would not exist, acting as publicly funded socialist banks, buying up mortgages so that everyone could have a home due to a political agenda
#5) We would not have regulated, or forced interest rates creating a bubble in home sales.
I could go on and on. But, quite simply, governments interference with free market activities caused problems. These problems were then used as the justification for more interference. A long string of government interference has a net result of the mortgage debacle. It was exactly the opposite of what you proclaim: REGULATED CAPITALISM created the mortgage debacle we have today. I would ask that you re-examine what you define as capitalism. You cannot create publicly funded socialist banks that operate on political agenda as opposed to market principles and not create a market for every opportunist out there to take advantage of it. I would ask you to re-examine this particular example, asking yourself how capitalist we really are in this scenario.
Meaning no insult, but the average person actually thinks our current situation is the result of unregulated capitalism. This is just not true. It does tie in with my original statement of “less government everywhere is the answer”. The more politicians can blame capitalism, the more the populace will turn to the government for help instead of looking to themselves and their freedoms to act to make a better world.
Thank you for the opportunity to elaborate, I hope you find some of the info informative.
Robert, Thanks for enlarging the discussion. I agree that we all need to be better historians. The evils of pure capitalism have been captured in some fiction. The England that Dickens wrote about, for example, gives compelling descriptions of what unregulated capitalism looked like in England in the 1800’s. There was certainly less government in Dickens’ time, and the awful conditions of common workers in England became the inspiration for the revolutionary writings of Engels and Marx. Slavery in all of its forms is an expression of unbridled capitalism.
In the time of the 1800’s there was much less opportunity for democracy than now. The ownership of property was a requirement for voting; no woman could vote, slaves couldn’t vote. There was no direct election of senators, etc. Maybe the growth you speak of would have been slower had the time been more democratic. On the other hand, the welfare of common people of the time, no doubt, would have been much better had there been more democracy. I hardly think that growth at the cost any human price, human misery, is the deal that we want to embrace.
The balance of power in the United States, over time, has shifted from the monied and propertied classes and more to the common man. The controlling vision of what the United States is, has shifted. This shift, I understand, enfuriates some of those who feel that this shift personally disadvantages them. And to counter this natural force of history, we regularly see great anti-democratic efforts. But, as I’ve tried to point out in a lot of the posts I refer to above, I believe that we are on the cusp of a big defeat of these anti-democratic forces and that the ascending issue in our democracy increasingly will be democracy itself.
To say, as you do, that “Democracy is Capatilism,” I feel, is simply wishful thinking. In the end, a democratic society is free to organize itself according to whatever system structure it chooses. The fact that our democracy today may be quite different than that envisioned in 1800 by the propertied classes, and the fact that we may eventually move to something even more socialistic should be seen as a positive and inevitable outcome of the maturation of our society. It makes sense that a society that regularly affirms the ideal of “liberty and justice for all” should continually make imiprovements to move toward fulfilling such a great ideal. The history of the United States, overall, has been one of such movement and we should all hope that such movement continues. Eventually, this may result in a system that might be called “socialism,” but so what?
Socialism is not a refutation of democracy, but, in fact, socialism may be a fruition of democracy. Citizens in Sweden, no doubt, enjoy a stronger democracy than citizens in the United States. Socialism within a democracy does not involve the surrender of individual rights and freedoms, but rather involves more rights and freedoms for the individual.
We now have a system where people get rich by manipulating the system, by being insiders in the system, by having special influence in the system. As I said, I am all in favor of free markets and capitalism — I’m all in favor of people getting rich because of their contributions to society. But the point is, we need our democracy to work. Yes, of course, I’m talking about a constitutional, representative democracy, based on a strong constitution guaranteeing individual rights.
I think we need to get on the same page about a few topics, thank you for responding in kind.
para 1: You cannot use fiction to justify the evil of capitalism. Furthermore, conditions were as described compared to what? What did England look like 100 years prior to dickens writings? He was selling books, not offering a comparitive analysis. Slavery in no way represents Capitalism. Slavery requires that people are forced to do another persons bidding. That one does not have ownership of their own body. Capitalism protects property rights including the property of ones body. Slavery was the twisted nature of man ignoring the rights of others for profit. Capitalism does not get to ignore all the rights of man! So, this is a good time to re-examine capitalism and realize that it does not lead to slavery. However in contrast, to be taxed for welfare, SS, Medicare, stimulus, other peoples cars, other peoples houses. Well, that without a doubt is still a form of slavery. It commands through the use of force and the threat of violence and jail that I give x amount of dollars to whomever the majority sees fit.
#2 In the 1800’s, I cannot completely disagree with only letting property owners vote. The constitution protected the rights of all people and in its limited decree should have been having votes regarding taxation for defense of the country. Their was a larger disability to affect other peoples lives and non-property owners where in a sense protected. Where as today, if 35% of people own property, the other 65% can vote to tax that property. How is that freedom and justice for any except the looters? I like that everyone can vote, I just completely and wholeheartedly disagree with the amount of things that are even considered for a vote.
#3: I am not sure I agree about the power shift, but then again, I am arguing that there should not be any power over one another anyway. Anti-democratic efforts: well, I feel you define that later in your writing by accepting a move to socialism. Since socialism is inherently different than democracy, our definitions of anti-democratic efforts are going to be wildly different. I would say anything that attacks capitalism, attacks freedom and is therefore anti-democratic. You would assess that anything that runs contrary to the majority is anti-democratic.
#4 I think you keep substituting “Liberty and Justice for all” with “Liberty and Justice for the voting majority”. The maturation of democracy is not socialism. Socialism has been tried and has killed 100’s of millions of people because it is ineffective, inefficient and wasteful. Democracy will be doomed to fail, because once the masses realize they can vote themselves the wealth of earners, they will. Hence the constitution and limiting aspects of things that should even be brought to a vote. Liberty and hence the only free market structure “Capitalism” needs to be preserved. So when you say “Socialism, so what”. You are advocating a direct attack on my freedom.
#5 Exactly how does socialism enhance our liberty? You give no support to this other than to point to Sweden, which is a direct democracy. It also happens to be homogenous in population, easing many tensions to begin with. This is not an adequate comparison.
#6 You advocate free markets in one sentence and their destruction in the next. I cannot put consistency to how you approach the ideals. People are able to manipulate more easily because of government regulation. Casino’s in Ohio? Government mandated monopolization of an industry. Instead of making gambling legal and allowing all aspiring owners compete, the government gave to the rich. Why is this even an option to be voted on? Would you declare this a successful democracy? The mortgage crises as stated above, lots of people got fat off that government manipulation. Government is the only authorized agent in our country to utilize force to take what it wants. Expanding its role, or using it as a means to enforce the majority onto the minority is anti-democratic. Government should be limited and kept out of the market and so many of its “social welfare” programs.
I am more than happy to continue this discussion, but in summary, I think you are dead wrong. You are advocating an attack on freedom as long as it agrees with the majority. Not realizing that we are all producers of something at some point, that the nature of economic system is inextricably tied to our personal freedom, that socializing or changing from Capitalism is a direct assault on our liberty and liberty above all else is the foundation for all other things and must be preserved.
… I didn’t feel the election process even came close to being adequate to really inform voters about the issues or about the candidates. …one public meeting for the school board candidates … poorly attended … the League question format produced very superficial responses …
So what is the responsibility of Kettering City School District to address this? What should high school civics classes expect of school board candidates? Why no forums in the high school?
I’d really appreciate Mike, Robert, and Stan to weigh in with thoughts about the role of public education in producing citizens. I gather Robert might like to see HS students reading Bastiat’s “The Law.” Would Mike and Stan find that acceptable? What should HS kids know about Rousseau and Montesquieu? Bastiat certainly is no fan of those two!
Robert,
#1, #2 — the phrase “Dickensonian” does not refer to fiction, but to the reality that Dickens described. He used that reality for a fictional context for his stories, but the reality he described was not fiction. And he described it very accurately because he lived in that time and was a keen observer. You seem to be taking such a strong polemical stand that you refuse to acknowledge any fault in the application of raw capitalism. This refusal undermines the credibility of your point of view.
There is no such thing as pure liberty. Your right to swing your fist stops somewhere short of where my nose begins. Tax is what we pay for a civilized society. Cliches, but true. You may wish to live on fantasy island, but we need to imagine a system here in the real world. How should justice be understood in this real world is the question we need to contemplate. What is the system that provides maximum freedom for the most citizens? We need to keep moving toward a better system. Most people think this better system is found through greater democracy, one that emphasizes human rights more than property rights. I have given my point of view in the title of this post, “If We AreTo Have A Great Future, The Ascending Issue In Our Democracy Must Be Democracy Itself.” You seem to disagree with the idea that more democracy is the answer to building a better society where more “freedom and justice” will be more greatly shared, and, instead of democracy, seemed fixated on a idealized view of capitalism. I believe we can have both democracy and capitalism, but the balance must be on the side of democracy. Our system of capitalism must answer to our democracy, not vice versa.
#3 I disagree that “socialism is inherently different than democracy.” Socialism has arisen within democracies more vigorous than our own and in no way contradicts democracy. You’ve identified capitalism with freedom, but in capitalism, someone who has no capital has no freedom. So, again, you seem to suggest an idealized world, you want to believe in, is the real world.
#4 I disagree that “Socialism has been tried and has killed 100’s of millions of people.” Certainly Stalinism and totalitarianism has killed millions. Even now, millions suffer and die in North Korea. But democratic socialism is not Stalinism, far from it. I don’t see the masses dying in Sweden or France, but rather living prosperous and good lives.
#5 You ask, “Exactly how does socialism enhance our liberty?” It doesn’t, necessarily. My point is that “If We AreTo Have A Great Future, The Ascending Issue In Our Democracy Must Be Democracy Itself.” We need to think through an American system where the ideal of freedom and justice for all can have the best chance for fruition. We live in a rich society and if our society was working as it should, there should be no citizen without adequate housing, food, health care. I would be interested in knowing about any system where widespread prosperity and widespread liberty and freedom could most likely be accomplished. In those countries like Sweden where there is very high taxes, the average citizen seems to fare much better than the average citizen in the US fares, so I think our democracy should consider moving in the direction of the Swedes. At the same time, I think we need a system that rewards individual initiative and entrepreneurship. As a society, we need to use the power of democratic deliberation to rise above doctrinal thinking and, instead, be committed to problem solving.
#6 You are right that many people use the system to their own advantage and seek to manipulate the system for their own special interest. This is symptomatic of a weak democracy. Ours is a very weak democracy, and as I said, “If We AreTo Have A Great Future, The Ascending Issue In Our Democracy Must Be Democracy Itself.”
Eric, Yes, Kettering Schools are very deficient in its program of civic education. One point that I attempted to make is that we need to define school purpose, school excellence is a very different way from how it is presently defined. This effort to think through purpose should be a primary task of the Kettering Board. We need a different set of indicators for excellence. More effective and meaningful indicators would reveal how inadequate Kettering Schools accomplish civic education — as well as how inadequately it accomplishes many other aspects of what public education should be focused on accomplishing — and the publication of the results of these indicators would be an incentive for improvement.
#1&2. My credibility is not undermined. The idea that we are talking about the fictional works of a writer that grew up in debtors prison, writing about the social injustice of early 1800’s great Britain to describe capitalism born in America in itself seems a little off point to begin with. Capitalism is free market economy which does not justify the use of force nor fraud. What is “Raw Capitalism”? How exactly are freedom and justice not shared right now?
#3 Socialism is the public control of resources. All profiting equally regardless of contribution. Democracy is founded of liberty, socialism is founded of a controlling body paying all equally regardless of contribution. Very different. Someone with no capital has no freedom? Seriously, how many rags to riches stories do you want me to share? There is no ceiling and there is no floor.
#4 Search “socialism kills” and you can read about all the deaths attributed to socialism. Sweden and France, I am just simply going to have to do an economic review as you seem so attached to these 2 countries.
#5 “We live in a rich society and if our society were working as it should, there should be no citizen without adequate housing, food, health care.” This is available to anyone who will work for it and many that do not work for it. Capitalism without a doubt is the best way to achieve this. Your reference to Sweden again, I dont want high taxes, I dont want to be enslaved to my government. I want my freedom. I want to live in the country founded on a document protecting my freedom.
#6 our democracy is not weak. Our adherence to a power limiting constitution is weak. But democracy is getting stronger and stronger, growing our welfare state every year. The more people on the government dole, the more people to vote for more government dole. Brilliant.
It would appear to me that you simply do not prioritize freedom. What would be your idealized world? Please elaborate, since you only suggest that socialism and moving that direction is a great idea, but never care to talk about the end result of your definition of Democracy. Sell me on why freedom should be given away.
More effective and meaningful indicators would reveal how inadequate Kettering Schools accomplish civic education …
Improving the indicators is a tough job. Remember Deming: unknown and unknowable; most important can’t be measured.
But anyone can call the board office and schedule an appointment to see the course of study for HS Civics (US Government, really). Anyone can present findings to the board based on their review of the course of study (well, if there is one).
The syllabus for civics matter. Take your current dialog with Robert. Bastiat would find your position undemocratic; Tocqueville would find it un-American. That’s Robert’s point, but he isn’t telling us his position on Tocqueville and Bastiat, so you’re stuck in an argument.
So, should a high school graduate know the difference between pluralistic American democracy and secular French republican socialism?
I honestly do not know Bastiat or Tocqueville. I will go figure them out when I have some time.
Regarding the HS Civics class, it is hard to say what they should know. I feel like we have lost our guiding light, that the constitution is no longer treated as a limiting document, but an expansive one. The attitude seems to have gone from, if the constitution says it, you can do it. To, if it does not say it, you can do that too. Mind you, I dont like funding public schools. But, that is alot of state and local politics, but the expenditure rate per pupil .vs the success rate in public schools does not seem like a justifiable expenditure.
Since schools are funded via public dollars, and the teacher teaching that class is paid with public dollars, being part of a union that always supports the democratic party, (not that I am anti-democrat, they just typically tax and spend more), what are they going to teach? They already teach the students to support levies against property owners, so the cultural attitude growing up is already seeding a mindset I disagree with. I think that attributed to my own mindset of growing up a democrat.
So, in answer to your question Eric, Knowledge is always better. But, the productive output in HS Civics is probably pretty weak. That, and what teacher is going to tell the students that property tax seems unjust and they should go home and vote that levy down? lol
Robert,
#1,2 By “raw capitalism,” I mean Dickensonian capitalism free of government restraint — child labor, unsafe working conditions, envirnomental degradation, slave wages, etc — where anything to maximize profits is permitted. Our history of labor unions and democratic legislation makes our capitalism much more controlled and humane than what you might find today in China, for example, and certainly more tame than what was found in the US prior to FDR and the New Deal.
#3 Socialism does not necessarily mean “All profiting equally regardless of contribution.” You sound like you are quoting Marxist thinking — not the thinking that I’m referring to that is found in a strong democracy like Sweden. There are plenty of high income earners in France and Sweden whose income, after taxes, soars well above the median income in their societies. Again, when you see capitalism in terms of rags to riches stories, with no ceiling nor floor, as you say, you seem to want to believe that the world conforms to some ideal. But, reality is much different from the ideal you want to believe in. There are plenty, millions, of the working poor in the US, who regardles of their efforts really have little chance to see improvement in their lives. Your POV leads to blaming individuals for the injustice they suffer. Yes, there are individuals whose own bent to self destruction have doomed them to terrible lives, but there are millions who are hard working and moral individuals who, through no fault of their own, are in deplorable states.
Without capital, in the US, one’s chance for liberty, freedom or justice is usually crushed. Try finding justice, for example, by representing yourself, without hiring an attorney, in a legal setting where the other side has expensive legal council.
#4 I did search “socialism kills” and found nothing pertinent to this discussion — only found complaints about the Canadian health care system and about Stalinist type governments.
#5 I agree that our way of organizing society is a big improvement over a stalinist or totalitarian way of organizing society. I believe in capitalism, free markets, entrepreneurship. The question is — how can we improve our system so that more people will benefit? You seem to want to argue that we’ve already arrived at the best system, but such an argument is not credible in the face of millions of Americans who are not sharing in the great wealth of this nation. My point is that we must work to improve the system and that the way to improvement is via a vitalization of our democracy where special interests is bridled and where the common good is emphasized. The way to improvement is via the formation of a goverment, “of the people, for the people.” We are far from this ideal and in order to move toward that ideal, in my judgment, “If We AreTo Have A Great Future, The Ascending Issue In Our Democracy Must Be Democracy Itself”
#6 Yes, ours is a weak democracy. I need to write an in-depth article explaining just what I mean. It’s weakness goes well beyond the low voting turnout and goes to the degradation of the system itself.
Eric, Yes, Dr. Deming said that the most important things cannot be measured, but that does not mean that there are not indicators that should be observed and analyzed. Schools, right now, are making no effort to clarify what these indicators are, nor how these indicators might be monitored. This way of thinking, I believe, could be a valuable avenue for educational improvement. Dr. Deming also said that organizations should be guided by theory. One example he gave was that the value of training might not be measurable, but since training is based on solid theory, it makes sense to budget money and time for training. It’s sort of amazing that educational organizations spend so little effort or thought clarifying the theories that guide their actions and their use of time or money. Thinking through and monitoring theory is one type of indicator that deserves more thought and observation and analysis.
One important aspect of civic education should be an emphasizes on students understanding their own communities. I was surprised that at neither of the League of Women Voters two public meetings in Kettering — one for the school board candidates and one for the city council coundidates — there were no Kettering teachers in attendance who saw these public events as an educational opportunity. INI a school that took civic education seriously, there would have been students and teachers in attendance seeking to understand their own community.
Yes, would be good to have a curriculum that would seek to understand the classical and historical foundations of democratic theory, etc — but more important than a commitment to understand this academic background would be a commitment to experience and use the actual community where the students live as a learning laboratory where the student can encounter practical democracy.
more important than a commitment to understand this academic background would be a commitment to experience and use the actual community where the students live as a learning laboratory
Don’t the adults need the “academic background” to understand all the alternatives before deciding “community … as a learning laboratory” is best for kids? With an appropriate academic background, the adults could identify their preferred concept by name, google it, find credible references, and assemble a bibliography–increasing the confidence of taxpayers that their schools are well run.
For example, google “democratic localism” and find Charting Chicago school reform: democratic localism as a lever for change, then search that book for Tocqueville:
Strong Democratic Politics
These concerns focus our attention on ways to foster a more productive involvement of all local participants in working toward school improvement. It directs our attention to the idea of a “strong democracy,” where citizens work together to articulate and advance a locally defined common good. This concept of “strong democracy” rings of classical notions about citizens’ participation in the “pollis.” It is central to the voluntary associations that De Tocqueville saw in frontier America in the 1840s as well. It is also the implicit theory of Chicago school reform.
Robert: … what are they going to teach? They already teach the students to support levies against property owners …
Teachers will teach a course of study adopted by an elected board of education. If they promote tax levies, they are breaking the law.
Here’s quick wikipedia higlights on Tocqueville and Bastiat:
Tocqueville (Democracy in America, 1835):
As a critic of individualism, Tocqueville thought that through associating, the coming together of people for mutual purpose, both in public and private, Americans are able to overcome selfish desires, thus making both a self-conscious and active political society and a vibrant civil society functioning independently from the state.
Bastiat (The Law, 1850):
Justice has precise limits but philanthropy is limitless and government can grow endlessly when that becomes its function. The resulting statism is “based on this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislator”.
You did not really sell me on why freedom should be given away. Through #5, it is apparent that you do not trust freedom to the individual. You feel that things must be controlled and regulated and that freedom is not the answer. What is a better way, from where we are today, I say it is less government and more freedom. Everything the government touches is run poorly and inefficiently. Since this is the case, it means they waste the wealth of the country, lowering the standard of living for everyone.
#1&2 Capitalism is not free of force or fraud. What else do you need? You speak of China. Those people that make $1.00 / hour (that is about the going rate these days), could work in the fields prior to their industrial revolution for .25 / hour. The factories have enhanced their quality of life and given them opportunities for growth as a country. All of the other elements that you described did not need to be regulated out, as economic forces push them out over time anyway. Who owned slaves longer, Robert Lee or Ulysses Grant? And why?
#3 What injustice are these people suffering? Exactly what degree of wealth do they deserve that other people labor for? What stat is it that you like about France and Sweden? Where are these millions of working poor, and what kind of theft do you propose to make them better? Should I bear the burdens of other peoples mis-fortune?
I disagree with you and the title of your article. You do not prioritize freedom and you see Democracy as a means to take away freedom. You talk about great ideals, but you do not mention the requirements to reach your ideals. How do you help millions of working poor? Whom do you take from? What will be effected after you take?
Socialism and moving that direction (you seem ok with this) restricts freedom, lowers opportunity and wealth generation. I am actually arguing that all the heart felt goals you would like to achieve are more likely accomplished with less government and that the government you propose will actually work against you.
Here is a great article, articulating better than I ever could, why something like a healthcare plan sounds great, but hurts the least among us:
http://mises.org/daily/3855
Both those sound terrible Eric, I’ll do some reading, but those summaries I would dismiss as junk without another thought.
Both those sound terrible Eric…
I threw out too much context when I chose the highlights. Both Bastiat and Tocqueville are supporting limited government. Bastiat objects to the same thing you find terrible. (My bad for removing context.)
You might be more libertarian than Tocqueville, but remember that he favors what he sees in 1830s America: people come together voluntarily to do what they can’t do individually. Think of barn raisings.
By the way, you’ll find hundreds of references (google says about 7370) to Bastiat at the von Mises website you cited.
Robert,
It’s a cozy idea that those with wealth often seem to want to believe — that it is possible to retreat to islands of privilege, gated communities, and let the rest of the world go to hell. The nobility of 500 years ago, I’m sure, were centered on preserving their own liberties and freedoms.
We live in a world where every day over one billion people are hungry and more than a billion more are on the edge of starvation. There are many in the US who seem very unbothered by the world’s plight and instead feel that the US should be an island of privilege in the world where 4% of the world’s population can gobble up 25% of its resources. It’s a cozy idea that it’s all about our freedom, our “way of life,” and that the US can retreat from the world into our island of privilege. But what is becoming more and more apparent is that the world itself is one system, one body. It’s a dangerous delusion to believe that one component of a system can be cancerous without the whole system suffering.
And so it is in the US itself. It’s a dangerous delusion to believe that in some way we are not all of us our brother’s keeper. It is comforting to imagine that we live in a fantasy dream world where one’s freedom is emphasized, where we can close the gates to one’s fortress, but the real world, we can be sure, will repeat the cycle of destroying such dreams. And the real threat is that in the 21st century, the means of destruction will be total, irreversible.
I am often amused to discover that those who take the most radical libertarian views are, in fact, government workers who have very secure jobs and secure pensions and who seem unable to comprehend the irony of their philosophic positions. I like the phrase, “Where I stand is a function of where I sit.” The whole science of polling is based on the reality that there is no such thing as free will or independent thought. The “opinion” of any individual is easily predicted based on that person’s demographics. I think it is safe to say, Robert, that if you were a member of the working poor, you would be singing in a different choir and your message would not be one that emphasizes freedom, but rather one that emphasizes justice.
Can we escape the enslavement of our demographic and begin to think independently? We must, or we are doomed. What we need to see is that it is in the self interest of the privileged to deal realistically with the question of how to create a better world. It is as if every member of the dispossessed has a nuclear weapon. We must pity the children of today, we must fear the future they face, if we, as adults cannot become dedicated to the hard work of problem solving, rather than being dedicated to repeating the mantra of fantasy doctrines.
I am asking, “How can we improve our system so that more people will benefit?” The answer you give — less government — is simply not credible. In the macro, it simply is a cozy idea. (In certain specifics, however, such as public education reform, I believe it is a valid idea.) Less government is what Dickinsonian capitalism is all about. Less government is what the contemporary rape of wall street is all about. Less government is what the 100 fold increase in the pay of CEO’s and the great divide in wealth in this country is all about. Less government has been tried and it doesn’t seem to work. I am saying that the means to creating a better system is via a vitalized democracy, that, “If We AreTo Have A Great Future, The Ascending Issue In Our Democracy Must Be Democracy Itself.” We have a system that is controlled by special interests and, these special interest work diligently to suppress democracy. A good antidote to the power of special interest, and probably the only antidote, is a vitalized democracy. Increasingly our nation’s economy is based on a war economy where the dominant special interest, the military industrial complex, seems increasingly to gain the upper hand. It seems impossible to believe, but there seems a credible scenario where that the power of special interests could push us toward becoming a fascist state. I like Dennis Kucinich’s words, “Wake up America. Wake up America.”
Eric, yes, I agree that a well thought out curricum on civic education should be developed and that teachers should have an in-depth academic background to use to enlighten and inform civic education. I believe part of this curriculum should be an emphasis on understanding and experiencing the local community where students live and that the community should be a laboratory of sorts. Schools seem to completely ignore their own local communities.
I agree that a well thought out curricum on civic education should be developed and that teachers should have an in-depth academic background to use to enlighten and inform civic education. I believe part of this curriculum should be an emphasis on understanding and experiencing the local community where students live and that the community should be a laboratory of sorts. Schools seem to completely ignore their own local communities.
What’s the alternative? With no commitment on both sides to use an effective framework for engagement (such as NIF), why waste time on BOGSAT–Bunch Of Guys Sitting Around Talking (Typing?)?
What would high school students know and be able to do for communities to be laboratories? Where would they gain the knowledge and skills?
What would civics teachers know and be able to do for communities to be laboratories? Where would they gain the knowledge and skills?
What actions need to be taken in Columbus to facilitate the improvements you seek?
Eric, we do not need to and should not rely on Columbus for direction. If anything, we should be giving direction to Columbus, not vice versa. Every community is empowered to exert local control of their system via their elected local board. I attempted to develop in my campaign for election to the Kettering Board the theme that local boards have refused to exercise their power by law to exert local control. Every local board of education has a lot of authority that it simply fails to use.
Local boards, so far as I can see, uniformly have a failure of leadership. It seems to not occur to board members that they should define educational purpose, define excellence, and should develop a system of evaluation that addresses these local definitions and that they should use the results of such evaluation as a means of continual improvement in the system — in order that these locally defined goals can be met at ever higher levels of quality.
Why not draft a letter to the Beavercreek Board, as a means to start a discussion? Here are some questions such a letter might want to address: What is the program of civics education that Beavercreek Schools should implement that would engage students in civic education by using the Beavercreek community as a laboratory? What is the knowledge and skills in civic education should civics education seek to develop in students? How should a Beavercreek program in civics education be evaluated? What are benchmarks or indicators of success?
we do not need to and should not rely on Columbus for direction.
New science and social studies standards are due next year. Wouldn’t that present an opportunity to remedy some of the deficiencies you’ve seen?
What is the program of civics education that Beavercreek Schools should implement that would engage students in civic education by using the Beavercreek community as a laboratory?
I’d prefer that Kettering be the laboratory :-)
In any case, our high school seniors pose some of the best questions our local candidates get asked.
As for my local board, I’m inclined to help them out with their priorities and defer mine–as long as we all work toward our shared civic responsibilities:
http://beavercreek.ohiosteps.org/
Eric,
I read some Bastiat, I think he and I would get along from the parts that I read. The only quick piece I found on T was a little confusing. Thanks for the names.
Mike,
Where to start? You are so wrong in so many ways. The adjectives you use to describe America make you seem that you are not a big fan. We do not Gobble Up 25% of the resources. We Utilize 25% of the resources. Guess what would happen if we used 1/2 the resources we do now…………nothing! No one else would use them, they do not have the infrastructure. Less people would work and there would be less economy.
The USA does not retreat. It imports more than it exports. What does that mean? It means we send more dollars out of the USA every year than we bring in. That means we are exporting wealth! Our generation of wealth and thus its export has helped every other country on the globe grab their boot straps and lift themselves up. Yet, you want to demonize America for utilizing resources. You are wrong and wrong. Furthermore, we are not unbothered by other peoples problems. Besides our wealth export, we are the most charitable country, we give the most. You would have us all live like paupers to be equal. Problems are relative and beginning to issue some message that we should give away freedom is not only ignorant, but dangerous.
You are wrong about your presumption of me and I think you are wrong about demographics. Government creates that demographic of entitlement driven poor. “You dont have to work, just vote for us”……its laughable that you bring up demographic science.
That Doctrinal mantra is called a constitution and is there to preserve freedom. For you have said something of such egregious insult, that I cannot presume to pretend anything you have to say is worthwhile until reconciled: “your message would not be one that emphasizes freedom, but rather one that emphasizes justice.”…. IN WHAT WORLD IS THEIR JUSTICE WITHOUT FREEDOM????!!!!!!!! Seriously, do you read the stuff you write?
ok, Im calm again. Contemporary rape by wall street and the military industrial complex is made possible by government. I do not give my money to wall street. But the government stuck a gun in my face, took my money and gave it to wall street. The way we tax, the only way I can protest funding of the war is to NOT WORK!, which kills me in return. Oh, but since they pretty much empowered the fed, it would not matter if I did not send in tax money, they would just print it.
“How can we improve our system so that more people will benefit?” Less government and more freedom.
Mike, I understand the heart. But the best way to lift the world up and provide justice and freedom is less government. Less government enhances freedom. Freedom unlocks potential and efficiency. This creates opportunity and trade. This enhances everyone’s lives. What justice are you going to unveil that takes from one and gives to another? I would encourage you to begin to examine the economic impact of reduced freedom. I hope you read the article I linked, it is a start.
There is no better system than freedom. Period.
Is there a written purpose of a school board anywhere? I mean do cities draft their purpose in the city by-laws? Show me were and Ill go read them and join the discussion. I can even hold my breathe and pretend I enjoy paying for public schools. . . . ugh.
No one should pay attention to Columbus schools, their drop out rate is near 60%. That whole school system should be shut down and the money returned to tax payers. Oh, dang it, sorry.
Is there a written purpose of a school board anywhere?
Mike Bock just ran for school board. He should have an answer for this. Perhaps Secretary of State Jennifer Bruner knows. She sure wants to make it easier to register and vote–with an emphasis on “voting rights” that dwarfs any apparent interest in “voter responsibilities.”
The Brunner’s official web site (as Ohio Secretary of State) has this information on school boards:
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/candidates/Candidate%20Requirements/bdeducation.aspx
Mike?
I thought it might help in your discussion of the evils of the capitalist system for us to review America and see where we are…
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State “income” taxes. We call it “paying your fair share”.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public “law” 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of “terrorists” and those who speak out or write against the “government” (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc…).
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver’s licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture… Thus read “controlled or subsidized” rather than “owned”… This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two “income” family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920’s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public “law” 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Americans are being taxed to support what we call ‘public’ schools, but are actually “government force-tax-funded schools ” Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based “Education” . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like “majority rules”, and “pay your fair share”. WHERE are the words “fair share” in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is “fair share” even suggested !! The philosophical concept of “fair share” comes from the Communist maxim, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. … America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC … Teaching ourselves and others how to “fish” to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be “needy”… Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.
The above was taken from the 10 Planks of Communism. Specifically from the site: http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html
“Wake up America” indeed. We aren’t free anymore, if we ever really were.
We are not a Democracy! We were not created to be a Democracy. For the best evidence of this, please see Ben Franklin’s response to a passer by at the steps of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 when asked what form of government they had produced. His response; “A Republic, If you can keep it.”
It is important to note that the difference between a Republic and a Democracy is that in a Republic, the individual has rights regardless of the will of the majority. In a Democracy the majority determines the rights of the minority.
It is amazing to me that anyone who believes in “justice” can think that Democracy is anything but a hindrance to it’s achievement.
Dear Jesse,
High school students learn to assess the credibility of web sites. Robert referenced mises.org, which is a credible advocate of Classical Liberalism. It would be fair to suggest that Ohio high school students know some of the material from that site, and can compare and contrast it with alternatives.
I don’t know how to make a favorable case for libertyzone.com. Would you expect Ohio’s high school students to find it credible? Why or why not?
Here is what Ohio expects of its high school seniors in this regard:
“present information that supports a clear position about the topic or research question and defend the credibility and validity of the information presented.”
Robert — I found myself laughing mirthfully at your comments. Thanks for the belly laughs. Yes, I do read the stuff that I write, and sometimes I even make corrections. Thanks for calming down and finishing your comments.
I suppose I should not have made the assumption that you, as an individual, have no free will and that in your comments, you are an automaton simply following the dictates of your demographic. Sorry. Yes, there is a small statistical chance that my assumption is not correct, but usually, I’ve found, people who take your position are most likely simply advocating what they perceive as their own self interests. If you have a secure job, money in the bank, a guaranteed pension, then you are among the nobility of this earth. As I said, 500 years ago, the nobility of that time were focused on their freedoms, their liberties, their rights. So it remains today.
Yes, one’s demographic is usually a safe indication of how one thinks. We are all automatons in one sense or another, and are pushed into being even more so by powerful forces who have found a means to make fortunes by catering to humanity’s natural proclivity toward narrow mindedness.
Here is the key part of my point of view, from what I wrote above: “Can we escape the enslavement of our demographic and begin to think independently? We must, or we are doomed.”
If you believe that the means to making a better world is via FREEDOM, less government, etc., then I would like to understand how you see a scenario unfolding where, over time more freedom, less government leads, over time, to a better world. What is your vision of progress? What is the structure that you believe will lead more and more people lead abundant and secure lives, and to a society that is peaceful and productive?
Our recent history shows how more freedom and less government in the short run greatly advantages privileged groups — stock market manipulators, real estate conspirators, CEO’s who dismantle whole industries and sell to the cheapest bidder, — and our recent really gives no cause to think that in the long run more freedom and less government would lead to a better future for the average person. The cry for less government, more freedom seems like a scam to fleece the public. We are now trillions in debt and the distribution of wealth in this country is out of whack to the same degree as in the 1920’s, pre-depression. It would seem reasonable that there should be a natural reluctance on the part of the losers (everyone except the top 5%) to continue to advocate more FREEDOM, less government.
The key to a good future, it seems clear, is not found in giving more liberty and privilege to those who have already abused the ample liberty already given to them. We don’t need more of the same. The invisible hand of the market, left uncontrolled, it seems clear, will push us right over the cliff.
The route to a better world, I believe, is via JUSTICE. In my view, justice is the foundation for a society, if there is to be a chance of, “Liberty for all.” A society that is truly democratic would be one centered on justice for all, not liberty for the privileged. A truly democratic society would operate in the spirit of Roberts Rules. From justice, I believe, comes liberty — not vice versa. We have a big deficit in liberty and justice in this country and there is a glaring reason how such a big deficit came to be. Such big deficits cannot occur in a democratic state. The truth is, ours is a very, very weak democracy. It is kept weak by the force of powerful special interests who understand that a weak democracy is to their advantage. I hope for a change in heart of the privileged. As I wrote above, “It is in the self interest of the privileged to deal realistically with the question of how to create a better world.”
Eric, At one time a local school district every five years spent concentrated time on a “self study,” as a means of accreditation by an independent agency. These self studies centered on the district clarifying purpose and then showing the strategy of how this stated purpose was accomplished. Now, local districts have no pretense of establishing local purpose, but instead have completely surrendered that important task to the state and federal governments. Oakwood and Centerville Schools will tell you with a straight face that they know they are “Excellent with Distinction” because the state government says they are. They have no local standards for “excellence” that they attempt to defend.
Jesse, Thanks for your contribution. You write, “We are not a Democracy!” Of course, we are not a pure democracy, we are a representative democracy. We are a republic, in the sense that you defined, because individuals according to our constitution have individual rights that cannot be abridged without a super majority, not a simple majority. But these rights can be abridged by amending the constitution. I can see no way towards a future with more justice for individuals than via a vitalization of our democracy. You scoff at such a notion, but you don’t explain why, and suggest no other means by which we might arrive at a better future where there is more liberty and justice for all.
Eric, I am a little concerned that you criticize the website but not the content. Is it your contention that the ten steps for the transition of communism are misrepresented? Would you like me to site the Communist Manifesto itself? Alright, I quote the Communist Manifesto. Please see Section II – “Proletarians and Communists”, and read the ten steps.
Criticizing the source of a thought as opposed to confronting the thought is a dangerous way to begin a discussion of ideas. I encourage us to move beyond that criticism of source for all except that which is being stated as fact. As ideas are not being stated as facts, then a “proper” source is not necessary. I, in fact, only sourced it to provide you with the knowledge that it was not my own language.
Mike, I appreciate your desire for justice. I too have that goal. Let us ensure that we are talking about the same thing though. The justice I am speaking of is to be treated impartially before the law. This means that regardless of the social status of the individual the law is applied to protect the rights of that individual.
I would contend that if our goal is true justice for humans, that rights should not be determined by a constitution. Regardless as to the decision of the majority (super-majority), the individual has rights. If you are the only person who is of your kind in an environment, i.e. the only homosexual person, the only black person, etc., you still have rights. Rights are not determined by society but by the nature of the world and the way that man must interact in the world to ensure his own survival. Societies can choose to uphold natural rights or not, but that doesn’t affect the true nature of the right.
Because you asked, I am suggesting a radical idea to ensure liberty and justice. Let every man be completely free. Let the only rights that we observe and join together to protect those that are natural. This means that you have only “negative” rights, unless a “positive” right is created via contract. The only negative right that you have is based on the non-aggression axiom. That you and your property may not be coerced or appropriated into any action. The basis of the philosophy is that every human owns themselves and that no one may have any claim on them except that which is gained by freely accepted contract. This includes a super-majority.
Under this system, the only time force may be used is in protection of your person, your property, or the person or property of another that is being threatened via coercion. Under this system, there is no allowance for “legal” coercion. Thus, justice is inherent in to the system. No person may legally be unjustly treated. Whereas in any other system there is the possibility that the individual or group that makes the rules may slant the law to allow unjust aggressive coercion, in the system that I suggest, there is not that possibility.
Eric: I don’t know how to make a favorable case for libertyzone.com.
Jesse: Eric, I am a little concerned that you criticize the website but not the content.
I suggested you use high school civics skills to make the case for material you brought to the table. I don’t think it will go well, and I don’t have time to properly review it, although I doubt the case can be made that the National Park Service is evidence of creeping communism.
More broadly, equating bureaucracy with communism doesn’t really help fix anything. If we want to identify problems that may need discussion and resolution, Here a list from 1963 that’s a little more focused–apparently we’re behind (by a 45 years) on addressing some of these concerns:
Congressional Record January 10, 1963
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism … At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.”
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
Bottom Line: I doubt the value of progressives and libertarians sniping at each other. Ohio’s social studies stanards are up for review. Why don’t we fix them? That will certainly provide opportunities for sniping, but at least the question will be “what should Ohio’s high school graduates know and be able to do” rather than “Who’s right: Ludwig von Mises or Karl Marx?”
This is your chance to be part of the solution. Time’s a-wastin…
Eric,
Again, I am not claiming that the opinion expressed on the site is a fact. Much like a citation of an OpEd piece in a newspaper, I did not use the citation to claim facts but merely to cite a persons opinion. I would hope that the high school civics teacher would understand this and be able to address the underlying issues.
Odd that you see no Communistic tendency when the Government owns resources, like land, and those natural resources that exist on that land. I guess the definition of Communism as “A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property… for the common advantage of all members.” because you like correct citation, it is included here: communism. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
Just for a bit of perspective about the National Parks Service and it’s minuscule role, I thought I should provide a bit of evidence that it may be bigger in scope than you realize. Total square mileage of National Parks: 129,687.5.* If this were a singular land mass, it would be the 4th largest state, by square miles, in the United States.** It would be the 65th biggest country on earth by the same measure. It would fall between Finland and Vietnam, which are 130,664 and 127,882 square miles respectively.***
Total Budget for 2009 is…are you ready…>2.9 Billion Dollars!****
That would make the NPS more wealthy than 39 countries on earth in terms of GDP!*****
The idea that these are insignificant facts that should be scoffed at is really scary to me. The US government expropriates $3 Billion from US taxpayers and uses it to monopolize resources of greater than the 5th largest state in the union, seems a bit like the definition above… love to hear your thoughts.
Now on to your last comment, “what should Ohio’s high school graduates know and be able to do?” The answer seems obvious to me, but then again, I am pretty simple.
Keep in mind that I am all for protection of negative rights and free exchange.
They should know and be able to do whatever it is that they can learn, so long as it is in line with what they are paying to be taught.
For instance, I should not have to learn anything about math, if I don’t want to do so. Whats more, people should not be forced to pay for others to attempt to coerce me into learning math.
In reality, I think that math is valuable, and at some point that person may rethink their earlier decision to ignore the subject. At that point they should sign-up for a math class or buy a book that walks them through the subject.
Especially with regard to soft sciences, i.e. history, economics, civics, etc., it is a completely inappropriate venue to use a State school to indoctrinate people as to the function and role of the State. Precisely because the State has an interest in the history, economic and civic belief of future generations, it is inappropriate. We are sending our chicks into the fox’s den to be raised.
Your above quotations are a great example of the predator’s goals; fatten up the chicken and teach it to baste itself.
On that note, Happy Thanksgiving!
*http://www.npca.org/parks/park_system.html
**http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/phc3-us-pt1.pdf
***(pdf) Demographic Yearbook—Table 3: Population by sex, rate of population increase, surface area and density, United Nations Statistics Division, 2007, retrieved 2009-11-23
****http://data2.itc.nps.gov/budget2/documents/NPS_10-YearBudgetHistory.pdf
*****http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf
I now agree with Mike Bock after reading Jesse, he has way to many references.
Mike,
I have thought about freedom and justice. Justice, on a small scale, is 2 persons equal claim to an argument. That argument arising out of the fairness of a particular situation. If those 2 persons are not free, how can they have equal claim? Justice, can be defined by those in charge or those that rule. If freedom is not the basis, if freedom can be coerced, cannot justice be changed as well? Freedom and the natural rights as put forth by Jesse are more definable and protection of those natural rights is what we pull forth as justice. For, if we are to take from the top 1%, and majority finds this to be justice, what does the 1% find it to be? If in an argument, one group of people does not have the same freedom to place their claim, then their claims cannot be equal. Therefore, how can justice be properly defined in this society? What is “fair” or “just” in a system that is not free?
Is there a demographic for freedom? Independent thought requires freedom of thought.
You said: If you believe that the means to making a better world is via FREEDOM, less government, etc., then I would like to understand how you see a scenario unfolding where, over time more freedom, less government leads, over time, to a better world.
Answer: The founding of America. On the basis of freedom and limited government changed the entire globe for the better.
Also, I find it troubling that you continue to point to the economic mess we are in as a result of freedom. I think just the opposite, from my post above I laid out the reasons I felt the government caused the mess in the first place. Hence, the government made it possible.
Eric,
Regarding highschool Civics, it is hard to set a standard for forced education. To do anything besides teach basic and simplistic history, it would likely cause seizures amongst half the populaces parents. I think the HS civics class will always be doomed to mediocrity. But, I think greater exploration of thought through philosophies of freedom and justice would have a much greater impact than the crappy history lesson I remember.
Jesse,
You’ve redefined communism to more easily make your case. Here’s wikipedia: “Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general”
Governor Strickland will need higher taxes for his education reform plans, which may or may not meet Ohio’s constitutional standard. Judge Lewis ruled that Constitutionally acceptable system of school funding must provide:
1. Sufficient oral and written communication skills to function socially and economically in Ohio and globally;
2. Sufficient mathematic and scientific skills to function as a contributing citizen to the economy of Ohio and globally;
3. Sufficient knowledge of economic, social and political systems, generally, and of the history, policies, and social structure of Ohio and the nation and enable the student to make informed decisions;
4. Sufficient understanding of governmental processes and of basic civic institutions to enable the student to understand and contribute to the issues that affect his or her community, state, and nation;
5. Sufficient self-knowledge and knowledge of principles of health and mental hygiene to enable the student to monitor and contribute to his or her own physical and mental well-being;
6. Sufficient understanding of the arts to enable each student to appreciate his or her cultural heritage and the cultural heritages of others;
7. Sufficient training, or preparation for advanced training, in academic or vocational skills, and sufficient guidance, to enable each child to choose and pursue life intelligently;
8. Sufficient levels of academic or vocational skills to enable public school students to compete favorably with their counterparts in Ohio, in surrounding states, across the nation, and throughout the world, in academics or in the job market;
9. Sufficient support and guidance so that every student feels a sense of self-worth and ability to achieve, and so that every student is encouraged to live up to his or her full potential;
10. Sufficient facilities, equipment, supplies and instruction to enable both female and male students to compete equally within their own schools as well as schools across the State of Ohio and worldwide in both academic and extracurricular activities;
11. Sufficient monitoring by the General Assembly to assure that this State’s common schools are being operated without there being mismanagement, waste or misuse of funds; and
12. Sufficient facilities for each school district across the State that are adequate for instruction, safe, sanitary and conducive to providing a proper education as outlined by the above-related criteria.
Thoughts?
Jesse: Rights are not determined by society but by the nature of the world and the way that man must interact in the world to ensure his own survival. Societies can choose to uphold natural rights or not, but that doesn’t affect the true nature of the right. … Let the only rights that we observe and join together to protect those that are natural.
Robert: Freedom and the natural rights as put forth by Jesse are more definable and protection of those natural rights is what we pull forth as justice. … I think greater exploration of thought through philosophies of freedom and justice would have a much greater impact than the crappy history lesson I remember.
Thomas: Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government… This, like all other natural rights, may be abridged or modified in its exercise by their own consent …
Natural Rights (11th Grade Ohio Model Lesson)
Explain argument(s) … to convince the public that ratifying the proposed constitution threatens or does not threaten Americans’ natural rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
Question: Does the current model lesson need revision?
See: http://ims.ode.state.oh.us/ode/ims/lessons/content/css_lp_s05_bb_l11_i07_01.pdf
Eric, way to continue to avoid all relevant points. I am guessing that avoidance indicates that you didn’t, in fact, understand the full scope of the minuscule department at which you scoffed.
I am not redefining anything. I offered the citation for the definition, according to the 4th edition of the English Heritage Dictionary. A definition is defined as: the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc.*
So again, just because you don’t like the definition of the word, doesn’t mean that I am redefining said word.
Please see the definition that Wikipedia, a user defined website that is unacceptable as a source in every college class in which I have participated, generated. Lets walk through that definition and understand it’s meaning.
“Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general”
socioeconomic structure = “the relationship between economic activity and social life.”**
“Political ideologies have two dimensions:
Goals: How society should function or be organized.
Methods: The most appropriate way to achieve this goal.”***
egalitarian = “social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people.”****
classless society = “a society which lacks social class – distinctions of wealth, income, education, culture, or social network.”*****
stateless society = “also known as pure communism, is the ideal, post-socialist stage of society which Karl Marx predicted would inevitably follow the historical stages of capitalism and socialism.”******
common ownership and the control of the means of production = “common ownership refers to joint or collective ownership by all individuals in society. Common ownership of the means of production is advocated, or asserted, by socialism and communism. Common ownership differs from collective ownership. The former means property open for access to anyone, and the latter means property owned jointly by agreement.”*******
property = “any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of persons.”********
So all of this together means that communism is comprised of: 1) the relationship between economic and social life based on how the society should function. 2) It would function best if 2a) we forcibly removed all economic inequities, 2b) forcibly eliminate all voluntary group associations, 2c) (magically) eliminate the need for state, 3a) forcibly own all things as part of a group (i.e., as a group steal from anyone who has anything), 3b) forcibly group all capital and other property (i.e., as a group steal from anyone who has anything) where nothing existing in the physical world can be private.
It seems to me that understanding that even Marx thought that a necessary progression toward the above goal (Communism) from Capitalism would be required. The steps were known as the ten planks or the ten steps. One of those steps is the abolition of private property. The “common” ownership, of a “democratic” government, of a land mass the size of Montana seems a good step in that direction and does surely fit in at least 3a, if not 3b, of the above definition of Communism that you (via Wikipedia) offer.
Robert, I am sorry that I lost you via my excessive citation. It seems that our philosophy may, in fact, be similar. However, I must, when discussing ideas with Eric, cite everything, because I would not be able to pass high school civics without doing so. Without my ability to pass a high school civics class, Eric doesn’t consider my opinion or thoughts about a subject. Therefore, though I have lost you to Mike, I must satisfy Eric’s critique and prove that I may be able to pass a high school civics course.
*definition. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/definition
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic (because you used it, I assumed I must have been wrong about it not being and acceptable source)
***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideology (boy, it is a lot easier to cite Wikipedia, no wonder so many students do this)
****http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarian
*****http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless
******http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_communism
*******http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership
********http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property
Eric,
I think that if students were not ignorant to the concept of individual sovereignty then it would be a fair fight and that students may be able to successfully defend not ratifying the constitution and operating under the Articles of Confederation, or operating with no “governmental agreement” at all, as a reasonable societal structure. However, as none of them has been formally introduced to Rothbard (unless high school is really different than it was when I was there, those many years ago), it seems unfair to force them to debate and be graded based on their ability to defend the position of individual sovereignty. This unfairness is amplified when the grades are given by people who (given demographics and odds) do not believe that individuals are sovereign, or do not have the ability to understand the complex argument that they as individuals are sovereign.
The argument that people (representatives, elected by a simple majority or selected by an simple majority) can concede for you (individually) that you (individually) are no longer sovereign is laughable. No person can successfully defend that position without relying on the availability of coercion and force at some point to implement the decree that you are not sovereign. Therefore, the Constitution was ratified by States that in turn, didn’t represent each and every of the members of their society. That all said, the US Constitution is among the best documents ever at regulating the scope of government and life would be far better if we forced government back into the box the Constitution created for it.
That is a debate topic for people who are educated enough to actually make the arguments and think openly enough to accept the ramifications once the debate is won.
Eric: I don’t think it will go well, and I don’t have time to properly review it…
Jesse: when discussing ideas with Eric, cite everything, because I would not be able to pass high school civics without doing so. Without my ability to pass a high school civics class, Eric doesn’t consider my opinion or thoughts about a subject. Therefore, though I have lost you to Mike, I must satisfy Eric’s critique and prove that I may be able to pass a high school civics course.
Jesse,
From what I could tell of your original post from libertyzone, it was a hatchet job intended to link Obama with the Communist Manifesto–although it may have been republished and repurposed for that. I didn’t look credible to me, so I provided some similar points that had been read into the Congressional Record decades earlier.
As I pointed out early on, I don’t have time to properly review a defense of the libertyzone materials.
I am interested in which Austrian school economist could be included in social studies revisions. Although Bastiat predates the Austrian school, he has the advantage of directly taking on Montesquieu and Rousseau, who are favored in the current model lessons:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:ims.ode.state.oh.us++rousseau+Montesquieu&filter=0
the US Constitution is among the best documents ever at regulating the scope of government and life would be far better if we forced government back into the box the Constitution created for it.
The Ohio Department of Education will need encouragement in this regard. Governor Strickand appears to want new and improved standards for the 21st century. 1787 is just so last millenium …
:)
Eric: “29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.”
Eric: Quoting Jesse: “The US Constitution is among the best documents ever at regulating the scope of government and life would be far better if we forced government back into the box the Constitution created for it.”
Eric (in response): “The Ohio Department of Education will need encouragement in this regard. Governor Strickand appears to want new and improved standards for the 21st century. 1787 is just so last millenium …”
Wow. Really well done. You met point 29 wonderfully. Great job comrade!
With regard to your analysis of my original post. I think you should reconsider, as ALL of the complaints in said post begin before the current administration took office. The earliest one is the 14th Amendment! To say that it was a hatchet job about the current administration is to completely misunderstand the entire post.
Some Austrians that come to mind are: Menger, Von Bohm-Bawerk, Hayek, Rothbard, Von Mises, and Hazlitt to name a few. Why not even have them watch some of Walter Blocks speeches or read some of what he is doing currently?
I think that only two books are required reading for an understanding of Austrian economics: Human Action and Man, Economy and State. If you think these are too exhaustive, then Economics in One Lesson is surely reasonable for even the more moderately intelligent students.
Haha……Jesse beat me to it, I was thinking the same thing on the Constitution.
I liked the book “what has government done to our money”. It was simple quick ready and helps lay a foundation for understanding the manipulation of economy. I have not read the others mentioned (I need to get to the book store).