Week 19: Cui bono?

 

In 80 B.C., Sextus Roscius (Roscius the younger) was on trial for patricide and was defended by Marcus Tullius Cicero. A focal point of the trial for both the prosecution and the defense was the question, cui bono? Who benefits?

 

Roscius’ father (Roscius the elder) had been murdered, and his name was subsequently – and fraudulently – put on a list of proscribed citizens, who essentially were political opponents of the tyrant Sulla. Such citizens were put to death and their properties (of which Roscius the elder had 13 estates) were confiscated and put up for public auction. Enemies of Roscius the elder, who orchestrated and committed his murder, purchased the 13 estates and evicted Roscius the younger from them, denying him his birthright.

 

To make a long story short (“Too late,” to quote Col. Mustard in the movie, Clue), Cicero demonstrated that Roscius the younger would realize no special benefit from murdering his father. After all, they were on good terms and the elder had not disinherited the younger. Furthermore, Roscius the younger was neither in the same town as his father at the time of the murder, nor had he the wherewithal to engage someone else to murder this father. He had no motive, and he had a strong alibi.

 

Roscius the younger was acquitted and Cicero bravely shone the light of justice on the perpetrators of Roscius the elder’s murder. Cui bono had been an integral component of a successful defense.

 

You, kind reader, may be asking what a 2,100-year-old legal case has to do with this year’s election. It is simply my admonishment – or rather my plea – to examine each candidate and his or her policy proposals and to ask the simple question, “who benefits?”

 

In asking this question, do not stop at the prima facie beneficiary. Like Cicero, thoroughly examine the issues and policy proposals. Pick them apart. Understand them. Honestly assess them. In the previous 33 posts, we’ve examined how many, if not most or all, policies and proposals are, at their heart, designed to strengthen and sustain the power of the political class. In so many cases, those who are said to be the beneficiaries turn out to be the victims.

 

Education, healthcare and equality, to name just a few issues, are the foci of politicians’ policy proposals every two and four years. Despite this, our public education system continues to fail too many children, our public healthcare system continues to fail the sickest and poorest among us, and as we are seeing today, hatred and animosity based on race, gender and any other characteristics that are irrelevant to the moral worth of an individual are destroying our social contract.

 

Compounding these and other problems, anyone who speaks out and suggests that We the People (i.e., individual citizens) are not to blame but those in office, especially at the federal level, is labeled a bigot of one form or another and effectively bullied into silence and servile submission.

 

I contend, gentle reader, that the disharmony we are experiencing today benefits one group and one group only. That group is not White men, Black women, gender-fluid Brown pangenders, blonde atheists, blue-eyed Baptists, bald Democrat voters or hazel-eyed Republicans, etc., etc., etc. The group to which I am referring is the group of elected officials, namely Representatives, Senators and even presidential candidates of the two major political parties, whose principal interest is in maintaining and augmenting power. In such maintenance and augmentation, they thereby pave the road to their own corruption and, subsequently, your destruction and mine.

 

In the securing the harmonious execution of our social contract, neither you nor I – simply being citizens – benefit in any way from any “-ism.” Each “-ism,” when one really thinks about it and looks at root causes, serves no individual self-interest. Each “-ism,” though, serves the interests, which is to say the benefit, of the political class. Without the ability to drive us apart and to set us at one another, politicians of today have no issues on which to campaign. With very few exceptions, they lack the creativity, virtue and understanding of individuals as fundamentally good and free agents to run on a platform of protecting the social contract, fostering individual liberty and, as Adam Smith would suggest, promoting the common good through that contract and through such liberty.

 

I know this is a controversial stance, but I am certain it is a true and provable position.

 

As you enter the polling booth – actually, well before you enter that sacred space – look at your candidates’ positions and consider who they benefit. Cui bono? Are benefits derived by you, me, our fellow citizens, or are they designed for the candidates and the political class? Consider this well, then vote accordingly, lest we be wrongly accused and evicted from our metaphorical lands, which is to say denied the rights and liberties to which we, as American citizens and as human beings, are entitled.

Week 20: Equality, revisited

In the Week 51 essay, we explored the fool’s errand of trying to legislate equality of conditions and outcomes, drawing parallels to the lessons gleaned from dystopian literature and recorded in the historical record of the failed policies of our government and governments around the globe.

I still maintain that equality of outcomes is a dangerous pursuit, as it encourages sloth, discourages initiative, and would surely be a death knell to the better angels of our nature. It turns people into takers as opposed to givers; taking being an act of compulsion, giving being a voluntary act.

One may ask how this conforms with the most fundamental principle of our republic, which is the equality of all people. It is a worthwhile question indeed.

The answer may be found in Euclidean Geometry.

Euclid of Alexandria was a Greek mathematician, who lived during the mid-fourth to mid-third centuries B.C., and was among the first to present a comprehensive and coherent treatment of mathematics. 

Euclid’s first axiom is stated as thus, “Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another.”

This axiom provides, I think, a solution to Socrates’ examination about disputes over the equality of things. For simple things, such as the relative lengths or weights of two items, we could measure or weigh them. But what about two things that cannot be measured with such ease, such as what is more or less pleasing to god or the relative nature of human beings?

The most base and vile way some people attempt this is by assessing another’s age, color, gender or some other superficial and utterly meritless characteristic.

Humans, some say, rule the Earth, but as we look comparatively at the rest of creation, do we not find that the cheetah is swifter, the buffalo stronger, the flower more beautiful, and the ant more industrious? As we consider every creature, it is miraculous indeed that we claim dominance over these.

Within our own species, some are swifter, stronger, more beautiful and more industrious when compared one to another. I have no problem whatsoever thinking of many friends I have who exhibit such traits to a greater and better degree than I in each of these areas and in many more, including keenness of intellect and depth of soul. Knowing this to be true, how can we claim that all people are equal?

Examine carefully Euclid’s axiom. He does not say A equals B. He introduces a third element to his equation. If A equals B and C equals B, then A must equal C.

I propose, in the arena of human interaction and social contracts, that “B” is the law, specifically in terms of the protections and guarantees it affords. If A and C, no – let me put it to you, kind reader, another way – if you and I are afforded the same protections and guarantees under the law, we are by this axiom equal.

In his chapter on Justice in “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle discussed the fact that we may discern what is equal from our understanding of what is unequal. Likewise, we can discern what is unequal from our understanding of what is equal. Consequently, it stands to reason that if any law offers different protections and guarantees to you and me, we cannot axiomatically be equal.

The Fourteenth Amendment, one of the “Reconstruction Amendments” (i.e., the 13^th, 14^th and 15^thamendments to the Constitution), guarantees “equal protection of the laws” to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” This amendment, very simply, makes A equal to B and C equal to B. In other words, you and I are equal relative to the law.

Unfortunately and, in my opinion, treasonously, states passed segregationist laws that falsely claimed “separate but equal” protections and guarantees under the law. Rather than prosecute states and their lawmakers for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress began passing all manner of legislation, designed to treat one group differently from another. Laws intended to level the playing field in housing, employment, healthcare, suffrage, etc. were, I hope, well intentioned.

As is often the case, unintended consequences have arisen and, I believe, have led to the crisis we now face. Our system of laws has reduced We the People to criteria such as the pigment in our skin, our genitalia, our age, our sexuality, our marital status, our employment status, and the list goes on and on. Consequently, the government, which is supposed to represent each citizen in the execution of our social contract, pits us against one another. Furthermore, all of these laws and regulations are implemented by armies of bureaucrats who are neither elected by nor are accountable to We the People. If you, kind reader, have not worked in the government, permit me to inform you that these public servants, regardless of their role or level, wield tremendous power; and it is power, in my opinion, that is relatively unchecked.

Think of these criteria. What do they mean in terms of who we really are? Can I truly divine a person’s ideas, hopes or dreams from the color of his or her skin or from his or her gender? True racism comes from any misguided belief that such divination is possible. Such beliefs are antithetical to equality. Enlightened minds, by which I do not mean “woke,” understand that the monolithic attribution of characteristics or beliefs to groups, based on superficial qualities, is inappropriate and unfair. However, that is what our representatives, their bureaucrats, and many of our nation’s laws do. It is downright immoral; at the very least, it is unvirtuous.

As elections draw nigh, examine the candidates’ proposals, records, words and deeds. Scrutinize them for a commitment to equality, not in the sense of making each person a replica of the other but in the sense of being afforded the same guarantees and protections of the nation’s laws.

Week 21: Independence Day: Canceled

This past Saturday was the Fourth of July, also known as Independence Day. It marks the signing of the Declaration of Independence, a document that was informed by Enlightenment concepts and that was written in the spirit of the Magna Carta. It declares the intention of the British colonies to become separated from Great Britain, and it lists the reasons that prompted the separation.

The Declaration of Independence started the United States down the path of freedom. As the Founders knew full well, they and the fledgling nation they were to form were far from perfect. The birth of this nation was based on high ideals that, out of political necessity due to the political conditions of the time, were compromised, namely the inherent freedom of all people. 

Thirteen years later, the Constitution was ratified. Among its purposes is the intent to form a “more perfect Union.” The Founders knew that governments, like the people who form them, are imperfect, but they had a view of the long game. They created a document that would enable the people of the United States to improve themselves and their government over time. 

Students of Aristotle, they realized, that “happiness requires not only excellence or virtue, but also a full term of years for its exercise.”

What a testament to the virtues of Righteous Indignation, Truthfulness, Proper Ambition, Liberality and Courage would it have been had the Founders all agreed that equality and freedom were the inherent rights of all human beings, regardless of race or gender. Sadly, this was not to have been the case. Compromise, or perhaps capitulations, set for our nation a hurdle over which to come in our pursuit of that more perfect Union. It was a hurdle that we are still striving to overcome today.

Let us take a step back, though, for a moment. Ours has become a “cancel culture,” and I think it is important to know what we are canceling, lest we throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.

In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson included the following, which was stricken from the approved version by way of unfortunate compromises, among those in the Continental Congress, to secure its passage.

“He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”

This is in no way intended to excuse Jefferson or any others of that time for the purchase, possession, breeding, sale and murder of enslaved persons. His commentary on persons of African descent, specifically enslaved Black people, describe opinions and beliefs that were likely not uncommon to White people of the day, especially those in the South. This commentary is made clear in “Notes on the State of Virginia.” In mentioning this, it is only intended to show that Jefferson and others of his day were not one-dimensional characters. They knew that slavery was indeed an evil institution, and Jefferson himself sought to expose it and call for its end in his original draft of the Declaration.

Will today’s society “cancel” Thomas Jefferson? Perhaps. But I hope they take into account the full measure of his ideas before doing so.

Abolitionists of the day, such as British author Thomas Day, wrote about the inherent contradiction in the document, which in one sentence declares that “all men are created equal,” and which silently gives consent to the practice of institutionalized inequality upon which slavery had its foundation. He wrote in 1776, “If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves.”

There is truth in Day’s statement. If you, kind reader, knew that Day also found fame (or infamy) for his “educational” project on wife training and that he adopted two girls, aged 11 and 12, from an orphanage, so that he would train them to become a perfect wife for himself (he adopted two, figuring that one of them must surely learn from his training), would you believe that his views on abolition should be canceled because of his repugnant, twisted and pedophilic practices on wife training?

Hopefully none of us has a sin as dastardly as slavery or misogynistic pedophilia. I can rightly presume, though, that none of us is without sin. Consequently, we should be mindful before casting stones, stones that might cancel the good a person may think or do, such as speaking out for human rights and for exposing hypocrisy. 

Let us return to Aristotle and his “Nicomachean Ethics” for a moment. He states that the pursuit of happiness or excellence in something requires knowledge of what is to be done, choosing to apply that knowledge, and acting on that knowledge.

In the Declaration of Independence, particularly that first draft, the Founders possessed the knowledge that slavery was wrong. Some applied that knowledge to prepare the words above, from that original draft. They failed to act on that knowledge in a way that was consistent with what they knew. To be sure, this was a missed opportunity of terrible proportions.

In spite of this tragedy, the Declaration contains principles around which, I believe, we can all rally and upon which we can build our more perfect Union. I invite you to explore these principles with me.

The term “life” comes from the Old English, meaning the period of a person’s existence from birth to death. This comes from a Proto-Germanic word that carries with it the notion of perseverance, and this has its root in a Proto-Indo-European word meaning adherence. While there is no dearth of challenging issues we face, perseverance is a national characteristic that we can leverage to progress toward a more perfect Union. If we adhere to the principles that we all share, those that define our shared humanity, we will find peace and harmony.

The term “liberty” comes from the Old French, meaning freedom and free will, as well as a freedom from the bondage of sin, which, in turn, has its origin in a Latin word meaning the condition of being free and an absence of restraint. Each of us has the authority exercise his or her free will to choose peace and harmony over hate and division. If we respect each individual’s right to exercise their will, insomuch as it does not impede others from doing the same, true freedom can be achieved.

The “pursuit of happiness,” has two key components. “Pursuit” comes from the Old French word for a search. Happiness comes from the Middle English and earlier the Old Norse, meaning favorable fortune or chance, which has its origins in the Proto-Indo-European word for suiting, fitting or succeeding. With respect for life and liberty, our chances to find success in our search for good fortune must be increased. As with Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” the good fortune of each of us has a beneficial effect on the good fortune of society as a whole.

Since then end of the Civil War, we have looked to the government to implement programs to change the hearts and minds of all people. Such reliance, as we see today, fails to heal the deep wounds of the past. It appears, instead, to pick at the scarred tissue and re-infect the wound. In every part of life, save one, I am an eternal and unrepentant optimist. The exception may be summed up in the old adage, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

Name any area of life in which the government today promotes Life. Abortion and the death penalty persist. The so-called Affordable Care Act has proven otherwise, with insurance costs exploding, making it less affordable for many than before the act was passed. When care is delivered, such as in our VA hospitals, it worsens with any increase in government involvement. Welfare policies put forth perverse incentives that discourage marriage, leaving children without the benefit of two parents, a condition of development that is proven to be favorable in life.

Name any way in which the government advances Liberty. On our public university campuses, we now have “safe spaces” to shield people from words they do not like, and we have so-called “free speech zones” that tolerate speech, as long as it “triggers” no one. And recall Voltaire’s exposure of toleration as an evil in that it connotes a notion of putting up with someone as opposed to engaging with them and understanding them and their perspectives and beliefs. Government spies on us and our associations with people and groups. They use us, and the record of history is clear on this, as guinea pigs in all sorts of experiments. Government’s purpose is no longer service to the people but control over them. 

Name any program that eases the Pursuit of Happiness. In some ways our tax system is progressive, reducing the capital of the wealthy and impeding their ability to innovate and grow the economy. In some ways it’s regressive, hurting the poor and their access to the basics of life. The government, through its Byzantine policies and programs, favors some ventures and discourages others. Take its stands on school choice and drugs. Quality education is the best way to assure one of success in his or her pursuit of happiness; however, the government does all it can to maintain as much of a monopoly on education as possible. It enables them to indoctrinate the young to their ways of thinking. And who suffers? The poor, who haven’t the means to choose a better option for their children than the ramshackle public schools can offer. Take drug restrictions. Some people, I am told, enjoy them. Has the government’s restrictions on drugs stopped their use? No. If anything, government has made the use of drugs more dangerous, and it has directly contributed to the prison population.

The point in all these examples is not to discard the principles of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. On the contrary, the point is that the time has come to stop abdicating our responsibility for these principles to the government. It is high time that we reclaim them as our own. 

Only by discussing these ideas with our fellow citizens, regardless of background, can we hope to heal our nation and to make progress on forming our more perfect Union. 

As we consider candidates for office, who will represent us, consider who will be true partner in the reclamation of our core principles. Who will, to paraphrase Thoreau, govern best by governing least?

Week 22: Convention of States

For the past 30 weeks, I have offered my perspective on topics that have arisen during the course of this election cycle. Some topics seem as perennial as the wildflowers that line the highways and byways of middle America. Some, like the novel Coronavirus, are annuals, that appear during a single campaign season and are not to be debated again.

In this week’s examination of issues, with your kind indulgence, I would like to bring forth a topic that is never – neither annually nor perennially – discussed by either of the two major political parties. I would entreat you to consider a convention under Article V of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the Convention of States.

Why would I bring up a topic that almost certainly will play no role in the 2020 election? Permit me to explain.

I know of absolutely no one who is satisfied with the political class of today. I venture to guess that most consider them, at best, ineffectual and obsessed more with their own power than with the general welfare of We the People. At worst, they are corrupt miscreants plotting their own welfare at the expense our yours and mine. To make matters worse, we have a two-party system that, almost as if by design, foments disharmony and despair.

Those on the left bemoan the same problems they’ve bemoaned for 50 years, and they offer the same failed policies they’ve offered for 50 years, only on a grander scale. Those on the right claim to be successors to the Founders’ legacy of individual liberty and limited government, yet under their leadership, time and time again, government has grown astronomically and our freedoms have been curtailed. Neither party demonstrates any adherence to a cogent set of fundamental, governing principles.

During the past 50 years, what social concern has been solved by those who sit in the chambers of Congress? Poverty and homelessness continue to exist. Welfare programs continue to teeter on the verge of bankruptcy. Disharmony among the races and genders continues to simmer beneath society’s surface, waiting to boil over. In the media, the query is even posed: are we entering a new period of civil war?

A new civil war…it is astonishing to contemplate. How can this be?

Whilst Rome burned, it is said Nero fiddled. And so it is today with our elected officials and their appointed bureaucrats. Our “city on a hill” is burning, and the Neros of today, the members of the ruling class, appear once again on the ballot, seeking to aggrandize their power.

As with the Great Fire of Rome, after which rumors swirled and legends formed about Nero, for whom the tragic burning of Rome was seen as a benefit (some even saying he may have planned the fire) in that it cleared needed space for his Domus Aurea, or Golden House, the same is sometimes suspected of our leaders today. They benefit from the evils and hatreds they see in our citizenry. To them, we are, by nature, wicked and need them to save us from destroying one another.

I have found, in my family and among my friends, and in my travels across the nation and around the world, that individuals want the same fundamental things: to be at liberty to live their lives and to be free from strife and conflict. As individuals, we are predisposed to harmony with others. This is a Lockean viewpoint, to be sure, but I maintain, from my experience, that it is a correct viewpoint. It is when tyranny and totalitarianism are introduced, that groups of people are manipulated so as to embrace hatred and engage in violence. The introduction of these evils into human interactions warp and dissolve the social contract.

I would suggest, kind reader, that for us in America these evils are born out of the two-party political system. Permit me to share some observations from George Washington, Hannah Arendt and Lord Acton as a way of priming our examination of this assertion. Their insight will lead us to consider why a Convention of States is so important.

Washington said of two-party systems, “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissensions, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purpose of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wish people to discourage and restrain it.”

In her work, “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” Hannah Arendt spoke of “party above all parties” in terms of fueling of the flames of anti-Semitism in pre-WWII Germany’s Social Democrat party. This meant that the goals of National Socialism transcended the various political parties and factions and served as a unifying cause for those in the Reichstag, making National Socialism a party above all the other parties of the time.

Lord Acton famously said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Almost immediately following Washington’s two terms as President, the two-party system began to take shape. Along with this formation, politics as a profession in America began to rear its ugly head. Although it has taken a little more than two centuries for the parties to form and differentiate, it seems that we are now at a point where the differentiation has given way to convergence and singularity of purpose. They have, in a sense, become a single party – a party above parties – which just happens to have two factions. These factions are essentially the same, being different in name only. Yes, although Democrat politicians speak of social justice and Republicans speak of individual freedom, their penchant for taxing and spending and controlling our lives leaves little, if any, daylight between the two.

If we accept this notion, that the two parties are for all intents and purposes one party, what is their guiding principle. I would suggest, kind reader, that it is power – amassing it and maintaining it – leading, as Lord Action warned, to a state of nearly universal corruption.

I am well aware of the media’s and the public’s obsessive preoccupation with the presidential race. Biden is racist and senile. Trump is racist and narcissistic. For this week’s examination, I am not focused on the candidates for that office. After all, the most damage they can do is over the course of four or eight years.  Instead, I’m thinking of the candidates for the House and Senate.

In the House and Senate, approximately 25 percent of members in both chambers have been in office more than twelve years. Nearly another 25 percent have been in office between six and twelve years, according to the Congressional Research Service. Politics is indeed a profession for approximately half of Congress.

[As an aside, it is interesting to note that, of the 535 members of Congress, more than 200 have a net worth of more than $1 million.]

With massive political machines behind career politicians, it is easy to understand how they are elected over and over again, despite producing few, if any, favorable results for the American people. I may suggest that they actually do more harm than good.

Feeding these political machines are lobbyists with deep pockets, making politics a big-money game. Lobbyists and the companies, individuals and governments funding them are knowingly making what they believe will be long-term investments (i.e., funding politicians who will remain in office over the course of many terms), ensuring they and their interests are treated favorably in legislation that is passed. Backs are scratched. Pockets are lined. And both parties are guilty.

As have many – perhaps you, as well – I have struggled to think of a remedy to eliminate, or at least mitigate, corruption in our political system.

I believe a potentially efficacious remedy is term limits. If politicians were limited to no more than two terms (or two consecutive terms with a three-term gap between those terms and their next term, in order to avoid a perpetual flip-flop of politicians, like Putin and Medvedev in Russia), the incentive for lobbyists and those they represent to fund candidates would drastically diminish, as their money would no longer be a long-term investment. It stands to reason, I believe, that political power would shift to the citizenry, and politicians would have to rely genuinely on their record and the favorable results they would produce through legislation for the people.

Term limits, though, threaten the very power that half of Congress has attained and, for all we know, the other half aspires to attain. It would be a fool’s errand to advance legislation in Congress to impose term limits.

In my opinion, the only way to implement term limits is by way of an Article V Convention (aka Convention of States). Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides a process by which the Constitution may be amended if two-thirds of the state legislatures call for a convention, enabling the proposal, debate and potential ratification of amendments, such as an amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress. At present, all but 11 states have some effort underway to call for an Article V Convention, with 15 states having passed a resolution calling for such a convention.

I must admit that I used to be opposed to term limits, believing that if a person wanted to run and if citizens wanted to elect that person, no one should be prohibited from doing so. It seems, however, that the power and its attendant corruption have become so great, with the grotesque growth of government, that the days of citizen statesmen and stateswomen are lost to us today. It seems that no other options present themselves.

If you are convinced, visit www.conventionofstates.com to see where your state stands on this process, and if you are so inclined, support the effort with your John Hancock.

Week 23: Looting

Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman was an opponent of taxing business, a common target for government revenue. He said, “there is no business to be taxed.”

At first, this may seem like an odd assertion coming from a free-market capitalist, like Friedman. He went on to explain that only people can be taxed. A building cannot pay taxes, nor a floor, etc. In terms of taxing business, so to speak, there is always a person or a group of people who will pay. In a small business or sole proprietorship, the owner of the business pays the taxes applied to his or her business. In a corporation, the stockholders pay the taxes from the profits they would otherwise share.

In small businesses, profits are quite often very thin, especially in the start-up years. Heavy tax burdens sometimes come at the expense of business growth, hiring workers or paying workers higher wages.

In corporations, keep in mind that stockholders are not predominantly fat cats in charcoal gray, pinstriped suits reading tickertape reports and drinking highballs. Many stockholders are workers, including the very workers employed by the corporations, who hold stock through their 401K or other retirement accounts. Taxing business reduces the money available to pay shareholders. This is one way that average person (meaning those who are not independently wealthy) suffers under the so-called progressive taxation of businesses.

Another way that progressive taxes on large and small businesses adversely impacts people, particularly at the lower levels of the socioeconomic scale, is that higher taxes often translate to the higher costs of goods and services, financially impacting the consumer.

What does all this mean in terms of looting, which we have seen associated with some protests in some areas of the country?

Looting is theft and often requires destruction of property (e.g., smashing windows, breaking down doors, etc.) to accomplish its purpose. The business owner, whether it be a sole proprietor or millions of shareholders, has to pay for repairs to the damaged business and the cost to replace the stolen inventory. In some cases, the costs are proving to be devastating, resulting in the closure of the business. In less severe cases, the businesses financial reserves are unexpectedly diminished. What happens then? The owner and/or employees are put out of work. They are rendered unemployed. Their lives and livelihoods are devastated. Some may need to go on welfare, thereby imposing a cost to society, which is effectively another way of taxing people. However, this is a form of taxation without representation: a mob of people taking actions that will impose costs on you and me. What gives them the right? Nothing, because there is no right to forcibly take what is not yours.

And who is looting? As we’ve seen in numerous news reports, it is not just the destitute. People of “privilege” (i.e., wealthy and/or white) are among the looters, Jake Paul being an infamous example. How does a rich white guy stealing a pair of Nikes advance racial harmony in America? I await any sound justification or rationalization on this point.

As we observe candidates’ reactions to looting and listen to their stands, it is essential to consider which candidates will uphold the rule of law. After all, we are a nation of laws, not of men (using the archaic meaning of “men,” be they male, female, or however one wishes to identify). Mob action, which is very different from protesting, and politicians who endorse it threaten the Liberty of each and every one of us.

Week 24: Institutional Racism and the Meaning of Life

With the death of George Floyd at the hands of officers of the Minneapolis Police Department, one is compelled to ask why.

Among the explanations I hear, perhaps the most common is related to institutional racism. With all due respect and at the very risk of being labeled a racist for rejecting this dogma, I believe that institutional racism is an overly simplistic, inaccurate and dangerous cop-out. I hope that you, kind reader, will read on with an open mind, trusting in the rock-solid fact that my highest desire is harmony and self-fulfillment among all people and that the greatest sorrow in my life is the tragic discord among people.

Permit me to begin with this premise: institutional racism does not exist in the United States of today; at the very least, it is the rare exception. This assertion is predicated on “institutional racism” being defined as a doctrine or political program, of or relating to an institution, based on the assumption or belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce the inherent superiority of a particular race, and that such doctrines or programs are designed to execute this principle. With the exception of doctrines or programs that are, by design, racist, such as states’ laws on slavery and segregation prior to the Thirteenth Amendment and thereafter racist Jim Crow laws prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, institutions cannot be racist. I assert this, because institutions hold no opinions, have no values, make no judgments, and so on. Only people have and do these things. When it comes to people, some are good, some are evil, some are in-between.

Laying blame at the steps of an institution is all too simple, and, I believe, all too damaging to the progress of the human spirit and all too diminishing to the dignity of each human soul. In a very real effect, claiming institutional racism permits individuals to be absolved of the wickedness in their own hearts and which is made manifest in their own actions.

With the exception of institutions that are explicitly based on wickedness, such as the former state governments of the Confederacy, the Ku Klux Klan and Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League, each of which was or is based on the evil belief in the inherent superiority of one race over another, most present-day institutions designed to execute the social contract are not established on racist dogma, nor are they monolithic in terms of the people who make up the institutions. Likewise, other groups of people, such as those based on gender, socio-economics, faith or race, are not monolithic in their beliefs.

I would suspect that there are officers in the Minneapolis Police Department who abhor the treatment of Mr. Floyd and who disavow the illegal and immoral actions of the four officers who restrained him and who were, I believe, responsible for his death. Similarly, I would suspect that there are protesters who abhor the looting and burning of private property, desecration of churches and memorials, like the Lincoln Memorial, and the throwing of rocks and urine at police officers and emergency personnel across the nation, as well as the murder of innocents, like officer Dave Underwood in Oakland, California, who was, himself, African-American.

These are the actions of individuals, not of institutions. These are the actions of hateful, decayed individuals. They are, I believe, the actions of people who fail to see the importance of each human life and who, consequently, fail to afford each life its due respect.

I should note here that I do not discount the effect of mob mentality. A mob’s actions are something different. Mob action is not, by definition, institutional racism. While the term “mob” certainly has a pejorative connotation, individuals in large groups, motivated by a common cause, can positively or negatively pressure one another to do good or to do harm. I would suggest that it was Derek Chauvin and the other three officers who acted with a sort of mob mentality, possibly based on race (although none of us can know their motivations), violating their department’s restrictions on the use of force through pressure on the neck, thereby violating Mr. Floyd’s civil and human rights. In doing so, these four men also violated our social contract.

Granted, these four men, by virtue of their employment as police officers, functioned as representatives of the Minneapolis Police Department. However, it appears that they represented the department in a manner that violated the department’s very regulations. I say “appears,” because I am reacting to video footage and reports that are presently available. I recall that there have been some incidents that, after further reporting, were confirmed and some that were not. If they were indeed acting contrary to the department’s regulations and were applying a personal and disturbingly misguided racial belief system, their actions were anything but institutional. While the video footage seems incontrovertible, time will assuredly tell.

If, kind reader, I have persuaded you that racism in America today is generally an individual transgression and not an institutional one, we remain left with the same question. Why?

In April of 1877, the great Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote a short story that, from a peculiar perspective, addresses this present-day question. In his story, “Сон смешного человека” or “The Dream of a Ridiculous Man,” Dostoevsky describes a nihilistic protagonist, who is convinced of his own irrelevance and that of the world around him. Intent on ending his life, for his life is worth nothing and evokes in him no real feeling, he wanders the streets of St. Petersburg on his way home to shoot himself. A child – a little girl – begs him for help, presumably for a dying or dead mother. He angrily dismisses her and continues home to his inevitable end, but something unexpected occurs. He is filled with questions about the encounter with the little girl. It awakens in him questions about justice and the interconnectedness of humanity. In his boarding room, he sits in his armchair, with his revolver on the table next to him, and he falls asleep. In his sleep, he dreams that he shoots himself in the heart, dies and is awakened from death by an adventure to an alternate universe. He is taken to an exact duplicate of Earth, but it’s an Earth in which harmony reigns. Tragically, his explanation of this Earth, with its jealousies, wars and oppressions unleashes in those alternate Earthlings these same vices. One may interpret the protagonist to be a sort of unwitting serpent in the Garden of Eden. As the story unfolds, in all its tragic ends, he discovers the meaning of life. It’s a lesson that is likely familiar to us all, but it is the lesson that Dostoevsky declares to be life’s very meaning.

He writes, “The main thing is that you must love others as you love yourself; that’s the main thing, and that’s everything, and absolutely nothing more than that is needed; you’ll at once find a way to build paradise.”

What stands in the way of love? Hate.

Why do people hate? It is a perplexing question, because hatred produces nothing useful. It advances nothing beneficial. It devours the time and energy of the person who hates, and to what end? Search the historical record, and I believe one would be hard pressed to find any advancement in the human condition that was the result of hatred.

Etymologically, the term hatred comes from Old English and means a state or condition of spite, envy, malice or hostility. In considering this list of conditions, one seems different from the others. Out of one term in this list, the others seem to derive. I would contend that envy seems to be the root cause of spite, malice and hostility. But why is this? What is envy?

According to Merriam-Webster, envy is a painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage. Chief among the flaws of envy is that it is typically based on one’s perception of another’s advantage, and perception is quite often misperception. And how do misperceptions come about in the human mind? They are formed when one does not have adequate data, in terms of quality or quantity, to make informed opinion or decision.

I believe hatred is born out of envy and made manifest in spite, malice and hostility. Envy grows out of misperceptions, and misconceptions are rooted in ignorance.

How does one cure the ill of ignorance? I believe the antidote is knowledge and understanding – knowledge and understanding that are first and foremost firmly based in our common humanity. I believe we jump too quickly to those things that make us different.

And here I must digress. With all my heart I cherish individualism. Our individual talents, hopes, ideas and abilities bring richness to life and enable us to accomplish together a multitude of wonderful things we could never accomplish alone. Today, society’s focus seems off. We start off by focusing on diversity, equity and inclusion in terms of superficial characteristics, such as gender, age, skin color, etc. We implicitly and sometimes explicitly teach children at the earliest of ages that these differences matter. To be sure, the intentions are to call attention to these types of differences so that we may avoid errors in judgement that come from them, but I believe it tragically backfires.

Do not misunderstand me. Because very real experiences have come from what should be meaningless differences (i.e., the color of one’s skin, one’s gender, one’s age, etc.), society must acknowledge the pain of these lived experiences. I would suggest, though, that in order to move past them, we must let them go. Additionally, lived experience is not a blanket experience. As a white man, am I to be held accountable for the sins of other white men, present or past? My ancestors, including my third-great grandfather despised slavery and fought on the side of the Union to destroy this evil institution. My 12^th great-grandfather, who settled in Providence, Rhode Island, in the 17^th century did not own slaves. Do either of these men afford me absolution from the sins of others? While I’m grateful that neither of those men supported the violation of others’ human rights, I still maintain that I should be judged on my own merits, not those of others. Are such bona fides necessary to prove my belief in the oneness of humankind? I hope not. Nevertheless, that genealogy is an experience I share with my forefathers, and it’s a history and connection that is slandered each time I am told I cannot offer an informed opinion on racial experience because my skin is not black or brown, each time I see a colleague at work include a slide in a presentation on diversity, equity and inclusion that states “White Lies Matter,” and each time I hear the moniker “white devils” come from otherwise educated people. But more on two wrongs later.

Because I believe in the fundamental, innate goodness of every person, I believe hatred in all its forms – racism included – are learned. I have yet to find any concrete evidence to the contrary.

For decade after decade – I would say since Dr. King’s message of character over color was appropriated by purveyors of color over character – it has been one race ascribing characteristics and intents to another, always in monolithic terms and always in false terms. This is the prevailing dogma of race, as opposed to understanding and teaching that each individual is a member of the human family.

Think of Shylock’s monologue in Act III, Scene 1 of Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice.” Shylock says, “I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.”

The majority of his monologue expresses the fact that we are the same, each and every one of us. The last two lines of his speech, though, serve as a pragmatic warning: one wrong may beget another wrong. Revenge. Is revenge not what we are witnessing now? Revenge, as a reaction to fear and hatred, born out of fear and hatred, all of which has its roots in ignorance. As Seneca reminds us, “Timendi causa est nescire,” or “ignorance is the cause of fear” and, by logical extension hatred. This is the decrepit foundation society has been laying for itself and for future generations.

I will entertain, at this point, a bit of a stretch related to institutional racism. Without further, deeper examination, I might suggest that there is correlative as opposed to causal relationship between racism and institutions, specifically educational institutions. If hatred is indeed learned, and if the educational system’s focus is on those characteristics that make us different, as opposed to those characteristics that reinforce and celebrate our common humanity, might institutional racism actually exist? I hope this philosophical stretch is utterly false. Nevertheless, it may be worthy of debate.

With Dostoevsky’s revelation in mind, contemplating America’s approach to extinguishing the smoldering embers of racism over the past six decades, and cognizant that this remains a very real issue that threatens the destruction of our social contract, might it not be time for a new approach?

Until we truly share a common humanity, with recognition and respect for each person’s individual human dignity, and until this sharing, recognition and respect are institutionalized, we will be doomed to bear witness repeatedly to the tragedies of the George Floyds of the world, along with the grievous backlashes toward the Dave Underwoods of the world.

Never in history have two wrongs made a right. I am a realist. I cannot expect the wronged to always turn the other cheek. The human spirit can endure only so much. Let us apply our effort, then, in eliminating the initial wrong. In doing so, the wrong of revenge is unnecessary.

How can we wrong another if we love them as we love ourselves? We cannot. That depth of love, though, demands a profound understanding that we are of the same flesh and blood, the same ashes and star dust, the same immortal spirit.

Be assured, I love you, regardless of your color, creed, gender, age, or any other characteristic you may express. In this time of crisis, I beg you to pass along that same unconditional love to others. It is the meaning of life, and it is the only thing that will save us.

As we look to November and to the people who will represent us for the next two, four or six years, examine the words and records of each person. Who has and who will bring national and global attention to our common humanity, not to superficial and meaningless differences? Who will foster love?

Week 25: Reopening America
Over the Memorial Day weekend, a picture on a news aggregation site caught my eye. It looked fun. It looked familiar. It showed holiday-goers enjoying the sun, pool, alcohol and music at the Lake of the Ozarks. The picture, in fact, was taken at an establishment that I like to frequent when at the lake. In any ordinary year, the picture would not be a cause célèbre (save a July 1, 2007 frontpage, hatchet-job story on lake revelry in The Kansas City Star and an eloquently written and philosophically astute July 6, 2007 Letter to the Editor response by yours truly in that publication), but this is no ordinary year. Local and national media decried hundreds of intoxicated people packing lakeside bars, despite notices about social distancing guidelines. Certainly, I have my own opinion on the wisdom, or lack thereof, of these partiers, but this post is not intended to address that issue.
Instead, the real question before us relates to the appropriate and constitutional role of the government during a crisis, namely the COVID-19 pandemic. Cognizant that we are a nation of laws, let us ground ourselves in the Constitution of the United States of America, particularly three amendments.
The First Amendment to the Constitutions states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Remember that the Constitution was originally proposed without amendment. It was designed specifically to address how government would be formed and would function. For the Federalists, it went without saying that this blueprint for government had nothing to do with individual citizens living their lives as they best saw fit. Such was the purview of the state and local governments. The Anti-Federalist, however, mindful of the overreach of government, as described in the Declaration of Independence, believed it necessary to enumerate the protections of the people’s rights from government infringement. In order to secure support for the ratification of the Constitution, a Bill of Rights (i.e., the first 10 amendments) was included, outlining a set of protections for the citizenry from the government.
As we look to the President, Surgeon General and Dr. Fauci; to our governors and the states’ surgeons general; and to our local officials for guidance on “reopening” our communities and our nation, it seems appropriate to consider the “closing” and “reopening” in the context of our nation’s preeminent charter that documents our social contract.
Among the first organizations to be closed were houses of worship. The First Amendment includes the Establishment Clause, which was included to prevent the creation or adoption of a national religion. Over the years the Establishment Clause has been interpreted to mean separation of church and state. The First Amendment also protects the individual’s right to peaceably assemble. With the start of the pandemic, this, too was, in a sense “closed” to the people, as any non-familial gathering was restricted to a small number of people. “Congress shall make no law…” seems pretty darn clear, yet here we are. Congress is making all kinds of laws, as are local governments, restricting our inherent rights.
Next came the closing of non-essential businesses. It has been interesting to see what is deemed essential and what is not. It also begs the question: who determines what is and is not essential? As so-called non-essential businesses have been closed, and business owners have been deprived of life (e.g., the ability to make a living to sustain life), liberty and property, it has been difficult to find anything that comes close in appearance to due process, let alone just compensation, a la the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
Certainly, there may be great benefit to social distancing, working from home, and the like, but the question remains: does the government have the authority to force these practices on the citizens? Would it be better, instead, to have our expert scientists provide information and guidance and then let an informed citizenry make the best decisions for themselves and their welfare?
The authority to “close” America seems to me to be as dubious as the authority to “reopen” America.
It appears that both candidates (i.e., Trump and Biden) are not troubled by the use of the federal government to determine who is essential and non-essential, who may gather and in what numbers, who may practice their faith, and so on. As the election draws nigh, let us evaluate who will be a protector of our Constitutional rights as citizens. Let me rephrase that, let us evaluate who will sacrifice our rights to the least extent.