Taxes (1st)

Leave a reply

Property taxes pay for public school systems.

Nobody argues that.

However, a coworker observed that “by enacting property taxes, the government essentially eliminated private property, because one never comes to the point of full ownership of ones property.

There’s always another payment due.

One basically ‘rents’ from the government.  Failure to pay results in eviction. 

Property taxation thus enabled the government to ‘land-grab’ the whole country.”

This argument holds water logically.  And we all know politicians can be pretty tricky.

But I’m wary of jumping to conclusions.

Your comments in support or rebuttal, are welcome.

Capitalism (1st)

Leave a reply

Can We Do It Better?

Free-market capitalism operates differently from the way it is described by economists / politicians.

Given the significance of capitalism in our lives, “We the people” might profit from discussion of this difference, which I propose to offer in sequentially numbered installments.

Your comments, of course, are welcome.

Free-Market Capitalism—a phrase with strong popular appeal, is to my mind a description of a wish-dream.

It doesn’t exist.

Our belief that it exists interferes with our ability to do capitalism better.

Consider—in a truly unregulated market…

There would be no zoning laws.  There would be no licensing requirements for doctors, nurses, lawyers, electricians, plumbers, veterinarians, cosmetologists, bar tenders, waiters/waitresses, insurance salespersons, psychologists, real estate agents, and others.

There would be no building codes.

There would be no schedule of  controlled substances.

Selling and buying slaves would be legal.

Anyone could sell or buy any type of firearm.  Hygienic laws for food factories and restaurants wouldn’t exist.

There would be no maximum permissible interest rate.  Corporation officers would not be legally required to function in the financial interests of stockholders.

Regulation is assumed to be a negative influence on the (assumed-to-be-flawless) operation of the unregulated market.  People must be totally “free too choose” if, when, what, where, and how to sell or buy.  The free-market form of capitalism seems based on an assumption that no corrective whatsoever will ever be necessary to check the negative manifestations of human nature. ¹

Lets play “What if…”

“What if…” the government decided to get real on the subject of—lets call it the “Sexual Services Industry”, SSI for short, concluding that the world’s oldest profession, being ever with us, practical regard for public health and safety required the following:

Within a given municipality, all SSI workers would operate within a single precisely defined red-light district, the sole legally permissible area of operation, with substantial penalties for setting up shop off the reservation.  All would be required to purchase a license to practice, which could be suspended or revoked for cause, such as flunking periodic mandatory testing for sexually transmitted diseases, (STD’s).  In addition, all SSI workers would pay income tax, the proceeds of which, together with licensing fees, would help to finance the licensing, medical testing, treatment, and policing of SSI workers and their clientele.

What benefits might accrue to society through the above-described regulation of this hypothetical industry and its market?  For openers, no poxy doxy could operate until he/she tested clean. Granted that mandatory periodic testing is not a perfect system, it would unarguably guarantee some reduction in STD infections.

Confining all SSI workers to a single red-light district would make it easier for morally conservative folks, parents and their kids, school busloads of students on field trips, etc. to avoid contact.

SSI workers, operating legally, openly, in the red light district, therefore not fearing the cops, might be more likely to report people who commit crimes against them.  Criminals, realizing that SSI workers were no longer soft targets, might tend to lay off.  So, all other things being equal, the SSI workers could enjoy safer lives, and the city might enjoy some reduction in the crime rate.

In the above “what-if” discussion I have illustrated ways in which government regulation can serve useful purposes.  Before that, I noted types of regulation, which together with the inherent benefits, would be lacking in a truly unregulated, free-market practice of capitalism.

There is actually no market which is not regulated in some way.  We’ve lived with the regulations and the free-market hype for so long that we’ve become blind to both.

Capitalism is no myth.  Free-market?  That’s a myth.

¹ Some professional economists need to revisit rock-bottom basics—if it were really true under any circumstances that all checks on the negative side of human nature were unnecessary, then God needn’t have given Moses the ten commandments.

Once again—unnecessary?  Ask any lawyer, cop, detective, psychiatrist, priest, minister, rabbi, mullah, youth counselor, or parent for that matter.

Do you prefer a shortcut?  Ask crime victims.

Fundamentalism

Leave a reply

Not just Christians…

Fundamentalists, whether Christian, Hindu, Moslem, Jewish, or Buddhist, are conservative, in some cases even reactionary.  Why? ¹

Glad you asked.

Fundamentalists are certain beyond any possibility of debate that their preferred sacred book(s), inerrantly portrays God’s, (or the gods’) will, which is to be followed to the letter.

Because they’re so sure they’re absolutely right, its simple logic that they regard any differing positions as absolutely wrong.

Therefore, though it may not be legally justifiable, the more militant² fundamentalists feel morally justified in imposing God’s, (the gods’)  will on everyone else.   After all, God’s, (the gods’) will, perfectly expressed in (each group’s preferred) scripture, must not be defied.

Social change is strongly resisted if it doesn’t square with ancient patterns of social organization reflected in their scripture(s).  What was condemned, say, 3000 years ago in scripture is to be condemned forever, because (each group’s preferred) scripture is a once-and-done-for-all-time perfect reflection of God’s (the god’s) eternal will—hence the social conservatism or outright reactionary tendency.

¹ Fundamentalism crosses religious lines. Therefore discussion in the round is tricky because the subject is inherently complex.  This post, a first effort, may change to reflect  evolving understanding.

² Some fundamentalists are content to “stand on (their preferred) scriptural truth and love the sinner.”  Unlike the more militant strains, they live law-abiding lives.  They don’t riot, shoot people, bomb crowded pizza parlors, or otherwise shred public peace, dignity, or safety.  Neither do they conspire to do away with democratic traditions or institutions, the better to impose rigid theocracy on everyone.  Theirs is the lawful activism of the ballot box.  In short, their intolerance is tolerable.

Concerning Tumors

Leave a reply

Seriously……

The organs in our body grow to a certain size, then stop.  They function in coordination with all other body parts for the benefit of the whole.  In a healthy body, there is no such thing as unlimited growth for growth’s sake.  All body parts “acknowledge” limits on their size and function imposed by something resembling higher authority—DNA.

Tumors “acknowledge” no such higher authority.  With no regard for the health of the whole, they engage in rampant, limitless growth, sometimes spreading to other parts of the body, where the rampant growth begins anew.

Left unchecked they are ultimately fatally disruptive.

Corporations and tumors—do you see a similarity?

Pseudo-Religion Versus Pseudo-Science

Leave a reply

Who’s Kidding Who?

On one hand—pseudo-religion with its un-provable dogma.

On the other—pseudo-science, the idea that science is the only way to obtain valid knowledge, coupled with the claim that scientific knowledge = the whole of reality.

Religious dogma can’t be subjected to objective testing. ¹

Science can hardly comment on subjects like life’s meaning and purpose.  While we’re at it, how does science measure feelings, dreams, visions?  Assuming one could isolate a dream in a test tube, is the entire significance of a dream limited to what can be learned there?  Dreams have always had great psychological / spiritual significance.

When certain scientists get too big for their britches, they can be put in their places by requiring them to show scientific proof that science is the only way to obtain valid knowledge on all subjects. ²

There is not now, and won’t ever be, any such proof.

¹ Attempting to prove the validity of dogma with references to holy writ doesn’t constitute proof as science (or law, for that matter), understand proof.  Such “proofs”, in my view, are really exercises in faith, which has a legitimacy all its own.

² Fundamentalist Christian children and their parents…please note!

A Meditation

Leave a reply

“The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.”

O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom thou hast given the earth in common with us.  We remember with shame that in the past we have exercised the high dominion of man with ruthless cruelty, so that the voice of the earth, which should have gone up to Thee in song, has been a groan of travail.  May we realize that they live, not for us alone, but for themselves and for Thee, and that in their own way, they too love the sweetness of life.

                                                                                                  — Based on the Liturgy of Saint Basil

“Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace.”

                                                                                                  — Albert Schweitzer

Skillful Living

Leave a reply

What’s That?

At a minimum it means staying out of prison and the morgue.

But what else is involved?  Becoming rich?  Perhaps.  A British prime minister once said that while there was no shame in poverty it certainly was “damned inconvenient.”  Most of us would agree.  But some of us human beings deliberately embrace narrow economic circumstances.  These people aren’t stupid or insane.  They give practical reasons for choosing a simple or even spartan style of life.

Frequently, contentment is mentioned as a primary result of this choice.

Contentment is as good a goal as any.

If you are genuinely content, what else do you need?

Pushing The River

Leave a reply

How Not to Live Life With Skill

Native Americans understand that attempts to force a situation to move at one’s preferred pace, or to coerce a desired result regardless of who might suffer, are naive, frequently dangerous.  They gently mock the absurdity of such behavior, calling it “pushing the river.”

Nowadays many seem to revel in deliberate disregard of this old wisdom.

W. C. Fields, a famous and frequently drunk actor, is reported to have lurched unsteadily past his rose bushes one morning, snarling at them as he passed, “GROW! DAMN YOU!”

So many of us are addicted to being in control.

We regard life as a competition for scarce material blessings, with definite winners and losers.

“The one who dies with the most toys wins!”

We fight hard to be “winners”.  “Nice guys finish last!”  OMG, we just can’t be last!

It’s not merely, “What will people think?”  The underlying terror is, “What will people, (who think like us), DO to us?”  We go so far as to think, speak and act as if the “losers” in this competition are arrogant to expect compassionate treatment.

I’m (very) loosely describing characteristics of Social Darwinism, which, carried to its logical extreme position, requires the losers to die of whatever combination of social, psychological, political, and economic abuse, plus malnutrition and disease, afflicts them, and to do so very quietly, mind you, so as not to disturb the good time the “winners” are self-righteously enjoying, (and that the winner-wannabees are striving so hard to begin enjoying).

Social Darwinism is popular with some of the fat-wallet set, who find in it a justification for their accumulation of wealth and simultaneously, for their condescending or even sneering attitude toward the “losers”.  And this despite the fact that capitalism inevitably produces a certain number of such “losers”.

Layoffs, plant closings, downsizing, hostile takeovers, out-sourcing, mismanagement resulting in bankruptcy, etc., all produce some number of “losers”, who are frequently characterized as inferior, parasitic, or morally torpid because they can’t deal effectively with such events, and need a social safety net to stave off disaster.

Little is said about the glacially selfish, and/or stupid, and/or feloniously illegal conduct of  some owners, managers, brokers, bankers or speculators who created crises for these so-called “losers” in the first place.  These people believe they have gotten away with something.

Here’s the catch:  Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, we all have functioning consciences, preprogramed to accept cooperative, compassionate conduct and to reject exploitative conduct.

The latter produces fear, guilt, and shame, which contribute to poor health, additional psychological problems, and self-destructive behavior aimed at silencing guilty consciences.

Attempts to silence guilty consciences don’t work.  Period.  End of story.

People with clear(er) consciences are free(er) of fear, guilt, and shame.  Thus they generally live longer, have better health, and are happier more often than their fear-, guilt- and shame-laden counterparts.

Which is worth more: being at peace with what we see in our mirrors, or attempting to silence rowdy consciences by, (among other practices), claiming that the “losers” are at fault, never the “river-pushers” who created the problems in the first place?

Care to share your thoughts?

Politics (1st)

Leave a reply

The complex problems we face won’t be solved by “bumper sticker debates”.

Likewise, we should abandon the notion that a single legislative act can permanently deal with any complex problem.

Impatient children think like that.  They want solutions now—right now!

Adults understand that a carefully planned, step-by-step approach to solving a complex problem is oftentimes the only thing that works.

“A journey of three thousand miles is begun by a single step.” — Laotzu

“Patience obtains all things.” —  Egyptian proverb

Water

Leave a reply

“Do what you can, with what you have, wherever you are.” — Teddy Roosevelt

Helping Mother Earth to survive the onslaught of pollution of air, soil, and water might seem to be a task beyond the might and means of the lone individual.  But by substituting ingenuity and a “can-do” attitude for feelings of helplessness, substantial results can be obtained, and its worthwhile to do so, for as we all know, Mother Earth is our only home.

Destroy her and we destroy ourselves.

So, where to begin?  Let’s start with fresh water, the primary human nutrient, increasingly in short supply as population increases.  Conserving what we have makes sense, ¹ but how can the lone individual make a difference?

Here is one simple way:  Save a one-quart plastic bottle and cap.  Remove the label.  Rinse out thoroughly.  Refill with clean sand or small stones.  Recap it.  Place it in your toilet tank in the corner farthest from the mechanism.  It will stay in place, displacing one quart of water.  In other words, each time time you or someone else in your home or business flushes the toilet you save one quart of water.

The bottle costs nothing extra.  You paid for it when you bought whatever it contained.  It uses no power.  It has no moving parts to wear out.  It doesn’t corrode.  It just sits in your toilet tank, unmoving because of the sand or pebbles with which you filled it, saving one quart of water each time the toilet is flushed.

A family of four, each flushing a toilet, say, three times per day, saves twelve quarts, or three gallons, per day.  Per year:  (3 gallons per day) x (365 days) = 1,095 gallons of water saved per year.

This is not my idea.  I first read about this and put my “toilet bottle” in place several years ago.  As you can see it was quite a while later that I realized this was a two-step process: First, install the bottle.  Second, talk it up so others can do it.  There are many cheap, simple ways to save a little water.  When you find one, don’t take as long as I did to spread the word.  Of course you don’t have to start blogging.  But somehow share the ideas.

Our ingenuity and a “can-do” attitude.

Saving water needn’t depend on the supposed superior abilities of “experts” or on some expen$ive government program.

We can do it!

This post is dedicated to the yet unborn.

“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children.”

—African proverb

 

¹ The United States uses more than 450 billion gallons of water every day.

These days…

Leave a reply

It seems many people don’t understand the difference between “weather” and “climate change.”

Recently I found a simple explanation.

Weather may be likened to mood.  Short term.  Highly changeable.

Climate is like personality.  Long term.  Much more stable.  Changes happen slowly.

The overall climate can demonstrate periodic, brief, extreme weather events.

Hope that helps.

Law and Morality

Leave a reply

“Do you think you can separate law from morality?”

A defense lawyer was questioning me, “prospective juror no 64,” during voir dire.  That question produced bad gut feelings.

I felt that question was somehow wrong, but because I was a prospective juror in a court of law, (not of morality), I felt it was my duty to say I could.  I didn’t want to, and was relieved when I wasn’t chosen to serve.  That day, and from time to time thereafter,  I reconsidered that scene, remaining dissatisfied with my fantasy answers to the lawyer’s question.

A few years later I happily came upon the following line of reasoning:

1)  All morality can be summarized in one word—”reciprocity.”

2)  Reciprocity can be defined as, “put out what you want to take back.”

3)  Two rules derive logically from the moral principle of reciprocity.

1st rule  –  Perform all that you promise.

2nd rule – Do not encroach on other persons or their property.

4)  The above are the basic ideas underlying contract law and criminal/tort law, respectively.

5)  Therefore law derives from morality and cannot logically be separated.  Law is morality’s servant, providing application of the principle of reciprocity to specific situations.

Personal comments follow –

Laws passed in disregard of the principle of reciprocity may be called “Special Interest Laws.”

Said another way, such laws are “To-Hell-With-You-I-Want-What-I-Want-Laws.”

Each time the people permit passage of  Special Interest Laws, they get screwed.

Just now we need frameworks to help us make sense of all that’s happening in our world, and how to decide who has  better judgement, or a history of good, better, or best behavior.  Using the line of reasoning described above, it’s easy to gauge the morality of any act of a private person, of business, the government, the police, or the military.

Also, comes voting time, we’ll be less easily confused by all the slick professional psychological “manipulation of perception.”

Less comfortably for us, it enables facile evaluation of our own conduct.

What do you think?

 

 

 

Deed Registration – Doggie Style

Leave a reply

Are We Much Different From Our Pets?

Dad was typical of thousands of men:  He worked hard at his job, brought home the bacon, and made regular mortgage payments to keep his house and the land on which it stood.  As commonly understood, he was “getting somewhere.”  He was “successful.”

One summer afternoon I realized that Punky, the family dog, was, by the same criteria, even more successful than Dad.  Now, we all lived in the same comfortable house, ate good food regularly, and so forth.

But the dog, employing a different method of deed registration, owned a good deal more land than Dad.  She owned all of our yard, big pieces of our neighbors’ yards to the left and the right, about 2/3 of a block of public roadway, and generous slices of the yards of our neighbors who lived across the street.

How did she do it?  Having no problem with the humanity who lived in the houses on these various lots, she simply beat the hell out of other animals who trespassed on her domain.  (We might call this the “fang-and-claw” method of deed registration.)

The point is that much of what we humans do with our lives, is, barring the complexity of our activities, not so different from what animals do.  Yet we feel, no—we’re sure we’re better than the animals.   Are we?  Is life hierarchical, with human beings at the top of the pyramid and the Almighty above that?  Or is life a great circle, with the Almighty, however you understand Him/Her, at the center, and every creature on the same level?  Can you find anything in history, sacred literature, or tradition(s), to support the latter idea?

What is implied by the idea of a Great Circle of Life, with no creature any “further away” from the Almighty than any other?  Would this “equality” increase or decrease our peace, or power?  Would seeing life this way change our behavior?  How?

What do you think?

We All Save String.

Leave a reply

A Partial List of Strings, With Commentary.

Authorities, the facts of life, duties, obligations, common sense, the powers that be, scientific truth, tradition, loyalty, allegiance, oaths, superstitions, nationality, political party, race, religion, tribe, our status as human beings, our sexual polarity, our family, social rank, job, system of etiquette, environment, ancestors—-we all acknowledge some combination of these things every day of our lives, mostly by paying our respects, doing our duty, discharging our obligations, and, unthinkingly, by accepting the limitations imposed on our freedom of thought, word, and deed by the same.

So, from one point of view, we live life with many such “strings attached”.  Lots of us wouldn’t feel comfortable if all the strings were suddenly cut away.  We literally wouldn’t know what to do with ourselves.  Is it only because we have come to define ourselves as being merely the sum total of our strings?

Is it realistic to want to live life with “no strings attached?”  Is it sane or insane to ask that question?  Aren’t some strings at least somewhat beneficial some of the time?

What are we without our strings?

What were we before we had strings attached?  What were our capabilities?

Have you ever thought about yourself in this way?

Playing Chess With No Kings

Leave a reply

How do we win the  “game of life”?

                                                                                         

Is it by dying with the most toys?  If we can’t take it with us, why waste time in frantic acquisition?

Is it by serving some deity who, usually described as omnipotent, is therefore not in need of our service or anything else we might offer?  Why bother?

Is life a sort of school?  If so, why must we attend?  Who’s teaching what?  Do we “win” by graduating?  Then what?

Is the game of life unwinnable because life is no game, but merely a meaningless succession of sunrises and sunsets in which we find ourselves trapped, with no idea how we got here, how we are to use our time, or what will become of us when our days end?

Does it sometimes seem that nothing in life makes any sense, and that we’re all doing something ultimately purposeless, like playing chess with the kings removed from the board?

We all like to feel that we’re “in control” of life and that we’re “getting somewhere”, but is that ever true?

If the answer to that question is “no”, then what?  Do we relax and enjoy life, or do we freak out and redouble our efforts to assert control and to “get somewhere”?

What do you think?