That way lies tyranny

Dr. Jonathan Gruber - technocrat.

Liberty is a precious commodity. According to Freedom House in a 2011 report, only 43% of the world’s population live in freedom. And with Russian incursions into Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and ISIS murdering Christians and non-Sunni  Muslims in droves, and Chinese crackdowns in Tibet and Hong Kong, the trend is not a happy one.

Our country is based on a unique concept that all men are created equal. All humans – man, woman, gay straight, black, white, all colors, all genders, all races – are equal in the eyes of God.

This fundamentally important concept is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Everyone is familiar with that part. But equally important is the next:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Let’s stop to think what this means.

In the American ideal, no other person is your better. This is a great departure from European monarchies, where rulers derived their authority by the divine right of kings. In a monarchy, the rulers are your betters and you are but a subject. The (hopefully) kind, benevolent, and wise ruler directs you on how to live your life.

But in our system of government, the young Latina working at Starbucks is every bit the equal of the governor of Massachusetts. Or of the President of the United States. Or of Jonathan Gruber. As citizens, all are equal in the eyes of God.

Which is why Dr. Gruber’s attitude is so outrageous.

In a revealing sequence of videos, Dr. Gruber, an MIT economist and contracted architect of the Affordable Care Act, pretty much informed us of his view of the electorate.

That the ACA was passed only due to the “stupidity of the American voter” and intentional obfuscation which created a lack of transparency.  That it would never have passed if we had only known the truth.

And the president joined in: if you like your plan you can keep it; if you like your doctor, you can keep her. And that costs would be contained. Dear reader, we personally can attest that none of these are true.

But the details do not matter – it is the attitudes that do.

Dr. Gruber, President Obama, and a plethora of other politicians and technocrats, share this belief: that they are your betters, that they know what is good for you, that they can force you to comply (for your own good, of course). Michael Bloomberg, for instance, as the mayor of New York, attempted to ban the sale of soft drinks in excess of 16 ounces. (The New York Court of Appeals, however, disagreed, and the ban was lifted).

A term for this is a technocracy, where government control of society is based on an elite of politicians and scientists, engineers and psychologists, and various other experts. And they all know how you should live your life. Makes one feel much like a lab rat.

And it’s easy to see how this has come to pass. Science is fabulous and has created many wonders.  Technology is powerful, recently turning North America into a net energy producer. Atheism has swept the land, pushing religion out of the public sphere (Happy Holidays). As technocrats come to believe less in a common creator, it is easier for them to believe that they are our superiors.

Is it possible that large sugary drinks are bad? Is it possible that universal healthcare is good? Absolutely.  But to impose mandates and bans is not the American way. Because the do-gooders who strive to do good are not your betters, they are your equals. Your choice to follow their advice should be just that: a choice.

The do-gooders should advise, should educate. And you should make reasoned decisions whether to eschew sugar, or wear a seatbelt, or buy health insurance. Your choice, informed and educated. But not compelled.

We are all equals. The brainiacs do not rule us.

That way lies tyranny.

Celebrate! The war is over.

President Obama, in a major foreign policy speech at the National Defense University,  has declared that the war on terror is over. This is a very interesting tactic that might have been very useful if only known to Franklin Roosevelt. In June, 1944, sixty nine years ago, the beaches and fields of Normandy were a muddy, bloody cauldron as allied troops strove to wrest a beachhead from the Nazi juggernaut.  Over 200,000 American, British, and Canadian troops were killed or wounded in a campaign that could have been completely avoided if only Roosevelt had simply declared the war over.

But no matter. The current administration has elected to choose a path of lessening America’s role in the world. The president, his supporters, and confidantes are of the view that America is an enemy of freedom rather that its defender. The newly-appointed U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, has said: “Some anti-Americanism derives simply from our being a colossus that bestrides the earth. But much anti-Americanism derives from the role U.S. political, economic and military power has played in denying such freedoms to others.”

So in support of this view, the administration is cutting military budgets, withdrawing from the heartlands of radical Islamic Jihadism, and is ceding the world  stage to our benevolent competitors. Surely the military planners in the Kremlin and Beijing are celebrating this wondrous gift. And in the vacuum created by America’s withdrawal, they will surely lead the way in advancing the cause of freedom and individual liberty. (News item – Russia backs Syria’s despotic leader, Bashar Al-Assad, and promises to deliver advanced anti-aircraft missile systems).

In the meantime, while asserting that America in the world is too big, the administration is simultaneously arguing that American government at home is too small. Even though the president has declared the end of the war on terror, his National Security Agency is spending billions to collate the phone calls, emails and tweets of hundreds of millions of Americans. The IRS, soon to be responsible for enforcing the onerous terms of the “Affordable Care Act,” was somehow unable to respect the constitutional rights of those who disagree with the President’s politics. And the Justice Department is going after journalists, wiretapping and threatening charges for simply reporting the news.

Where is this heading? Unfortunately, nowhere good. By reducing America’s presence in the world, the cause of freedom will be harmed. Likewise, by growing government’s scope and power at home, our individual liberties are lessened. If you believe that freedom and democracy are fundamentally good, this is not good news. Is this truly the path we want to follow?

Is tolerance banned in Boston?

Argonne Cross, Arlington National Cemetery

Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston made headlines recently by vowing to withhold permits from an organization wishing to locate in the city. “Catholic Charities does not belong in Boston,” Menino proclaimed, disagreeing vehemently with their values. “I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston.” Catholic Charities opposes abortion on religious grounds, a viewpoint that the liberal Menino abhors.

Well, almost. As Dan Rather would say, this story is fake but accurate. Actually, Menino promised to block Chick-fil-A, a fast food operation, from the city because he disagrees with founder Dan Cathy’s religiously-based views on same-sex marriage. The story and the reality both hinge on religious beliefs that conflict with the Mayor’s views. But that is precisely the domain of the First Amendment, whose text is brief and unambiguous.

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.

It is very clear that Menino, as a public official, cannot impose his viewpoint on another. However, as a private citizen, he is free to boycott Chick-fil-A and encourage others to do so as well. As are we all.

Does this mean that government is powerless in the face of bigotry? Indeed not. We have laws prohibiting discrimination in employment and accommodation of customers. These laws can and must be vigorously enforced.

On another religious freedom front, there is a group called “Freedom from Religion Foundation” who, with their willing ally the ACLU, remove prayers from school walls, crosses from war memorials, and crèches from public squares. This organization of atheists militantly imposes their views, often to the distress of  citizens of such disparate places as Cranston and Woonsocket RI, and Steubenville OH. The FFRF interprets the First Amendment as strictly banning religious practices and artifacts from the public space. This is a tortured interpretation.

One must step back and ask, what is a religion? Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism all provide a model for how to live, how to behave well in a moral fashion, and require that adherents accept certain tenets of faith. In other words, part of the belief system must be accepted without proof because it is unprovable.

Atheists, likewise, believe in the goodness or badness of certain behaviors. Else, why would they intercede to prevent certain acts which they consider bad? And they share a belief that God does not exist. But that is an unprovable tenet of their belief system and must be accepted on faith. 

It appears clear that an alien visiting from the Cygnus constellation would be confused. Are not the atheists practicing their own religion? Are their attempts to impose their religious beliefs on the public space not, therefore, unconstitutional?

Perhaps the answer is to interpret the First Amendment in its simplest terms. The government shall not impose a religion, such as the historic Church of England. The government shall not prohibit the practice of religion, such as the Nazis did to the Jews, or the Taliban to Christians. Perhaps the answer is to be inclusive rather than exclusive. If you object to a cross on a war memorial, then add symbols of other religions, do not ban them all.

Tolerance, it seems, is a kinder and more peaceable approach than Menino and FFRF's belligerent intolerance.

Our wonderful gift of liberty

Statue of Liberty, 1901, Library of Congress

Two hundred and thirty six years ago, a new nation appeared on the face of the Earth, unlike any other. At its heart, with this core tenet, the Declaration of Independence was radical:

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal…

Equality was extremely rare on the planet.  The English had their Kings, the Catholics, their popes, the Egyptians, their Pharaohs.  But here was a new country dedicated to the principle that we are all created equal.  The individual freedom flowing from that simple principle has made us the greatest nation in the world.

All men are created equal – no one can tell you what religion to practice, or not practice, or which words you may utter, or print, or with whom you may associate.

All men are created equal – your property is yours, no one may confiscate or use it without your permission or fair compensation.

All men are created equal – the government has no divine right and serves only with the consent of the governed, the people, who have the right “to alter or abolish it.”

It is important to note that we imperfect humans have not perfectly implemented this equality, but have striven to achieve it, driven by bedrock principle, over many years.  Witness the Civil War, the 13^th amendment (slavery abolished), the 19^th amendment (women’s right to vote), the Civil Rights Act, Title IX… the list goes on as we continue to perfect this belief in equality. But to be clear, the individual liberty recognized by our social covenant does not guarantee equal outcomes, rather it affords equal opportunity. 

The results have been very encouraging.  President Barack Obama, billionaire businesswoman Oprah Winfrey, former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall (died 1993) are just the tip of the iceberg.  How about Meg Whitman, CEO of Hewlett Packard, or Stanley O’Neal, former CEO and chairman of Merrill Lynch. The incidence of successful, powerful, minorities and women continues to escalate, all to our mutual benefit as their ingenuity and drive contributes mightily to our collective success and well being.

Our founding fathers have given us a wonderful gift and our military has sacrificed mightily to help us keep it.  But whether we keep or squander it is up to us.  We can easily vote it away while chasing a mirage of equal outcomes.  Because with individual liberty comes choice and responsibility - the freedom to make choices and then being responsible for the outcome.  If you want equality of outcomes, then we must, perforce, yield up our liberty, forgo our choices.

Here is a better way.  Studies of census data have correlated individual behaviors to poverty over the past 60 years, and some simple relationships have emerged.  Ron Haskins of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institute, recently testifying before Congress, made the following observation:

“… young people can virtually assure that they and their families will avoid poverty if they follow three elementary rules for success – complete at least a high school education, work full time, and wait until age 21 and get married before having a baby.”

Haskins went on to say that young people following those rules would almost certainly join the middle class and those who did not, would not.

Three simple rules.  Individual responsibility.  The outcome is your own doing, for better or for worse.  This is the cost, and the opportunity, of freedom.

Freedom's just another word...

In early May, a monumentally irresponsible MBTA driver crashed his trolley into the rear of another. Proximate cause? Texting while operating a public conveyance. In typical fashion, the Massachusetts legislature is now debating whether to ban texting for all Massachusetts drivers on all public roadways. (That this arose as an MBTA disciplinary matter is apparently not a material issue).

Don’t get me wrong – I do not text while driving and do not support it. But this micromanagement of human behavior is precisely what earned Massachusetts its abysmal 44^th place ranking in personal freedom (“Freedom in the 50 states, an Index of Personal and Economic Freedom”, February 2009, Mercatus Center, George Mason University). Given our existing laws and proclivities, here is the Massachusetts version of proscribed behaviors while driving:

1. Do not drink
2. Do not take drugs
3. Do not text
4. Do not watch DVDs
5. Do not eat pizza
6. Do not read the newspaper (except the Globe – that’s OK)
7. Do not shave or apply makeup
8. Do not shampoo the dog
9. Do not sauté food items on a hibachi
10. Do not weed your window planter boxes

It is possible to take an entirely different approach, one based on outcomes rather than behaviors. Outcomes are countable while behaviors are infinite. For instance, the entire traffic safety code could be replaced with:

1. Keep your vehicle under control at all times.

If you can drink, or text, or shampoo the dog while keeping your vehicle under control at all times, more power to you. (But you can’t – that’s the whole point). This approach would be elegant, efficient, and consistent with the principles of freedom on which our nation was founded. As a matter of fact, all of our laws could be re-crafted in this fashion. Thousands of pages of stultifying laws, regulations, and restrictions could be reduced to a few principled paragraphs.

But it will never happen – and here’s why. There would be no need for a full-time legislature. We would not need fancy offices and big salaries and retirement benefits and perks and multi-million dollar budgets for aides. Can you see your legislature giving up this cushy life they have crafted for themselves? No way – and it is you, dear citizen, who keeps voting (or failing to vote) and thus sustains the status quo. You must be satisfied with it.

The Grapes of Wrath -- do-over

An article in the weekend Wall Street Journal (“’Youth Magnet’ Cities Hit Midlife Crisis”, 5/16/09) describes the migration patterns of some of our most prized citizens. College educated, single people between 25 and 39 years old are the basis for economic rejuvenation, high pay (and high tax revenue) jobs, and cultural vibrancy that make them greatly sought after. A study of these patterns reveals the top 20 cities which are the beneficiaries of this net, in-migration. Because these productive citizens are motivated both by climate and the “cool” factor, it is not surprising that Phoenix and Seattle top the list.

Question: what do Boston, Providence, Hartford, Portland ME, Burlington VT, and Concord NH have in common? Answer: they are not on the list. As a matter of fact, neither is any other city in New England, nor the top three megaplexes: New York, Chicago or Los Angles. No, these places are all donors of the young, cool, educated, productive workforce; not recipients.

How does one explain this phenomenon? There are many factors, but here’s something to consider – freedom.

Earlier this year, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University published an analysis, “Freedom in the 50 States: An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom.” This study ranks the 50 states in terms of social, personal, and economic freedom. The aberrant New England “live free or die” state of New Hampshire ranked first, with the greatest overall freedom, whereas New York state ranked dead last by a country mile. The other New England states (MA, RI, CT, VT, ME) averaged a stultifying 42^nd. The megaplex states (NY, CA, IL) averaged 46^th overall. The land of the free isn’t very much so in great swathes of the country.

How did the top-20 destination cities mentioned above fare? Two of them are in California (Sacramento and Riverside), a bow to climate and “cool” in spite of California’s 47^th place freedom ranking. The remaining 18 destination cities are in states whose average ranking is 15^th – much better than average. And the top destination state (Texas, with 4 of the top 20 cities) ranks 5^th. Hmmm – there may be something to this theory.

Recent news item – Rhode Island, with a total population just over 1,000,000 people, has about 400,000 people employed. Let’s put this into perspective. Imagine a prehistoric tribe of 10 persons including children and the elderly. The survival of the clan rests entirely on 4 individuals. For every rabbit snared, the 4 workers must feed themselves and 6 additional mouths. They must, at times, feel a bit put-upon and wonder if the others might at least gather some berries. In fact, they might just be tempted to pull up stakes and move to Texas.