Notes on “What They’re Fighting For”
A few thoughts, in part reflecting on comments to the previous post, in part expanding on some of the ideas.
“Freedom” and “Liberty” are interesting subjects to examine, as their definitions seem to be highly subjective. Looking up dictionary definitions of the two, one might see them as synonymous–the ability to act as one pleases without external restraints. The lines are blurred, the definitions shift.
“Freedom” describes the power to do what you want without others acting to restrain you; this is limited only by the potential of your actions to harm others, the classic “your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.” In Benen’s example, gay marriage serves well to define this: two people of the same gender making a social contract to love, honor, respect, and support each other harms no one–in fact, only helps people, and serves if anything to strengthen society by strengthening the individuals. Others acting to thwart this act of love and support could serve as a classic example of the opposite of freedom. This exists in contrast to, and really completely externally to, what is allowed within past definitions of the institution–definitions which have changed so radically over time that any attempt to restrict marriage upon the basis of the past becomes a practice in hypocritical self-indulgence, of cherry-picking morality to suit one’s bigotry.
“Liberty” is often considered a natural right, the state of being free, but also is commonly associated with having rights to act freely in relation to the society in which you live. Certainly if there is a liberty we have claim to in our country, it is the liberty to believe as we will, to worship or not as we wish, and not be restricted or hindered by society or the state in the free expression of that belief. Again, Benen’s example is well-chosen; the people who wish to build that community center, mosque and all, should be allowed to do so even if it were directly across the street from Ground Zero instead of a couple of blocks away. They are at liberty to do so; trying to stop them is a restriction of that liberty. Allowing them to do so honors the victims of 9/11 at the highest order, as it perfectly exemplifies the principles upon which the nation is founded; but even that is a side point to the fact that liberty means they can believe what they wish and worship where they please. Again, the only restraint is where the expression of that liberty deprives others of theirs, by causing harm or restraining others, and the mosque does not do that. Any crass or slanderous analogies of harmful acts to this one would simply express ignorance and bias.
Where Benen seems to have reached not far enough is in exemplifying “opportunity”; certainly, having the opportunity to access affordable health care is one. Frankly, anyone who argues that private health care, health care for profit, which skims at minimum 30% off the top and works its hardest to deny and cheat and steal, is better, cheaper, or more ‘efficient’ (efficient in terms of serving the patient) is, to put it bluntly, a moron. Just ask any senior-citizen Tea Party member if they’d prefer private health insurance over Medicare; they’ll tell you which is better. They’re not morons, just hypocrites. But “opportunity” is much more than just health care. It’s a chance at the American Dream. Of owning a home–but that’s become a money game, filled with predators who, free of regulation and policing, have stolen that opportunity from too many of our number. Opportunity is the chance to get a meaningful, productive job for decent compensation–but the current conservative mindset is intent on maximizing profit for shareholders and depriving the worker of every opportunity possible. Opportunity means getting a fair and equal education–but the localization of education, not to mention its defunding at all levels and the skyrocketing costs of higher education, robs most Americans of what is considered one of our most fundamental opportunities.
The real and unavoidable conclusion here is that opportunities are best served when provided or regulated by the state, as ‘free market’ methods to key services simply throw the doors open to inequality, unrestricted greed, and savage predation. In this way, public health care is, in fact, one good example of a true American opportunity–being fought and quashed by the fearful throngs of the small-minded.
Benen’s example of “values” comes from a similarly rich field, but this one is an excellent choice. Separation of Church and State is one of our most fundamental values, essential to religious liberty and freedom. Only the most unobservant or intentionally ignorant could fail to recognize the fact that where a system of belief merges with state, religion suffers horrifically. For in the end, only one belief system will prevail, and it will then act to mercilessly quash all others. So many Americans are willing to see this marriage because it is their religion they see as married to the state, and they feel fine with quashing the rights of others in this regard. But ask any Christian if they believe that official state atheism under Stalin was a fine idea; I doubt they’d agree. My grandfather, a Spanish Republican, believed in the freedom of religious liberty, but had to flee Spain after the fascists elevated the Church of Spain to power, oppressing all other beliefs, including all other Christian beliefs. What the church-and-staters fail to recognize is that Christianity is hardly monolithic; which sect prevails? The answer: probably not yours. Prepare to suffer, like those who came to America roughly four hundred years ago to escape the persecution at the hands of their Christian brethren.
The claim is that separation of church and state has “gone too far,” but this is false victimhood; religion is everywhere and prospers just fine, it is only limited in very narrow confines seen as great only because they are wildly exaggerated and emphasized by those in evangelistic fervor, craving to fill every last crevice with a dominant faith, and refusing to recognize that entanglement of church and state is not a freedom, but a vital threat to that freedom.
James Madison, primary author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, made it very clear: “Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.” Nor was this Madison’s only reference to the value; find here a long list of references to exactly this principle. However, the fundamentalist and right-wing crowds see history through a fog of their own bias. They quote statements of faith by various historical figures and equate them to professions arguing for the merging of church and state, as if Madison’s values were somehow false or non-existent. They belittle those who would fight even the smallest entanglements between church and state as spiteful pettiness, and then turn around and claim that these exact same incursions justify full marriage of church and state.
The fact is, as Madison wisely saw, perfect separation of church and state–secularism, not atheism–is the only true path to religious freedom. That is perhaps our most proud, honorable, principled, fair and priceless values. And it is being trashed by selfish hypocrites who aggrandize themselves in cloaks of fraudulent persecution, who ironically work to defeat themselves but are just too shallow-minded to realize it.
Benen’s example of sacrifice is also spot-on. Back in WWII, people sacrificed nobly and severely. They passionately collected materials to be used in the war effort, selflessly and patriotically went without meat or sugar so that these could be diverted to the troops, and did so much else to give to their country so they could secure the future of their children. But now we have despicable faux-patriots, people who clamor for war but will not serve; people who claim to support the troops but then mindlessly put them in harm’s way with inadequate provisions while cutting benefits to them and their families back home; people who drape themselves in the flag but do not even understand the sacrifices it represents. People who use debt and deficit as political weapons of the moment, who now scream about their danger, and yet cannot bring themselves to list what must be cut, and whine endlessly about how the super-rich deserve to inherit every penny of what they did not earn and remain free even from tax levels lower than at just about any time in recent history. Sacrifice means giving up a great deal so that all may prosper. But the current clarion call from the dexter is “I’ve got mine, so go fuck yourself.” The right wing today, the child of Reagan’s “greed is good” Me Generation, is the absolute antithesis of sacrifice.
And about truth? Let’s face it, the last thing the Tea Partiers and the right wing in general today are about is “truth.” They scream that the president is a communist, socialist, and fascist, without even the wit to understand that these descriptions are contradictory. They mock global climate change because it’s cold outside where they are, then go mute when heat waves cover the globe. They smear opponent after opponent with bald-faced lies and doctored videos, only shifting focus to new smears when the original lies are brought to light. They never, ever acknowledge when their lies are disproved, they simply move on to the next lie, often returning to ones repeatedly exposed as such. They sketch lurid and self-contradictory conspiracies on chalkboards, or else believe the most pathetically absurd of claims, so long as it suits their ideology. They condemn the president for doing things they themselves promoted only shortly before. The list goes on and on and on and on.
For the right, it’s about one thing and one thing only: power. That’s all that matters. The ability to control; and since they cannot win power honestly, they do it any way they can–and often state it exactly that way, we’ll do whatever works for us. Sadly, they have now latched on to the worst of realizations: the power to destroy a thing is the power to control it. And they are destroying with abandon. Truth is simply the first casualty.
Small-government conservatives extend this to one more right: the right to retain one’s wealth from confiscation by the state for use by others in redistributive government spending.
That’s how the country operated until the Progressive Era reaction to Gilded Age imbalances finally forced through the 16th Amendment in 1912.
This is why Beck put the Progressives — Teddy Roosevelt — in his rhetorical sites not too long ago.
I consider myself less a liberal than a TR-style Progressive.
Social Security is, by design, only mildly redistributive so the right wing’s opposition to that is curious.
As GK said below they’re OK with government-run Medicare for people who can’t afford to pay. GK says most Americans are disapproving of fully single-payer systems like Canada’s, but that’s not really true. Just like the RIght was initially suspicious of Medicare — cf Operation Paperclip — I think they’ll come around on Single Payer eventually. The main problem, as they said themselves, is that it was a Democratic policy initiative so they had to oppose it to cockblock the Democrats on succeeding with something. There was a lot of media distortion — eg. Death Panels — but depending on the question single payer has polled majority support.
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/
The truth deficit is the most annoying thing about conservatives. They lied to get the nation into Iraq, they lie about the SSTF, it’s hard to debate someone who just spins a web of bullshit to support his position.
^ gah, Operation Coffee Cup not Paper Clip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Coffee_Cup
You are getting into deep philosophy. How “free” is an addict to whatever substance? Or, for that matter, an illiterate person? Freedom and liberty are words often used and abused to serve one’s own doctrines.
I have an old friend in San Francisco whose only daughter, a physician, is a married lesbian. In his opinion, ALL marriages should be civil contracts between two persons of whatever sex in which the State, and therefore politics, had nothing to do. It makes sense to me. They could even be temporary contracts subject to renewal: that would largely make divorce unnecessary. To him, homosexuality is simply a trick that genetics play on you: no big deal.
If freedom or religion implies the introduction in a culture of alien superstitions, perhaps it is not needed. Rather, the objective should be progressively disengaging from the autochthonous ones. For example, Spaniards would hopefully relegate Catholicism to the realm of mythology: instead, you may find Mormons or creationist evangelicals proselytizing in the name of freedom of religion. Who needs that!
I just want to convey somethings I picked up from my legal history class in law school. The teacher was, I believe, David Koenig. Incidental our medium size classes often were attended by the late, and very great, Senator Thomas Eagleton, he was about 73 at the time, maybe four years before his death.
Now, on to the issue of liberty/freedom.
Before I start, I want to remind you of something Simon Wiesenthaler was said to have uttered upon liberation from a German concentration camp by American soldiers: “Without Justice, there is only tyranny.”
You can say that, in essence, western Europe, after the fall of the Roman Empire was in a state of chaos. In that state, there was total freedom. In that state of total freedom, ultimately might created right. The strongest could do whatever they wanted. This state of liberty quickly becomes/became a state of tyranny. What’s left of the nobility in Europe, is in essence, the descendants, of yesterday’s War Lords. The smart War Lords, beginning with Clovis, King of the Franks, began to engage in the “feudal deal” which is exchanging some power for perceived legitimacy. States that rely to heavily on coercive force are almost always prostrate – compare North Korea’s poverty with South Korea’s wealth and you see the difference, North Korea’s poverty is in part, due to over reliance on coercive force to maintain the regime.
The Feudal Deal represents an organizational arrangement predicated by some dynamics in jurisprudence: the use of coercive force is expensive, the use of moral authority/perceived legitimacy is inexpensive, but normally takes years to accumulate. Wise warlords, then strike the bargain, trading limited power for perceived legitimacy. Clovis became a Catholic, the Pope then sanctioned his role as King, Clovis didn’t have to exercise resources to control underlings – instead he could focus his resources on expansion. The Franks succeeded, and soon all the war lords of Europe caught on. At the extreme end of the Feudal is the constitutional monarch, like the current royalty in Western Europe. They gave up all power, but kept prestige, and wealth. The ones that didn’t cut the feudal deal lost their heads, the ones that did, still have descendents living in palaces and spending their vacations in the Alps or the Riveria. Compare that to Kim Jung Il who’s stuck guarding his position in the cold drab of Pyong Yang in a North Korean winter.
Where is the liberty in all this?
Okay here it comes.
In Europe, in England particulary, there were several competing legal systems or courts: Canon Law, Common Law (the King’s law), The Law Merchant, the infamous Star Chamber, and local baronal courts for settling disputes. The Common Law was the King’s Law, and it allowed the King, especially during the age when Monarch’s were trying to centralize their power, to bypass the barons and have direct access between he, the king, and the people. That was the King’s interest in the common law. The kings judges then would ride circuit around England to handle and resolve disputes. Parties could choose their court: Canon law originally could solve a contract issue, because it involved oaths; so could the law merchant which handled commercial transactions. Decisions handled by the kings judges had to be enforced by the king’s force, which meant, the kings purse. Thus, to keep cost down, judges tried to render decisions that were largely self enforcing.
Self enforcing decisions, meant the decisions rendered by judges relied upon fairness, which is intuitive to 90% of all humans. Increasingly, over the centuries, decisions more and more assumed a bias towards liberty. Again, because liberty based decisions are pretty much self enforcing and don’t require the Kings purse.
And here in we have perhaps the Greatest Invention since fire and the wheel: The notion of liberty, but couched inside, as a subset of justice.
This is English Common Law’s greatest invention.
For some reason, Continental European law, based upon Roman law, didn’t develope this bias. In fact judges in France were regressive, thwarting Louis XVI’s attempts at liberalization in the run up to the French Revolution – which is why Napoleonic Law doesn’t allow Judges to make law, as Common Law does.
Back to the greatest invention: The point my Professor made was that liberty was a bias developed over time. But note, it is only a bias. It also has to compete with notions of justice and fairness (justice is to fairness what liberty is to freedom, I imagine)… and as Oliver Wendal Holmes has said, the Common Law judge was and is free to choose from the market place of ideas. This made Common Law countries ideological patch work societies: each ideology applied where it makes sense, and ignored where it doesn’t.
The rise of Anglo Saxon societies, from a small corner of Europe to become the international ascendant standard it is today has much to do with a reliance on Pragmatism, not any one particular ideology.
Now where justice/fairness and freedom/liberty align, the answer is easy for a judge. Take the case of slavery: it is neither free nor fair, so by 1804, slavery was no longer legal in the British Empire and on the island of England, much earlier than that.
Where justice/fairness and freedom/liberty aren’t aligned, then judges have more work to do. Likewise, other issues might pop up. Remember, Fairness comes first, liberty second, but other considerations can prevail in a decision.
Almost all legal terms are derived from French. Liberty comes from French, Freedom is Anglo-Saxon. Instinctively we can see that the issue of liberty is much more complex and legally contrived. Freedom is closer to what we see as a state of nature.
Liberty is a much more nuanced and legalistic term. Same with Justice. As my above diatribe states, jurisprudence means that these issues are pruned over time by the judges rendering decisions. Fairness and Freedom are the more the naked, unnuanced terms (IMHO).
Most importantly, I think that liberty/freedom and fairness/justice are two, intellectual double helix’s – what ever the question, each has an answer: some times they agree, some times they don’t. I think it is VERY important to consider that these two philosophical trajectories, or double helix’s ought to function as a intellectual check and balance on the other.
At some point, as in the age before Clovis, or in the age of Simon Wiesenthaler we are confronted the capital fact that liberty unchecked by justice and fairness creates a state of Tyranny.
My two and a half cents worth…
Here’s another ha’penny:
Separation of church and state, and freedom of religion is the most important aspect of our constitution.
My only, or I should say biggest problem with Muslims is that separation of church and state (or mosque and state, and to a lessor extent, freedom of Religion) are anti-thetical to their religious beliefs at a very fundamental level. Islam then, is a big step backward for Western and far eastern societies that are far beyone this crap. As a result, I think all muslims should have to take a vow supporting church and state or leave the country. Since it is wrong to single out Muslims for this, then I say make ever American take the same vow. That means kicking out far more fundy Republicans than Muslims.
It is quite obvious. I figured this stuff out when I was eleven,in fact, I might have been ten at the time. Religion is a source of unnecessary conflict and strife. When they read the verse from Mathew where Christ says to separate the two, uhm, actually he commands them, and the priest followed up in agreement, that’s when I said to myself, I can be a catholic. In 2004 when the Bishop where I lived said that voting for Kerry could be a grave sin, that’s when I quit being a catholic. A wasted half of a life, I guess.
I think that if Christ were God, or son of God, or thereabouts, first, you’d have to take his commandment at fae value. Second, Christ probably had his reasons. First, he was about to be whipped, tripped and tortured to death by religious clerics with secular power playing politics. Second, politics is odious, like making sausage, I’m sure he didn’t want his name dragged through the mud of politics. Therefore, people who do that, against his commandments obviously have their own agenda, and don’t give a crap what Christ says. Dragging Christ through politics is the equivalent of spitting on him. Given that they treat Christ that way, one can assume they will have the same problem with others.
When I was ten, eleven, and twelve, I went to school with people of every background: Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Japanese (native) and every nationality background. We were all together and quite happy and at piece with each other. This was because of the first amendment. Their is no sound reason for messing with that. NONE. It just rank politics. Republicans would rather destroy something good about this country if it helps them get into power. THEY are the real traitors to this country. I am certain that events are going to catch up with them, but first they are going to trash the country.
Tim, by chance I just finished reading the chapter “The World” in de Gaulle’s “Memoirs of Hope” -and I thought I had my fill of nationalistic hubris for the day. Now you come up with “The rise of Anglo Saxon societies […] to become the international ascendant standard it is today”. Really! By the way: de Gaulle’s book is still very good.
Tim:
Yeah, complete agreement on the oath. But, of course, it’s not gonna happen in a million years.
There’s a ton of stuff that should be; this is one of them.
Frankly, I don’t see that Muslims really have the corner on the market of marrying church and state. Regardless of what the Bible may in fact dictate on this, Christians have a very, very long history of insistence on their church being married to the state.
I think the main difference between Christians here and Muslims in other countries is that in this country, we have the force of history, in particular the First Amendment, holding us back. Were it not for that guiding principle, I’m pretty sure that we’d be where they are now. I mean, just look at the tremendous pressure to do exactly what we fear. And then take a look at the vote count for the Supreme Court decision on McCreary v. ACLU, and then note who has since left the court and by whom they were replaced. Should a similar suit come before the court at any time in the foreseeable future, the extremists that Reagan, Bush, & Bush saddled us with will crush what restraint remains in the crumbling establishment clause.
We already have a de facto religious test for office; we already have religion endorsed by the state on our currency and in our loyalty pledge; religion has crept in at so many levels, and it is distressing to see how it has completely overtaken some areas, like that New Jersey high school that literally ran a Jewish family out of town.
And what little pressure from the courts remain in maintaining the establishment clause is vehemently protested by the religious right, commonly termed as “hostile” to and “a war upon” Christianity and its dressings.
I don’t see that Muslims really have the corner on the market of marrying church and state. Regardless of what the Bible may in fact dictate on this, Christians have a very, very long history of insistence on their church being married to the state.
Trying to find a Falwell quote just now I found this, which is a lot better. Maybe it will even pierce GK’s thick head:
“Goldwater concluded with a waming to the American people. “The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others,” { he said,} “unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. . . We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now” { he insisted}. “To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.”
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Goldwater.html
Tim, maybe good point on the Latin/German roots between Liberty/Freedom and Justice/Fairness.
When I was reading Luis’ piece I was trying to indentify the difference between Liberty and Freedom. Freedom certain seems more individually-oriented (“freedom-to”), while perhaps Liberty applies to the society as a (“freedom-from”). Not sure about this tho as this is a prime ground for several well-known political philosophers that I haven’t read at all.
I daresay that, in actual fact, it is a difference without a distinction.
I was thinking that too, but doesn’t a person on a desert island have a lot of freedom, but no need for liberty?
Liberty seems to be a greater freedom — to “free” someone is different than to “liberate” them.
(Of course, Operation Iraqi Liberty was an unusable name for the obvious reason.)
Liberty is tied in somewhat with Liberalism, and Freedom is tied in somewhat with libertarianism, the latter does not acknowledge the normative role of society establishing liberty for all. Libertarians think individual freedom is enough, even if such freedom begins to impinge on others’ liberty via economic domination.
My favorite online jab I’ve found is “Libertarianism: all the freedoms you can afford, and not one drop more!”
I was just reading that in Norway they have an established public right to trespass on uncultivated private property.
That is an example of big-L Liberty removing restraint of action, at the expense of private power.
Apologies for this being underdeveloped but I have to get back to work : )
Well,what about the difference between Justice and Fairness?
I think, if you can define that, you will be closer to understanding the difference between liberty and freedom.
English has a rich vocabulary. We normally have two ways to say everything – usually there’s an anglo-saxon word and a french, and English is of course a whore about borrowing words from other languages, so usually there’s more still. In literature, it’s considered wrong to repeat your self, so you instead of saying “he said” back to back, you might say the second time “he uttered” or “he cried out” or something…
Again, almost all words used in law are from France because for 300 years the Nobility of England spoke French.
@SOUSA-POZA
Well I wasn’t trying to aggrandize from an ethnic stand point. I have no Anglo-Saxon blood, perhaps some Irish, French, Belgiun and lots of German. But that was never my point.
In 1600, maybe only 3 million people only spoke the English language. Now it might be the worlds most powerful language. Certainly in the top 3.
England was and is a small piece of land that doesn’t even cover the entire island it is on. There is no reason that those 3 million people’s language should become the standard it is today except, I think for the innovations they made in organizational arrangements, mainly a result of the mechanisms of the style of legal system that evolved in that little place.
Read “The Story of English” it is quite an amazing tale. As for my self, I’d much rather have been born into the French tradition or at least IN Ireland, but I didn’t have much choice in that.
I don’t care which standard emerged, I just find that English’s emergence was kind of unlikely given that it came from such a small foot print.
what about the difference between Justice and Fairness?
Justice is the System, Fairness is the Service.
ie. Social Liberty vends Freedom(s), Social Justice vends Fairness. ?
Sadly, for all too many people, “justice” is synonymous with “revenge.”
Interestingly, one could argue that “justice” nominally includes the concept of “morality” while “fairness” does not. Fairness denotes equality, following standards; but this could refer to equal injustice or immoral treatment.
Of course, morality is usually implied in fairness, but is less required in the standard definition, I think. It may also depend on your definition of “justice”; some people’s definition is not what others would deem to be moral.
Tim, I am not English speaker and I better sit out an argument on the differences about words which in actual fact are synonyms of different root. In any language you can come up with differences between synonyms, if only that one is a popular term and the other academic. It is really not very revealing. That “English has a rich vocabulary” is something that one hears over and over -and it is true. However, the richness of a language is not necessarily given by the number of nouns in the dictionary but by its verbal forms -modes and tenses, which English sorely lacks. No matter how many nouns you have, people will only use a limited number of them: how many English speakers use or understand the word “afflatus”? On the other hand, all fields of knowledge, from the humanities to technology, can be and are perfectly well expressed in English, which goes to show that if the human mind can conceive an idea, it will always find a way to express it no matter what the philological limitations of the language are. True, for verbs like “to be”, Spanish has two: “ser” and “estar”. Very “rich” but … so what? In my view, the fact that English is the “lingua franca” that it is today, has little to do with England, but with the overwhelming preponderance of the U.S. in all of man’s endeavors after war world II. It was in English but it could have been in French or Spanish. The English have been a particularly successful European tribe. Why so, can be debated to the end of time. One view is that Spaniards were concerned with pride, French with glory, and Germans with duty -while the English were concerned with self interest. Whatever!
SOUSA-POZA, the development of English is interesting in that it evolved in two parallel courses, Germanic for the peasantry and French for the court and scholars (plus Latin for the medieval clergy and scholars too).
Everyone who studies Japanese soon picks up the parallel there too, in that all the folk stuff is straight Japanese while high-falutin’ stuff tends to be loanwords from Chinese.
When I was taking Mandarin I was amused by all the Chinese I already knew just from my Japanese. . .
Troy, indeed! It is a hybrid, a mongrel of a language. It is not unique: Rumanian is a Latin language with an extensive Slavic vocabulary. They are all Indo-European languages. My point is that the importance of English has little to do with philology or the richness of its vocabulary.
The point me & Tim are talking about is abstract, intellectual ideas are expressed in French or Latin roots in English, and the elemental and common tend to be in the old German words.
“Residence” vs. “House” — in Japanese that’s 住宅 (JUU-TAKU) vs. 家 (ie) — same pattern of borrowed Chinese for the fancy vs native Japanese for the plain.
住宅 is the Mandarin word zhù zhái, you can see that the Japanese JUU was borrowed closely (dunno what happened with 宅 over the centuries).
My point is that the importance of English has little to do with philology or the richness of its vocabulary.
I don’t see any “importance” of English at all. Just an accident of history, and having the best Navy over most of the preceding centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Influence_of_Sea_Power_upon_History
As I recall, from reading “The story of English” Churchill’s famous “… We shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight then in the fields…” and on and on he went until he said “we shall never surrender”…
According to the Story of English all those words Churchill used were Anglo-Saxon based, except “never surrender” which was French based. It was as if he was subconsciously rousing up the nation by their primal, tribal roots. The fact is, we (native english speakers) are normally more comfortable speaking and hearing the Anglo Saxon terms (and usually they seem more basic and less complex, as in freedom versus liberty).
But my big point is, the reason England thrived, including their Navy, which after all was capital intensive and so could only be born by a thriving economy, was England’s embrace of pragmatism, with a bias towards justice/fairness first and liberty second, and perhaps profit overall. They did whatever worked. They were Hippocrates.
And the reason the United States thrived was for the same reason.
The foundation for pragmatism is the common law, which is based upon the same.
In my mind, Spanish would be a better international language. It’s sounds beautiful, or more beautiful, it appears to make more sense and is easier to learn, and I can only assume easier to spell. English is nearly non-phonetic compared to Spanish or Italian.
I forget the source, but as I recall, English is only 30% Anglo-Saxon and 40% French, but that 30% are the most common and most used words in the language. I love spotting the etymology in words by the way that they are spelled when I’m reading (though definitely not when I am writing).
I am not a big fan of English in comparison to other languages, but it is an interesting story and in my mind results in a language that is maybe too complex – there is simply no grammar or spelling rule that is never broken – and with a fair degree of regularity.
But the vocabulary is rich, and subtle, and includes more than just Anglo Saxon, French and Latin. Also that variety extends far beyond nouns, but includes adjectives and verbs as well.
But there is no quality to the language that suggest its ascendancy over other language, it has more to do with the number of people who speak it and there reletive economic and political power. Spanish has nearly as many native speakers but their economic development is much less than our own.
“Small-government conservatives extend this to one more right: the right to retain one’s wealth from confiscation by the state for use by others in redistributive government spending.
That’s how the country operated until the Progressive Era reaction to Gilded Age imbalances finally forced through the 16th Amendment in 1912.”
Exactly! That’s why talk about “Spreading the Wealth” enrages us. It’s nothing less than outright theft. There was a great quote that I read today. In 2008, Candidate Obama was talking to ABC’s Charlie Gibson during primary debate. Gibson pointed out that reducing the Capital Gains tax had actually raised raised more revenue for the Government than when it was higher and also that 100 million people in the US own stocks and are affected by this tax. Obama replied that a few hedge fund manager make billions on capital gains and pay a lower rate on them than some people do on their regular salary.
To Obama, “fairness” demands that we punish the rich by stealing their money–even if this is revenue negative.
Similarly, some on the left want to make smoking, drinking or even eating fatty foods to be prohibited. After all, unhealthy behavior results in higher health costs and that will now cost the Government more money. The idea that adults should be able to decide for themselves about what dangers they will risk is not important. Like a giant parent (or Nanny), the Government knows best and will decide what’s best for us.
(By the way, as a libertarian, I feel the same way about drug laws and most ‘victimless crime’ laws. All of these ought to be opposed in the name of individual freedom. A “law and order” Republican or a strict religious moralist Republican might not agree with me here.)
“Social Security is, by design, only mildly redistributive so the right wing’s opposition to that is curious.”
Um, the last I checked, the Government spends more money sending out SS checks than it spends on the military. Of course, this is offensive and the Government has no business doing it. We’d be better off if they just mandated individual retirement accounts, rather than the current Ponzi scheme. Of course, that would mean that payouts had some actual relationship to payins, which is not true at all in the current system.
I don’t know, Geoff K, I get statements every year from the Social Security Administration outlining exactly how my projected payouts are related to my payins over the years… how they are accumulated over the years, how the latter years are weighted more, etc.
Also – funny how the rich getting favored tax status (through lower capital gains and through numerous corporate loopholes allowing many major companies to pay nothing) is *not* stealing in your book… but Obama wanting to make things more fair, is. Yes – I do expect and understand that you are most likely against a progressive tax structure… but how can you actually be for the rich paying at a *lower* rate? The best you can do under that view is claim that it is better for the overall economy (via trickle down economics)… and how is that any different morally than progressive taxation (which those on the left would say is better for the economy)? In both cases you take from one and give to another… Seems to me that the burden of proof is more on you – being that you take on the more counterintuitive (and unproven) of the two views…
Tim, Churchill’s phrase notwithstanding, it is likely that people would say that you talk funny if you try to speak English without Latinisms.
You seem to have found the reason for a nation to thrive: “the embrace of pragmatism, with a bias towards justice/fairness first and liberty second, and perhaps profit overall”. Let’s set aside topics like the one of “English fair play”: they do not stand to scrutiny. Or abstractions like justice, liberty, … or God -and concentrate on pragmatism. I presume it is another word for utilitarianism, a respected philosophical school: Bentham, Stuart Mill. There are various takes on utilitarianism but for our purposes suffice to say that, in my opinion, the problem is to determine what is useful. Except in the most obvious cases, it is not at all obvious, and what is useful at the short term may be catastrophic at the long term. Once I read in The Economist that “the purpose of life if utility maximization” -and I had an English friend who used to say that he would never marry for money, but he only dated rich girls. All very amusing but it has little to do with reality.
Roger, the basic idea is that we should tax less that which we want more of.
Unfortunately, rentierism is also a form of (or at least structured as) “capital gains” so cutting capital gains taxes across the board also encouraged a lot of naked rentierism and thus effected a wealth transfer from weaker hands to stronger hands.
When 10% of the country owns 90% of the financial assets, it’s the endgame no matter what economic system.
When the Monopoly game becomes no fun, it’s time to put it away. The US is heading in that with the wealth disparity having increased so much since 1980.
“I get statements every year from the Social Security Administration outlining exactly how my projected payouts are related to my payins over the years… how they are accumulated over the years, how the latter years are weighted more, etc.”
Right, but these are completely made up. Your payout isn’t guaranteed in any way. People in the 70’s and 80’s got a big payoff as rates rose quickly. People after the Boomers may get less than they put in or even nothing at all. There’s no actual “bank account” with your money in it. You pay in and you hope that they are in financial shape to give you something back, whatever it may be.
“Also – funny how the rich getting favored tax status (through lower capital gains and through numerous corporate loopholes allowing many major companies to pay nothing) is *not* stealing in your book… but Obama wanting to make things more fair, is. ”
I’m not against progressive taxes per se. What I object to is the idea that the purpose of taxes is to level everyone’s income–not to maximize Government revenues. I also object to Capital Gains taxes because it’s double taxation. If I have $1 million in Capital gains income, it’s all subject to income tax. Why does it need to be taxed separately as a Capital Gain? If if it’s taxed twice, why is it “unfair” if one of the rates is fairly low?
But Troy is right. US tax policy is no longer about revenue. It’s been twisted into knots by people trying to accomplish one social policy or another. Frankly, tax simplification and the elimination of this kind of social engineering would be a good thing, both for revenues in general and for people trying to figure and pay their taxes.
Forget about fairness: to anybody with a science based education, the neoliberal notion that the distribution of wealth is irrelevant, is not thermodynamically consistent.
“I’m not against progressive taxes per se.”
I must say you surprised me here. Just thought I should admit that.
“What I object to is the idea that the purpose of taxes is to level everyone’s income–not to maximize Government revenues.”
Leveling everyone’s income is a communist agenda… which no one in the political arena in this country is suggesting. As far as maximizing government revenue – yes, that is obviously important – Laffer curve and all that… I believe that Clinton may have had the sweet spot – just under 40% for the upper tax bracket – high, but not high enough to slow the economy.
“I also object to Capital Gains taxes because it’s double taxation. If I have $1 million in Capital gains income, it’s all subject to income tax.”
So is income and sales taxes when looked at that way. So are payroll and income taxes. The argument is misleading. But granted (after I’ve thought about it a bit) that comparing it directly to income tax rates is also misleading. The two are not equivalent – any more than sales tax and income tax are.
“Why does it need to be taxed separately as a Capital Gain? If if it’s taxed twice, why is it “unfair” if one of the rates is fairly low?”
After taking a fresh look at the 2009 1040 form and Schedule D form it comes to my attention that long-term capital gains appear to be taxed simply as income (entered on line 13) – with no additional tax applied. If you sell early, yes, you do pay extra – and that seems to be a reasonable thing to do. We do, after all, want to reward long-term investing.
…so on this last point we were both wrong. Me for thinking that capital gains was getting an unfair break, you for thinking that it was getting taxed twice.
The basic social problem is one of feedback effects — money works harder than hands — “interest never sleeps” the saying goes — so those with money get compounding interest while the poorer get pushed out of the easy rent-collecting gigs and forced to labor more for less of the pie.
Philosophically, I am actually a left-libertarian, of the Henry George model. Henry George was certainly a Progressive but he had no truck with the Marxists of his day, and I’d like to think that if we liberated the masses from parasitical rentierism — mostly in natural resources and land ownership — there would be a lessening of the feedback effect sufficient for a more “fair” share of production to be obtained.
I also object to Capital Gains taxes because it’s double taxation. If I have $1 million in Capital gains income, it’s all subject to income tax. Why does it need to be taxed separately as a Capital Gain
I think you’re getting confused with dividend taxation. Capital gains are taxed either as regular income OR capital gains, depending on length of holding, 1 yr for stock equities.
What I object to is the idea that the purpose of taxes is to level everyone’s income–
This is not the purpose. The purpose is to pay for our government, which has the general mission, ideally, of ensuring that everyone has access to that which is required for them to become and remain a productive member of society, regardless of ability to pay.
I care not how this mission is accomplished — if the free market could do it I’d be a free market fundamentalist like yourself. History shows, however, that free market enterprise alone isn’t enough, due to the feedback effects mentioned above (plus the charity gap between need and what is donated).
Troy, I think it is a problem when one ascribes to oneself labels of any kind, be it left-libertarian or right-neocon. But you redeem yourself in your last paragraph: “I care not how this mission is accomplished — if the free market could do it I’d be a free market fundamentalist like yourself. History shows, however, that free market enterprise alone isn’t enough”. That is the type of language I understand.
left-libertarianism is inherently self-contradictory. I see it as patching the inherent weaknesses of pure libertarianism where necessary.