Dear John Letter #8 False Choices

DEAR JOHN

I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that “we are all given a choice between two evils.” 

This might seem to be the case when we go to the voting booth, but it isn't true.  we can abstain or vote for a third party.  We do not have to be beholden to one of the two main parties. 

about 6 or 7 years ago toward the end of GWs second term, I finally realized the choice between the left and right is a false choice, and ever since that epiphany I have worked very hard to go back and study the intellectual history of the world from the Greeks to modern day in order to develop a new world view for myself that is not based on the false dichotomies we have all grown up with in the US, i.e. between the political left and right, between science and religion, between the haves and the have-nots, between being patriotic and being a traitor. 

I prefer to think of the world as being fundamentally integrated rather than fundamentally divided.  Yin/yang is a much better way for me to think of the world compared to the way the West looks at life as if it is a fight to the death between good and evil, or between science and religion or between Dems and Republicans.  I could go on and on with the false dichotomies set up in the Western World that create crazy ideas in our heads, such as the idea you suggested that we are forced to choose between what we believe are the lesser of two evils.  There is always a choice outside of the two presented to us by our political masters!

If you suddenly decide (like I did) that everything in the world is made up of part good and part evil, then you free yourself from the false dichotomy between good and evil or between what you determine is the lesser evil and the greater evil.  Either way it is a false dichotomy.

The way I see it, we are all part evil and part good.  There is no choice between good or evil because everything in the universe includes both in roughly equal measures.  Good intentions are evil if they produce results that cause harm instead of benefit.  Evil men may make great contributions to society by creating a business or an invention that saves lives.  On and on.

We are taught false dichotomies in school that stay with us and make us gullible for the false dichotomy we are given as adults between Dems and Republicans.   (False dichotomies such as  good vs evil or science vs religion, or mind vs matter, or man vs the environment  are warm ups for the false choice we are brain washed to believe is our only choice between Democrat and Republican Parties.

In your world view that is organized around dichotomies there is only the political left and right, and so since i don't fit in the political left box you have to put me in the box called “the right.”  I am not in this box. 

In the false dichotomy world we are told there is only a choice between science and religion.  I reject this dichotomy.  Even though I’ve told you a million times I don’t “believe” in any organized religion as the Truth, you still put me in the "religion" category.  I believe in a world where both religion and science provide us with hints to truths about the world, but neither offers THE Truth.   And there is not a domain that science rules and a domain that religion rules.  No.  Science can offer spiritual truths and religion can offer insights about how the world works, normally a domain we think of as exclusive to science.

but i totally disagree with you that Science offers THE Truth. 

in fact, the biggest breakthrough ideas in physics in the last 50 years "prove" that so called "fundamental particles" are not particles but metaphysical concepts.  Particle physics has literally bumped up against metaphysical dead ends!!!  Amazing but true.

It is a myth that we can solve any problem given enough time and resources.  in fact the more we know in science the more certain we are that nature is smarter at hiding secrets than we are at discovering them.   Check out Godel's Incompleteness theorem, which proves all math systems are self contradictory.  and consider the limits of empirical evidence in proving scientific truths (see Hume and Karl Popper).   One of the most important themes in modern philosohy is to argue the idea that there is no such things as "just the facts."  We humans bring tremendous "baggage" to our understanding of the world that prevents "objective" analysis.   The best we can do is live with uncertainty and provisional "truths" that we assume are true until proven otherwise -- which is inenvitable. 

In any case, i think we agree more on religion than we disagree. 

i also believe we agree on regulation of the so called robber barons more than you care to admit.  I believe in the law and in government's prosecution of crimes against individual property rights carried out by white collar criminals.  What i don't believe in is that government can prevent white collar crime with regulations and big government agencies.  Agencies are subject to what Nobel prize winner James buchanan dubbed "regulatory capture."  that is when regulators serve industry rather than protecting the public from industry as it is designed to do.

regulatory capture is a fundamental law of political economy, so we need another way to fix white collar crime.  the other way is already here.  prosecute white collar criminals for crimes that are already on the books.  Jon corzine should be in jail.  Would greater regulation put Jon corzine in jail, or would his political connections always get him off??  if the Dems were in control, wouldn't you assume there would be more and more Jon corzines with political connections in big finance who contributed millions or helped "bundle" campaign contributions and therefore circumvented the "law"?

if we de-politicized regulation and the attorney general's office, then maybe bad guys like Jon Corzine would go to jail for obviously defrauding clients of their money and failing to live up to fiduciary responsibility.    so i agree we should put white collar criminals behind jail -- i agree we shoudl prosecute robber barons.  but we shouldn't do so in a political way informed by arbitrary regulatory regimes such as anti-Trust regulations and the such which often are used as tools by entrenched business interests to protect themselves from unwanted competition.

I also believe we agree on foreign policy more than we disagree.  I admit i was conned into supporting the Iraq War.  I've given up the neo-con belief system that military might can re-shape the world for good.  "War" entails big government no matter whether it entails a foreign war like Iraq or an domestic war like War on Drugs or War on Poverty or the War on income inequality.  Wars entail force and coersion one way or the other -- and the only truly effective "force" in the world is Government.    In order to be intellectually consistent i decry big government no matter whether it relates to the military industrial complex or the Welfare industrial complex. 

i decree the War on Drugs, just as i decry the War on Guns.  You would like to pick and choose which wars are good and which are bad.  I consider War a last resort and temporary.    Dems use the word quagmire to describe Vietnam, but shouldn't we say the same about the War on Drugs?  or the War on inequality?  War results in collateral damage.  War should be focused and limited and when it is over the government should de-militarize and de-commission and go back to the size it was before the war.  

Politicians on each side of the aisle scaremonger the population in order to build support for the cause.  the GOP tends to scare monger in order to generate support for industrial military complex and Dems scaremonger about social issues claiming government solutions for domestic "wars."  

i understand you want to end the so called War on Drugs and I agree.  I also agree we should reduce our military footprint around the globe.  

but, I reject the false dichotomies which I believe have been designed (wittingly or unwittingly it doesn't matter) by the elite power structure specifically to promote the illusion of “choice” and “freedom” in our lives when the choice is no choice at all.  

Political elites on both sides of the aisle are playing the same joke on all of us that is just like the joke:   “heads I win, tails you lose.”    That is the way the power elites have set the game up.   Why would power elites not rig the game in their favor?  Isn’t that human nature?  Are not all of us humans merely human after all?

Both sides in our deeply fractured political world take turns in the White House.  both sides accumulate vast power and money.  Both side demonize the other in order to develop and indoctrinate believers to remain loyal to the cause.

At some point, however, what happens is that the gravy train runs aground on physical constraints.  The central bank can only print so much money.  The government can accumulate only so much debt for future generations of human serfs to pay back. 

The false choice we’ve been given thanks to Democracy turns out to be a tool for elites to design new and more efficient rent seeking “mousetraps” that eventually get so good they risk systemic collapse for the entire enterprise.  When this happens, partisan conflict finally becomes real and not just a game to provide an illusion of choice for voters. 

During the golden times there is  enough gravy to make both sides fabulously powerful and wealthy and so during this period both sides realize they are really playing for the same team.  Bipartisan compromise is the norm.   

There comes a time, however, when a parasite realizes his host is about to die.   Our modern Government is a parasite.  The host feeds and grows on entrepreneurial innovation and risk taking.    Unfortunately, over time, a parasite tends to gets larger and larger which weakens the host.  Unfortunately, all the major societies on the planet are facing this end point simultaneously.  US, EZ and China.  this is where we are today.  in the US the Dems and GOP have both equally accommodated debt financing in order to pay off their special interest groups – who in turn keep the political power train well oiled and functioning such that the politicians can collect rents and accumulate power and wealth.    the Dems have their special interest groups and the GOP has theirs.    In the EZ it is the same:  debt up to societies eyeballs accumulated to pay for social welfare systems.  China is the same.

When society starts to wobble under the burden of funding big government’s ineluctable growth, then things get really bad.  The two parties who were previously in a marriage of convenience decide that only one side can survive in a new era when society can’t support the power and rent seeking activities of both parties anymore.  

We are told society’s future rests in our free choice to choose between one or the other.  This is when history has shown free people choose fascism over liberty.   No matter whether we choose the GOP or Dems, the result is going to be disaster and fascism.   China went straigh to a one party authoritarian state without first going through the transitional two party democracy stage.  One party can keep things together for a time but eventually one party rule self destructs on its own self defeating dynamics as  rent seeking ineluctably grows and grows -- in a system with no checks and balances -- and ultimately the system reaches a breaking point.

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  That is why one party systems cannot sustain.  concentrated power is self corrupting.

Our choice is not between GOP and Dems, both of whom are big government.    We have a real choice.  The choice is to reject the power elites paradigm and to start a new one based on some other set of principles.  Otherwise, we are doomed to electing power elites who ensure that we behave like “enlightened humans” and meantime we pretend we are free ... 

This is John's email to me that prompted above response: 

We disagree on religion

We disagree on what constitutes facts

We disagree on economics

We disagree on what social liberties, civil rights, and even human rights should be

We disagree in what constitutes the general media in this country

We disagree on regulation of robber barons

We disagree on foreign policy

We disagree on healthcare

I believe I am right and you believe you are right. This is pointless at best, friendship damaging at worst. Our world views are fundamentally different. Our country is now polarized into a broken two party system. I am a right leaning democrat in my mind. In your mind I am non-analytical, naive, socialist. That's exactly how I will stay. We are all given a choice between two evils.  The evil I choose in my mind is the better of the two.   

Sincerely,

John

Why Robert Rubin is (Utterly) Mistaken

in a recent WSJ op/ed copied below, Robert Rubin says: 

“Within that context, we must create budgetary room for vigorous public investment in education, basic research, infrastructure and other areas that are critical for competitiveness and broad increases in standards of living.”

Such a claim is total nonsense.  While it is true we need investment in education, basic research and infrastructure in order to facilitate an economic system capable of delivering broad increases in societal standard of living over time.  HOWEVER, we do NOT need PUBLIC investment in education, research, infrastructure, etc. 

These are all areas that have enjoyed massive public funding for decades and counting and the results have been nothing short of disastrous.   Why throw good money after bad.  Look at public education, look at infrastructure, look at public supported green energy endeavors (Solyndra and ethanol come to mind), and look at our financial system which continues to be pumped up with liquidity supplied by friend the Federal Reserve. 

Why do we keep pumping national resources down a rabbit hole controlled by political elites (on both sides of the aisle) who are the ones who benefit most directly from special interest / money politics, while everyone else suffers (at least relative to what the situation would be if government elites were not beholden to powerful special interests and vice versa).

(and by the way, campaign finance reform is not a fundamental solution to money politics and special interest politics.  the answer is to get government out of the game of picking winners and losers.  campaign finance will merely entrench incumbants in power.)

Forget it.  Let’s have a radical re-think of the role government plays in society.  We ALL know that government investment is less efficient than private investment.   

Why do we want to put the public sector in charge of the most critical investment decisions in our society?

Let parents choose where they want their children to go to schools – and let funds flow to where schools perform and attract students.  Why should government have monopoly power to raise public funds and deploy them as “they” see fit.  Why shouldn’t parents be given responsibility to choose where their children will be educated.  Why should we support a public monopoly that holds especially disadvantaged households hostage to a failing public system? 

And, whatever we do, let us NOT invest in high speed rail and other feel good "green" infrastructure that is fiscally unaffordable – and impractical as China is painfully finding out and Japan has found out already with their high speed rail system losing money hand over fist, and China’s doing the same.   Let us also forget about public investment in "green energy" which inevitably turn into rent seeking boondoggles for special interests.

Let basic research be driven by private sector demand!!!  Basic research is a waste unless it adds to human welfare.  How do we know basic research is useful until we know it addresses (or potentially) addresses a problem we are trying to solve in the REAL world?  Forget about public funding for R&D. 

Successful R&D is the dynamic CAUSE and EFFECT of a flexible private enterprise system. 

Basic R&D occurs naturally and spontaneously as companies see problems they need solved before they can commercialize some technology aimed at enhancing human lifestyle and productivity (the success of which is measured in profits).  Using public funds to fund esoteric R&D not connected to a real world practical problem is a waste of scarce social resources. 

Let the market solve problems organically and dynamically by private enterprises aiming to provide customers with solutions to make their lives better.  In a recent speech, Obama credits government R&D expenditures with paving the way for the success of internet companies such as facebook and Google.   

I agree with Tony Katz who argues in his recent Townhall.com article that government intervention RETARDS innovation and value creation rather than drives it as claimed by President Obama in a recent speech.   

see http://townhall.com/columnists/tonykatz/2012/04/18/google_at_odds_with_president_obama/page/full/

Rubin talks like a typical power elite.  He speaks as if he has the answers and that if only we all thought about things rationally we can and will get to the promised land together. 

Forget it. 

Robert Rubin is for Robert Rubin.  He enjoys his status as a power broker in the status quo and he fears what might happen if the current power elites cannot maintain their monopoly stranglehold on public rent seeking opportunities.  Rubin wants us all to sing halleluiah when we continually bail out banks with Federal Reserve money printing, thus screwing Joe Six pack tax payer.  Why should tax payers be on the hook for Wall Street bailouts?    Why should we agree to pay off the debts incurred by wreckless bankers and Wall Street executives who were encouraged to take excessive risk thanks to easy money supplied by the Federal Reserve.

Why should we "compromise" and raise taxes for the specific goal of creating room for more public investment?  I don’t want more public investment!  If Rubin wants comprehensive tax reform so that we can create room for public investment that is a terrible, wasteful, self destructive idea.

I want the public sector to take a serious look in the mirror and stop promising the moon and delivering failing schools, failing infrastructure and failing markets.  jUst once, I’d like a power elite such as Robert Rubin to admit that the public sector is not where the answers to America’s greatness lies.  Once I’d like to hear someone like Rubin admit that government is a best a transfer agent in society NOT a value or productivity creator.  Value and productivity are created by the risk taking and creativity and entrepreneurial activity pursued by PRIVATE sector actors.    Can the government create value by creating a favorable environment for private enterprise to flourish?  the government can limit its destruction of value by maximizing efficiency.  But it cannot produce value or productivity or social gains because it does not produce anything on its own.  The only resources the government has at its disposal are public resources.  It is fantasy land thinking to believe the government creates value or can make sure society invests appropriately in education, infrastructure, etc such that we enjoy rising standards of living.  

The iron law of eocnomics is this:  the more government involved itself in allocating scare national resources (land, labor, capital) in public designed investment schemes, the more it destroys value and reduces the potential rate of growth in the economy and gradually impoverishes society.  it is pie in the sky fantasy land thinking to assume the government can engineer good outcomes in society.  where is the evidence government can do this?  if government was so efficient, why not continue to keep adding important investment decisions to the list of government responsibilities.  We already have massive government subsidies aimed at promoting investment in health care, housing, banking, green energy, infrastructure, etc etc etc.  Government retards efficiency, it does not promote it. 

We do not want government to collect ever more national resources in the form of higher taxes in order to allocate it for the benefit of society.  National resources collected and allocated by the government and used to “invest” in education, healthcare, energy, infrastructure, active fiscal and monetary policy is money deployed less efficiently than if it were deployed by private entities and firms and households going about their day to day business.

Am i advocating a world of might makes right?  the big win and the little guy gets screwed because government is sitting on the sidelines?  no, it is precisely the opposite.  when government gets in the game of choosing winners and losers, that is when "might makes right" because the governmetn is the mightiest on the block and anything it decides is "right."  This sort of dynamic leads to an ends justifies the means ethic that is a cancer in society.  "free markets" DOES NOT mean anything goes.  Free markets are only free if the golden rule is applied evenly and universally by a non partisan neutral government, which applies "justice" with a blind eye toward race or social status.   Free markets require that individuals are prosecuted for encroaching on private property rights.  Free markets are the opposite of might makes right.  Free markets require peace and cooperation.  I can't force you to buy anything or do anything that you don't want to do because you are free to make decisions you feel are best for you and your family.  when government gets in the act, it must use coersion and force that is rationalized as for the good of society as a whole.  such logic is precisely the sort of canerous "might makes right" ethic that people erroneously claim is the core feature of markets. 

government investment in education, infrastructure and R&D requires some central authority deciding what is best for society.  This is "might makes right."  the market requires mutual reciprocity and peaceful exchange and cooperation and mutual agreement between parties.  the market results in win/win outcomes where "might DOES NOT make right."  might makes right when Government makes unilateral decisions for society that are supposed to benefit all equally.  that is a contradiction in terms.   when government allocates resources it must allocate according to a perverse logic that erroneously asserts the ends justify the means.  

Such evils as War are justified by the logic of the ends justifying the means.  what virtues are promoted by "ends justify the means" logic.  what such a logic entails is that we must live with certain evils in order to promote a man made conception of a better world.

Rubin presents a false choice between higher taxes and more public investment OR social disaster as if this is the only choice.  Either we cooperate and raise taxes in order for the government to be able to invest such that we enjoy “global competitiveness and increases in standards of living” or we face inevitable social decline. 

In fact, I argue just the opposite. We face disaster if we listen to the self anointed power elite who assume they know best and should be empowered with greater authority to allocate a greater percentage of national resources.   When things go wrong elites argue that is proof why they should be given even a greater percetage of national resources.  Why should such failure be accepted let alone rewarded.  Why should the government bailout machine stay in operation as it commands a greater and greater share of national wealth and resources -- thus retarding the ablity of society to generate rising living standards. 

Adam Smith recognized 200 years ago that big business is NOT for free markets.  Big business is for government regulation because big business is able to control big government through money politics.  These so called wise-men we have like Soros, Rubin, Buffet, Gates … they are all about gaming government regulations and power for their own selfish interests, of course hidden behind gracious and high sounding rhetoric and good intentions.  If we want to truly level the so called playing field, we would get the government out of picking winners and losers so Big Business truly was vulnerable to market competition.    Big doesn't mean better in a competitive market.  Might makes right only when it comes to government "might" because only the government wields the ultimate power of deciding life and death --rationalized as it is all for our own good.

Ben Franklin said it best.... those willing to trade liberty for temporary safety deserve neither. That is the perverse tradeoff we make when we believe politicians promising solutions to market failure.  there is no such thing as market failure only human failure to adapt to market features some of which are destructive, just like we have natural disasters.  should we put the government in charge of solving earth quakes and tornadoes or should we learn ways to live despite natural disasters?  i say we should not pretend we can use government to solve natural disasters in nature any more than society, which is not a machine invented by man, but rather is a natural sub system of the larger earth system we all live in.

May 28, 2012, 6:58 p.m. ET

A Budget Grand Bargain Will Follow the Election

Early 2013 will offer the best political environment for critical fiscal reform.

By ROBERT RUBIN

Congress's failure to reach a fiscal "grand bargain" last summer manifested the deep economic-policy divide separating Democrats and Republicans. Fortunately, the so-called fiscal cliff will soon create an extraordinary second opportunity for a breakthrough compromise.

Washington's continued failure to get our fiscal house in order poses five basic risks. One, government borrowing risks crowding out private investment. Two, our unsustainable fiscal outlook undermines business confidence by creating uncertainty about future policy, economic conditions and our ability to govern, which in turn dampens investment and hiring.

Three, deficits constrain our capacity to make the public investment critical to competitiveness, growth and widespread income gains. Four, deficits hamper our financial ability to cope with economic weakness or geopolitical events. And five, our fiscal position creates a strong potential for some form of severe macroeconomic distress at an unpredictable time: high inflation, high interest rates and low confidence in the future that produce an extended period of slow or negative growth, or a harsh financial crisis.

Enlarge Image

Close

AFP/Getty Images

President Obama, right, and House Speaker John Boehner in a meeting on the debt limit on July 7.

Soon after November's election several events will put serious pressure on both parties, possibly providing the impetus for a serious fiscal program. The critical decision-making period will be Congress's lame-duck session after the election, and the first two or three months of the new Congress.

These events are already understood: The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for middle-class and upper-income taxpayers, and the payroll tax holiday, will expire at the end of 2012. The dramatic mandatory reduction in spending ("sequestration") required by last year's debt-ceiling deal will take place in January 2013. And the debt ceiling will need to be raised again in late 2012 or early 2013.

Each of these events is unacceptable for one or both political parties. Sequestration includes deep cuts to nondefense spending that Democrats oppose, and similarly deep cuts to military spending that make Republicans (and many Democrats) recoil. Republicans oppose the expiration of tax cuts on upper-income Americans, Democrats oppose the expiration of the payroll tax holiday, and members of both parties oppose the expiration of middle-class tax cuts.

As for the debt ceiling, the party in the White House will insist that it be raised (because there is no other responsible choice), while the other party may seek to use it as leverage to achieve other policy goals, as we have seen before.

Since some form of divided government after the election is likely, the parties will need to make an accommodation with each other to avoid chaos. Even if one party controls the White House and Congress, it might still seek meaningful bipartisan participation to avoid sole responsibility for difficult decisions. The multitrillion-dollar question is what kind of accommodation it will be.

There is widespread concern about our elected officials' willingness to find common ground on tough issues. When the right choice is the tough choice, it can be all too easy to make the wrong one. Many experienced people think that will happen, with the parties agreeing to kick the hardest choices down the road by extending the tax cuts, canceling the sequester, raising the debt limit and resolving to "study" the problem.

But this time could possibly be different, thanks to five factors combining to create the best political environment for real fiscal action in a long time. The risks of inaction are apparent and will put pressure on all policy makers: Sequestration and expiring tax cuts will have severe consequences and could cost the country 3.5%-4% of gross domestic product in 2013. A political punt would be a striking manifestation of our inability to govern ourselves and could heighten uncertainty and lack of confidence about future economic policy. That could have serious adverse impact on our economy and on markets. And the months right after a presidential election are—since they're the furthest from the next federal elections—the lowest-pressure time in our political system.

Most important, there is no choice available to Congress that does not involve significant changes to taxes and spending that members of each party will oppose. Unlike any situation I remember, Congress cannot simply maintain the status quo by failing to act.

Doing nothing means tax increases and massive cuts in defense and nondefense spending. Kicking the can down the road requires compromising with the other party on taxes and spending. And biting the bullet on the hard choices will necessitate compromises and action as well. The compromises required for constructive action are substantially harder than the compromises necessary to punt, but taking the easy way out requires actions that come with their own set of political costs. And, the longer you avoid tough choices, the deeper the hole gets, the greater the resulting crisis is and the harsher the necessary measures necessary to reestablish confidence and recover.

What's more, most policy analysts agree on the basic framework for establishing sound fiscal conditions, though the specifics would require intense negotiation.

The overarching goal should be a 10-to-12 year track of deficit reduction that stabilizes the ratio of debt to GDP and then begins to bring it down. Within that context, we must create budgetary room for vigorous public investment in education, basic research infrastructure and other areas that are critical for competitiveness and broad increases in standards of living.

Reducing the deficit, increasing public investment, and preserving government's ability to conduct critical activities will require constraints on spending in all areas, including serious entitlement reform, substantial additional revenues, and difficult judgments on priorities and trade-offs. Because the recovery is still relatively fragile, implementation of the deficit-reduction package should be deferred for a time certain—say, two years—to give the recovery additional time to take hold. But that implementation must be made difficult to cancel or delay, so that it is understood as credible.

There will be vigorous debate about how to raise revenues. I believe the three principal criteria should be economic impact, fiscal effect and progressivity. We should increase the top rate, reform the alternative minimum tax to create greater fairness without penalizing the middle class, and increase capital gains and dividend taxes to levels that best satisfy those criteria. There are also opportunities presented by revising tax credits and deductions, but the impacts are complicated and the potential may be limited.

Whatever the outcome of the elections in November, our political leaders will encounter an extraordinary set of circumstances that we are unlikely to see again. Those circumstances will create a historic opportunity to reshape America's long-term economic outlook for the better. Let's hope they take it.

Mr. Rubin, a former U.S. Treasury secretary, is co-chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations.

A version of this article appeared May 29, 2012, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: A Budget Grand Bargain Will Follow the Election.

Liberals (and Progressives) Love to Turn Meaning Upside Down

The previous post discussed how progressives have shamelessly turned the meaning of Judicial Activism upside down in an effort to intimidate the Supreme Court.  This is the very same sort of "word" game modern liberals played in co-opting the word "liberal" to describe themselves. 

The propensity for liberals/progressives to manipulate the meaning of words to support an errononeous argument is the reason I am put on guard any time liberals/progressives claim that their argument is only about the "facts."  

To be fair, conservatives also play similar word games, which is again why we need a New Center in American politics dedicated to the enduring principles supported by our founding fathers.

But this post is about modern liberals how they hi jacked the word "liberal" to describe themselves and then turned the meaning of the word upside down is an important example highlighting a propensity that continues to this day, as described in the previous post on Judicial Activism.

The original term “liberal” referred to someone who supported the politics of individual rights and limited government.   Now we have to distinguish what were the original liberals by calling them “classical liberals.” 

Modern liberals liked the positive connotation of the word “liberal” as it meant a fight against the embedded institutional tyranny of the reigning feudal political order in Western world until 1600’s.  (Classical) Liberals fought for private property rights and a private domain in which individuals were set free from the feudel and manorial systems of early and late Medieval age.

Modern liberals liked being connected with the idea of “freedom fighting” associated with the original (classical) “Liberals”.  But, first they had to turn the meaning of “freedom” upside down from the spirit of the meaning of the word as used in the original meaning of “Liberal.” 

Liberal originally meant someone who believed in freedom from oppressive government.  Modern liberals turned the meaning around by focusing their efforts on supporting individual freedom from adverse social outcomes.   Modern liberals don’t care one whit about individual freedom.  They care about injecting certain social outcomes into society no matter if the means required to do so compromises the property rights of certain individuals who are judged to be less worthy of freedom than others.  Typically, this is viewed through the lens of social justice, where the government’s efforts to steal money from the wealthy and redistribute to the poor is rationalized as justified by the worthy ends pursued.

Unfortunately for the word "liberal", its meaning turned negative when “(modern) liberals” pursued their so called “liberal” policies.  This is because modern liberal policies turned out to be unpopular.  They were unpopular because they failed.  And why did they fail?  Because the policies entailed an ends justifies the means logic that is self-defeating (and tyranical / authoritarian). 

it is no wonder that modern liberals decided to call themselves "progressives" when the term "liberal" turned politically toxic. 

The superficially well meaning policies pursued by modern liberals (now called progressives) required (and still require no matter they're called progressives) trampling on some people's individual rights in the name of good intentions and “social justice.”    it would be clearly evident through a Classical liberal lens that such a scheme (entailing the governments pursuit of “social justice”) is self-defeating because the means of achieving social justice ends requires tampling on individual rights and freedom.   

   

Big Government (including both liberals and "conservatives" promised certain outcomes in the 1960s and 1970s such as The Great society and the ENd of Poverty, plus the end of communism in Vietnam.  The result was the Great Inflation of the 1970s and enormous social instability and social division.    Instead of helping the poor and/or improving the productivity of the economy and reducing so called market failure, the big government policies pursued by both Dems and Republicans (especially Nixon) accomplished exactly opposite.  Income inequality remained about the same, but the country faced deep structural imbalances, reduced competitiveness and a decade of financial sector stagnation, and we left Vietnam nearly broken financially and spiritually as a country.

The American founding fathers realized very well the principle that government was important in protecting individual property rights, but also that government could also usurp individual property rights if it ever got too powerful.  That is why we have separation of powers, and where we got the concept of judicial review, which is the idea that the court can strike down any law passed by Congress that it determines is inconsistent with the constitution. 

Classical liberals understand that judicial review is a vital pillar of a “free society” because while the government protects individual property rights, some other independent institution must also make sure to protect the people FROM the government.

having said all of that, It is also true (as i mentioned above) that conservatives play fast and loose with the meaning of words, including with the term "conservative", but that story is for another time.   

Progressives Try (once again) to Neutralize the Supreme Court

“Targeting John Roberts: The left tries to intimidate the High Court on ObamaCare.”

Obama and his progressive henchmen have turned the idea of judicial review upside down and turned it into what is a radically different concept they are now calling “judicial activism.”

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM is when the court ignores the constitution and instead rules on cases based on some other criteria, e.g. deferring to Congress or doing what the court believes is popular opinion of the moment.  

 

JUDICIAL REVIEW is the concept whereby the supreme court compares laws to the constitution and strikes them down if they are inconsistent with the constitution!!!

The Supreme court does this all the time. 
and this is exactly what the Court will do if it strikes down Obamacare in part or in whole. 

Obama created something of a firestorm when he claimed that a ruling by the Supreme Court against Obamacare would be historically unprecedented.  In response to this firestorm a Whitehouse spokeperson clarified that Obama didn't mean to say the SC never struck down a law passed by Congress, but rather he meant to say the high Court has never struck one down with such broad economic implications.  Either way it is a lie.

The Court upheld many New Deal related laws, but it also struck many down, which is exactly why FDR tried to pack the court!!!  Obama is making up history when he says the SC has never struck down a law passed by Congress with the broad (interstate) economic implications of Obamacare. 

Why should there be any area of public policy in which the Supreme Court rubber stamps laws passed by Congress?   Rubber stamp judiciaries are consistent with authoritarian regimes, not liberal constitutional democracies underpinned by "living" constitutions.  

Roosevelt tried to pack the court, but failed, (thankfully) when he did not like the consequences of Judicial Review striking down New Deal legislation; now we have progressives trying to neuter the Supreme court by claiming that this very same process of Judicial Review that Roosevelt didn't like is somehow now called Judicial Activism.

As the WSJ op/ed argues below, it would be more appropriate to call the Supreme Court's actions "Activist" if it doesn't rule against Obamacare rather than if it rules for it.

Any way you slice it, assuming the Court should defer to Congress on economic matters -- or any matter -- is contrary to spirit and function of our system of separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. 

·        May 21, 2012, 7:17 p.m. ET

Targeting John Roberts

The left tries to intimidate the High Court on ObamaCare.

You can tell the Supreme Court is getting closer to its historic ObamaCare ruling because the left is making one last attempt to intimidate the Justices. The latest effort includes taunting Chief Justice John Roberts that if the Court overturns any of the law, he'll forever be defined as a partisan "activist."

Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy recently took the extraordinary step of publicly lobbying the Chief Justice after oral argument but before its ruling. "I trust that he will be a Chief Justice for all of us and that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial branch," the Democrat declared on the Senate floor. "The conservative activism of recent years has not been good for the Court."

He added that, "Given the ideological challenge to the Affordable Care Act and the extensive, supportive precedent, it would be extraordinary for the Supreme Court not to defer to Congress in this matter that so clearly affects interstate commerce."

The elite liberal press has followed with pointed warnings that Mr. Roberts has a choice—either uphold ObamaCare, or be portrayed a radical who wants to repeal the New Deal and a century of precedent. This attack is itself clearly partisan, but it's worth rehearsing the arguments to show how truly flawed they are.

The first fallacy is defining judicial activism as overturning a Congressional law. Since Marbury v. Madison established judicial review in 1803, the High Court has overturned hundreds of laws in part or whole. The real measure of activism is whether the Court's reasoning is rooted in Constitutional principle. If it is, the Court is not activist but is adhering to the highest legal principles.

Regarding the Affordable Care Act, we'd argue that upholding the individual mandate to buy health insurance requires far more judicial activism. That's because if the Court finds this federal mandate to be Constitutional, it will have no principle on which to limit future purchase mandates.

Once health insurance can be mandated, Congress will inevitably find that other products or services are equally essential to national well-being. Future Courts will either have to find all such purchase mandates to be legal, in which case there is no limiting principle, or they will have to pick and choose, which means an endless exercise in policy-making.

Enlarge Image

Close

Far better for judicial modesty—and the reputation of the Court—to draw the line that the Commerce Clause forbids Congress from mandating that individuals engage in commerce because such police powers are reserved for the states. This is the truly restrained judicial position.

 

The most dishonest argument is the liberal media chant that overturning the law means overturning the New Deal era's Commerce Clause precedents. This is propaganda. None of the plaintiffs advocated that any precedents be overturned, even though in our view some of those cases deserve to be overturned. Paul Clement and Michael Carvin, who argued for the plaintiffs before the Court, explicitly denied any such desire.

The left is playing up the libertarian legal views of academic Randy Barnett in particular, to suggest that he's a pied piper for the conservative Justices. We often agree with Mr. Barnett, who has written for these pages, but on ObamaCare his influence has been overstated. Lawyers David Rivkin and Lee Casey were far more consequential in developing the legal and Constitutional case.

As recently as the gun rights case McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, a conservative majority ignored Mr. Barnett's pleas to revive the long-dormant Privileges and Immunities Clause. Justice Antonin Scalia quipped during oral argument that this view was "the darling of the professoriate," and libertarian legal activists denounced him for it. But in the Court's 5-4 ruling, Justice Samuel Alito employed the conventional legal analysis known as substantive due process. So much for the primrose path to the 19th century.

The truth is that shouts of a "radical" Court are heard every time the Justices break with liberal orthodoxy, however modestly. The same journalists now warning about a radical states-rights agenda rang the same alarms in 1995 after the Rehnquist Court said Congress couldn't use the Commerce Clause to regulate guns near schools in Lopez.

Far from beginning a radical march to the right, a 6-3 majority of the Court subsequently said Congress can regulate the growth of marijuana for personal use in Gonzales v. Raich in 2005. We disagreed with that ruling, but liberals ignore it because it doesn't fit their current political narrative that Chief Justice Roberts is Roger Taney with a better haircut.

We doubt the High Court will be intimidated by any of this, and the truth is that no Justice would be worthy to sit on the Court if he is. As Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing, a judge should be a neutral umpire who calls legal balls and strikes fairly as he sees them. The Court's reputation will be tarnished if it bows to the political distemper of the moment, not if it follows the Constitution.

A version of this article appeared May 22, 2012, on page A16 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Targeting John Roberts.

Dear John Letter #7 pramatism is an ideology

I’m sorry to burst your bubble John, but all we adopt theories (which is another way to say ideologies) to understand the world.  there is no way around it.  

You (and progressive comrades) pretend you don’t have an ideology or a theory about the world that prevents you from coming to objective conclusions.

That is total bunk. 

I am not saying there is no such thing as objective facts.  Yes, we can measure and observe certain objective facts about the world.  the speed of light, how far the moon is from the sun, e=mc2, etc etc.   There are certain things we know are true about the world and we can agree about these so called “facts”. 

But I also know that just because science can “objectively” measure how far the moon is from earth, this does not mean the world is made up exclusively of objective facts that can be uncovered given enough time and smart people.

 It is NOT the case that given enough time and resources, science will probe the depths of the fundamental mysteries of the universe (including the design of human civilization).

The progressive world view necessitates the idea that science is the ultimate arbiter of Objective Truth.

Science can uncover small truths, but it cannot uncover Truth.  This might sound like an impractical silly point, but it is not.

If I can prove that your world view rests on a dubious assumption, I can prove that anything you say is subject to fallacious logic.   

Progressives hide their world view (that is they hide their theory of the world) and pretend that they don’t need a theory or ideology because they only use "objective facts."  Of course, this assumption is a theory and it is bogus. 

it is a bogus idea that progressives are objective while conservatives are ideological.  Both are ideological.   Ideology is just a way to explain the way we assume the world works. 

What I know for sure is that Objective Truth is a fiction.  Science will not and cannot plumb the depths of Truth.

Science can help us get our arms around the mysteries of life, but will never provide an “objective” answer for what is Truth.  This doesn’t mean God provides ultimate Truth.  Man invented God and Science as means to pretending we could know Ultimate Truth. 

LEts start with the idea that man cannot achieve Ultimate Truth either through science or through revelealed word of God.

My theory assumes that there is no such thing as Ultimate Truth not from God or Science.  My theory assumes god and science and literature and movies and culture can help us make sense of an inherently mysterious world, and we can figure out truths about different corners of the universe, but we cannot know overarching Truth.  the only thing we know for sure is that we can’t know Ultimate Truth.

So my starting point is radical uncertainty of what Ultimate Truth is.  Progressives assume that religious nuts are wrong to believe in God as Ultimate Truth.  I believe progressives are right about that.  But I also believe Progressives are just as misguided as Fundamentalist Christians for believing we humans have the ability with tools of modern science to uncover “Truth” or the fundamental mysteries of the universe.  Darwinian Evolution is an important scientific THEORY, but it only explains a small piece of the story of “human evolution.”  Progressives claim that anyone who questions Evolution is a bible thumper.  There is a third option.  That is the idea that Darwinian evolution is true, but only PART of the story of human evolution.  Progressives can’t admit the Darwinian evolution isn’t the whole story or it will open the door to Creationism. 

We are left with a false choice between God and Science.  I say neither is capable of providing ultimate Truth, to think otherwise is foolish.   To think man can uncover fundamental mysteries of nature by uncovering objective facts about the world is a myth.    We can understand truths in small corners of the world, but “Nature” and ultimatel Truth and “Meaning of life” are all beyond man’s understanding.   

Take for example, the FACT, that we cannot prove scientific laws.  this is because we don’t know if the laws are the same on the other side of the universe. We can only attempt to falsify laws – and when we fail to falisify them we assume – provisionally -- they are “true.”  We never have absolute Truth about any of the so called laws of the universe.   The law of gravitation was originally assumed to be “universal”; when Einstein came along we discovered that the law of gravity DID NOT HOLD in the quantum realm.

 

Putting objective truths together to make a story (or an argument) does not lead necessarily to Objective Truth.  Progressives erroneously assume that one can start with objective facts and put them together and get a purely objective conclusion. 

Assuming you can string objective truths together and end up with an objective conclusion is being guilty of one of the most basic logical fallacies everyone learns in Logic 101:  i.e the fallacy of composition.  The whole does not necessarily entail the qualities of the parts!!! (I even remember this from Logic `101 at Colgate with prof. Balmuth who hated me because I used to fall asleep in his class.)

You erroneously assume that if you start with just the facts, that this gives you the ability to put the facts together to reach an objective conclusion not influenced by “ideology.” 

I’ve studied enough philosophy to know that everything we say is based on an underlying premise or theory.  Everyone has a theory about how the world works and this theory (or world view) necessarily influences EVERYTHING we say.

I show my ideology / theory right up front – and I challenge you to find flaws in it.  You pretend you don’t have a theory or you assume you don’t need one because you only use the “facts.”  As soon as you open your mouth and utter words, in order for those words to make sense, they must be embedded in some theory about how the world works.  you can pretend you don’t have ideology or theory, but it is there – and it infects every single last “objective truth” you claim about Democrats and Republicans, or about global warming or about taxes or fiscal policy, or about the latest episode of Jon Stewart.

My theory is this.  A culture based on Free exchange, respect for private property rights and common law (= law ought to be revealed by precedent and discovered by judges/legislators, not invented by “lawmakers”) maximizes individual and collective welfare in society.   

Macro outcomes in the economy cannot be planned or designed or engineered by government bureaucrats or experts.  Sustainable, dynamic and productive economies/societies cannot be designed; they must be allowed to emerge (warts and all) naturally.   

SOMEDAY I WILL “PROVE” THIS POINT based on “pure science.”  Ironically, we will someday use hard-core science to prove that the government cannot control or engineer or inject certain preferred macro outcomes in society without sowing dangerous systemic risk in the economy and financial markets!!!  

For example, what we’ve seen since the Federal Reserve was established in 1913, is that the Fed not only CANNOT reduce cyclical fluctuation in the economy BUT worse than that, it also inevitably sows seeds of periodic systemic crisis in the economy.

HUBRIS

Progressives erroneously assume that science will eventually get it right --after much trial and error and study and effort and analysis– and that the experts will be able to design and develop the tools needed to control macro outcomes in society (as well as in the whole earth system via climate engineering.) 

A  culture that is organized around free exchange and respect for private property rights will NOT be perfect, but it also cannot be “improved” at least in terms of macro outcomes.  We can help each other and reduce suffering, but only through local efforts.  As soon as the government tries to reduce all poverty via some national plan, the plan itself will be self defeating.   If you take this “theory” to its logical end point, it leads necessarily to peace and prosperity and the golden rule and volunteerism and innovation and creativity and dynamism and sustainability. 

you claim you don’t have a theory, but underneath all of your so called objective facts (which not coincidentally you get exclusively from hyper-progressive sources:  Rolling Stone, Esquire, Michael Lewis, NY Times, Matt Taibi, Huffington Post, Jon Stewart, Bill Marher, etc. etc) is a theory that you pretend isn’t there.

I realized about 15 years ago it was impossible to debate progressives / (called liberals “back then”) without first starting off with theory, because it is impossible to engage in debate based on so called “objective facts” with someone convinced he has the facts on his side.  You say the US postal service is fine and does a fine job because you find a data point supplied by Matt Taibi in Rolling Stone magazine, and that is your fact and you stick by it.  I claim the USPS is a dinosaur and symbolizes everything that is bad with handing our lives over to nanny-state government control, and I have my so called facts, including basic observation that the USPS is predictably inefficient and expensive, like all bureaucratic entities.  That observation is not a GOP conspiracy.  It is a fact (according to my eyes)!  We are left at an impasse.

Progressives try to pretend they don’t have a theory or ideology or political interests; they claim they look at the issues pragmatically and clinically and objectively and make the best decision given the data. 

This is complete and utter rubbish.  Pragmatism IS an ideology!!!  If you practice “pragmatism” as a rule, that is your ideology, your theory of how the world works.  Once you admit that, all of your erroneous assertions about using objective facts and objective non-ideological arguments goes out the window.  and we back where I always return:  back to debating theory again!!!

You cannot run away from theory or ideology.  We all have one.  To pretend you don’t have an ideology is self delusion.  The progressive practice of putting strings of objective facts together and pretending this is an objective argument is a quintiscential “intellectual circle j—“.    

Ps… John, I don’t blame you for pretending you don’t have a theory. The logic embedded in my theory leads to an imperfect society filled with income inequality, pollution, industrial accidents, evil individuals, business cycles and creative destruction.  But at a macro level,  it is peaceful (trade is voluntary), dynamic and inherently sustainability.  

But, if you take your theory to the extreme, some of the problems listed above may be mitigated (or maybe made even worse) but for sure we know that the macro outcomes will be compromised.  Peace, dynamism and sustainability under my theory turns  to war, stagnation and systemic collapse under your theory.  Your theory requires a “might makes right” and “ends justify the means logic” because the government is charged with deciding who wins and loses.  Coercion (and violence -- hidden behind Orwellian language like collective sacrifice and social welfare and the will of the people) is required to achieve what government decides is best for society -- and then necessarily implements using state tools of compliance, e.g. police, courts, etc.   
Progressives claim the free market is a mean spirited race to the bottom, the biggest wins, but this is totally erroneous.  In a system based on free exchange, the biggest company must provide a service freely desired by customers or it loses business to a smaller guy who does.   Monopolies only survive and “might makes right” in a "statist" system like yours that uses government to ensure and run monopolies enforced by THE STATE.  if you take your pragmatic theory to the extreme, what you end up with is democratic fascism just like Germany in the 1930s.  Democracy is a false God of Ultimate Truth, just like Jesus, just like your Science, just like pragmatism or progressivism.