Tomorrow I’m going to talk about a phenomenon called Crony Capitalism. I’ve long understood the dangers of this business model but I didn’t know what to call it until recently. Happily this Twitter feed liked one of my posts and I’m now up to date on the proper terminology. Join me tomorrow to find out more!
Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Yesterday I suggested that the United States is becoming a democracy and put forward some ideas to support that assertion. Today I’ll take on the proposition that this is a bad thing and the methods needed to stop the trend.
Many people with whom I speak think that the United States becoming a democracy is a good thing. They argue that the country was created as a democracy. I think this largely comes from the preamble of the Constitution of the United States.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It’s that We the People line. It does all come back to we the people but the reality is that we are a Representative Republic which I discussed yesterday.
The other main argument that I hear to support democracy is that the politicians are in place to enforce the will of the people. I’ll quote some of the founding fathers to refute this idea.
Alexander Hamilton: “Democracy was the surest path to tyranny” and “That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity.”
James Madison: “A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
John Witherspoon: “Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.”
I’m a particular fan of that last one and I can’t do better than these great men. I’ll try to sum up: In a democracy the majority will always tyrannize the minority and a government’s duty is protect all its citizens, not just the majority and the flavor of the moment.
So, if what I suggested yesterday is true, that we are becoming a democracy, it seems to follow that we are headed towards a violent death as suggested by Mr. Madison.
As always, I don’t want to spend all my time complaining, pointing fingers, and otherwise acting like a modern citizen of this country. I will try to offer remedies instead of five second sound bits to enflame popular sentiment.
If this trend towards democracy threatens the United States then what solution do I offer? Certainly polling is not going away, the internet and popular sentiment directly expressed to our representatives it not going to end, so how can we arm our politicians with the courage to make the decisions that are unpopular but good for the nation?
First, on a state and local level I would start to remove all direct vote propositions. The politicians need to make the laws, not the people. If the politicians pass a law that I disagree with then I will have to harbor that for a period of time and use my outrage in the next election. By then, their wisdom might shine through my momentary passion of opposition, or not.
I would repeal the 17th Amendment which allowed for the direct election of Senators. This is a complex issue because many states were already heading toward direct election anyway. It is a topic that probably deserves an entire blog.
Finally and most importantly, we must educate people to understand the principals of our government. The ideas of a Representative Republic, the dangers of democracy, the ideals of the Founding Fathers. If the majority of people think we live in, or should live in, a democracy then the politicians we elect will think the same thing.
Do you want the laws of this nation being made in the same way your local newspapers has a popular vote for Best of (my town)? When you peruse that yearly “Best of” article do you find the winner is actually the “best of” anything? Or is it simply the lowest common denominator?
Like, Tweet, Stumble, and otherwise comment if you think other people might be interested in these ideas.
Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
One of the areas I find people have a great deal of confusion about is the idea that the United States is a democracy. The U.S. is a representative republic which I spoke about in a previous post. The issue I want to take on today is the idea that we are slowly becoming a democracy.
When the Founding Fathers established the political system of the United States they broke authority into three branches of government. The Federal Convention is where the Founding Fathers gathered to draft the wording for the new constitution. There was much consternation about how the people in these branches would get their jobs. There was also a great deal of concern about how much power should rest in the hands of the federal government but I’ll save that conversation for a future blog. For now I want to talk about how our representatives get their jobs and their duty therein.
The Federal Convention ended with a system, after much debate, where the lower house, The House of Representatives was elected directly by a vote of the people, an upper house, the Senate, appointed by state officials, the executive, the President, who was elected through a mechanism called the Electoral College, and a Judicial, Judges, who were appointed by the executive.
The Senate and House of Representatives make laws, the Executive signs them, and the Judicial determines their meaning in individual cases. The important factor here is that it is Congress (the collective term for the Senate and House of Representatives) makes the laws. The laws are not voted on by the people. The founding fathers did this for a specific reason that I will talk about tomorrow.
Most state governments operate the same way.
Things have changed to a large degree. The main culprit in this change, I think, is the proliferation and immediacy of polling and voter outrage. By this I mean that the people can almost instantly respond to any proposed legislation before it becomes law and organize opposition. Also, with sophisticated polling, the politicians are aware of the will of the people before they cast their vote. This has the effect of pushing politicians in the direction of the majority of the population. Not just in their legislative duties but in their campaign promises and party platforms.
We’ve seen massive vote swings based on popular opinion quite recently with the SOPA act but that is only the tip of the iceberg. Politicians regularly hold focus groups in order to weigh the popularity of a particular plan. They fear getting removed from office if they make decisions that are unpopular with their constituency.
This is not the system envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The original plan was that the representatives made the laws and the people redressed that situation once every two, four, or six years with elections. Even then only the House of Representatives faced direct election by the people. The Senators were appointed and the President elected via the Electoral College. So, the drift towards democracy is something that was not originally planned.
Now, there are quite a few people out there who consider this movement towards democracy a good thing and they have some interesting points. I’ll talk about what this change means for the future of the United States tomorrow.
Stay tuned!
Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
I’m going to talk about the trait of loyalty in this post. It comes to my mind because of the recent stories about the Susan Komen Foundation and their contributions to Planned Parenthood. I don’t want to talk about the merit of cutting off their donations, the reasons behind the decision, or the reasons behind their reversal. These are all interesting topics but I’m going to write about loyalty.
There are two reasons this topic comes to mind today. One is that it is a theme of my first book, The Staff of Naught. The character of Oliver is supremely loyal to another character. I discuss this in length in this video.
I think most of us consider loyalty a good trait. The world is filled with people who have their own agenda and this is natural and normal. When we make friend, allies, business associates, and the like it is through loyalty that we succeed. There are other factors in success but it is difficult to get anywhere in life if you don’t have friends who watch your back. We all make mistakes and we all need friends who don’t betray us because it might make them some money or get them on the local news.
Now, there are limits to loyalty. While being a loyal person is ostensibly a good thing there are people who can use that against you. This is often called misplaced loyalty. They can demand your loyalty while essentially throwing you into the pit to be devoured by the beasts. But, by and large, I think being loyal to your friends and family is a great trait.
My best friends watch my back when I’m out and about. They try to talk me up to women who might interest me. At work my associates don’t wait for me to make a mistake and then badmouth me to the boss. There are people like that, people who want to get ahead at your expense, and it is your friends who help you time and again against them, often you don’t even know it has happened.
If we give no loyalty then we are diminished. Without loyal friends our lives are not full.
What I saw in the Komen/Planned Parenthood situation absolutely sickened me. An executive for the Komen Foundation is a foe of abortion and her influence was raised as a possibility for the original funding drop. The President and Founder of the Komen Foundation, Nancy Brinker, protected her friend. She said, no, that’s not the case, the decision was made because of legal issues that Planned Parenthood is facing. Nancy was a good friend. She protected her friend, tried to do what was right. That’s loyalty. That’s a good thing. Kudos to Nancy.
To repay Nancy, said executive immediately jumped on the self-promotion, live television bandwagon and proclaimed her a liar. She stabbed Nancy in the back to get ahead and to attack her enemy, Planned Parenthood. Disgusting. Vile. Disloyal. Here you go Nancy, I’ll tell the world you lied about me and about our reason for cutting off the funding so that I can get a little publicity and maybe pick up a high-paying job.
Well, anybody that hires said executive is getting a disloyal, self-serving, traitorous, bag of excrement. You’ve been warned.
Now, the second reason this topic comes to mind for me today is that my sister is having breast cancer surgery this morning. My thoughts are with her. My sister and I have never been all that close. We have different ways of looking at the world. If you say something bad about her I’ll pop you in the mouth.
Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist.
One of the common themes I see in politics is frustration with our representatives in Washington. They are perceived to be partially if not fully responsible for the woes of our nation. Personally, I don’t find fault with them. I blame me and and I blame you.
In the United States we live in what is called a Representative Republic. This basically means that the voters elect representatives who make the decisions. Now, we are slowly becoming a democracy but I’ll save my opinion on that development for a future post.
One argument here is that if we don’t like what our representatives are doing in Washington, in our State, or in our home town, then we have a simple remedy. Vote for someone who makes better decisions.
However, this is not my main argument. In a representative Republic the politicians are representative of the voters. So, if we don’t like the politicians then our problem is with ourselves. What has happened to the United States? Or has anything happened? Have we always be selfish, bickering, and out to gratify our immediate needs regardless of future consequences?
I think the evidence suggests that there was a time when Americans cared about something besides themselves. Certainly the Founding Fathers were trying to build a nation that would change the world, not just their circumstances with England.
I realize there are many wonderful people in this country but the we must look to our politicians because they are a reflection of who we are. Our votes, our values, our desires. That’s what we see in Washington, us. I see men and women who desire election more than governance, whose decisions are based on what will grant them immediate gratification (election victory, donor money) and no stomach for painful solutions. Why do I see this? Because this is us. We vote for them, we, apparently, want them.
Don’t get me wrong here. I’m still an Objectivist of the Ayn Rand school. People need to do what is in their self-interest. But, it is in our self-interest to have a strong country.
Your next question is, and should be, so Tom, complain away but what do you offer as a solution? Stop telling me what’s wrong and start telling me how to fix it.
Here it is. Teach people to think critically.
Write blogs on how to make good decisions. Think everything through so as to be a shining example for your friends and your family. Listen to the political pundits and then research their words. Read articles, come to an informed, critical decision. If the majority of people can do this, and it’s not easy, then we will elect politicians who do the same thing. Then, well, anything is possible.
Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Like many people in this country, I watched the Super Bowl this Sunday. Great game. What I want to discuss today is the Clint Eastwood commercial.
To get in the mood you might want to listen to this or this.
First a little background about Mr. Eastwood. His politics are a mix of ideas that appears largely Libertarian and he has supported both Republicans, John McCain, and Democrats over the years.
When the commercial started I thought to myself, “Oh no, a stupid political ad that tries to pull all the notions of patriotism into support of one politician or another.” As the commercial went on … and on … I began to realize this was more of a heartfelt appeal to put our differences aside and do what is in the best interest of the country. From what I know about Mr. Eastwood; if he says he meant that, then I believe him. I was inclined to believe it before Mr. Eastwood was forced to issue explanations.
Parse that, Mr. Eastwood was forced to issue an explanations because he sent out a message of hope trying to bring the United States together. Forced to issue an explanation! Does that tell you something is wrong with our political process?
Now, I do realize at its heart the commercial was an advertisement for Chrysler and, because it has us all talking, it certainly did its job. But, let’s leave that aside and talk about the political thinking, rather than critical thinking, that seems to drive this country today.
One political pundit, who is now dead to me, was “personally offended” by the commercial. Personally offended by an appeal to come together and make the country better? Personally offended by something that had nothing to do with this person. I’m personally offended when my mother tells me I come across as a know-it-all (she might be right). I’m personally offended when I’m compared to Miles Raymond in Sideways (there might just be some truth to that). I’m not personally offended when someone criticizes Ron Paul. I might disagree with the criticsm but I’m not personally offended. It’s not about me and I don’t have such a colossal ego that I think everything is about me (just most things).
This was a commercial about getting together, working together, overcoming adversity, making your community, the country, the world, a better place. Mr. Eastwood, I salute you, sir.
The voters today, and I’m going to talk about the blame the voters have in this problem tomorrow, seem largely to judge the merit of an idea based on the “D” or “R” in front of the name of the person making the proposal. Is that you? Do you not bother to think about the issue once you hear who is talking? Do you vote for the party and not the person? Do you let other people tell you who to vote for and against?
Are you one of those people who finds it easier to vote by party affiliation rather than spend time critically examining the candidates?
If so, I have one suggestion:
Stop voting. You’re hurting this great country.
Share, Like, Comment, Stumble, Tweet, and all the rest of you think someone you know might find this interesting. Tell me if you disagree!
Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Much of the criticism I hear about my Libertarian politics concerns the idea of non-interference and often it is because there is confusion between that concept and isolationism.
What Ron Paul and other Libertarians like myself are talking about is non-interference. This dates back to George Washington in his Farewell Address when he suggests avoiding foreign entanglements. The United States long avoided such alliances.
It’s a broad definition and it means different things to different people. Largely non-interference means not having alliances with foreign nations. Not interfering in their internal politics, and not going to war on foreign soil. It is important to consider that times have changed as far as the ability of a nation to extend their force. When Washington was president the United States was physically isolated from Europe and its bickering. It was difficult for European powers to extend their influence into the American region. This has changed with the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles and connected economies.
What non-interference does not mean, in my opinion, is that we should stay completely out of the affairs of the world. This is isolationism and in the modern world is a dangerous policy. Newt Gingrich is correct when he talks about the dangers of an air burst nuclear weapon and the modern communication grid. We cannot isolate ourselves from the world because the world has the ability to touch us both militarily and economically. We must engage the powers of the world but that doesn’t mean we need to police them or dictate to them.
If we look back on American history I think our worst moments came from meddling in the affairs of foreign nation, in regime change policies, in propping up totalitarian regimes that supported us, at least in words if not deeds.
There are Libertarians who support a stricter version of non-interference that borders on isolationism. They might well quibble with some of my characterizations here. I don’t think the United States should disengage completely from countries like Pakistan. Such policies in regard to Cuba are a mistake. I think we should always attempt to talk with other nations, supply them with help if they ask for it, but we should minimize our attempts to influence their policy decisions.
It is in our interest if Pakistan helps hunt down people trying to hurt the United States but I don’t think we should be trying to purchase that cooperation with what amounts to bribery. If Pakistan wants to cooperate we should engage with them but cautiously. George Washington warned us to be wary not only of our international enemies but of our allies as well and with good reason. They are interested, rightly so, in what is best for their nation.
The waters of international politics are rife with danger and caution is a good ally. Engage but don’t interfere. A fine line.
Tom Liberman