Rush Limbaugh has provided us with yet another reason why government should stay out of making decisions for individuals. In a recent flap over contraception, Limbaugh referred to Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke as a "slut" because of her desire to speak to a congressional committee on the merits of contraception (she was not allowed to). Limbaugh crossed a line—thankfully, after demurring, he apologized.
But the problem is not so much what he said—although shameful is the only way to describe it—but the firestorm and divisiveness that resulted. Limbaugh gave Fluke a national platform. Obama, in his usual arrogant way, thought that somehow his presence in the fiasco was warranted and jumped into the middle of a public fight between two private citizens. (The story of the "beer summit" between Henry Louis Gates and the Boston police officer, James Crowley, comes to mind, but Obama's swagger is another topic.) GOP presidential candidates had to distance themselves from his remarks. Organizations and legislatures changed their policies. The right marshaled or had to play defense. Suddenly, society is divided, screaming at each other over personal decisions.
And what is the cause of all this? Well the government of course. Its desire to meddle in the private decisions of individuals creates huge incentives for individuals to battle each other over how these top-down regulations are determined. It is divisive. While there are many problems with government meddling in the private sector, the one most evident in this fiasco is that government control prompts individuals and interest groups to struggle over the content of government decisions. By creating and controlling a monopoly power over a decision that will affect everyone—in this case, every American will have to pay or not pay for contraception—the government establishes an immediate battleground for unlike-minded individuals to struggle in favor of their perspective.
Suddenly, private decisions become very public ones, where advocates are either talking about their propensity to need birth control or how heinous and cruel contraception is. But the truth is, that in the public sector, this debate should not matter. One need not care or be bothered by his neighbor's decision to use or abstain from contraception.
One need not agree with the Catholic Church's stance on birth control to be in accord with the argument that the government should not interfere in individual's decisions on whether to pay for it or not. Americans should be as opposed to the government forcing individuals or private institutions into paying for contraception, as they should be opposed to the government prohibiting the sale of such devices. The point is: individuals should have the right to make these decisions on their own, without having to justify their reasons, logic, or beliefs.
By interfering in these private decisions, the government only creates new sources of tension in society. It tries to force a disparate and diverse nation to hold one set of values or one set of beliefs. That is not only not achievable but pulls at the very fabric of social cohesion. We need not agree with our neighbors, but we also need not try to force them to conform to our beliefs. The less the government tries to push Americans into a one-size-fits-all mold, the fewer issues we will have to fight each other for control over. Congressmen should not be hearing testimony about a law student's beliefs on contraception. Pundits should not be calling people uncouth names. Presidents should not be meddling in private scuffles. And the government should not be deciding what is "right" or "wrong" for the individual.
Showing posts with label individual. Show all posts
Showing posts with label individual. Show all posts
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Obesity Isn't Abuse
The media has been aflame with a recent editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that advocates removing severely obese children from their parents. People are right to be concerned about unjustified state intervention within the family. Children should not be removed from the home except under the most excepting situations.
However, when one pushes aside the media firestorm and actually reads the original JAMA commentary, the author's claims are less "nanny state" than some pundits choose to portray. The authors state:
Nevertheless, while the author's argument is much more narrow than the media has thus far portrayed, it does venture a bit outside of what is acceptable. Obesity isn't abuse. At most, obesity may be an indicator of potential abuse. There are numerous causes of obesity in children. Accordingly, in cases of morbid obesity it may be appropriate to investigate a home situation to determine if abuse - whether neglect or emotional or physical abuse - is occurring. However, obesity alone should never be justification for the removal of a child from his or her parents. This, as many have pointed out, gives the state far too much power to determine what is and what is not right for an individual.
Jonah Goldberg stated the problem aptly. "Once you establish the idea that the state can take away kids from loving parents because the state thinks they're not good parents, you really are off to the races."
However, when one pushes aside the media firestorm and actually reads the original JAMA commentary, the author's claims are less "nanny state" than some pundits choose to portray. The authors state:
...[P]oor parenting is analogous to secondhand smoke in the home—a condition associated with adverse health consequences for the child, but not warranting legal intervention.
...State intervention may serve the best interests of many children with life-threatening obesity, comprising the only realistic way to control harmful behaviors. Child protective services typically provide intermediate options such as in-home social supports, parenting training, counseling, and financial assistance, that may address underlying problems without resorting to removal. These less burdensome forms of legal intervention may be sufficient and therefore preferable in many cases.
...In severe instances of childhood obesity, removal from the home may be justifiable from a legal standpoint because of imminent health risks and the parents' chronic failure to address medical problems.
...Nevertheless, state intervention would clearly not be desirable or practical, and probably not be legally justifiable, for most of the approximately 2 million children in the United States with a BMI at or beyond the 99th percentile.The authors clearly address that such instances of overt state intervention should be severely limited. They are also correct in stating that "[d]espite a well-established constitutional right of parents to raise their children as they choose, the state may intervene to protect the child's interests." One of the primary roles of the state is to protect individuals from abuse or injury caused by others. This constitutional protection has to be extended to children as well - few would dispute such an argument.
Nevertheless, while the author's argument is much more narrow than the media has thus far portrayed, it does venture a bit outside of what is acceptable. Obesity isn't abuse. At most, obesity may be an indicator of potential abuse. There are numerous causes of obesity in children. Accordingly, in cases of morbid obesity it may be appropriate to investigate a home situation to determine if abuse - whether neglect or emotional or physical abuse - is occurring. However, obesity alone should never be justification for the removal of a child from his or her parents. This, as many have pointed out, gives the state far too much power to determine what is and what is not right for an individual.
Jonah Goldberg stated the problem aptly. "Once you establish the idea that the state can take away kids from loving parents because the state thinks they're not good parents, you really are off to the races."
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The "Right" Way to Look at Proposition 8
Supporters of gay marriage were handed a broad and sweeping victory in California earlier this month when Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 – a voter-initiated state constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage. While many on the right immediately reacted in protest, the ruling gives much reason for conservatives to reevaluate their stance and ultimately their politics in a fashion that is more consistent with their professed principles.
Much of conservative thought is grounded in the conception of individual liberty. Individuals have the natural right to be free from oppressive arbitrary coercion. While such liberty may result in some individuals choosing to live lifestyles that others may find objectionable, ultimately a principled conservative realizes that using the tools of government to force compliance with one particular way of life or discriminate against those who do not conform is unjust.
While most conservatives rightly uphold this principle, it far too often falls to the wayside when certain lifestyle choices come to the fore – in this instance gay marriage. Regardless of how one perceives a homosexual lifestyle, the concept of individual liberty cannot condone interference in such personal choices. Every individual should have the right to choose their life-partner and be treated equally under the law.
At the same time as ignoring this fundamental principle of conservative thought, many conservatives rely on the “family values” argument to bolster their position. However, anti-gay policies miss the true importance of family values. Not only does this distort what is truly worthwhile about family values, but it helps foster a counterculture that is unnecessarily opposed to such meaningful values.
The object is to recognize what “family values” are. The simplistic construct that family values represent a husband, wife, 2.4 kids, a picket fence, and a dog is meaningless. True family values are about a small social group – the family – that is built around the ideals of commitment, mutual support, responsibility, duty, and a number of other important attributes. In this sense, it is obvious that a family is much more than a husband and wife. In reality it has no relationship with the identities of the family members but has everything to do with the values the family members share and their treatment of each other.
A good family – which serves as the basis of American society – needs to possess these qualities regardless of its member’s genders or sexual orientation. Conservatives, far too often, seem to miss this simple, yet significant point. The GOP’s focus should be on building strong family values, not on bashing gays. By developing initiatives that teach the worth of commitment, communication, and responsibility, conservatives will be able to strengthen the family unit and help Americans learn how more successfully engage their loved ones.
There are many gays who would and do accept such values as their own (some in much better fashions than their heterosexual counterparts); however, the insistence of the right on linking “family values” with anti-gay policies not only tarnishes the associated values but breeds a guilt-by-association phenomenon. As a result, the baby is tossed out with the bathwater, as many dismiss everything that is good with family values in favor of a hedonistic counterculture that is destructive to the American way. While such a libidinous lifestyle is often associated with homosexuality, this needn’t be the case. Such a life is built in the rejection of family values, not the sexuality of the individual (after all there are many heterosexuals who live a counterculture lifestyle and many homosexuals that don’t). Smart conservatives should focus on separating the issues of individual sexuality from family values.
While conservative intolerance towards gays certainly does not compel every homosexual into an alternative lifestyle, it does repel a large majority from a political party that would otherwise be a natural fit. These imprudent policies unnecessarily shrink the base and handicap Republican efforts at bring about meaningful policy changes. The GOP needs to drop its foolish and losing anti-homosexual policy stance and embrace the fundamental principle of liberty that is so appealing to America. This will not only draw those that are ideologically similar back into the fold but reaffirm the commitment to true individual liberty and family values.
Much of conservative thought is grounded in the conception of individual liberty. Individuals have the natural right to be free from oppressive arbitrary coercion. While such liberty may result in some individuals choosing to live lifestyles that others may find objectionable, ultimately a principled conservative realizes that using the tools of government to force compliance with one particular way of life or discriminate against those who do not conform is unjust.
While most conservatives rightly uphold this principle, it far too often falls to the wayside when certain lifestyle choices come to the fore – in this instance gay marriage. Regardless of how one perceives a homosexual lifestyle, the concept of individual liberty cannot condone interference in such personal choices. Every individual should have the right to choose their life-partner and be treated equally under the law.
At the same time as ignoring this fundamental principle of conservative thought, many conservatives rely on the “family values” argument to bolster their position. However, anti-gay policies miss the true importance of family values. Not only does this distort what is truly worthwhile about family values, but it helps foster a counterculture that is unnecessarily opposed to such meaningful values.
The object is to recognize what “family values” are. The simplistic construct that family values represent a husband, wife, 2.4 kids, a picket fence, and a dog is meaningless. True family values are about a small social group – the family – that is built around the ideals of commitment, mutual support, responsibility, duty, and a number of other important attributes. In this sense, it is obvious that a family is much more than a husband and wife. In reality it has no relationship with the identities of the family members but has everything to do with the values the family members share and their treatment of each other.
A good family – which serves as the basis of American society – needs to possess these qualities regardless of its member’s genders or sexual orientation. Conservatives, far too often, seem to miss this simple, yet significant point. The GOP’s focus should be on building strong family values, not on bashing gays. By developing initiatives that teach the worth of commitment, communication, and responsibility, conservatives will be able to strengthen the family unit and help Americans learn how more successfully engage their loved ones.
There are many gays who would and do accept such values as their own (some in much better fashions than their heterosexual counterparts); however, the insistence of the right on linking “family values” with anti-gay policies not only tarnishes the associated values but breeds a guilt-by-association phenomenon. As a result, the baby is tossed out with the bathwater, as many dismiss everything that is good with family values in favor of a hedonistic counterculture that is destructive to the American way. While such a libidinous lifestyle is often associated with homosexuality, this needn’t be the case. Such a life is built in the rejection of family values, not the sexuality of the individual (after all there are many heterosexuals who live a counterculture lifestyle and many homosexuals that don’t). Smart conservatives should focus on separating the issues of individual sexuality from family values.
While conservative intolerance towards gays certainly does not compel every homosexual into an alternative lifestyle, it does repel a large majority from a political party that would otherwise be a natural fit. These imprudent policies unnecessarily shrink the base and handicap Republican efforts at bring about meaningful policy changes. The GOP needs to drop its foolish and losing anti-homosexual policy stance and embrace the fundamental principle of liberty that is so appealing to America. This will not only draw those that are ideologically similar back into the fold but reaffirm the commitment to true individual liberty and family values.
Monday, April 26, 2010
The Religious Assault on Liberty: When Religion Coerces the Individual
Secularism-as-a-religion is by far not the only threat to liberty. Religion too can mount insidious molestations on freedom. In the newest incarnation of the Muhammad cartoon uproar, Comedy Central’s South Park, which offers puerile but wickedly intelligent social commentary on a ‘nothing is sacred’ basis, has been under attack. Creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, have received loosely worded death threats for their portrayal of Muhammad – a sacrilege for many Muslims.
The threats have prompted increase police security and an unfortunate back-down by Comedy Central, which censored the cartoon. As has been discussed on ANR before, such kowtowing to radical demands is foolhardy.
At the base of the debate comes the value of the individual’s or the group’s rights. Like the radical secularists in France who are attempting to ban the burqa, the radical Muslim’s here are drastically encroaching on the right of the individual to behave as they see fit. The claims of sacrilege and a religion’s right to not be insulted are a group’s claim that attempts to subordinate the individual to the power of a few elite. In this case, the elite is the fundamentalist Islamist leadership which has determined what constitutes ‘correct’ in the eyes of their creed.
The desire to oppress the individual in the name of religion is a pernicious aim that has far too often claimed victims over the course of history. Religion, like any other influential grouping of people, should have no special rights over the individual. Each man or woman should be free to choose how to associate with others, as long as such associations do not have destructive effects on third-parties. However, such associations should have no rights to force others to adhere to their voluntarily agreed upon memes.
As offensive as South Park may or may not be, groups do not have any special privilege to not be offended. By calling for such special treatment, fundamentalist Muslims are only deepening the cultural divide and severely trampling on the fundamental rights of man. They should accept the fact that coercive force will never convince the alleged offenders to toe the line. Instead, they should work to educate others about their beliefs and affirm their own convictions regardless of what occurs in the ‘outside’ world.
The threats have prompted increase police security and an unfortunate back-down by Comedy Central, which censored the cartoon. As has been discussed on ANR before, such kowtowing to radical demands is foolhardy.
The desire to oppress the individual in the name of religion is a pernicious aim that has far too often claimed victims over the course of history. Religion, like any other influential grouping of people, should have no special rights over the individual. Each man or woman should be free to choose how to associate with others, as long as such associations do not have destructive effects on third-parties. However, such associations should have no rights to force others to adhere to their voluntarily agreed upon memes.
As offensive as South Park may or may not be, groups do not have any special privilege to not be offended. By calling for such special treatment, fundamentalist Muslims are only deepening the cultural divide and severely trampling on the fundamental rights of man. They should accept the fact that coercive force will never convince the alleged offenders to toe the line. Instead, they should work to educate others about their beliefs and affirm their own convictions regardless of what occurs in the ‘outside’ world.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Yale Offends the West: The Muhammad Cartoons
The infamous Muhammad cartoons are back in the news again. This time the Danish caricatures that were implicated in the worldwide uproars in 2005 were edited out of a new book by the Yale University Press. Yale’s decision is a despicable display of spinelessness.
Yale offers two unsatisfactory explanations for its actions. First, the university cites fear of violence. This implies that if someone has something controversial to say, one only needs to threaten violence to silence the perspective. This is counter to the very basis of American free-speech. Since when do we silence a voice because one group throws a tantrum? If Muslims respond to the republication of the cartoons with violence they are in the wrong- not the publisher. Using potential violence (even if highly likely) as a reason for non-publication, gives those who wish to silence others an unimaginable power.
Second, Yale claims it does not want to offend. This is patently absurd. How many books have been published that offend someone, somewhere? Is it even possible to find a book that is agreeable to everyone? The publishing of any quality piece of writing is bound to offend someone. If literature, journalism, or research were uncontroversial they would seek to have an appeal. Yale’s decision to avoid publication soothes the egos of radical Islam by offending the sensibilities of the free West.
Yale’s dastardly editing speaks to a deeper seeded problem. The West is being brow-beaten into disregarding its own founding principles. Muslim leaders and countries attempt to argue that incidents, such as the publishing of the cartoons, should not be allowed. They perversely argue that blasphemy is discriminatory against Muslims and repressive of their freedoms. Rather than rightfully challenging this warped view, many in the West are conceding to these demands.
This poses a number of problems. First of all, it gives dangerous powers to groups to oppress minority views. Religions are entitled to believe what they will; they are not entitled to demand global orthodoxy. As The Economist points out, those attempting to limit ‘defamation’ of religion represent the antithesis to individual and human rights. These arguments are often couched in the language of freedom, but they serve the opposite aim. Instead, by tiptoeing around the supposed sensitivities of a group and preventing individuals to voice their dissent, we are creating a system that allows repression and forced conformity.
Second, by acceding to this perspective Yale is helping the reactionary forces of the Muslim world demolish years of Western progress. Yale is implicitly replacing the individualism that has defined Western culture with a foreign collectivism. This is a small piece in a dire threat to Western civilization. Western society is built on the individual. If we cannot support the individual in some of the more innocuous facets of life, it is only a matter of time before the assault on our core beliefs begins.
While some may dismiss this event as insignificant, it is anything but. It is a sign of the weakening spirit of the West. Yale’s cowardice is inexcusable. Their actions have granted the enemies of the Western society an easy win.
Yale offers two unsatisfactory explanations for its actions. First, the university cites fear of violence. This implies that if someone has something controversial to say, one only needs to threaten violence to silence the perspective. This is counter to the very basis of American free-speech. Since when do we silence a voice because one group throws a tantrum? If Muslims respond to the republication of the cartoons with violence they are in the wrong- not the publisher. Using potential violence (even if highly likely) as a reason for non-publication, gives those who wish to silence others an unimaginable power.
Second, Yale claims it does not want to offend. This is patently absurd. How many books have been published that offend someone, somewhere? Is it even possible to find a book that is agreeable to everyone? The publishing of any quality piece of writing is bound to offend someone. If literature, journalism, or research were uncontroversial they would seek to have an appeal. Yale’s decision to avoid publication soothes the egos of radical Islam by offending the sensibilities of the free West.
Yale’s dastardly editing speaks to a deeper seeded problem. The West is being brow-beaten into disregarding its own founding principles. Muslim leaders and countries attempt to argue that incidents, such as the publishing of the cartoons, should not be allowed. They perversely argue that blasphemy is discriminatory against Muslims and repressive of their freedoms. Rather than rightfully challenging this warped view, many in the West are conceding to these demands.
This poses a number of problems. First of all, it gives dangerous powers to groups to oppress minority views. Religions are entitled to believe what they will; they are not entitled to demand global orthodoxy. As The Economist points out, those attempting to limit ‘defamation’ of religion represent the antithesis to individual and human rights. These arguments are often couched in the language of freedom, but they serve the opposite aim. Instead, by tiptoeing around the supposed sensitivities of a group and preventing individuals to voice their dissent, we are creating a system that allows repression and forced conformity.
Second, by acceding to this perspective Yale is helping the reactionary forces of the Muslim world demolish years of Western progress. Yale is implicitly replacing the individualism that has defined Western culture with a foreign collectivism. This is a small piece in a dire threat to Western civilization. Western society is built on the individual. If we cannot support the individual in some of the more innocuous facets of life, it is only a matter of time before the assault on our core beliefs begins.
While some may dismiss this event as insignificant, it is anything but. It is a sign of the weakening spirit of the West. Yale’s cowardice is inexcusable. Their actions have granted the enemies of the Western society an easy win.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
A Civil Union Between Gay Marriage and Republicans
One social area where the Republican Party needs to reevaluate its stance is the issue of gay marriage. For two major reasons, the GOP is facing a losing battle. For the sake of electoral success, the party needs to reevaluate its current position.
First and foremost, the party is fighting a losing battle. It is inevitable that the rights of gays will grow over time. Currently this is occurring across many states. The inevitability is easy to see if one studies American history. Over time, all minority groups have gained more rights and equal treatment. Even if at one point or another there have been set backs, the overall trend of history is constant. The simple logic behind this is that a minority has a lot to gain by fighting for his or her rights; while relatively speaking the majority does not have a lot to lose by granting those rights. The minority will be able to fight indefinitely; while the majority will eventually tire. Ultimately, the minority will win this war of attrition.
Because of this inevitability it is fruitless for the GOP to waste its time and energy. Not only does it divert resources from other issues and causes, but it puts the party on the losing side of history. This is a cost that is too high to pay. Despite the fact the fact that it was the Republicans that freed African-Americans from slavery, the party is portrayed as the loser in the culture wars and thus, at least for the foreseeable future, precluded from the African-American vote. By fighting gay marriage, the party only provides fodder to the left to incorrectly portray the Republicans as intolerant.
Secondly, the current party stance is inconsistent with the intellectual basis of American conservatism. Conservatives call for a limited government role in the individual’s life. The government should be small and efficient, staying out of the private lives of its citizens. Unlike liberals, conservatives argue that in regards to the vast majority of issues individuals are capable of making their own decisions and leading their own lives as they see fit. However, the current gay marriage platform flies in the face of this. It calls for immense government control over a major part of many American’s lives.
Social conservatives attempt to justify this by turning to their religion and emphasizing the alleged societal costs. The ‘family values’ viewpoint asserts that gay marriage is wrong (according to the Bible) and damaging to society. Accordingly, the standard, historical heterosexual family is the basis of society and needs to continue in order to preserve the integrity and sanctity of the country. However, a modified approach to gay marriage is in no way inconsistent with the strong family values held by the majority of America. Furthermore, a modified approach would be more intellectually consistent with limited government conservatism.
An easy solution would be for the Republican Party to separate the issue of marriage into its two natural components: ceremonial marriage and legal rights. One of the roots of the current problem is that these two issues are intermingled. A logical Republican alternative would be to remove the state from any sort of marriage. If marriage is truly a spiritual and community-based institution it should be left to the churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations to decide how it functions. What is left is the legal rights component; something that is naturally a function of the state.
Essentially, this allows the state to only play a role in determining the legal rights and obligations of an individual in regards to his or her partner. Everyone can get a civil union from the government- where they can choose one partner with whom they can file taxes, receive employment benefits, make health decisions and the like. The spiritual institution of marriage is then left for private communities and religious organizations to determine.
Critics will claim that this issue can’t be easily compartmentalized in this fashion. The strongest arguments point to supposed societal damages caused by gay partnership. Specifically, raising children is one main issue. However, there are two flaws with this argument. First, many of these rights are already given to gays. For instance, they can often adopt. We have yet to see a breakdown of society or a pervasion of the younger generations as a result. Secondly, there are much broader problems with the American family than sexual orientation. Divorce rates are astronomical and many parents do not have a clue how to raise children. Republicans and America are better served by focusing on educating individuals on how to responsibly build a strong, morally-upright family. Right now we spend far too little time learning about family, child rearing, and inter-spousal relationships – three of the most central facets of American life.
A combination of government civil unions, religious marriages, and increased education to establish strong family values will lead to a better Republican Party. With such a policy the GOP will be able to speak to a wide swath of America. Furthermore, it will maintain an intellectual consistency. Lastly, it will help develop a healthier America.
First and foremost, the party is fighting a losing battle. It is inevitable that the rights of gays will grow over time. Currently this is occurring across many states. The inevitability is easy to see if one studies American history. Over time, all minority groups have gained more rights and equal treatment. Even if at one point or another there have been set backs, the overall trend of history is constant. The simple logic behind this is that a minority has a lot to gain by fighting for his or her rights; while relatively speaking the majority does not have a lot to lose by granting those rights. The minority will be able to fight indefinitely; while the majority will eventually tire. Ultimately, the minority will win this war of attrition.
Because of this inevitability it is fruitless for the GOP to waste its time and energy. Not only does it divert resources from other issues and causes, but it puts the party on the losing side of history. This is a cost that is too high to pay. Despite the fact the fact that it was the Republicans that freed African-Americans from slavery, the party is portrayed as the loser in the culture wars and thus, at least for the foreseeable future, precluded from the African-American vote. By fighting gay marriage, the party only provides fodder to the left to incorrectly portray the Republicans as intolerant.
Secondly, the current party stance is inconsistent with the intellectual basis of American conservatism. Conservatives call for a limited government role in the individual’s life. The government should be small and efficient, staying out of the private lives of its citizens. Unlike liberals, conservatives argue that in regards to the vast majority of issues individuals are capable of making their own decisions and leading their own lives as they see fit. However, the current gay marriage platform flies in the face of this. It calls for immense government control over a major part of many American’s lives.
Social conservatives attempt to justify this by turning to their religion and emphasizing the alleged societal costs. The ‘family values’ viewpoint asserts that gay marriage is wrong (according to the Bible) and damaging to society. Accordingly, the standard, historical heterosexual family is the basis of society and needs to continue in order to preserve the integrity and sanctity of the country. However, a modified approach to gay marriage is in no way inconsistent with the strong family values held by the majority of America. Furthermore, a modified approach would be more intellectually consistent with limited government conservatism.
An easy solution would be for the Republican Party to separate the issue of marriage into its two natural components: ceremonial marriage and legal rights. One of the roots of the current problem is that these two issues are intermingled. A logical Republican alternative would be to remove the state from any sort of marriage. If marriage is truly a spiritual and community-based institution it should be left to the churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations to decide how it functions. What is left is the legal rights component; something that is naturally a function of the state.
Essentially, this allows the state to only play a role in determining the legal rights and obligations of an individual in regards to his or her partner. Everyone can get a civil union from the government- where they can choose one partner with whom they can file taxes, receive employment benefits, make health decisions and the like. The spiritual institution of marriage is then left for private communities and religious organizations to determine.
Critics will claim that this issue can’t be easily compartmentalized in this fashion. The strongest arguments point to supposed societal damages caused by gay partnership. Specifically, raising children is one main issue. However, there are two flaws with this argument. First, many of these rights are already given to gays. For instance, they can often adopt. We have yet to see a breakdown of society or a pervasion of the younger generations as a result. Secondly, there are much broader problems with the American family than sexual orientation. Divorce rates are astronomical and many parents do not have a clue how to raise children. Republicans and America are better served by focusing on educating individuals on how to responsibly build a strong, morally-upright family. Right now we spend far too little time learning about family, child rearing, and inter-spousal relationships – three of the most central facets of American life.
A combination of government civil unions, religious marriages, and increased education to establish strong family values will lead to a better Republican Party. With such a policy the GOP will be able to speak to a wide swath of America. Furthermore, it will maintain an intellectual consistency. Lastly, it will help develop a healthier America.
Monday, May 11, 2009
The Biggest Ponzi Scheme Yet
Ponzi schemes have been in the news a lot lately. Bernie Madoff tends to grace the front page of some newspaper daily. America is justifiably in an uproar over the discovery of numerous frauds. However, there is one Ponzi scheme that has thus far been overlooked. This scheme has been running for over seventy years and affects every single American. It is none other than Social Security.
The Securities Exchange Commission defines a Ponzi scheme as a system where “money from new investors is used to pay off earlier investors until the whole scheme collapses.” (See http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm). When FDR created Social Security its aim was to immediately help the needy. The plan was (and is) funded by the younger generation, who would theoretically be funded in their old age by their children. Just like a Ponzi scheme, this requires an ever expanding base of funders. As old age lengthens and populations grow the ‘return to the investor’ needed to be larger and larger. This requires a continuous input of new payers into the system.
This worked for a while, as the population expanded; but as everyone now recognizes the post-baby boom generation is much smaller. Just like the Ponzi schemes of Madoff, Social Security is destined to collapse as new ‘investors’ are hard to come by.
To some degree, it is ironic that the government is so critical of Ponzi schemes on Wall Street while operating their own scheme. The fact, however, is that the collapse of Wall Street’s schemes hurt far fewer people than will the inevitable collapse of Social Security. Proponents in favor of an increased role for government in the economy need only look to this scheme to see the folly of expanded government.
As everyone knows, Social Security must be fixed. While American confidence with the business world is at an extreme low, there is no reason that we should put anymore faith in the government to manage our futures. At this rate, I will be very surprised if I receive any money from Social Security upon my retirement.
The fact of the matter is that we must switch from the pay-as-you-go system that we currently have to one based on investment. Democrats are hesitant to give individuals greater control over the Social Security investments because it would put a damper on wealth redistribution. Social Security serves as a prime way to take money from the wealthy and give to the poor. Seemingly, the vested interests in the current system are afraid of losing this mechanism. They prefer to maintain a broken status quo, rather than give each American the power to save for his or her own future. The government has to let ordinary Americans take retirement savings into their own hands. The wrecked paternalism of Social Security must be replaced with individual initiative coupled with government support and education. This is the only way to avoid a Ponzi scheme collapse of epic proportions.
The Securities Exchange Commission defines a Ponzi scheme as a system where “money from new investors is used to pay off earlier investors until the whole scheme collapses.” (See http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm). When FDR created Social Security its aim was to immediately help the needy. The plan was (and is) funded by the younger generation, who would theoretically be funded in their old age by their children. Just like a Ponzi scheme, this requires an ever expanding base of funders. As old age lengthens and populations grow the ‘return to the investor’ needed to be larger and larger. This requires a continuous input of new payers into the system.
This worked for a while, as the population expanded; but as everyone now recognizes the post-baby boom generation is much smaller. Just like the Ponzi schemes of Madoff, Social Security is destined to collapse as new ‘investors’ are hard to come by.
To some degree, it is ironic that the government is so critical of Ponzi schemes on Wall Street while operating their own scheme. The fact, however, is that the collapse of Wall Street’s schemes hurt far fewer people than will the inevitable collapse of Social Security. Proponents in favor of an increased role for government in the economy need only look to this scheme to see the folly of expanded government.
As everyone knows, Social Security must be fixed. While American confidence with the business world is at an extreme low, there is no reason that we should put anymore faith in the government to manage our futures. At this rate, I will be very surprised if I receive any money from Social Security upon my retirement.
The fact of the matter is that we must switch from the pay-as-you-go system that we currently have to one based on investment. Democrats are hesitant to give individuals greater control over the Social Security investments because it would put a damper on wealth redistribution. Social Security serves as a prime way to take money from the wealthy and give to the poor. Seemingly, the vested interests in the current system are afraid of losing this mechanism. They prefer to maintain a broken status quo, rather than give each American the power to save for his or her own future. The government has to let ordinary Americans take retirement savings into their own hands. The wrecked paternalism of Social Security must be replaced with individual initiative coupled with government support and education. This is the only way to avoid a Ponzi scheme collapse of epic proportions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)