Tag Archives: government

Is the Second Amendment Outdated?

The recent killing spree at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in which six people were murdered (three by gunshot, three by knife wound) and others were injured prompts an important and valid question: “how many more?” Although gun violence is on the decline in the United States, awareness of it, fostered by the Information Revolution, has increased to the point that the American public thinks it occurs more than it actually does. That’s not to say it isn’t a serious issue which merits national attention. #NotOneMore — an advocacy campaign designed to mobilise the public to write their elected representatives in favour of gun control laws — answers that question. Popular sentiment regarding the urgency of addressing the problem crests and falls as killing sprees come and go, and is more or less split into two camps: public health advocates and gun control advocates. They agree that the government must do something to stem these violent outbursts (which is to assume that the government is capable of improving the status quo).

For adamant defenders of the Second Amendment, the natural choice appears to be in support of making the gun violence issue about mental health. However, this runs aground of evidence to the contrary. A disheartening op-ed by a former Harvard Medical School psychiatrist reveals that allocating more funding to mental health treatment is unlikely to alleviate the United States’ spree killer problem for a number of reasons. Many of the recent murderers, whose names are now ingrained in the country’s collective consciousness, had been under psychiatric treatment. (Note: it is my belief that mentioning mass killers by name glorifies the actor, exacerbating the problem by inspiring similar acts. As such, I avoid doing so). If mental health funding is not the solution, perhaps legislation is.

“I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions…But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”1

Etched into his Memorial, Thomas Jefferson’s words merit consideration. Is the Second Amendment a relic? Some gun rights advocates have displayed outright callousness to UCSB victims’ families, saying “your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights”. Such a view sees the Constitution as an end-in-itself, which it is not. The Constitution tacitly accepted mass enslavement; it is not infallible. However, the Constitution’s flaws are the exception, not the rule — no codified set of principles has ever sustained a country for so long. The Constitution exists to protect citizens from government that would infringe upon their principal natural rights, which are the right to property, freedom of contract, first possession, self-defence, and restitution2 or, more poetically, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

Gun control purists who believe that society should be disarmed suffer from faulty assumptions about human nature, a myopic view of history, and a naïveté about the future. They aren’t really anti-gun, they just believe that only the government should have guns, or at least that the average citizen is a threat to society for owning a firearm capable of inflicting the kind of mass carnage found in war. The Founding Fathers shared none of these delusions; they recognised that individuals in positions of power, being self-interested, expand their authority and power for personal gain, coming at the expense of the citizens. They also understood that once rights are voluntarily conceded, they aren’t regained. A disarmed American public would leave a concentration of unchallenged coercive power in the hands of the government. Any entity with a monopoly on violence is a threat to a free society.

There’s an elephant in the room. We need to talk about the Second Amendment for what it is.

Every single amendment in the United States Bill of Rights is designed to protect the citizenry from government abuse. Let me restate that so it’s absolutely clear: the right to bear arms protects citizens from any future regime that would hold a monopoly on violence and use that to oppress them. The system of checks and balances limits one branch of government from dominating the others; the Second Amendment is the citizens’ check against its government. Consistent with the ideal that government’s legitimacy depends on the consent of the governed, the Declaration of Independence makes clear that citizens reserve the right of rebellion:

“[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Prudent laws are not made for political expediency or to “do something”. We are immeasurably fortunate to not bear the shackles of tyranny upon our wrists today, but let us not be so arrogant to think that despotism could never occur on these shores — not today, not likely in our lifetimes, but if you watched The Hunger Games and dismissed it as an impossible fantasy, its message was lost on you. American democracy is not guaranteed; it must be actively cultivated and preserved. The survival of liberal democratic institutions and norms in the United States requires that The People remain its custodians.

“[W]hat country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”3

— Thomas Jefferson

*  *  *

Comparing the rate of gun violence in the United .States to the rest of the developed world is problematic because the American historical experience is unlike any other. The U.S. is the world’s longest continually-established democracy.4 The second-longest was forged by comparable processes, making for an interesting parallel. Amid the liberal Revolutions of 1848, Switzerland emerged as a new, unified state in the wake of a civil war. Its Constitution of 1848 transformed the country from a loose confederation of cantons to a federal parliamentary republic; modelled after the U.S. Constitution, it reserved powers to local jurisdiction in similar fashion. Lacking a national firearm registry, the Swiss are allowed to keep military-grade weapons at home, rights they reaffirmed in a 2011 referendum in which a 20-6 majority of cantons and 56.3% of overall citizens rejected tighter gun control measures. Switzerland also joins the U.S. at the top of the list of firearms per person, yet has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.

The case of Switzerland illustrates that owning automatic firearms bears no necessary correlation to violent crime. Perhaps, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the dramatic difference in gun violence is a matter of how our institutions shape our society. The most glaring difference is in the foreign policies of the two. Switzerland has been officially neutral since its declaration was issued and recognised in the 1815 Treaty of Paris, while the United States’ involvement in international conflict has been prolific (to put it mildly), lately in search of dragons to slay.

What makes Americans such a violent lot, compared to the rest of the developed world? Theories abound. It may be the case that our formative experience has left us with unique scars. If there is one singularly salient locus, it’s extremely difficult to pinpoint, but whatever it is, it’s so deeply embedded in “American-ness” that I doubt it’s a problem that can be legislated away. China, where guns are illegal, has a similar problem of violent knife attacks. Yes, it is easier to spray bullets into a theatre than it is to stab the same number of people. But robust gun control would undermine an important aspect of democracy without addressing the matter of what makes Americans especially prone to wanting to kill so many innocent victims. Violent people are violent people before they have committed an act of violence.

From 2009 to 2013, mass shooters killed a spouse, partner, or family member in 57% of the cases. Relying on the government is a convenient moral solution; it absolves the individual of any culpability. We should not be asking “how many more shootings have to happen before the government tries to stop them?” Nor should we accept the false choice fallacy presented to us, that the country can either choose “common sense” gun control measures or accept mass murders as a part of life. Reducing gun violence in the U.S. cannot occur by a quick and easy fix. Americans need to look in the mirror and ask the most pressing question, one which is completely lost in the debate:

How many more people have to die in mass murders before we start treating our family and friends with compassion, and strangers with respect and decency?

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Is Income Equality Desirable?

The Palma ratio measures income inequality, comparing the world’s richest 10 percent with its poorest 40 percent. Economists at the Center for International Development have concluded that the middle 50 percent (i.e. the middle class) is stable across all countries surveyed, while the distance between the wealthiest and poorest grows

income inequality

According to the IMF, the United States has the world’s greatest nominal GDP, and its GDP per capita is ranked tenth. Of the 86 countries compared by the Palma ratio, the United States’ income equality ranks 44th, far below the other developed countries — no doubt it would rank lower had Scandinavian countries been included. Palma data reflects strong trends that the countries with greater income equality than the US have one of two common traits:

1. Countries in the Global North with more punitive progressive taxation rates

2. Countries in the Global South with lower GDP per capita

Further, the countries with less income equality than the US are all in the Global South.

US Palma comparison

Americans don’t handle not being the best well. But rather than immediately lament the US rank, one must consider whether more income equality is something worth having. Income inequality between the rich and the poor is a natural growth; social elites are the best-educated, most well-connected, and healthiest individuals in any society and are able to maintain these resources by “hoarding” opportunities.1  Income equality, however, can only be created through government policies designed to make everyone equal. Such policies have natural order all backwards — man ought to be equal under the law, despite being unequal of ability. When considering that the state’s proper function is to establish justice, it would seem that the only form of taxation which perfectly realises the universal virtue of justice is a flat rate. Unlike progressive taxation, the flat tax treats citizens as legal equals — whether taxes are low or high, in a just government, everyone pays the same share.

The United States’ Palma ranking is right where it should be*, and is indicative of the country’s uniqueness. The US features 132 companies on the 2013 Forbes Global 500 list, substantially more than any other country. The top five are rounded out by China (86), Japan (62), France (31), and Germany (29). The US is still a place where, by and large, the best have the greatest chance to succeed, in a way not present in countries with greater or less economic equality.

Living and studying in The Netherlands, I’ve observed a general complacency among the Dutch not found in The States. University tuition fees are heavily subsidised by the government, so Dutch students pay only €1,835 per year for tuition. Whereas the high cost of studies in the United States pressures American students to graduate on time or early, Dutch students, lacking a financial burden, have less urgency to do the same. To a greater extent, the tax system contributes to a complacent society — households annually earning upwards of €55,695 pay a 52% income tax rate. The Dutch welfare state provides such a breadth of services and taxes at such steep rates that it produces a largely unmotivated, hunger-less society. Dutch people know that they’re all going to come out approximately the same in life, so why should they work hard? That attitude is reflected in OECD data from 2011, which shows that the Dutch work fewer hours per week than anywhere else in the world, at 30.5. The system itself disincentivises innovation, as evidenced by the mere twelve Dutch companies among the Fortune Global 500.

“Whether they realise it or not, people want to be able to understand that there are people higher and lower than they are on the socioeconomic totem pole; those above them may motivate them to work harder in pursuit of their goals, and those below them may remind them that they could have it worse off. The need for hierarchical order is with us from birth. The basic unit of human social existence, the nuclear family, is a hierarchy, evidence enough that social status is not learned behaviour.”2

Social mobility, not income equality, is what we ought to value. However, it needs to be considered in relative, not absolute, terms. Absolute social mobility considers one’s income compared to his parents, whereas relative social mobility considers that, and also frames it within the gains of everyone else — a class rank, if you will. Absolute mobility can grow for everyone as the economy expands, and relative mobility is a zero-sum game — when someone climbs the ladder, someone else slides down a chute. This is often lost in the discussion, given the link between upward social mobility and the American Dream.

I know what it’s like to take the slide. In the late 1990s my father lost his job (justifiably) as an executive at a multi-billion dollar defence contractor and my life became a lot harder after that and my parents’ divorce. There were immediate impacts, like switching to public school and moving from a six-bedroom house to a townhouse, as well as future consequences, such as difficulty affording my undergraduate and graduate studies. Am I happy this happened to me? Of course not, although it has played a role in my character development. However, I recognise that it is important for members of the upper and upper-middle classes to backslide and thus make upward mobility possible.

“When it comes to the economic malaise facing America, the biggest problem is not the widening gap between rich and poor, but the stagnation of social mobility. When the income gap of one generation becomes an opportunity gap for the next, inequality hardens into social stratification.”3

— Richard V. Reeves, Brookings Institution

Regarding income inequality, the United States is between two undesirable extremes. China, whose wealth is disproportionately held by elites, has a largely poor population, and a GDP per capita ranked 87th, despite its nominal GDP ranking 2nd. At the other end of the spectrum, France has a relatively classless society because of punitive tax rates, which subvert the natural order of humanity, inhibit growth, extend state power, and create income-based legal distinctions among citizens. Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean, that the moderate choice between two vicious and opposite extremes is the most virtuous, indicates that the United States is right where it should be with regard to global income equality.

Although there is one supreme and perfect form of justice, it, like all universals, does admit of degrees. Justice in economic policy must prioritise outcomes over intent. Even though it does create legal distinctions among citizens, progressive taxation — that is, temperate progressive taxation — enables the greatest number of citizens to live comfortably. This utilitarian approach is not a Marxist attempt to bludgeon the wealthy and erase class existence, but straight from perhaps the greatest American to ever live. In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson suggested that a “means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to…tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise”.4   Jefferson was concerned that without this variety of progressive rate, the political foundations of the Republic would be in jeopardy, as more and more wage labourers, dependent on proprietors with an egregious concentration of wealth, would have their political and economic autonomy eroded. In a state which (moderately) takes a greater share from some individuals than others, the legal distinctions among citizens are real, but are nominal when compared to the potentially deleterious effects of a flat tax.

Arguments for a flat national income tax based on theoretical appeals to justice can only amount to hypothetical posturing; no elected officials in a representative government would pursue such, whether because of held principles or concern for expediency. You want to lower taxes on the wealthy and raise them on everyone else? Good luck with that. Even if that did happen, the state’s noble intentions would foreseeably contradict my positions that A. social mobility is important (for an economy and a society), and B. that, in the United States’ case, the country is approximately where it should be with regard to income equality (and thus shouldn’t take drastic steps in either direction). If everyone in a given state pays a 25% annual income tax, that one-fourth of lost income does more to damage the quality of life for a wage-earner than a 33% rate would harm the well-being of someone north of the 90th income percentile. A high flat income tax would stagnate and calcify socioeconomic status, contributing to the “sticky floor” that renders upward mobility increasingly out of reach, the poorer one is.

Depending on your perspective on tax policy, either flat or progressive taxes could be seen as just. Here we find that policy which aims toward justice and has ends which justify the means. An appeal to temperance, as used to consider income equality, reveals that the most just form of income tax is a softly progressive one, and partakes more in moderation than in European practice.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I Interned for Ken Cuccinelli — Here’s Why I’m Voting for Robert Sarvis, and You Should Too

I’m a registered independent who has more closely identified with the Republican Party of late due to the emergence of Congressmen like Justin Amash and Thomas Massie. I started my internship for the Cuccinelli campaign in March, while wrapping up my senior year at James Madison University. I didn’t know much about him, and I didn’t really care. Til then, I had always distanced myself from any partisan attachments, believing that official neutrality would be the safest path to a career in the Foreign Service. I threw all of that out the window because when you’re a second semester senior with no idea where if you’ll get into grad school and if you’ll get a decent summer internship, you take a bird when it’s in the hand. Almost any bird.

The more I found out about Cuccinelli, the more troubled I was that I was working for him. My discontent didn’t outwardly affect my ability to do my job, mainly involving polling, but I was quite frustrated — my character and reputation are important to me, and by advocating his candidacy to potential voters, I was lying. I spoke to a lot of disenchanted Republicans who echoed similar sentiment, saying that Cuccinelli is simply too extreme and they wanted Bill Bolling instead. The Republican Party is at a crux. This election is not just about Virginia, it is a referendum on the national viability of extreme-right social conservatism.

In an election with two distasteful candidates, Virginians have a choice on 5 November: would you prefer the Left boot or the Right boot on your windpipe? Both major party candidates unapologetically advocate policies that will abridge the rights of Virginians. How is the voting public supposed to decide which mule to back when one party is deeply divided about their candidate and the other party supports theirs only reluctantly? That is the black-and-white reality of this election; Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis is polling at around 10% and it would be a shock if he somehow wrested victory from the clutches of the moneyed political elite… And a shock is exactly what we need. A vote for Sarvis is not a waste.

The Two-Party System

I have long disdained the two-party system because it discourages independent thought and each party pushes further and further to the fringe of the political spectrum. It’s been interesting living in the Netherlands having the opportunity to follow the recent German elections so closely. Partisanship is higher in Germany than it is in the US, and fewer voters consider themselves independent because there are enough parties to reflect most people’s interests. As a result, German parties form coalitions and the policies implemented tend to reflect the will of more than just 51% of the population.

It’s important to remember that politicians are more than their platform, they are people. Politicians are opportunists and often sacrifice principle for opportunity. Most want to be not to do. That seems especially pronounced in this election — they want the title, the benefits, the deference, the power. The electorate needs to examine the candidates and evaluate their motives for running. Has anyone ever gotten the feeling that Sarvis is in this for himself?? I don’t know Robert Sarvis, and I’ve never spoken with Robert Sarvis, but I know a man of principles when I see one.

Sarvis stands for the values we say we cherish — personal liberty, equality under the law, justice, and opportunity. But how much do they really mean to us if we don’t vote for them? If you need more background on him I recommend reading this article. What do Cuccinelli and McAuliffe stand for by themselves? Both are big-government crony capitalists, ostensibly not for any particular philosophical belief about the role government should play in the market, but for the circle of back-scratching that occurs when politicians subsidise big businesses. The importance of justifying one’s beliefs cannot be overstated, yet voters haven’t sufficiently gotten that from either of them. McAuliffe is a carpet-bagging Cheshire Cat who stands for nothing but his own personal interests; Cuccinelli is a totalitarian religious zealot. One’s religion and desire to preserve status quo cannot be sufficient foundations of policy in a secular government. If this election were decided by a cadre of political philosophers, it’d be Sarvis in a landslide.

Republicans and Democrats are so concerned about the damage Sarvis can do them that they have deliberately taken every measure possible to keep him out of debates. They condescend the public, dismissively saying that a ballot cast for Sarvis is a ballot wasted. In reality, most of the Sarvis supporters wouldn’t be voicing their political opinion at all if he weren’t on the ballot. Even if he loses, your vote for Sarvis will signal to the political establishment that it’s time for a change, that both parties aren’t cutting it. If he clears the 10% threshold, the Libertarian Party is automatically on the next gubernatorial ballot, which will save the party a lot of money it had to spend this election petitioning for a spot on this year’s ballot.

Virginians are clamoring for a better choice yet seem reluctant to take the jump. It’s time to stand up and vote with conviction, not with fear. It’s time to support a candidate like you whose sole motivation is to better Virginia. It’s time to vote for Robert Sarvis.

“Open-minded and open for business”

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why “Justice and Interests”?

I named my site after the appropriate foremost pursuits of good government, which ought to serve as the principles guiding state behaviour. Domestically, the state’s purpose is to protect the natural rights of its citizens, recognising their equality under the law and treating them justly. Rights are universal and belong to man qua man — everyone has the right to property, freedom of contract, first possession, self-defence, and restitution.1 The state lacks legitimacy when it cannot protect its citizens from domestic and foreign threats to their opportunity for self-determination.

Pursuit of the national interest must be the state’s driving force in crafting foreign policy. The state has a moral duty to do what is best for its citizens — an obligation which does not extend beyond its borders. Man’s actions are bound by morality because of his natural capacity for reason, unique among the animal kingdom and bestowed by god. The state is unfettered by moral constraints in the international realm because its capabilities are not divinely ordained; it exists partially by consent of those living within its borders, who expect it to serve and protect them. Were a state to treat the welfare of foreign subjects citizens as of similar value to its own, it would inherently neglect its raison d’État. Cardinal Richelieu summarised that point adeptly:

“Man is immortal, his salvation is hereafter. The state has no immortality, its salvation is now or never.”2

It is therefore imperative for the state to have a clear definition of what the national interests are. This sounds like a no-brainer but has increasingly become a trend in the modern international system, the nature of which is more ambiguous than it ever has been. The rise of intergovernmental and supranational entities like the United Nations, UN Security Council, and European Union has, along with other factors like the liberalisation of social norms, advances in technology and media, and spread of nuclear weapons, obfuscated governments’ ability to discern their national interest.

Pursuit of the national interest often disposes the state to making unsavoury decisions in the eyes of their observers, like when a crusading democracy quietly backs a totalitarian autocracy for the benefits it receives from the relationship. In international relations, the ends justify the means by which they are achieved. Where there is neither a conflict with the national interest nor a great cost to the state, it should be a secondary objective to support justice and individual liberty abroad. Such is a risky endeavour; as it often necessitates a disturbance of stability. Stability, not peace, must be the objective of states participating in the international system because it is through stable order that states are most free to pursue their interests. “Peace” is too ambitious a goal and is incompatible with human nature; nothing is going to please everyone.

*  *  *

I have boundless ambition to do, not to be. My life is dedicated to my country; I aspire to attain the level of influence that can improve my country’s standing on the global stage and strengthen the domestic institutions which make it unique. The United States, cast from gold, has become misshapen and lost its lustre — we need to recast our government through the hearth of justice and interests.

“Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.”

                                             — Archimedes

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,