An excerpt from Wikipedia article on anti-humanism:
For Friedrich Nietzsche, humanism was nothing more than a secular version of theism. He argues in Genealogy of Moralsthat human rights exist as a means for the weak to constrain the strong; as such, they deny rather than facilitate emancipation of life.
I agree that human rights are a means for the weak to constrain the strong. The entire concept of human rights arose because of an endless array of tragedies in human history involving strong people trampling on the lives of weaker people. But the concept of weak versus strong has to be expanded to include docile versus ruthless and unarmed versus armed. So when I say "strong" here it also applies to "the man with the gun", even if physically, mentally, and emotionally he is weaker than his prey.
I strongly disagree that human rights deny rather than facilitate emancipation of life.
First, rights are only a zero-sum game in situations with acutely limited resources and unequal rights. For example, granting everyone the right to vote does not limit anyone's right to vote in normal situations. Granting certain people the right to haul water from a specific well but not granting that right to other people will potentially deny freedom to those others to haul water when there is a large demand by people with rights that causes a long wait for people without rights. But granting everyone the right to haul water from a specific well does not deny anyone freedoms - they all have the same opportunity.
Second, to suppose that a strong person's emancipation somehow hangs on his ability to trample on the lives of others is ridiculous. Can you imagine what new entries the Guinness Book of World Records might hold in this situation? How about "Most 5-year-olds decapitated in a 2-minute period" - can you imagine someone being free to do that? And then someone else trying to beat their record? All in the name of being free to do whatever? Of course, in a world where nobody has even basic human rights, there's no need for a justice system, because there's nothing to enforce. So when your 5-year-old gets decapitated by the Nietzsche fan you would be just as free to round up your friends and retaliate against him without fear of paying any consequences other than having to later defend yourself against HIS friends. This is anarchy.
Third, if we try to adopt only those rules that make life better for society as a whole, then a set of basic human rights are naturally the first rules that should be adopted. Look at Myanmar. A country of 55 million people, most of them oppressed by just one million in the employ of the government (military, police, bureaucrats, informers) who are themselves controlled by just a few thousand people who can be said to comprise the elite who are topped by the single military dictator. That country has no human rights. Millions suffer for the benefit of a few. Ending the oppression and suffering of those millions would clearly cause a lot more happiness than is currently enjoyed by the strong few who rule them, because all human hearts are similar in size.
Fourth, not all people are created equal. We are not all the same. But we all share similarities, and it's each person's unique differences from others that gives the potential to succeed where others fail. For the sake of the survival of the human species, we should preserve the potential to use our differences for our common good. But allowing the strong to trample the weak erodes that potential. We need human rights so that all humans will be treated equally in certain situations in order to overcome the fact that we are not all equal. I believe this creates more liberties than it denies, and I believe that enforcement of human rights is one of the most noble things that can be done.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Hooray for US Court of Appeals for Third Circuit!!
Timothy Karr of the Huffington Post wrote this: "It's not every day that you can celebrate a win for the public over big media. But a federal appeals court threw out an attempt by the FCC and industry titans to gut media ownership limits. The decision is a sweeping victory for the public interest. The court rejected arguments made by broadcast and newspaper giants while exposing the FCC's repeated failures to rein in runaway consolidation."
I generally support giving people more freedoms and more choices. So I would normally support media company's rights to do their business how they please. The problem is that I don't trust the media companies we have now to serve the people well, and because of all the regulations we already have, the cost to starting a new company and entering this market place is very high. Also, nobody has found a business model that works for delivering just the truth, or at least a balanced "all perspectives" view of the truth, that can compete with the current giants.
There either needs to be a lot more deregulation in a way that lowers the barrier to entry for new companies, or there needs to be a huge smack-down of the current media giants. The FCC isn't doing it's job because it somehow became a pawn of the bigger companies. Why would the FCC, in charge of regulation (some good, some bad) be in favor of removing limits on media ownership, limits that were set in place earlier to prevent the kind of monopoly that would allow a single organization to control a lot of the information that free people receive and trust as news? There's no benefit to the people or the government in that. It's definitely not worth lower prices which wouldn't come anyway since without competition and a high barrier to entry the media conglomerate would be able to raise prices quite a bit before it's worthwhile for a new competitor to enter the market and capture the lower end.
This is why I support the court's decision in this case against the large media companies even though normally I would be on the other side advocating more freedom.
There either needs to be a lot more deregulation in a way that lowers the barrier to entry for new companies, or there needs to be a huge smack-down of the current media giants. The FCC isn't doing it's job because it somehow became a pawn of the bigger companies. Why would the FCC, in charge of regulation (some good, some bad) be in favor of removing limits on media ownership, limits that were set in place earlier to prevent the kind of monopoly that would allow a single organization to control a lot of the information that free people receive and trust as news? There's no benefit to the people or the government in that. It's definitely not worth lower prices which wouldn't come anyway since without competition and a high barrier to entry the media conglomerate would be able to raise prices quite a bit before it's worthwhile for a new competitor to enter the market and capture the lower end.
This is why I support the court's decision in this case against the large media companies even though normally I would be on the other side advocating more freedom.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
A Perfect Society?
I think that any rules that we make for ourselves should be based on the belief that we're not perfect, that we're going to screw up, and that when we screw up there should be a prescribed a way to get back on course.
I think it's not possible to achieve a perfect society - there will always be people with different values and beliefs and this will cause them to view events in a different way and to disagree on how things should be done - because not everyone will agree on the same definition of perfect.
For some people, perfect is when the government takes care of the elderly. For others, it's when sons and daughters take care of their own elderly. For some people, perfect is when the government sends billions of dollars a year to other countries in different forms of assistance because it's the right thing to do. For others, it's when the government spends all our money fixing things at home because it's the right thing to do.
So I think the best thing we can do is to consider things very simply. There are people who say the world is complicated and you have to do what they say in order to survive because they are the experts who know something about this complex world. I say the world isn't any more complicated than the people who live in it. I say that our actions should be guided by simple, straight-forward values. I say that we should not lie to ourselves - we should accept the truth, however inconvenient or embarrassing or distasteful it is - because when we deal with our world honestly, wisely, and courageously we can always make something beautiful happen.
I think it's not possible to achieve a perfect society - there will always be people with different values and beliefs and this will cause them to view events in a different way and to disagree on how things should be done - because not everyone will agree on the same definition of perfect.
For some people, perfect is when the government takes care of the elderly. For others, it's when sons and daughters take care of their own elderly. For some people, perfect is when the government sends billions of dollars a year to other countries in different forms of assistance because it's the right thing to do. For others, it's when the government spends all our money fixing things at home because it's the right thing to do.
So I think the best thing we can do is to consider things very simply. There are people who say the world is complicated and you have to do what they say in order to survive because they are the experts who know something about this complex world. I say the world isn't any more complicated than the people who live in it. I say that our actions should be guided by simple, straight-forward values. I say that we should not lie to ourselves - we should accept the truth, however inconvenient or embarrassing or distasteful it is - because when we deal with our world honestly, wisely, and courageously we can always make something beautiful happen.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Solving the Unemployment Problem
In a large enough population, there is going to be a percentage of people who are different from the norm in that they are not interested in working, or they say they want to work but always have an excuse not to get a job or be able to keep it.
So before any serious talk of solving the unemployment problem I think we need to agree that solving the problem means that any person who WANTS a job can have one.
But we don't know everyone, we only really know numbers - how do we identify the people who don't want a job and exclude them from the unemployment measure? And how do we identify the people who claim to want a job but find every excuse not to actually work?
I think the key to identifying such people is to do this:
1. replace the unemployment check with an unemployment program that offers jobs to the unemployed. These jobs would be cleaning streets, picking up trash, and other such jobs that don't require any qualifications besides normal physical ability. For physically disabled people, the key physical ability might be answering phones, or something else that they can still do. For really disabled people who cannot do any such job, if they really have no skill or ability that can be used like reading and speaking, they will not be qualified for the program and we will simply have to count them in the unemployment measure, maybe in a special category of people who actually cannot work so that we know there's nothing that can be done to help them get a job.
2. the unemployment program must issue certificates of performance to all people who are in this program so that it can be determined whether they are meeting the job requirements. This program would be no free lunch - if they don't do the work they will get fired from the job and the unemployment program will record a certificate that they failed to perform - and the circumstances involved. Such people who get fired from the job program would be eligible to re-apply and try again with the same job a limited number of times, and to re-apply and try again with a different job a limited number of times. Essentially, we would be giving people opportunities for employment and letting them build a record for themselves of not actually being able to keep a job for whatever reason or of maintaining a job.
3. People who get repeatedly fired or who quit from their freebie jobs and build a record for themselves of unemployability would not be counted in the unemployment measure. If they cannot keep a job that was offered to them with barely any questions asked and with multiple opportunities for re-hire if they mess up or quit, then it's very unlikely that they could obtain and keep a job in the market and no other job creation initiative would be able to solve their problem. They might be candidates or psychological or emotional help of some sort, though, and this should be offered to them (by a charity).
So then we can talk about an unemployment measure that we are really confident speaks of people who want to work and are able to work but cannot find a job. And incidentally, that number will be very low because they will be employed in the unemployment job program until they do find a job.
The jobs offered under the unemployment program must not be full time jobs - I think no more than 6 hours a day - because anyone who is in that program must have enough time during regular business hours to search for and go to interview with a regular job, yet they do need to work enough hours to be able to sustain themselves with the money earned.
And by the way, this program does not have to be run by the government. It can be run by a non-profit charity that is interested in helping people find work! Such a charity could then obtain a contract with the government to provide certain services at a low cost - such as cleaning, picking up trash, answering phones, etc. The government would get a good price since the charity is not out to make a profit. And this would provide the charity income to pay the people's hourly wages for the work done. Of course the charity could contract employment with any for-profit business too that finds their services valuable.
So before any serious talk of solving the unemployment problem I think we need to agree that solving the problem means that any person who WANTS a job can have one.
But we don't know everyone, we only really know numbers - how do we identify the people who don't want a job and exclude them from the unemployment measure? And how do we identify the people who claim to want a job but find every excuse not to actually work?
I think the key to identifying such people is to do this:
1. replace the unemployment check with an unemployment program that offers jobs to the unemployed. These jobs would be cleaning streets, picking up trash, and other such jobs that don't require any qualifications besides normal physical ability. For physically disabled people, the key physical ability might be answering phones, or something else that they can still do. For really disabled people who cannot do any such job, if they really have no skill or ability that can be used like reading and speaking, they will not be qualified for the program and we will simply have to count them in the unemployment measure, maybe in a special category of people who actually cannot work so that we know there's nothing that can be done to help them get a job.
2. the unemployment program must issue certificates of performance to all people who are in this program so that it can be determined whether they are meeting the job requirements. This program would be no free lunch - if they don't do the work they will get fired from the job and the unemployment program will record a certificate that they failed to perform - and the circumstances involved. Such people who get fired from the job program would be eligible to re-apply and try again with the same job a limited number of times, and to re-apply and try again with a different job a limited number of times. Essentially, we would be giving people opportunities for employment and letting them build a record for themselves of not actually being able to keep a job for whatever reason or of maintaining a job.
3. People who get repeatedly fired or who quit from their freebie jobs and build a record for themselves of unemployability would not be counted in the unemployment measure. If they cannot keep a job that was offered to them with barely any questions asked and with multiple opportunities for re-hire if they mess up or quit, then it's very unlikely that they could obtain and keep a job in the market and no other job creation initiative would be able to solve their problem. They might be candidates or psychological or emotional help of some sort, though, and this should be offered to them (by a charity).
So then we can talk about an unemployment measure that we are really confident speaks of people who want to work and are able to work but cannot find a job. And incidentally, that number will be very low because they will be employed in the unemployment job program until they do find a job.
The jobs offered under the unemployment program must not be full time jobs - I think no more than 6 hours a day - because anyone who is in that program must have enough time during regular business hours to search for and go to interview with a regular job, yet they do need to work enough hours to be able to sustain themselves with the money earned.
And by the way, this program does not have to be run by the government. It can be run by a non-profit charity that is interested in helping people find work! Such a charity could then obtain a contract with the government to provide certain services at a low cost - such as cleaning, picking up trash, answering phones, etc. The government would get a good price since the charity is not out to make a profit. And this would provide the charity income to pay the people's hourly wages for the work done. Of course the charity could contract employment with any for-profit business too that finds their services valuable.
Less Government. More Religion.
Religion is actually a form of government, something that we've obviously collectively forgotten since we treat it as an accessory someone can choose.
Muslims know this - many Muslims demand that their religion be incorporated into their state governments. The problem with the Muslim religion is, in my opinion, that it's very poor in terms of government, and makes no allowances for things that we have learned since it was invented. So I wouldn't want to live in a Muslim state, but that's just me.
But I'm not advocating for people to convert to Islam. I'm advocating for people to actually follow the important rules and principles of their religion more closely (um, the good parts, not really the parts about honor killings and stoning and easy divorces and such).
Let's call it the Ten Commandments. If you're not Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, it's ok to consider this as an outsider:
1. there is a God
2. worship only one God (makes it easy to agree with other people)
3. don't worship idols (God does not have a specific form so don't pray to or worship people, paintings, or sculptures because they can't help you). By the way this doesn't mean you can't HAVE a painting or sculpture. Just don't worship them.
4. don't make a wrongful use of the name of God - and many people take this to mean don't curse other people, for example telling someone you hope "God damn you" for what they have done. I don't see it that way. I think that expressing your anger at another person in those terms is perfectly fine - if what they've done would warrant such a thing. I think what's more important is to not use God's name in a wrongful way like, "I saw God and he told me that you should all give up your urban lives and come live here with me and be my wives and my servants and let me have crazy monkey sex with your children while pretending it's some sort of purification ritual"
5. work for six days and rest on the seventh - including your animals and slaves. It makes sense.
6. honor your father and mother. They are looking out for your best interest so try to do good by them. If you're one of the unlucky people who have abusive parents or they try to steal your stuff or otherwise exploit you, then hopefully abandoning them is as close to honoring them as you can get. If you make a better life you might still want to consider that you wouldn't exist without them, and that would be a way of honoring them, even if you never see or speak to them again.
7. don't murder. Very good commandment. A classic.
8. don't commit adultery. I think of adultery not so much as having sex with other people while you're married, but breaking a vow that you made to the one most important person in your life. And in the times of the Old Testament adultery had real economic implications which made it actually hurt the other person more than just emotionally. So it really means, don't hurt someone who you made a commitment to protect. But if someone disagrees with me and says it just means don't cheat on your spouse, well I won't argue with that, because it still does mean don't cheat on your spouse. I'm just saying it's not as much about the cheating as about the effects of the cheating. You shouldn't cause harm to your spouse whether it's from cheating or something else.
9. don't falsely testify against your neighbor. I read neighbor as fellow human, not strictly the person who lives adjacent to you... although in the times of the Old Testament I think your neighbor would be the person most likely to witness you actually doing something wrong or right. So don't lie about people, whether it's to hurt them or help yourself or for amusement or whatever. If you don't know, say you don't know. If you aren't sure, say you aren't sure.
10. don't covet your neighbor's things. It's not healthy. Don't worry about them, worry about yourself. You want what they have? Do what they do and get your own. Don't try to take theirs from them, and don't be a creepy neighbor.
1-4 are important to me personally but here's my objective perspective on them: religion is a form of government, and government needs authority to function. Commandments 1-4 assert the authority of God. How so?
1. there is a God. God cannot have authority unless He exists, so this is a very important assertion.
2. there is only one God. There is just one authority, not many. Humans need this.
3. don't worship idols. Many times there is value in separating things. We give awards to outstanding achievers in order to separate them from the rest of us. Why? To make them special - so that people will want to be like them and in that way we inspire more achievements. That's creating value. So with this commandment God creates value by separating Himself from common people and paintings and sculptures and rocks and rivers. Not allowing just anything to be a god makes God special.
4. don't make a wrongful use of the name of God. God has values. God takes sides. God has intent. God has a plan. And if you don't know what it is, don't pretend that you do. This means God retains full authority for the use of His name. Which is, of course, something that we copy when we set up our own authorities for things, such as who gets to print dollar bills.
So basically God spent 40% of his commandments making sure you that follow the other 60%. And that makes the other 60% very important! Let's look at them again:
5. work for six days and rest on the seventh. Helps people retain perspective. When people are overworked they may go crazy.
6. honor your father and mother. Family is important, social structure is important, and there are numerous ways to honor your parents that are common to many cultures and also numerous ways that are unique to a culture and to the set of parents because it may depend on their hopes and aspirations for you, or on what they believe will make you a success, or what will make them proud. And when they get too old to care for themselves, you can honor them by helping out.
7. don't murder. Anyone disagree?
8. don't commit adultery. This rule was not meant to be broken.
9. don't falsely testify against your neighbor. Breaking this rule is basically evil, don't do it.
10. don't cover your neighbor's things. A cornerstone of social order. Also means don't steal.
Governments tend to have these laws and many many more. More laws is fine; things come up and people disagree and rules need to be made to regulate behavior in a way that is most beneficial to society. But maybe if we agree that the basic rules laid out for us regulate first our work ethic, then our values, then how we shouldn't hurt each other - maybe we might realize that a lot of the rules we've created aren't really necessary. And if you follow the prison population counts and the facts about how many people should be in prison but aren't because there's not enough room... maybe if just a few important rules were more respected by everyone we wouldn't have prison overpopulation problems. What I'm saying is, the person who robs the bank with a friend ... has a friend who also thinks it's ok to rob a bank, and probably a few others who may not do it themselves but won't turn him in either. Whereas I hope that one day a friend with more religion in him will say, "no that's wrong don't do it" and maybe prevent a crime, or report the crime because it's the right thing to do.
I'm saying religion can be an effective form of government if we let it be instead of marginalizing it.
Muslims know this - many Muslims demand that their religion be incorporated into their state governments. The problem with the Muslim religion is, in my opinion, that it's very poor in terms of government, and makes no allowances for things that we have learned since it was invented. So I wouldn't want to live in a Muslim state, but that's just me.
But I'm not advocating for people to convert to Islam. I'm advocating for people to actually follow the important rules and principles of their religion more closely (um, the good parts, not really the parts about honor killings and stoning and easy divorces and such).
Let's call it the Ten Commandments. If you're not Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, it's ok to consider this as an outsider:
1. there is a God
2. worship only one God (makes it easy to agree with other people)
3. don't worship idols (God does not have a specific form so don't pray to or worship people, paintings, or sculptures because they can't help you). By the way this doesn't mean you can't HAVE a painting or sculpture. Just don't worship them.
4. don't make a wrongful use of the name of God - and many people take this to mean don't curse other people, for example telling someone you hope "God damn you" for what they have done. I don't see it that way. I think that expressing your anger at another person in those terms is perfectly fine - if what they've done would warrant such a thing. I think what's more important is to not use God's name in a wrongful way like, "I saw God and he told me that you should all give up your urban lives and come live here with me and be my wives and my servants and let me have crazy monkey sex with your children while pretending it's some sort of purification ritual"
5. work for six days and rest on the seventh - including your animals and slaves. It makes sense.
6. honor your father and mother. They are looking out for your best interest so try to do good by them. If you're one of the unlucky people who have abusive parents or they try to steal your stuff or otherwise exploit you, then hopefully abandoning them is as close to honoring them as you can get. If you make a better life you might still want to consider that you wouldn't exist without them, and that would be a way of honoring them, even if you never see or speak to them again.
7. don't murder. Very good commandment. A classic.
8. don't commit adultery. I think of adultery not so much as having sex with other people while you're married, but breaking a vow that you made to the one most important person in your life. And in the times of the Old Testament adultery had real economic implications which made it actually hurt the other person more than just emotionally. So it really means, don't hurt someone who you made a commitment to protect. But if someone disagrees with me and says it just means don't cheat on your spouse, well I won't argue with that, because it still does mean don't cheat on your spouse. I'm just saying it's not as much about the cheating as about the effects of the cheating. You shouldn't cause harm to your spouse whether it's from cheating or something else.
9. don't falsely testify against your neighbor. I read neighbor as fellow human, not strictly the person who lives adjacent to you... although in the times of the Old Testament I think your neighbor would be the person most likely to witness you actually doing something wrong or right. So don't lie about people, whether it's to hurt them or help yourself or for amusement or whatever. If you don't know, say you don't know. If you aren't sure, say you aren't sure.
10. don't covet your neighbor's things. It's not healthy. Don't worry about them, worry about yourself. You want what they have? Do what they do and get your own. Don't try to take theirs from them, and don't be a creepy neighbor.
1-4 are important to me personally but here's my objective perspective on them: religion is a form of government, and government needs authority to function. Commandments 1-4 assert the authority of God. How so?
1. there is a God. God cannot have authority unless He exists, so this is a very important assertion.
2. there is only one God. There is just one authority, not many. Humans need this.
3. don't worship idols. Many times there is value in separating things. We give awards to outstanding achievers in order to separate them from the rest of us. Why? To make them special - so that people will want to be like them and in that way we inspire more achievements. That's creating value. So with this commandment God creates value by separating Himself from common people and paintings and sculptures and rocks and rivers. Not allowing just anything to be a god makes God special.
4. don't make a wrongful use of the name of God. God has values. God takes sides. God has intent. God has a plan. And if you don't know what it is, don't pretend that you do. This means God retains full authority for the use of His name. Which is, of course, something that we copy when we set up our own authorities for things, such as who gets to print dollar bills.
So basically God spent 40% of his commandments making sure you that follow the other 60%. And that makes the other 60% very important! Let's look at them again:
5. work for six days and rest on the seventh. Helps people retain perspective. When people are overworked they may go crazy.
6. honor your father and mother. Family is important, social structure is important, and there are numerous ways to honor your parents that are common to many cultures and also numerous ways that are unique to a culture and to the set of parents because it may depend on their hopes and aspirations for you, or on what they believe will make you a success, or what will make them proud. And when they get too old to care for themselves, you can honor them by helping out.
7. don't murder. Anyone disagree?
8. don't commit adultery. This rule was not meant to be broken.
9. don't falsely testify against your neighbor. Breaking this rule is basically evil, don't do it.
10. don't cover your neighbor's things. A cornerstone of social order. Also means don't steal.
Governments tend to have these laws and many many more. More laws is fine; things come up and people disagree and rules need to be made to regulate behavior in a way that is most beneficial to society. But maybe if we agree that the basic rules laid out for us regulate first our work ethic, then our values, then how we shouldn't hurt each other - maybe we might realize that a lot of the rules we've created aren't really necessary. And if you follow the prison population counts and the facts about how many people should be in prison but aren't because there's not enough room... maybe if just a few important rules were more respected by everyone we wouldn't have prison overpopulation problems. What I'm saying is, the person who robs the bank with a friend ... has a friend who also thinks it's ok to rob a bank, and probably a few others who may not do it themselves but won't turn him in either. Whereas I hope that one day a friend with more religion in him will say, "no that's wrong don't do it" and maybe prevent a crime, or report the crime because it's the right thing to do.
I'm saying religion can be an effective form of government if we let it be instead of marginalizing it.
Don't Release the Hounds
I'm with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on this one - overcrowding in a prison is not cruel and unusual punishment, and we shouldn't release more than 40,000 prisoners just because they have long lines at the gym.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1360186
In my opinion, overcrowding is not cruel and unusual punishment mainly because it's not prescribed as part of the punishment - it's a result of a great many number of people committing crimes and the state not having enough money to keep them all around in first-class quarters. I've never been to prison so I only know what I read and what I see in movies - and specifically movies that just happen to have a scene or two in a prison and aren't specifically about prisons - and what I think I know is that most prison cells house 4 inmates or less. Is that true? Let's double it. 8 inmates or less.
I've lived in Army barracks where rooms house 12 soldiers in a space just barely large enough to hold 6 bunk beds, one locker per soldier, and standing room between them. And I've lived in Army barracks that are open bays, housing 40 or more soldiers in a room similarly arranged. Sometimes that bay was actually a large tent. Where 80 soldiers share one bathroom with 4 stalls and 4 sinks.
So I don't feel particularly bad for prisoners who live in similar conditions. I work for a living, they hurt someone else AND are getting a free ride from the state.
Speaking of Antonin Scalia - I read his background on wikipedia and I agree with most of his opinions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1360186
In my opinion, overcrowding is not cruel and unusual punishment mainly because it's not prescribed as part of the punishment - it's a result of a great many number of people committing crimes and the state not having enough money to keep them all around in first-class quarters. I've never been to prison so I only know what I read and what I see in movies - and specifically movies that just happen to have a scene or two in a prison and aren't specifically about prisons - and what I think I know is that most prison cells house 4 inmates or less. Is that true? Let's double it. 8 inmates or less.
I've lived in Army barracks where rooms house 12 soldiers in a space just barely large enough to hold 6 bunk beds, one locker per soldier, and standing room between them. And I've lived in Army barracks that are open bays, housing 40 or more soldiers in a room similarly arranged. Sometimes that bay was actually a large tent. Where 80 soldiers share one bathroom with 4 stalls and 4 sinks.
So I don't feel particularly bad for prisoners who live in similar conditions. I work for a living, they hurt someone else AND are getting a free ride from the state.
Speaking of Antonin Scalia - I read his background on wikipedia and I agree with most of his opinions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Evolution of Government
I believe that any rule can be abused. For example, one of the rules that is frequently applied here is "first come first serve." It can be fair if everyone has an equal opportunity to arrive first; it can be abused by setting bylaws for when service opens to suit a specific group of people or by informing a selected group of people before anyone else of when and where to be in order to give them an advantage in being first.
I believe that have abused our separation of church and state, which is a rule, by passing laws that enforce specific values from one religion and pretending they are for a secular purpose.
Our government has rules about passing laws, and these have also been abused. We need, loosely speaking, a majority vote to approve laws. Yet sometimes we approve laws we do not want because some legislator abuses the system by adding self-serving portions to a law that he or she knows the majority of other legislators want to pass in a hurry. They will approve the law after verifying that their own concerns are addressed, and they are under pressure not to delay the passing of the law in order to question someone else's self-serving portions of it. Is this a flaw? Surely, in a national legislature, only laws that serve the best interests of the entire nation should be approved. Any law that serves only a small part of the nation, or worse yet, the individual political interests of the legislator, should be discussed openly and approved or disapproved directly by the majority. Is it possible to fix this flaw in our system?
Should we require our legislature to vote not just on an entire bill, but on each provision? Voting on each paragraph would probably just result in self-serving legislation added as unrelated sentences to a key paragraph. Voting on each sentence would be cumbersome. Often times an idea or a system needs many sentences and paragraphs to be fully described, and allowing legislature to approve just parts of an idea or proposed system may result in utter ineffectiveness. On the other hand, we have passed laws that are amendments to existing laws. Can we demand a review of all passed legislation with a purpose to strip out self-serving portions? Or would that undermine legitimate compromises that may have been made in order to approve the law originally?
Clearly every law should have a preamble stating its intent, and the context in which it is being passed. This will help the public evaluate the contents of the law to identify parts that are unrelated to the approved intent (porkbarrel), and it will help future generations understand when they need to modify the law or cancel it.
I believe that have abused our separation of church and state, which is a rule, by passing laws that enforce specific values from one religion and pretending they are for a secular purpose.
Our government has rules about passing laws, and these have also been abused. We need, loosely speaking, a majority vote to approve laws. Yet sometimes we approve laws we do not want because some legislator abuses the system by adding self-serving portions to a law that he or she knows the majority of other legislators want to pass in a hurry. They will approve the law after verifying that their own concerns are addressed, and they are under pressure not to delay the passing of the law in order to question someone else's self-serving portions of it. Is this a flaw? Surely, in a national legislature, only laws that serve the best interests of the entire nation should be approved. Any law that serves only a small part of the nation, or worse yet, the individual political interests of the legislator, should be discussed openly and approved or disapproved directly by the majority. Is it possible to fix this flaw in our system?
Should we require our legislature to vote not just on an entire bill, but on each provision? Voting on each paragraph would probably just result in self-serving legislation added as unrelated sentences to a key paragraph. Voting on each sentence would be cumbersome. Often times an idea or a system needs many sentences and paragraphs to be fully described, and allowing legislature to approve just parts of an idea or proposed system may result in utter ineffectiveness. On the other hand, we have passed laws that are amendments to existing laws. Can we demand a review of all passed legislation with a purpose to strip out self-serving portions? Or would that undermine legitimate compromises that may have been made in order to approve the law originally?
Clearly every law should have a preamble stating its intent, and the context in which it is being passed. This will help the public evaluate the contents of the law to identify parts that are unrelated to the approved intent (porkbarrel), and it will help future generations understand when they need to modify the law or cancel it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
