Support R Troops

True story.

There I was…on an overnight road trip to Washington D.C.

Okay, not the most interesting tale so far, I imagine. Stay with me. It gets better. I was passing through Scranton, PA and stopped at place by the county courthouse called Pizza by Pappas. This decal was on the glass door. I was so amused by it that I took this picture.

I didn’t think that later on in the week I would be in an argument over a gesture as simple as a “support our troops” statement much like the one on the door of this restaurant.

I never actually expected to have a conversation with somebody hostile to the idea of supporting the troops. To be honest, I’m a little cool to “support our troops” campaigns altogether. Yellow ribbons, bumper stickers, country music anthems describing boots and their respective positions in the hind-quarters of bad guys…so on…so on…and so… (stop Justin you’re starting to get nasty).

I can explain myself. I’m a “troop.” I’ve been one for years. As a Soldier, I do what is right in order to protect people and keep them safe. That is my job. It requires a sense of duty, courage, and sacrifice. What it does not require is popular support. Not bumper-sticker support anyhow. I will do my job regardless of the number of signs in windows or flag pins on the lapels of the country’s leaders. I will do this duty – protecting people – even if it means that I die.

That is the ethic of a Soldier.

I understand the “support the troops” business. This country hasn’t always been to kind to Soldiers returning home from conflict. Especially when the public perception is that those Soldiers have fought and killed others in the country’s name.

That same point of view from way back before the days of yellow ribbon bumper stickers was one that was held by a gentleman that confronted me about how he did not, and could not, support the American troops in conflict today. His position was that they are murderers who justify their actions by saying that they are “merely following orders.” Orders that are themselves given by corrupt civilian leadership in order to conduct a war that is unjust and based on lies. It’s an extreme position, but not an uncommon one.

It is beyond the scope of my point here to argue over whether current conflicts in the Middle East are just or unjust. This is a fight in which I will never involuntarily get involved, and never will I get sucked in while speaking or acting in an official capacity. Don’t expect it here at S.C.S. either. It’ll be a cold day in…

Anyway, that’s not where I went with the gentleman who confronted me that day either. Nor did I indulge him with a conversation about whether killing is morally acceptable in a just war (as opposed to in an unjust war), although there are very interesting things being published about that subject. I have had the fortunate opportunity to latch on to LTC Peter Kilner, who is a leading military ethicist in that exact subject (Find LTC Kilner’s blog here).

My approach in responding to this gentleman was uncovering some very important and incorrect assumptions about his first premise: that Soldiers are murderers who justify their actions by leaning on the defense that they are following orders. Here are some problems with that assumption:

Not all troops will kill in combat nor do all Soldiers perform combat-related duties: There are literally hundreds of thousands of people in the American Army. The sum of troops in all services and reserve components is a much higher figure. The U.S. Army recruiting site has a slogan, “There are over 150 ways to be a Soldier.” What this means is that only a segment of the force will be involved in any act of danger or hostility. Few in that segment will actually harm another person in combat. While this is a weak counter to my gentleman’s argument, it is a little immature to refuse to acknowledge the work that many Soldiers do that is positive and benefits many people around the world. There are 10,000 tropps in Haiti right now supporting the security and relief mission there. I’m certain he would not refuse to support them in these efforts.

A Soldier who kills in combat does not shirk responsibility for what has just happened: Shame on the Soldier who would kill somebody on the battlefield and feel justified merely because they were told to do so. Obedience is the first thing taught to any Soldier, but the perpetual education that is constantly reinforced in any military program is adherence to values, how to capably use authority and individual responsibility for one’s self and one’s subordinates. It would surprise me to find out that any Soldier who has killed in combat does not reflect on that moment for the rest of their lives and wonder if their soul is not eternally damned for their action. No good Soldier absolves their actions merely with appeals to “following orders.” A good Soldier takes responsibility for their actions, right or wrong.

It is certainly unfair for the gentleman who spoke with me to make such broad generalizations about today’s troops.

There is a warrior ethic. A Soldier’s ethic. I have revealed another piece of it here.

For the troops who do what others cannot or will not do, who protect people from harm and sacrifice much – sometimes their own lives – to do so, I salute you wholeheartedly.

For the troops who take responsibility for their actions, even when they can be perceived to be evil, I offer my strongest support.

-Justin

 

Guest Contribution: Purpose and Reason

[Guest-contributor, and companion of the Soldier-Citizen-Sapien Project, Anthony Leibig writes in agitation about his longing for a larger purpose than the superficial pursuits he notices all around him. I thank him for his courage to contribute, and I am once again reassured that the warriors of this world are at least one of the special groups of people in this world who are constantly pursuing something higher. They always have been. -Justin]

There I imagine myself, standing amongst hundreds, all dressed with armor and spears. Spartans we are. Shields held at the ready, awaiting the battle to come. I move forward of the formation, to reach the edge of the ridge. Looking down at the coast as the enemy pours out of their boats. Shield in left hand. Sweat crawling down my forehead as my helmet increases the sun’s temperature.

No time to be wiry, no time to be weak, it’s time for battle. I reach across my body with my right hand towards the sword at my waist. I raise my sword high into the air, and give a loud roar. The hundreds at my side echo after me. The stampede of our footfalls are thunderous as we run down the side of the ridge. Hearts pounding as one, feet stomping together, the rattle of our armor give off a distinct sound. Most of the enemy hold their ground. Others run for the safety of the ships. Like lightning flashing after the thunder, the first line of the enemy has the pleasure to taste our brawn.

Then it stops, the image faded away. I’m back in class, listening to some crazed professor talk about environmental chaos. I’m back in the world of uselessness, waste, and filth. I’m back at the nation’s number one party school, Penn State. I’m back in the crap I can’t stand. I’m surrounded by girls in North face jackets, leggings and UGGs. They’re all the same. In fact I think most of them are clones of each other, wearing the same thing as the other. Stupid overly desensitized half-witted egomaniacs.

These day dreams would seem like nothing more than a simple person’s desire for battle, and yes I am in the military and soon to be an officer. Yet, it doesn’t seem like the thing one would truly want. I feel the need to be something more than just an empty shell sitting in a class room, hearing political rhetoric being spewed out by some over caffeinated teacher that doesn’t deserve the money he gets from teaching here. To me when I think of these things, I feel the need for purpose, the need for reason, the need for righteousness, and belonging.

Here at this school, all is filth and degradation. Young students committing themselves to wasteful all-consuming lust that rewards nothing in return, and night after night it’s the same thing… spend money drink beer, spend more money, drink more beer, get drunk, start a fight, hit on some half-witted blonde in UGGs, throw up, fall asleep in the bathroom, wake up, do it again.

Of course some of you understand that this is not the way life really is, but take in contrast to your job with this seemingly good example of some frat boy. You wake up Monday, go to work, sit at your cubical, look at you monitor, hate you boss, drink coffee, wish the hot co-worker would at least acknowledge you for one moment so you can feel better about yourself…Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, rinse and repeat. You live for the weekend and die during the week.

Tell me that’s real life.

OR maybe you have an exciting life and great job, but it doesn’t last forever and it gets boring later on. Let’s be honest, unless you’re a celebrity nothing changes for you. Same shit, different day. Amen.

See, I think about those ancient Greek days as if they should be now, and you know what they should be! Those were the days of purpose and reason. Every man had a women and a child or children. Every warrior had his battle. Every moment in life had a meaning. Today, you don’t find any of that. Humanity has lost its purpose in this universe. We bicker with ourselves and start meaningless episodes of chaos for our own benefit or out of self-hatred and lust.

If there is no purpose, there is no need for anything reasonable and just. We’re born. We live. We die. We walk habitually unaware of our mortality. Mindless sacks of self-hating mammals that only want to die today and live for nothing. Take a look at the talk today about 2012. We are so excited about the complete and utter end of our existence. It sickens me! That’s not the purpose of our existence. There is a reason why we are here and there is a purpose.

After all, you don’t have to be a whale to write Moby Dick. Why should we become mindless sacks of stupidity? Why should we walk around feeling that there is life only in the filth we fill ourselves with? WHY?!

I tell you now, we must change the attitudes in ourselves to make this place better. To make it what it once was when men were made of iron and the ships were made of wood. But today there is no reason and there is no purpose. Humanity just IS NOT!

I see this world with my eyes and all I see it’s uselessness. I was definitely born in the wrong time, and I wish I was an ancient warrior of Spartan past. That was the time when meaning, reason and purpose were well-known.

God bless and good luck.

-Anthony

 

Paladin’s Folly

A valiant knight had prepared his entire life for the day when he would receive an epic challenge, and had dedicated himself to an honorable code of chivalry. By following this code, he rightfully called himself a valiant knight. The code defined who he was. His code demanded that he be courageous and confront evil and danger. His code demanded that he be loyal to his king and his country. His code also demanded that he act respectfully and politely to all creatures, cherishing their life and respecting their dignity.

The valiant knight practiced his code daily and waited for his king to deliver the epic challenge. One day it came. The king challenged the knight to guard a valuable parakeet much beloved by the king and made arrangements for the parakeet to be delivered the same day. The knight thought the task to be simple for an epic challenge, but his loyalty to his liege demanded that he accept the challenge and perform his task to dutifully.

En route to delivery, a goblin that was known to be wicked snatched the parakeet and took it away to a secret lair where he could keep the parakeet for himself.

The knight was shocked to hear that the wicked goblin would confront the king in this way and steal his prized parakeet, but he was pleased to face what had now become a truly epic challenge, for the goblin was known to be powerful.

The valiant knight embarked immediately to the woods where the goblin made his home and infiltrated the wicked goblin’s lair. He crept close inside and found the goblin caressing the parakeet and whispering to it. He crept closer and closer and had the chance to slay the wicked goblin who was distracted with the parakeet. But that was not the way of chivalry. Chivalry demanded that he confront the goblin face to face if he were going to slay him.

The knight surprised the goblin and confronted him loudly, commanding the goblin to surrender the king’s parakeet. The wicked goblin demurred, startled by the valiant knight’s infiltration and sudden appearance.

One thing was unknown to the knight at the time he commanded the goblin. The goblin, if asked politely, would easily surrender the parakeet or do anything else he was asked to do. In his astonishment he revealed this to the knight by requesting that the knight only ask him once politely for the parakeet and say please.

The knight suspected a trick and grew angry with the goblin. He commanded the goblin to release the parakeet again and brandished his blade as a threat. The goblin again made his request that the knight use his manners, ask and say please, and he would surrender the bird. The knight grew furious and killed the wicked goblin, recovering the parakeet.

The knight returned to the king with his prized parakeet. The tale of the knight’s bravery in facing the goblin had spread quickly and had reached his ears long before the knight had returned. When the valiant knight proudly appeared before the king to return his parakeet, he found the king weeping in sadness.

When the knight asked why the king was weeping on what should have been the happiest of all days, the king informed the knight that he wept because the knight had failed his life’s epic challenge. The king heard about the  knight’s confrontation and how he commanded the wicked goblin, instead of asking, to return the parakeet, even though the goblin begged for the knight to do so in order to return the goblin in a noble fashion. He heard how the knight instead killed the goblin, ignoring his own moral code of chivalry that demanded he respect the life and dignity of all creatures. The knight, in his bravery and his pride, failed to follow the code of chivalry appropriately, and could no longer be considered one of the king’s noble knights.

Indeed the king had recovered his parakeet, but had lost the knight. The challenge was never to rescue a bird. It was not that simple, as the knight thought. The real challenge was to see if the noble knight would follow his own code of chivalry that held together his honor.

Unfortunately, in his pride, the knight failed the challenge.

I’ve learned a little bit about this type of pride in recent times. It has a familiar name – hubris – and it is the evil sort of pride that causes you to violate a moral law and winds up destroying you or who you are.

In my life recently, I’ve suffered through something of a personal crisis. In it I’ve learned something about myself. Something that causes me to think that I, like this valiant knight, have been guilty of hubris. This crisis that I mention is something that I myself have caused, a violation of a moral principle that has nearly undone me.

I have now had to ask myself if I can continue as I do here at S.C.S. if I am guilty of hubris. It seems prideful to make the sort of moral statements and allegations that I make here, while I find myself vulnerable to simple moral mistakes. It is a lot like commanding a goblin to give back a parakeet when all I have to do is ask politely.

It has been suggested to me that this may be one of the reasons that I don’t see a lot of open feedback, but informally hear replies to some of the posts and topics I address.

Hubris is a dangerous little creature. I wasn’t aware of many of the things I had been doing wrong, yet criticized without relent many other people and things in this world.

So now I am in a place of much less confidence. I am still committed to doing what I feel I must do here, and I intend to keep writing, but for the next few weeks at least my eye will be far less critical and hopefully much more inspiring. I intend to continue to scrub every ounce of hubris out of my life until things have been made right, and I can confidently and safely approach issues in the right way.

That’s my commitment.

-Justin

 

Because it’s the right thing to do.

Consider these two separate news pieces, both of which I was exposed to on Monday this week.

Death Row Cases Decline in 2009: by Laura Sullivan for NPR News. It describes how in the last year the number of death sentences have been reduced and a “life without parole” sentence is more commonly being pursued in capital cases. Interesting news (more interesting is a fact that liberal California executed more than 30 people last year where conservative Texas only executed nine – a surprising figure). Check out the article.

In the piece, Richard Dieter, the director for the non-profit Death Penalty Information Center is quoted:

“There’s a sense that, yes, we support [capital punishment] philosophically. But practically, this is a government program that isn’t working.”

In an effort to surpress capital punishment his argument is that of practicality, even though he philosophically agrees with capital punishment.

In Lawmakers gearing up for 2010 “don’t ask, don’t tell” fight by Leo Shane for Stars and Stripes, the reporter describes a request by 100 members of Congress who have petitioned the Department of Defense for administrative information regarding the discharge of service-members discharged under (the ludicrous) “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy. [parenthetical statement my own] Apparently, the DoD is resistant. I’m sorry, but I thought when Congress said jump (lawfully in their oversight capacity) the bureaucracy was supposed to say, “Yes ma’am, how high?” I’m willing to be wrong here.

An excerpt from the article:

And the letter also lays out the financial arguments against the ban, citing a 2006 Blue Ribbon Commission’s report on “don’t ask, don’t tell” that suggested the sexual-orientation discharges cost the Pentagon more than $360 million from 1994 until 2003.

Another argument of practicality. DADT is wrong merely because it’s cost the Pentagon $360 million? Is that the sum of the position of Congress? It’s too costly to maintain this policy?

I like to think that I’m pretty good with patterns. Both of these articles hit me on the same day, but I was reminded of arguments that I’ve heard in the past. I remember defection in Congress about the resolve to continue a war effort in Iraq. The war had become too costly. A 2008 election campaign buzz-phrase was “blood and treasure”. I think of now how arguments against socialized (I’m not afraid of the term socialized) health care involve “mortgaging the future of our children”.

Impracticality is the barrier of decisive action in our time. Whatever happened to doing things because they were the right thing to do?

I’m not sure if I can live in a world where our ethics are defined as the result of a cost-benefit analysis. There is too much at stake. In wars and in health care, we are talking about human life cost. Especially in capital punishment we are talking explicitly about human life.

There was once an America that would do the right thing, whatever the cost. This America could bankrupt itself and make everybody sacrifice to fight worldwide wars with no certainty of victory.

There were once Americans who understood ideals. They had a code of ethics or a set of principles that they called names like “self-evident” or “common sense”.

I want to live in THAT America. I want to live by a set of principles. I want to live by an ethic.

That’s why I do what I do here at S.C.S. Here I give language to the ideal that I call “the right thing to do.”

-Justin

 

Adding Up Nukes

I was amused this morning when I bumped into an article about Vladimir Putin’s remarks about the lag in nuclear arms reduction talks between Russia and the U.S. The summary was things are bogged down in dickering over a new plan for a U.S. missile defense system that remains pretty vague, as it traditionally would be. Putin is ticked and suggests that the solution is to build more offensive nuclear weapon systems warheads. [link]

Two sidebar issues here, before I move on: (1) I don’t think any of our strategic missile defense systems have been successful at shooting down more than a handful of rockets, and (2) I think Vladimir Putin is wonderful because he is always just so-dang obvious.

One passage from the article stood out, because it explicated the “target” number of nukes that each nuclear superpower seemed to think was desirable.

Under a joint understanding signed in July, deployed nuclear warheads should be cut to fewer than 1,700 on each side within seven years of a new treaty – a huge cut on Soviet-era levels.

It was that figure – 1,700 – that stood out to me. It is unfortunate that I read so much science fiction, because it makes me feel rather cavalier when talking about nukes, and that is certainly how I’m going to come off from this point forward.

I was wondering what kind of destruction 1,700 nuclear weapons could cause. In my investigation, I repeatedly pondered the notorious phrase, “assured mutual destruction,” and wondered if that term covered the carnage that would be wrought by 1,700 nukes.

The first thing I did was eyeball Russia. According to the 2002 Russian census data, there are 1,108 cities and towns in Russia. Taking a page from my fifth grade math book, I worked out a simple inequality expression.

1,700 > 1,108

Sometimes, the full meaning of a point is not expressed appropriately when only using mathematics (that’s what gotten modern microeconomics in trouble), and is better said in plain words. Even at target nuclear arms levels, which we assuredly have more of, there would be at least one strategic nuclear weapon available for every single city and town in Russia.

I’m going to pause here and just say that we have a whole lot of nukes. A whole lot. Can we even launch 1,700 nuclear weapons in time if that action becomes necessary? If we used 1,700 nuclear weapons all at once, would it even be worthwhile, or would the planet be a wasteland by then? Would we need 1,700 mushroom clouds to make our point? Wouldn’t 1,600 be enough?

I bounced this expression off of a few pals this morning and I received this question in reply: “Well what about all those other inconvient countries?”

What I should have asked him is what it was that made a country “inconvenient.” What I actually did was look up some unfriendly-to-America nuclear powers to add up some more cities. I didn’t dig too hard, but North Korea turned up a modest 44 cities, and Iran added an estimated 255. Seemed comparatively low for North Korea so I doubled it. Why not, right? Here’s how the expression reworked itself.

1,700 > 1,451 (merely 1,108 + 88 + 255)

Another friend suggested I factor China in as a possible nuclear adversary. What I should have said was “China? Seriously? Why would China want to nuke it’s largest customer?” What I actually did was crunch the numbers. As of 2002, there were 660 cities in the People’s Republic of China, 10 of which had populations over 4 million souls. Let’s look at the expression again.

1,700 < 1,768 (merely 1,108 + 660)

Alright, you got me. Hitting “target levels” we’d be 68 nukes shy of blasting every city in both China and Russia to smithereens with our nuclear bombs. I can understand why we hesitate to reduce our arsenal. Yes, I actually did throw out North Korea and Iran too, but lets face it, we were operating under the assumption that Iran actually had strategic nuclear arms capability (unlikely), and also the assumption that North Korea can launch anything far enough to do anything more than scare the piss out of Japan and create dazzling fireworks. They can, I suppose, rock a mean earthquake with their nukes but…

So there you have it. I’m not going to bore anybody by summarizing my objection to the quantity of nuclear weapons the world maintains. I think I’ve asked enough rhetorical questions here to make my point anyway. Suffice it to say that I’m pretty disgusted about the existence of nuclear weapons in the first place, and unfortunately, the universe will never ever exist in a state where there has never been something as terrible and destructive as a nuclear bomb.

And that’s a terribly, terribly sad thing.

-Justin

 

Epiphany

Those of you who know me personally might have recognized I’ve been doing a little soul-searching trying to figure out what has caused me to hold some of the “liberal” values that I have, and that inform the perspective from which I write here at S.C.S.

I’m happy to say that I’ve unlocked part of that puzzle this week.

It didn’t come to me in the midst of deep deliberate thought either, like I thought it would. It came as the title of this post says, an epiphany, although perhaps you’ll have to dig down to the third or fourth definition of that powerful word to match the experience.

But first some background. Perhaps you’re wondering why I bother asking myself how I’ve become a “liberal” (which I will no longer place in quotes). It wouldn’t have been a problem if it weren’t such a strange transformation that hitherto had no concrete explanation.

I’ve mentioned before that I’ve had a rather conservative background. I was raised in a Baptist church, with kindergarten Sunday School filling a large part of my earliest memories. My father was firmly libertarian in his ideals, and liberally (perhaps I should use quotes…) educated me in that philosophy. I joined the Army within months of 9/11, during a national American flag shortage, on the first heave of a wave of patriotism and nationalism that sustained a conservative Republican administration and her Army on the march to two wars on the other side of the world. Needless to say there is a strong culture of conservative support in the ranks. You don’t meet many liberally minded Soldiers. For years I was no exception to that trend, and regrettably I’ve got the voting record to prove it. I embraced my heritage as an “Independent” who mouthed off regularly with the libertarian arguments I memorized in my youth.

Then, quite unexpectedly, I’d had a substantial change of heart. Sometime in 2006 I will say, I began to doubt my beliefs and eventually  ”turned”, but I remained a closet liberal you could say. It typically wasn’t socially safe in the Army to be a liberal. Still isn’t.

But it wasn’t until I met a new friend who showed me it was okay to wear the uniform and be openly dissenting about the conservative norm. I still don’t think she ever knew the influence she had because I’ve never told her. But I should thank her. I’m not even sure she could detect any hints of my past “beliefs” as I’d successfully adopted a liberal approach to issues, but had never ever been as vocal about it as I was that year. My early expressions came in the form of supporting her in her own arguments against statements made by others from the conservative mindset.

So I was able to notice what had changed in my mind, but I could never figure out why.

But I need to get back to epiphany.

It happened quite unexpectedly, which as I understand as a criteria for epiphany. It should usually occur in the midst of a mundane task, and I can think of no task more mundane than spacing out in class, which is what I was up to when it hit me.

My mind tends to wander when I attend lectures and my mind at the moment of epiphany had wandered into deliberation over who might be my favorite economist of all time. I didn’t want to rush into a decision and made a list of candidates in the margin of my notebook. These were the finalists.

Left to right: Karl Marx, Thorstein Veblen, J. M. Keynes, Joan Robinson, Amartya Sen, Paul Krugman

Then I noticed a pattern. I’m pretty good with patterns. Not a single one of those economists are known as “mainstream” economists, and I’d say at least two-thirds of them have been called radicals. I immediately had to question why of all the amazing economists I’ve been introduced to, that these were the ones I’d latched on to.

I’ve determined that I don’t necessarily have a propensity to admire radical thought. Not generally anyway. I do however admire “deviant” radical thought in economics, contrary to an orthodox view widely accepted in the modern world.

I’ll explain. Since Adam Smith, the father of economics and professor of the intangible invisible hand, the accepted and highly valued idea of economic activity has been based on free exchange and self-interest. In this way individual liberty is preserved and productivity is maximized. It has been “proven” time and time again by argument from the orthodox view that this is a natural effect. It’s like gravity. Leave it alone and it will do its thing. Mess with it and things are going to get tricky.

This is not just a descriptive claim. The orthodox view makes this a normative claim, saying that this is the way things ought to be in order to achieve the desirable ends of optimum productivity and individual freedom. This norm is the bedrock of the conservative and libertarian positions.

What has come from my favorite economists above have been arguments contrary to the orthodox position. Many of them have broken large sections out of the economic foundation of libertarian thought. But their contrary theories have also had their own problems. That I will admit right now. Thus, a mere preference for a contrary theory or point of view or opinion is not enough for a complete defection from a faulty theory, especially if it is to adopt another faulty theory.

So what’s the fundamental difference? It is the approach, or the motivations of these contrary theories that attract me to them, and I’ll explain what I mean.

The orthodox position gives moral validity to something that is theoretically supposed to occur naturally. By not interfering with the activity of the individual we are achieving an ideal end-state. Let me restate. It is a moral value to let anything go as long as it does not constrain another in pursuit of his own interests. The resulting free competition will allow us to negotiate to the maximum benefit of all.

Why does this sound like giving up and equating the moral good with the results of directly competing with another until the point where they may even be wiped out not by another individual, but by the sum of all competition?

A liberal position – a radical position – comes from another point of view. The liberal position is looking for moral good somewhere else besides the “natural” end-state from competition - conflict – with another. The liberal position is looking for another goal. Something better or higher to achieve. It might be to end poverty, or to end ensure a minimum level of health and safety for everybody. It may be to ensure the future of the planet and environment. There are a multitude of higher goods that are being pursued other than the sum material benefit of the greatest number.

And this is why I am a liberal.

Because I believe there is something more to morality than allowing us to compete with and kill each other. Because I don’t believe that there is moral value in mere aggregate material gain for the greatest number. Because there is an other, and they are at least as important as I am. Because I believe it is my duty to value that other at least as much as I value myself. Because I detest competition with my brother.

We liberals don’t have it all right. We may be wrong about what the right moral value is. Maybe the planet is the most important thing in the world. Maybe ending poverty is. Maybe the baby seals are. We don’t know for certain.

But here’s what we do know. We know that throwing our hands up in the air, accepting the “law of the jungle”, looking after only ourselves, and trying to just get one more mark ahead of each other is NOT a morality.

-Justin

 

Deregulation Whodunnit

So, here I am again at the keyboard. This time a lively politico-economic debate over free sandwiches(yes I know, TANSTAAFL) led to a thrashing about the wikisphere/blogosphere and the reading(OK, skimming) of many articles by guys with big heads like Paul Krugman, Jeff Miron, James Gattuso, etc…

A classmate of mine solidly credits the Bush administration with deregulating the financial markets to such an extent that the whole house of cards came tumbling down last year. I failed to find action by the executive or legislative branch that deregulated any part of the market tied to credit default swaps and all of these investment banks. The trails of bread crumbs that I did find all led to the SEC allowing self regulation by the “too big to fail” financial giants of Wall Street. This seemed to be at the behest of the aforementioned giants.

My sole purpose in this entry is to ellicit responses. Yes, plural(if possible.) I want information from you! What deregulation on the part of President Bush or the US Congress 2000-2008 led to the recession? I’ve spent the better half of an afternoon snooping and googling until my fingers bleed to find the answer and I have come up empty handed. I know that someone out there has the answer for me. Help me. Please.

 

I want my bubble back II

Unrestrained free market capitalism!

Right? Am I right?

Less regulation and fewer barriers lead to enhanced growth, larger profits and less unemployment. That’s the way we’ve done it here for years. That’s what beat the commies back when, right? Our efficient market model beat the Soviet centrally planned production model, right?

Here’s a picture of some government guys protecting the freedom of the American capitalist market, back in 2003.

"CUTTING RED TAPE"

Those cavalier gentlemen there are five government officials responsible for a whole bunch of financial deregulation back in 2003, about five years before the financial bubble and crisis. I presume that the reams of paper are “regulation” and that the chainsaw wielded by the gentleman at far left is a “chainsaw.” Free markets just a little bit freer with these guys around.

I wrote a few weeks ago about capitalism and growth and bubbles. Find the link to it here. I was wondering why there was such a grand desire  to get the economy “back on track” as soon as possible. So many news sources and politicians are looking for the signs that things are turning upward. But if things begin to turn upward, and the market-machine begins doing what it’s supposed to do, I am convinced that we’re only looking forward to the next big bubble, and the next big letdown when it pops.

Like I said back in that last post, the market-machine is incredible. It can do anything and everything. Market-capitalism is single-handedly responsible for our productive growth since the end of feudalism in the dark ages. There is nothing that market-capitalism cannot do. Right?

Well there is. And now I’m about to bust somebody else’s bubble. There is one thing a free capitalist market cannot do. It cannot make the important decisions about what to produce. It cannot decide how to produce enough for society. While it can produce anything that it is commanded to by people, it cannot itself make a decision about what is the right sort of things to produce.

When left unrestrained, a free capitalist market can grow in all directions and it will. It will do whatever is necessary to create the maximum amount of wealth for everybody. It will do things like build vast networks of railroads, that will be replaced by vast networks of roads and highways, and the railroads will rot and fall into disrepair. Then when it becomes inefficient to use the roads and the automobiles on them, it will build massive networks of light rails and let the roads and bridges fall apart. The capitalist market will turn out a better iPod every year, and faster and faster machines that send the old but functional ones to the scrapyard. It will cause a developer to pave over ten feet of black dirt and build while downtown falls apart. The unrestrained market will build a tech bubble, break it down, build a housing bubble, break it down and then build a  financial bubble.

The free unrestrained market will do this all affordably, elegantly, and most of all profitably. But does anyone else see where I might raise a complaint?

That guy with the chainsaw up there, he might say, “you’re talking about restraining the market? You’re retarding the efficiency of the economy! You’re limiting economic freedom!”

There it is. The freedom thing. This is the negative freedom that says a person cannot be restrained from doing as they please. It is the ultimate value, right?

An ultimate value must be an end in itself. So is freedom desirable for freedom’s sake? Or is it a means to the real ultimate end? Is the ultimate end of the modern economy guaranteeing economic freedom or is it ensuring just enough freedom that we can generate the goods and the wealth that make production profitable for those who can participate, and disastrous for a long-term vision of what the economy ought to be doing? How many people can keep profiting off of bubbles and for how long? I think we’re maxed out.

What I’m proposing isn’t anything radical. Contrary to some of the criticism I already anticipate, I’m not ready to break out Mao’s red jacket and change everybody’s paycheck. What I’m suggesting here is that we put a little more thought into making real decisions about what we want from our modern economy, and get active in participating in the long-term vision. Shall we pave over cheaper land on the cities’ edge and let the urban centers fall apart? Should that sort of activity be restrained?

It’s gong to hurt somebody’s feelings, and probably their pocket-book, but I see a necessity for this kind of intervention instead of the paper-shredding that led to this mess of a recession in which we’ve found ourselves.

 

Are we dying?

I’ve been procrastinating the inevitable over the past few weeks. School assignments, home responsibilities, and fear all played their roles well to keep me from getting a free moment to put fingers to keyboard(pen to paper for you old-fashioned types.) Here goes…

I have spent plenty of time in failed states. Well, more than most Americans and Europeans.  Many friends and family members have asked my opinion on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ad nauseum. I freely share it. There are lessons to be learned that I fail to see addressed in most public media outlets. You have probably read that we should learn from history. I’m going to spring a new one on you – learn from current events.  Remember this at all costs.  Our nation, society, culture, or whatever is making the same mistake I found prevalent among the people in Afghanistan and Iraq. We identify with a group instead of our country and we are rude.

Particularism shows its face in many places… religion, politics, and culture among others.  I once asked a professor of mine what his nationality was.  He proudly proclaimed, “I am Chaldean!” I scratched my head and asked, “Where on earth is that?” You middle-eastern history and bible buffs know it is in modern-day Iraq. Despite being Iraqi, his greatest national loyalty was to a country that no longer existed. Many Afghan soldiers I worked with were Uzbek, Hazara, Pashtun, or Tajik. Even though each is a citizen of Afghanistan, not a single one identified with a national identity.

Luckily, when you ask most Americans “what” they are, they’ll say American 9 times out of 10. I don’t know how long this will last. I feel as if the seams of our national quilt are being stretched to a breaking point. Rank political partisanship echoes from the halls of congress to city hall. Two prominent parties have made every issue a battle for power – not for making the US a better place to live. Every effort has been made to polarize politics and policy in our country and the results are disgusting. I won’t get into politics since this post has other motives.  Race is another point of contention. This is nothing new, but worth thinking about in this context. Diversity training has been peddled so much that it is backfiring. Busing is a big deal Raleigh, NC right now. The school district has been busing kids back and forth across town to diversify the schools. Parents are upset about the program, and this has driven a wedge between blacks, whites, and hispanics in the area. Quite opposite from the intent of the program. This splintering of our nation weakens us economically, militarily, and morally.

Even more disconcerting is an idea that was brought to my attention by Robert Heinlein. His character “The Boss” in his sci-fi adventure Friday proposes the idea: “a dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor   matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot.”  Yes! Bad manners. Cutting in line, yelling in the face of a stranger as they cut you off in traffic, littering, and a litany of other offensive behaviors. Do these sound familiar? Behaviors such as these are not capable of engendering the love and compassion required for a diverse nation to remain cohesive. They serve to drive us further down the road of factionalism. Remember, people are being killed by their neighbors tonight in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia simply for being born into the wrong family or just for being born.

Legislation and diversity training will not make our home a better place to live. Military might will not let us sleep more soundly. Building relationships of trust through kindness and service will create the bonds that carried this and many other nations through trail and despair.  It is the duty of a citizen to contribute to the strengthening of the society in which they live.

-Matt

 

There is still work to be done.

Hi folks,

I’m really excited to show off the new S.C.S. Project site at WordPress. I think it’s going to open up a lot more creative options for us, and allow us to broaden the audience that the blog is able to touch.

Please enjoy the new look, and the old content. You will find us posting here from now on.

http://soldiercitizensapien.wordpress.com

Please update your readers and feeders with the RSS link at the top right.

We are looking forward to continuing to provide solid content on a regular basis. You can also expect some new features to appear in the very near future.

• Biographical information of S.C.S. Project contributors
• Feedback page
• Links to websites, news and blogs that have information similar to S.C.S. Project posts or have parallel goals and efforts.

It’s been wonderful sharing with you readers at Blogger, but we look forward to the opportunities we will have with you here at the new site.

-Justin