Before we make up our minds about the Arizona Religious Freedom Restoration Act, let's make sure we understand exactly what it does, and does not, do. See explanation by bi-partisan law professors.
And by the way, has anyone taken note of the political blackmail practiced by the NFL - a tax exempt organization - by threatening to move the Superbowl. It's time to boycott the NFL.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Libertarians, Conservatives and Randians
I was accused by someone who does not know me of being both an atheist and a "Randian", that is, someone who looks to Ayn Rand for his political philosophy. I am neither, of course. But I think my accuser was confusing conservative thought with libertarianism and conflating the two.
In terms of the policies they support, most libertarians are more like conservatives with regard to economic policy, but more like progressives with respect to social and foreign policy - though how they get to those positions may differ from both conservatives and progressives. For example, libertarians believe that trade with our enemies is the solution to our foreign policy problems. Progressives tend to think that Western Civilization and the U.S. in particular, are the cause of the world's problems and therefor we have no right to have an assertive foreign policy or stand up for our values.
Both conservatives and libertarians believe that smaller, less expensive government will encourage economic growth and freedom which will, ultimately, make everyone better off. Although Rand, who is a libertarian folk hero, had the reputation, at least, of being unconcerned with the poor, conservatives look more to Adam Smith who argued that everyone in society, particularly the poor, will be better off when economic transactions are voluntary, and so, if they are to happen at all, happen only when both parties believe they are better off entering into the transaction than not doing so. Even most libertarians I know are not "Randians" in the sense of not caring about the poor. They share the view that economic liberty helps the poor, just as it has helped hundreds of millions around the world out of poverty.
Libertarians differ from conservatives on social issues because, for them, liberty is the highest value, whether in economics or anything else. Thus they tend to oppose restrictions on abortions, drugs, prostitution, pornography and so on. They tend to share many, though not all, of these policy positions with progressives rather than conservatives. But libertarians tend to do so because of the high value of Liberty - you can do whatever you want as long as it does not hurt someone else.
What I think libertarians miss about these social issues, and that many conservatives get right, is that a society with a strong cultural and moral code which governs these "social issues" less government intrusion is necessary to maintain a coherent and sane society. Without the social restraints society becomes disordered and there is a temptation for government to step in to "order" it. Many conservatives are beginning to see that government enforced conservative values are probably not the best thing unless the restrictions protect a third party from injury. Elective abortion, for example, because the unborn child does not get a choice, should be seen by both conservatives and libertarians to be an exception to liberty - that is, the abortion does, in fact, hurt someone else.
Libertarian thought in the United States has developed primarily among atheists. And still many of the most prominent spokesmen are atheists. Most evangelical Christians like me are conservatives, and most conservatives view themselves as Christians or religious Jews. Libertarians perhaps see these conservative values as relics of superstition and therefore they oppose all of them reflexively, even when it would be more consistent with their philosophy, as with abortion, to support them.
The other misconception of my accuser was that conservatives, and libertarians for that matter, were selfish and did not have regard for the poor. This is clearly false and a slander. Conservatives believe that free-market economics and small government help the poor escape poverty. They believe that giving a poor person stuff (welfare or redistribution) even if necessary in the short run, does not take anyone out of poverty. Poverty is not a lack of material wealth, but the lack of the ability to support oneself. You can give a poor person $1,000,000 and that person will not thereby acquire middle-class values and behaviors. In fact, as with rap stars, many star athletes, and poor people who win the lottery or a big personal injury judgment, having that money given to them may just exaggerate their bad behaviors - not always, of course but the point is that it's not money that gets you out of poverty but a change in culture.
That being said, sometimes society must provide material support to people (1) who for one reason or another simply cannot support themselves, or (2) temporarily to help that person actually escape poverty. My daughter teaches in a charter school and the stories she tells of some of her kids and the homes they come from make one cry. Every kid needs to get a decent shot. I think every conservative I know would agree with this paragraph.
But the problem with ObamaCare (or at least one of the problems) and with all means-tested welfare programs, is that they impose outrageously high marginal tax rates on people escaping poverty and thus encourage people not to work, or to work less, because an increase in income causes a loss of benefits. My preference, and in this I do not necessarily speak for conservatives, is to have a "flat tax" with fewer deductions and a single tax rate for all income (including capital gains which will be indexed for inflation) - and then adding a substantial refundable credit which would provide a "floor" for everyone to have enough income to get by but not feel comfortable in poverty. Although the marginal rate would be the same at every income level, the effective rate would go from negative (when the tax is less than the credit) to approach the marginal rate. For Bill Gates or Warren Buffet the marginal rate and the effective rate are essentially the same. But the value of the credit will be proportionately vastly more valuable to middle class and lower class people whose effective rates go to zero and below. I suspect that a system could be designed with a tax rate, and a personal credit amount, picked so that, on average, it could replace all our welfare and redistribution programs (and the administrative machinery required to support them) while leaving the amount of support for the poor, and re-distributive effect, essentially unchanged from current law.
This plan would eliminate the disincentives for not working while making sure people had food to eat, a place to live, and basic medical care. People would still have an incentive to work more and harder to buy better food, housing, medical care and other things they want - thus pushing them out of poverty. This is a win-win-win. The poor win by breaking the cycle of dependence. The rich win by reducing marginal rates giving them incentives to save, invest and work harder. And society itself wins with greater growth, fewer poor people, and smaller deficits.
In terms of the policies they support, most libertarians are more like conservatives with regard to economic policy, but more like progressives with respect to social and foreign policy - though how they get to those positions may differ from both conservatives and progressives. For example, libertarians believe that trade with our enemies is the solution to our foreign policy problems. Progressives tend to think that Western Civilization and the U.S. in particular, are the cause of the world's problems and therefor we have no right to have an assertive foreign policy or stand up for our values.
Both conservatives and libertarians believe that smaller, less expensive government will encourage economic growth and freedom which will, ultimately, make everyone better off. Although Rand, who is a libertarian folk hero, had the reputation, at least, of being unconcerned with the poor, conservatives look more to Adam Smith who argued that everyone in society, particularly the poor, will be better off when economic transactions are voluntary, and so, if they are to happen at all, happen only when both parties believe they are better off entering into the transaction than not doing so. Even most libertarians I know are not "Randians" in the sense of not caring about the poor. They share the view that economic liberty helps the poor, just as it has helped hundreds of millions around the world out of poverty.
Libertarians differ from conservatives on social issues because, for them, liberty is the highest value, whether in economics or anything else. Thus they tend to oppose restrictions on abortions, drugs, prostitution, pornography and so on. They tend to share many, though not all, of these policy positions with progressives rather than conservatives. But libertarians tend to do so because of the high value of Liberty - you can do whatever you want as long as it does not hurt someone else.
What I think libertarians miss about these social issues, and that many conservatives get right, is that a society with a strong cultural and moral code which governs these "social issues" less government intrusion is necessary to maintain a coherent and sane society. Without the social restraints society becomes disordered and there is a temptation for government to step in to "order" it. Many conservatives are beginning to see that government enforced conservative values are probably not the best thing unless the restrictions protect a third party from injury. Elective abortion, for example, because the unborn child does not get a choice, should be seen by both conservatives and libertarians to be an exception to liberty - that is, the abortion does, in fact, hurt someone else.
Libertarian thought in the United States has developed primarily among atheists. And still many of the most prominent spokesmen are atheists. Most evangelical Christians like me are conservatives, and most conservatives view themselves as Christians or religious Jews. Libertarians perhaps see these conservative values as relics of superstition and therefore they oppose all of them reflexively, even when it would be more consistent with their philosophy, as with abortion, to support them.
The other misconception of my accuser was that conservatives, and libertarians for that matter, were selfish and did not have regard for the poor. This is clearly false and a slander. Conservatives believe that free-market economics and small government help the poor escape poverty. They believe that giving a poor person stuff (welfare or redistribution) even if necessary in the short run, does not take anyone out of poverty. Poverty is not a lack of material wealth, but the lack of the ability to support oneself. You can give a poor person $1,000,000 and that person will not thereby acquire middle-class values and behaviors. In fact, as with rap stars, many star athletes, and poor people who win the lottery or a big personal injury judgment, having that money given to them may just exaggerate their bad behaviors - not always, of course but the point is that it's not money that gets you out of poverty but a change in culture.
That being said, sometimes society must provide material support to people (1) who for one reason or another simply cannot support themselves, or (2) temporarily to help that person actually escape poverty. My daughter teaches in a charter school and the stories she tells of some of her kids and the homes they come from make one cry. Every kid needs to get a decent shot. I think every conservative I know would agree with this paragraph.
But the problem with ObamaCare (or at least one of the problems) and with all means-tested welfare programs, is that they impose outrageously high marginal tax rates on people escaping poverty and thus encourage people not to work, or to work less, because an increase in income causes a loss of benefits. My preference, and in this I do not necessarily speak for conservatives, is to have a "flat tax" with fewer deductions and a single tax rate for all income (including capital gains which will be indexed for inflation) - and then adding a substantial refundable credit which would provide a "floor" for everyone to have enough income to get by but not feel comfortable in poverty. Although the marginal rate would be the same at every income level, the effective rate would go from negative (when the tax is less than the credit) to approach the marginal rate. For Bill Gates or Warren Buffet the marginal rate and the effective rate are essentially the same. But the value of the credit will be proportionately vastly more valuable to middle class and lower class people whose effective rates go to zero and below. I suspect that a system could be designed with a tax rate, and a personal credit amount, picked so that, on average, it could replace all our welfare and redistribution programs (and the administrative machinery required to support them) while leaving the amount of support for the poor, and re-distributive effect, essentially unchanged from current law.
This plan would eliminate the disincentives for not working while making sure people had food to eat, a place to live, and basic medical care. People would still have an incentive to work more and harder to buy better food, housing, medical care and other things they want - thus pushing them out of poverty. This is a win-win-win. The poor win by breaking the cycle of dependence. The rich win by reducing marginal rates giving them incentives to save, invest and work harder. And society itself wins with greater growth, fewer poor people, and smaller deficits.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
ObamaCare and the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance
During the time of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I the English Parliament passed laws requiring all citizens, and particularly those who sought public office, to sign an Oath of Supremacy in which the signer acknowledged that the English monarch was the Head of the Church of England. In 1606, under James I, an Oath of Allegiance was added which required the signer to agree, among other things, that no Pope could depose a King or absolve the signer from the requirements of the Oath. Roman Catholics obviously had a problem denying the authority of the Pope over the English Church and limiting the Pope's authority. Sir Thomas More refused to sign the Oath of Supremacy and was executed for treason. Although the requirement to subscribe to these oaths would subsequently not carry the death penalty, Roman Catholics and some non-Anglican Protestants, who could not subscribe to them, were for many years excluded from high office in England - that is, except those willing to compromise their principles and sign the oaths.
The American Founders believed these Oaths to be abusive, some of them being subject to exclusion from office under them, and they were forbidden in Article VI, Paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
How does this relate to ObamaCare, you ask? Well, the Little Sister's of the Poor have been told by the Obama Administration that they will have an exemption from the birth control mandate if they just sign a paper which directs someone else to provide free birth control to their employees on their behalf. All the Sisters have to do is put aside their principles and sign the paper implicating themselves in behavior they believe goes against their Church teaching. It will cost them nothing except a little bit of integrity.
And what is the point of the birth control mandate anyway? No person would, in a rational world, buy insurance for birth control if she did not plan on using it. Therefore, anyone seeking such insurance would be charged a premium equal to at least 100% of the anticipated cost of the product. The only reason a person planning to use birth control would buy insurance for it is if other people who didn't want it, or thought it was immoral, were forced to pay some or all of its cost. Indeed, what purpose is really served by this mandate except to potentially implicate every businessperson of faith in conduct he or she considers immoral, and establish the precedent that the government can freely do so despite the First Amendment?
Similarly, the recently announced further delay in the employer mandate for smaller businesses requires an employer looking for an exemption to certify that, if he fired anyone, it was not because of ObamaCare! They could not possibly audit companies claiming the exemption. And how would you disprove it anyway unless the employer specifically said or wrote somewhere that he had fired people because of ObamaCare? So just like the Sisters, all the employer has to do is tell a falsehood, and then keep his mouth shut, to get the financial benefit. And of course, when Republicans later argue that ObamaCare is costing jobs, the Democrats will respond that the vast majority of small employers have certified that they did not fire people for that reason. There is no point, and no authorization in the ACA, to require employers to lie to get an exemption. This also implicates the First Amendment.
This practice by the Administration is corrosive of religious and speech liberty, business integrity and the political process. The first breach in principle, no matter how small, is always the hardest. After that each breach becomes easier.
The American Founders believed these Oaths to be abusive, some of them being subject to exclusion from office under them, and they were forbidden in Article VI, Paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
How does this relate to ObamaCare, you ask? Well, the Little Sister's of the Poor have been told by the Obama Administration that they will have an exemption from the birth control mandate if they just sign a paper which directs someone else to provide free birth control to their employees on their behalf. All the Sisters have to do is put aside their principles and sign the paper implicating themselves in behavior they believe goes against their Church teaching. It will cost them nothing except a little bit of integrity.
And what is the point of the birth control mandate anyway? No person would, in a rational world, buy insurance for birth control if she did not plan on using it. Therefore, anyone seeking such insurance would be charged a premium equal to at least 100% of the anticipated cost of the product. The only reason a person planning to use birth control would buy insurance for it is if other people who didn't want it, or thought it was immoral, were forced to pay some or all of its cost. Indeed, what purpose is really served by this mandate except to potentially implicate every businessperson of faith in conduct he or she considers immoral, and establish the precedent that the government can freely do so despite the First Amendment?
Similarly, the recently announced further delay in the employer mandate for smaller businesses requires an employer looking for an exemption to certify that, if he fired anyone, it was not because of ObamaCare! They could not possibly audit companies claiming the exemption. And how would you disprove it anyway unless the employer specifically said or wrote somewhere that he had fired people because of ObamaCare? So just like the Sisters, all the employer has to do is tell a falsehood, and then keep his mouth shut, to get the financial benefit. And of course, when Republicans later argue that ObamaCare is costing jobs, the Democrats will respond that the vast majority of small employers have certified that they did not fire people for that reason. There is no point, and no authorization in the ACA, to require employers to lie to get an exemption. This also implicates the First Amendment.
This practice by the Administration is corrosive of religious and speech liberty, business integrity and the political process. The first breach in principle, no matter how small, is always the hardest. After that each breach becomes easier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)