An Argument for Moral Absolutism

How Moral Relativism Has Led to an Explosion of Deviance

Heckler - On Moral Relativism

Moral relativism is the idea that morality is not absolute. It holds that a standard of morality in one culture may not be the same in another culture, and that, similarly, moral standards differ from person to person. The former is said to be cultural relativism and the latter ethical subjectivism. Proponents of moral relativism contend that morality is situational, and that virtually all actions deemed as immoral can be changed and relabeled as moral in the right circumstance. It is conceited to think, so they say, that one culture has reached a level of higher morality than another since cultures arise from fundamentally different circumstances, historical contexts and backgrounds, which naturally yield diverse and inconsistent standards of morality. In the view of the relativist, it is therefore incorrect to say that morality is absolute, but is instead relative to the situation. (Moral Relativism, no author)

But, is it misguided to say that the dangerous and even barbaric actions of another culture could somehow be rationalized as moral?

Let’s examine some cultures that moral relativists would be disinclined to label as immoral. There are Aboriginal tribes in Australia, for example, who peel the skin from the male child’s penis and cut a piece of tissue from underneath as part of a ritualistic celebration of his maturity. There are various African tribes that ritualistically cut the forehead and face of initiates with the intent of leaving deep lasting scars. In yet another example, older males of the African Maasai tribe ridicule and deject boys who make any sound, groan, or even the slightest painful grimace during ritualistic circumcisions. (Lewis) There are no grounds for the moral justification of such barbaric acts. Ritualistic mutilation is culturally endemic to the tribes who practice such cruelty, and are not in any way isolated or anecdotal.

Contrast this with an incident that occurred in the Canadian Arctic that involved the death of an elderly Inuit woman who was left to freeze to death by her son, during a difficult trek across the frozen tundra. At first, the act seems heinous. But, then we learn that the elderly woman was hardly mobile and nearly blind, and was slowing the whole convoy significantly, which was jeopardizing the lives of all the travelers. He could let his mother die, and save the clan, or keep his mother alive, and let everyone freeze to death. He made an ethical choice to save the larger family by killing his mother. (Irvine) It was a choice that any rational absolutist would agree was moral, unlike the gruesome and inhumane rituals of the African and Australian tribal cultures discussed previously.

Moral relativists will point out, in their own defense, that moral relativism is present, actually prolific, in Christian faith. For example, no Christian believes that one should be put to death for working on Sunday, as dictated in the Old Testament, or that cursing one’s parents is to be punished by death, as provisioned in the New Testament. So, in this respect, the Christian is a moral relativist if he concurrently believes the Bible to be the Infallible Word of God, and parent cursing teenagers to be unworthy of lethal injection. Similarly, relativists point out the hundreds of divisions and splinter groups that exist within organized Christianity. So, is the self-proclaimed absolutist not, after all, a bit more relativist than she would have hoped to be? (Hammerlinck) In fact, these perceived inconsistencies do not point to moral relativism at all. The death penalty is just that: a penalty. It is not morality, nor is the various interpretations of doctrine that exist between denominations. The critical distinguisher is to understand that differences of opinion with regard to how Christians arrive at moral decisions do not necessarily mean differences in moral standards themselves exist. Moral standards are virtually the same across all Christian sects, though different interpretations of morally neutral subjects do exist.

What are the consequences of moral relativism? Deviance.

The exponential increase in the number of crimes, the break-down and devaluation of the family unit, and the relabeling of mental illness are all examples of how society has grown increasingly tolerant of deviant behavior since the social revolution of the 1960’s. As crime and single-parent families have increased substantially, society has continued to lower the standard for defining acceptable behavior, so as to preclude behaviors previously labeled as deviant from the dynamic, newly revised definition of deviance. In much the same way, mental illness has continually been redefined, and the consequences have been an incrementally smaller population with the designation of “mentally ill.” As a result, society is speckled with profoundly ill people living atrociously and inhumanely in gutters, cardboard boxes, and boxcars – people who would have been institutionalized just sixty years ago. (Krauthammer, pg 384)

We arrived at this point by indoctrinating generation after generation to believe that truth and morality are subjective. Today’s youth view knowledge through the lens of post-modernism, and consider Western morality, which has evolved over thousands of years, to be merely a social construct. There is no objective truth; knowledge is just a social construct. Some have even gone so far as to question the truth of the holocaust as a “conceptual hallucination.” An alarming number of students are afraid, or are unable to judge Hitler’s fascist and barbaric deeds as right or wrong, or to objectively state whether or not America was on the right side of World War II. In fact, some even question whether the historical facts of the war actually occurred. (Sommers, pg 391)

Personal morality, such as honesty, truthfulness, philanthropy, etc., is rarely, if ever discussed in ethics classes. The focus on and study of social morality has displaced the focus on individual morality. This one-sided approach has cast upon generations of students the impression that social morality comprises the whole of morality by deemphasizing and neglecting personal morality, which is, in fact, the other half of ethics. Ethics teachers often throw out specific moral dilemmas, to which the students are required to argue for or against the morality of the given prompt. This exercise, though beneficial in many, does have an unintended consequence and byproduct. That is, students are left with the impression that all ethical issues are open for debate, and that ethics has no basis, no foundational truths, and no absolutes. (Sommers, pgs 394 & 395)

The emergence of moral relativism has ushered in a new era of moral decay. Before a problem can be controlled, must it not first be identified and named? The unwillingness to recognize and identify immorality has led to an explosion of deviance, as the majority blindly embraces moral relativism. The mother who has taught her child to be non-judgmental, but then learns her daughter is incessantly judgmental toward her peers should cast of moral relativism to boldly address the child’s negative behavior. (Rauchut, pg 118) Our society needs a counterforce of independent thinkers to do as Emerson did, which was to refuse conforming blindly to societal trends. (Emerson, 374 – 383) As Aristotle described, the ultimate purpose of the human race is to hone and shape the rational soul. (Aristotle, pg 370) Unfortunately, most who embrace moral relativism did not obtain such a belief through the exercise of reason, but through peer pressure. The very survival of our society hinges on whether or not we go back into the cave, and free those inside from the shadows of moral relativism and the shackles of a disintegrating society. (Plato, pg 363 – 365)

Thomas Jefferson's Misunderstood Metaphor

How Liberty has Been Trampled Over by the Separation of Church and State

Heckler - On the Separation of Church and State

Whether they agree with the notion of ‘the separation of church and state’ or not, most Americans accept that religion has been effectively stripped from the public realm.

But, has it really?

I say it has not. In fact, government has, through supreme judicial perversion of Jefferson’s famous metaphor, the wall of separation, actually endorsed and provided preferential treatment to religions, religions with tenants that permeate all aspects of the public sphere. The wall of separation has separated all religion from government except the designated national religions that comprise the core of governance in America today. On one side of the wall are the majority of mainstream religions, alienated and repressed, banished from public discourse, policy and institutions. On the other side of the wall are the government-sponsored religions, extolled and embraced, pervaded abundantly in public dialogue, administration, and organizations. The erection of the wall, “one that must be kept high and impregnable,” has resulted in the formation of a persecutory state-sponsored religion that impedes religious liberty in contravention of the first amendment. (Rachut, pg 106 [quoting Justice Hugo Black]) The wall commits egregiously what its builders were supposedly trying to prevent. That is, government sponsorship of religion.

Religion is “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.” Another definition is “a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.”1 Religion is often erroneously thought to have as its defining element a belief in the supernatural, and the existence of a deity. However, such beliefs are not mandated under the definition of religion. Religion is any commonly shared belief structure or practice that is present within a society, regardless of whether or not the belief structure or practice integrates belief in supernatural events, multiple deities, or a single deity. Christianity is a religion, because of its system of beliefs, which happens to include the belief in God. Similarly, Islam is a religion, a structured belief system, with the belief in God as a central theme. It should be noted that if either of the aforementioned religions did not hold the belief in a supreme being as a tenant, it would nonetheless still be a religion, because of the remaining system of beliefs that would still exist in the absence of divinity. The same could be said about Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism, or any other world religion for that matter.

Why is this distinction important? It is critical that Americans understand precisely what it is that they were deprived of by Justice Black’s interpretation, (or misinterpretation more appropriately), of Jefferson’s metaphorical wall in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. (Dreiscach pg 317 – 318) Perhaps more important than understanding the deprivation that has occurred is to obtain an understanding of the coercive nature of the new government-sponsored religion in America. But first, it is vital to understand the truth underlying Jefferson’s metaphor, the founders’ views on religion and government, as well as the prevailing 19th century opinion of the interrelationship between religion and the state.

The wall was intended to be a one-way bastion of protection from the persecution that inherently exists in state-sponsored religion. (Patton, pg 331) They did not seek to protect government from religion, but rather to protect religion, and the free exercise thereof, from government. The founders sought to be free of the religious persecution to which they had been subjected in the Old World, and to create a nation without the bloody religious wars that had plagued Europe for centuries, by disempowering government of all control and influence over religion. (Spaulding, pg 312) They expressed disdain and contempt for government-endorsed religion, or “forced worship,” of which the radical 17th century theologian Roger Williams said, “stinks in God’s nostrils.” (Loconte, pg 359 [quoting Roger Williams])

The founders believed that liberty in the republic was only possible if virtue was present, and virtue and morality could only flourish in the presence of religion. Novak articulates it succinctly, “No republic without liberty; no liberty without virtue; no virtue without religion.” (Novak, pg 310) In his Farewell Address, George Washington declared healthy political debate to be supported by “religion and morality”, and, “that virtue and morality is a necessary spring of popular government.” (Washington, pg 311) Even the transient French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville recognized the power and necessity of religion within society. During his observations of America, the summaries of which were published in his 1835 work “Democracy in America,” Tocqueville describes religion as essential to the longevity of the American republic. He posits that people will relinquish their liberty to dictators in their search for the elusive answers to life’s most multifarious inquiries. (Tocqueville, pg 327) There is not doubt that religion, the Judeo Christian tradition in particular, was a foundational and integral component in the public sphere up to the 1947 ruling in Emerson v. Board of Education. (Novak, pg 310)

The religions that Justice Black elevated to state-sponsored status are the religions of Secularism, Atheism, and Nietzscheism. These Godless religions are faith-based, as is Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism. Christians exercise faith to believe in God, whereas the adherents to the Godless religions exercise faith not to believe in God. Since no truly definitive evidence exists either way, it requires the same amount of faith for the Christian to believe in God as it does for the Atheist to deny God. Christianity bases its morality on the codes handed down from God and recorded in the divinely inspired Word of God, while secularism bases its morality on reason, science, and experience. (Silverman, pg 325) Christians believe that Morality exists based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, while Nietzscheists believe in moral nihilism based on the teachings of Friedrich Nietzsche. (Nietzsche, pg 301)(Jesus, pg 333) The religion of Atheism teaches dysteleology, one of its main tenants, which is the belief that God could not possibly exist because of the pain and suffering that is present on the earth. Christ teaches us that the key to easing the pain and suffering on earth is to love our enemies, and to be good to those who are not good to us.

Every human being whose feet have ever touched the face of the earth, whose breathe has ever captured the air of the planet, and whose mind possesses sufficient mental capacity to reason, has erected his or her own customized personal belief model, or has adopted an existing belief structure that answers, satisfactorily to the individual, the questions of: 1.) the origin of mankind and 2.) the origin and definition of morality. Humans can therefore be divided into two groups, which are: 1.) those who affirm the existence of God, or gods, and 2.) those who deny the existence of God, or gods. It is from one’s personal affirmation or denial of God that codes of morality emanate. One who believes in the Abrahamic monotheistic God, for example, will adopt existing codes of morality that originate from the Judeo-Christian texts and teachings, such as the Ten Commandments or the New Testament. Hindu morality extends from the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita, and that of Islam from the texts of the Koran. In the same way, one who believes that God is a fallacious idea will adopt codes of morality that grow out of a belief in: 1.) humanistic universal codes of morality, 2.) the ability of logic and reason to yield the exposure of normative behaviors that are deduced to be the ethical components of secular morality, 3.) instinctive morality that has evolved Darwinistically within the collective conscience of the human race, or 4.) moral nihilism, which is the belief that ideas of right and wrong, and therefore morality by extension, do not exist.

All of these address two fundamental and important questions. The first is: does God exist? The second is: from where does morality originate, and how is it defined? Christianity, Atheism, Hinduism, Agnosticism, and Buddhism, as examples, attempt to answer these questions, and therefore all fall in the same definitive ontological category. Irrespective of the label one assigns to the many belief constructs, whether it is the term theistic religion, non-theistic religion, metaphysical belief system, or ontological belief model, all seek to arrive at the same end, which is a definition of morality and an explanation of human existence. In this light, Christianity is no different than Islam, Buddhism is no different than Agnosticism, and Hinduism is no different than Atheism. They all end at the same place: the adoption of a moral code via the determination that God either does or does not exist.

All humans possess ontological belief models, which are effectively religions, whether one chooses to describe them as such, or not. Without a doubt, it is not the role of government to force one belief system over another. In fact, to do so, as Sam Adams described, would be grounds to label one a “bigot.” Religious bigotry is one of the core reasons why Europeans fled the Old World, which was to escape the persecutory results of government-imposed systems of belief. The wall of separation was an illustrative metaphor that Jefferson used to describe the disempowerment of government, an innate feature of the American framework of governance, which prevented government from forcibly projecting certain beliefs onto the Danbury Baptists. It was not intended to be a bilateral prohibition or disempowerment of the Baptists, or any other group or sect, from the free expression of their beliefs in the public sphere.

When the Courts forced removal of prayer from schools in Murray v. Curlett, it was done to appease Madalyn Murray O’Hair, a prominent American Atheist. The subsequent purging of the public sphere of the symbols and practices associated with certain belief systems has deprived the likes of Christians, Jews, and Hindus of the right of free expression by creating a public climate that is comfortable only for the Atheist or Secularist. The government has barred discussion of Creationism, and has endorsed the teaching of Darwinian Theory, which is commonly accepted by virtually all Secularists and Atheists, as the only possible explanation of human origin. Government prohibits opportunities for students to meditate independently, based on their individual belief structure, during moments of silence. Such a prohibition represents a denial of rights to individuals and sects that value meditational reflection, and a concomitant endorsement of Atheistic and Secularist beliefs, which do not value moments of meditative and reflective silence.

The government’s extirpation of belief-based symbology, liturgy, introspection and silent adjuration at the behest of Secularists and Atheists represents tacit approbation of their systems of belief. In effect, Secularism and Atheism are modern America’s government sanctioned religions, and their status as non-theistic is completely irrelevant. The ban on public prayer, the prohibition of erecting symbolic displays in public spaces, and the removal of belief oriented texts from public common areas are classic examples of an overreaching government inhibiting liberty.

The proper approach for managing beliefs in the public sphere is illustrated beautifully on the walls in the U.S. Supreme Court’s main chamber, where marble panels display sculpted images of Moses, Muhammad, and Confucius. Thus, the moral codes originating from the theistic beliefs of Judaism and Islam are represented in the depictions of Moses and Muhammad, and coexist harmoniously with the non-theistic Chinese humanist idea of morality that emanates from Confucianism, as represented in the depiction of Confucius. And so it is, on the marble friezes of the highest court in the land, in fact the very court that struck free expression from public life, that Judeo-Christian, Islamic, and Secularist beliefs are all represented in unity, in the spirit of diversity. Yet, elsewhere in public life, only the views of Secularists and Atheists have voice.

Repressing public discourse is not tolerance. A Christian hearing and respecting the prayer of a Muslim prior to a public proceeding is true tolerance. A Hindu teacher explaining her beliefs to her Jewish students is true tolerance. A Sikh showing appreciation for Christian art in a government building is true tolerance. An Atheist who explains his position on evolution to a group of science students in a public school is true tolerance. The Buddhist who respectfully contemplates the eight-fold path to enlightenment during a Christian prayer is true tolerance. Rather than a place of restriction, the public sphere should be a place where tribute to our independence from religious repression is paid through the free expression of diverse beliefs. Instead of protesting a Muslim prayer in a public classroom, or a nativity scene on a courthouse lawn, we should be filled with thankfulness that Americans are free to engage in religious expression.

Our maturity as a tolerant nation should allow us to observe and respect the free expression of alternate beliefs in the public realm. It is an immature and intolerant nation that cries foul when another publicly exercises his or her religious beliefs. It is a mature and tolerant nation that celebrates liberty when another person publicly exercises his or her religious beliefs. We should not be afraid to hear a Christians pray in a public gathering. We should not fear a Jewish symbol on public property. We should not fear an Atheist’s point of view in a public text book. We should fear none of these, because none of these represent state endorsement of theistic or non-theistic religion. On the other hand, they do represent the very definition of diversity and tolerance.

When religion was stripped from the public sphere, its standards of morality were stripped with it, thus creating a moral vacuum that has since been filled with the morality derived from Godless religions. The ruling upholds and supports the religious tenants of atheism and secularism in public discourse, and disallows the tenants of Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism. When the courthouse lawn is stripped of the nativity scene, government shows reverence to atheist beliefs while scoffing at Christian beliefs. When the Ten Commandments were taken from the classroom, the government gave preferential treatment to students who adhere to atheism and secularism, and second-class treatment to Christians and Jews. Government banned prayer in school to appease adherents of atheism and proponents of secularism, and to appeal to their religious beliefs over those of Christians and Jews.

The early settlers fled to America from Britain to escape persecution at the hands of the Church of England, which was the only church endorsed by the government. Today, Christians and Jews are alienated by the Church of America, which worships the tenants of secularism, atheism, and other non-theistic religions. In so many ways, our nation has come full circle, and we are once again living under a government that represses theistic religious expression and endorses non-theistic religious beliefs.

In case you haven't noticed, there is no new world to which we can flee religious persecution. That means we have two choices: live with it, or change it.

The Mythos of Change and Big Government in America

Challenging the Notion that Economic and Social Advancement Requires a Big Government

Today, one of my progressively-minded academic peers was asked to defend his support of big government. "Society has changed significantly since the signing of the Constitution," he remarked. "The Founding Fathers never imagined how large and complex our nation would become, and we need a large government to help manage the needs of a large and complex society." His sophistry continued, "Events that led us to the necessary growth of government include: the Industrial Revolution, Great Depression, World Wars, Iron Curtain, Recession, Information Technology boom, and 9/11, just to name a few. These events could only be addressed with a very large government, and have even made us realize that government should be even larger to help protect us from repeat incidents."

Alas, Stalin would be proud.

I understand that many believe that economic and social evolution mandated the emergence of big government in the US, and that the state has enlarged its scope of influence over time in relative proportion to increasing social complexities. But, think about it for a moment. On what basis is the belief that this alleged dynamic symbiosis between big government and complex society known to be true, or more importantly, productive? I understand that people believe it, but I don't understand why they believe it.

We know that government started growing in the 30's, but how do we know that growth was essential to the health of the nation? How do we know that progress would not have still occurred in the absence of a big government? Further, how do we know that big government did not actually slow progress and weaken our nation? What evidence exists to support the assumption that our nation is better off with a big government, and is it possible that big government has done irreparable harm to our country?

Perhaps, one would argue that no evidence exists to the contrary, that our nation has never weathered periods of precipitous change in the absence of a big government, to which I would earnestly object. Was America significantly more complex in 1930, than it was in 1790? Indeed, it was infinitely more complex in 1930. Was social and economic progress made in that 140 year period prior to 1930? Without a doubt, it was.

It is true that we are more complex in 2010 than we were in 1930. But at the same time, we were more complex in 1930 than we were in 1790. Yet, the social complexities and industrial quickening that characterized the 1800's were all managed with a very small government that consumed less than 5% of GDP.

Some argue that the depression forced the growth of government in the 1930's. But, they fail to remember the depression of 1873, which was a major global economic crisis that America navigated with a very small government that never exceeded 5% of GDP. Moreover, the 1873 depression ended in 1879, and was about 5 years shorter than Roosevelt's depression of the 1930's. (I might point out that Roosevelt's depression was managed by a big government, and lasted significantly longer.)

Some cite the industrial revolution as an impetus for bigger government. But does that really makes sense, considering the industrial revolution ended in 1850, eighty years prior to the government's leap toward societal dominance beginning in 1930?

To say that contemporary events are somehow special and different from the historical events of our forefathers, different to the point that they require the adoption of a big government with which to manage them, is an odd notion to me. Although I would never personally suggest this, others might even be inclined to label such a belief as a bit arrogant. Truly, each generation of people view the historical events of their lives, and of the decades preceding their lives, as unique and of greater importance than the more distant events of previous centuries. But in reality, the invention of the wheel had no greater impact on the Neanderthals than did the invention of the steam engine on the Early Modernists. The steam engine had no greater impact on the Early Modernists than did the invention of the microchip on Generation X. The invention of the microchip may feel more momentous in its impact on society because we have personally seen its influence on our nation, our economy, and our culture. But in reality, the wheel, the steam engine and the microchip have all impacted their respective societies equally, and the introduction of one into historical currents required no greater scope of bureaucratic governance than did the other.

So, why do people believe that economic and social advancement and growth is predicated on the existence of big government? What evidence exists that leads one to believe that big government is necessary now, but was unnecessary in 1790 when the Constitution was signed?

Well, no one will ever be able to provide such evidence, because it does not exist. And although there is a much more compelling body of evidence to support a small government, the system will go on perpetuating the false idea that big government is necessary to manage the nation's growth and change, which is a load of malarkey.

The Great Norwegian Utopia

Oil Has Made Norway Rich, Not Its Socialist Economic Model

I recently overheard a couple of acquaintances discussing the pros and cons of health care reform. In an attempt to sway the other's opinion on the matter, I overheard one of the woman exalting Norway for its stellar, near perfect socialized health care system. She went on praising the frozen utopian paradise for its high standard of living, free secondary education, and other cradle to grave subsidies. "The people in Noway," she said excitedly, "they pay 60% in personal income taxes, but look what they get in return!"

It was the hardest thing I've ever done, but I managed to keep my mouth shut.

I never cease to be amazed at how people get suckered into believing this stuff. We've all seen supporters of the welfare state point to the Norwegian model as an example of a successful mixed economy. But, when you peel the onion, so to speak, you find that Norway is actually in big trouble economically speaking. Do a little digging, and you'll find that it is one of the most unfair and economically repressive nations in the world due to government profiteering and extremely high prices.

First of all, everyone needs to understand that the U.S. could never copy Norway's economic model, because they have something we don't: the North Sea Oil Reserves. Right now, Norway is benefiting in an enormous way from their oil, and is sort of the "Jed Clampet" of Europe. To give you an idea of the enormity of their jackpot oil production, the national oil company, Statoil, took in over $600 billion in revenues in 2008. The GDP of Norway was $247 billion. So, the revenues of the government-owned oil company were almost 3 times the output of the entire Norwegian economy. Imagine; what if the U.S. government had an income source that was 3 times larger than the total economic output of our economy? Of course, we could buy every citizen (and maybe even our 20 million illegal immigrants too) a Porshe and a McMansion, and provide every American a sizable stipend for the rest of their lives, and still have money left over.

See the chart below (Figure 1). Oil is the number one source of revenue for the Norwegian government. Look at the top two bars on the graph. The U.S. does not have this revenue source.

(Figure 1 - Click on Image to Enlarge)

What is unimaginable is that the government of Norway continues to tax their people at one of the highest tax rates in the world, even though this huge windfall of money exists. Think about this for a moment: the government of Norway took in $226 billion ('07 est) in total revenue (income taxes, oil profits, fees, etc.), but it only spent a total of $159 billion for the same time period. That is a $69 billion profit or a 42% revenue surplus, all made on the backs of the average Norwegian who pays 60% of their income to the government in taxes and $16 to McDonald's for a Happy Meal! And what has the government of Norway done with their 42% profit? Well, it's done what any good, responsible, liberal government would do; it created a slush fund.

Please explain how this is an ethical model for governance of a democratic people?

The embarrassingly high taxes have caused Norway to rank as one of the top 5 most expensive countries in the world in terms of cost of living, which is more than double that of the U.S.

See the table below, which shows a comparison of prices between the U.S. and Norway. By the way, keep in mind that the average Norwegian's after-tax income is roughly the same as that of an American. So, imagine how you would feel going to McDonald's and paying $16 for a hamburger on your present income. Not good, I'd guess.
















(Figure 2 - Click on Image to Enlarge)
(Source: http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/)

Is this really what we want our nation to look like: $111 for a grilled chicken at Chili's and a 60% income tax rate to boot?

The prohibitive cost of living trend is directly caused by the astronomically high tax rates as business compensates for the cost of high taxes by increasing prices. To illustrate this inflationary effect, let's look at an average McDonald's employee as example. If a McDonald employee in Norway pays 50% of their income in taxes, and the employee earns $8.00 per hour (that's about the average for McDonald's in the US), then they take home only $4.00 per hour. Well, no one is going to work for $4.00 per hour. If presented with such a measly wage, most people would probably figure it is better to stay at home, and opt out of work altogether. So, because labor is a mandatory component of business, McDonald's must pay $17.00 per hour to sufficiently remunerate labor at a level that attracts and retains employees. This way, the employee actually takes home $8.50 after taxes. People are willing to work for $8.50, but not $4.00 per hour. McDonald's then passes the cost of their sky-high labor on to the consumers who buy the burgers, which is why a Big Mac in Norway is $16.00. This is repeated all throughout the economy across virtually every sector, and confiscatory taxation is the core impetus of the present inflationary price trends that afflict, and will someday cripple, the Norwegian economy.

So, not only do Norwegians have the illustrious honor of surrendering 50 - 60% of their income to the government, they also get to pay double for everything they purchase.

Many economists predict that Norway is so overly dependent on the oil sector, that once world demand for oil drops, the nation could be thrown into a severe economic crisis. Business growth outside of the oil industry is virtually non-existent, and shrinking. Companies would rather do business on the moon than in Norway. Think about it. Have you heard of any companies flocking to set up shop in Norway lately? The high taxes, burdensome regulations, and cost of living have totally killed business development. When the Norwegians lose their oil revenues, and they will eventually, they will lose their present state of prosperity, and Norway as it is known today will slowly decline as their slush fund is exhausted over a 5 - 10 year period.

This is not what we want for our nation.

So, the next time you overhear someone singing the praises of European socialism, think twice before you believe them. Either they do not know the whole story, or they are intentionally leaving you in the dark to make socialism appear better than it really is. The latter is right out of Lenin's propaganda playbook.

ha en vidunderlig dag!

Big Government, Little Liberty

Heckler - On Limited Government


Click Graphic to Enlarge

Suppose one of the Founding Fathers, let’s say Madison, were suddenly thrust from the grave, full of life, into present-day America with the sole task of assessing whether or not the size and scope of government within contemporary society was in conformance to the founder’s original intent when our nation was born. Would he view the nation’s founding documents, which he helped to author, as having successfully and sufficiently restrained the growth of government over time? Would his assessment of personal liberties in the present be that their preservation has been maintained in accordance to his intent of the past? Would he return to the afterlife satisfied that America had, over the long-haul, lived up to his dreams and aspirations for the fledgling republic he helped to birth? Or, would his assessment leave him with the feeling that he, and the founding fathers, had failed to create a nation that would stand the test of time by remaining free of an intrusive, unwieldy, and overbearing government?

Sadly, the evidence suggests that Madison would be disappointed in the evolution of the nation. His assessment, I suspect, would leave him with a distinct feeling of failure upon concluding that federalism had escaped the bounds, limits, checks and balances that he and others had worked so diligently to integrate into our nation’s framework. He would likely think back to the discourse of his day and conclude that he was wrong, and that in fact, the anti-federalists were correct in their prediction that federalism would eventually fail to contain the growth of the federal government.¹

Where did we go wrong?

According to Dr. Ronald Pestritto, the era of big government, or the “administrative state” as he calls it, came to be in the 1930’s. ² (Kirkpatrick Reader, p 203) Prior to the ascension of Franklin Roosevelt to the presidency following the defeat of Herbert Hoover, government spending had remained low, almost insignificant, for well over 200 years. ³ (See Fig. 1) also (Rachut, p 83) Following the Civil War, sentiment in America began to reject the founder’s key beliefs: the belief in the natural law of human equality at birth; the belief that the sole purpose of government is to secure personal liberty; the belief that people enter society through a social compact, which is the agreement of all to obey society’s laws; the belief in a limited government, powerful private sector, and capitalist economic model; the belief in a domestic agenda that protects personal liberties, strengthens the rule of law, and promotes a moral climate that respects traditional Protestant values; the belief that foreign policy should be focused on a defensive, versus offensive or imperialistic, approach to national defense; the belief that policy must be driven by and originate from locally elected officials working as representatives of their constituencies. ⁴ (Kirkpatrick, p 249 – 253)

The size of government started growing in the 1930’s. Beginning in 1975, following the passage of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs, government consistently consumed 20% of the nation’s total GDP, which represents a quadrupling in the size of government over the years preceding Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency. (See Fig. 1) The General Welfare and Commerce Clauses have been radically reinterpreted by the courts, and in conjunction with the Sixteenth Amendment, allow for confiscatory taxation of personal wealth, and the redistribution of money based on the whims of federal bureaucrats, all in contravention of the constitution’s right to private property, not to mention natural law. ⁵ (Kirkpatrick, p 267) If we believe that the preservation of property is “the end of government”, as Locke wrote, then we can only believe that government has failed, and has itself now become a detriment to the right of private property rather than its protector. ⁶ (Kirkpatrick, p 274) Even though collectivism has failed the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, progressives advocate for the nationalization of private industry, not on the basis of its proven superiority (which does not exist), but rather merely on its advancement of utopian ideals. ^{7, 8} (Kirkpatrick, p 297) The federal government has taken over major privately owned automotive and financial corporations, and a minority of progressives and socialists are advocating the nationalization of the entire healthcare industry, which makes up 1/6 (16% of GDP) of the U.S. economy. ⁹ Progressivism engenders a rapacious entitlement mentality with an incrementally larger and more ravenous appetite for the wealth of others, and as government becomes the nation’s primary philanthropic arm, personal benevolence and altruism withers in the aloofness of the welfare state. ¹⁰ (Kirkpatrick, p 243)

Madison’s assessment would be grim. The turn to progressivism in the 1930’s, he would certainly agree, has cost Americans their liberties and rights. The ‘new’ republic in which we now live is closer in reality to the utopian vision of Plato than the refuge of liberty envisioned by our nation’s founders. ¹¹ (Kirkpatrick, p 277 – 289) The Machiavellian approach to defense, which holds government’s highest priority to be the protection of liberty through deterrent munitions accumulation and aggression response readiness, has largely been exchanged for priorities of appeasement, disarmament and the downsizing of the military, all of which expose the nation to harm at the hands of aggressors. ¹² (Kirkpatrick, p 225 – 226)

It is hard to believe that the founders ever imagined a federal government that would consume more than 5% of GDP. During Madison’s posthumous and hypothetical assessment of present-day America, when he would learn that current federal spending is in excess of 20% of GDP, he would be concerned, I believe, that the nation was on a trajectory toward failure. If the size of the federal government can quadruple in 70 years, Madison’s logical conclusion would be that it could again quadruple over the next 70 years. In 1797, Madison thought it inconceivable that federal spending would ever routinely surpass 20% of GDP, within the framework of checks and balances he had helped to create. Is it inconceivable to think, then, that government spending could equal 80% of GDP by 2080, and would we still be able to call ourselves free people?

Sources

1. Anti-federalists, Wikipedia, retrieved January 9, 2009, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifederalist

2. Pestritto: “The Birth of the Administrative State,” Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 203)

3. Rachut: American Vision and Values, Bellevue Press, 2008, (p 83)

4. West and Schambra: “The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics,” Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 249 - 253)

5. Pilon: “The Purpose and Limits of Government,” Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 267)

6. Locke: from The Second Treatise on Government,” Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 274)

7. Kristol: “Utopianism, Ancient and Modern,” Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 297)

8. Health Care in the United States, Wikipedia, Retrieved January 9, 2009, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization#United_States

9. Health Care in the United States, Wikipedia, Retrieved January 9, 2009, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_health_care_system

10. Messmore, “ A Moral Case against Big Government,” Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 243)

11. Plato: from The Republic, Book V, Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 277 - 289)

12. Machiavelli: from The Prince, Chapters X, XIV-XIX, XXV, Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 225 - 226)

13. Historical Spending and GDP, Retrieved January 9, 2009, at: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php

14. American History Timeline, Retrieved on January 9, 3009, at: http://www.animatedatlas.com/timeline.html

Business and Freedom

Heckler - On Capitalism, Business and the Free Market

I'm aware of the suspicion that many have of big business, and the general disenchantment with the influence that business can have on the cogs and wheels of government. It’s puzzling to me. Why would one believe that business should not have representation and advocates in our government? In my view, businesses, both small and big, are a vital part of our nation, and the interests of business should have representation in government.

So many people draw an imaginary line of distinction when they think of business, as if it is somehow separate from all of us. There are only two ingredients in a society: the people and the government, and nothing else. But sometimes, you almost get the feeling that people see our society in three parts: the people, the government, and business. This perception is not true, at any level, when you think about it.

We are business. We are big business and small business. Business is how we use our skills and talents to turn our work into income and private property. Business is the means through which we self-actualize. Business is the conduit over which we channel our creative energies to produce wealth for ourselves. We own and operate the businesses in this country; business is not a separate force within society. Granted, many people may not directly own a controlling interest in a business, but they do most likely work for a private company. Even if you work in a corporation, you will probably have a 401k or other retirement fund. By owning stock in a 401k, you are a business owner and your returns depend directly on strong private sector business performance. Business is what makes it possible for us to dream, and then combine a great idea with hard work to realize our dreams.

In the last 2 years, ‘profits’ have been demonized in the media as something sinister and evil. I’ll never forget Hillary Clinton standing before the American people, berating the oil companies for their supposed greed and profiteering. She went on to say, “We’re going to take those profits!” Frankly, that has to be one of the most frightening statements I’ve ever heard coming out of Washington. Her strange, bold threat sounds a lot like something that would come from the likes of Kim Il Sung, Erich Honecker or Hugo Chavez, and not a prominent American presidential candidate.

Sure, the oil companies made record profits over the past decade. No one is denying that. Circumstances within the free market evolved to give the oil companies in this nation an advantage, and an opportunity to earn money. They did what responsible businesses do – they maximized their bottom lines. Where was Hillary Clinton is the early 80’s, during the oil bust, when the oil companies were facing bankruptcy? Throughout much of the 80’s, many of those ‘evil’ oil companies operated in the red. Where was Hillary Clinton when CITGO, Hugo Chavez’s Venezuelan oil cartel, walked away with billions in corporate profits? America is Chavez’s number one customer of Venezuelan oil, and this nation has poured billions upon billions into Chavez’s evil coffers, coffers that have largely supported his dictatorship, thuggery, and systematic destruction of the Venezuelan economy. You mean to tell me that Clinton would rather tax an American-owned enterprise than one controlled by our arch-enemy, Hugo Chavez? How dare a politician threaten to confiscate the profits of a legitimate American enterprise? It’s disgusting.

What floors me is that people cry out in opposition to corporate tax breaks, corporate profits, etc. Then, when those tax breaks don't pass, or profits are soft, the very people who complained about corporate profits then complain about losing their job because their employer could no longer afford to keep them on the payroll. It just makes no sense. But so often, populist currents rarely ever make sense.

I have personally witnessed the power of tax breaks. Several years ago, a company that I am intimately familiar with decided to expand. There were several cities on the short list, and the location that was ultimately chosen won because of a very attractive tax incentive package. The area was blighted with high unemployment, and the company was able to go in to that community and put over 1,000 people to work. Today, they are the second largest private employer in the city.

Every year in fourth quarter, companies often go into a hiring and capital expenditure freeze. Whether or not this happens is often directly related to the overall financial health of the company. If revenues and margins are strong throughout the year, then business can hire and make capital investments as necessary to support growth. If profits are bad, no hiring will be done and no money will be spent on growth and expansion.

If we want to do something about our nation’s unemployment problem, then we need to hope that business is making a profit and planning for future growth and expansion. We all rely on business for our livelihoods, and we should be looking for ways to make sure business in this country remains strong and thriving. If a corporation gets tax incentives, who cares if hundreds of people get the opportunity to work? When profits are strong, businesses will expand and hire new people to support the expansion, and our retirement funds will resume growing. If they're operating at a loss on the other hand, they lay people off and our 401k funds continue to tank. We need to get government out of the affairs of private enterprise, because my investments and job security decrease with every tax hike and regulation the government imposes on business.

If you want high unemployment and significant losses in your retirement fund, then stand around and complain about corporate profits, demand higher business taxes, and advocate for more federal regulation on business. If you do, however, I have one request. Please don’t whine and complain when you end up standing in the unemployment line with your pink slip in hand.

Affirmative Action and the Perpetuation of Generational Racism in America

Heckler - On Affirmative Action

Affirmative Judicial Activism

In 1973 and 1974, Michael Bakke applied to the University of California, Davis Medical School. Bakke was twice denied enrollment, not due to poor qualifications, but due to his Caucasian ethnicity. ¹² The university had implemented a program designed to increase the number of minority students enrolled in its medical school. ¹³ Effectively, race or ethnicity was the only factor used to determine student admission to the medical school via the diversity program, thus creating an illegal quota system to drive minority admissions practices. ¹⁴

Bakke’s case reached the Supreme Court in October of 1977, and the decision was read in June of 1978. ¹⁵ Justice Lewis Powell (pictured above right) wrote the opinion of the Court in The University of California v. Bakke, which effectively gave institutions the right to use race or ethnicity, as long as they are taken into consideration with other applicant attributes, to approve or deny individuals entry into the institution. ¹⁶ Powell faults the University of California for using race alone in its admissions process. ¹⁷ Powell writes, “In summary, it is evident that the Davis special admissions program involves the use of an explicit racial classification never before countenanced by this Court. It tells applicants who are not Negro, Asian, or Chicano that they are totally excluded from a specific percentage of the seats in an entering class.” ¹⁸

Though Powell cites the University for implementing an unconstitutional quota system, he does not completely prohibit the use of an applicant’s race or ethnicity by admissions boards to grant or deny an individual admission to the institution. ¹⁹ In the opinion, Powell establishes a precedent of justifiable discrimination, “In enjoining petitioner from ever considering the race of any applicant, however, the courts below failed to recognize that the State has a substantial interest that legitimately may be served by a properly devised admissions program involving the competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin. For this reason, so much of the California court's judgment as enjoins petitioner from any consideration of the race of any applicant must be reversed.”²⁰ In other words, race or ethnicity cannot be the only personal attribute used by admissions boards to accept students into its programs, nor could institutions establish quotas for minority enrollment. Powell’s ruling paved the way for modern affirmative action policies.

What is affirmative action policy? According to Elizabeth Anderson, Professor of Woman’s Studies at the University of Michigan, “Affirmative action policies include any policies that (a) attempt to actively dismantle institutionalized or informal cultural norms and systems of ascriptive group-based disadvantage, and the inequalities historically resulting from them, and/or that (b) attempt to promote an ideal of inclusive community, as in ideals of democracy, integration, and pluralism (multiculturalism), (c) by means that classify people according to their ascriptive identities (race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.) and select people for participation in institutions using these classifications as criteria.” ²¹ Crystal clear, isn't it? To summarize, affirmative action policies give preferential treatment of individuals based on their race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, or gender.

Affirmative action policies attempt to redress disproportionate populations of minority individuals within organizations and institutions. ²² Today, discrimination in America is not the overtly racist bigotry that plagued the South through the 1960’s. In those days, blacks were forced to sit in areas of theatres and restaurants that were separate from the areas where whites were seated, and water fountains were labeled “whites only” or “blacks only.” Such conspicuous and frankly idiotic behavior is thankfully a thing of the past. Although we no longer contend with obvious race-based segregation, white only cafes, and signs that read “no coloreds allowed,” discrimination still exists, though in isolation and subtlety within our society. It is this silent, near imperceptible form of discrimination that affirmative action aims to attack. ²³

There is an image of a man standing behind a podium in Washington DC before thousands of adoring supporters. The image is certainly burned into the memory of every American, and the words of Martin Luther King Jr. will forever echo in our ears, “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” ²⁴ Sadly, the dream that King conceived during his short time on earth has been aborted, its life drawn from the womb of our collective consciousness by the very people who claim to protect it.

If a university selection process has narrowed down the candidate pool to two prospects, one white and one black, with both possessing desirable qualities, affirmative action would mandate selection of the minority candidate and rejection of the white candidate. Logical alternatives to affirmative action exist that would enable the university to choose candidates exclusively based on factors other than race or ethnicity. For example, a higher level assessment could be given to both candidates to identify exceptional talent or giftedness that previous screening may have failed to reveal. But, rather than administering further evaluation to expose academic exceptionalities, such as mathematical or scientific inclinations, affirmative action policy would, in essence, be the academic ‘tie breaker’.

If a colorblind society is truly our objective, then, as a nation, we will never achieve it as long as affirmative action remains entrenched in our organizations and institutions. Powell’s ruling, which allows organizations to select or deny opportunity to individuals based on race, either with or without consideration of other personal attributes, is a ruling that legalizes racial discrimination. Progressives put forth long and often convoluted arguments about the legitimacy of affirmative action, and similarly assert that affirmative action is not racial discrimination, or that race-based selection is somehow morally, socially, and legally justified. But if institutions are allowed to choose (discriminate) based on ethnicity (race), how can it be said that such policies are anything less than racial discrimination?

Powell’s error was in his interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides the right to equal treatment under the equal protection clause of Section One. The clause explicitly states that the state cannot “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” ²⁵ (See Amendment XIV of the Constituion) Referring to the equal protection clause, Powell writes, “Such rights are not absolute.” ²⁶ He later continues, “Race or ethnic background may be deemed a "plus" in a particular applicant's file, yet it does not insulate the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats.” ²⁷ Powell’s argument asserts that the Fourteenth Amendment protections are only partially protective, and race may be legally used in conjunction with other factors if the state has a compelling reason to allow such discriminatory policies. What Powell fails to realize is that admissions policies could be structured in such a way as to still allow or deny persons admission based on race. If race can be a “plus factor” ²⁸ when stack ranking candidate qualifications, then a minority student will obtain an advantage over a nonminority student by virtue of their race alone. Such a circumstance would violate the right to equal protection of the nonminority applicant, because their nonminority status comparatively disadvantaged them, even though both applicants shared the same academic qualifications. Powell did not eliminate reverse discrimination with his ruling; he simply cloaked it, hiding it from the purview of moral and legal dissent. Today, discrimination is rampant in our private and public organizations and institutions of higher learning, yet it is shrouded in convoluted arguments, complex and circular justifications, and illogical reason, which all render its diagnostication an onerous task. But peel the onion, and you will see it for what it truly is.

John Locke, prophetically recognizes the implications of sanctioned institutional discrimination in his Second Treatise on Government. “In transgressing the law of nature," Locke writes, "the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tie, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him.” ²⁹ Perhaps it is men like Justice Powell that Locke describes, men who have proven themselves “dangerous to mankind” by upholding discriminatory practices in our society.

Affirmative action is not only unconstitutional, it is immoral. Further, it does tremendous harm to race reparations in America, the advancement of equal access, and the realization of Dr. King’s colorblind society. As each new generation enters society, our nation has the opportunity to take a step forward toward true equality. Children are not born to discriminate; they learn to discriminate from each preceding generation. In the absence of legal discrimination, as generational distance from the transgressions of racist America in the 1960’s grows, the propensity to inflict racism, and other incarnations of bigotry, would incrementally fade, and society would evolve into the one described in Dr. King’s dream. But for now, the dream is elusive. Social policies such as affirmative action whisper bigotry into the collective ear of each successive generation. They tell a lie to each new class of Americans graduating into society, that they are innately and secretly intolerant and prejudiced, and then we all scratch our heads and wonder why prejudices persist. Our children, and our children’s children, will merely live up to the expectation we have set for them in the foundational premise of affirmative action policies, which is the expectation that each person is intrinsically and secretly racist, bigoted and chauvinistic. Indeed, we will never truly live in a colorblind society as long as social policies exist to keep our eyes focused on color. Until we can summon the courage to strike down legal discriminatory practices, affirmative action will continue to counterproductively perpetuate discrimination in our society, and the dream of a nation wherein, “little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers” ³⁰ will sadly remain dead.

Sources

12. Supreme Court of the United States (Powell), Opinion of the Court, California Board of Rgents v. Allen Bakke, at: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0438_0265_ZO.html

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. Anderson, Elizabeth S. (John Rawls Collegiate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies), Under Section: Arguments for Affirmative Action Policies, at: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~eandersn/biblio.htm#Pro

22. Ibid.

23. Science Daily, Discrimination Is More Taxing On The Brain, ScienceDaily, at: http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2007/09/070919093316.htm

24. King, Martin Luther, I have a Dream Speech, August 1963, at: http://www.mlkonline.net/dream.html

25. The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights, from the Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader, Bellvue Press, (p. 127)

26. Supreme Court of the United States (Powell), Opinion of the Court, California Board of Rgents v. Allen Bakke, at: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0438_0265_ZO.html

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.

29. Locke, John, The Second Treatise on Government – Chapter II, from the Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader, Bellvue Press, (p. 112)

30. King, Martin Luther, I have a Dream Speech, August 1963, at: http://www.mlkonline.net/dream.html

31. Rauchut, Edward A., American Vision and Values, Bellvue Press, 2008, (p. 65)

32. Meese, Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellvue Press, 2008, (p. 180)

33. Madison, Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellvue Press, 2008, (p. 131)

34. Spaulding, Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellvue Press, 2008, (p. 148)

35. Ibid. (p. 148)

36. Rauchut, Edward A., American Vision and Values, Bellvue Press, 2008, (p. 70)

37. Moore, Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellvue Press, 2008, (p. 176)

38. Ibid. (p. 176 – 177)

39. Ibid. (p. 177)

40. Ibid. (p. 178)

41. Rauchut, Edward A., American Vision and Values, Bellvue Press, 2008, (p. 73)