Why Nationalism And Strong Borders Protect Liberty

For all of modern history, good countries were always expected to govern in the best interests of their citizens.  Maintaining a border policy in accordance with the country’s needs and long term planning was never an issue.  So what’s changed?

The pressure for countries to ignore their borders is based in political correctness – a modern tool of the left which is designed to help them win policy arguments by appealing to emotion rather than reason, thus denying their opponents a meaningful opportunity to respond.  In the case of border policy, the argument always boils down to a false appeal to emotion via an allegation of racism.  As the argument goes, any country that restricts the indiscriminate entry of foreigners from countries populated by people of a different primary race, religion or culture is deemed to be xenophobic.  The argument, illogical and nonsensical as it is, either goes unchallenged or is actually advanced by the leftist national media.  Any reply, no matter how rational and well-grounded in history, is deemed duplicitous and unworthy.

Partly in response to this nonsense, we’ve seen a resurgence of nationalism advanced by those who appreciate the history of global national and cultural development over the course of centuries.  This shouldn’t be a surprise.  The attack on borders is in fact an attack on national sovereignty.  A surge in nationalism is a natural response.  But this response isn’t born out of any presupposition that the world is perfect as it is.  Instead, it results from the common sense understanding that it isn’t smart to irreversibly disregard hundreds of years of experience.  Forcing cultures to permanently meld in hopes that it’ll all work out for the best isn’t smart.  It’s reckless.

In typical fashion, leftists and globalists, with the help of their allies in the national media, have sought to conflate nationalism with Nazism and radical national racism.  Words can and often do mean different things to different people in different contexts.  The brand of nationalism being advanced by sensible people across the globe right now is not grounded in racism.  It is grounded in a sound respect for history and experience.  It is no more racist than it has ever been for a nation to seek to protect its sovereignty while defending and advancing the interests of its citizens.  In the current context, nationalism most importantly implies a rejection of the globalist agenda.

There are two leftist perspectives for supporting open borders.  First, many leftist including those in America, likely support open borders for the immediate impact they perceive open borders will have on electoral politics.  Being statists, leftists seek to perpetually control the government.  In a self-governing society such as ours, that requires constantly winning elections.  Leftists in America perceive that open borders will give them a long term, if not permanent, advantage in electoral politics.

From a much longer term perspective, the most committed leftists recognize that the centralization of government authority has always been a key component to their successes. Whereas decentralized government under more localized control is the hallmark of individualism and real honest to goodness self-government, the centralization of governmental authority is the hallmark of advancing statism.  The American experience offers just one example.  When the U.S still enjoyed meaningful federalism, various states strewn over the swath of a continent constituted a system which exhibited much more fidelity to America’s first principles – and a vastly more decentralized government – than has come to exist since federalism was effectively eliminated.  The U.S. is now governed primarily from Washington D.C.  The defeat of federalism and the concomitant centralization of power in Washington D.C. was a key component to the growth of statism in America.

Similarly, in the global context, scores of countries strewn over the planet are far more decentralized than a world government or regional global governments would be.  With global or regional governments would come much more centralization and a much more efficient route to the implementation of the grand societal and economic planning that statists seek to impose.  Defeating or ignoring national borders over a long period of time would undermine the national sovereignty which today’s nationalists are trying to protect.  Thus, countries without effective border control would open the world to a possibility of more centralization of government on a global scale.

Controlling national borders is essential to maintaining national sovereignty.  In turn, maintaining national sovereignty is essential to combating leftist forces seeking to strengthen and further centralize their political power.  Together, the conflation of traditional nationalism with xenophobia and the attempt to eradicate national boundaries constitute just one more effort to accomplish what is always the left’s overarching goal – to reinforce and intensify statism and leftest authority at the expense of liberty and individualism.

Nationalism in the context of border policy is a good thing for human liberty because it helps to maintain national sovereignty and, by extension, ward off the further centralization of governmental power.

 

Hillary Clinton’s Call For Incivility

The most extreme elements of the statist/progressive movement together with national media pundits have trumpeted the concept of “dog whistles”.  They argue that their political opponents, most notably President Trump, often speak in a code only understandable by supporters.  They assert that this otherwise indecipherable code-speak always implicates their political opponents in imagined hate and narrow-mindedness and reveals them to be racists, misogynists, xenophobes, homophobes or some other category of bad people.

Liberals don’t have to worry about being accused of blowing dog whistles to communicate secret messages to their supporters.  They have no fear in stirring trouble openly, presumably because they know their media partners won’t call them out for it.  Hillary Clinton’s recent statements regarding incivility demonstrate a good case in point.

Leftists’ acts of incivility are becoming more commonplace by the day.  They block traffic.  They obstruct commerce.  They interfere with classes.  They shout down opponents.  They harass people in public to the point of forcing them to leave restaurants and other establishments.  They harass people at their homes.  Despite all of this, Hillary Clinton chose to echo Maxine Waters by not so subtly threatening continued incivility when she said in a recent CNN interview, “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.  That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.”

It’s impossible to miss the goose/gander argument suggested by her comments which could be employed by her detractors as easily as her supporters.  Her political opponents may choose to take her advice to heart, and act uncivilly toward liberals who clearly want to destroy everything they care about in the way of the Constitution and America’s first principles.

It’s also impossible to miss the tyrannical implications of her comments.  “Fall in line or pay the price.  You can have peace again once you appease us.”

Other than the fact that he was ultimately confirmed, it’s hard to find a positive perspective on the Kavanaugh confirmation debacle.  But one fortunate aspect may be that it occurred so close in time to the upcoming election.  It provided a timely reminder of the shameless tactics and behavior of so many elected Democrats and the Democrat Party generally at an opportune time.

Voters who might need even more motivation to get out and vote against liberals should consider Clinton’s comments in the same context as the effort to torpedo Kavanaugh’s nomination.  If their threat is to hold societal harmony hostage until they’re satisfied, then when will that really be?  The answer of course is never.  Once they establish that obstructing society, inflaming public discord or maligning the reputation of an opponent is an effective tool to get what they want, it will forever be a favorite arrow in their quiver.

Clinton, Waters and those behind the effort to undercut Kavanaugh have sent a clear message to voters before the mid-term elections.  They’ll do anything, and they’ll approve their supporters doing anything, to win.  When it comes to priorities, peace and civility in society and in government run a distant second to them getting their way.  If Americans don’t make it clear to them now that these tactics are unacceptable and won’t be rewarded, there’s every reason to believe their efforts at societal disruption and poisoning governmental processes will only get worse and more widespread.

The Root Cause Of The Confirmation Chaos

Last Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford.  Immediately after the hearing adjourned, Britt Hume commented on FOX News regarding the confirmation process. “This process is damaged.  It’s been subject to this kind of thing for some years now.  This is the most egregious example of it that I’ve ever seen.”   Of course, Britt Hume was right.

The following day, S.E. Cupp speaking on CNN regarding the confirmation hearing and, more specifically, the evaluation of Kavanagh’s nomination said, “it comes down to us to decide as a society whom we believe and what the standards are.”  Of course, S.E. Cupp was wrong.  The Senate decides how to evaluate credibility and whether Kavanaugh will be confirmed.  Society doesn’t, but maybe we should.  Presidential nominations and Senate confirmation used to work well.  Not anymore.

Because the confirmation process has become such a damaged, ugly spectacle, we now endure debate over the minutia of the Senate’s decision making process.  What is the proper standard of proof when factual allegations are made against a nominee?  Is it merely the standard an employer would use in a job interview?  Or should a criminal proof standard be applied?  What should be the focus of the FBI investigation?  Who is empowered to direct and control the investigation?  The nomination/confirmation process is no longer a good method for choosing Supreme Court justices for one primary reason, the elimination of which would solve the problem.

The responsibility for this problem doesn’t lie with the Constitution or those who drafted and ratified it.  The responsibility lies with the Supreme Court itself, the other branches of government which have urged it to accept a much larger role than granted it by the Constitution, and all of us, the self-governing people who are ultimately fundamentally responsible to safeguard the Constitution and its separation of powers.  As originally conceived, the Constitution delegated specific powers to the three branches of government.  To the Congress, the power of making the law.  To the President, the power of enforcing the law.  To the courts, the power of settling disputes over the law – of determining what the law requires in any given circumstance or dispute.

The seeds for this crisis in the confirmation process were sown many decades ago when the Supreme Court expanded its role beyond its judicial function and began empowering the federal government by phony reinterpretations of the Constitution pursuant to the legal fraud that is living constitution theory.  Living constitution theory is basically the notion that our Constitution should be read as an evolving document that magically changes with the perceived needs of society.  It has now been taught in our public schools for generations and, as a result, is far too widely accepted as the basis for sound law.  It is not sound law.  It is a trick which enables five judges to disregard the real Constitution whenever they think their notion of good government or essential liberty requires the Constitution to say something it doesn’t really say or mean something that it never meant before.  (For more on the fraud that is living constitution theory see my earlier articles, Our “Dying” Constitution and The Constitution Cannot Be Restored At The Ballot Box.)

Having taken for itself the power to reinterpret the Constitution as it sees fit, the Court has ruled that the Commerce Clause gives the federal government authority to exercise almost unlimited control over the entire economy.  It has ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to guarantee blacks due process of law, suddenly now means that same sex marriage is a constitutionally protected right.  It has proclaimed that Obamacare’s ‘individual mandate’ to purchase health insurance is a tax, not a penalty, in order to justify its holding that Affordable Care Act is constitutional.  This, despite the President and every Congressional proponent assuring the public that the mandate is not a tax in order to gain public support.

Over the decades, living constitution theory has enabled, if not justified, the Supreme Court to make law every time it reinterprets the Constitution to require or authorize something other than what the Constitution actually provides.  Because it effectively changes the Constitution by virtue of these false interpretations, it is now often rightfully viewed as a super legislature – a body made up of members who are appointed to lifetime positions, is answerable to no one, and by fiat simply makes up the most fundamental law of the land at the discretion of a majority of its members.  It’s not surprising that the extraordinary and unconditional power now exercised by the Supreme Court has resulted in a desperate political desire to control its makeup.

It’s this desire to control the makeup of the Court which renders the confirmation process such a mess.  The Constitution’s process for selecting new Supreme Court judges made perfect sense and worked quite well when Justices acted exclusively as judges.  There was little reason for more direct, democratic processes to be involved.  But now that the Supreme Court so often takes on the role of a super legislature, that same nomination/confirmation process not only leads to manipulations, discord, and acrimony, it also offends our common understanding of representative government.  It’s one thing to have an elected President nominate judges and an elected Senate confirm them.  It’s another thing altogether for a President to nominate and the Senate to confirm super legislators, thus removing the most powerful law making body from the direct election of the people.

Moreover, the nomination/confirmation process is ill-suited for the selection of super legislators.  The Senate is a political body.  Each member has an agenda outside of the mere selection of the best super legislator possible.  They all jockey for political power vis-à-vis each other.  They all have allegiances which impact their positions and perspectives.  They’re all responsible to a constituency and are concerned with how their actions throughout the process might affect their next election.  All of these political self-interests which are extraneous to the selection of the best super legislator provide the motivation for the political melodrama we see infiltrating and torturing the confirmation process as well as its participants.

Just as a voter doesn’t need hearings or an FBI investigation to inform his vote, senators don’t really need to be instructed as to the proper standard for assessing the credibility of a nominee.  The Senate doesn’t need an investigation into the 36 year old claims of Dr. Ford any more than citizens of Alabama needed an FBI investigation into the decades old claims made against Roy Moore in his recent Senatorial run.  But because the Senate is a political body, its members have myriad personal considerations not directly related to the confirmation process, and they therefore seek cover and justifications for their actions.

No individual voter would be affected by these extraneous personal political considerations.  Consider our method for selecting members of Congress, our ‘other’ legislative body.  There are Congressional elections every two years.  The balance of power is always up for grabs in both houses.  But we don’t see FBI investigations, live televised hearings, or even nationwide debates over the merits of any individual candidates because those processes are unnecessary and unhelpful for individual voters to reach a decision.  All the issues as to credibility, evidence and the level of proof required to sway a vote are within the sole determination of the voter.  Individual voters don’t need hearings, or instructions as to how they should evaluate a candidate’s credibility.  Nor do we need FBI investigations into every claim made about a candidate’s past.  The opposing campaigns and the media have historically done an adequate job of putting out for public consumption evidence, arguments and commentary addressing a candidate’s policy perspectives, experience, and character flaws.

Further, the spectacle is made all the greater by the national nature of a Supreme Court nomination.  The largest Congressional districts are the States themselves as each state constitutes a district for the purposes of electing its Senators.  Not so with nominees to the super legislature known as the Supreme Court.  Each nominee to the Court affects each state and thus each citizen, equally.  Your two Senators are your only representatives in the Senate, so their respective elections are the only Senate races with which you need to be directly concerned.  However, every citizen in every state needs to be concerned about the makeup of our self-designated super legislature.

Much has been said of the underhandedness of the Democrat Party in soiling the judicial confirmation process.  No one should be surprised.  As I argued in an earlier article, The Corrupt Operating Principle Of Modern Liberalism, because modern liberalism as reflected by the actions of its establishment flag bearers is entirely policy driven and has no regard for our constitutional rule of law, the democratic process, or the truth, it is bankrupt of any guiding principle other than expediency.  Its approach to governance and the acquisition of power is ultimately tyrannical because it seeks to impose its policies and obtain the political power necessary to do so by whatever means possible…”  It was entirely foreseeable that it would be Democrats who would breach the normal confirmation protocols in pursuit of a Supreme Court advantage.

From the nominations of Judge Robert Bork in 1987, to Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991 and now Judge Brett Kavanaugh, we’ve seen the most intensive, aggressive, and partisan fighting, in each case, instigated and led by Democrats.  Though it’s difficult to define the Supreme Court in traditional political terms of left and right or liberal and conservative, Democrats and liberals want the Court populated by living constitution theorists who are willing to misinterpret the Constitution in order to give the government the fake authority to do the things Democrats and liberals want the government to do.  FDR’s 1937 effort to pack the Court from 9 members to 15 in order to move his New Deal legislation forward bears remembering on this point.  Conversely, conservative Republicans have preferred what might be called “original constitutionalists”, textualists and originalists who seek to understand and apply the Constitution in terms of its actual meaning as ratified by the people.

In the cases of, Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh, the nominee represented a move toward original constitutionalism.  Bork was nominated to the seat vacated by Lewis Powell, generally considered a moderate and a swing vote on the Court.  Thomas was nominated to the vacated seat of Thurgood Marshall, a staunch adherent to living constitution theory.  Kavanaugh was nominated to the vacated seat of  Anthony Kennedy, a moderate and, again, the long-time swing vote on the Court.  Thus, all three of the nominations that have engendered extreme political histrionics in the confirmation process represented a decided shift in the Court’s makeup toward original constitutionalism and away from living constitution theory.  Each nomination was virulently opposed by Democrats who sought to control the makeup of the Court, not because they feared the nominees were bad judges, but because they feared the nominees might halt or reverse the Supreme Court’s assumed role in lending its imprimatur to the illegal expansion of Federal Government authority via living constitution theory.

To be sure, the Democrat Party role in despoiling the confirmation process has been undeniable, self-interested, despicable, and malevolently motivated by a desire to circumvent the structural protections of individual liberty intended to be maintained through the constitutional separation of powers and the amendment process established in Article V of the Constitution.  But the primary tool in constructing the temporal road to this point in history was living constitution theory which gave false justification for decades of Supreme Court usurpation of power from Congress and from the people.  If the Supreme Court is to remain a super legislature, we need to acknowledge that the confirmation process is no way to select its members.

At bottom, the disordered havoc that is the nomination/confirmation process is symptomatic of a disease in our constitutional order.  That disease is living constitution theory.  If we would eradicate the disease, the symptoms would abate, and the nomination/confirmation process of seating judges, not super legislators, would once again work just fine.

McCain And Obama As Teammates

In his remarks at John McCain’s funeral yesterday, President Obama said in part, “(W)e never doubted the other man’s sincerity. Or the other man’s patriotism. Or that when all was said and done, we were on the same team.”

What Obama intended to imply was that he and McCain both worked for the good of the country within a system that has existed for generations and is widely accepted as the right way to govern America. There’s no reason to doubt that McCain felt the same way.

The unspoken goal of this favorable comparison of their perspectives on American government is to refuse to acknowledge that there is another team fighting Obama, McCain and legions of other statists who seek to continue and expand centralized power within this generally accepted paradigm they so favor.  They and their allies in the national media would prefer to characterize the entirety of this ‘opposing team’ as unsophisticated, dissatisfied rubes or worse, racists who care only about returning to time when America was whiter. Casting this characterization as widely as possible is at the root their constant false, misleading, or overemphasized narratives about Trump and all his ‘deplorable’ supporters.

While they do undoubtedly fear Trump and the populism he represents, there is another team that has worked in consistent opposition to their statist movement. Its successes have varied but as time has seen centralized power in Washington D.C. grow, this effort has only grown stronger and more committed.

Constitutionalists and those who believe in America’s first principles have always been the team which Obama, McCain and the rest of the statist team must keep at bay. When Obama says he and McCain always knew they were on the same team, it is in this context, which he no doubt did not intend, that I really agree with him. They both believed in diminished federalism and the growth of central power in Washington without any real regard for whether the Constitution actually authorizes it. As a result, their debates, like most of the debates between the national parties, were more akin to disputes among coaches of the same football team about what game plan to implement or what plays to run. Their dispute was most often over how to share or apportion the ever growing power of Washington, not how or whether to return any of it to the states or to the people.

This isn’t meant to imply that there aren’t some who are committed to constitutionalism and first principles among the GOP national elite. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee in the Senate and Justin Amash and Louie Gohmert in the House are a few examples. But McCain was not. He was a committed statist and as such, deserves to be recognized as having been just as “sincere” as Obama in exemplifying their brand of “patriotism” as they worked to move the ball down the field for the cause of statism.

Prices, Thermostats And Socialism

In a free market economy, price – of raw materials, labor, finished goods, services and capital itself – works a lot like a thermostat in your house.  Prices reflect what is happening in the market with respect to supply and demand and signal to individual markets what is needed in terms of more or less supply.  Your thermostat reflects what is happening to the temperature of the air in your home and signals what is needed in terms of more or less heat or air conditioning.

When the government sets or influences prices, it displaces this market pricing.  The results are rather like a false reading on your thermostat.  Both the market and you will respond to a false stimulus leading to results which are not optimal.  The market will provide more or less supply based on inaccurate pricing information just as you will adjust the heat or air conditioning in response to inaccurate temperature information.

The analogy ultimately fails, only because you have your own internal thermostat which will ultimately override the mechanical thermostat – you will rather quickly figure out that the mechanical thermostat is not working correctly and will adjust the heat and air conditioning based on your own judgment.  Unfortunately, markets have no quick functioning redundant system for making adjustments to supply.  As a result, when the government influences or sets prices, supply either increases or decreases for extended periods of time.  This, in turn, spreads misallocations of capital throughout the involved industry.  If the government influences or sets prices in multiple industries, the effect is magnified, misallocations can overlap between and among industries, and widespread economic distortions ultimately result.  If you had no redundant system to override your broken mechanical thermostat, you would waste fuel for heat or air conditioning and withstand the inconvenience and discomfort of being perpetually too hot or cold.  You would waste capital and suffer a lower standard of living.  The same negative results occur when false pricing effects spread throughout an economy.

Only capitalism i.e., free markets, enable this extraordinarily accurate and amazingly efficient price setting mechanism. In all planned economies, i.e., non-free markets, prices are distorted and do not provide accurate signals as to what commodities are being produced in quantities too high or too low for an efficient economy.  False prices lead to distorted economic decisions and the misallocation of capital.

Capitalism is so resilient and so superior to any other economic system that it has been able to sustain mixing some elements of planned economic theories within its overall superstructure and still continue providing a standard of living and efficiencies in markets which far exceed that which could be achieved in any economic system based entirely on planning.  However, it is a fallacy to think a mixed economy is superior to a completely free economy.  A thermostat that works properly part of the time and only misreads the temperature by a few degrees when it is not operating correctly may be better than no thermostat at all, but it is not the optimum.  The same is true when components of planned economic systems that don’t work are mixed with free market capitalism.  The results may be tolerable, but it’s a mistake to think they are optimal.  Moreover, if you eliminate capitalism completely, or even dilute it sufficiently by mixing in too much government imposed ‘planning’, the pricing mechanism will break down completely, immediately followed by a severe malaise in the broader economy and its ultimate failure.

A truly free market, checked only by the rule of law including the enforcement of contracts and strict sanctions against fraud, represents an economy working at full efficiency for the benefit of society, allocating resources in the most efficient way possible and continuously increasing the general standard of living over time.  Government efforts to modify free market pricing dislocate capital, reduce the efficiency of the economy and its ultimate capacity and, all too often, provide economic advantages to favored constituencies and cronies.

Those who advocate for socialism do so, not because they believe it is efficient and will provide a rising standard of living for society at large, but because they wish to achieve a more equal distribution of wealth.  They ignore or don’t understand that only capitalism grows the economic pie.  Socialism provides a disincentive to productivity while simultaneously introducing these inefficiencies and misallocations which can do nothing but damage the capacity of an economy to produce goods and services for the benefit of everyone.  Thus, Winston Churchill’s words are as true now as they were when he spoke them and will be true for all eternity.  “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.  It’s inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

We should embrace the “perfectly working thermostat” economic model.  Free market capitalism will again unleash the best and fastest mechanism ever understood by the mind of man for improving the lives of the most people in the shortest amount of time while creating the conditions for the advancement of society at large.

Teachers’ Union Politics In West Virginia

A pair of nearly identical columns written by West Virginia teacher’s union activist Christine Harrison exemplify the extent to which unions sometimes assume a political authority in speaking for their membership far beyond their actual mandate of negotiating employment contracts including pay, benefits and the terms and conditions of employment.  The two articles which can be found here and here, typify the manner in which unions often push ever more and ever bigger government “solutions” to perceived and real social problems.  Rarely do such efforts have any obvious connection to the union’s stated purpose in representing its membership.  Usually they simply advance leftist political and policy perspectives.

Ms. Harrison claims that “the responsibility to fix the ills of society has fallen squarely on the shoulders of our public schools.”  Not to understate the difficulties that many teachers and administrators face on a day to day basis, but claiming the responsibility to “fix the ills of society” seems more than a bit hyperbolic.  But the hyperbole enthusiastically sets the stage for her demands for more authority and more money.

Of course, she omits any mention of the fact that public policy has been intentionally designed to create in schools a central location for providing public assistance and aid to children.  Public schools’ transition from institutions strictly focused on education to institutions focused on the social and psychological well-being of the whole child didn’t happen by accident.  It happened by design and was motivated largely by the same “big government can solve every problem” attitude we see exhibited in Ms. Harrison’s articles.  Accordingly, Ms. Harrison might have focused her demands on reversing this decades long public policy trend in order to return public education to its original and rightful purpose – education – but that tact wouldn’t serve her union’s purpose of expanding, rather than shrinking, the authority, scope and cost of public education.

Ms. Harrison urges a change in public schools from “an education model” to a “medical/behavioral/tactical model” where teachers will become well versed in medicine, fire arms handling and psychology so as to be better able to do the government’s work of treating, protecting and molding the minds of the state’s children.  Of course, it’s all tied together with more training, more administration and more money for the public school leviathan.  So it goes.  Big government grows bigger by creating legions of government employees represented by big government supportive unions who have a vested interest in supporting even bigger government.  The rest of us are left to watch and experience government’s continual incremental takeover of just about everything.

Ms. Harrison writes that “there is no doubt that educators across the state will be ‘United 55’ if teachers and service personnel are not given proper resources to deal with this impending crises.  If ignored, there will be another statewide revolt which will make the recent strike look like High School Musical 2.”  Her intentions are obvious.  She hopes to set the political stage in an election year and inflame her fellow union membership to take up political arms in favor of expanding public education’s authority, broadening public education’s mission and increasing public education funding. In the process I’m confident she hopes to enhance the electoral prospects of Democrat candidates.  I suspect that Ms. Harrison’s views are not shared by a majority of her fellow union members.  I hope those who disagree with her will make their voices heard within their unions and with those members (like Ms. Harrison) who assume the mantle of speaking for everyone else.

Does The National Debt Matter?

Less than seven months ago I wrote this article to express my concerns over the national debt which had just eclipsed $20 trillion.  The point of the article was that the media were much more concerned about the debt decades ago when it was much smaller.  I referenced a few articles to illustrate my point.  Nowadays, the media mostly ignores the debt.  When it does address the debt, it’s often to justify it or to persuade readers that it isn’t really that important.

Similarly, elected officials don’t concern themselves with the debt either.  With few exceptions, the only time we hear politicians express concerns about the debt is in the context of an argument opposing a spending program or initiative they don’t otherwise support.  Common examples of this dynamic are (1) the typical Democrat opposing new or expanding defense spending and (2) the typical Republican opposing new or expanding social programs.  Debt is a concern only when the other party wants to increase spending on its favored programs.

Yesterday, I attended the FOX News sponsored debate among the three leading candidates for West Virginia’s GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate.  Just how much the debt doesn’t matter to contemporary politicians was briefly, but poignantly put on full display.  Characterizing their politics and public appeal broadly, the three candidates represent different components of the Republican Party quite well.  Patrick Morrisey would be characterized as the most traditionally conservative, Evan Jenkins as a moderate and Don Blankenship as an independent thinking political outsider.

They were asked a very specific question by Martha MacCallum regarding the national debt and the notion that the debt problem can’t be resolved without entitlement reform.  She asked whether they’d consider accepting any changes to Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare.

Don Blankenship responded that we need fewer people on welfare and more people working.  Evan Jenkins said Medicare and Social Security should absolutely be protected and then went into a somewhat non-responsive commentary regarding the recent tax cut and how a good job can solve a lot of problems.  Patrick Morrisey did limit his specific commitment to “seniors”, leaving open the question of whether he’d consider changes to entitlements for “non-seniors”.  He then pivoted to the tired refrain regarding the need to stop waste, fraud and abuse.

If the national debt really mattered to any of these candidates – three candidates representing a cross section of the broader party – they whiffed on their opportunity to explain it to West Virginia’s voters.  But let’s not ignore the underlying reality.  If the national debt mattered to voters, it would matter to politicians as well.  The reason candidates for high office get away with answering serious questions about the national debt with hollow platitudes and well-worn but nonserious allusions to the need for a stronger economy, more jobs and attacking waste and abuse is because the we let them.

The American political experience is still an experiment in self-governance.  Whether people are up to the task of permanently and successfully governing themselves is still an open question.  Less than seven months ago the debt had just eclipsed $20 trillion.  Today, it is well over $21 trillion.  Does the national debt matter?  If so, how will our experiment end well for our children and our grandchildren if “we the people” continue to allow our public officials to ignore it?

Why Don’t We Care About Stormy Daniels?

According to a recent poll, 73% of voters do not believe President Trump’s alleged affair with pornographic actress Stormy Daniels is an important news story.  I agree.  And that saddens me.  We once had the luxury of concerning ourselves with the personal character of candidates for elected office.  Unfortunately, those days are gone.

When government was small and its powers constitutionally limited, it’s capacity to influence the individual lives of its citizens was marginal compared to today.  Because the government could only do so much, it made sense to seek people of high character for public office.  It’s nice to be proud of elected officials.  It’s good when our children can look up to them as role models.

With the systematic and incremental deconstruction of the Constitution’s limits on government power came bigger government.  That government now inserts itself into our everyday lives to a degree never imagined at our country’s founding.  The halls of government have been thrown wide open to influence peddling, special interests, patronage, protectionism, and innumerable coercions and restraints over the citizenry.

Where the Constitution provided limited government with enumerated powers coupled with textual and structural protections of individual liberty, the deconstruction of the Constitution has resulted in comparatively limitless government and a subjugation of the citizenry to the will of the majority as expressed through our elected representatives.  Where we once enjoyed the constitutional republic the founding generation gave us, we now suffer the representative majoritarianism which has resulted from the incremental diminishment of the Constitution’s limits on government power as well as those structural and textual protections of liberty.

Because representative majoritarianism has resulted in a government that has an expansive capacity to exert influence over our lives and seems determined to do so with reckless abandon, it is no longer prudent to place much importance on the personal character of elected officials.  Given a choice between a loud mouthed lout with a long and open history of philandering who is a stalwart constitutionalist and a highly trustworthy, intelligent, competent, family oriented, church goer who is seeking office in order to mold society through his or her legislative efforts, I’ll take the lout every time.

This isn’t to suggest that Trump is a stalwart constitutionalist by any means.  But the principle applies – because of the myriad permutations of what might be imposed by the government under a system of representative majoritarianism implemented as a result of the hollowing out of our Constitution, a voter’s concern over a candidate’s character is dwarfed by the concern over what a candidate will do once in office to affect the voter’s life.  Accordingly, our perception of a candidate’s character is now only important to the extent that perception relates to our evaluation of how he or she will govern.  Promiscuity and infidelity have little if any bearing on the decisions an elected official will make.  As a result, it’s natural that the public would not find instances of promiscuity or infidelity to be particularly important.

The fact that we can no longer afford the luxury of concerning ourselves with a candidate’s character is just another in a long line of sad outcomes which necessarily result when a society opts for statism and collectivism over liberty and individualism.

The 2nd Amendment’s Forgotten Value

Calling to mind the 2nd Amendment’s original purpose broadens the gun rights debate to include the societal benefit of widespread gun ownership.

 

Type A – Scenario 1

A family with a 4 year old toddler pays a visit to friends.  The child wanders into the bedroom and finds a loaded pistol in the end stand drawer.  After a short time, he pulls the trigger and is killed.

Type B – Scenario 1

A mother who always picks up her 9 month old from day care in the late afternoon has a rare travel day at work and won’t be home until later in the evening.  Her husband makes arrangements to pick up the baby. It’s late July and the baby falls asleep on the way home in the air conditioned car.  The husband, anxious and focused on a late afternoon business call he needs to make from home, forgets the baby in the back seat of the car parked in the driveway. The baby is discovered two hours later but dies from heat exposure in the summer heat.

 

Type A – Scenario 2

A 45 year old man commits suicide with a shotgun.

Type B – Scenario 2

A 45 year old woman commits suicide with an overdose of prescription medication.

 

Type A – Scenario 3

An 18 year old man with a .45 caliber pistol sneaks into a school and kills 6 students before turning the gun on himself.

Type B – Scenario 3

An 18 year old man gets drunk at a party and, driving his new sports car at approximately 110 miles per hour, loses control in a turn and collides with an oncoming car occupied by 6 high school age students in a small SUV on the way to back from a ball game.  All occupants of both vehicles are killed.

 

Type A – Scenario 4

An isolated gunman perched in a hotel room above an outdoor concert in Las Vegas shoots and kills 58 people and injures hundreds more.

Type B – Scenario 4

Terrorists hijack two airplanes and crash them into New York City skyscrapers killing over 2600 people and injuring thousands more.

 

The public response to these two types of scenarios is different.  Type A scenarios, involving guns, meet with criticism and debate over gun policy and the value of certain types of guns for uses considered to be legitimate in contemporary political discussions.  Type B scenarios, involving automobiles, prescription medications, alcohol, cars specifically designed to attain speeds far in excess of any legal speed limit, and airplanes do not meet with any similar criticisms or debates about public policies addressing those instrumentalities or their value to society at large.

Discussions involving gun rights almost always focus on the value that individuals place on guns whereas the value of automobiles, airplanes, medications and even alcohol to society at large are not questioned.  Thus, when guns are instruments of human suffering, those who do not appreciate the right to keep and bear arms critique the ‘need’ for guns for individual purposes such as hunting and self-protection.  In contrast, because cars, planes, medicines and alcohol have achieved a broader recognition as being valuable to society at large, they are accepted as a fact of modern life as are the pain and suffering their use sometimes brings about.  The value of those devices to individuals is not subjected to the same scrutiny as guns.  Rarely, if ever, do we hear anyone question an individual’s ‘need’ to drink alcohol or drive many miles per hour in excess of the speed limit as part of a larger discussion related to alcohol or automobile deaths.

This is unfortunate.  The Second Amendment, like most of the Bill of Rights, was ratified because it was deemed necessary to society at large as a mechanism to preserve liberty.  The First Amendment right of a free press was ratified not to arbitrarily institutionalize the rights of newspapers, but because a free press was deemed necessary to preserving liberty.  Thus, the founders understood that a free press was a value to society as a whole.  The right against unreasonable searches and seizures wasn’t ratified to protect the rights of individuals to conduct criminal enterprises in their homes, it was ratified because arbitrary acts by government against its citizens cannot be condoned in any free society.  Barring unreasonable searches and seizures was understood to provide a benefit to society as a whole.

Somehow the debate over the Second Amendment has almost completely ignored its original “constitutional” purpose.  That purpose should be reintroduced into the debate.  Doing so will illustrate that the right to keep and bear arms is on par with the rest of the Bill of Rights as having been ratified because the founders recognized its value to society as a whole.  The right to keep and bear arms has at least as much societal utility as other common instrumentalities of death and severe injury such as cars, planes, medicines, and alcohol.

Like many highly intense political debates, the gun debate has often tended toward hyperbole, emotion, intellectual dishonesty and fallacious argument.  This might be even more the case with guns since the right to keep and bear arms is presently exercised and enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of citizens for uses that are not directly related to the initial purpose for which the Second Amendment was constitutionally preserved.  The debate is made even more convoluted because the initial response to atrocities involving guns is almost always emotional rather than well-reasoned, and always amplified by the national media who seek to capitalize on that emotional response to trigger the policy response they desire – severe restrictions on gun capabilities and on gun ownership.  Perhaps that’s why so little of the discussion ever finds its way to a primary focus on the actual reason the Second Amendment was adopted and ratified.  I hope a discussion of those issues will bring clarity and reason to the topic.  We need to start by being perfectly honest about what the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is all about.

 

The Second Amendment was ratified so that the people could have the means to defend against any effort to defeat their new constitutional republic.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment wasn’t adopted and ratified to protect individual uses such as hunting, sportsmanship or even personal defense.  It was ratified because the right of the people to keep and bear arms was deemed “necessary to the security of a free state” – to ensure that the populace remained armed in order to secure freedom in America.  It was ratified by the founding generation out of a sense of vigilance to defend against tyranny from any source, including from within our own new government.

Therefore, those who argue that a particular firearm isn’t necessary or useful for hunting, shooting sports, or personal protection are arguing against a false premise.  Their argument implies that the reason for the right to keep and bear arms relates to one or more of those uses.  Though these are understandably the reasons many contemporary citizens now so strongly support the Second Amendment, they primarily benefit individuals.  Hunting benefits the hunter and his family.  Shooting sports provide fun and healthy activity for the participants.  And personal defense benefits primarily the gun user and his or her family.

Couching the debate in terms of hunting, shooting sports or even personal protection diminishes the societal importance of the right, making it seem to be about individual prerogative, personal preference and individual freedom to partake in fun or personally useful activities.  This in turn slants the argument.  It’s relatively easier for Second Amendment opponents to make a case against gun rights if those rights are founded upon individually beneficial uses rather than upon the broader societal benefit of defending liberty itself.  In the ability of a free people to defend their freedom, the founders recognized that widespread gun ownership would benefit society at large.  Any contemporary debate regarding the Second Amendment should start with an analysis of its constitutional, socially beneficial purpose.

 

Keeping and bearing arms is a right of “the people”, not the militia.

Some argue that the language of the amendment implies that only members of a “militia” have the right to keep and bear arms.  This is a silly argument demonstrating either a willful attempt to confuse the question or a lack of knowledge of history combined with poor reading comprehension.  By the clear meaning of its plain text, the Second Amendment doesn’t bar the government from infringing on the rights of militia members to keep and bear arms. Rather, it bars the government from infringing on the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms, which makes perfect sense, because…

 

Everyone was “the militia”.

The militia was generally understood throughout colonial times up to and including the ratification of the Bill of Rights to include all citizens.  James Madison drafted the Second Amendment.  His initial proposed language was referred to a committee for review and revision.  That committee’s notes confirm this understanding of what constituted the militia. “A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…”  Any seeming inconsistency within the text of the Second Amendment arising from the apparent juxtaposition of the terms “militia” and “the people” evaporates once it is understood that the term “militia” referred to the whole of the people.  The founders sought to preserve the people’s right to keep and bear arms because it was the entire people who would naturally constitute any militia needed to defend their liberty from tyrannical threats.  Thus, it was “the people” who needed to be armed in order to defend freedom.

Having come to an understanding of what the right to keep and bear arms is really all about and why it was important enough to be included in the Bill of Rights all those years ago, we next need to examine and evaluate the right of the people to keep and bear arms in a modern context.  There are two questions that should be addressed before all others in any debate over the Second Amendment and what limitations might be placed upon it.

  1. Is the widespread ownership of firearms by citizens still an effective defense or deterrent against tyranny, and
  2. If so, what arms would be necessary, useful or potentially helpful to an armed citizenry pitted against unforeseeable tyrannical forces seeking to destroy their constitutional republic?

 

The right of the people to keep and bear arms remains an effective mechanism for achieving the goal of securing our freedom.

Simple common sense should be enough to convince any open minded person that an armed people are less vulnerable to tyranny – from within or from without – than an unarmed people.  By definition, millions of firearms in the possession of millions of citizens renders a nation more capable of defending itself against tyranny – and a much less appealing target – than a nation defended only by its standing army.  Moreover, should tyranny arise from within, a standing army might prove unpredictable, possibly even becoming an instrument of tyranny, rather than a defender of liberty.

Widespread gun ownership provides us with two simultaneous protections which we unfortunately don’t think about or recognize often enough.  First it provides the people their own independent defensive capacity in the event it is ever needed.  Second, that capability naturally constitutes a silent disincentive to anyone considering efforts toward imposing a tyranny between our shores.  Just as a large standing army with effective and modern equipment and weaponry is an effective deterrent to any potential foreign invader, widespread gun ownership in the hands of our citizens constitutes an effective deterrent to anyone scheming to divorce us from our constitutionally preserved liberties.

Detractors argue that an armed but largely untrained citizenry couldn’t hope to withstand the onslaught of a well-armed military force.  This argument exhibits a contemporary normalcy bias.  Who’s to say when a threat to American liberty will come and in what form?  Are we so arrogant as to think that in fifty or a hundred and fifty years we will still have the most powerful military forces on earth?  Do we assume that history will not march forward, changing societies as it has always done?  We cannot know the future.  It could unfold in many ways which would leave a well-armed population very well prepared to defend itself and thankful for the ability to do so.

Even if we were to assume a modern day effort by our own government to usurp the Constitution and impose a tyranny, why would we assume that the entire military would support such an effort?  Isn’t it more likely that many, if not most military personnel would join ranks with the people?  Assuming the unlikely worst case scenario – a modern day government usurpation completely supported by the military – is it not likely that they would be dissuaded from their effort by the widespread ownership of guns across the nation?  How might the fact that the people are well armed affect the decision making processes of a would be tyrant and what he thinks he can accomplish?  And if this contingency were to occur, are there really those among us who are such sheep that they wouldn’t prefer to be armed?

An armed population is obviously less vulnerable to tyranny.  The real question is how much we should value this protection.  Certainly there are many who don’t understand or appreciate the potential to the same degree as others.  If we were to have a national debate, those people could be expected to argue that the relative value of this protection as compared to the value of disarming the public in an effort to reduce incidents of mass shootings comes out in favor of disarmament.  This would be an honest debate, pitting the Constitution’s purpose and usefulness of the Second Amendment against modern eventualities that didn’t exist at the time the Second Amendment was ratified.  Upon examination, the anti-Second Amendment argument doesn’t hold up.

 

The societal costs of the right to keep and bear arms are substantially outweighed by the societal benefits that right provides.

The advent of mass shootings in schools is obviously big problem.  It is one indication that the societal costs of maintaining a widespread right to keep and bear arms is significant and seems to be growing.  Another is the ever increasing incidents of inner-city gun violence.  The reasons for the advent of this increased gun violence are often debated but for purposes of this discussion, not important.  The key point is that, for whatever reason, we have arrived at a point in society where what were once almost unimaginable atrocities involving guns are becoming more common at an alarming rate.   It’s therefore no surprise that those who don’t recognize a substantial value in the societal benefit of widespread gun ownership would favor restricting or eliminating gun rights.  But when that value is recognized and truly appreciated, it outweighs the suffering caused by accidental and intentional misuse of firearms.  That may seem harsh but it’s no different than the calculations we subconsciously make with respect to many tools and devices we use on a day to day basis and which are often instruments of death or injury.

There are many things that bring great convenience and benefit to society but are often instruments in human suffering or the loss of human lives.  Automobile accidents kill thousands annually.  Misuse of modern medicines results in hundreds of deaths and untold human suffering.  Plane crashes kill many dozens at a time and many hundreds over the course of a few years.  Modern machinery and equipment for work, home use and recreation maim and kill hundreds of people every year.  Yet no one suggests that automobiles, modern medicines, airplanes or modern mechanical equipment should be eliminated or even seriously restricted.  We intuitively understand that the value of these things is worth the pain and suffering their use sometimes brings about.

Moreover, the pain and suffering they help to avoid, though not seen, is generally understood.  We know that modern equipment makes work easier, helping workers to avoid repetitive injuries and wear and tear on their bodies.  We know that motor vehicles and airplanes make it possible to transport sick and injured people to hospitals quickly, distribute medicines all around the world efficiently and deliver food so regularly and timely we rarely even think about how we would function if we didn’t have them.  We know that the benefits of modern medicine outweigh the pain and suffering that results from their accidental or intentional misuse

Because we recognize this value, no one seriously suggests these devices should be banned or their ownership or use seriously curtailed.  Instead, we focus on training people to use such devices as properly and safely as reasonably possible and to continuously improve the safety of the devices themselves.  Unlike the argument against certain calibers of guns or large magazine capacities, no one argues that cars should be made safer by limiting their ability to travel faster than say, 25 miles per hour or by making them bigger and heavier so that they become far more expensive to produce and to operate.  Indeed, our governments often take the opposite approach requiring smaller and relatively less safe vehicles in order to save energy or limit carbon emissions.

In contrast, the value of widespread gun ownership in protecting a nation against tyranny is difficult to see and not so intuitive.  How we might ultimately fair as a free society without an armed citizenry isn’t so obvious, especially when most of us never bother to think about it at all.  The liberty preserving benefits of widespread gun ownership are largely invisible to us unless we make a conscious effort to think about it, teach it to our children, and appreciate it.

The right to keep and bear arms works its primary value to society somewhat like an insurance policy.  Once purchased, we don’t need to think about it much.  We can take it for granted, knowing that it’s there and will do what it was designed to do if we ever need it.  Similarly, a commitment to maintain the right to keep and bear arms, enables us to take for granted that we will have a built in force to defend our liberty if ever needed.  If we allow ourselves to forget about the importance of that benefit, it becomes far easier to discount the value of gun ownership in the face of gun atrocities.

The consideration of only individually beneficial uses such as hunting, shooting sports and personal protection makes the argument for Second Amendment opponents relatively easier.  Imagine how we might react to a plane crash killing dozens of people if we allowed ourselves to forget or ignore the broad societal benefits of air travel.  Anyone who values the role of the right to keep and bear arms for potential defense of liberty should try to force themselves to remember and appreciate that role whenever faced with the question of whether we should do something to restrict firearms in an effort to stem the tide of gun related violence.

Finally, it’s important to remember that those who want to eliminate or restrict the right to keep and bear arms don’t often make supportable arguments for their suggested restrictions.  We have every reason to be suspicious about their ultimate goals.

 

The concern that “common sense” gun reforms will set the right to keep and bear arms on a slippery slope is legitimate.

Second Amendment proponents fear that every move to effectuate new regulations or restrictions is only the first of many to come.  That fear is demonstrably justified.  Those who favor state power over individual liberty are nothing if not patient.  Incrementalism is a favored tool of the left and they wield it with expertise.

Statists wanted more government intervention in health care for decades.  They tried many times.  They were patient.  They never gave up.  With the Affordable Care Act, they finally got what they wanted.  What happened next?  The ink was barely dry on President Obama’s signature when the ACA’s inherent problems started to reveal themselves.  That was enough to trigger immediate calls from the left for a single payer system.  Those calls grow louder every day.  You can be sure single payer will be their focus for months and years to come.

As recently as a couple of decades ago, the gay rights movement was primarily about eliminating laws that were perceived to inhibit homosexuals’ ability to conduct themselves and live normal lives without interference from government.  The movement was focused on eliminating government imposed limitations or impediments in their lives.  In a relatively short period of time, it has completely morphed and is now focused on using the force of law to coerce others to act against their will at the risk of losing their livelihoods.  In just a handful of years, the focus of the movement went from eliminating laws that imposed unfair impositions on homosexuals to passing laws placing impositions on everyone else.

The well justified concern over a potential incremental chipping away at the right to keep and bear arms is redoubled when Second Amendment detractors are seen to so quickly pick up the banner of “SOMETHING MUST BE DONE” in the aftermath of every atrocity.  “Something must be done” almost always implies some form of rights restricting legislation with no clear affect on the atrocities sought to be addressed.  Shouting out in a knee jerk fashion for government restrictions on constitutional rights is no way to engender confidence that the measures being suggested are deeply considered, as minimally restrictive as possible and, perhaps most important, well-tailored to address the problem.  There is often no basis in reason or experience for the new restrictions they suggest.  Such thoughtless responses give Second Amendment proponents every reason to distrust those who urge the passage of restrictions which, on their face, would do nothing to ensure any reduction whatsoever in the number or severity of these atrocities.

Apparently President Trump has unfortunately embraced just such a response in advocating that persons under the age of 21 not be permitted to purchase rifles.  It’s difficult to imagine a better example of an emotional, “just do something” response which is as unlikely to have any recognizable effect whatsoever on the number or severity of gun crimes.  The personal characteristics of the most recent violent perpetrator cannot be the basis for the next restriction to be imposed.  Stripping all adults under the age of 21 of their Second Amendment right to purchase a rifle merely because the most recent perpetrator was under 21 and used a rifle is a response completely divorced from reason.  If this time we cede the rights of those under 21, who will be next?  Postal workers?  People who wear baseball hats?  The left handed?

The emotional, knee jerk reaction to strip adults under the age of 21 of a constitutional right merely because one of their number has committed a gun atrocity perfectly illustrates why every Second Amendment supporter should be wary that any new restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are just the first of many to follow.  What reason is there to conclude otherwise?

Because we can’t know what atrocities have been avoided by existing legal restrictions, the focus is always on the atrocities that still do happen.  Were we to implement the restrictions often suggested in response to these atrocities such as eliminating under 21 purchases, AR-15’s and magazine capacities over 7, there would still likely one day be a scenario were a person over the age of 21 commits an atrocity with 3 or 4 concealed pistols and a dozen or so preloaded 7 round magazines.  He would have access to dozens of rounds and could kill or injure dozens of people.  Such an event will be followed by calls for further restrictions on magazine sizes and/or the number of pistols one individual can own.  This process of incrementally restricting gun rights would lead ultimately to the death of the Second Amendment by a thousand cuts, rendering firearms difficult to obtain, prohibitively expensive and/or of substantially reduced utility.

 

To be effective for its constitutional purpose, the Second Amendment must protect the rights of citizens to keep and bear high capacity arms and to do so without intrusion and substantial oversight by the government. 

In any defense against modern armaments, slingshots are better than throwing stones, .22 caliber single shot rifles are better than slingshots, a lever action 30-30 with a six cartridge capacity is better than a .22, and an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is better than the 30-30.  Depending on the threat, other guns with varying capacities and capabilities may be the best suited tool for the job.  Because of advancements in armament technology a responsible citizen with the means might want to acquire sniper rifles and fully automatic weapons as well.  The constitutional purpose of the Second Amendment can only be weakened with each move to limit the types and capacities of firearms the law abiding public can obtain.

 

Conclusion

Gun atrocities justifiably give rise to a call for action.  But the answer isn’t to yield more of our liberty to the government by giving up or weakening the right to keep and bear arms.  We need the advantage that widespread gun ownership has always given us in remaining a free people, not to mention the added value of protecting ourselves and our families as needed.

Rather than yield our right to keep and bear arms, we should unleash American ingenuity and can-do spirit to protect potential victims and known targets of those who wish to perpetrate mass violence.  We should virtually eliminate “gun free zones”.  We should harden our schools including, as necessary, new building design to eliminate or minimize the opportunity for outsiders to gain access without vetting, metal detectors, permanently stationed officers and/or well-trained and armed teachers, custodians and administrators.

For whatever reason, times have changed.  What were once unimaginable atrocities are now our unfortunate reality.  Rather than arbitrarily and senselessly eliminating the constitutional rights of those under 21 to keep and bear arms, we should implement strategies and protocols which have a rational basis in preventing these atrocities or enabling them to be addressed more immediately when they do happen.  We have no hesitation in implementing such strategies for the protection of many other government owned buildings that have no similar history of being targeted by evil forces hell-bent on death and destruction.  At a minimum, those same measures should be employed in schools.

Finally, the primary constitutional utility of the right to keep and bear arms is the preservation of liberty.  Second Amendment supporters should boldly embrace that original purpose and advocate widespread gun ownership as a protection against tyranny.  Only when the debate over the Second Amendment includes the original constitutional purpose of the Second Amendment will the broader public begin to consider that the right to keep and bear arms provides benefits to society at large far beyond the individual benefits it provides to those who own guns primarily for their personal defense and enjoyment.

The Teacher Pay Debate In W. Va.

West Virginia is currently in the throes of a teacher pay debate.  The teachers want raises and a cap on their exposure to increasing health insurance premiums.  Much of the debate has centered around the insufficiency of past pay increases, the comparative pay of teachers in surrounding states, and the effective diminution of their disposable income if it is subjected to market based health insurance increases.  The debate misses the larger problem with the manner in which teachers’ salaries and benefits are determined in West Virginia.

We’ve unnecessarily eliminated all free market pricing mechanisms from the process of setting teachers’ salaries and benefits. The free market would set the price of teacher labor by virtue of what actual consumers would be willing to pay for a particular teacher’s services and benefits. That function of the market having long ago been eliminated, there is no way to determine the ‘correct’ price for an individual teacher’s services.  Instead, it’s left to political (rather than market) processes, where price is determined by the political pull of teachers’ unions weighted against representatives’ mandate to balance the budget while (as always) operating under the perpetual influence of the next election.

Good teachers would undoubtedly benefit immensely from a system that determined teacher pay based upon free market mechanisms rather the ‘one size fits all’ deals cut by unions on behalf of all public educators.  Teachers unions will never support free market initiatives because they 1) necessarily result in higher pay for more effective teachers and therefore, 2) create a class of teachers who perceive themselves to be unfairly treated and thus not adequately served by the unions and thus, 3) erode the unions’ power and influence.

This political issue over teacher salaries and benefits is a good context in which to see this inefficient paradigm at work first hand.   Elected representatives are trying to cope with a budget that must be balanced and an electorate that is clamoring to be heard from both sides of the issue – but particularly from the side advancing the cause of teacher pay raises and increased benefits packages.  Why particularly the teachers?  Because they have the political pull, a perceived vested interest, and the most to gain from winning the issue.

On one hand there is a self-interested political power base in the teachers’ who, for the most part, individually had nothing to do with creating or maintaining this system, but have operated within its paradigm their entire careers.  They’re organized and they want what they want.  They perceive that they wear the white hat in this political battle and they’ve taken that mantle for themselves in the press and in the public statements made by their union leaders and by many political officials who either truly agree with them or are willing to patronize them in hopes of gaining their political support in the future.

On the other hand there is everyone else – the mass of citizen tax payers who have varying experiences with their respective employers and health insurance. No doubt, many have long suffered the experience of seeing their disposable income reduced annually by increasing annual health insurance premiums. As a result, this group is naturally somewhat unmoved by teacher complaints that their disposable income may now suffer because of their own health insurance premiums increasing.  Many who are not employed in government jobs have been laboring under that harsh reality for years.  But as a group, they are not sufficiently organized to take a strong position in opposition to unions who are demanding benefits for members which non-government employees cannot get in the private sector.  The individual benefit or detriment regular citizens will realize from whatever pay scheme the system ultimately puts in place is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify.  Their perceived individual interest in the outcome of the issue pales in comparison to that of the teachers.

Everything about this problem ultimately lies in the fact that that there is no market based pricing mechanism for teacher pay and benefits in West Virginia.  As a result, the teacher faction makes appeals as to what the universe of all teachers in West Virginia “deserve”.  If free market mechanisms were employed we would see that some teachers deserve a raise and some don’t.  And some deserve a bigger raise than others.  Rather than implementing market mechanisms to determine what individual teachers actually deserve, the entire question gets dumped into the arena of representative majoritarianism – can a political faction persuade or threaten a sufficient number of elected representatives to their side of the issue to get what they want as a collective group from the public fisc.  That is no way to set the price of labor in a free society, regardless of how much flexibility West Virginia has, or doesn’t have, in the budget.

Current Events and Timeless Ideas Pertaining to the Societal Benefits of Liberty and the Rule of Law and the Social Destruction Occasioned By Restraint, Coercion and Cronyism

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)