The Garden

I would like to talk a bit about what I will call a ‘non-physicalist’ position about the world.  As discussed in my previous post, a physicalist is one who holds that all physical events can be explained entirely by appeal to entirely physical causes.  A non-physicalist, then, would be one who holds that there are at least some physical events that cannot be explained by entirely physical causes.  Hence, a non-physicalist would entertain the possibility that some physical events might be caused by non-physical forces.  So, a non-physicalist is open to both physical and non-physical causes with respect to physical events.

One other position I would like to define is the ‘idealist’ position.  The idealist is basically opposit the materialist.  Where the materialist says that only physical causes account for physical events, the idealist says that only non-physical causes account for physical events.  In other words, where the materialist excludes all non-physical causes, the idealist excludes all physical causes.

Thus, we have a continuum of positions to consider when attempting to account for what we observe in our physical worlds:

Materialism–Physicalism–Non-Physicalism–Idealism

Where we choose to place our own beliefs on this continuum has sweeping consequences for how we subsequently interpret our world and choose to behave within it.   It shapes everything from political orientations, to attitudes about relationships, conceptions of self/identity, and overall assessments of meaning/purpose of life itself.  Needless to say, this is an immensely interesting subject and it will be worth our while to explore it carefully.

By my estimates, most people tend to hover somewhere around the middle of this continuum–embracing physical causes but wavering back and forth about the idea of non-physical causes.  Religious individuals tend to incorporate both types of causes into their world-views.  Individuals of a scientific mind-set, yet lacking rigorous scientific training, tend to also straddle both worlds of causes.  The strongest of the scientifically-minded tend to occupy the materialist position (for example Richard Dawkins).  There seem to be the fewest individuals occupying the idealist position however, as it appears to be the most counter intuitive.  My aim in this series is to discuss the merits of idealism in detail with the hopes of clarifying what problems exist for all the positions on this continuum, and to argue that there is good reason to suggest that there are in fact non-physical causes.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

The above quote, written by James Madison in 1788 in The Federalist No. 51, eloquently expresses a fundamental problem I see in governance: corruption.

To this day, virtually everyone accepts that there is corruption in governance. Disagreements about the extent of corruption are usually discussed as matters of degree—i.e., how much corruption exists.

Politicians are often considered greedy, dishonest or untrustworthy, but we’ve grown to expect and embrace that. We tolerate lies. We tolerate wasteful taxing and spending policies. We tolerate special interest solicitations. We even tolerate the subjugation of our legal procedures and civil rights to vague and ambiguous declarations of national security “threats.”

These are the sorts of practices that we more or less expect from our elected (or unelected) officials as a matter of course. Any squabbles we have about corrupt government practice hinge on whether or not our officials do “too much” of the above at any given time. Men may not be angels in our view, but that is a far cry from believing that men can be demons. To believe that men could be demonic would be to say that men are capable of far worse than the “routine” varieties of corruption we’ve all grown to “accept.” To entertain such a thought would be to not only consider corruption in terms of degree, but also in terms of kind–i.e. the nature of the corruption. Such a consideration would ask, “What sort of corruption is our government actually capable of?”

As you might expect, I’ve asked myself this question, many times, over many years. My answer? Our government is capable of far worse corruption than we should ever tolerate.

Naturally, many of you will not agree with my conclusion; as well you shouldn’t, at least not on the face of it. However, I do encourage you to consider one case in point that blows the whole discussion wide open. That case is the World Trade Center disaster of September 11, 2001.

Most of you probably believe that 19 Arab hijackers flew commercial airliners into the World Trade Center towers on 9/11, and as a result of the impact damage and ensuing fires, caused those buildings to crumble to the ground. This is, of course, what government entities such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the so called “independent” 9/11 Commission would have you believe. If these government bodies were made up of angels, or something slightly less than angels, you might be able to believe them. If, however, men are even more devious than Madison anticipated, believing these government bodies on their claims alone could prove to be disastrous.

There are a number of individuals and groups who have contested the government’s version of 9/11 publicly. David Ray Griffin, a former professor of philosophy and theology, has written a number of carefully worded books challenging the government’s version of 9/11 and arguing that the government was most likely involved in the crime. Most recently a consortium of scientists, including former BYU physicist Steven Jones, published a peer-reviewed article in The Open Chemical Physics Journal entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” (available free at http://www.bentham.org/open). The article states the following: “We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction…we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

In short, this paper argues that distinctive evidence of thermite (a type of explosive) was found in samples of dust from the Twin Towers on 9/11—something that could not have been put there by 19 hijackers flying commercial airplanes into buildings.

This paper’s findings, in my view, supports a developing body of independent research that asserts that the World Trade Center skyscrapers could not have collapsed on 9/11 because of airplane crashes alone, and identifies government entities as co-conspirators in the crime by virtue of the complexity of the crime itself, and the extent of the contradictions in the government’s cover-story—a charge that, if true, would demonstrate a significant deviation from what we generally consider “acceptable government corruption.” Since I find the case for government complicity in 9/11 extremely compelling, I argue that Madison’s critique of human nature falls short of what humans are capable of when entrusted with governmental authority—i.e., there is something very sinister about a government who conspires to destroy civilian-occupied skyscrapers under the guise of Arab terrorists.

While the details of 9/11 far exceed the scope of this opinion article, suffice it to say that there are a host of works available that outline the arguments for government complicity in the crime. Unfortunately, little attention is given to this issue in the mainstream media so if you wish to learn more about it, you must explore alternative media outlets. If you find yourself rejecting my assertion that our own government was somehow involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11, ask yourself Why? If you know your government is corrupt, how do you know the limits of its corruption?

Anyone interested in more information about 9/11 should feel free to email me.

For those of you who may have been following my opinions for the last couple of semesters, you probably got the impression that I’m a rather pompous, condescending and arrogant ass.

For those who thought exactly that, you’re right.

Well, today I’m here to add on to that “assness” by taking a few shots at some of my scholastic peers and workmates.

My complaint: People—even college-educated people—do not know how to write!

What started as a pet peeve of mine while I was in college, slowly morphed into an annoyance when I began working for The Ranger News, and now is just a full-blown outrage since I’ve been in the workforce. The Ranger News itself has received considerable criticism for the quality of its published articles—which have been well-deserved in my opinion—but that doesn’t even scratch the surface of some of the articles that have crossed editors’ desks that never even made it into print. While I was an editor for the paper, I would literally spend hours trying to rework articles just to make the sentences coherent, let alone say anything substantive. It was beyond ridiculous that what I saw was from college students. I can only imagine what some of the professors on campus have to deal with.

Now that I am employed in the community, I again have been confronted with instances of poor writing. I have seen important documents printed on agency letterhead contain numerous spelling and grammatical mistakes. Again, the sources of these mistakes are college-educated people.

I can’t believe so many people are bad at putting words and sentences together.

Writing is an extension of language; and language is the formalization of communication. Society, as a social apparatus, depends on the ability of its members to communicate clearly and effectively in order for the society to function optimally. Without the ability to communicate effectively, how are we to understand each other? Ask any relationship guru and they are most likely going to tell you that the key to any healthy relationship is communication. Society as a whole is one big relationship, so communication skills are just as crucial en masse.

Unfortunately though, my observations have suggested to me that many of my peers and coworkers are sorely lacking in writing skills. Maybe this factor relates to why society suffers from so many ills.

More than that though, the ability to articulate one’s self clearly and concisely is an exercise in intelligence. Many theories of intelligence postulate that verbal skills are an indicator of one’s overall level of intelligence. Therefore, the more command individuals have over language, the higher their level of intelligence is likely to become.

Yet, I observe that plenty of college students and college grads can barely write a paragraph without a spelling, punctuation or grammatical error. And this is with the advent of word processors equipped with spell-check and grammar-check software, mind you.

We’re talking college-age people and older lacking a command of their native language here. We’re talking adults. Presumably, these adults have graduated from high school, middle school and grade school—each of which ought to have taught writing skills. Somewhere, something has failed miserably.

I could launch into theories about why people don’t know how to write; I could rail against technologies like television, cell phones and text/instant messaging (as I’ve done in previous opinions); I could assert that people don’t read enough anymore or engage each other in meaningful conversations; but instead I’m just here to complain. I don’t really care why it so happens that few people seem to grasp the fundamentals of language; I’m just pissed that they don’t. And, since I’m a pompous ass, I’m going to stand here and preach how much others don’t know how to write while asserting that I do. Anyone who doesn’t like it can bitch to me in writing via my email above.

In a well-known paper entitled On Being Sane in Insane Places, psychologist David Rosenhan argued that the use of labels such as “mentally ill” to describe individuals can have unintentional negative side-effects. Rosenhan’s paper discussed a study he conducted in the early 1970s testing the legitimacy of psychiatric diagnoses made by health care professionals. Rosenhan arranged for eight “normal” individuals to fake symptoms of schizophrenia to gain admission into one of 12 regular hospitals’ psychiatric wards. If successfully admitted, each “pseudopatient” was to immediately cease the faking of any schizophrenic symptoms and attempt to convince the psychiatric staff that they in fact were not “mentally ill.” Rosenhan reported that while it was relatively easy for the pseudopatients to acquire the label “schizophrenic,” it was extremely difficult for them to shed that label once it was assigned. Rosenhan stated that the average length of hospitalization for his pseudopatients was 19 days, and that each pseudopatient was discharged with a diagnosis of schizophrenia “in remission” rather than having the label completely removed.

Now consider the implications of Rosenhan’s study on the label “terrorist” as often used by U.S. officials and the mainstream media. Ever since George W. Bush dubbed his military campaign in the Middle East the “War on Terror,” we have been hearing incessantly about how vital it is that we defeat those “terrorists” who “hate our freedoms.”

I think it is fair to say that the diagnosis “terrorist” is mostly a claim about one’s psychological make-up, similar to the way the diagnosis “schizophrenic” is psychological. When one labels someone a terrorist, one is saying something about a person’s thoughts, beliefs, desires, etc. (e.g. “they hate our freedoms”).

Similar to the Rosenhan study, it appears that the label “terrorist” is assigned somewhat easily and liberally: there are apparently a lot of them and we are to believe that there will continue to be a lot of them for a long time.

It is not clear who is diagnosing this large population of people as “terrorists,” or what criteria they might be using to do so (I don’t think Bush or Obama are credentialed psychologists); but, unlike the Rosenhan study, they must be doing their diagnosing outside of a highly controlled inpatient unit since all those terrorists are scattered in hiding places throughout the Mid-East. If it was relatively easy for Rosenhan’s pseudopatients to receive a false diagnosis in a controlled environment, how likely is it that our government officials (or military soldiers and pilots for that matter) have accurately diagnosed the condition of “terrorist” from afar? I can’t say I like those odds.

Despite the difficulties inherent in the labeling of terrorists, there is the companion problem of figuring out how and when the “disease” of terrorism might be “cured.” President Obama’s official webpage (whitehouse.gov) boldly asserts that it is his policy to “Defeat Terrorism Worldwide.” This implies that there is a “cure” for the psychological mind-set of “terrorism.” If we apply Rosenhan’s study here, we are likely to believe that once a person is labeled a “terrorist,” there is probably little chance for that person to shed that label. Beyond the realm of mental illnesses like schizophrenia, we tend to see this “permanent labeled-ness” when it comes to the label “criminal” (e.g. the ramifications of being a “registered sex offender,” etc.).

So, it seems fair to say that since there is a population of people now known as “terrorists,” there is no realistic chance for these psychologically-afflicted “terrorists” to be “cured,” and there is no real chance that these afflicted individuals will be given a clean bill of health and “discharged” back to their normal lives. Once a terrorist, always a terrorist, I suppose.

Knowing the implications of such a label kind of makes me wish there was a more rigorous process of diagnosing “terrorism.”

President Obama appears to understand the ramifications of labeling terrorists as well; however his approach is a little different from mine. Rather than be more careful in the labeling of humans as terrorists to prevent unnecessary hardships for non-afflicted individuals, Obama would rather just eliminate everyone who happens to have been labeled a terrorist. Obama states on his webpage that he intends to “ensure that our military becomes more stealthy, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists.”

See, there is no “cure” listed there. Just “capture or kill.” This is how we deal with the psychological state of “terrorism.” Since the disease cannot be killed, the host cannot shed the label; therefore, we simply must kill or quarantine the host. That is how we “defeat terrorism.”

It is interesting to note that Rosenham’s paper went on to discuss ways in which the label “mentally ill” could lead to the dehumanization of the person carrying that label as well…I wonder if there’s a parallel with the label “terrorist” on that front as well?

Last month Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi, well-known for throwing his shoes at former President George W. Bush last December during a press conference, was sentenced to three years in prison for his “crime.” Mr. Zeidi was charged with aggression against a visiting head of state, and there was reportedly heavy protest from the Iraqi public after the verdict was read. According to a New York Times article, there were supporters chanting “hero” outside the Iraqi court house, and a statue of a large shoe was erected north of Baghdad to honor Mr. Zaidi; however the Iraqi Parliament ordered the statue dismantled.

I think this case of presidential “shoeing” is a great example of how upside-down some conceptions of “justice” can be; and, given that our President was both the impetus and the target of those volatile projectiles, it tells us something about our country’s values as well.

On the one hand, you have the President of a nation that had waged, and had continued to wage, an immensely violent war of aggression on another country’s land appearing, in person, within that country’s borders (albeit in a “green zone” heavily guarded by the president’s own soldiers) to speak as if all the resultant death and destruction was ultimately “good” for those living in the war zone. This is a man whose moral code permitted him to authorize the use of military force (including a massive bombing campaign meant to elicit psychological “shock” and “awe”) against a sovereign population of people without that population’s consent (nor much of the world’s consent for that matter). This man, the one who has untold thousands of bodies lying in his wake, is considered, to the present day, to have been acting justly throughout his military campaign and thus has remained free of formal punishment.

Yet, on the other hand, you have a man who has lived the reality of a war-torn nation first-hand; who has no army or bodyguards to do his bidding; who has felt the weight of a foreign President’s policies on he and his family’s psyches; who has utilized his shoes as his means of “shock” and “awe”— it is this man that the Iraqi justice system (which, one might say, is strongly influenced by the U.S.’s “restructuring” efforts) deemed fit for punishment. It is the man whose actions resulted in no death or injury; the man whose actions were motivated by compassion for those harmed by the brutal violence; the man whose actions earned the sanction of the citizens of Iraq, who spoke on their behalf—it is this man who is deemed morally inferior, and thus sentenced to prison by the prevailing moral code.

The man who used bombs and guns to negotiate his terms is, in the eyes of this perverse moral system, the moral superior and thus remains free of prison (and worthy of a President’s “retirement” package nonetheless). This is the morality of not only the Iraqi “justice” system, but, it is sad to say, also the morality of the government who had recognized George W. Bush as their President—the government who sanctioned his policies. Under this kind of moral system, bombs and guns are benign, whereas rubber and leather are lethal.

But, perhaps, it is not a matter of what one actually does that defines the moral correctness of their actions, but rather who one is while doing it—a sort of moral elitism. Since Mr. Zeidi was a civilian, a reporter, a “nobody,” his actions, no matter what they happened to be, were simply predisposed to moral wrongness, and thus were easy to punish. Mr. Bush, however, as a President, as a Commander in Chief, as an elite; well, he’s simply immune from moral wrongness due to his elevated social status. So long as morality is defined by status, then those of elite social status will always be morally superior to those of negligible social status. This is supposedly “justice.” This is also why it is utter bullshit.

I despise violence. Likewise, I despise those who advocate violence as a “solution” to anything. Those who advocate for violent solutions are amongst the most savage, primitive and malevolent human beings possible. Further, those who advocate for the most severe and efficient forms of violence—i.e. those who promote military violence—are amongst the most sadistic. Militaries, as agents of mass death, are only considered to be solutions by those who subscribe to a morality that says “rightness is determined by one’s ability to kill;” such a moral code contains nothing else—no justice, no freedom, no fairness; simply violence. And, as it has been with many other subjects, our new president Obama is no different from his predecessor when it comes to invoking the military as a “solution.”

President Obama spoke last Friday about his plan to deal with the ongoing situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan—a situation he described as “increasingly perilous.” According to Obama, “Al Qaeda and its allies, the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks are in Pakistan and Afghanistan…and if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows Al Qaeda to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for the terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they can.”

Of course, a key piece of Obama’s “solution” to this plan is to increase the military forces in the area by some 20,000 troops. According to Obama’s speech, “These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and east…and to go after insurgents along the border.” I suppose since these “terrorists” want to “kill as many of our people as they can,” we’d better go ahead and kill as many of them as we can first. It can’t get any simpler than that, can it?

Now, Obama did warn of some risks to his plan. He said “[T]he sacrifices have been enormous. Nearly 700 Americans have lost their lives. Troops from over 20 countries have also paid the ultimate price.” Since military violence is all about who can kill who faster and better, I suppose it is likely that many soldiers will continue to “pay the ultimate price.”

What is peculiar though is that Obama never mentioned what sorts of risks his plan has in store for those who happen to live in Afghanistan—you know, civilians and such who might also have to “pay the ultimate price.”

According to some numbers compiled at wikipedia.org under an entry entitled Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001-present), the total civilians killed as a direct result of U.S-led military actions since 2001 is between 4,972 and 7,764. These numbers include the blowing up of civilians with bombs from the sky, or the shooting of civilians with bullets from soldiers’ rifles, tanks, machine guns, etc. Also, the same Wikipedia article estimates that the total number of civilians killed as an indirect result of U.S-led military actions is between 3,200 and 20,000. The article defines “indirect deaths” as Afghans who had died of starvation, exposure, associated illnesses, or injury sustained while in flight from war zones as a result of the U.S. war and airstrikes. I suppose the range varies so greatly due to the inherent difficulties of measuring displaced peoples. In any case, these numbers tell us that somewhere between 8,172 and 27,764 Afghan civilians have been killed as a result of U.S-led military actions.

Now, Obama does remind us that those nasty terrorists have killed civilians too, “Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001,” Obama said, “for doing nothing other than going about their daily lives. Al Qaeda and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries.” Fair enough. But how many people have these Al Qaeda allies actually killed?

According to the Wikipedia article, the total civilians estimated to have been killed as a result of insurgent actions is between 2,399 and 3,949—far fewer than the U.S-led military has accomplished in the same amount of time. I suppose this means our military is better at killing civilians than those terrorist insurgents, eh? And if I understood Obama correctly, he wants to send more trained killers (otherwise known as soldiers) into the area.

Obama’s affection for military violence propels him easily and painlessly into my category of sadistic persons subscribing to the doctrine that rightness is proportional to powerfulness. As such, it is no wonder why he would make the following statement: “There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated.” In other words, there is no need to talk or negotiate with the Taliban, because they refuse to “compromise;” besides, we can simply settle this by “force” anyway, so why not just use that first?

I swear I’ve heard this before…except it wasn’t the Taliban who was “uncompromising.”

Back in October 2001 former president Bush rejected the Taliban’s request to hand Osama bin Laden over for a trial (after the U.S. had begun its devastating bombing campaign) if the U.S. would produce evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11. As an October 15, 2001 article at independent.co.uk entitled Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden reported:

“After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush…Haji Abdul Kabir, the Taliban’s deputy prime minister, said: ‘If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate.’…But as American warplanes entered the second week of the bombing campaign, Washington rejected the Taliban offer out of hand. ‘When I said no negotiations I meant no negotiations,’ Mr. Bush said. ‘We know he’s guilty. Turn him over. There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt.’”

As we can see, back in 2001 it was the U.S. who was “uncompromising” when it came to non-violent resolutions. It was the Taliban who wanted to negotiate, with respect to the innocence or guilt of the accused, no less—a democratic process, mind you. But, the U.S. preferred the use of force. Now, over seven years later, we have another president trumpeting the use of force and truncating the use of negotiations all over again. And as the numbers attest, it is mostly the Afghan civilians who will pay the “ultimate price” for this use of force. I therefore maintain that president Obama is every bit as sadistic as president Bush was when Bush opted for military violence as a solution in Afghanistan. I care not how fluently Obama can articulate his obsession for violence in Afghanistan with rhetorical luster, it is the same doctrine underneath and I stringently abhor it. Killing people is not good policy; in fact, it’s no “policy” at all. It’s savage ruthlessness.

Humans, more than any other species on the planet, are rational creatures. Much of our progress in our lives depends our ability to think and make logical connections between events. Many, if not all of the benefits of scientific discovery have sprung forth from the human ability to connect specific causes to specific effects. Knowing how natural systems work in the world, humans have been able to predict and anticipate what effects would follow from which causes, and thus have managed to avoid unwanted dangers and create wanted conveniences in their lives. One key feature that has made all of this progress possible has been the apparent consistency and objectivity of the natural world—that is, the laws of nature appear to always remain constant without deviating even the slightest bit (well, at least until you consider quantum mechanics, which is unusually erratic and unpredictable compared to classical physics).

It stands to reason that the scientific progress humans have made in recent centuries would not have been possible if the laws of nature were found to be erratic and constantly changing from one moment to the next. If bricks were sturdy and solid one day—fit to build shelters with—it would be devastating to the person using the shelter to find those bricks turn to liquid mush the next day. Or if gravity were to behave in unpredictable ways, throwing objects upward or outward on random occasions, how would humans be able to function productively in such a world? It seems pretty obvious that humans have a far better chance of adapting to their environments in productive and constructive ways when they are confronted with objectively consistent rules or laws rather than whimsical, amorphous systems that function without rhyme or reason. If this is so, then why would we ever want our money system to be anything other than objective and consistent?

Unfortunately, the leaders of our financial system have decided (at least since we abandoned the gold standard under President Nixon in the late 1960s) against preserving an objective and consistent money supply in the U.S. The money that we save and rely on to purchase essential goods and services in our economy is not considered objective by our financial leaders, and last week held a shining example of how drastically the rules of our financial market can change. Last week, the Federal Reserve announced that it would basically go forward with the printing of at least one trillion dollars in another emergency effort to catapult our economy into a recovery. By printing this money, the Federal Reserve is essentially creating one trillion dollars out of thin air, thus augmenting the total size of our money supply. As a result of this, the money that you and I own is basically devalued and will no longer be worth as much as it was when we earned it—that is to say, the money we own loses purchasing power when the Federal Reserve increases the money supply. And, the more they print, the more our money is devalued.

For those of us who were perhaps saving money for an extended period of time to pay for something major in the future, our ability to make the payments we intended will now be compromised by this change in the money system. When our money is devalued, it takes more units of money to make purchases. But if you do not know in advance how the money system will change at any given time, it makes it nearly impossible to accurately judge how much money you will need to save. This is especially important for those nearing retirement or who are in retirement already. What once might have lasted a person 20 years may, at any time, only last 12 or 15 since the money supply is neither objective nor consistent.

When we compare the progress humans have had in the areas such as scientific discovery, we can appreciate that the objectivity found in natural systems has been useful; there’s a good fit between the rationality of the human mind and the objectivity of the human environment. Based on this reasoning, it is most unfortunate that our financial leaders have sought to undermine our attempts to predict and rely on a consistent monetary system. It is difficult to see how an elastic money system can work to the benefit of rational creatures such as you and me.

If you follow what the press has to say about our current economic problem, you might get the impression that the government is the only entity that has the capacity to offer any kind of solution to the problem. Given that the scale of the problem is so large, it is often believed that you need an entity proportionately large to correct the problem. Since the U.S. government is likely the single largest organization in the country, it is therefore appropriate for the government to take action when economic problems, like our current one, arise. I would like to challenge this belief and offer that instead it is the actions of the “every-day” person that carries most of the corrective power in circumstances such as these, and suggest that interventions by the massive government actually serve to inhibit, or subjugate, the corrective power of the general citizen.

Given that the economy is little more than the organized interactions of producers and consumers, it is easy to consider that the average citizen is actually quite powerful with respect to impacting the state of economic affairs. Each citizen is both a potential producer and a potential consumer in the economy. It is therefore inherent within each person the capacity to make choices that affect the larger economic whole. As a potential producer, one has the option of how to choose to create value in the economy—i.e., one can choose where and how to work. The better one is at producing things of value in their chosen field, the better off the economy as a whole becomes because of this influx of value into the economy that this person’s work has provided. Likewise, as a potential consumer, one has the option of how to choose to reward or encourage the creation of value in the economy by others. This consumerist power can determine what sorts of goods or service are considered valuable by the society, and provides an incentive for others in the society to produce them. Both of these powers are intrinsic to the citizens of a free-market society, but limited in the government.

The extent to which a citizen chooses to be a producer of value is largely determined by that individual’s personal choice. That is, one has the power to choose whether they will activate their ability to create value or not. One could have all the ability in the world in one productive area, but if they choose not to use it, the economy as a whole derives no benefit. It is therefore up to each of us to choose whether we will exercise our fullest abilities in the production of value in our economy. The government does not have the capacity to activate this potential within each of us at will, nor can it replicate our productive capacities without us. All the government has the power to do is seize the value created by its citizens and redistribute that value according to its own ideals—the government does not have the power to create things of value on its own. The government is simply neither designed nor equipped for the creation of original value. It is therefore odd to turn to the government when production is declining, as it currently is with respect to the rising unemployment rate. If, somehow, people are choosing not to produce things of value in the economy, the only remedy to that problem is for people to choose to resume producing things of value—whatever that choice entails. If people find that they are incapable of producing things of value despite their desire to do so, then there may be a serious problem involved, but there is nevertheless nothing the government can do about that. The government cannot invent new ways to produce value—that is not the government’s nature or function. It is, as it always has been, up to the ingenuity of the individual to find ways of producing value in a society. This is where we should be putting our focus; not on the government who is utterly impotent in this area.

Further, as I mentioned, each individual is also a potential consumer. This means that each of us can impact our economy through the purchasing decisions we make in our daily lives. This again is often overlooked in the mainstream’s discussion of the economic situation. Even though there may be limitations to the purchasing options that each of us has in some areas, overall we still have a lot of power in our hands when we make decisions about where to spend our value. The government does have more power to affect this aspect of the economy than it does the productive side because the government has the ability to take your purchasing power away from you and give it to someone else. However, the extent to which the government does not intervene in a citizen’s purchasing decisions is the extent to which that citizen can impact the state of the economy. If one were to feel that the manufacturing of goods in America were a valuable thing in the economy, then the more one chooses to buy American products the more American products will likely be produced. If, however, one chooses to buy Chinese products instead, for example, this will consequently diminish the extent to which American products are likely produced. Consumers, therefore, have a significant responsibility in determining the fate of their economic system and thus ought to be considered in times of economic turmoil.

The emphasis on government solutions is too simplistic in my opinion to adequately address the nature of our economic situation. We ought to think more carefully about how we spend our disposable incomes and attempt to shoulder much of the responsibility for the state of our economy rather than sluggishly pass the responsibilities off to the government. We are both the producers and consumers of value in or society and nothing will change that.

There are at least two ways of critiquing the economic “rescue” packages that have been squirting out of Washington lately—morally and practically. The moral side of it asks “Is it right?” while the practical side asks “Will it work?” Both the Legislative and Executive branches of government want you to believe that the answer to both is “yes,” but, I’m here to disagree.

I think the answer to both is a resounding “No!” Let’s look at the moral question first. What the government is proposing is a redistribution of wealth. That is, after all, the only tool the government really has in the first place. Uncle Sam has the ability to tax those who create things of value on His turf. I.e., those who put their minds or their labor to productive use must submit a portion of the things of value created by their efforts to the government for redistribution. Presumably, this is done under the flags of justice, fairness and security. If each individual were to reap 100 percent of the benefits from his or her efforts, then societies’ levels of justice, fairness and security would go down, or so the theory goes. It is, therefore, these flags of justice, fairness and security that make the government’s redistributive powers morally valid. The government is right to tax your efforts because it will redistribute your wealth in a way that is fairer, more just and more secure than if you were to spend that wealth yourself.

Now, most of us are accustomed to this redistribution of our wealth because we have been taxed since birth. Since we have all accepted it for so long, I suppose we’re not as interested in the question of whether the government ought to have this power at all; rather we’re generally more interested in the question of how much the government ought to tax us, and for what purposes. This is where we find ourselves when we consider the implications of the trillions of dollars in economic rescue packages. Is it morally right for the government to decide for you that these trillions of your dollars ought to be spent to prop up failing banks, failing automotive companies, indebted consumers, the unemployed, and many other expensive failures? Since the sum of these rescue packages is in the trillions of dollars, we’re talking about an enormous redistribution of wealth. I.e., those who are able to produce will have more of their created wealth taken away from them (either through taxation or inflation) in order to give that wealth to those who have not been able to produce for themselves, for whatever reason. This is the moral question: Is such a massive redistribution of wealth right?

It is worth noting that there are two layers to this moral question: A) the event of taking wealth from the one who created it; and B) the event of giving wealth to one who did not create it. Now, few would have a problem with (B) by itself—this is what we might call “charity.” I, therefore, do not have a moral problem with (B), so long as the one doing the giving is doing so voluntarily. My moral objection to the government’s redistribution of wealth thus lies exclusively within (A). To (forcefully) take wealth away from the one who created it is a moral violation in my opinion, and it is exceedingly immoral when the quantity of wealth taken is inordinately large, as is the case with these rescue packages. I therefore answer “no” to the moral question.

The United States, however, is not a particularly “principled” nation these days so moral questions aren’t all that important to people anymore. We’re more of a consumerist, ego-centric, hedonistic society so all we really care about is whether something will actually “work”—more specifically, we only care whether something will work for us. This is where the practical question comes in: “Will these rescue packages work as advertised?”

Having paid fairly close attention to the news reports about the rescue packages, my best estimate is that the only measure of the efficacy of the rescue plans is the avoidance of an economic apocalypse. In other words, in exchange for our trillions of dollars, our lives are expected to get worse—substantially worse according to some estimates—regardless of the rescue spending. This makes the practical question rather difficult to address; instead of measuring improvements in the functioning of society, we’re measuring rates of deterioration. It’s sort of like treating cancer: there’s no such thing as a “cure,” but there’s plenty of business out there for those who find ways to slow it down. In any case, I think there are ways to estimate the practical value of these rescue packages.

One way, and the only one I’m going to consider here, is to look at the human side of the economic equation. Humans are of course central to a functioning economy in that they are the ones doing the producing and consuming of the things of value. Therefore, if you know something about human nature, you know something about whether a rescue plan will work. The aspect of human nature I want to draw on here is the school of thought developed in psychology known as behaviorism.

What behaviorist theories propose is that a target human behavior can be escalated or deescalated based, partially, on the nature of the consequences associated with the target behavior. When a target behavior is tied to a desirable consequence, that person is likely to repeat the target behavior. Likewise, when a target behavior is tied to undesirable consequences, that person is likely to abstain from the target behavior. Knowing this, we can estimate what the effects of rescue packages might be on the humans impacted by such policies.

On the one hand, those who produce the wealth (the target behavior) in the society will experience a greater loss of their earned wealth (an undesirable consequence). According to the behaviorist model, this scenario, taken by itself, would have the effect of making the person less likely to perform the target behavior; i.e. the person would abstain from producing wealth. On the other hand, those who do not produce wealth (the target behavior) in the society under the rescue plan would then experience an increase in redistributed wealth (a desirable consequence). Therefore, the behaviorist model would predict that the target behavior would be rewarded, and therefore more likely to be repeated. In other words, the rescue plan would encourage people to be unproductive.

Now, I think it is safe to say that the rescue packages are advertised as increasing productivity in society. But, if we look at it from this behaviorist model, the rescue packages would be doing the exact opposite. The plans would be rewarding unproductive behaviors while penalizing the productive ones. This fact gives me good reason to answer “no” to the practical question. These rescue plans will not work as advertised.

President Obama’s enormous $787 billion economic stimulus plan passed through the Senate last week, on Friday the thirteenth no less. I have my own misgivings about the plan itself, but the passing of it on a Friday the thirteenth adds a particularly foreboding feel to the mix. I think this bill, and Obama’s massive government spending strategy in general, could very well be an instance where the cure is far worse than the disease.

The plan is mostly about spending money, pure and simple. As Republican Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio said of the bill, “The president made clear when we started this process that this was about jobs. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. And what it’s turned into is nothing more than spending, spending and more spending.”
This emphasis on increased spending is supposed to be happening during a time when money is tight and many people are out of work. It is therefore odd to think that the U.S. is in a position to increase spending on the whole. Spending implies the possession of money; however the government’s plan is to spend when there is a lack of money. This is like putting the proverbial cart before the horse. With this stimulus bill, and the rest of the government’s overall spending strategies, the government in effect plans to continue to “deficit spend” the country out of an economic crisis which is itself defined by deficits of money. And it plans to do this with such an inordinately large sum of money that should the stimulus fail to initiate the productivity required to repay the debt, the country will be crippled by far more debt than it was before the stimulus money was spent. Even if it does work as planned, the size of the debt would still require years and years of taxpayer’s money to offset it. As The New York Times reported in a February 13 article, “If nothing else, the plan is a striking return of big government…Whatever the result, future generations will get the bill.”

Perhaps what is most odd to me about this whole idea of stimulus spending is the extent to which saving and paying off debts is supposed to be discouraged. The government’s plan seeks to encourage individual beneficiaries of stimulus benefits (e.g. tax credits, unemployment compensation, infrastructure-related job opportunities) to spend rather than save their new money. The government wants people to go out and buy new houses and cars as if everything is just fine. I don’t know if it was the way I was raised or what, but I was always of the opinion that it was wise for a person to save money until they could afford something, not before. The age of credit cards and such have changed all that, obviously, but isn’t that largely the reason why we are in this so-called crisis in the first place? Didn’t a bunch of these banks fail because their loans were not repaid? Aren’t people perhaps not buying new cars and houses because they cannot afford the cars and houses they already have?

Many college students, and to a greater extent college graduates, know the burden tremendous financial debt can weigh on a person. How convenient would it be to have your college tuition paid for before you graduate? To do so, though, would require strict financial discipline—that is, it would require one to save money rather than spend it recklessly and frivolously. Why then would the government want us to assume more debt by spending rather than saving?

Well, one reason might be that the more debt one accrues, the more that person is forced to work harder and longer in the future. When one has the luxury of being debt-free, he or she has more discretion over where to work and for how many hours. However, when there is a debt to repay, the owner of that debt must force him or herself to continue working as long as that debt exists—while continuing to pay interest. This eliminates the option of quitting an unpleasant job where a more pleasant job is not yet found or desired. Of course, the economy as a whole will benefit more when as many people who are able to work are working. More workers equals more productivity, and more productivity equals more goods and services available for consumption. And businesses and business owners thrive when goods and services are exchanged—not to mention the government that taxes all of these transactions. Therefore, according to one perspective on this issue, the economy can thrive through increased consumer spending, but, if spending is done before the money is earned, it is at the expense of the consumer’s ability to enjoy debt-free living. The fact that this stimulus bill will force taxpayers into repaying an enormous government debt, while also discouraging stimulus money recipients from saving or paying off their debts, suggests to me that the government has little concern for the individual’s desires to live a debt-free life. What is even more disturbing is that all of this seeks to include the future generations who don’t even have the chance to oppose it.

I therefore encourage everyone to resist the government’s pressure to spend rather than save their money. Pay off your debts and wait until you have enough money to make a large down payment on a major purchase like a car or house. Quit relying on credit cards and buy what you can afford to pay right now. Humans are not to supposed to live in service of unneeded debt. Even though we cannot stop the government from spending these hundreds of billions of dollars, at least we can decide what to do with it if it trickles down into our hands.