(Positions of the Progressive Political Movement of SW PA)
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Ayn Rand and the Tea Party
The thinking of at least some Tea Party leaders is allegedly influenced by Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. There is an article in the New York Times (www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/ayn...), "Atlas Spurned" by Jennifer Burns who described Ayn Rand as a "novelist of heroic capitalism". Burns writes that Paul Ryan, Wisconsin federal representative, regards Rand as "the reason I got into public service". The article indicates that Tea Party members agree with Ryan's portrayal of the current political situation as individualism vs. collectivism. Collectivism is a catch-all term embracing communism, fascism, nazism, and socialism. In Rand's writings it also refers to any associated collection of individuals, e.g. a political party or society as a whole.
There is an Ayn Rand Lexicon at http://aynrandlexicon.com/....
This is the source of the shaded quotes in this post unless otherwise noted. Ayn Rand wrote a
lot about both individualism and collectivism as well as the function of
government and the value of capitalism.
There are other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to free speech, the right to assembly, the right to vote, etc. There are limits to many of these rights. The right to free speech is limited in that one does not have the right to cry "fire" in a crowded theater nor to destroy another's reputation by spreading lies about the person. A licensed driver has the right to drive his car. That right does not include flaunting the rules that govern driving.
If and when a person or persons violates the rights of another in a criminal fashion, those people take the risk of forfeiting some of their rights for a time as punishment for their crime. Some believe the punishments for many abusive crimes are not severe enough. On the other hand, there are laws that punish otherwise responsible adults for non-abusive activities that some believe should not be illegal.
An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.
This idea of good relates to how she views the "right to life".
There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life...the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
Rand does not believe rights and individual freedom are dependent on society's permission.
A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission.
Rand believes rights are inalienable.
It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill—but the inalienable individual right of another man to live. This is not a “compromise” between two rights—but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society—but from your own inalienable individual right.
Rand emphasized preserving every one's rights. In today's society, it seems there are some people who think that because of the color of their skin or the size of their bank account that they should have more rights than other less fortunate citizens. Then there are those who are less fortunate who think their rights should have no limits because they have less material resources than others. Rand indicates they are both wrong.
Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another.
Of rights and obligations, she writes:
A right means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men..... As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.
Put another way:
One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent—his right has been violated....No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man.
Since the state is not the source of one's inalienable rights, Rand does not believe individuals have any obligation toward the state due to the possession of rights.
Man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective—as a barrier which the Collective cannot cross; . . . these rights are man’s protection against all other men.
One may hear some people asserting that businesses have or should have certain rights. PPM agrees with Rand that business people do not have special rights. Many businesses can be conceived of as collectives. Rand is not opposed to collectives (totalitarian regimes being the exception). But, for her, the individual takes precedence over the collective. PPM concurs.
Rand's view of human rights is consistent with the Declaration of Independence which declares "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. Either one believes in inalienable human rights for everyone or one doesn't. One either believes that life has intrinsic value and that what supports human life is good and that which threatens human life is evil or one does not believe that. Those who don't believe everyone has an equal right to life might be categorized as communists, fascists, radical Muslims, white supremacists, plutocrats, oligarchs, etc. All of these people are abusers. It is a futile waste of time and energy to try to reason with or to try to appeal to an abuser's "humanity". That is also true of corporations that disrespect human rights. To support or even condone any type of abusive behavior while giving lip service to universal individual rights, e.g. the right to life, is hypocritical. PPM supports human rights and stands against abuse.
Rand wrote that what favors life is good; that which threatens life is evil. And she believed that the right to life is the primary right on which the other individual rights are based. PPM believes that this is so and that since good physical health furthers life, people's ability/opportunity to live a healthful lifestyle is an expression of the right to life.
What is more basic to life than health? I remember reading an impressive quote which I think was authored by a Greek philosopher. I could be mistaken but it went something like, "He who loses his money, loses much. He who loses his family, loses more. But he who loses his health, loses all." If one values life, one must logically value health. If one believes everyone has the right to life, then one must logically believe everyone should have the right to a healthful lifestyle and the ability to live healthfully.
The more physically healthy one is, the greater is one's ability to live freely and pursue happiness. To unnecessarily and coercively deprive people of that ability is a violation of basic rights and is abusive. Most people cannot be as healthy as possible for the long term unless they live a healthful lifestyle. The necessities for staying healthy for most people are a good balanced quality diet (minimally processed, preferably organic), the ability to exercise, hot running water, a warm safe healthful living space, quality health and dental care, the help one needs to kick health-threatening habits. Some people have specific needs such as allergen-free food and living space, special diets, prescribed medications, food supplements, etc. Strong concentrations of toxins and/or pathogens can be health-threatening.
No adult has the right to force another to live a healthful lifestyle. On the other hand, PPM believes that neither society nor the government has the moral obligation to pay the medical expenses for injuries or diseases of those who willingly participate in risky behaviors for the sake of excitement and/or personal gain. Abusing drugs and alcohol, smoking, and drag racing are examples of risky behaviors that may result in injury or disease.
2. Tea Party Goals
According to The Right Post (http://www.rightpost.com/editorials/what-is-the-tea-party-movement), "the main goal of the Tea Party movement is to
change the institution of the federal government to the effect that
American’s freedoms are restored to the ideals of the founding fathers." According to this article, these ideals include:
- More individual freedom
- Dramatically smaller government with a much reduced role
- Substantially less central government (Washington) and a preference for states rights
- Low taxes
- Free market prosperity
B. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
1. Rights in general
The first listed Tea Party goal is "more individual freedom". Rand uses the term "individual rights". According to Webster, rights are standard
privileges set by law or reason that all humans and animals should
possess. Basic animal and human rights include the privilege of
consuming healthful food and drinking water, breathing healthful air,
sharing a quality Common Good, living free of abuse.1. Rights in general
There are other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to free speech, the right to assembly, the right to vote, etc. There are limits to many of these rights. The right to free speech is limited in that one does not have the right to cry "fire" in a crowded theater nor to destroy another's reputation by spreading lies about the person. A licensed driver has the right to drive his car. That right does not include flaunting the rules that govern driving.
If and when a person or persons violates the rights of another in a criminal fashion, those people take the risk of forfeiting some of their rights for a time as punishment for their crime. Some believe the punishments for many abusive crimes are not severe enough. On the other hand, there are laws that punish otherwise responsible adults for non-abusive activities that some believe should not be illegal.
2. Rights according to Rand
Ayn Rand wrote a lot about individual rights. One can decide for one's self if these statements sound reasonable. PPM agrees with each of Rand's quotes presented in this section on Individual Rights. It may be helpful to understand Rand's view of good and evil. She wroteAn organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.
This idea of good relates to how she views the "right to life".
There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life...the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
Rand does not believe rights and individual freedom are dependent on society's permission.
A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission.
Rand believes rights are inalienable.
It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill—but the inalienable individual right of another man to live. This is not a “compromise” between two rights—but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society—but from your own inalienable individual right.
Rand emphasized preserving every one's rights. In today's society, it seems there are some people who think that because of the color of their skin or the size of their bank account that they should have more rights than other less fortunate citizens. Then there are those who are less fortunate who think their rights should have no limits because they have less material resources than others. Rand indicates they are both wrong.
Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another.
Of rights and obligations, she writes:
A right means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men..... As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.
Put another way:
One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent—his right has been violated....No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man.
Since the state is not the source of one's inalienable rights, Rand does not believe individuals have any obligation toward the state due to the possession of rights.
The only “obligation” involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected.In regard to how individuals relate to collectives, Rand wrote
Man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective—as a barrier which the Collective cannot cross; . . . these rights are man’s protection against all other men.
One may hear some people asserting that businesses have or should have certain rights. PPM agrees with Rand that business people do not have special rights. Many businesses can be conceived of as collectives. Rand is not opposed to collectives (totalitarian regimes being the exception). But, for her, the individual takes precedence over the collective. PPM concurs.
The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man’s existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness.
There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals.
A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.
It would seem that Rand would not agree with the Supreme Court decision (McCutcheon vs Federal Election Commission) that held that corporations are people. This decision removed limits on campaign financing by corporations. The Tea Party favors this decision. PPM favors its reversal.
3. The Right to Health
Rand's view of human rights is consistent with the Declaration of Independence which declares "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. Either one believes in inalienable human rights for everyone or one doesn't. One either believes that life has intrinsic value and that what supports human life is good and that which threatens human life is evil or one does not believe that. Those who don't believe everyone has an equal right to life might be categorized as communists, fascists, radical Muslims, white supremacists, plutocrats, oligarchs, etc. All of these people are abusers. It is a futile waste of time and energy to try to reason with or to try to appeal to an abuser's "humanity". That is also true of corporations that disrespect human rights. To support or even condone any type of abusive behavior while giving lip service to universal individual rights, e.g. the right to life, is hypocritical. PPM supports human rights and stands against abuse.
Rand wrote that what favors life is good; that which threatens life is evil. And she believed that the right to life is the primary right on which the other individual rights are based. PPM believes that this is so and that since good physical health furthers life, people's ability/opportunity to live a healthful lifestyle is an expression of the right to life.
What is more basic to life than health? I remember reading an impressive quote which I think was authored by a Greek philosopher. I could be mistaken but it went something like, "He who loses his money, loses much. He who loses his family, loses more. But he who loses his health, loses all." If one values life, one must logically value health. If one believes everyone has the right to life, then one must logically believe everyone should have the right to a healthful lifestyle and the ability to live healthfully.
The more physically healthy one is, the greater is one's ability to live freely and pursue happiness. To unnecessarily and coercively deprive people of that ability is a violation of basic rights and is abusive. Most people cannot be as healthy as possible for the long term unless they live a healthful lifestyle. The necessities for staying healthy for most people are a good balanced quality diet (minimally processed, preferably organic), the ability to exercise, hot running water, a warm safe healthful living space, quality health and dental care, the help one needs to kick health-threatening habits. Some people have specific needs such as allergen-free food and living space, special diets, prescribed medications, food supplements, etc. Strong concentrations of toxins and/or pathogens can be health-threatening.
No adult has the right to force another to live a healthful lifestyle. On the other hand, PPM believes that neither society nor the government has the moral obligation to pay the medical expenses for injuries or diseases of those who willingly participate in risky behaviors for the sake of excitement and/or personal gain. Abusing drugs and alcohol, smoking, and drag racing are examples of risky behaviors that may result in injury or disease.
C. GOVERNMENT
1. Rand's View of Government
The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.
and
.... a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force. No individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to initiate the use of physical force against other individuals or groups and to compel them to act against their own voluntary choice. Only a government holds that power.
Rand believed that government should protect all individual rights of its citizens.
The political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).
Of rights protection and the use of force, she wrote
The only function of the government, ..... is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense; as the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.
Rand believed that government is a necessary institution in society.
If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.
Lest one think that Rand is advocating total control of society by government, she also wrote:
....a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled.
PPM would like all members of law enforcement departments and agencies in the United States to memorize that quote.
Rand distinguishes between private citizens and government officials.
A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.
Rand seems to be saying that individuals in a society contract with the government to allow their actions to be governed by laws in return for the government establishing domestic tranquility, protecting individual rights, and providing for certain aspects of the general Welfare (sometimes referred to as a quality Common Good). The citizens give the government the power to enforce the laws and statutes that accomplish this purpose. PPM realizes that some people might be happier living by themselves in a jungle making and living by their own laws. But as long as one lives in a society, one is probably going to be happier following the fair rules, written and unwritten, set by that society.
2. Size of Government
The second Tea Party goal listed in the INTRODUCTION was "Dramatically smaller government with a much reduced role". The Tea Party thinks the Federal Government is too big. Some people question the idea that "big" must be better. As things grow bigger they become more unwieldy and less sustainable. Think giant dinosaurs. But the subject is the Federal Government. There is a lot wrong with the government. But is size one of those things? One can find a number of articles on the web that claim the federal government has actually been shrinking since 2008 (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3696, e.g.). That may sound positive. The government is spending less money. Yea! The question is, on what is it spending less? Less wasteful spending would be good. PPM believes that less spent on ensuring every one's individual rights are protected and that every one has access to a quality Common Good would be a bad thing.
Imagine a small town with a population of 50. Law enforcement might require one sheriff and two part-time deputies. Once the population reaches 2000, a whole police department working 24 hours/day may be needed to keep the peace. Other services provided by the local government might also be overwhelmed without additional personnel. As population increases, the growth of government is a necessary inevitability. The alternative is inefficiency and gridlock. The same people who complain about the large size of government also complain about inefficiency of government functions. While government efficiency could and should be greatly improved, no matter how efficient each government employee is, there are limits to how much one person can accomplish.
Size can be a big problem at either extreme. Being too small to deal with the problems of the nation would be a negative thing. When a politician promises to cut every one's taxes by shrinking the size of government, most people think that would be a good thing. They don't consider the negative effects that reduction would have on future generations , e.g. more polluted air, higher health costs, general deterioration of infrastructure, etc.
If all citizens respected each other's individual rights; if industries, banks and corporations prioritized the Common Good and public health over profits; if state and local governments did a better job maintaining the infrastructure; if America would be more respectful of the rights of non-Americans, the Federal Government could easily be smaller but still efficient. PPM favors the government being as big as it needs to be to accomplish its mission as efficiently as possible and no bigger.
Ayn Rand might agree with the PPM's position that it is unacceptable to downsize government to the point where it is incapable of protecting the rights of each and every individual citizen. Each person tends to look at issues, problems, etc. from his/her own subjective viewpoint. That can result in one being indifferent towards the rights of others as long as one's rights are not being violated. Looking at things from a more objective viewpoint would yield better results for society. Objectively speaking, no citizen's rights are any more important, more relevant, more deserving than any other citizen's rights.
One example of the Tea Party's plan to downsize the Federal Government is its desire to do away with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). There are some government agencies entrusted with the task of protecting human health and environmental quality (which also impacts on public health). One of these is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established by President Nixon in 1970 with the mission of preserving human health and environmental quality. There are numerous articles such as "The EPA's War on Modern Civilization" (http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/07/16/the-epas-war-on-modern-civilization/) which assert that the EPA has overstepped its authority on numerous occasions. Some people prefer that those charged with protecting the environment and human health be overzealous at that task rather than lax. .
There is definitely a conflict between individual business owners who are too busy making profits to be concerned about public health and environmental quality and those charged with protecting human health and environmental quality.
One critic claimed that the EPA has, on occasion, opted to protect the lives of non-human organisms when that protection threatened human health. If there is a conflict between protecting the lives of non-human organisms and protecting human health, PPM believes that human health should be the priority. This writer, who has an MS degree in Sustainable Systems, asserts that those situations are rare. Usually, the protection of environmental quality is supportive of public health.
No matter how much evidence there is to support any scientific theory, there are always going to be people who disagree with the credibility of the theory. A good example of this is the Flat Earth Society that promotes the idea that the Earth is really flat. If law makers had to wait for a consensus that the Earth is actually round before making regulations designed to save the Earth from imminent destruction, the Earth would be doomed.
Does the Tea Party actually want to due away with legislation designed to protect human health and the environment and the agencies charged with enforcing those protections?
The following is an excerpt from a letter to the U.S. Congress from the Lehigh Valley Tea Party:
We respectfully petition you to take steps to eliminate the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency and every governmental agency that is not constitutionally mandated so that they may never be used to intimidate any American citizen again. We call on you to take steps to eliminate and defund every agency and program that stifles the principles of free enterprise, individual rights and free will and return those powers to the states as outlined in the 9th and 10th Amendment. (http://lehighvalleyramblings.blogspot.com/2013/06/lv-tea-party-abolish-irs-epa-and-dept.html)
House bill H.R. 2584, introduced in the House of Representatives in 2012, if passed, would defund many EPA programs, designed to protect environmental quality and public health, but thought by the Tea Party to be "job killers".
According to an article in The Guardian, Michelle Bachman "advocates abolishing the EPA as soon as God puts the Tea Party in charge". One may wonder if Michelle spent even a New York minute to consider the more than 16,000 EPA employees whose jobs will be "killed" if the EPA is abolished. There are thousands more jobs that have been created in the private sector by businesses whose purpose is to help industries comply with EPA regulations. Those jobs would also be killed if the EPA is abolished. In August, 2013 there were 2,721,000 people employed by the federal government. If the Tea Party succeeds in shrinking the federal government, where will all those people find jobs?
Whose individual freedom is being stifled by regulations designed to preserve human health? As Ayn Rand said, "the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another". Industry cannot and does not have the right to unnecessarily threaten public health. "Unnecessarily" refers to emitting poisons from the production of products that are not essential to human survival or emitting any toxins from the production of essentials if those toxins can be contained.
Nor does the Tea Party seem to care about diseases like Black Lung and Asbestosis. If they did they would not want to abolish the agency charged with protecting workers from contracting these diseases. Or maybe they believe that Black Lung isn't really caused by coal dust inhalation and it is just coincidence that the only people afflicted with asbestosis are those who have inhaled asbestos fibers. So who needs an agency to protect people's health? Perhaps volatile organic compounds (VOCs), mercury, sulphur, small particulates and all the rest actually make us healthier! Especially those people with asthma and other cardio-vascular conditions. And global burning will turn out to be a positive thing, good for human health and the environment.
I remember JFK in 1963 saying, "And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights—the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation—the right to breathe air as nature provided it—the right of future generations to a healthy existence?" That is part of the EPA's mission - to protect the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink. It would seem the Tea Party does not care about those rights. Maybe they think people don't deserve clean air and pure drinking water unless they have earned it. In that case, those rights would be unattainable for those who are financially challenged. Nor does the Tea Party seem overly concerned with "the right of future generations to a healthy existence". It seems contradictory for a political party that claims they believe in the principles on which this country was founded, one of which is that "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights", to deny those rights to the less financially fortunate as well as to those not yet born. The PPM, however, will continue to assert that those who unnecessarily pollute the air and water (i.e., emit harmful chemicals that are technically controllable) whether out of ignorance, indifference or for financial profit, are violating the rights of other people. And the government should protect those rights. It is wrong to take away the funding necessary for that protection.
3. The General Welfare
The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution reads
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare...
and Article I, Section 8 reads
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...
The U.S. Constitution refers to the national government as promoting the "general Welfare". A more modern expression would be the "Common Good". The general Welfare refers to that which citizens need to freely live as healthfully as possible but which the majority of individuals could not personally afford. Most people could not afford to erect street lights in their neighborhood, establish traffic lights and roads and bridges to allow them to get to work or to the grocery store. They could not afford to hire teachers for each of their children. They could not afford their own fully-functioning library. They could not afford to build and maintain their own water supply and sewage systems. Not everyone can afford their own private quality playground and park.
Other aspects of the general Welfare provided by the various levels of government are those services anyone may need at some point in their lives. Services such as the police, the courts, the armed forces, and those whose task it is to preserve environmental quality and public health.
The Constitution indicates that the federal government should have the power to do what is necessary to ensure that everyone has access to those services that are part of the general Welfare. PPM believes the government has a duty to provide for the general Welfare.
Tea Party people don't necessarily disagree with that. It may be that Conservatives, Tea Party followers, etc. believe that the general Welfare refers to a prosperous economy. It may also be true that Conservative and Tea Party leaders, although loathe to admit it to their followers, personally measure prosperity by the rate of growth of the American Upper 1%'s income and net worth. That would explain why the Tea Party seems to care more about the jobs of those that support the millionaire and billionaire income classes than the jobs of those whose task it is to support environmental and educational quality and human health.
Another problem, from a Tea Party viewpoint, is that some of the government-financed services the PPM considers to be part of the general Welfare are not specifically designated by the Constitution as "enumerated powers" of the Federal Government.
4. Power of Centralized Government
When the Tea Party complains about the central government having too much power, they are referring to those powers allegedly exercised by the Federal Government that are not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution and which are supposedly states' rights.
In the event that the Tea Party succeeds in taking away the Federal power or assumed responsibility for securing environmental, public health, educational quality, etc., theoretically, individual states could still enact laws to adequately protect those things within each state's borders. Each state could also enact legislation designed to preserve each citizen's individual right to live healthfully, to guarantee the safety of workers and the products and services sold to consumers, to maintain a quality general Welfare for each of their citizens, to ensure that every able-bodied adult could have a decent job that paid at least a healthful living wage. The alleged problem the Tea Party has with the Federal Government is that, by assuming responsibility (and thereby the power) to pass and enforce certain laws, the federal government is interfering with states' rights. The unspoken implication here is that each state has the right to determine the tonnage of toxins that their states' industries are allowed to release into the air, water and ground; that each state is allowed to determine how to handle its most economically disadvantaged citizens; that each state is allowed to determine which of its elementary and secondary school students will get free nutritious lunches and which will remain undernourished; that each state is allowed to determine the quality and purity of the food sold in that state [except when it comes to GMOs (http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4432/text)]; that each state should be able to make their own food and drug regulations [except when it comes to marijuana (http://www.salon.com/2014//10/tea_partys_reefer_hypocrisy_why_states_rights_is_a_situational_sham/)].
Perhaps the Tea Party thinks each state should have the exclusive legal power to make regulations to protect the right of life in relation to public health and the environment. How would that work? If Ohio has old inefficient coal burning power plants on their border with Pennsylvania emitting copious amounts of mercury, small particulates, and sulphur dioxide that the prevailing winds carry through Pennsylvania into upper state New York which suffers property damage as a result of acid precipitation, what would compel Ohio to do something to remediate the problem? Since their citizens' health, environment, and property are not being negatively impacted, why should Ohio act? Especially since the citizens of Ohio would have to spend their taxes for the benefit of other states. Remember the Lehigh Valley Tea Party petition to eliminate the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)? The IRS collects federal taxes. Without federal taxes the Federal Government won't be able to help Ohio remediate their pollution.
Before accepting the possibility of giving the states more power and, thereby, more responsibility, the "track record" of some states should be examined. The following is a quote from "The Myth of States' Rights" by Leon Friedman, Professor of Law:
... the banner of States' rights has been used to perpetrate and defend the greatest evils in our nation's history. Slavery was justified on the ground that each State should be free to determine its own economic practices. In the 1890's, corrective federal legislation against monopolies (such as the Sherman anti-trust act) was attacked on the grounds that the States and not the federal government had the sole right to regulate business. In the 1930's, important New Deal measures that would have alleviated the worst problems of the depression were challenged and struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the new laws invaded the prerogatives of the States. After the Civil War, the Southern states used every means possible to keep the black population in a subservient position and engaged in "massive resistance" to school desegregation orders issued by federal courts on the grounds that the States should control education.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leon-friedman/the-myth-of-states-rights_b_4057947.html)
Giving to the states the power/responsibility to protect all individuals' rights, health, safety, and access to a quality general Welfare will not guarantee those protections for all individuals.
There is another type of power which big government has a potential to wield. There are those who are alert to any signs of the Federal Government turning into a 1984 Big Brother type of Authority. The revelations of Edward Snowden, seem to reinforce Thomas Jefferson's claim that "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty".
To suggest that increasing the power of the Federal Government to protect every one's right to health and access to the general Welfare would make the government more of a Big Brother type of authority is doublespeak and totally bogus. Certain people would disagree with that. Smokers who feel they should have the right to destroy their own health as well as anyone else's who can't manage to hold their breath within the smokers' plumes of second hand smoke, may feel that smoking bans are unconstitutional. People should probably have a right to suicide. But not to sudden suicide, nor to self-destruction that takes place over a number of years, if the killing endangers the health and well-being of others.
If one has a drug company and the government refuses to approve a new drug because the drug trials weren't reliable, one may feel one's right to engage in free commerce is being impeded. As if American consumers have no right to refuse to be guinea pigs for poorly tested drugs. When the government refuses to approve another toxic pesticide that would kill more bees, the agro-chemical company might feel the government is exercising draconian powers.
White racists probably think the Federal Government is exercising illegitimate power when it enforces anti-discrimination laws. If one owns an industrial enterprise, one may think the government is interfering with one's right to make a profit by imposing regulations designed to protect the environment, worker safety, the quality of goods and services, etc.
Power is neither good nor bad. But it can be used in a way that benefits everyone or in a way that favors "special" interests to the detriment of others. Individual rights and the general Welfare are not special interests. PPM favors fixing America's problems by living up to the promise of "liberty and justice for all", thereby making the United States the model to which all people in other countries aspire.
There is plenty wrong with the Federal Government. The main problem is not too much power. It is how that power is used or distributed. Congress passes legislation, the Executive Branch makes policies, and the Judicial Branch makes rulings that benefit Big Business and the banks and which give these institutions the power to threaten citizens' individual rights. (For a good example check out www.gmoboycott.blogspot.com). Another way to express this problem is that the Federal Government takes power away from the people and gives it to the corporations.
Who or what should have the most power to protect every one's individual rights and ensure every one's access to the general Welfare? Private enterprise has no compelling interest to exercise that power. The states and local governments, while they ought to be supportive of individual rights and the general Welfare, are not entirely reliable. The Federal Government is the entity with the greatest interest and the most potential for reliable performance.
As it is, there exists an antagonistic relationship between Upper Class earners/banks/big corporations and the rest of the population. The former has more political power and more money. The government, in particular the Federal Government, is the only entity powerful enough to oppose the Upper Class/banks/big business. The Tea Party wants to make the Federal Government smaller and less powerful which will allow the Upper Class (Tea Party leaders included)/banks/big business to become even more powerful and wealthier. So, for the rich and powerful a smaller, weaker central government would be a good thing. Unfortunately, those in the lower classes will suffer greater deprivation if the Federal Government is weakened.
There is a quote that goes, "You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time" (John Lydgate). This is relevant to the government acting in the best interest of all the people. If and when the actions of government are directed, in an objective fashion, to preserve every one's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by protecting people's individual right to a healthful lifestyle and access to a the general Welfare, all of the people will not be pleased at any time. As things stand now, those with the most money and power do whatever is in their best interests and the rest pay the price for their privilege. And what is in the best interest of the rich and powerful? From their viewpoint, accumulating and holding on to more wealth than they need is a good thing. At the same time, there are people who are struggling just to make ends meet. The strugglers do not have the time nor energy to realize why their situation is worsening. They may think they are not working hard enough or long enough. They may have no idea the Upper 1%'s hoarding of wealth and income contributes to their deprivation (http://www.alternet.org/economy/5-reasons-rich-are-ruining-economy-hoarding-their-money).
So, how much power does PPM think the people should allow the federal government to exercise? As much as, but no more than, is required to serve the total population responsibly, with accountability, and without favoritism.
5. The National Debt
The
National Debt is a burden on every taxpayer living and some not yet
born, except for those taxpayers who benefit financially from the banks
to which the Federal Government pays some of the interest on the debt.
Those are probably some of the same taxpayers that resist paying higher
tax rates that would enable the government to pay off the debt faster.
Go figure. The sooner the government pays off the debt the faster the
money that now goes for interest can be devoted to the general Welfare.
6. Government Waste
In order for PPM suggestions to be funded effectively, it would help to reduce
government waste, including corruption. Wasteful means
unnecessary. Unnecessary government spending is not profitable for
citizens, except for those who are the direct recipients of the unnecessary
spending, as well as the bankers from whom the government borrows the unnecessary funds. A significant reduction in government waste on the Federal
level would require massive cooperation and willingness on the part of
Congress, government agencies, and individual government employees. For
examples of federal government waste check out Senator Coburn's annual
wastebook
(http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=e7359436-1572-414e-8acc-0222cad1c7d5).
For an additional detailed discussion of wasteful spending see www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com, The National Debt
post. Let's take one small example. If every federal employee wasted
just $2.00 per day, be it from requisitioning a fancy pen, spending
extra minutes on break, etc., that waste would equal $5,442,000 per
day. If all federal government employees worked just 230 days per year
and wasted only an average of $2.00/day the total waste of tax payer
dollars would be $1,251,660,000 in one year.
7. Taxes
The PPM believes a purpose of government
should be to provide for the general Welfare and citizens should be
willing to pay their fair share toward that end. Rand would agree, at
least, in part. She writes: Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.
The same can be said of the other services that promote and maintain the general Welfare.
a. raising taxes of the wealthy
PPM objects to the idea of the general Welfare being something owned and controlled by private enterprise for the sake of creating profit. The cost of the general Welfare should be shared. Those who earn the most should contribute the most to its upkeep. One way of raising revenue to pay for the promoting of the general Welfare is levying taxes. The fourth goal of the Tea Party listed in the INTRODUCTION is "Low taxes".
The Tea Party doesn't believe raising taxes of those with the highest incomes would solve anything. Why? The following quote may shed some light:
In view of what they hear from the experts, the people cannot be blamed for their ignorance and their helpless confusion. If an average housewife struggles with her incomprehensibly shrinking budget and sees a tycoon in a resplendent limousine, she might well think that just one of his diamond cuff links would solve all her problems. She has no way of knowing that if all the personal luxuries of all the tycoons were expropriated, it would not feed her family—and millions of other, similar families—for one week; and that the entire country would starve on the first morning of the week to follow . . .
Rand should have stuck to philosophy. There is a difference between net worth and income. "Personal luxuries" are part of a person's net worth. If a tycoon making a million dollars annually were to have all his personal luxuries taken away, he would still be thousands of times better off economically than the struggling housewife; it's not his luxuries that allow him to make a million dollars every year. Rand may be correct that the value of all the tycoons' luxury items would be insufficient to feed millions of families for a single week. But what would cause "the entire country to starve on the first morning of the week to follow"? Would the luxury items be toxic to the lower classes? Would the items cause them to be unable to digest food? Would they ruin the earning ability or welfare collection ability of millions of families within that week so that they could not afford as much food as they did before the luxury item expropriation? This makes no sense. And why would the tycoon who would still be earning in excess of $19,200 per week starve? Her reasoning is faulty on this issue.
Rand may have believed that if society demands too much from the millionaires and billionaires in terms of taxes, businesses will fail, the tycoons will go broke and not be able to pay taxes, and there will be no jobs to be had. So no one would pay taxes. Since the government would be unable to collect taxes nor to borrow money, the government would not be able to feed the hungry poor. That's a doomsday scenario.
But how realistic is it? If the total annual reported income of U.S. earners for 2012 was divided evenly among all earners, each of 155.5 million American workers would benefit from and pay taxes on $86,179. If all the reported private income in the nation in 2012 were divided evenly among America's 316 million citizens, each person would receive $42,410. If each of the families of the almost 47 million Americans living below the Federal poverty level in 2012 were to add even
half of that to their annual income, it would mean a vast improvement in their ability to stay as healthy as possible. The point is that Americans, as a whole, earn more than enough to pay a healthful living wage to everyone who is willing and able to work. Can that be done without raising taxes on the Upper 1%? NO. According to an article posted at www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html, in 2010 35.4% of all private wealth in the country was owned by the upper 1%. That is net worth, not personal income. Higher personal income tax rates for the upper 1% will not impoverish them.
While PPM opposes raising lower and middle class taxes, PPM does favor raising the income rates on top earners. For example, a 50% rate on earnings of $500,000 increasing to 90% for those earning the most might not be unreasonable. Once the National Debt is paid off, the rates could be gradually lowered to a level sufficient to pay for all necessary expenses of the federal government. In addition, all tax exemptions, deductions and loopholes should be eliminated for the upper 1%.
b. tax payer resentment
Tea Party's
"solution"
to the country's problems, obviously would benefit those in the Upper 1-7% income bracket. But what hooks lower income earners into supporting the Tea Party is probably the promise of lower
taxes. Many Americans seem to resist and resent the idea of paying personal income tax. The same people who like the Tea Party's plan to decrease taxes by decreasing the size of the government may agree with the idea that one can't get something for nothing. One wonders what these people are willing to give up in order to pay fewer taxes. Americans have more security than Iraq because America has a superior military. capability. Are the reluctant tax payers willing to do without national security? Without the FBI? Without federal courts? Without limits on corporate polluters? Without safe food and drugs? Without federal highways? Without National Parks and Monuments? Without Federal lunch programs in schools? All of these things cost money.
The answer, or part of it, is that Tea Party people resent paying taxes for those things that benefit other people, people less financially blessed than themselves. One example is "safety net programs". According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258), in 2013 the Federal Government collected $2.8 trillion but spent $3.5 trillion. Of that, $398 billion (ap.12% percent of the federal budget) was spent on safety net programs. These are programs that give support (other than Social Security benefits or health insurance) to financially-challenged individuals and families.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
(http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3822), 47% of federal revenue
collected in 2013 came from personal income tax. 10 % came from
corporate income taxes. 9% from other sources. 34% came from payroll
taxes. $680 billion was borrowed. Personal federal income tax
collected in 2013 totaled $1.316 trillion which is approximately 37% of the total
$3.5 trillion spent by the government. 12 % of the $3.5 trillion
dollars was spent on safety net programs but only 37% of that 12% came
from personal income tax. So 4.4% of the total personal income tax
collected in 2013 was spent on safety net programs. It would seem that no matter how much a citizen paid
in income tax in 2013, only 4.4% of that amount went to pay for safety
net programs. For example, if one paid federal personal income tax in
2013 as a head of household on $51,371, of the $7484 paid in taxes, $329
would have gone to pay for safety net programs.
Admittedly, a percentage of that $329 was spent on unnecessary
expenditures. However, some of it may have
actually kept some poor, blameless people from starvation or
homelessness. Where does that $329 end up? Perhaps the person who paid it owns a grocery store or two. Some of the income from that store probably comes to him/her in the form of food stamps. If the tax payer owns a retail store, some of the people shopping there may be on public assistance. There is a virtual army of federal employees who administer the safety net programs. These people spend money in retail stores also, as well as paying taxes that help support the safety net programs. Even if the tax payer of the $329 is an employee of an establishment patronized by people dependent on government assistance or by government employees that administer safety net programs, the tax payer's wages are being partly paid by those patrons. In other words, some of that $329 could end up helping to support the person who paid it.
Taxes paid to the government don't disappear. The government is not hoarding that money the way the Upper 1% is hoarding theirs (http://moneymorning.com/ext/articles/rickards/55-billion-gamble.php?iris=252777). All revenue the federal government collects is spent. The fact that the government does not always buy American is a separate problem that needs to be fixed. PPM would like to see Congress pass a law that the Federal Government must buy the most affordable American products and services unless they aren't available in this country. A provision of this law should restrict all purchases by the Federal Government to necessities. Another provision of this law should require the Federal Government to purchase necessary goods and services from small businesses whenever practicable.
c. taxing low income earners
Even the Tea Party probably does not expect people below a certain low economic income level to pay taxes. PPM suggests that the low income level should correspond to the minimum healthful living wage amount for each specific earner/family [see Section C. (ECONOMY, #7 "a healthful living wage")]. Only income in excess of the person's/family's healthful living wage should be taxed).
d. taxing investment income
e. taxing large corporations
Tax exemptions,
deductions and loopholes should be eliminated for the large corporations. If tax reforms are made, there would be a possibility that more American companies would relocate their corporate headquarters and/or operations overseas in order to avoid paying increased American Federal corporate taxes. PPM regards such companies as "American" in name only. There are a number of possible solutions to this problem. Passing a law requiring any company operating within the U.S. to pay corporate taxes, regardless of the location of their corporate headquarters would be one measure PPM would favor. It seems sensible that if one uses American property, etc. to make money, one should be willing to pay taxes on that money.
An even better solution, but one that would require more time and effort to implement, would be an international agreement among all the world's countries to charge the same corporate tax rate in every country in the world.
Another solution that would preserve rights and the separation of government and business, would be for American consumers and other businesses that are truly American, as well as all governments within the U.S. to voluntarily boycott the goods and services sold by any tax-dodging company. If a company does not wish to support the country, why should the country support the company?
The same thing could be done with "American" millionaires and billionaires who forsake their citizenship to avoid paying personal income tax. True Americans could boycott the sources of these people's personal income. An international standard personal income tax for millionaires and billionaires, regardless of citizenship, would probably be more effective.
f. payroll taxes
About 40% of federal government revenue comes from payroll taxes. All
earners
have payroll taxes deducted from their pay checks. Payroll taxes are
supposed to pay for social security and Medicare. The more one earns
the more is deducted except for those who earn in excess of $110,000
annually (http://gawker.com/...).One of two things could be done. (1) Eliminate the $110,000 limit on payroll taxes; or (2) Eliminate payroll tax entirely while retaining social security and medicare for those eligible people who need it.
g. the choice
The
choice is clear. 1) Raising taxes on the wealthy while protecting the human rights of all Americans and preserving a quality Common Good, or
2) The Tea Party solution. Downsize the government; decrease taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations; do away with government regulations. The end results of which will be allowing America's millionaires and billionaires to continue to increase their share of the nation's wealth while not paying what many consider to be their fair share of the tax burden; the loss of more environmental quality; a decrease in worker safety and the safety/quality of consumer goods and services; and a continuing decline in the quality of the general Welfare, at least for those who are more economically disadvantaged.
PPM supports the first choice.
8. Separation of Government and Private Enterprise
Ayn Rand believed the economy and government should be separated.
When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated
laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the
same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
While PPM believes in a separation of government and private enterprise, the nature of the separation for PPM does not entail an absence of government regulation of businesses, banks, and industries. The separation PPM advocates is based on the idea that governments exist for the benefit of people, not businesses. A purpose of government should not be to turn business owners into millionaires nor to help them stay wealthy. The government does not control a free-market economy. The government should not be held responsible for the unemployment rate of private enterprises, the stock market gains or losses, etc.
PPM's idea of separation would include a prohibition of permanent federal employees being hired by large corporations and employees of large corporations being hired permanently by the federal government sooner than two years from their employment termination.
Rand believed there should be no barriers to trade between nations-no
tariffs, export/import taxes, etc. Her idea of separation of the economy and
government is consistent with the philosophical thinking of politicians
who support free trade
agreements like NAFTA, even though such agreements have had such
negative consequences for
American workers and for the general Welfare. PPM believes that
the
government should not be in the business of supporting private
enterprise by arranging trade deals with other countries, subsidizing
private businesses, giving businesses tax exceptions, nor giving
businesses financial entitlements. There might possibly be some
circumstances that would justify a close collaboration between
government and private interests for the sake of preserving the general Welfare. But giving financial advantages to businesses that already make
billions in profits annually? No
justification. While PPM believes in a separation of government and private enterprise, the nature of the separation for PPM does not entail an absence of government regulation of businesses, banks, and industries. The separation PPM advocates is based on the idea that governments exist for the benefit of people, not businesses. A purpose of government should not be to turn business owners into millionaires nor to help them stay wealthy. The government does not control a free-market economy. The government should not be held responsible for the unemployment rate of private enterprises, the stock market gains or losses, etc.
PPM's idea of separation would include a prohibition of permanent federal employees being hired by large corporations and employees of large corporations being hired permanently by the federal government sooner than two years from their employment termination.
D. ECONOMY
While Paul Ryan, a Tea Party leader reportedly regards Ayn Rand as "the reason I got into public service", Ryan was apparently not referring to Rand's defense of individual rights nor to the role of government in protecting those rights. He was evidently referring to her valuing of capitalism, in particular laissez-faire capitalism, i.e., a system in which the owners of industry and business dictate the rules of competition, the conditions of labor, the cost and safety of products and services, the negative effects of their activities on the environment and on public health, etc. as they please, without government regulation or control. The fifth goal of the Tea Party as listed in the INTRODUCTION is "free market prosperity", i.e., laizze faire capitalism.
PPM supports the idea that no person has a moral obligation to sacrifice his/her health or well-being in order to "help" the less fortunate. However, there is still the question of people who earn more than enough to live a comfortable, healthful lifestyle but resent paying taxes because, by doing so, they might not be able to afford a new Mercedes or a Rolex or the latest 24-carot yellow gold I-phone.
If one's main goal in life is to be a millionaire, one would probably agree with the Tea Party's narrow interpretations of government powers because, if implemented, the Tea Party goals would result in one having to pay less income tax and would make one's investments more profitable, thus enabling one to reach one's personal goal sooner. Such a person would not concern him/herself with those less fortunate. The would-be millionaire could easily rationalize that those less fortunate should and need to be responsible for themselves. If some altruistic sucker do-gooders should decide to help the less fortunate to survive, it would not be an issue as long as the would-be millionaire did not have to help finance their efforts. If one were hell-bent on making a million dollars during the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, what would motivate one to oppose the New Deal as unconstitutional? Patriotism? Try old-fashioned greed. Greed would have motivated the rich and the would-be rich to oppose the WPA, the Conservation Corps and the rest of the New Deal programs that employed millions whose families would have starved otherwise.
Today we have a growing gulf in this country between the haves and the have-nots. The super-rich have the power to create jobs and to eliminate jobs. There are a lot of people in need of jobs and there is plenty of money to pay them to work. The super-rich and the large corporations have more than enough wealth to create jobs. Why don't they? Because they don't like the black President for whom they did not vote? Because they are protesting government regulations designed to preserve the general Welfare? Or is it just because of old-fashioned human greed? Human nature hasn't changed. The people with the most money were greedy in the nineteenth century and they are greedy today - greedy for wealth and power.
But she says no one has a right to a job.
7. A Better Economic System
While Paul Ryan, a Tea Party leader reportedly regards Ayn Rand as "the reason I got into public service", Ryan was apparently not referring to Rand's defense of individual rights nor to the role of government in protecting those rights. He was evidently referring to her valuing of capitalism, in particular laissez-faire capitalism, i.e., a system in which the owners of industry and business dictate the rules of competition, the conditions of labor, the cost and safety of products and services, the negative effects of their activities on the environment and on public health, etc. as they please, without government regulation or control. The fifth goal of the Tea Party as listed in the INTRODUCTION is "free market prosperity", i.e., laizze faire capitalism.
Ayn Rand wrote
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights,
including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.
1. Origin of Capitalism
Of the origin of capitalism, Rand wrote
The nineteenth century was the ultimate product and expression of the intellectual trend of the Renaissance and the Age of Reason, which means: of a predominantly Aristotelian philosophy. And, for the first time in history, it created a new economic system, the necessary corollary of political freedom, a system of free trade on a free market: capitalism.
Of the origin of capitalism, Rand wrote
The nineteenth century was the ultimate product and expression of the intellectual trend of the Renaissance and the Age of Reason, which means: of a predominantly Aristotelian philosophy. And, for the first time in history, it created a new economic system, the necessary corollary of political freedom, a system of free trade on a free market: capitalism.
No, it was not a full, perfect, unregulated, totally laissez-faire
capitalism—as it should have been. Various degrees of government interference
and control still remained, even in America—and this is what led to the
eventual destruction of capitalism.
Webster defined laissez-faire as
"the policy of letting the owners of industry and business fix the rules
of competition, the conditions of labor, etc.as they please, without
government regulation or control." Laizze faire capitalism will be the effect, if successful, of the Tea Party's efforts to cancel the power of the federal government to regulate corporations. Rand touts laizze-faire
capitalism as the best possible economic system even though she seems
to be saying that it never existed in a full and perfect way. But how
can something that never existed experience "eventual destruction"?
Rand says of the effects of the fledgling capitalism of the nineteenth century,
Never mind the low wages and the harsh living conditions of the early years of
capitalism. They were all that the national economies of the time could afford.
Capitalism did not create poverty—it inherited it.
The
captains of industry "of the time" lived like wealthy European
aristocracy. An economy that produces that much profit, can, in
fact, afford to pay its workers higher wages and create better working conditions.
Many people were poor before capitalism. Yes, the income of a
portion of the impoverished masses were improved because of the
industrial revolution. Extreme poverty was the reality for a number of
families before the beginning of the industrial period just as it is
today. In Rand's view, the greed of the robber barons should have been
allowed to persist without government interference. One may wonder how that would have
resulted in eradicating poverty.
2. Rational Thinking
Rand relates Capitalism to freedom as well as to "rationality".
Capitalism demands the best of every man—his rationality—and rewards him
accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to
specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as
far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him. His
success depends on the objective value of his work and on the rationality of
those who recognize that value. When men are free to trade, with reason and
reality as their only arbiter, when no man may use physical force to extort the
consent of another, it is the best product and the best judgment that win in
every field of human endeavor, and raise the standard of living—and of
thought—ever higher for all those who take part in mankind’s productive
activity.
Theoretically,
under a capitalistic system devoid of government "interference" (which has never actually existed in pure form),
everyone would produce what they needed to survive physically and
everyone would live happy and fulfilling lives without threatening each
other's individual human rights. Ayn Rand might admit that such a
society would have to consist of individuals who are rational thinkers.
What is "rational" thinking? The following quote explains what it is
not:
Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his
basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you
practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful
suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the
refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of
unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of
judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you
refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the
verdict “It is.
This
quote perfectly describes (1) the Tea party's seeming
denial or lack of concern for the growing economic inequality in this
country and the inability of less fortunate Americans to realize their
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and (2) the Tea Party's
faith in a
laissez-faire economic system.
From the above quote it seems logical to conclude that a pure laissez-faire system cannot exist until people become truly rational thinkers. Since the Tea Party wants to create a laissez-faire economic system in this country, PPM wonders how they are going to teach Americans to be rational thinkers. PPM suspects there is no plan. How can irrational thinkers teach others to think rationally?
3. Highest Standard of Living for whom?
Rand claims that
Capitalism has created the highest standard of living ever known on earth. The
evidence is incontrovertible. The contrast between West and East Berlin is the
latest demonstration, like a laboratory experiment for all to see. Yet those
who are loudest in proclaiming their desire to eliminate poverty are loudest in
denouncing capitalism. Man’s well-being is not their goal.
The
"highest standard of living" for whom? For the 1.5 million American
households existing on an income of less than $2.00 per day before
government benefits? For the people in America living without electricity in their homes? Or is Rand speaking of the 1,556,000 American
earners with an annual income exceeding $394,000? Or is it the top .5% of
earners with an annual income of $611,000 and up. Then again, the top
.1% have an even higher standard of living at a minimum $1,900,000 income
annually. But the .01% have the highest standard of all at $10,200,000
and up.
Nor does Rand credit the post-WWII Marshall Plan for the better economic conditions in West Berlin. She certainly would not have described the Marshall Plan as laissez-faire.
Nor does Rand credit the post-WWII Marshall Plan for the better economic conditions in West Berlin. She certainly would not have described the Marshall Plan as laissez-faire.
Maybe Rand was thinking about "rags to riches" stories when she wrote
about the poorest citizens' standard of living being raised to the
heights. But there were such stories before the capitalist era as well
as such instances in collectivist systems. Capitalism can not take
credit for all instances of rags to riches
More people dream about attaining great riches than those who actually
experience it. Unless one wins a mega-lottery drawing, there are factors that must
be in play in order for a poor person to become dazzlingly rich in this
society. Some of these factors may include a personality that won't impede one's success; a well-developed skill or talent; a number of competent, trustworthy, influential people willing to support one; a great hunger/desire/ambition leading to persistence; and a good networking system that results in meeting the right people at the right times. In some
cases, an unscrupulous willingness to do whatever is necessary to
advance oneself would also be helpful. Even with all that going for
one, there is no guarantee of riches.
4. Greed and Justice
Rand wrote
She does not try to deny that capitalism is a system based on greed. She rather tries to justify the greed because more people living under capitalism have benefited financially than those living under dictatorial systems. In other words, if one system has a poverty rate of 50% and the second system has a poverty rate of only 10%, the second system is almost perfect, even though it depends on greed for its success. PPM disagrees with this assessment. Greed exists even in dictatorial systems. It can not be legislated out of existence.
Capitalism
has been called a system of greed....
PPM supports the idea that no person has a moral obligation to sacrifice his/her health or well-being in order to "help" the less fortunate. However, there is still the question of people who earn more than enough to live a comfortable, healthful lifestyle but resent paying taxes because, by doing so, they might not be able to afford a new Mercedes or a Rolex or the latest 24-carot yellow gold I-phone.
If one's main goal in life is to be a millionaire, one would probably agree with the Tea Party's narrow interpretations of government powers because, if implemented, the Tea Party goals would result in one having to pay less income tax and would make one's investments more profitable, thus enabling one to reach one's personal goal sooner. Such a person would not concern him/herself with those less fortunate. The would-be millionaire could easily rationalize that those less fortunate should and need to be responsible for themselves. If some altruistic sucker do-gooders should decide to help the less fortunate to survive, it would not be an issue as long as the would-be millionaire did not have to help finance their efforts. If one were hell-bent on making a million dollars during the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, what would motivate one to oppose the New Deal as unconstitutional? Patriotism? Try old-fashioned greed. Greed would have motivated the rich and the would-be rich to oppose the WPA, the Conservation Corps and the rest of the New Deal programs that employed millions whose families would have starved otherwise.
Today we have a growing gulf in this country between the haves and the have-nots. The super-rich have the power to create jobs and to eliminate jobs. There are a lot of people in need of jobs and there is plenty of money to pay them to work. The super-rich and the large corporations have more than enough wealth to create jobs. Why don't they? Because they don't like the black President for whom they did not vote? Because they are protesting government regulations designed to preserve the general Welfare? Or is it just because of old-fashioned human greed? Human nature hasn't changed. The people with the most money were greedy in the nineteenth century and they are greedy today - greedy for wealth and power.
Rand believes in contractual relationships.
If the good, the virtuous, the morally ideal is suffering and
self-sacrifice—then, by that standard, capitalism had to be damned as evil.
Capitalism does not tell men to suffer, but to pursue enjoyment and
achievement, here, on earth—capitalism does not tell men to serve and
sacrifice, but to produce and profit—capitalism does not preach passivity,
humility, resignation, but independence, self-confidence, self-reliance—and,
above all, capitalism does not permit anyone to expect or demand, to give or to
take the unearned. In all human relationships—private or public, spiritual
or material, social or political or economic or moral—capitalism requires that
men be guided by a principle which is the antithesis of altruism: the principle
of justice.
Is a fair contract more likely to be made with a just person or a
greedy person? Rand asserts that the worker is free to work for an
employer or not, free to quit his job or not. That may work well for
skilled and professional workers. But what about millions of unskilled
workers? Their only choice may be to work for the greedy boss or be
unemployed. This situation raises two questions. (1) How can one call
that justice? (2) Is that an endorsement for laisse-faire
capitalism? Rand and the Tea Party would say each and every unskilled
worker has the power to better themselves. If all unskilled workers decided to better themselves
at the same time, would there be enough skilled jobs to employ them all? Whenever there is a surplus of available jobs, the
unfairly treated worker is free to quit. In a market with a surplus
of workers, skilled or unskilled, a worker may have to choose between
unsatisfactory working conditions and joblessness. And who would do the
work the formerly unskilled millions were doing before bettering
themselves? Would employers import millions of foreign people like they do in
Saudi Arabia, people who don't mind working for next to nothing? Then
again, they do that already. Migrant farm workers.
Laisse-faire
capitalism would not have been a system that would be fair to everyone
in the nineteenth century and it would even be more unfair to more
people today.
5. The Effects of Laizze Faire
5. The Effects of Laizze Faire
If one trusts the leaders of business and industry to simply
respect individual rights, one should become acquainted with the
robber baron period of American History at the beginning of the
Industrial Revolution. There is a book by Howard Zinn entitled History is a Weapon (http://www.historyisaweapon.com),
the eleventh chapter of which is entitled "Robber Barons and Rebels"
that addresses the problems of that period. Or one could check out the
diary "Historic Repetition and Soylent Green" posted Mon Jul 21, 2014 at 09:00 AM PDT on Daily Kos. The Tea Party's goals listed in the INTRODUCTION seem to express the aim of "turning back the
clock" to a time when the federal
government only exercised what the Tea Party claims are those powers
enumerated in the Constitution. If one watched Ken Burns' PBS documentary "The Roosevelts:
An Intimate History", one may suspect that the powers of the federal
government were more limited during the period preceding the administration
of Theodore Roosevelt. The robber barons were doing their thing
at that time.
Why would the Tea Party
think that conditions would improve for the lower classes today if all
that power was returned to the captains of business and industry? The lower classes suffered under the robber barons more
then than they do today. Why would anyone want to repeat that?
If one thinks, that in the absence of regulations, one will simply
and easily be able to secure redress for damages through the court
system, one should watch the movies Flash of Genius or The Insider, or Erin Brockovich. One
may be able to successfully sue a corporation for
environmental/health damages if one has enough time and money. But
aren't those who possess enough time and money living in
neighborhoods that aren't exposed to nearby illegal dumping of
chemical waste or contamination of their ground water from fracking? The
same people who can afford to feed their families organic food without
toxic
chemicals and GMOs.
What
can be expected if the Tea Party has its way? A higher rate of
environmentally-related diseases, more accidents from unsafe products,
higher incidence of sickness from contaminated and unsafe foods and food
additives, more health complications from changed agricultural growing
methods. More industrial accidents. Also, the rate of global burning
will increase resulting in more violent storms, more forest fires,
faster rising sea levels, worse drought conditions. Health care costs
will increase due to increased numbers of patients. There will be more
unemployment and underemployment. There will be a decrease in energy
efficiency in office buildings and an increase in all types of toxic
emissions.
Who would benefit from laissez faire? Who
would profit the most from the Tea Party's plan? Bankers, corporation owners
and large stock holders would benefit
the most in a financial sense. Not only would the production cost of
products and services be less without government regulations, consumers
would buy more products and services with the extra money that would
result from lower taxes. Would the cost of goods and services
decrease? Not necessarily. Business owners might increase prices figuring that consumers have more to spend.
The other people that would benefit from laissez-faire are
the legislators who would no longer be responsible for protecting
individual rights and promoting the Common Good by regulating private enterprises. It would not be
surprising, however, if the legislators expected the same pay and
benefits for less work.
6. Capitalism and Unemployment
Ayn Rand thinks of work as producing that which others value.
It is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his
work.
But she says no one has a right to a job.
There is no such thing as “a right to a job”—there is only the right of free
trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him.
PPM believes the government should never force
owners of business and industry to hire any one person nor number of
people. Also, people have the right to establish their own business
within lawful parameters. PPM believes that if the business start-up
process were cheaper and less complicated, more people would do it.
Bureaucracy needs to be "streamlined" and made more affordable.
Many people fail at establishing a profitable business for various
reasons. A program on NPR radio recently reported that only 30% of new business
start-ups survive for the first ten years. Some people know they would
not succeed in starting a business even before trying. If one is unemployed and is one of the
aforementioned, and there are no jobs to be had, should society simply
ignore the person? If there are no jobs in the private sector to be
had, whose fault is that? Some would say the fault is the government's
because of government regulations that protect individual human rights,
or because corporate taxes are too high, etc. I am not willing to
sacrifice my human rights in order for everyone to be employed. Many
corporations don't pay their fair share in taxes as it is.
7. A Better Economic System
Rand wrote
What greater virtue can one ascribe to a social system than the fact that it
leaves no possibility for any man to serve his own interests by enslaving other
men? What nobler system could be desired by anyone whose goal is man’s
well-being?
A fair question. How about an alternative
system that respects and protects every one's individual rights; provides
everyone accessibility to the general Welfare;
takes care of those who are disabled from working; and provides a job
to every able adult who needs one, decent jobs that pay at least a
healthful living wage (see section #8 below). This is not a description of a laissez-faire system nor the system we presently have. How would this PPM endorsed alternative system be structured?
If private business is unwilling or unable to hire to the extent
that every adult citizen willing and able to work has a job that pays at
least a healthful living wage, PPM believes it would be proper and right for the government to create temporary jobs for the unemployed that enhance and
maintain the general Welfare. These jobs could be designed to suit the abilities/talents of the hired workers and
should pay at least a healthful
living wage to start. There should be total freedom for the temporary
employees to switch employment to the private sector whenever
the desire and opportunity to do so presents itself. There should be a
guarantee of temporary government employment for as long as it is
necessary as well as opportunities to apply for permanent government
positions. The temporary workers would be held to job standards
equivalent to permanent workers and receive benefits comparable to other government workers doing similar jobs. Failure to meet those standards of performance could be interpreted as
an unwillingness to work.
PPM does not believe that there are Americans with the ability to work and who have a need for money, but who are unwilling to work ever, under any circumstances, if given the opportunity. But, as a general principle, PPM doesn't believe society nor the government has an obligation to provide for adults who are able but unwilling to perform available decent productive work in return for at least a healthful living wage.
PPM does not believe that there are Americans with the ability to work and who have a need for money, but who are unwilling to work ever, under any circumstances, if given the opportunity. But, as a general principle, PPM doesn't believe society nor the government has an obligation to provide for adults who are able but unwilling to perform available decent productive work in return for at least a healthful living wage.
Some would say the fault is the government's
because of government regulations that protect individual human rights,
or because corporate taxes are too high, etc. I am not willing to
sacrifice my human rights in order for everyone to be employed. Many
corporations don't pay their fair share in taxes as it is.
What is the purpose of a job? If you are a boss
or business owner the purpose for hiring help is for you to compel your
workers to do what is necessary for you to make as much money as
possible. From another point of view, a job is a means of giving a
worker a purpose, of enabling him/her to survive, and a means of earning at
least enough to live a healthful lifestyle. This, in turn, allows the
worker the opportunity to experience life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
All people who work should be able to afford a
healthful lifestyle. With a government funded work program, private
businesses would be motivated to pay their employees at least a
healthful living wage, since, if they did not, workers earning less
would have the option of earning more by going to work for the general Welfare. The need for unemployment compensation and welfare payments would decrease dramatically
8 . A Healthful Living Wage
The concept of the healthful lifestyle was described in Part B (INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS), Section 3 (Right To Health). A healthful living wage is an amount that allows one to afford a healthful lifestyle. The formula
for determining the amount of a healthful living wage might be a bit
complicated but would be similar to the formula for determining the
amount of food stamps for which each applicant is eligible. The cost of
living where the person resides would be one factor in determining the
cost of his/her healthful lifestyle.
One needs a warm, safe place to live in order to remain healthy.
The cost of renting an apartment varies greatly depending on where one
lives. The average monthly cost could be as low as $623 or as high as $4000 according to CBS MONEY WATCH
(http://www.cbsnews.com/media/top-10-cheapest-us-cities-to-rent-an-apartment/).
The average rental cost nationwide is $1200/month according to this
source.
To be healthy, one must heat one's residence and one's water supply. The average energy cost for residences in the U.S. according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration is $107.28 monthly (http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3).
The right to health should include the cost of an organic diet. One study found that cost was 70% higher than the USDA's Thrifty Food Plan (http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/26759/1/36010020.pdf). According to the USDA (http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/26759/1/36010020.pdf) an average American male 19-50 years old, as of August, 2014 could feed himself adequately on $43.30 per week. If an organic diet is 70% higher, that cost would be $73.61.
One needs a reasonable amount of exercise to stay healthy. One can get an minimum of healthful exercise through walking or jogging. A good pair of jogging or walking shoes can be purchased mail order for ap. $90. Two pairs would hopefully be adequate for a year.
In regard to dental care, one can purchase a dental plan for about $50/month. But that will not pay 100% of crowns, etc. If one is working for the government or a large business, one's benefits package hopefully includes medical coverage.
So far, for an average American male 19-50 years of age, a healthful living wage could be $20,280/year or $1690/month or $9.82/hour for a 40-hour work week. The healthful living wage might be lower than that for someone whose rent is only $623/ month. But if one lives in San Francisco where the median rent rate is $4000, $9.82/hour could be grossly inadequate for a healthful lifestyle.
To be healthy, one must heat one's residence and one's water supply. The average energy cost for residences in the U.S. according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration is $107.28 monthly (http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3).
The right to health should include the cost of an organic diet. One study found that cost was 70% higher than the USDA's Thrifty Food Plan (http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/26759/1/36010020.pdf). According to the USDA (http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/26759/1/36010020.pdf) an average American male 19-50 years old, as of August, 2014 could feed himself adequately on $43.30 per week. If an organic diet is 70% higher, that cost would be $73.61.
One needs a reasonable amount of exercise to stay healthy. One can get an minimum of healthful exercise through walking or jogging. A good pair of jogging or walking shoes can be purchased mail order for ap. $90. Two pairs would hopefully be adequate for a year.
In regard to dental care, one can purchase a dental plan for about $50/month. But that will not pay 100% of crowns, etc. If one is working for the government or a large business, one's benefits package hopefully includes medical coverage.
So far, for an average American male 19-50 years of age, a healthful living wage could be $20,280/year or $1690/month or $9.82/hour for a 40-hour work week. The healthful living wage might be lower than that for someone whose rent is only $623/ month. But if one lives in San Francisco where the median rent rate is $4000, $9.82/hour could be grossly inadequate for a healthful lifestyle.
In regard to children of working parents, PPM favors quality government-funded day care for low-income parents. This would allow single parents to work full-time.
9. Socialism?
E. OPPOSING THE PROGRESSIVE POLITICAL MOVEMENT
Some will call the positions of the PPM "socialism". One may wonder which of the following
items these name-callers think is socially acceptable in a country that calls itself
the leader of the free world?
1. Homeless citizens
2. Unemployment of able adults needing jobs
3. Inability of some citizens to afford adequate health care
4. Citizens living in extreme poverty
5. Inability of some citizens to afford a healthful lifestyle
6. Large corporations and the super-rich not paying enough in taxes to eliminate these conditions
The above question is relevant to the next
election. Voting for Tea Party candidates and most, if not all,
Republican candidates is a vote for those six conditions listed above.
It is also a vote for increasing the wealth of the richest Americans while other Americans continue losing net worth.
(According to an article at www.pewsocialtrends.org/.../a-rise-in-wealth-for-the-wealthydeclines-for... entitled "A Rise in Wealth for the Wealthy; Declines for the Lower
93% - An Uneven Recovery, 2009-2011" by Richard Fry and Paul Taylor, the economic net worth of households of the 7%
most affluent Americans increased an average of 28% from 2009 to 2011.
The net worth of the less affluent 93% of Americans fell by 4%.)
The Progressive Political Movement of SW PA should not be confused with
either of the two major political parties. The PPM is independent of
both. But the positions taken by the PPM are more in alignment with
Democratic Progressive candidates than with Republicans.
10. Proposed Constitutional Amendment
The "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is found in
the Declaration of Independence. Even though the wording
implies that the authors of the Declaration felt that a purpose of
governments was to secure these rights, technically the securing of
these rights is not a power nor duty of the federal government as
enumerated in the Constitution. There is also an opinion that the federal government is not obligated to protect those rights but only obligated not to deprive citizens
of those rights without due process of law. One can read the text for
oneself and see if it sounds like a purpose of government is to secure
those rights for men in a positive fashion or for government to restrain
itself from taking away those rights.
The Progressive Political Movement of SW PA believes that all people are created equal, have inalienable rights, and deserve to have those rights protected. PPM also believes that all Americans, including Native Americans, deserve access to the general Welfare. There are those who believe that the "original enumerated constitutional powers" of the federal government don't include protecting individual rights and promoting and maintaining the general Welfare. If the Founding Fathers possessed the scientific and medical understanding of human health that is common knowledge in our time, perhaps they would have made more specific Constitutional provisions for keeping every one's health from being threatened by factors that did not even exist in their day.
If the Tea Party has its way, a substantial portion of the American population will be doomed to hopeless dependence on hand-outs, living in endless extreme poverty, increasing illness, etc. As a step toward preventing these negative effects and creating a fairer system of government, a constitutional amendment would be helpful. This would not be unconstitutional as Article 5 of the Constitution makes provisions for Constitutional changes.
The Progressive Political Movement of SW PA believes that all people are created equal, have inalienable rights, and deserve to have those rights protected. PPM also believes that all Americans, including Native Americans, deserve access to the general Welfare. There are those who believe that the "original enumerated constitutional powers" of the federal government don't include protecting individual rights and promoting and maintaining the general Welfare. If the Founding Fathers possessed the scientific and medical understanding of human health that is common knowledge in our time, perhaps they would have made more specific Constitutional provisions for keeping every one's health from being threatened by factors that did not even exist in their day.
If the Tea Party has its way, a substantial portion of the American population will be doomed to hopeless dependence on hand-outs, living in endless extreme poverty, increasing illness, etc. As a step toward preventing these negative effects and creating a fairer system of government, a constitutional amendment would be helpful. This would not be unconstitutional as Article 5 of the Constitution makes provisions for Constitutional changes.
Article I, Section 8 lists about 18 powers of Congress. The PPM suggests
that 16 powers of the Federal Government be added to the Constitution.
This would hopefully relieve the legislative gridlock in Congress as
well as giving every American the opportunity to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.
The 16 suggested additional powers of the Federal Government are as follows:
1. To ensure that all citizens have access to a quality Common Good.
2.
To protect and defend the individual rights to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness for all citizens whenever state and local
governments fail to do so.
3. To provide for all citizens who are
disabled to the extent that they are able to live as healthfully and
fully as possible wherever and whenever the states fail to do this.
4.
To ensure that all financially-challenged adults who are able and
willing to work have a decent job that pays at least a minimum healthful
living wage.
5. To ensure the safety and nutritional value of all
foods sold and/or produced in the U.S. and full disclosure of all
man-made additives, genetically modified ingredients or organisms, as
well as any known allergens, whenever the states fail to do so.
6. To ensure the safety of all products and services marketed in the U.S. whenever the states fail to do
so.
7.
To establish and enforce safety and health procedures to protect
workers whenever the states fail to do this to an adequate extent.
8.
To protect environmental quality and establish the most
environmentally-friendly practices on and for all federally owned and/or
administered properties.
9. To prevent unnecessary pollution,
that is, any health-threatening emissions from the manufacturing of
non-essential products. To prevent health-threatening emissions from
the manufacture of products necessary for human health and well-being
and/or for preserving environmental quality when such emissions can be
contained by the Best Available Technology. To prevent the emission of
toxins from any source of human activity when those toxins can be
contained by the best affordable available technology.
10. To
eliminate or compel landlords to remediate or demolish any sub-quality rental units
when state and local governments fail to do so.
11. To make rules for the reasonable treatment of workers by employers when the local and state governments fail to do so.
12.
To require full disclosure by producers of all man-made chemicals or of
other naturally-occurring toxins that workers/and or consumers have been
exposed to or might be exposed to in the future.
13. To ensure access to a quality Common Good
and the opportunity to afford a healthful lifestyle to all individual Native
Americans living on reservations if their tribal governments fail to do
so.
14. To access the success of all primary
and secondary educational systems in the U.S. and its territories in
terms of preparing students for gainful employment or additional education/training
upon graduation from high school. To intervene in schools with
unacceptable rates of success when states fail to do so.
15. To take the necessary steps to ensure that the federal
government can afford to exercise these powers into the future and
still pay off the National Debt as soon as possible.
16.
These powers of the federal government are not designed to usurp the
authority of the states to exercise the same powers within their
boundaries. The states may establish stricter regulations as long as
those are not unconstitutional. All citizens, businesses, local
municipalities within a state are legally obligated to follow the
strictest regulations.
Despite the federal
government's exercise of allegedly unconstitutional powers, the
problems of economic inequality, injustice, lack of opportunity, chronic disease, etc. are all increasing. Do most Americans want to
live in a country dominated by the greed of the powerful or in a country
in which the government has the power and will to oppose that greed for
the sake of all the people?
The suggested Constitutional changes listed above will not gender general support among those who possess power in America. This section will try to explain why that is and PPM's response.
Many Americans, even some of those less fortunate, seem to expect wealthier individuals and families to naturally be entitled to more rights and privileges than those less financially blessed. A common attitude of the wealthy can be expressed as follows:
I worked for this. Anyone else could do the same. I have nothing to be ashamed of nor to apologize for. I owe nothing to anyone.
Perhaps rich people with that attitude believe in the myth of "the self-made man". Actually no one has risen from rags to riches without a lot of help and support and reliable counsel. Attaining great wealth is not simply a matter of "pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps". A number of today's wealthiest families in America did not have to work for the wealth that they keep increasing through investments, etc. They inherited it.
Then there are those that make a great deal of wealth from oil, real estate, precious metals, coal, natural gas, chemical manufacturing. One reason that it is possible for specific individuals to profit so much from natural resources in this country is that the U.S. government allows it to happen. In contrast, the government of Norway decided in May of 1963 to claim the natural resources in its part of the North Sea. It established a state-run oil company. All of the oil taken from Norway's off-shore wells are taxed at 78%. Results? A national fund worth $880 billion. In this country, that money would be part of the wealth of the Upper 1%. In Norway it theoretically belongs to all citizens.
PPM does not believe this country is ready for such a progressive approach to sharing the wealth of the country's natural resources. But, from a strict moral and ideal legal viewpoint, the natural resources of the American continent and its territorial waters belong to the descendants of the Native American tribes that occupied the continent when the first Europeans landed in the "New World". There was never an international legal justification for Europeans to "claim" land in the Americas for their Monarchs. Their standing on it did not make it their land to claim. For kings to parcel out land in the "new World" to their favorite subjects wasn't legal. Nor was it ideally legal nor strictly moral for "ownership" of American territory to pass from Mexico or France to the United States, since those countries stole the land from the original occupiers. It is the equivalent of China marching its army into Tibet in the 1950s and claiming that Tibet was now part of China. Nothing legal or moral about it. What right did Britain have to possess India? It is unfortunate that Native Americans (Indians) did not have a Gandhi to lead them. Unfortunate for them, fortunate for the conquerors.
Buffy St. Marie wrote a powerful line in one of her songs about the plight of Native Americans. Actually the whole song is quite powerful. The line is
Can't you see that their poverty's profiting you? (http://www.allmusic.com/song/my-country-tis-of-thy-people-youre-dying-mt0012073438/lyrics).
How much have the European invaders profited from acquiring the land in the continental U.S.? According to an article on Moneybox, the total value of land owned by households and non-profit organizations in America, based on data from the Federal Reserve was $7.812 trillion as of Dec., 2013. This figure does not include the cost of structures on that land. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/12/20/value_of_all_land_in_the_united_states.html).
One may wonder how many Native Americans privately own land in the U.S. Wouldn't it be somewhat ironic for a Native American to pay money for real estate located on land his ancestors occupied before it was stolen from them? It would be like a person's grandfather stealing a brand new 1957 Chrysler and preserving it in a garage. The grandfather leaves the car to his son. Then the car passes to the grandson, who then decides to sell it as a vintage car in mint condition. It would be ironic if the person who buys it was a descendant of the original owner of the stolen Chrysler. The statute of limitations on the crime may have run out, but the transaction would still be wrong, wrong, wrong.
The PPM is not advocating returning the land and natural resources of the United States to the tribes from whom the land and resources were essentially extorted. PPM would like this issue to be taken into consideration by those who tend to explain away or to justify the economic disparity in this country. It may change their attitude.
The very rich minority (number-wise) are legally hoarding more and more wealth for themselves, rather than using that increasing wealth to create good jobs for the unemployed, jobs that would not violate rights nor threaten the general Welfare, and that would pay at least a minimum healthful living wage.
Everyone should have the right to do with the money they earn legally whatever they desire as long as it respects the rights of others, is legal, etc. PPM does not advocate trying to make greed illegal. PPM does not believe in legislating morality. However, there is something intrinsically unfair about a system in which some people are able to limitlessly accumulate thousands of times more wealth than they need, while others are forced to live in extreme poverty. If the reader has any doubt that this is the present state of America, he/she is welcome and encouraged to check out the research-based Plutocracy Blog at www.savingrepublic.blogspot.com.
Securing universal individual rights and full employment into the future requires a pro-active commitment of American citizens rather than the passive "let's wait and see" approach.
Note: There is no fund raising connected with the Progressive Political Movement of SW PA. If any one requests money in the name of PPM, know that it is a bogus request.
To contact the Movement, send email to rgphilo1@gmail.com.
11/10/14
1. Attitudes
Attitude is a factor that seems to be often overlooked in attempts to explain the problems of American society. Unproductive attitudes can not be legislated away. They can, however, interfere with the process of positive change. Unproductive attitudes can also be exposed. Since PPM exists for the cause of positive change, PPM exposes unproductive attitudes in this section. Many Americans, even some of those less fortunate, seem to expect wealthier individuals and families to naturally be entitled to more rights and privileges than those less financially blessed. A common attitude of the wealthy can be expressed as follows:
I worked for this. Anyone else could do the same. I have nothing to be ashamed of nor to apologize for. I owe nothing to anyone.
Perhaps rich people with that attitude believe in the myth of "the self-made man". Actually no one has risen from rags to riches without a lot of help and support and reliable counsel. Attaining great wealth is not simply a matter of "pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps". A number of today's wealthiest families in America did not have to work for the wealth that they keep increasing through investments, etc. They inherited it.
Then there are those that make a great deal of wealth from oil, real estate, precious metals, coal, natural gas, chemical manufacturing. One reason that it is possible for specific individuals to profit so much from natural resources in this country is that the U.S. government allows it to happen. In contrast, the government of Norway decided in May of 1963 to claim the natural resources in its part of the North Sea. It established a state-run oil company. All of the oil taken from Norway's off-shore wells are taxed at 78%. Results? A national fund worth $880 billion. In this country, that money would be part of the wealth of the Upper 1%. In Norway it theoretically belongs to all citizens.
PPM does not believe this country is ready for such a progressive approach to sharing the wealth of the country's natural resources. But, from a strict moral and ideal legal viewpoint, the natural resources of the American continent and its territorial waters belong to the descendants of the Native American tribes that occupied the continent when the first Europeans landed in the "New World". There was never an international legal justification for Europeans to "claim" land in the Americas for their Monarchs. Their standing on it did not make it their land to claim. For kings to parcel out land in the "new World" to their favorite subjects wasn't legal. Nor was it ideally legal nor strictly moral for "ownership" of American territory to pass from Mexico or France to the United States, since those countries stole the land from the original occupiers. It is the equivalent of China marching its army into Tibet in the 1950s and claiming that Tibet was now part of China. Nothing legal or moral about it. What right did Britain have to possess India? It is unfortunate that Native Americans (Indians) did not have a Gandhi to lead them. Unfortunate for them, fortunate for the conquerors.
Buffy St. Marie wrote a powerful line in one of her songs about the plight of Native Americans. Actually the whole song is quite powerful. The line is
Can't you see that their poverty's profiting you? (http://www.allmusic.com/song/my-country-tis-of-thy-people-youre-dying-mt0012073438/lyrics).
How much have the European invaders profited from acquiring the land in the continental U.S.? According to an article on Moneybox, the total value of land owned by households and non-profit organizations in America, based on data from the Federal Reserve was $7.812 trillion as of Dec., 2013. This figure does not include the cost of structures on that land. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/12/20/value_of_all_land_in_the_united_states.html).
One may wonder how many Native Americans privately own land in the U.S. Wouldn't it be somewhat ironic for a Native American to pay money for real estate located on land his ancestors occupied before it was stolen from them? It would be like a person's grandfather stealing a brand new 1957 Chrysler and preserving it in a garage. The grandfather leaves the car to his son. Then the car passes to the grandson, who then decides to sell it as a vintage car in mint condition. It would be ironic if the person who buys it was a descendant of the original owner of the stolen Chrysler. The statute of limitations on the crime may have run out, but the transaction would still be wrong, wrong, wrong.
The PPM is not advocating returning the land and natural resources of the United States to the tribes from whom the land and resources were essentially extorted. PPM would like this issue to be taken into consideration by those who tend to explain away or to justify the economic disparity in this country. It may change their attitude.
The people who profit from
exploiting natural resources in this country are respected, admired, and
envied, even though these resources don't legally or morally belong to
them. Wealthy families whose ancestors originally became rich and
powerful through bootlegging, smuggling, illegal arms running, or slave
trading get the same respect, admiration, and envy. And yet all of
these rich people, in order to grow even wealthier, depend on millions
of "peons" to do good work. As more money flows from the bottom of the
economy to the top, those toward the bottom have to get along with less.
Studies have shown that those with more wealth, in general, are
less caring about the plight/problems of those less fortunate ( see Aug. 20, 2013 issue of Personality and Social Psychology,"Wealth
and the Inflated Self: Class, Entitlement, and Narcissism"). Perhaps
it is unreasonable to expect the super-wealthy to
be willing to pay more income tax or to support legislation that
would give the impoverished a "hand up" rather than a "hand out". Considering the source of their
great wealth, a social conscience might be a very uncomfortable
encumbrance.
America may have the "highest" standard of living the world has ever known. But that standard was not achieved without a whole lot of sacrifice. The United States is quite blessed, in a material sense. Great wealth is not the problem. There is more than enough to ensure that every one can live a healthful lifestyle. The problem is that the wealth of the nation is disproportionately distributed to the extent that some citizens are unfairly deprived of the opportunity to earn enough from a decent job to afford a healthful lifestyle.
PPM believes this is a problem worth caring about and worth solving. An attitude of indifference on the part of those who have the power to solve it is counterproductive.
The physical resources necessary to survive and thrive on the planet Earth are limited. Even if all resources were evenly distributed among an expanding population, everyone would have to get along with less and less over time until eventually people started dying from exposure, starvation, etc. Before that happened, the most powerful individuals would form groups to hoard the remaining resources in order to ensure their own survival. The Tea Party laissez-faire solution would simply allow that process to accelerate and intensify.
The PPM does not endorse laws requiring people to be licensed in order to birth a child. Nor does PPM endorse requiring passing a parental training test to acquire such a license. At this time PPM does not endorse anyone convicted of domestic abuse from being prohibited from becoming a parent.
This is America where most adults are free to have sex with any willing partner. That being the case, PPM favors the Federal Government being more pro-active in encouraging voluntary population limits.
A government campaign for voluntary population limitations could attempt to encourage people who want more than two children, to save enough money to ensure that they can take care of the additional children before conception. It will cost $245,340 to rear a child born in 2013 from birth up to age 18 according to www.usatoday.com/story/.../raising-child-cost...4236535/. The alternative is say nothing and hope that the family will not need financial support from government.
Government could also stop rewarding people financially for having more than two children. The same with government programs that give more financial assistance to families with more children. These benefits to those with more than two children could be phased out over 18 years.
There will be those who think that encouraging the limitations on family size based on affordability is racist. Is limiting home ownership to those who can afford to purchase and maintain a home racist? So why would encouraging people to limit the number of children to that which they can support, be racist? Because numbers of non-whites are increasing faster than whites?
There are some who think all humans should one day have the opportunity to live in a massive mansion in the sky and that people should keep having more and more children until that one person is born who can figure out how to construct such a monstrosity. Will future generations appreciate being left with a legacy of deprived rights and resources due to an ever expanding human population?
The present condition of our country is unacceptable. On that point, PPM agrees with the Tea Party. The federal
government, as well as other branches of government, mismanage government funds through numerous unnecessary
expenditures. The elimination of those wasteful expenditures
would save multi-billions yearly. PPM, however, does not believe in downsizing
government so that the rich will have to pay less in taxes.America may have the "highest" standard of living the world has ever known. But that standard was not achieved without a whole lot of sacrifice. The United States is quite blessed, in a material sense. Great wealth is not the problem. There is more than enough to ensure that every one can live a healthful lifestyle. The problem is that the wealth of the nation is disproportionately distributed to the extent that some citizens are unfairly deprived of the opportunity to earn enough from a decent job to afford a healthful lifestyle.
PPM believes this is a problem worth caring about and worth solving. An attitude of indifference on the part of those who have the power to solve it is counterproductive.
2. The Opposition
The attitude of indifference is counterproductive to implementing the positive changes advocated by the Progressive Political Movement of SW PA. But there are also a number of entities that will actively resist these positive changes. Who are they and why do they oppose Federal government support of individual rights, universal access to the general Welfare, and full employment? - The Tea Party won't like PPM ideas because Tea Party followers believe the Federal Government has no constitutional power to defend individual rights and because the PPM is not pro-laissez faire.
- Some church leaders and the Religious Right will
resist the PPM because of the suggestion that birth control would be
helpful in preserving individual rights and access to a quality Common Good for future generations. Many Church leaders seem to care more about people’s souls than they care about keeping peoples' bodies healthy. Someone
needs to be concerned about people's physical health and well-being.
That role could be filled by society and government.
- Government employees, those who prefer to remain complacent and indifferent, will dislike the PPM suggestions because PPM would expect these employees to take some initiative to cut waste and save revenue while still performing responsibly.
- Conservative politicians won't support the PPM because its goal is not to help Big Business which the conservatives depend on for generous political campaign contributions.
- Big Business won't like PPM because it advocates a separation between government and private enterprise that would deprive big business of billions of dollars in government subsidies (entitlements). Also Big Business does not favor protections for consumers, workers, and the environment. These protection expenses decrease profits, at least in the short run.
- The conventional food industry will object because they don't want to grant consumers the right to know what's in their food.
- Some Native American tribal leaders won't care for PPM ideas because they might threaten the power of the leaders' political status.
- Slum landlords will not favor PPM because its implemented ideas would decrease the demand for sub-quality housing.
- Educators may resent intervention by government. The PPM favors governments having the power to intervene if and when it is determined that educational programs have not prepared high school students for post-graduate life.
- The wealthy won't like the PPM suggestion that the taxes of those who earn the most should be increased.
- IF there are poor lazy citizens who would prefer to accept hand-outs rather than earning a healthful living wage they would object to the PPM because it would allow the government not to reward those who are able but not willing to work.
- Reckless people who engage in health endangering behaviors will not support the PPM because of PPM's position that it would be fair to the rest of the population to not have to pay more in health insurance premiums because of the behavior of reckless people.
- White Supremacists will oppose the PPM's assertions that people of all races are created equal and that whites do not deserve more than non-whites because of skin color.
- Materialists won't like PPM because it asserts that individual rights are more important than the values of Materialism (see www.savingrepublic.blogspot.com, Section D Materialism).
- Ordinary racists will not approve the positions of the PPM because these positions challenge the racist belief that the lower classes are disadvantaged because they are lazy and don't care to be industrious.
- Abusers will be threatened by the PPM. Abuse means to treat badly, insult, use coarse language, injure, deceive, violate individual rights. PPM suggests that our country is full of abusers at all socio-economic levels and in all sectors of society. Abusers need victims, those they perceive as weaker, poorer, inferior, etc. PPM ideas, if implemented, would give the weaker the opportunity to get stronger; the poorer, richer; the inferior, less inferior. It would make it harder for abusers to find victims. Abusers would hate the PPM.
- Members of Organized Crime would resist PPM for the same reasons as other abusers.
*****
One thing the Tea Party and PPM agree upon is
that America is not living up to its potential. By "potential" PPM is
not referring to more money for the Upper 1%. It doesn't mean an
unemployment rate of
3%. It doesn't mean more millionaires. Potential for PPM does mean
liberty and justice for
all the people. Freedom from abuse for everyone. No one forced to live
in poverty or sub-quality housing or homelessness. There is enough to
prevent anyone from being deprived of the necessities for a healthful
lifestyle and access to a quality Common Good. Why are the
17 categories of people listed above allowed to get in the way of
America's
realizing its potential?
F. INTO THE FUTURE (POPULATION GROWTH)
The goal of ensuring the continuing right of all citizens to a
healthful lifestyle and access to the general Welfare could fail in
the future due to overpopulation.
At the present time, there is enough income in this country for all
adult citizens to earn enough to live a healthful lifestyle. Imagine that there are twice as many American citizens living in the
U.S. (632 million instead of 316 million), but no more total private
wealth/income than there is today. If that were to occur, there may not
be enough money in the whole country for all 632 million people to live
a healthful lifestyle and to have access to the general Welfare. The physical resources necessary to survive and thrive on the planet Earth are limited. Even if all resources were evenly distributed among an expanding population, everyone would have to get along with less and less over time until eventually people started dying from exposure, starvation, etc. Before that happened, the most powerful individuals would form groups to hoard the remaining resources in order to ensure their own survival. The Tea Party laissez-faire solution would simply allow that process to accelerate and intensify.
The PPM does not endorse laws requiring people to be licensed in order to birth a child. Nor does PPM endorse requiring passing a parental training test to acquire such a license. At this time PPM does not endorse anyone convicted of domestic abuse from being prohibited from becoming a parent.
This is America where most adults are free to have sex with any willing partner. That being the case, PPM favors the Federal Government being more pro-active in encouraging voluntary population limits.
A government campaign for voluntary population limitations could attempt to encourage people who want more than two children, to save enough money to ensure that they can take care of the additional children before conception. It will cost $245,340 to rear a child born in 2013 from birth up to age 18 according to www.usatoday.com/story/.../raising-child-cost...4236535/. The alternative is say nothing and hope that the family will not need financial support from government.
Government could also stop rewarding people financially for having more than two children. The same with government programs that give more financial assistance to families with more children. These benefits to those with more than two children could be phased out over 18 years.
There will be those who think that encouraging the limitations on family size based on affordability is racist. Is limiting home ownership to those who can afford to purchase and maintain a home racist? So why would encouraging people to limit the number of children to that which they can support, be racist? Because numbers of non-whites are increasing faster than whites?
If
it were the other way around and the
white population was increasing faster than the non-white population,
the position of PPM on population limits would remain unchanged and
still it might be called racist
because more whites have enough money to support additional children
without depending on the government.
Economic disparity in this country
favors more whites
than non-whites. But there are poor white people. It can be said that even if a white man is as poor as a
black man, the white man is still better off because the white man has “White
Privilege”. PPM does not disagree with that. But the PPM solution would improve the living conditions and
human rights of poor non-whites as well as poor whites.
What if there were only whites in America? There would still be growing economic
disparity. Poorer white people would be
discriminated against by richer whites.
There would still be a health care crisis. There would still be hate groups opposed to white
homosexuals, transsexuals, and the super rich.
There would still be abusive behavior in all sectors of society; it
would be all white on white abuse. An
all-white America would have the same problems and the PPM Solution would still be helpful in solving those problems.There are some who think all humans should one day have the opportunity to live in a massive mansion in the sky and that people should keep having more and more children until that one person is born who can figure out how to construct such a monstrosity. Will future generations appreciate being left with a legacy of deprived rights and resources due to an ever expanding human population?
Then there’s the immigration
issue. Even if Americans could manage
to limit their
population growth,
massive numbers of immigrants could threaten the workability of the PPM solution.
Perhaps the immigrant quota could be determined by the number of
Americans dying or leaving the country compared to the number of
newborns, that is, babies born to American citizens and to legal and/or
illegal and/or undocumented immigrants.
G. CONCLUSION
The very rich minority (number-wise) are legally hoarding more and more wealth for themselves, rather than using that increasing wealth to create good jobs for the unemployed, jobs that would not violate rights nor threaten the general Welfare, and that would pay at least a minimum healthful living wage.
Everyone should have the right to do with the money they earn legally whatever they desire as long as it respects the rights of others, is legal, etc. PPM does not advocate trying to make greed illegal. PPM does not believe in legislating morality. However, there is something intrinsically unfair about a system in which some people are able to limitlessly accumulate thousands of times more wealth than they need, while others are forced to live in extreme poverty. If the reader has any doubt that this is the present state of America, he/she is welcome and encouraged to check out the research-based Plutocracy Blog at www.savingrepublic.blogspot.com.
Securing universal individual rights and full employment into the future requires a pro-active commitment of American citizens rather than the passive "let's wait and see" approach.
Note: There is no fund raising connected with the Progressive Political Movement of SW PA. If any one requests money in the name of PPM, know that it is a bogus request.
To contact the Movement, send email to rgphilo1@gmail.com.
11/10/14
Adding the November 4th votes from the four
counties of the 18th Congressional District of PA reveals that 4,109
write-in votes were cast for the position of U.S. Congressional
Representative for that District as of 11/8/14. In spite of these
write-in votes (ap. 2.5% of the votes cast for that position) and in
spite of thousands of people from that district who voted on Nov.4 but
not for that position at all, the PA Department of State website will
show that Tim Murphy got 100% of the votes. Seems a bit disingenuous to
me. However, the Progressive Political Movement of SW PA congratulates
Tim Murphy on his victory and thanks all those voters who wrote in the
name of its candidate Sheila Griffin for the position of 18th
Congressional Representative.
2.5% of the vote isn't much. But it demonstrates what a campaign by an inexperienced, unknown candidate starting three weeks before the general election can accomplish with limited financial resources, without fund raising, without signage, and without negative attack ads. If that campaign appeals to people's higher ideals.
2.5% of the vote isn't much. But it demonstrates what a campaign by an inexperienced, unknown candidate starting three weeks before the general election can accomplish with limited financial resources, without fund raising, without signage, and without negative attack ads. If that campaign appeals to people's higher ideals.
No comments:
Post a Comment