What is the value of profit as a motive for action in the marketplace and competition as a regulating force? Do you trust profit making organizations more than non-profit? Under what circumstances?
Tag: Elgin Hushbeck
-
Political Debate – Question #6
-
Question 5 – Second Reply Set – The Justice System
Combining Replies from both Elgin Hushbeck, and Joel Watts.
Question #5
Reply by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.
Reply by Joel Watts
Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. Response #1
Joel Watts Response #1[6/24/13 – I inadvertently posted the wrong content for Joel Watts’ reply. The corrected text is below. – HN]
Response #2 by Joel Watts:
1.) The question you propose – justice or rules – is not a difficult to answer. We live in a Republic of laws, thus the laws must be followed. This is a major issue with democracies —justice is based only on the whims of the majority. This is why our Founders hated democracy and instead placed us within a Republic. While the guilty may go free and the innocent be imprisoned, if the laws are followed, then the Republic is upheld. Perhaps this is what shades your view of the present system, you believe it is a democracy.
Unfortunately, “scandal” is a word attached to easily. The IRS did its job and should be commended. Congress, on the other hand, did not. This goes back to the law bit. We have ingrained in law certain procedures, such as the 30 day request. If these aren’t followed, then other actions are, by law, implemented. Given the rapid change in laws around the 501(c) entities, and the cutting of funds to this particular IRS department, the IRS will have to make sure.
As far as your poor caricature of the lung transport girl, I am unsure as to where to begin to straighten out your views. Sarah Palin is a liar. The rule is no more a death panel than the reverse of not having rules. Again, we live in a Republic with rules and laws, and yet you would deem them broken at every whim. If you cannot properly address the issue, I have to wonder what is the point?
2.) You support the death. Could you give me Scripture to that regard? Or is this purely a decision based on current philosophical thought?Response #2 by Elgin Hushbeck:
On a jury of peers, I agree that prejudices could be a problem, and one that cuts both ways. Some would be more likely to convict, some would be more likely to acquit.
As for citizen suits, I don’t see how these can be allowed, and still retain the rule of law or avoid a return to vigilantism. As for your example, that is just historically wrong. Segregation was correctly and properly challenged on a number of fronts, including suits by those who were harmed by it. Such suits are not the type of suits I am referring to. Normally to bring a suit one must be directly harmed. The suits I am referring to are those which until recently, would have been dismissed because there was no standing. In fact this is still the case in many areas of law, however in a few areas, particularly environmental law, special exceptions have been made and enforcement powers granted to individuals.
I would agree that “Justice is not retribution” but beyond that we have vastly different definitions for justice. Mine is a pretty traditional understanding that involves equity and righting wrongs. It is distinguished from revenge in pretty much the same way that Aristotle did, as a rational process that seeks equity, as opposed to an irrational response grounded in inflicting pain. Justice is rooted outside of ourselves, ultimately in God, and on earth through the state, which is why vigilantism is to be avoided. Revenge is rooted within ourselves and in our desires, rather than our reason. But this is a distinction that is often overlooked. -
Watts: Topic 2 Reply 1 (The Budget)
The Question
My first concern with my friend Elgin is that he is too filled with Conservative media’s information that he is unable to see the better times for the dour, an unfounded picture of what is actually taking place. If we do not have a basis of fact I our discussion, how will we proceed?
While I do not seek to undermine the tough times faced by those seeking to work, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that all of the right numbers are in place. Layoffs are decreasing, job numbers are increasing, and even Wall Street is reaching record highs.
Let me also contend with his rather bold statement that passing a budget is a matter of law. I would doubt such an issue based, once more, on facts. Further, let us consider that such a budget from the Senate would not be welcomed in the House which has, thus far, acted only a temper-tantrum throwing toddler. Somehow, my friend Elgin seems to imply that this is the President’s fault and as such, the President could somehow force the Senate to create a budget. This is not only well outside the realm of likelihood, but so too the Constitution.
But, to my friend’s suggestions.
I believe we would both agree on ruling out Government induced hyperinflation.
However, I do not think his reaction and discarding of taxes is altogether sound. One does not simply quote one economist, but must rely on a preponderance of data. Further, my friend falsely attributes (following the lead of the Conservative media) to Christina Romer a conclusion she does not support. What do we actually know? That those to whom much is given, much is required. While I do not support retreating to the tax rates under President Eisenhower, a Republican, I do support higher tax rates on those who can afford it.
Unfortunately, instead of a balanced view, my partner in these discussions, suggests cutting spending. In the same study he uses to suggest, wrongly, that more taxes hurt, Romer suggests spending cuts hurt. And she continues this theme as well with her follow-up article. While he quotes a conservative icon, Gilder, he again simply chooses to remain with only source, rather than numerous sources, such as Romer, who state with proof that spending cuts will not help an economy.
I am unsure how these things aid in the discussion of the budget. I would hasten my friend back to the conversation. The budget must be set with priorities given education and the good of the people, requiring those with much to given more than those who have little. As the Senator from Massachusetts said, no one in the United States stands where they are without someone else.
If Mr Hushbeck means to explore austerity, this is a train-wreck waiting to happen. If he means to suggest that lowering taxes and cutting spending is the best possible way forward, this is a fantasy that leads to fateful junctures in history. No, a budget relying on austerity will not rescue us from our current economic troubles.
A budget that raises revenue by closing loopholes, raising taxes, cutting defense spending and other government spending, while increasing spending on social progress programs. -
Elgin: Topic 2 Reply 1 (The Budget)
The Question
While Watts and I both seem dissatisfied with the current budget process, I found his suggestions at best unrealistic. He suggests that budgets be done “several years in advance.” Of course one of the current problems is that the Democrats in the Senate have, in violation of the law, refused to even do a budget in nearly 4 years. The President submits budgets that are late and so unrealistic that some have not gotten a single vote even from members of his own party.
Currently budgets are done for 10 years. This actually is one of the problems for it allows all kinds of games to be played. While taxes, either cuts or increases, seem to start in the current budget year, “cuts” are almost always in “the out years.” As such these cuts can function as offsets to balance out other changes over the 10 year budget cycle. The problems is that while this may all looks good on paper, the cuts often never happen, because the current Congress cannot bind future Congresses.
For example, On Jan 1 this year both the House and the Senate passed a law preventing a 26% cut in the payments for Medicare, and a 2% cut in Medicare payments to doctors. Why such bi-partisan action? Because there is no way politicians in either party are going to let such cuts happen. But if this is true, why were these cuts in the law to begin with so that they needed to be overridden?
The answer is that these “cuts” were part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. They were supposed to cap spending to a “Sustainable Growth Rate” each year. But each year when the caps are about to take place, Congress votes to override them. But note that Congress does not vote to overturn the law, just that year’s cuts. This is because they need the “cuts” in the out years, or the budget would seem even more out of balance then all the games they play make it appear. This is part of the issue with the unfunded liabilities mentioned in my initial answer and why the games they are playing cannot go on too much longer.
But this is not the only problem. Another problem is that because of baseline budgeting these projections in future years are taken as the starting place. Thus if a program is projected to get a 10% increase in a future year, but when that year come it only gets a 5% increase, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth over the “massive cuts.” It is because of games such as these that even after the sequester, with all of its massive “cuts,” ultimately the Federal government will still be spending $15 billion more than last year.
About the only place this is not true is with defense spending, for the defense department seems to be the only branch of the federal branch that actually has any cuts as opposed to reductions in the rate of increase. According to the President’s budget, over the last several years the Defense department’s small increases have not kept up with inflation, and starting this year will see real reductions. Even before the sequester, defense spending will go from $716B in 2012 to $701B in 2013 and down to $587B in 2017. When adjusted for inflation (using 2005 as the base) this becomes $610B in 2012 to $587B in 2013 and down to $460B in 2017.
Now one could argue that this will be like the Medicare “cuts” and be repealed every year. However, history, both long and short term, argues against this. When adjusted for inflation, defense spending peaked in 2010, and has been decreasing since. In addition the 1990s were a period of decline which saw defense spending go from $303B in 1989 down to $268B ten years later ($481B to $346B in Constant dollars).
What makes this worse is that the Defense department is not like a doctor. If for some reason Congress did not rescind the cuts, a doctor could just stop seeing Medicare patients when that happened. The defense department, however, must and does plan over many years. For example, building a new fighter or a carriers is a many year process. If the money is not in the budget, it cannot be done.
Consider the Navy for example, The Quadrennial Defense Review said that we should have 346 ships to do the mission the nation has given the Navy. The Navy, realizing the situation, said they could get by with 313, which has recently been reduced yet again to 300. Yet we only have about 287 and we look headed to 250. As Robert Kaplan put it, “There is a big difference between a 346-ship US navy and a 250-ship navy – the difference between one kind of world order and another.”
To make matters even worse, because of recent cut backs the Navy does not even have enough money to run the ships that it has. Thus, for example, it is keeping the USS Harry S. Truman in dock instead of sending it to the Persian Gulf. All branches are cutting back on training and one thing is clear from history, less training means more lives lost when the military is needed. So while I agree with Watts that “First, [the budget] must focus on defense” that is hardly what the Democrats do, and sadly a growing number of Republicans as well.
Watts suggestion that tax rates be “set at relatively high levels” so that “Congress will have to act.” But it is far from clear why they would have to act, other than that this would kill the economy. Like an addict needing their next fix, Congress desperately needs money for they are addicted to spending. If given the promise of new monies from increased taxes, they will simply spend it. Then when the taxes depress the economy even further and the revenues do not come in, we will be in even a worse hole.
Finally, Watts argues that “welfare of the people must be included in the budget.” I would argue that the best thing for the welfare of the people is to have a strong and vibrant economy so that the people can take care of their own welfare. As for those who cannot take care of themselves, private charity, state and local government can best take care of them.
-
Elgin Hushbeck: First Answer
Link to the Question
Following each mass killing, as the shock, outrage, and grief fade, and sometimes even before this, the question inevitably becomes what should we do? Is there any way that we could stop these from occurring? As with so much in our society, there are vast differences in how people begin to answer this question.
The first and perhaps biggest divide is over how to understand the problem. Is this a problem with people, or things? This difference manifests itself in the debate over gun control. Those who call for more gun control see the problem in terms of things and believe that the solution is to be found in controlling the things that are causing the problems, i.e., guns.
Even if they were correct, the approach of controlling guns is at best problematic. Even if we put the issue of the Second Amendment aside, there are still a lot of practical issues that question the efficacy of controlling guns as a solution to mass shooting.
The simple fact is that hunting, and in some places even self-protection, mean that guns are an integral part of people’s lives. And self-protection here does not mean just against crime. Some, for example, take a pistol loaded with snake shot when fishing. So as a bottom line, a complete ban on guns is about as likely as a complete ban on automobiles. After all, cars kill far more people each year.
Pushing for a partial ban is even more problematic. While commonly done under the guise of banning “assault weapons,” the term “assault weapon” is a political term, more than a description of a type of weapon. Trying to draw any effective line between what is an “assault weapon” vs. other supposedly more legitimate types of firearms is very difficult if not completely arbitrary, and hardly effective.
But there is a deeper problem with gun control that goes to the heart of different ways of viewing this issue. Here in Wisconsin we recently passed a concealed carry law. As a result, a number of businesses put up signs banning concealed weapons on their property. These signs puzzle me. Frankly, I find it very difficult to conceive of someone intent on committing mass murder coming to one of these businesses, seeing the sign prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, and saying, “Oh darn, I guess I will just have to go find somewhere else to inflict my reign of terror” as they walk off disheartened.
In fact, the evidence would indicate that the opposite is true. These mass murderers go to places where there will be a lot of people, and where they can be reasonably assured that they will be the only ones with guns.
The reason for this can be seen with the shooting in Colorado in 2007. Having shot 4 people at Youth With A Mission in Arvada, the murderer went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs with multiple firearms. He murdered 16 and 18 year old sisters in the parking lot before heading into the church. He wounded 3 others, before his shooting spree was cut short by Jeanne Assam, who had been carrying a concealed weapon, and who shot him.
So guns are not the problem. The concealed weapon carried by Assam saved lives. The problem is people who seek to murder others. Get rid of all guns, and you would still have a problem, and given how lethal other options can be, perhaps even a bigger one.
While it runs against the grain of so much conventional wisdom, the lesson of the New Life Church shooting is that less gun control, not more, may be a more effective solution. Pick any of the recent mass shootings and imagine there had been someone like Jeanne Assam carrying a concealed weapon. If nothing else, just the knowledge that there might be a Jeanne Assam present would likely make a murderer more cautious, slowing them down and giving the police more time to arrive.
But while this would reduce the death toll, it still would not go to the heart of the problem, which involves people, not things. Part of the problem is that our care of the mentally ill has been significantly crippled by the concern over civil rights and privacy since the 1960s. One result of this is seen in the homeless problem–people who are incapable of caring for themselves but who cannot be institutionalized.
But the problem is even deeper. One aspect of this has been the attack on the family structure, and the resulting breakdown of the family. As George Guilder wrote in his landmark book, Wealth and Poverty, the family structure is the basic social unit and if it is allowed to collapse, we will need a welfare state to take care of the women, and a police state to deal with the men. Thus one thing we could do is seek ways to strengthen the family. The problem is that this cannot be done without quickly running into the most basic problem of all: the inability to make moral judgments.
For decades now, we have raised our children with the false belief that we should not judge others; that it is wrong to say that some choices are good and some are bad. Instead, we celebrate diversity. It is clearly false because it is self-refuting, for to say you should not judge, is to judge those who do.
While this is a much bigger problem than just violence, it does show up there as well. Following the murder of nine people at a Mall in Omaha, a friend of the murderer reflected this non-judgmental view when he said, “I don’t think anything less of him, because I know that [he] would never have done anything like this just for the fun of it, it was he wanted to go out in style and that is what he did, he went out in style.”
There are a lot of other things that could be added to this list, and ultimately, given the nature of sin, we will probably never be able to eliminate mass murder, but we could go a long way towards reducing them.
-
Two Energion Authors Examine the U. S. Election
SPECIAL SALE OFFER!
Remember that our political titles are on sale until the election, including both Preserving Democracy and Faith in the Public Square.
Energion authors Robert D. Cornwall (a progressive) and Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. (a conservative) will be engaging in a blog discussion about issues related to the election.
Elgin is author of Energion title Preserving Democracy along with Evidence for the Bible and Christianity and Secularism. Bob is author of Faith in the Public Square along with Ephesians: A Participatory Study Guide and Ultimate Allegiance: The Subversive Nature of the Lord’s Prayer.
So how will this discussion work?
Each Saturday, beginning August 11, Energion owner Henry Neufeld will post a question for the coming week here on Energion.net. By Wednesday of the following week, both authors will post an answer to that question on their blogs. They will then each have an opportunity to respond to the other’s post. As a rule, they will be writing just one blog response to the other’s answer. I will post links to each entry here on Energion.net.
If you’re interested in a serious discussion of the issues, you can also publicize this discussion via your blog, Facebook, Twitter, or other social media.
This being the blogosphere, you’re naturally wondering how you can get involved. We couldn’t keep you away if we wanted to, and we don’t. Feel free to respond to the question on your own. You can post a link to your post in the comments or you can e-mail us the URL and I will link to you here as well.
You can comment on Elgin’s or Bob’s blogs or right here at Energion.net. Each blogger is fully responsible for moderating comments on his own blogs. Under the rules of Energion.net you can also post comments here.
Watch here for the first question to be posted on August 11. -
Consider Christianity Week Contest
Consider Christianity Week is sponsored by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr., author of Energion titles Evidence for the Bible, Christianity and Secularism, and Preserving Democracy. For more information, see the Consider.org web site.
A Blogswarm
In celebration of Consider Christianity Week, Energion Publications will sponsor a special form of blogswarm (invited, not spontaneous!) and a blogging/essay contest.
(more…)