Political philosophy - current

I offer my opinion on “what direction (politically) we should take from here”.  Michael suggested that that conversation, being charged, if not toxic, begged for some structure.  We agreed that we would each have the opportunity to speak in turn, uninterrupted, for a considerate period of time.  Once we each have had our turn we might, or might not, decide to discuss what had been put on the table.  But at a minimum we will have had a chance to hear each other out.  By the way, I hope that at least a portion of what each of us is to speak to are our definitions of “direction” and “we”.

First, “direction”: On the table are extracts (and one full copy) of the report from The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (the Simpson/Bowles committee set up by Pres. Obama).  I would support the implementation of all the recommendations in the report if taken as a whole early in this session.  The growing national fiscal crisis must be addressed as our first national priority.  That is the direction I would have the government take. 

Unfortunately, upon release of the report the congress voted against adopting the Commission’s recommendations and the Obama administration failed to support the recommendations.  In fact, soon after voting against adopting the commission’s recommendations, congress and the Obama administration cynically did exactly the opposite of the recommendations. Despite signs of a growing national fiscal crisis, the congress and the white house, by a last minute “compromise” around the Bush taxes, voted not to increase taxes and to initiate an additional $800 billion in pork barrel spending (some revisionists say it was only $400 billion in pork).  Combined, the “compromise” will increase the projected crushing and already unsustainable deficit by almost one third. It is widely felt, domestically, and internationally that the “compromise” is not for the benefit of the country. 

Second, a definition of "we":  It depends on your concept of government, of course, so let me start there.  In fact, let me start at first principles.

Although humanity has a number of characteristics and capabilities which are distinct from other species, the ability to make fire (consciously manipulate the use of energy), and the ability to use fire to make things – and destroy them - most distinguish our species, I think. I believe that the ability to use fire is core to the evolutionary success of the species because it greatly enhanced our productivity.  Throughout our history as a species there has been a survival premium on our ability to work productively.  I surmise then that human social structure was molded, at least in part, to facilitate orderly access to energy (“one at a time, no fighting”) and to establishing efficient patterns for its use (intensely powerful energy imposes significant physical risks and technical risks on the user and society as a whole requiring control).

Therefore I submit that the definition of "we" turns on who are productive members of society because:

• The core comparative advantage of the human species is its ability to make fire (manipulate energy) for productive purposes; to use fire to make things; and to use fire to destroy things. The unique ability of the human species to use fire was core to its survival as a species because it greatly enhanced its productivity
• Dominance hierarchy helped the human species to maximize the benefit (and minimize the cost) of its core comparative advantage.
• Government is a manifestation of dominance hierarchy in the human species.
 

Therefore, productivity should be recognized as the core metric by which to measure the effectiveness of government and those who should be considered for inclusion in the polity;

 Therefore “We” are citizens who are, or because they are children, can become productive.  Productive citizens are 1) those who provide goods and services to others as evidenced by their trade for goods and services in the private market place and 2) those who pay Federal income tax roughly in proportion to the benefits they receive, or more than the benefits they receive.  The unproductive members of society are dependent on the productive – a subset and not “we”. 

Of course there is a lot of mushiness in the meaning of “productive”, “goods” and “services” etc. and lest the definition of “we” be stove in on those shoals let me offer some banter on the subject.  Who should be included? Are soldiers productive?  Are those who minister to the sick of body or soul?  And teachers? 

The answer I would offer simply turns on what market they serve.  For instance, I think all the professions mentioned above that trade their services in the private market can be productive and, if they pay taxes in proportion, are part of the community I would support for inclusion. 

Why base who to include in the definition of “we” on the market they serve, even in part?  In the private market the buyer makes his decision what to buy based on his own needs and he spends his own money based on his decision.  Those service providers who are paid from government sources (however distant) take payment from people many, if not most of whom, have been coerced to pay.  They end up paying for services to beneficiaries who, did not pay for contribute and they seldom use the services themselves.  Doing business with people on a free basis versus a coerced basis - it is hard to think of a more stark distinction except maybe in a communist society where the productive providers are not only coerced to pay for benefits to the oligarch, they are coerced to PROVIDE them as well - slaves. 

Granting that certain government functions are necessary for a functioning society (security - internal [police] and external [military], fiscal policy management and a restrained right of eminent domain, etc. etc.), where do those people fall in the definition of “we”? If government were right sized and its role limited to that of a referee rather than as a player, government employees’ inclusion in the “we” would a minimal compromise of the definition, but a compromise none the less. 

In conclusion, I offer the following description of the "state" and those who run it by Martin van Creveld from his book The Rise and Decline of the State. He is a professor of history at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

"Born in sin, the bastard offspring of declining autocracy and bureaucracy run amok, the state is a giant wielded by pygmies.  Considered as individuals, bureaucrats, even the highest-positioned among them, may be mild, harmless, and somewhat self-effacing people; but collectively they have created a monster whose power far outstrips that of the mightiest empires of old.  One reason for this is because, unlike all previous ruling groups, they do not have to pay the expenses of government out of their own pockets.  On the contrary they draw their nourishment from it;"