What Walls Are For

"Good fences make good neighbors" as Robert Frost said in his famous poem "Mending Wall."

A year or so ago, we and our neighbors had to rebuild the fence between our yards, because their dogs, who were knocking down loose boards and finding their way into our yard, weren't very good neighbors. They even barked at us for daring to come out our back door and "invade" our own backyard. The new, stronger fence means dog disputes are over.

The Great Wall of China was built as a series of fortifications, eventually linked together, to ward off invaders. It didn’t always work, but it made invasion much harder.

Mr. Spherical Model took this photo
of the Great Wall of China in 2013

Jerusalem's ancient city walls are still standing. 

Old City Wall, Jerusalem
image from here

A friend took a trip to Carcassonne, France, last year and put photos online. It turns out the place looks just like the game, where you build roads and city walls to get points. 

Carcassonne, France (a friend's photo)

Why are those walls there? To safeguard the people and things inside.

There are ancient cities in the American Midwest, built by people sometimes referred to as mound builders. If I understand their strategy, they built walled cities, using earth to heighten the wall. There would be access from the inside, and lookouts. The entrance would be a narrow maze-like opening, so any invaders could be easily picked off from above, making it very difficult to get an invading army inside.

Something similar is described in the Book of Mormon, during times of ongoing war. They built up fortifications around their cities, digging ditches and mounding up the earth. And then adding timbers with sharp pickets above. And they built towers from which they could shoot arrows or throw rocks. And they had a single, heavily guarded entrance. (See Alma 49-50.) These fortifications were highly discouraging to invaders.

Moroni's fortified city
illustration from here

Early frontier forts, built entirely from wood and timbers, would have looked similar and accomplished some of the same purpose.

Think of every castle you’ve seen a photo of or drawing of one invented for a book. Walls used for fortification—to protect people and property—are so common that fictional world builders would hardly consider an ancient place without them.

model of city wall from Lord of the Rings, image from here

There’s a Jordan Peterson lecture clip, recently posted, although I’m pretty sure the lecture was given several years ago, in which he talks about why we have walls. The fundamental problem we’re trying to solve is chaos. The world is too complex for us to handle all of it at the same time. So we build walls to make our world smaller—to make it so that we are only dealing with a particular part of the world at a time. Something manageable. That's why walls were built around ancient cities:

If you didn’t put walls around them, then other people would come in and steal everything and kill you. And so, having some walls was a good idea—the same as having walls in your house is a good idea. Walls between your rooms are a good idea. Borders between categories are a good idea.

So, part of the way you simplify the world is by building walls around your space, because then a whole bunch of things can’t come in, so you don’t even have to think about them. It’s not conceptual; it’s practical.

We have walls around cities. We have walls to keep people out of our homes. We have walls within our homes, to deal with only part of the purposes of a home at a time, or to deal with only the people we want to at a time.

And when we are ready to handle more of the outside, we invite people in—temporarily, as visitors. This brings us new information from the outside, in doses sized for us to handle.

At a national level, we have borders—sometimes in the form of walls or fences, with guarded openings to screen who is allowed to enter. This makes it so that the whole world doesn’t enter at once, causing our nation to be indistinguishable from, say, the open ocean, or the world at large.

Do we, as a country, have the right to decide who comes in? Yes, if the country is a thing, and we are the people governing that thing.

Then, what is a country, or a nation? Historically, nations have been the more or less natural boundaries within which the people share a language, culture, and ethnicity. The first nation to be formed based on something other than these things is the United States of America, which was founded on an the idea that all people are created by God as equal—as opposed to some born with the right to rule and some born with the obligation to serve the high born. And we have a written constitution to limit government to its role of the protecting life, liberty, and property of the citizens of the nation.

That means that nationalism is different in America than in other countries. It doesn’t mean anything ethnocentric. It doesn’t mean anything related to a genealogical tree. National pride in America is about pride in the idea. 

Nationalism in Germany during WWII, by comparison, was about pride in nation, but only insofar as that meant people of a particular genetics and culture. Others, even though citizens of that nation, were excluded from the benefits of nationhood.

In America, we have pride of place, and pride in our various regional cultures as well as pride in our national culture. But it’s not an ethnic thing; it’s all connected to the idea of America.

And while we have reason to be proud of that idea we’re based on, we don’t exclude other nations from adopting the same idea. In fact, the world is a better place today, with more peace and prosperity, because America has shared the idea of self-government tied to principles of limited government.

Dr. Peterson talks briefly about the connection between temperamental traits and political leanings. There are the five main personality traits: extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness. Those on the “liberal” side (which requires some definition, because I don’t think we can any longer use the word to mean Democrat, for example, when socialist is a better descriptor), which tends to be high in openness and low in conscientiousness. Meanwhile, conservatives (again, maybe needing some definition, because it may depend on what’s being conserved) tend to be low in openness but high in conscientiousness.

I’m determined to take his online test someday, because I’m curious to understand myself better. But my guess is that I’m very high in conscientiousness, but also moderately high in openness. I’m very conservative politically, but I don’t use words that box me in where I don’t fit. Thus, the Spherical Model.

Anyway, we need both openness and walls. America is great because it has both. But we can’t keep both if some of us tear down the figurative and physical walls and “fundamentally transform” it into something that does not have that important idea that has been our sure foundation. As Dennis Prager says, “You can’t love something that you want to fundamentally transform.”

Those who want to transform America are attempting to do it by tearing down walls—both the idea walls of the Constitution, and the physical barriers of an orderly border that allows us to let in only those who honor our Constitutional liberties—people we have always gladly welcomed.

You wouldn’t let someone into your house who didn’t value you or your property. If such a person grows up in your home, then, beyond your obligations to take care of such a person up to adulthood, you wouldn’t tolerate them creating chaos in your home. You would set up boundaries. Walls, if you will. To safeguard the people and things in your home.

We need to be intentional about doing that at a national level as well. To safeguard the people and things inside.

Fears Realized So Far

Back in 2008, well before I had this blog, I wrote down the fears I had following the election of our current president. I used Facebook Notes, so I could look back at them later. 

The purpose here today is not to praise my prognostication skills; we have plenty of evidence of how limited those skills are. Rather, if there are things I knew easily in 2008, then there’s no reason to be surprised about them as they happen. 

Another day we’ll tackle the things that went beyond what I imagined.

Bold type means I was proven right, by 5 ½ years into the administration. Plain type means maybe I was wrong, or at least we don’t have obvious evidence yet; some of these were on my mind at the time, but haven’t kept my attention, so I might not know enough. Comments added today are in brackets and italicized. 

 

Fears in Wake of Election

November 6, 2008 

• Troops will be quickly removed from Iraq, leaving that country vulnerable to invasion by Iran or other forces—breaking the word of the US and ruining our chances of being trusted in a coalition in the future.
• Using troops for actions where there is no threat to US interests, nor request from US allies, such as Darfur. And, further, that US troops will be placed under the control of the UN, negating our sovereignty. [Syria could be an example. There are numerous examples of trying to subject us to the UN. But it hasn’t been as in-your-face military submission as I feared.]
• Borders will not be enforced; “illegal alien” will cease to have meaning, since anyone here will be given citizenship rights, including welfare, draining the treasury and endangering the populous. [Granting of actual citizenship with voting hasn’t yet been accomplished—in part because of citizen outrage in 2010 or so.]
• Porous borders will enable terrorists to enter the US, as well as drug trafficking and other illegal trade. [And human trafficking and sex trade, which I didn’t foresee.]
• A major terrorist attack on US soil will soon happen. [Boston bombing is one; many have been thwarted, fortunately.] Efforts to protect the US, such as listening in on conversations between terrorists, will be prohibited. [No, I was wrong on this; what I didn’t foresee was the extent to which this administration would target citizens and claim they’re protecting us from terrorists. I should have known that, if something is a power, this administration will take it and run way beyond the limits.] Perpetrators will be prosecuted as citizens through the judicial system, rather than as wartime enemies. [Yes, often against military council, but sometimes prevented because the court system requires revealing our intelligence gathering methods to the enemy combatant and his legal team. Which is why GITMO exists, and hasn’t yet been closed down.]
• Funding will be cut for the military, making it less able to defend us in the world. [Military generals suggest we can no longer sustain two war fronts, if called upon to do so.]
• Equal funding will be spent on some nebulous “civilian force,” as Obama suggested, with equal funding and power as the military, to be used purportedly for natural disasters, but in reality to be used as enforcement against US citizens. [I don’t know if the funding is equivalent to military. But the recent BLM example is one; the BLM is made up of geologists, mineralogists, mapmakers, bureaucrats—and now also apparently its own SWAT teams. FEMA and Homeland Security also strike fear in the heart of innocent citizens.]
• “Fairness Doctrine” will be enacted, removing free speech from Americans with opposing (conservative) points of view, starting with talk radio, but eventually will not be limited there (fear for internet). [This has been attempted, again recently, but has been unsuccessful because of constant vigilance.]
• People speaking out against the president or his policies may be attacked and speared (as were Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin). [The IRS scandal, showing targeting of non-profits the administration dislikes is well beyond what I envisioned; it’s closer to totalitarian regimes.]
• Repeal of 1996 US DOMA law, and eventual enforcement of “same-sex marriage” in states that have laws and constitutions against it—ignoring the sovereignty of states to make these laws. This will lead to prosecution for differing views, loss of freedom of religion, loss of freedom for parents to decide on education of their children, loss of business freedom to refuse service when it goes against personal beliefs. [Yes. Some questions of state sovereignty are going through the courts, which is a tenuous thread for civilization to depend on. Note that I wrote this when the president was declaring he supported traditional marriage—because it was politically advantageous for him to say so at that time, but I knew better than to believe him.]
• Taxes will increase on anyone considered rich (possibly as low as $42,000/year), as is certain to happen when Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, but taxes are likely to be raised on most taxpaying Americans in addition to that.
• Taxes will increase for small businesses, causing less entrepreneurism, fewer jobs.
• Taxes will be increased on corporations, leading to businesses leaving the US to locate in more favorable countries—which will mean less wealth created in US, and lower employment.
• Tax will increase on capital gains, reducing incentive for investment, causing stock market drop. [Truthfully, I haven’t paid enough attention to capital gains rules to know how much effect this has had on the economic malaise, which has so many presidential-policy causes.]
• Social Security taxes will be levied on income above $102,000, instantly raising rates for these earners by 7%, without any compensating benefit. [This was being discussed in 2008, including by John McCain. It hasn’t been accomplished. The upper limit continues to rise a bit annually, and is $117,000 for 2014. Social Security as a program, however, continues toward an inevitable fiscal cliff.]
• Restrictions aimed at particular energy-related industries, reducing our ability to provide energy from our own resources, and possibly bankrupting major companies or entire industries: coal and oil in particular. [Solyndra, etc. Blocking XL Pipeline. Refusal to allow any new drilling on public lands, or new refineries. Nevertheless, drilling on private land has boomed, mainly in North Dakota and Texas, lowering our dependence on foreign oil. Yay! Obama took credit for this, despite his continuing efforts to thwart fracking and other techniques, in a recent state-of-the-union speech.]
• Restrictions on energy use on individual Americans, which will hinder business and travel and lower standard of living for most Americans. [Attempted, but not accomplished, for the most part. But smart meters are in place for future purposes.]
• Making unlimited abortion the national law, negating state laws across the nation—just one evidence of ignoring state sovereignty. [Attempted, not accomplished thus far. Supreme Court cases related to forcing corporations to pay for abortifacients of employees, regardless of the corporation’s religious beliefs, should see rulings any day.]
• Replacing up to three Supreme Court justices with liberal judges who fail to acknowledge the supreme law of the Constitution, who willingly favor poor, minorities, and other special interest groups that currently have liberal approval. Justice no longer even attempts to be blind. In addition, other levels of judges will be filled with similarly activist judges, leaving a legacy of judicial activism for at least a generation. [Two so far. And, oddly, conservatives are in the position of hoping Ruth Bader Ginsburg holds on until a different president has the opportunity to appoint her replacement.]
• Economic problems will return to the challenges of the Carter administration: double-digit inflation, high unemployment, double-digit interest rates, stock market recession or depression, and skyrocketing federal debt. [Yes, with the exception of double-digit inflation, which has been kept artificially low by low interest rates and printing money, which is a more invisible form of inflation. The rest is beyond the intensity and length of the Carter malaise. They refer to this as a slow but steady recovery.]
• Socializing banking, energy production, and other parts of the economy that have thrived in a free market. [General Motors. Some other attempts, but mostly not fully accomplished.]
• Socializing of medicine, leading to severely lowered services and service providers, and inevitable decisions to devalue statistically high medical risks: children born with genetic disorders, elderly, people with chronic illnesses, people whose lifestyle habits don’t coincide with the government’s requirements for diet, exercise, and other practices. [Obamacare passed in March 2010, in dark of night, with nefarious manipulations, and the failures on every level continue, beyond our fears. Actual death panels cannot be fully implemented until Obamacare succeeds. Incompetence on their part gives us hope there may still be repeal. Evidence of likely outcomes of Obamacare are before our eyes in the VA scandal.]
• Revelation that the philosophies of this new president’s friends are actually his philosophies, and that is why he sought such alliances: terrorist methods for remaking America into Marxist country (Ayers and others), African racist supremacy over America and rest of the world (Wright, Pfleger and others), pro-radical Islam and anti-semitic (particularly anti-Israel) and anti-Christian policies (Kahlidi and others), organized crime and Chicago thuggery (Rezco and others). His cabinet and staff will be made up of people who, in normal times, could not be given security clearance needed to do their jobs. The president himself, under normal circumstances, could not be given security clearance. [I wrote all of this years before I read Stanley Kurtz‘s book Radical in Chief, which lays out the evidence. Dinesh D’Souza’s film 2016: Obama’s America was also informative in explaining the anti-American behavior we see in this president.]
• Without the checks and balances of an opposite view in the legislature, judiciary, or media, he will lead as one would expect of one with the most liberal record in the Senate. [We at least got the brakes put on with a Republican House in 2010. Media has stuck by him, but is showing signs lately of cracking in the face of the onslaught of lies, which they have so long been expected to repeat.]
• America will cease to be a superpower, or even leader among nations. The first step (after withdrawal from Iraq and negative consequences of that move) will be to destroy missile defense and nuclear weaponry, leaving the US vulnerable to attack from both rogue terrorist entities and rival world powers (such as China and Russia). [That’s what we’re seeing, and feel vulnerable to. And we can sense the president smiling about it off-camera.]

Using the Spherical Model, what we can be sure of is that Obama will not move us out of the southern hemisphere toward freedom, free enterprise, and civilization—because he prefers tyranny, controlled economy, and savagery.

Border Lines

Earlier this month I got a call from an organization with “conservative” in their name, asking me my opinions on the border and the legislation being considered. It was not a money-raising call. And it wasn’t a poll. What they do is help people draft letters, possibly in ways they agree with; I don’t know. It’s a rather time/work-intensive approach.

So they took notes on what I said and then drafted a letter from that, from me. They sent me three copies of it: one for my representative, one for me, and one for them—after I had made any edits or changes. I’m not exactly in need of help in drafting a letter to my representative. But I was curious about how they would attempt to draft my opinions. I got that just a few days ago, kind of late in the process. And in the meantime, I’ve learned more and my positions are not the same. I should say I have not changed my opinion against amnesty, for border security, and for a less disastrously bureaucratic mess for people to get through to try to come legally. But I was willing to see what the bill was about, and now I know enough.

So, I’m redrafting the letter, here, as an exercise. And I may also send it (probably by email at this late date) to my representative. And if I get my printer working, I may also send the re-draft to this organization. [Note: while I was writing this, the organization called to follow up. I told them their letter had fairly well represented my stated opinions the day we talked, but my opinions on the bill have changed enough that I am redrafting the letter. They offered to write a new draft for me, but I don’t think there is time for them to get a new draft to me before my representative needs to see my opinion. So I’m not sure they will actually write me a new draft. I’m still uncertain whether their purpose was to support the bill, or whether their purpose was just to help citizens send their opinions to their representatives. I am allowing them to send me a newsletter, so I can eventually learn if they’re truly conservative.]

If you find parts of this letter useful, feel free to adapt it to send to your representative.

______________________________________

Dear Representative Poe,

I’m writing today concerning the immigration reform bill. I recognize that the immigration system needs reform; I was cautiously optimistic for a while that this bill might be a useful effort. I no longer believe that. As a sovereign nation, we must be able to control our borders. There are current laws requiring a solid wall to be built on our southern border—since 2006. Only a few dozen miles have been built so far.

This bill, in any version, seems to say, “OK, we’ll consider doing something about the border—if you give in on every other comprehensive reform we ask.” There’s a “trust us” implication; but there’s no reason to trust when the federal government has already proven that a law requiring border enforcement will be ignored.

Of course there are other immigration issues we would like to have dealt with. We should streamline the process to encourage legal immigration. I have known people who have gone through the very difficult process of being married to a foreign national that had trouble getting permanent legal status; two families I know were separated for as long as 18 months.

And then there are families like the Romeikes, a German family that sought asylum here in 2008 because they wanted to homeschool their children, which is illegal in Germany. They were given permanent asylum by a judge in 2010, and then out of the blue the Justice Department decided to overturn that ruling and deport them, which will mean a huge fine for the Romeikes, and possibly prison terms for the parents and loss of custody of their children. Our President says it’s the right of Germany to do that to this family. Yet this same President instructs his DOJ to allow illegals to live here without repercussions, and sues the state of Arizona simply for asking about legality when someone is in custody for some other reason. Our current government either cannot tell or chooses wrongly who should be allowed to come here.

We should have the ability for employers to verify the legality of employees (e-verify is probably a good idea). And at some point we may need to deal with the illegals who remain here, who drain our resources for education, healthcare, welfare, and law enforcement. But this bill doesn’t effectively deal with any of these issues. It seems to have as a singular purpose legalizing those who came here illegally, with no improvement to the overall system.

What we must do is secure the border. Until there is a will to do that in both houses of the legislature—as well as proven enforcement—nothing else can be improved.

I suggest, rather than yet another unreadable 1100-page bill, a bill with just a few words:

Inasmuch as laws are on the books requiring border security and legal immigration, those laws should be enforced. At such time as enforcement is verified, then additional legislation can be considered concerning other immigration system issues.

I am no longer naïve enough to believe that any other approach will lead to the essential beginning point we need. Please vote against any and all versions of the current immigration legislation.

Thank you for your efforts.