Being Extreme

It’s Martin Luther King, Jr., Day. It looks like a good way to celebrate—or educate yourself on the story of the man—is the movie just out called Selma, which focuses on that Alabama city during the civil rights struggle which he led. The previews look good. It got nearly passed over for Academy Award nominations. Some cry racism. But I’m pretty sure that’s not it (refer to 12 Years a Slave last year and The Help from a couple of years back). Glenn Beck surmises that it’s because the hero of the socialist war on poverty, LBJ, is characterized unpleasantly (which historically is probably accurate, even if the actual conversations in the movie are fictionalized).

That's me, standing with MLK

So, enough said for the holiday. I’m going to talk about something else. It’s confession time. I am an extremist. This is news to me, since what I really am is pretty normal except for my willingness to put time and effort into a blog that isn’t on homemaking skills.

Last week I came across a piece listing the various ways the Obama administration has officially warned about domestic terrorism. So I thought I’d helpfully go through the list. (And so there is no mistake, this is to illustrate the absurdity—or frightening intrusiveness into free thought—of this list, rather than to let anyone suppose I have anything but civilized intentions.) I’ll go through the list in order; it’s long, and redundant—not my fault. So you have permission to skim as needed (or take plenty of time and follow all the links). We’ll find out as we go just how many ways the administration deems me, the grandmother/author of The Spherical Model blog, extreme:

1.      √I talk about “individual liberties.” Yes. Yes I do. So does the Constitution.

2.      √I advocate for states’ rights. Yes. I do that too—as is spelled out in the 10^th Amendment, for example.

3.      I do “want to make the world a better place,” but I might not qualify as extreme here. It’s just a general principle, like when you go camping, leave things better than you found them. More suspicious here would be journalism students, who almost unanimously list wanting to make the world a better place as their reason for choosing that field—rather than gathering and sharing truth, which would be a better motive. (Admission: there was a bit of snobbery among English majors toward journalism majors, who would be inferior writers and also less in touch with the themes affecting humanity. Not meant toward individuals, just the overall sense of team superiority.)

4.      √I do believe the colonists mainly came here to “free themselves from British rule.” I think historical documentation from their journals backs that up.

5.      √I’m interested in “defeating Communism.” As an ideology that destroys civilization, and practically defines tyranny, poverty, and savagery, yes, I’d say Communism should be defeated. By word wherever possible. By defensive war where necessary.

6.      √We're considered extreme if we believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations.” Um. Obviously. Until we have the whole world choosing freedom, prosperity, and civilization—and living by the rules that bring about those positive things, we do our best to get those things locally, statewide, and nationally.

7.      Finally we have one where I don’t qualify: I don’t hold a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful, or undesirable” per se; I only believe the state/government has a proper role that is limited for good reason. Within the limits, government at its various levels should be both necessary and helpful.

8.      Again, I don’t possess an “intolerance toward other religions.” In my faith, we say, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” (Articles of Faith11)

9.      I do not “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals.” I don’t put metal in trees so that loggers will be harmed or killed during tree harvests. I don’t throw paint on people wearing fur coats or leather. I even agree that those people are wacko extremists. I believe in being a good steward over the earth and the abundance God gave us here, not in attacking people who don't see things my way.

10.  I am not “anti-Gay.” I am, however, pro-traditional marriage, so sometimes people like me get unfairly labeled. Oh well. Marriage is worth standing up for.

11.  I am not “anti-immigrant.” I am, however, pro-border enforcement and pro-LEGAL-immigration. Sometimes people like me get unfairly labeled. No me importa.

12.  I am not “anti-Muslim.” I am, however, very much against what appears to be purposeful misinterpretation of that religion for the sake of murder for power.  I think we should call that Islamist Extremism, and not mislabel it or ignore the obvious.

13.  I don’t know what the administration means by “the patriot movement,” but I am a patriot. I am patriotic. I love my country. I think that’s normal, not extreme.

14.  √“Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians” is on the list. As in #10, I’m for equal rights for all Americans. I believe those with same-sex attraction should be allowed to marry any person of the opposite sex who is not married to someone else, who is of age to make the choice freely, and who is not too close a relative—just like the rest of us. I do not think we should change the millennia-old definition of marriage to make a small subset of the population “feel” more included.

15.  I’m not a “member” of the Family Research Council. But I think they’re one of many newsletters I get for my research and information.

16.  I’m not familiar with the American Family Association, but the name sounds appealing.

17.  I do not believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union.’” And someone pushing for that strikes me as extreme too. But that doesn’t mean they sound like probable terrorists.

18.  I am not a member of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol. I’m not sure if this refers to actual law-enforcement officials or volunteer groups. But, since the federal government has failed to protect our borders, someone has to do it. Texas as a state is putting big budget toward border protection, as needed.

19.  I am not a member of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or the inappropriate acronym FAIR, which seems to me more pro-illegal-immigration than pro-American.

20.  I am not a member of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition. I don’t know what it is, and this list is too long for me to spend time finding out right now.

21.  I am not a member of the Christian Action Network. I don’t know what it is, but it doesn’t sound threatening to “truth, justice, and the American way.”

22.  √I am opposed to the New World Order—if that means some kind of world government or controlling entity that is intended to surpass our national sovereignty. Seems like being “for” such a thing might qualify as extreme, though.

23.  I don’t engage in “conspiracy theorizing.” I spend some energy debunking conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, there probably are some conspiring people, and we ought to be constantly vigilant.

24.  √I oppose Agenda 21. I wrote about it in February 2013.

25.  I’m not “concerned about FEMA camps,” but I hope there isn’t reason to be concerned. FEMA wasn’t exactly stellar during the hurricane aftermaths that I have lived through.

26.  √I would resist any “impending gun control or weapons confiscations.” But I live in Texas, so I’m not particularly fearful of that happening.

27.  I’m not part of a “militia movement.” I am in favor of armed citizens, for both hunting and self-protection.

28.  I’m not part of the “sovereign citizen” movement; I don’t know what they mean by that. But I may understand sovereignty and individual rights better than the fretful makers of this list.

29.  I pay taxes, and think we should lawfully do so. I also think the government should return to something like the maximum 7% promised when the income tax was instituted. Or something else more fair.

30.  √I do complain about bias. The extreme socialist “mainstream” media is clearly biased. The evidence is overwhelming. The Eric Holder Justice Department has been clearly biased as well. Being in favor of truth, rather than bias, is a good thing.

31.  I don’t believe in “government conspiracies to the point of paranoia.” Although I am also aware some paranoiacs are being followed.

32.  I don’t know what is meant by “frustrated with mainstream ideologies.” I’m not at all frustrated with Constitutionally limited government, allowing for freedom, prosperity, and civilization; I just think those long-standing ideas should be tried. If by “mainstream” they mean “socialist” or “progressive,” then, yes, I’m fed up with those failing ideologies.

33.  √Do I visit “extremist websites/blogs”? By whose definition? Since this one just got unjustly defined as “extremist,” then, yes. I even venture out to Townhall.com and TheBlaze.com. Oh my!

34.  √And just to rub it in, yes, I have established this blog. Not to establish extremist ideas, but to express truth as best I can. But, by their cockamamie definition….

35.  √I’m not really an attender of “extremist rallies,” but I regularly attend Tea Party meetings and occasional larger rallies, and GOP conventions. (You’re aware terrorists plotted against a GOP convention but were fortunately ratted out? It wasn’t the Republicans who were terrorizing.)

36.  I don’t exhibit extreme religious intolerance. Does this have to make the list in addition to #8?

37.  Am I “personally connected with a grievance”? Don’t think so. That sounds like just about anyone involved in certain aspects of most lawsuits. Right now the answer is no.

38.  What is meant by “suddenly acquires weapons”? If you buy your first gun, for any sporting or safety reason, suddenly you have a gun. If you buy another, maybe a year or two later, suddenly you have acquired another. If they mean suddenly stockpiling trailer-loads of rifles with ammunition, that might qualify—and they should say so, so there’s no misinterpretation damaging to regular law-abiding citizens.

39.  √I’m not planning on organizing a protest; I’m not a “community organizer.”

40.  I’m extreme if I support “militia” or “unorganized militia,” but I already answered #27.

41.  I’m not a “general right-wing extremist.” I’m not even willing to define “right-wing” the way the government does. I think they mean the Nazi version of socialist tyranny, rather than the communist version of socialist tyranny, which would be left-wing. But I’m against tyranny altogether. [See The Spherical Model.]

42.  I don’t have bumper stickers that are “patriotic” or “anti-UN.” I don’t have any bumper stickers, except the one that says “proud parent of a soldier.”

43.  √I do occasionally refer to “army of God,” mainly when we sing the hymn “Onward Christian Soldiers.” But the government has nothing to fear from that. It’s about fighting evil—unless the government does have something to fear from our willingness to fight evil.

44.  I am not “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation).” I believe in using the appropriate viewpoint for any situation—which always means the most local at which an issue can be handled. But who know what they mean?

45.  Nor am I “anti-global”—see #44.

46.  √I am “suspicious” of centralized federal authority—because that’s necessary when the federal government has drastically overreached it’s proper role.

47.  √I am “reverent of individual liberty.” I think that’s a lovely way to put it. And not extreme.

48.  I don’t believe in untrue “conspiracy theories.” See #23, #31. (Are they unnecessarily lengthening this ridiculously long list—which doesn’t even mention “believing in Islamic terrorist jihad?”)

49.  √Do I believe my “personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”? Yes. Obamacare, for starters.

50.  √I try to be prepared. We have food storage. We have camping equipment. My Church has been preaching preparedness for about a century. It helps us during all kinds of disasters, and helps us have resources to help others following disasters. Am I poised for paramilitary response? No.

51.  Am I a fundamentalist religionist who would impose religious laws on society? I don’t think so. I’m against Sharia; I’m for the Ten Commandments as guidelines for our laws.

52.  Am I one who would “insert religion into the political sphere”? They interrelate. That’s what The Spherical Model is about. But I believe we need to decide our laws as locally as possible, based on the choices of those in the community, and based on principles that bring about civilization (again, start with the Ten Commandments.) I don’t think we should prohibit the mention of religious beliefs in public. And a politician without religion is pretty much just a power monger.

53.  Nor do I want to politicize religion. Big no.

54.  √I don’t know what is meant by “supported political movements for autonomy.” I think I would have favored the American Revolution, to gain independence from Britain.

55.  √I am anti-abortion. As are a majority of civilized mainstream Americans, including a growing percentage of young people. The list makers are worried about people who want to protect the innocent unborn, but they’re not worried about baby killers? Really?

56.  I am not anti-Catholic. But, according to #55, the government is against Catholic anti-abortion beliefs, so…

57.  I am not anti-nuclear. I’d be in favor of greater use of nuclear energy. It’s the government that halted permits for building nuclear plants for 30 years. Does that put the government on the domestic terror watch list, then?

58.  I’m not a “right-wing extremist.” I reject the right/left model in favor of the Spherical Model. And I am against all forms of southern hemisphere tyranny. See #41.

59.  I am not a returning veteran. I have a son deployed overseas in the Army. When he returns, I expect he’ll be safe, patriotic, and pro-American. (Although I couldn’t speak to his possible loss of respect for the current commander-in-chief; I know I lack respect for that person.)

60.  √I am concerned about “illegal immigration.” I live in Texas. And the federal government has failed in its basic role of border security. I would like to see legal immigration improved, less bureaucratic, less onerous to those willing to come legally and become true Americans.

61.  √I believe in the right to bear arms. It’s one of those God-given rights that went without saying, but that got put into the Bill of Rights, just in case there came a time when power seekers tried to rule over this free people.

62.  No, I don’t think I have what would qualify as an ammunition stockpile.

63.  √I don’t know what “exhibits fear of Communist regimes” looks like. I don’t think I “exhibit” such fears. But I think communist and any other type of tyranny is dangerous and to be resisted.

64.  I’m anti-abortion; I don’t think I qualify as an “activist.” I already answered #55.

65.  √Again, I’m against “illegal immigration”—because it’s illegal. I already answered #60.

66.  √If I were to talk about the “New World Order,” it would be in a derogatory manner. Because there’s nothing good there. I prefer American Constitutional freedom to succumbing to world domination. Until the Second Coming when Christ reigns personally upon the earth; I trust Him as my just ruler.

67.  √I have a negative view of the United Nations. I think it’s a perverse joke. (Extremist Charles Krauthammer agrees, and wrote why way back in 2003.)

68.  I’m not opposed to the collection of federal income taxes. But, like I said, they should be much much much less than they are. I already answered #29.

69.  Apparently I’d be dangerous if I had supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, or Bob Barr. I like a lot about Ron Paul on economic issues and for discussions about the Constitution, but we disagree on foreign policy. I don’t know who Chuck Baldwin is. But Bob Barr I believe was the Libertarian Party candidate in 2008 (maybe other times). Considering your choices were Barack Obama or John McCain, Bob Barr might have been a reasonable alternative—especially someplace like Arizona, where it would count as a protest vote without helping Obama. Lots of mainstream Americans look at things that way, without veering toward terrorism.

70.  I don’t actually display the “Gadsden flag,” “Don’t Tread on Me.” But it’s historical, part of the American Revolutionary War. I wouldn’t be ashamed to display it. It was reinterpreted into a little flag used for campaigning by now-Governor Greg Abbott some years back, which I kept as a souvenir of that year’s state GOP convention.

71.  √I do believe in “end times prophecies.” I don’t happen to know when the end is coming. So for me, living a good life every day seems like a good plan, so I can see it as a “great” rather than “dreadful” day (Malachi 4:5.

72.  I’m not an Evangelical Christian. I’m a Mormon. Some Evangelicals try to define me as not even Christian, but they’re wrong. But for the most part, I think they’re good, mainstream family-oriented Americans, and not worthy of the terrorist label.

So, it’s hard to tally. I make the watch list at least 28 times. Roughly 39% of the possibilities for domestic terrorism. Even though I’m about as non-violent as they come, and as in favor of peace, freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

What I am is a mainstream American thinker. I pay more attention than many, and therefore have more reason to complain about what we see the federal government doing, beyond its proper role.

There is no end of irony to a government which would come up with a list that totally fails to include the source of 99% of terrorism in the world today. The enemy cannot be mentioned, but we’re labeled as enemies of the state—for having opinions in line with our beautiful founding documents.

Spreading Civilization

I define civilization differently from—well, differently from practically everyone, although there are many who intuitively know my definition. But I thought it might be a good time, near the beginning of a year, to spell out the goal of civilization in writing.

There are reasons this occurs to me now. I’ve come across a couple of false definitions I’d like to dispel. We refer to the Greeks as a civilization—and they spread by conquering. The Romans as well. But it wasn’t the conquering that made them civilized; it was culture. They had the written word. They had learned scholars who taught in schools. They wrote down what they learned, and passed it on to the next generation. They gathered truth, knowledge, and innovation from the peoples they conquered. And it was a mark of civilization that they granted citizenship to many of the conquered peoples.

They also had a lot of failings as civilizations—which is part of the story of their downfalls. There was a time when seeking truth was important, and the family bond was important. But promiscuity was a mark of decay, and as it spread, so did the disintegration of the family, and along with that the way to perpetuate the civilization. It also spread disease.

A civilization is not an ethnicity. And it is not an empire. It cannot be brought about by conquest.

Glenn Beck's Russian strategy map
from here

This week on Glenn Beck's television program, he’s been showing the historical and current trends in Russia, with the possibility that Putin and others are trying to rebuild the Russian empire—believing, and hoping the world will believe, that the Russian ethnicity is the ultimate civilization, and everywhere this culture has ever been should succumb to it again—and beyond, if the world’s nations know what’s good for them. There’s even some head nodding toward religious superiority, although actually living according to the prescribed orthodoxy is not particularly common. (There are plenty of signs it’s a people in decay.)

Glenn Beck’s 3-part series was the second recent exposure I had to Russian ancient history. I also became acquainted with a YouTube channel of history and social commentary called Caspian Report. Among others, I watched a video on the ancient-to-modern boundaries of the Russian empire, called “Understanding the Russian Mindset,” which offers some rationale behind the overreach into Ukraine. One thing Russia did was plant Russian ethnic people within any territories it conquered. Then it seems to have the claim that all these territories belong to ethnic Russia, and the people there have a claim to their Russian heritage. So the disintegration of the USSR was, to them, simply a tragic but temporary fragmentation. And they want it back.

In case there’s any doubt, let me just state that Putin is not a person to turn to if you want greater freedom, prosperity, andcivilization.

Another, very different, story I was told—probably a conspiracy theory—claims that throughout US history, dating earlier and continuously, a shadow group of elites have arranged leadership—in Europe and the US—in order to keep alive Western, or European, culture, with its enlightened ideas. One evidence is that all US presidents can trace their genealogy back to a particular historical figure, the Plantagenet family, which ruled England for several hundred years beginning with Henry II in 1154.

From Ancestry.org Facebook page December 27, 2014

The thing with genealogy, though, is that, the further you go, the more branches. Ancestry.org had a graphic recently showing that, if you go back ten generations (about 300 years or so), you’ve got over 4,000 grandparents—and that’s not counting aunts, uncles, and cousins that could show up as branches on the family tree. If you come from the other direction, the numbers get astronomical in a relatively few generations as well. And the odds are very high that some descendants marry other descendants. Especially when you’re looking at a general gene pool from a limited area, such as northern Europe, for example.

Think about how many people you know in the US who can trace ancestry back to the Mayflower, or the founding fathers. There are organizations, such as Daughters of the American Revolution, who associate because of the shared ancestry. There are chapters in every part of the country.

In other words, it isn’t surprising that all our American presidents (who all have white European ancestry, including Obama) can trace their lines to a particular ancestor back a thousand years ago. It probably wouldn’t even be surprising to find that most can trace their lines to the founding fathers, less than 10 generations back. So it doesn’t mean there’s some shadow group arranging who gets power in the US.

However, there is a tendency for people who associate together to intermarry, to support one another, and to continue connecting. Rich and powerful people tend to hang out with other rich and powerful people. So it might look like some conspiracy. And for all I know there may be people who actually do conspire.

If there were some shadowy force, and their goal was to preserve Western culture, going about it by controlling who gets to be their puppet leader is the wrong way.

You don’t get civilization by gaining power over others. You get civilization by having more individual people live the principles of civilization, and then share those common practices with a growing number around them.

Start with families. Grow to communities, eventually cities—although it’s hard to find a whole city that is civilized. And you can grow beyond to states/provinces and nations. But only by having the prevailing belief system chosen by a critical mass of the people align with civilized behavior.

Here’s a review from, The Spherical Model, of what civilization looks like:

In Civilization families typically remain intact, and children are raised in loving homes, with caring parents who guide their education and training, dedicating somewhere between 18 and 25 years for that child to reach adulthood, and who then remain interested in their children’s success for the rest of their lives.

Civilized people live peaceably among their neighbors, helping rather than taking advantage of one another, abiding by laws enacted to protect property and safety—with honesty and honor. Civilized people live in peace with other civilized people; countries and cultures coexist in appreciation, without fear.

There is a thriving free-enterprise economy. Poverty is meaningless; even though there will always be a lowest earning 10% defined as poor, in a civilized society these lowest earners have comfortable shelter and adequate food and clothing—and there’s the possibility of rising, or at least for future generations to rise.

Creativity abounds; enlightening arts and literature exceed expectations. Architecture and infrastructure improve; innovation and invention are the rule.

People feel free to choose their work, their home, their family practices, their friendships and associations. And they generally self-restrain before they infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. Where there are questions about those limits, laws are in place to help clarify boundaries of civilized behavior. When someone willingly infringes on the rights or safety of another, the law functions to protect that victim as well as society from further uncivilized behavior from the offender.

How do you get to this condition of civilization? Not by conquering. Not by imposing power. Not by oppressing those with less influence. Not by centrally arranging for the positive outcomes listed.

You get there by having a religious society, where people honor God and feel responsible to Him above any earthly entity, because eternity depends on choices made here.

People choose to honor God’s laws, which in simplest form are encapsulated in the Ten Commandments—honoring God, family, life, honesty, and private property.

And then, to perpetuate the civilization, family must be protected and honored as the basic unit of civilization.

Ethnicities, organizations, groups, or nations that seek to exert superiority will never produce civilization. Powerful leaders that seek to conquer do it for the sake of power. And because power mongering is a savage behavior, they produce more tyranny, more poverty, and more savagery.

So there are reasons to fear and resist those who may claim to be spreading their version of civilization. They want power; they want to tyrannize and are pleased to use oppression to do so. They’re willing to create chaos and then step in and say, “Give us power, and we’ll protect you, and all it will cost you is your freedom and prosperity and way of life.”

You can spread domination, expand boundaries through conquest. But civilization comes from free choice in the hearts and minds of good people choosing to live good lives. You spread that by living it, and sharing the example.

We could try preaching civilization. This verse is from the Book of Mormon:

And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God.—Alma 31:5

Laffer Curve Turns 40

If you’re going to mark such things, we could look at a date in late December just past and say that was the birth of the Laffer Curve, 40 years ago. The anecdote is that Art Laffer sketched out his idea on a napkin while at dinner with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Jude Wanniski.

The Laffer Curve
from "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future," 2004

The Laffer Curve, basically, shows that there are two points at which tax revenue will be absolute zero: at 0% and 100%. At zero, you obviously aren’t taking in any tax revenue. At 100%, no one would be willing to work just to give it all away to the government, so again you’d get no revenue. So, from there you can see that there is a curve where more taxes brings in more revenue up to an optimum point, and then the curve goes the other way, and more taxes brings in less revenue.

It’s a basic economic concept. I wrote about it in 2011, long enough ago that it’s worth reviewing, so I’m about to repeat that post below, which includes links to some videos that are great for grasping the concept. But, if you really want to educate yourself, you might want to add a couple of additional sources. One is a piece by economist Steve Moore, for Heritage, commemorating the 40 years.  The other is an older but larger document, by Art Laffer, “The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future” from 2004, published by Heritage Foundation. The 18-page file is available here.

OK, so below is my post, “Laffer Curve Primer,” first published here November 28, 2011.

______________________________

In the past week I came across a couple of reminders of the Laffer Curve, grabbing my attention enough to cover it in a post here.

First, I just finished reading Dick Cheney’s autobiography, In My Time. I’m sure I’ll have more to say on that in future posts, but this little anecdote was fun: 

It was in the wake of our loss [Ford’s election bid in 1976] that Don Rumsfeld and I had dinner one night at the Two Continents restaurant in the Hotel Washington with economist Art Laffer, a creative guy who certainly captured my imagination with a curve he drew on the back of my napkin. What it showed was that you can raise taxes only so high before people become disinclined to work. On the other hand, it’s possible to create incentive—and economic growth—with tax cuts. The Laffer Curve subsequently became one of the hallmarks of supply-side economics. I wish I had known how historic my napkin would become so that I could have saved it (p. 78). 

I had a similar response when I first heard of the Laffer Curve. Eye opening. 

Then later in the week I came across an article by Daniel Mitchell spelling out a few of the basics on the Laffer Curve. One of the interesting illustrations shows how much more revenue (about 5 times more) the government took in when Reagan lowered the upper tax rate of 70% down to 28%, comparing 1980 to 1988.  

The article had links to three short videos (about 7 minutes a piece) on the theory and real world evidence for the Laffer Curve, and then the frustration with the way tax bills are measured. They are all informative and clear, but the third one will make you want to do something to change the world. The three together take less time than half a television show without commercials. Definitely worth the time investment. 

The first video gives you the basic theory of the Laffer Curve.

Video II offers real-world examples of the Laffer Curve in action.

 

 

The third video covers the frustratingly inaccurate “static scoring” used by the Joint Committee on Taxation, causing bias toward higher taxes. 


 

 
If these concepts make sense to you, share them with a friend.

Time in the Shire

My kids know that my favorite part of Lord of the Rings is when Frodo and Sam and friends return to the Shire, and Sam gets up his nerve to go talk to Rosie, and they marry and start a family. That is what all the wars, all the hardships, all the battles against evil, were for. That was the purpose.



Samwise Gangee, Rosie, and family
from LOTR wiki
 

The Shire wasn’t a utopian society. People were somewhat selfish, and occasionally annoying, but often neighborly. It might not have been perfect—but after the horrors of tyranny and evil, it was lush and green, humble, and home.

As C. S. Lewis puts this concept, “The homemaker has the ultimate career. All other careers exist for one purpose only—and that is to support the ultimate career.” Being a mom, or being a dad, is life altering, and what it’s all about. Civilization in microcosm is a mom and dad with their new baby—forever after a family.

So, regardless of what’s going on in the world right now, I’m spending time in The Shire, being Grandma. Daughter, Social Sphere, had her first baby this week, and I flew from Texas to the intermountain west (packing all my warmest clothes) to do the most important thing there is to do right now: hold a baby.

I don’t know yet if this will interrupt the writing schedule. I might keep mostly to a schedule—although my reading and research time is somewhat diverted. I will also be doing a fair amount of cooking and dishes, and laundry—the day-to-day things that Sam could take pleasure in after escaping the fires of Mordor. I haven’t exactly been in Mordor; I try to live in civilization. But I’m active in the constant vigilance freedom, prosperity, and civilization require. So maybe this is something like the 20 years between Bilbo Baggins’s birthday party and Frodo’s beginning the Fellowship of the Ring. Or maybe I just get to be part of the Shire forever, and that would be OK for this grandma.

Civilization is built on love. A new baby, who is your own posterity, fills you with love like almost no other experience in life. Parenting, done with love, civilizes the parents as they seek all good things in life for their child. What a blessing!

So, sharing a photo of love come down from heaven.

 

Going with the LOTR comparison, I’ll just mention I’m sharing a room with a dragon, but so far no fire breathing. I guess in The Shire even dragons are relatively civilized.

 

Predictions

It’s the time of year for making predictions. I don’t happen to be good at that sort of thing. I don’t know who will be running for president. I don’t know what edict the president is going to make next, claiming such executive orders are within his constitutional authority. I don’t know how various judges are going to vote on redefining marriage.

So I’m going to do something easier: an if/then exercise. We know, based on principle, that anything the government takes on, for whatever “good intentions,” will cause harm—and most likely will create the exact opposite of the stated goal. I can safely predict that, if an idea is actually a good one but is outside the proper role of government, then government will make things worse rather than better. If an idea is worth doing, then the free market is much more likely to bring about the desired ends.

So here’s the list.

 

Families would benefit from giving dads (in addition to moms) parental leave upon the birth of a new baby.

Government Way: Makes a law requiring all employers to provide paid parental leave for at least one month for any dad whose wife/partner has just given birth.

Result: Businesses hesitate to hire married men whose wives are in child-bearing years. Businesses remove other benefits from employees, in order to pay for this new requirement without going in the red. Businesses will hesitate to promote or increase pay for any man who is likely to (or has taken) paid family leave. Businesses will reflect failure to reach goals during time off in performance reviews.

Many European countries do offer lengthy paid parental leave to fathers and mothers. It looks so civilized. But several things play out in those countries: high unemployment, lack of advancement for employees, and shockingly low birth rates.

Free Market Way: Businesses who want to attract and maintain the best employees consider whether offering parental leave would help. They will consider what works best for the employer and the employee. They may come up with a variety of alternatives, which might include varying lengths of parental leave, or combining work at home with work at the office during new baby times.

Result: The employer can actually offer caring for the individual employee, instead of simply being coerced to follow a one-size-fits-all government plan. The employer feels supported by the employer and is more likely to respond with hard effort to meet the employer’s goals. The employer and employee agree on the importance of family, and families are likely to be stronger—and larger. 

Employees Should Be Paid a Living Wage

Government Way: Makes a law requiring businesses to pay at least a minimum wage—for example, $10 an hour—for every employee, regardless of the value the worker brings to the business.

Result: Businesses will only hire employees who can and do contribute the minimum wage cost (which is actually high for the employer, with taxes, benefits such as health care, and management costs). Anyone who has too little experience or ability will remain unemployed. Young people who do not need a living wage, but need some income and experience, will lack previously available opportunities. Young, inexperienced, and part-time workers will be most hurt. Businesses will be less likely to risk starting businesses in areas where low-experience workers are plentiful—so unemployment will be particularly high in places where the most vulnerable live. The costs to produce goods are higher, so the cost to purchase is higher, nullifying the higher minimum wage being earned by the lowest skilled employees. So, if they have income, it doesn’t go as far.

Free Market Way: Businesses make individual agreements with individual workers, based on the work the employer wants done and the worker’s abilities. No employer is forced to pay more than the work is worth. No employee is forced to do work for less than he agrees to be paid.

Result: Businesses attract the best workers by willingly paying them what they’re worth. Less experienced workers start out working at a lower wage, but as they gain experience, their pay increases. Employers are willing to take a chance on less experienced workers, because the cost of employment is lower. Unemployment decreases—possibly down to near zero, which is prevented by current minimum wage laws. Inexperienced workers have a starting place from which they can move up. There is more flexibility for employers and employees. Costs to produce goods are more in line with what the market will bear, without artificially high costs, so money earned goes further. 

Everyone Ought to Receive Affordable Health Care

Government Way: Implements a complex and unworkable scheme to force all people to buy health insurance prescribed by government, regardless of what individuals want and need and can afford. Many unwanted details are hidden within the law—i.e., higher taxes on home sales, health clinics in schools that work against parental desires or permission, pressure to force states to set up exchanges to enable the boondoggle. It is insisted this is not a tax when being forced through Congress; it is held up as a tax, in order to pretend it is constitutional, when brought before the Supreme Court.

Result: While this is ineptly named the Affordable Care Act, it is more expensive for almost all Americans, essentially just as many remain uninsured as previously, and many who previously had health insurance and doctors they liked are deprived of those options. Health insurance is mistaken for care, and both health insurance and health care are made less affordable.

Free Market Way: It is recognized that separation from free market has led to higher prices. So free market alternatives begin to appear: health care savings accounts, health care cooperatives, lower prices for direct cash payments, major medical-only insurance, insurance across state lines and portable when changing employers. Low interest payment plans might be allowed, depending on credit histories and other factors. Hospitals coordinate with charities to help those with overwhelming costs.

Result: Individual needs are met with individual options. Competition and connection between patient and payment increase attention to cost, keeping costs naturally lower, and—as happens in free markets—innovation leads to greater services at lower costs

The list could go on. If you want a clean environment, keep government out of it, or you’ll get a dirtier environment. If you want a colorblind society, stop letting government favor certain races. If you want a good education for every child, get government out of the business of controlling education from afar.

There are specific roles for government, always related to protecting life, liberty, and property. Government has been so inept in so many things, we may not trust them even with the essentials, but there is a proper role for government. However, anything beyond that proper role and government will create negative consequences, regardless of possibly positive intentions.

So I predict greater freedom, prosperity, and civilization wherever government is limited to its proper role. I predict movement toward tyranny, poverty, and savagery whenever government steps in to “fix” some perceived problem. Every time.

The Political Sphere Is Round

This is the last post for 2014, and I thought it might be a good time to re-introduce the Spherical Model. I’ve done this from time to time, since the blog title is obscure when you don’t know what it’s about. This is just an intro. For more full information, go to the SphericalModel.com website. And there’s also a best-of-the-blog collection, Part I, Part II, and Part III. But for now, here’s a first step.

_________________________

Back in 2004, during our homeschooling decade, I was looking for a way to explain political ideas. And I began to ask questions, like: Is there a better way of looking at political ideas than right or left?

Because there is nothing innately conservative about the right or innately liberal about the left. In fact, the directional terms come from the seating arrangement of European parliaments, in which conservatives favored retaining the monarchy while liberals were in favor of people’s power.

So the typical line model we use to describe political ideas as right and left is just a seating arrangement. Yet we’ve come to think of this line as a spectrum.

Political conversations tend to describe the far ends as extreme, assuming there’s some virtue in being balanced in the middle. And we refer to our nation as center right—just a little more conservative than exactly center.

But what are the extremes? Do we assume communism or socialism at the extreme left, and fascism at the extreme right?

That can’t be right, because communism and fascism are both totalitarian statist tyrannies, just slightly different flavors. Nazi means “national socialist party” and the communist Soviet Union’s name was Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

So if Nazism and communism aren’t diametric opposites, then what are the logical extremes?

How about total government control, or tyranny, versus total lack of government control, or anarchy?

That’s better. Then freedom is that perfect balance in the middle.

But wait; there’s a problem with this model too: It’s common in history for people suffering in anarchy to turn for relief to total government control—anything for security. But in this model, as a people move to the left, they have to pass through that balanced freedom section. You’d think that it would be very common for someone to stop and say, “Hey, this freedom is good. Let’s stop going leftward and stay here.” Yet that pretty much never happens. But going directly from chaos to state control is historically common.

Plus, notice that there’s not that much difference between the tyranny of the state and the tyranny of anarchy. Total government control means the state has all the power—the police, the military. The state can do what it wants, and the mere citizen is without any rights except what the state decides to grant.

Anarchy, on the other hand, means that power belongs to whoever is stronger and meaner than the next guy. If you threaten to beat people up (or kill them) if they don’t give you all their belongings, and you’re strong enough to mean it, then you have power. If someone else is stronger or better armed than you are, then you have to yield power to them.

In other words, anarchy, while less organized, is power in the hands of the strongest and best armed—just like a tyrannical government.

So maybe government tyranny and anarchic tyranny are pretty close to the same thing. When I show this, I use a ribbon, labeled at the ends, and fold it in half, so it looks something like this:

Tyranny and freedom are really the opposite extremes.

Not bad. But it puts all those different kinds of tyrannies in the same location, and maybe there are differences.

A simple line doesn’t give us the dimensions we need.

So, how about if we use three dimensions—a sphere? If we draw a line at the equator, we can separate freedom (northern hemisphere) from tyranny (southern hemisphere). And then we can draw a longitudinal dividing line, with more local interests in the western hemisphere and larger interests—from state to nation, to international, in the eastern hemisphere.

I call this the Spherical Model.

Political Sphere



Down in the south, you can see that one side of tyranny is the chaos of anarchy, and the other side is the totalitarian control of government tyranny. It’s easy to get from one to the other—which is what much of world history has shown us. You can have communism, socialism, and Nazism as separate patches in their quartersphere, based on how much control they exert on their people (southern direction), or how far they plan to expand (toward the eastward extreme of world domination).

Up north in the freedom zone, location is mostly a matter of whose interest. Free people don’t yield power to a governing authority beyond the appropriate interest. Families make their own decisions about the care, upbringing, and education of their children. Communities on up to cities and counties decide on local law enforcement and protection needs. States (or provinces) deal with their particular infrastructure and laws. Only very limited powers are granted to a nation—as are enumerated in the US Constitution. And that sovereignty would never yield to an international power, but would cooperate with other free sovereignties concerning international issues.

If we identify ideologies according to level of control exerted onto free people, and also their level of interest, we can identify location on the sphere. And that will tell us how close we are to thriving in the northern freedom zone.

Economic Sphere

We can use the spherical model again for economic ideas: the north will be the prosperity of free enterprise, and the south will be the poverty of controlled economy. Those differences have direct relationships with political ideologies, so we can overlay the economic sphere right over the political sphere and see how things interrelate.

Social Sphere

And what about social ideologies? Again, we can use the same sphere; the north will be civilization, and the south will be savagery.

In all three overlaying spheres, the question becomes, not which is better, left of right? But what are the principles of freedom, prosperity, and civilization? There’s no too far north extreme; there’s only getting north enough and doing what it takes to stay there, generation after generation, without southward slipping.

The political, economic, and social spheres all have their own set of principles for reaching true north. We can take on the economic and social spheres another day, but I’ve started with the political sphere because it’s the easiest to see as the alternative to the right/left model.

So, if we want to be north on the political sphere, there are some questions that let us know whether we’re heading in the right direction:

• Is the policy being debated something that an individual has the right to do, and therefore has the right to delegate to his/her government? For example, a person has the right to protect his own life and property. He can, therefore, combine resources with his neighbors and hire a government entity, such as a sheriff, to do that job for him. Similarly, the several states can combine to delegate the power of defending the nation to a national government entity. Conversely, a person does not have the right to take his neighbor’s excess grain production, for example, and bestow it on himself, because his neighbor was more prosperous in a particular season. He can, of course, ask his neighbor for charity, but he cannot coerce the neighbor to give. That would rightfully be considered theft. Therefore the person cannot delegate the redistribution of wealth to the government to do for him—that would place him too far south on the sphere.
• Does the policy infringe in any way on God-given natural rights, such as those enumerated in the Bill of Rights? Does the policy infringe on the free exercise of religion or try to establish a particular sect as a state religion? Is political speech hindered? Does the policy infringe on the right of citizens to bear arms? Does the policy constitute an illegal search or seizure? Does the policy deprive a person of life, liberty, or property when the person has not committed a crime for which that deprivation is the just sentence? Does the policy try to claim for government a power that was not specifically granted in the Constitution? etc. If the policy infringes on the God-given rights, then government cannot take that power without usurping power from the people—which is too far south on the sphere.
• Is the idea being debated a proper role of government: some aspect of protection (including national defense, protection from interstate crime, enabling international and interstate commerce, standardized weights and measures and currency to protect the value of wealth, the judiciary that guarantees the protective laws), as enumerated in the Constitution? If not, then accepting the idea is outside the Constitution—and is too far south on the sphere.
• Is the perspective appropriately local? It is important that any issue be handled at the most local level possible. Parents should decide the means, methods, and curriculum for educating their children, for example. An issue that affects a state should be handled at the state level, not the national level. National decisions should not be ceded to some international body. An inappropriate interest level is too far south on the sphere.

Next time someone suggests you are (or an idea is) far-right extreme, check to see whether their position is more accurately some level of southern statist tyranny. Missing the possibility of the entire northern hemisphere of freedom is common. Most of world history shows an oscillation between statist tyranny and anarchic tyranny, or from one statist tyranny to another. Change the discussion by changing the terms and then dealing with principles. Then move north to freedom.