Is there, however, a downside to government? Ideally, if we live according to our founding principles, always respecting the individual sovereignty and unalienable rights of others, there should be no conflict. And, generally, this is how most of us do behave, in our day-to-day lives. Problems inevitably arise, however, when individuals, or groups of individuals, believe that government should modify the behavior of others, even if for apparently laudable goals. This will be one area of discussion in this post: The efforts of one individual or group to impose their will upon another individual or group through the actions of government. Another area of concern, particularly today, is the apparent direct action of government upon the people, as if government has itself become an sovereign creature, striving to impose it’s wishes upon those it was originally intended to serve. This will be a second area of discussion in this post: Government as a self-serving entity, composed of elected politicians, unelected bureaucrats, public employees, and a host of other individuals and businesses dependent upon the creature that has become our government.

Government is, in essence, a threat of force. It matters little whether a given law is unethical, or what some might perceive as unconstitutional; if it is indeed law, it carries with it the threat of force, if disobeyed.

If someone violates the fundamental rights of another, he or she deserves just punishment. If someone commits murder, execution might follow. If one person limits the liberty of another, such as by taking a hostage or enslaving another, the offender’s liberty might subsequently be limited in the form of imprisonment. And, if one person stole property from another, or swindled someone in a business transaction, restitution and/or a financial penalty would be reasonable. What of other offenses, though; ones that do not violate the unalienable rights of another? What would likely happen if someone refused to pay his or her taxes, and continued to do so, despite repeated demands by the IRS? What if one person did not live up to the ethical code of another group, with which he or she did not agree, but which they had managed to be codified as law?

I’ll consider “social programs”, first. Programs which serve our elderly, such as Medicare and Social Security, or our poor, such as Medicaid and Welfare, are indeed commendable in their intent. Two questions arise, however; are they just, and do they work? I will not focus much on the utility of such programs, except to mention that there exists ample evidence that the “War on Poverty” has been a dismal failure, and has likely perpetuated and worsened poverty, rather than alleviated it. Similarly, our efforts to subsidize healthcare and control healthcare costs have dramatically increased the overall cost of healthcare services, and the recently passed healthcare legislation will do little to correct this (see my old healthcare blog for further musings about the problems with our healthcare system).

The justice of such programs is a more nuanced matter, balanced as it is upon the generally accepted rule to “love your neighbor as yourself”. Is it laudable to serve those around you in need? In my opinion, such a goal is always worthwhile. If one has excess, and sees others in need, is it not appropriate to help? Yes, I think so. However, is it justified to take from one in order to give to another, in accordance with a “Robin Hood morality”? I think that is, at best, debatable. And, this is what it comes to be, in essence, with such a forced form of “charity”. Either one “gives”, in the form of taxation or income withholding, or one could be fined, even imprisoned. Is it just for government to violate one person’s unalienable rights to property (taxation, income withholding or fines) or liberty (imprisonment), even though he or she has not violated the unalienable rights of another? Even if the goal may be laudable, I believe the means do not justify the ends. One does not have an unalienable “right” to healthcare or retirement at age 65, and certainly not at the expense of another. Many of this country’s founders expressed a believe that a Republic could not exist without a strong moral base, by which they did not mean a particular religion, but a common code of ethical behavior. They believed in charity, in the Golden Rule, and this should again be the basis of our everyday conduct. We need to serve our neighbors, but ideally this should be through voluntary, charitable means, not through the threat of government force.

Should moral behavior be legislated? If not for social programs such as those mentioned above, what about other areas of moral behavior? We should have an accepted understanding that a certain code of moral behavior is mandatory for civil society, and this code is enshrined in our founding documents: We should not violate the unalienable right of others to life, liberty or property. We should not kill. We should not enslave or imprison. We should not steal or swindle. That’s really about it, and for many of us, that would be enough. We would like to know that we are secure in our life, liberty and property, and are comforted that there exist extensive civil codes that provide protection in our personal lives and business transactions.

But, what about issues of morality that we might not all share? Some people believe the consumption of alcohol is sinful or depraved. Should such behavior be made illegal? The 18th Amendment to our Constitution, which began the Prohibition Era, was a dismal failure. It did not completely curb the consumption of alcohol, it made criminals of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens who merely wished to enjoy a beer or glass of wine, and it promoted a dramatic rise in organized crime to meet that desire. Thirteen years later, Prohibition was repealed by the 21st Amendment. Same-sex marriage is a topic of current concern to many. They express concern that the sanctity of marriage will be debased if it is extended beyond the customary confines of a heterosexual relationship. While I personally do not share this concern, I can empathize with this reasoning, given the religious basis upon which it operates. However, I take the viewpoint that if I would not want someone else deciding who I could marry, which could be construed as my unalienable right to liberty or pursuit of happiness (hopefully, both), then I should not wish to constrain the similar rights of another.

This, for me, is a useful exercise: If I believe that a given law should be passed, would I be willing, personally, to enforce it? Would I protect, even through the use of lethal force, my life or the lives of my family members? Absolutely. Would I reclaim property that had been stolen from me? Yes, I probably would. Would I be willing to personally extract a fine, or imprison, or kill, someone who consumed alcohol, married someone of the same gender, or committed some other action with which I was not in moral agreement (assuming it did not violate the fundamental rights of another)? No, I most certainly would not. If one is not personally willing to carry out the punishment for a particular violation, is it somehow more acceptable to ask another to exact the penalty? Personally, I think that is the height of cowardice, and believe it is similarly unethical to empower the government, through legislation, to establish a punishment that we, ourselves, would not be willing to enforce. This, again, is government as threat of force.

Finally, I think it is useful to consider our government as a self-perpetuating entity, one which routinely violates those unalienable rights it was designed to protect, in the interests of its own preservation. The ranks of public officials have swelled in the past century, to the point where roughly one out of every five working Americans is in the direct employment of government, either federal, state or local. This does not include public schoolteachers, tens of thousands of “private” workers employed under government contracts, or hundreds of “private” businesses that depend in large part upon contracts awarded by government. This is an enormous beast to feed, and it is supplied entirely by those of us who truly work in the private sector, as our government does not produce, it consumes. There are now more unionized workers in the public sector than in the private one, and they have enormous clout when it comes to political donations, policy, and labor negotiations. Private business which have extensive government contracts, particularly in the defense and intelligence fields, have similar, if not greater, influence. None of these interests will give up their contracts, lessen their paychecks, or diminish their pension promises willingly. Our elected public officials are at least somewhat vulnerable to the whims of voters, but we also support an immense Army of unelected public and private workers who are not so beholden. Whether it is through taxation or income withholding, violations of our unalienable right to property, this government behemoth will strive to maintain itself, and continue to grow.

We are in jeopardy of surrendering our unalienable rights in the name of security, whether against illness, old age, or fear of harm. The entity to which we have entrusted our safety is not to be blindly followed, and will not willingly relinquish the powers and funding it has been given or has taken. I will end with several quotes from our founding fathers which I believe have particular relevance here:

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

“Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

Thomas Jefferson

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Benjamin Franklin

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”

John Adams

]]> http://peters4iowa2010.com/government-as-threat-of-force/feed/ 0 http://peters4iowa2010.com/campaign-door-hanger/ http://peters4iowa2010.com/campaign-door-hanger/#comments Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:56:43 +0000 Christopher http://peters4iowa2010.com/?p=437 My campaign “door hanger”, appearing soon at households in Iowa Senate District 15!

Thanks, again, to Libby Shannon at Goosetown Graphics in Iowa City for her excellent work!

I believe that Jesus’ example, providing a moral yardstick from which to judge existing (or, proposed) legislation, would be useful in our times. This country’s founding fathers felt the same, as is amply reflected in our founding documents. Our founders were correct, in my opinion, to refrain from taking any particular position with regard to religion, realizing that people will have a variety of different opinions when it comes to such matters. Instead, they focused upon the second portion of Jesus’ reply, that “you shall love your neighbor as yourself”. This sentiment is also expressed in what is known as the Golden Rule; as stated in the 7th chapter of Matthew: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Both of these concepts, “love your neighbor…”, and “do unto others…” state essentially the same principle, and can be found in most religious traditions and non-religious moral belief systems, to include in ancient Greece (“Do not do to your neighbor what you would take ill from him.” -Pittacus), Confucianism (“Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.” -Analects 12.2), Hinduism (“One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self.” -Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse 8), and many more.

Our country’s founders were well-versed in the teachings of the Bible, of course, as most, if not all, came from within the Christian tradition, but they were also well-acquainted with a variety of ancient and modern philosophical modes of thought. They were greatly influenced by the teachings of ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, and the Hebraic tradition of the Old Testament. In more contemporary times, the English philosopher, John Locke, the Scottish philosopher and economist, Adam Smith, the Swiss philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the French philosopher, Voltaire, and many other prominent figures of the Age of Enlightenment were major influences. John Locke, known as the “Father of Liberalism” (in the U.S., now, Libertarianism), was especially influential in his postulates of “individual sovereignty” and “natural rights”. Individual sovereignty is the idea that one “owns oneself”, and is not naturally subjugated to another entity, whether that be a monarch, a president, or a parliamentary body. From this concept of self-ownership follows the idea of natural rights, that one should have an expectation that his or her life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness, will not be infringed by another. There is a competing corollary, however, that one also has no right to infringe upon the natural rights of another.

Coming back to biblical terms, individual sovereignty can be seen as a reflection of the belief that Man was made “in the image of God” and, therefore, should have no other ruler. The natural right to life is seen in the Ten Commandments as “Thou shall not kill”. The right to property is reflected in the admonition that “Thou shall not steal”. The right to liberty does not have a comparable companion in the Ten Commandments, perhaps as slavery was commonplace in all but recent times (and is still common now, in some locations), but I doubt most would disagree with the concept, nonetheless. Furthermore, with the expectation that one’s own rights will be respected, it is likewise expected that one will respect the comparable rights of others. This brings us back to the idea of the Golden Rule, which can be stated either in the positive, “Treat others as you would wish to be treated”, or in the negative, “Do not treat others in a manner in which you would not like to be treated”.

This country’s founders, then, did indeed provide useful moral yardsticks to judge existing and potential legislation. The first sentence in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” should be a collective moral touchstone, reminding each of us that we have equal intrinsic value, and that we should neither allow ourselves to be subjugated, nor attempt to subjugate others. The Declaration of Independence continues, defining the primary purpose of government, “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…”, and justifying the right to challenge a government that does not fulfill its primary purpose, “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it…” The first portion of the Constitution is largely a blueprint for how the new Federal Government was to be constructed, with a carefully defined and limited scope of interests. This was followed by the first Ten Amendments (The Bill of Rights), which reemphasized the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, to include the sovereignty of the individual citizens and of the separate States, and our inalienable rights which could not be justifiably infringed by our Federal Government. In addition to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, we also have abundant supporting documents to include the Articles of Confederation, our original founding charter, the Federalist Papers, a series of essays explaining and urging ratification of the Constitution, and other extensive public and private writings of our country’s founders.

For those, like me, concerned about the size, expense, and scope of our Federal Government, I see little need for additional legislation. We have been provided ample guidelines in our founding documents. We need only to begin again to apply these principles! Does a piece of existing or proposed legislation (Federal or State) infringe upon the sovereignty or unalienable rights of any individual? If so, it should be discarded. Does some existing or proposed Federal legislation infringe upon the sovereignty of any State, or extend beyond the limited and defined role of the Federal Government, as detailed in the Constitution? If so, it should be eliminated. Would we, as an individual, or as a nation, wish to be treated in a certain manner? If not, we should not treat other individuals or nations in such a manner.

These moral measures are simple to understand, yet profound in their implications, which is usually clear evidence of the soundness of an idea. These principles are also abundantly evident in our founding documents, but repeatedly, and inexplicably, ignored. We have collectively become like the Pharisee, more concerned about nuances and complexities of the law, while ignoring the fundamental principles upon which our laws should be based. What we need now, in my opinion, is for informed citizens and our public representatives to do as Jesus did in answering the Pharisee; to point out the fundamental principles that are of greatest importance: We are each sovereign individuals, we have equal and unalienable rights, that our government was instituted primarily to protect those rights, and that we will not treat others in a manner in which we would not like to be treated. On these principles depend all the law and our government.

I was walking around yesterday and today, asking people to sign my petition to place my name on the ballot for the November election. I met a fellow physician this evening who happens to be a pediatric medical subspecialist. She works at the University of Iowa, which serves a large proportion of children and adults who receive Medicaid benefits. We discussed the inequity of physician reimbursements between those who do procedures (like I do) and those who don’t. Her primary concern, however, which is obviously laudable, is how her young patients can receive necessary care if their parents are unable to provide for that care (whether out-of-pocket or through their own insurance).

The dilemma I face, given our unsustainable spending and burgeoning debt, is that we simply cannot afford all of our current welfare spending. Also, libertarianism, in fundamental principle, opposes the idea that one party should be forced (through taxation, with threat of fine or imprisonment for failure to pay said taxes) to pay for the needs of another. Libertarians value the fundamental rights of life, liberty and property, which would necessarily denounce most forms of taxation. There is certainly some degree of difference of opinion here, even among libertarians, but the general principle is a consistent line of thought. Libertarians believe that the primary role of government is to ensure that each individual’s inalienable rights are preserved. A secondary role of government may be to provide those goods and services which would otherwise not be provided by the free market, or through charity. Traditional examples of these are lighthouses, roads and bridges, and commonly also emergency services (although these are increasingly provided in the private sector).

One obvious answer is to eliminate that welfare spending which could be considered unnecessary, but who is to make that judgement? My father, for example, receives Medicare, Tricare, and  Social Security benefits, but honestly doesn’t need them (sorry, Dad, for using you as an example). Should he pass along these benefits to a needy child? Personally, I think that would be the moral thing to do. But, problems arise in defining who is most needy, who might willing give up their “entitlements” (incidentally, there are few words I despise more than “entitlement”), and whether or not to force an unwilling participant to give to a more needy recipient.

These dilemmas are why most libertarians emphasize the value of charity. Americans have a remarkable history of charitable giving. Even apart from what is “given” in the form of taxation, Americans are exceptionally generous. Looking only at foreign aid (I should place foreign aid in parentheses when speaking of federal giving, but that is another matter), private charity by Americans historically averages 2-3 times that spent by the Federal Government. But, is it enough to rely on charitable giving for the care of our most defenseless and dependent citizens, our children?

In honesty, I suspect that charitable giving would likely provide more than adequate care for the young patients of this pediatric subspecialist. In fact, I suspect that with proper organization, a charity designed to provide for such children would do a vastly better job of providing care, and more adequately reimburse their providers, than our current Federal/State Medicaid system. Still, what if I am wrong? My stop-gap measure is to imagine that some form of government subsidization might be worthwhile, even though it would necessarily involve the coercive action of government. One problem inherent in such a plan, as is well exemplified by the gradual growth of our Medicare/Medicaid system over the past 45 years, is what is known in the military as “mission-creep”. We could initially define the limits of such care to only patients under 18 years of age who live below the “poverty line”, who have certain ailments, and who have no insurance. But, it would only be a matter of time before the age restriction changes, the “poverty line” definition is altered, other medical conditions are added, etc. If such a measure were pursued in any manner, I would prefer to see it done entirely at the state or community level, which I expect would offer greater accountability and transparency, and less temptation to corrupting influences. Medicaid is a combined State/Federal program already; it would not be too much of a stretch to imagine it becoming an entirely state-run program.

Again, I do not have definitive answers here. Clearly, the status quo is unsustainable, and is therefore not an option. Also, as the libertarian writer David Bergland has stated, Utopia is not an option, either. I suspect that in a truly free society with limited government, charitable giving would fill such needs as I have outlined above. Still, as a physician who understands these issues well, I can imagine that a state-sponsored program to serve our most vulnerable might be worthwhile, and possibly necessary, recognizing the inherent “slippery-slope” risks, and realizing that I am not being entirely faithful to my libertarian principles for saying so.

Healthcare, by the way is an enormously difficult subject. I have promised to import my previous blog on the subject to this site, and will do so in the immediate future…

No, the gravest threat to our security, and our greatest moral failing, is our burgeoning debt.

I apologize in advance for the plethora of numbers and graphs that will follow, but our debt is the most important and immediate problem we face, and it is essential to understand the nature and implications of this problem as fully as possible. For the sake of simplicity and easy reference, most of the numbers that I will quote are taken from the U.S. Debt Clock (usdebtclock.org), which is in turn derived from sources such as the Department of Treasury, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and which I have found to be reliable when compared to numerous other sources. Most of the graphs that follow (the blue ones) were generated at a website entitled usgovernmentspending.com, which I have found both useful and educational, and which I have again found to be reliable when compared to other sources. I have chosen to reference most of these graphs (again, the blue ones) in terms of 2005-inflation adjusted dollars per capita for clarity and consistency. Some graphs are expressed as percentages of GDP, but since GDP is a highly manipulated number, likely grossly overestimated, I have used these graphs only for additional illustrative purposes.

Total U.S. Government Debt

Total U.S. Government Debt now exceeds $13 trillion, and this is likely a conservative estimate. The magnitude of spending by the Federal Reserve is not entirely known, and will likely remain a mystery for the foreseeable future, as efforts to pass “Audit the Fed” legislation (auditthefed.com) by Representative Ron Paul and others have thus far failed. Furthermore, as highlighted in the recent Washington Post series entitled “Top Secret America” (projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america), spending on behalf of our “national security” since 9/11 is similarly opaque.

Total U.S. Government Debt

As we can see in the above chart, our Total U.S. Government Debt has been growing rapidly since the mid-1980s, approximating an exponential rate of growth, and is entirely without precedent in the entire history of our nation. The debt spike following World War II is clearly visible, after which the debt gradually decreased but was never fully eliminated, and then began to grow markedly in the past 30 years.

If we look at the largest budget items in our annual federal spending, the primary sources of this debt become immediately obvious. Medicare and Medicaid spending is $783 billion, Social Security is $690 billion, and Defense spending is $675 billion. Interest payments alone on our existing debt is $198 billion! “Earmarks”, an example of government waste that is commonly bandied about by politicians when discussion deficit reduction, is a relatively paltry $17 billion.

U.S. Healthcare Spending

U.S. Welfare Spending

U.S. Defense Spending

Interest on U.S. Debt

U.S. Education Spending

I hope that the above numbers and graphs are as alarming to you as they are to me, but our government debt is, in fact, only a fraction of our total debt burden.

Total U.S. Debt

While our Total U.S. Government Debt now exceeds $13 trillion (and is likely much more), our Total U.S. Debt is in excess of $54 trillion. This figure includes the aforementioned government debt, but also includes debt held by households, corporations, and financial organizations. What is important to keep in mind, however, is that most of this debt is ultimately owed by you and me. The governmental and household debt are obviously the responsibility of U.S. citizens, but what about the debt held by corporations and financial organizations? Keep in mind that most corporations and financial organizations have shareholders, which could include you and me, and that our Federal Government has been all too willing to “bail out” many “too-big-to-fail” organizations, or to assume their outstanding debts, so it should be abundantly clear that we are each liable for a large proportion of this Total U.S. Debt.

According to the U.S. Debt Clock, the current Debt per Citizen, each man, woman and child, is nearly $175,000 (and, again, this is likely a conservative estimate). For my family of five, that equals $875,000. Even as a fairly successful surgeon, I don’t have that much money to spare. How about you?

Causes and Effects of U.S. Debt

One can point to numerous cases of our rising debt burden, and I will discuss some of those in a moment, but it is first necessary to discount one common theory. This is not a partisan issue, but a distinctly bipartisan failure. For example, our rising Federal Debt is not due entirely to increasing Welfare expenditure by Democrats, nor entirely to increasing Defense expenditure by Republicans; rather, our rapidly growing Federal Debt is largely due to increasing expenditures in both of these areas, and others, by both major political parties. It is, in essence, a quintessential example of bipartisan cooperation!

A major cause of our rising Total U.S. Debt is the important role played by central banking and the rise of a fiat currency in the past century. A full review of this process and its implications is beyond the scope of this post, but I will highlight a few important events, and the interested reader is encouraged to investigate further. The Federal Reserve System was first established in 1913.  In 1934, President Roosevelt issued an order to confiscate privately owned gold, followed by legislation which readjusted the exchange rate between USD and gold. Following a conference in Bretton Woods in 1944, the International Monetary Fund and what would ultimately become the World Bank were created, and most of the world’s currencies were pegged to the value of the USD. Following this agreement, most other countries abandoned a “gold standard” for their currencies, while a gold standard for the USD remained, at least in principle. In 1971, following years of increasing USD “printing” to finance the Viet Nam War, President Nixon abolished the last vestiges of the USD gold standard. The net effect of these events was to establish a U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve, and a fiat currency, the Federal Reserve Note, which had no intrinsic value beyond which faith in its buying power provided to it. Parenthetically, “fiat”, in Latin, means nothing more than “let it be done”.

With no fundamental value underlying the Federal Reserve Note (FRN), whether gold, silver, or some other measure of the wealth of our nation, “money” could be “printed” without regard to underlying restrictions on its value. The resultant effect is clearly obvious in the following graph, which shows the declining value of the FRN in terms of 1913 inflation-adjusted dollars. Since 1913, the FRN has lost more than 90% of it value!

Value of the Federal Reserve Note

Our current debt crisis can be directly traced to policies of our Federal Reserve System and our Federal Government. In keeping with the prevailing fascination with Keynesian economics, our Federal Government and the Federal Reserve have repeatedly attempted to “stimulate” our economy out of nearly every economic downturn. In effect, they have created more debt, and monetary surplus, trying to supplement that which was not being naturally produced by a healthy free-market economy. This strategy was indeed effective, temporarily, until the next economic downturn inevitably followed. In theory, this practice might even be practicable, if the existing debt were eliminated after each cycle of “recovery”, but we have not witnessed such debt repayment in the past century. Instead, this debt has been allowed to accumulate, decade after decade, leading to our current state of affairs.

The examples of Federal Government and Federal Reserve System influence in our economy are numerous, but I will discuss one in particular, one that is especially relevant to those impacted by our current “housing crisis”. What is particularly important to understand about this “crisis” is that it is actually a “housing bubble”, and it is only the latest in several “equity bubbles” that have been artificially inflated by our Federal Government and Federal Reserve System, particularly in the last three decades. Again, a full review of this event is beyond the scope of this article, but the interested reader can learn much by referencing multiple online resources. Suffice it to say that many, including most of those in political office, denied that a housing bubble even existed, until it began to deflate. This was despite the protestations of many others, to include even a mainstream publication such as The Economist, which stated, in 2005, that, “the worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history”. An extraordinarily illustrative graph is the following, by Yale economist Robert Shiller, which examines the prices of existing homes in inflation-adjusted 1890 dollars.

If you purchased a home in the last decade or so, do you now feel comfortable knowing that your homes’ value may be worth one-half of what you paid for it? No, neither do I. I fear we are a long way from the “bottom” of this most recent bubble, and commercial real estate seems well poised to be the next bubble to deflate.

Debt as a Security Issue

Security is easily understood from the perspective of defense and military spending, but this is only one issue of concern. The United States is fundamentally insolvent, as it owes more than it can currently pay, and this fact has far-reaching implications. The percentage of our debt held by other nations is in excess of 25%, and the two nations to which we are most indebted are China and Japan. We have three options before us, or some combination of the three. We can pay our debt, default upon our debt, or inflate our way out of debt. All options, or any combination of the three, will have profound implications upon our economy, our current standard of living, and our security. There is simply no escaping this reality. With any option, we will have to reduce our military presence overseas (which, I feel, would be a prudent move), but would also have to drastically reduce our commitment to “welfare” spending. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are all functionally insolvent, and the recently passed Health Care Reform and Education Reconciliation Act (Obamacare) will do nothing to alter matters. We should expect that our current “welfare state” will eventually fail, either gradually or precipitously, and that fact also has potentially dramatic security implications.

Debt as a Moral Issue

Regardless of which choices we make regarding our current debt, as outlined above, the ramifications of those decisions are particularly relevant for future generations of Americans. Let us imagine for a moment that we collectively decide not to engage in further debt expansion, and to pay all outstanding debts in full, which, in my opinion, would be the more honorable choice. Collectively, we owe in excess of $54 trillion, and this is ignoring an estimated $100 trillion in outstanding financial derivatives. In contrast, our (likely inflated) annual GDP is around $14 trillion. So, if we diverted every single thing we produced, year after year, with nothing spent for housing, food, etc., we could be completely debt-free in just under four years. This, of course, is not practicable, so we must admit that we must pass this debt burden to future generations. Talk about taxation without representation! Some of these future Americans have not even been born! This, to me, is the height of hubris; we have borrowed from the future, expecting that future generations of Americans will pay our bills!

Conclusion

We have important decisions to make, and those involving our burgeoning debt burden are, in my opinion, the most important and immediate. If only from a moral standpoint, which I personally find the most pertinent, but also from the standpoint of our collective security, we must take action now. Recognize that partisan differences are unimportant, and are in fact likely causing our current problems. Campaign and vote for candidates who recognize the severity of the problems we face. Understand that we cannot maintain the course upon which we are currently set. Realize that our current comforts are not worth the discomforts we are bequeathing to those that will follow us. Accept the likely suffering which we will experience, and reach out to those around you to lessen their suffering. Reestablish connections with family and local communities. Engage in local governance and mutual support.

To borrow a phrase from a trusted online friend of mine, “let’s create a world worth inheriting”.

Relevant Links

The Economist: A Special Report on Debt: Repent at Leisure: .economist.com/node/16397110?story_id=16397110

The New York Times: The Technocracy Boom by David Brooks: nytimes.com/2010/07/20/opinion/20brooks.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=Technocracy+&st=cse

The Crash Course by Chris Martenson: chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

]]> http://peters4iowa2010.com/debt-our-gravest-threat-and-our-greatest-moral-failing/feed/ 8 http://peters4iowa2010.com/my-new-campaign-brochure/ http://peters4iowa2010.com/my-new-campaign-brochure/#comments Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:12:44 +0000 Christopher http://peters4iowa2010.com/?p=238 Thanks to Libby Shannon at Goosetown Graphics in Iowa City for her excellent work and insights!

Check out the brochure, and feel free to print and distribute, if you wish:

For a better quality PDF, click below:

Brochure

]]> http://peters4iowa2010.com/my-new-campaign-brochure/feed/ 0 http://peters4iowa2010.com/libertarianism-new-party-old-idea/ http://peters4iowa2010.com/libertarianism-new-party-old-idea/#comments Sat, 03 Jul 2010 13:44:00 +0000 Christopher http://peters4iowa2010.com/?p=200 The Libertarian Party is relatively new, founded in 1971 by disillusioned Republicans and Democrats, and independent-minded political newcomers. However, the libertarian philosophy is much older, dating to the time of the founding of this country, and much earlier. Libertarianism is largely a recent branding of what was once known as Liberalism, now known as Classical Liberalism in order to differentiate it from the Modern Liberalism with which we are most familiar today.

The foundations of what would become Libertarian, or Classical Liberal, philosophy can be traced into antiquity. The 1st century BC Roman philosopher and statesman, Cicero, was admired by this country’s founding fathers for his views of natural law and innate rights. The rediscovery of Cicero’s writings in the 14th century helped to spark the Renaissance of the 14th through 16th centuries. John Locke, the British philosopher of the 17th century, and Adam Smith, the Scottish economist of the 18th century, were major influences upon which the founding principles of this country were based. Locke emphasized the importance of individual rights, and defined the purpose of government as protecting those rights. Smith also valued individual rights, and stressed the importance of an unencumbered market economy in maintaining those rights and meeting the needs of society. Other writers were also instrumental in the development of what was then known as Liberal thought, but the foregoing should adequately serve as a brief introduction.

This country’s founders embraced these concepts of individual rights, free markets, and limited government. Like others, they found these ideals to be mutually compatible. A limited government was necessary to insure individual rights. The recognition of individual rights, particularly property rights, benefitted a free market economic system. A free market, in turn, allowed society to prosper, strengthening individual rights and (hopefully) preventing the perceived need to increase the size and scope of government. These ideals also merged well with their developing concept of largely autonomous states united under a limited national government.

Libertarianism, or Classical Liberalism, was a radical idea in the 18th century, and remains so today. When I speak of libertarianism to colleagues, friends and family, I frequently receive a wide variety of responses. Most of the comments are favorable, but many are ill-informed. If I said I was a liberal or a conservative, I could relatively easily predict the range of responses I would hear. Libertarianism, however, seems a mystery to many. Yet, when the matter is discussed in some detail, I have found that most Iowans are indeed libertarian, they just didn’t know the label! I find the following graphic very useful:

As visualized in this graphic, Libertarianism is remarkably in the middle of the extremes of political thought in the Left-Right divide. Conservatives tend to value libertarian principles of fiscal responsibility and national security. Liberals appreciate the libertarian values of individual rights and tolerance. And, I believe, most Iowans respect both of these sets of values. They are not mutually exclusive, although it would seem so based upon the exaggerated differences between “Right” and “Left”. Don’t most of us value another’s right to live their life as they see fit, so long as it does not impact upon our own rights? Don’t most of us believe that we should be free to succeed, recognizing the possibility that we might instead fail? Wouldn’t most of us like to make our own decisions regarding how we manage our possessions and spend our money, whether for our own use, or for charitable purposes? Don’t most of us believe that it is important to maintain the security of our country, but that we don’t necessarily need to waste lives and resources in foreign entanglements in pursuit of this goal?

As I see it, Libertarianism is the true center of American politics. It is right there, where it has been since our country’s founding. It has simply been forgotten by many Americans, and its principles summarily ignored by most of our leaders in government. It is time to restore these founding principles to our country; to educate ourselves regarding these ideals, and to remove from power those officials who refuse to govern by them.

What I find most troubling is the fact that, while Iowa’s population has remained essentially unchanged for the past 30 years, the General Fund Budget has increased nearly 130%! This is in inflation-adjusted dollars, which is a presumedly accurate calculation; in non-adjusted dollars, the increase has been 270%! My question is, with a stable population base, does there exist any reasonable argument for this growth?

When one looks at the partisan history of the Governor’s office in Iowa, Republican’s were in charge of the Administration for 19 of those 30 years, while Democrats have been in charge the last 11 years. During the same time period, the Iowa General Assembly was similarly of mixed influence. Democrats held a majority in both houses for 7 of those sessions, Republicans held a majority in both houses for 5 of those sessions, and there was a stalemate in control of the two houses for 3 of those sessions, including a 25:25 split in the Senate and a 51:49 Republican majority in the House during the 2005-2006 session.

One of the conclusions reached by Auditor of State, David Vaudt, in the above report is the following: “Continues to ‘kick the can down the road’ – When will elected officials recognize it only makes solving the problem that much more difficult?” Honestly, how could it be stated more plainly than that?

I will read and write more about the Iowa budget in future posts, but for now, the conclusion I draw is this: Despite a stable population of Iowans, our government has grown tremendously over the past 30 years, regardless of which of the two major political parties were in charge. The data for spending at the federal level is quite similar, and I suspect the same is true in most of our 50 states. It is time to expose the falsity of the claim that there are substantial differences between most Republicans and Democrats. Both have interest groups and constituencies to which they are beholden, and in order to maintain or acquire their elected positions, they must cater to those interests. They seem to be able to do so only by offering something, which means something they acquire from working Iowans in the form of taxation, and in doing so, necessarily increase the size and scope of government.

It is well past time to cast off the illusion that we have a “two-party” system. In essence, Republicans and Democrats are one in the same, at least when it comes to increasing the size of government and the burden on taxpayers. To blindly place one’s faith in either major party is simply to open your wallet or checkbook. To put it another way, I would argue that if you desire an increase in the size, scope and cost of government, you should feel free to vote for either major party, as it matters little which you choose. However, if you wish to see a smaller, less intrusive and less wasteful government, and a decreased burden on taxpayers, you should consider voting for neither major party.

We need to return this country and this state to their founding principles; to serve to protect the fundamental rights of citizens, and little else. This is all we really need to build a just and equitable society, as we can manage most of the rest. In future elections, I urge all Iowans to avoid “straight-ticket voting”. Learn the positions of your candidates, and vote for those who value personal liberty and economic freedom, regardless of party allegiance. I would, of course, recommend Libertarian or Independent candidates primarily; but would certainly welcome a vote for any truly liberty-minded Republican or Democrat, as well!

“That government is best which governs least.”

Henry David Thoreau

Like many young Americans, I was a passive recipient of my parents’ political ideology. Parenthetically, while some other young Americans may actively reject their parents political framework, I think one could make a fair argument that this is frequently a reactionary response, and no more informed than those, like me, who simply adopted what was already familiar. After all, how is an 18 year old generally well-equipped to make such judgements? In my opinion, American history and political philosophy are not adequately presented in many primary and secondary school curricula, yet while that is an important matter, I will skip over it for now.

In any case, I became a Republican after completing high school in 1978, despite the political disillusionment of the 1970s following the disastrous Nixon administration and the ongoing ambivalence during the Carter administration. In the 1980s, Reagan became President, the Cold War ended, our economy prospered, and most things seemed to be going well. I was concerned about the direction of the Republican Party under the influence of the “moral majority” during this time, finding it odd that the party of “smaller government” would presume to affect moral behavior through the actions of government, but I was not enough concerned to become involved. Through the 1990s and 2000s, I became preoccupied with my study and practice of medicine to give much thought to politics. In my worldview at the time, nothing was more important than what I was doing, whether that be medical school, two surgical residencies, or developing my surgical skills in private practice. I was only peripherally interested in politics, but continued to vote Republican, when I made the effort to vote at all.

I was initially excited about the George W. Bush’s presidency. His call for “compassionate conservatism” was appealing, and the influence of the “moral majority” had waned. However, with the party of “smaller government” in control, our federal government instead became larger and more intrusive. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11, but viewed the Iraq war with suspicion. I became increasingly uncomfortable with the reports on our activities abroad, wondering how we could presume to be a moral nation when we failed to live up to our own ideals. Simultaneously, on the domestic front, our civil liberties were also compromised by legislation such as the Patriot Act. Furthermore, in addition to the dramatic growth in government spending on military activities, Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of social welfare since the creation of Medicaid and Medicare in 1965, was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by President Bush.

In 2008, my wife and I had had enough. “Change” and “hope” were in the air! My wife and I switched to the Democratic Party. I supported Barack Obama in the Iowa caucus (my wife supported Hillary Clinton). We both voted for Obama in the general election, and were hopeful that he would make good on his campaign promises, particularly to end our failed military engagements abroad. We have, obviously, been disappointed. Not only has President Obama continued our military adventurism abroad, he has increased the erosion of our public liberties through continuation of the Patriot Act and other activities, and has dramatically expanded upon the $700 billion dollar “bailout” authorized by Bush in the waning days of his presidency. Bush I was followed by Bush II, and now Obama is little more than Bush III!

The above is really a recounting of my political disillusionment with the “two-party” system; my path to political enlightenment actually began in 2007-2008, when I became increasingly concerned about the perils of our economic and monetary system. I will write more about this elsewhere, but suffice it now to say that it gradually became obvious to me that much of our economic and monetary peril was directly related to our “two-party” system of government. I have purposely placed the phrase “two-party” in parentheses, as I believe that in reality we have only a one-party system of government, with different branding for different consumers. If one were to consider carbonated sodas, “Coke” and “Pepsi” are as much different as are “Republican” and “Democrat”.

My first comprehensive introduction to libertarianism came from I book which I can highly recommend, David Boaz’ “Libertarianism: A Primer”. Reading this book, and others to follow, amounted to nothing less than an epiphany. I became further enchanted with the history of this country’s founding. I re-read our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. I read biographies on Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison. I became acquainted with the ideas of Austrian economics and the value of a truly free market. When I am not working or spending time with my family, much of my time remains devoted to the study of political theory, philosophy, and economics. What I have learned is that our founders had it laid out a workable plan for self-government, and that we have simply failed to follow their instructions!

I became involved with the Campaign for Liberty, the grassroots organization that developed in the wake of Dr. Ron Paul’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. I became a member of the Libertarian Party, although I briefly changed my party affiliation to vote for liberty-minded candidates in this year’s primary. I have written to President Obama, members of Congress, our Governor, and newspapers. I wrote a brief blog on the subject of healthcare reform, and will import or link to that subject matter here in the near future. I have also posted numerous comments and links to articles on Facebook and other forums regarding politics and economics. However, my “reach” through these efforts has been limited. It is my sincere belief that many Americans are, at heart, libertarians, and that they are looking for answers as I once was. It is my hope that through my candidacy I might reach others who are yearning for answers, who are disillusioned with our current political environment, and who desire to regain our country’s promise of liberty and prosperity.