Thursday, April 9, 2009
An Armed Society Is Not A Polite Society
Len F.,
I agree with you in many regards, but not all. Let's agree on a couple of definitions, first, before we end up misunderstanding each other. I think socialism and capitalism are both broad sets of economic theories, but not forms of government. Our government is a democratic republic. I want to keep it that way. I don’t know anyone who wants to model our government after the Soviet Union or China. You said “China prospers only to the extent that it has become a largely free enterprise society, although it remains a dictatorship." First of all, "China prospers" is debatable since hundreds of millions of people live in poverty there. Second of all, neither of these 2 countries are democratic-republics, like America, and I have no desire to model our government after theirs. But so what if I would like to model our economic policy similar to some Scandinavian countries. It’s not fair to compare what Progressives want, with what the Soviet Union and Communist China tried. In America, we can vote out, or fire, our Representatives every 2 years. We just had an election, and it seems like we chose a progressive Congress, or at least I hope we did.
Even with the corporate media screaming warnings of “socialism”, we still elected to support a progressive President in the Electoral College. You’re right that many Americans don't know the President doesn't pass laws. And we spend far more time considering which President to vote for then which Representative to vote for. Which is why one can argue that Obama is a better representation of the will of the people. And, the Constitution specifically grants the President the power to recommend legislation to Congress, however a member of Congress still must introduce the bill for consideration. But this isn’t a debate about modes Government, it’s a discussion about what mode of economic policy is the best for We the People.
Progressives promote the right, of We the People, to produce and provide certain goods and services for the common good. This is legal economic policy, and as economic policy I believe it is a human rights issue. In order for our Government, deriving its just power from the consent of the governed, to function properly, i.e. secure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we need to make public certain goods and services. Perhaps in future letters I’ll go into more detail as to why each of the following public services are essential to a democratic-republic society, but for now I’ll simply list some. We need to provide functional public schools. Private schools still exist as an option for people who can afford it. We want a functional “public” health care system that guarantees coverage to all citizens. Just like with schools, people who can afford private care will have plenty of options. We need to protect common interests and the environment. We need a fair and publicly regulated banking system where banks act as utilities and not wild speculators. We need the US Post Office, but I’m glad I can use UPS when I need to. We need a welfare system that supports jobless, homeless, sick and old people. We are talking about a minimal safety net to catch Americans who would otherwise fall through the cracks. Our economic system must offer these necessities for our Government to function properly.
Progressives also promote a strong private industry that rewards both the worker and the investor. Contrary to con-myth, people will always work and invest, because therein lies the opportunities to earn more than the safety nets guaranteed by the government. Talent will still exist and people will still become wealthy. But instead of a few people building empires of wealth, accumulating hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, there will be many more hard working people and competent businessmen becoming millionaires. We need to roll back the Reagan tax cuts on the top marginal rate for this to work. Excessive income should be taxed aggressively. I’m talking about income after the first $4 million per year. People will still become, and stay, rich. But they can’t do it by grinding the wealth out of the working poor. This is not a novel approach. In 1776, some framers of Pennsylvania’s constitution thought “an enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness, of mankind; and therefore every free state hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property”.
And finally I want to address your point that the Democratic Congress’s deregulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is responsible for the bad economy. I will write an entire letter to you on this issue later, but to summarize, I think one of our biggest mistakes was the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. Bill Clinton and Republicans in Congress are responsible for this law. It lifted virtually all restraints on the operation of giant monopolies that dominate the financial system, which had been in place since 1933. A central pillar of Roosevelt’s New Deal was the Glass-Steagall Act. It barred banks, insurance companies, and stock trading companies from entering into each other’s industries. Removing those barriers did more damage than deregulating Fannie and Freddie. Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders, said "The lion's share of this problem is with a small number of bankers, and we should focus on them." And I believe that.
Len F., I’m glad that we can have these debates and I look forward to your next letter. Frankly, I’m scared of some of the rhetoric I hear coming out of both camps. I’ll leave you with just one more story. I call it: "An Armed Society Is Not A Polite Society"
In Kentucky, July 2008, crazed gunman Jim Adkisson entered a Unitarian Church, armed with 76 rounds, and opened fire. His remarks were strikingly similar to something a suicide bomber might say.
"The only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is to kill them in the streets, kill them where they gather. I'd like to encourage other like minded people to do what I've done. If life ain't worth living, then don't just kill yourself, do something for your country before you go. Go kill liberals."
Although this incident was in July, there have been several mass-murder-suicides in the past month in America. The corporate media linked these killings to the sour economy. And perhaps there is a connection. Jim Adkisson shot up the church because he could not find work and his his food stamps were taken away. But when we dig deeper we see that his toxic thought was molded by the same far right crowd who wish to eliminate social welfare programs, such as food stamps.
Now some of these cons are arguing that Obama's administration is becoming tyrannical because he wants Congress to pass more progressive education, health care, and energy policies. Most Americans want congress to do that too. They say we are out of touch with the American people, but we're a majority. Some fanatics argue that it's our duty to arm ourselves heavily enough to, not only protect ourselves, but to protect ourselves from our own government as well. It's an excuse to stock pile weapons and munitions to no limit. They believe, according to the 2nd Amendment, it is our right and duty to do no less then build countless private armies large enough to challenge the government at any time. As you said yourself, the only monopoly a government should hold is the armed forces. I don't want any random person possessing any weapons they can find. I think we agree here. But I take it one step further.
The government's monopolistic armed forces should only be strong enough to defend our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness from real and credible threats. And, all war abroad should require an Act of Congress. I keep hearing cons say "our government is the threat to our liberties, it's the boogie-man". If you believe that, why not promote military reduction?
Len F., I have a suggestion for your friends who are screaming about our "tyrannical socialist" government. For now on, they should vote to reduce or eliminate standing armies in times of peace. Vote for de-proliferation. If they're afraid of government becoming an overpowering tyrannical force, they'll soon have an opportunity to level the playing field. Not by loading up on guns, but by supporting President Obama's proposal to reduce our nuclear arsenal.
Best Regards,
Uppercut
April 9, 2009
