The Role of Government

DocBrain believes that the role of government is to serve the best interests of the citizens. This is the only role of government. If the government seems to pursue some other action, then it's officials and/or bureaucrats are being influenced by non-citizens and this is wrong. Members of governments can succumb to fear or bribery. Beyond that, we hope that those who are in a position to exert coercive force over us are honest in their own personal lives, at least within the realm that they enslave us.

The best interest of the citizens isn't always the same as satisfying the immediate desires of individual citizens, but more a framework under which citizens can maximize their individual outcomes to the advantage of themselves and the higher purposes they live for. It is the stucture under which citizens can achieve happiness without being subject to bribery, fear and violence. Since the government controls the public coffers and law enforcement, the government is the one place where bribery, violence and instillation of fear exists. It is critical that laws and regulations be applied fairly and equally, that public officials who request or accept any form of bribery be removed from office. It is critical that the laws and regulations serve the citizens' best interest. No other priority matters.

The current policy towards illegal aliens is a case in point.

No one can argue that there is a net positivity to the citizens of the USA of allowing felonious aliens to remain in the country(while this would allow employment of a few additional prison guards and police, it increases overall costs and fear among the citizens as a whole and cannot be defended rationally).

What best interests of the citizens are served by allowing illegal (but non-felonious) aliens to remain in the country? For some, there is cheap labor, but for others (citizens who are unemployed) there is hardship as they must compete for jobs against those who can accept less. There are secondary issues, such as paying out of the public coffers for food, shelter, health care, education, police and fire protection of those who are honest, illegal and unemployed. This does not serve the citizens. On the other hand, providing these goods and services increases employment of citizens. It is important in any discussion of this on a governmental level to consider only the viewpoint of the citizens, the best interests of the citizens. The best interests of others is never to be a governmental concern except in how it might be beneficial to the best interests of the citizens.

The bottom line is that when a politician speaks about anything in the context of a viewpoint other than the best interests of the citizens, that politician is not doing his duty. Whenever a bureaucrat acts to enforce a rule or regulation that does not further the best interests of the public, she is not doing her job. Whenever a politician pits one citizen against another, that politician is also not doing his job, as laws have the main mission of the best interests of the citizens, not the majority, not the minority, not the rich, not the poor, not the members of any race, national origin or religion, not one sex or another, not one sexual orientation or another, not one age or another. Other than preventing one citizen (or group) from exerting coercion (bribery, fear or violence) against another, there is little else that government has the right to do. What about biases? Biases exist in everyone. The best interest of the citizens is not so much to force people to act unbiased (ie, race/sex/age quotas) as this pits one citizen against another, but to encourage education and familiarity to open lines of communication and to allow the citizens to achieve their own best outcomes through growth of commonality and relationships.

A nation of laws

John Adams said that the United States is "a nation of laws not men". The USA was envisioned as a place where laws would rule, not kings or mobs or groups. No ruling class. Have we moved closer or further from this ideal?

The events in Arizona demonstrate the conflict between laws and leaders, between the working class and the ruling class.

DocBrain will attempt to clarify the logic of the conflict in Arizona and to put it into ethical perspective.

Anything that is against a law in the place where the law exists is illegal. The convuluted logic is that it is only a crime to those who have jurisdiction to enforce the law. Illegal immigration is a Federal crime and enforcement of the law is a Federal duty. In contrast, speeding on a state highway is illegal under state law in every state and enforcement of the law is each state's duty. In each case, enforcement is spotty. In special circumstances (such as felonies), private citizens may help enforce a law, such as performing a citizen's arrest. For the most part, enforcement of laws is at the discretion of officers of the law, whose policy and procedures are at the direction of the political leaders, who represent the ruling class in America.

Unless the Federal government specifically requests the officers of the law of Arizona to assist in finding, detaining and transporting illegal entrants into the USA, being in Arizona illegally is not a crime in the eyes of the officers of the law of Arizona. Furthermore, because of the powers given to the Federal government as part of the Constitution, the State of Arizona cannot write or enact or enforce laws that usurp Federal rights and duties.

Does the Federal government have the duty to enforce all the laws on its books? In theory, the answer is yes, but in practice, enforcement is at the discretion of those who determine policy and that is at the discretion of the executive branch of the government. If the President does not want certain laws enforced, then they will not be enforced. If the President wants laws enforced selectively, then they will be enforced selectively. The argument against selective enforcement is that it perverts the concept of the rule of law. The argument in favor of selective enforcement is that sometimes laws do not keep up with the sentiments of the people.

This gets to the specific issue of Immigration Laws. We clearly have a failure to enforce these laws adequately by the Federal government. While the Federal government can request assistance from state law enforcement, the Feds do not have to and the state officers cannot view those who have entered the USA illegally as criminals unless the Feds tell them to. Enforcement of immigration laws at the present time is specifically limited to those who commit felonies. The rationale behind that limited enforcement decision is at the discretion of the President of the United States, as the immigration laws enacted by Congress and signed into law declare that illegal entry into the USA is a Federal crime.

Under the definition of hypocrisy is the stating of one thing while believing in and acting on another. Our laws should reflect our enforcement. To do other weakens the virtue of the government in demanding adherence to all laws.

The arguments raised so far in defending selective (some would say 'non') enforcement are child-like. "Everyone does it"; "its not fair"; "you're being mean". More perverse is the concept that, while we have over 10% unemployment, these illegals work on jobs that even the unemployed US citizens wouldn't do even if asked. Assuming that US citizens are good people, this would suggest that illegals are slaves, working in conditions and for wages that are subhuman. But, then we get the paradox that these illegals are working for US citizens and we just assumed that US citizens are good people. The only rational view is that jobs live in the free market and that the presence of an increased pool of unskilled labor has led to a reduced wage for unskilled labor. Employers need to offer less since the potential qualified employees are more plentiful and compete against each other for the jobs. As long as the illegal immigrant pool is in the unskilled category, those who rule are not personally threatened and may even gain some benefit as protecting these illegals could eventually lead to more votes (and therefore prolonged power).

What happens when highly skilled illegals begin to enter our country? What will the reaction of the ruling class be then? I am certain there are very brilliant college professors in other countries who would just love to take tenured chairs at a US universities and would do so for a lot less than their US counterparts. Similarly for engineers, police, firemen, nurses, physicians, accountants, business executives, machinists, etc.

The concept of being a citizen with specific rights, privileges and duties is the item at risk with selective enforcement of immigration. We do not force illegals to file tax returns in their native lands, but expect US citizens abroad (even those who have relinquished their US citizenships for <8 years) to file and pay Federal income tax. The position of the White House and President in the realm of illegal entry into the USA is hypocrisy of the highest order, as it is self serving and does not acknowledge the quid pro quo that would allow US citizens to bail out of their citizenship.

Superman, R.I.P.

Remember, boys and girls, what Superman came here to do? He was all about "truth, justice and the American way." We admired him, not just for his super powers, but for the fact that he used them in service of a greater good. Lets explore his guiding principles in light of modern, progressive America.

Truth

Truth is just another story. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. It all depends on your point of view. No one today holds to the standard for truth and few can state it (the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, and only the relevant truth).

Justice

Blind justice is gone from America. It is not what you did, but who you are. In everything from the college and job selection process to voter intimidation, equal treatment is not blind.

The American Way

Beginning from "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", the American Way developed into the concept of American exceptionalism through democracy and free enterprise. The USA was about the individual, not any groups. The individual American was dynamic and pragmatic, always trying to make his life better thru industriousness and innovation. "Deeds not Creeds".

Americans looked forward, never back. Education and a life of self improvement. Helping those truly in need no matter where they were. Do the crime, serve the time. Blind justice. The higher purpose was not in service of any one religion although belief in God was vital. The higher purpose was advancement of the human condition: the pursuit of knowledge; the elimination of suffering; the elimination of conflict; the perfection of the system to match the ideals of the American Way.

The new think is that groups take precedence over individuals, especially if your group meets a convoluted mythical definition of minority (Feagin, 1984). That public service rather than free enterprise is the ideal. That America is no better than any other country. That someone else controls your life. That justice should not be blind to the victim and villain. That there is no God, only Government. That only the "correct" knowledge should be pursued. That being an American is nothing special. That our country has no nobility, no right to secure its borders or to provide a special status for its citizens as compared to those who would invade our country for their own personal gain and without respect for the laws of our land. That Americans are so greedy that the government must take money to redistribute. That Americans are so indifferent to the suffering of others or of the environment that government must control everything.

DocBrain's brain was formed in the years when truth, justice and the American way were the ideals. DocBrain believes in judging a person by her actions, not her demographics. DocBrain believes that a country will be stronger if each individual is forced to develop his own ethical muscles, to think through the issues of the day and to contribute to the greater good as he sees fit. DocBrain believes that the law is the law, and respect for the law is respect for ourselves and our neighbors. Laws that are disrespectful to good people need to be eliminated. Laws that group people need to be eliminated. Laws that imply villainy of good citizens need to be eliminated. The laws need to be simple and clear enough for the average person to know, and logical enough for the average person to understand. For the exceptional person, say the congress member, a total mastery of every law on the books is mandatory for the position. We are most fortunate to have the free exchange of information, including TV, radio, and internet, to watch for unethical behavior and actions of individuals, corporations, groups and countries. This information can be easily disseminated with high penetrance. We do not need Big Brother. We need freedom to be our best selves.

If God were to speak to the Government, He would say "Let go of my people!"

America, Land of the

Classically, the myth of America is the myth of freedom. Freedom of speech, assembly, worship, weapon ownership, voting. No one can take your freedom from you. You can only lose it by in some way interfering with the freedom of others (ie, by theft, murder, deception). And freedom to make your life better no matter from where you start. And if you choose, you can make your life worse. Freedom to care for those who move you. Myths are not just facts, but also are vision statements. Myths help us see the future as well as understand the past. Myths give passion in the present as we move towards perfection in achieving our goals.

However, one could re-frame the myth, change it, pervert it into something different. What if the myth was not freedom, but equality? That would change everything!

• The 4th of July: Equality Day! This is the day the British citizens of America declared their equality with British citizens of England, and being unable to persuade the King, formed their own country, the United States. After the revolutionary war and the war of 1812, the USA won its equality with Britain and other countries on the world stage.
• We looked into ourselves and saw inequality, the slaves were not equal to the free men, so we strugged with this, eventually needing a civil war to enable the slaves to achieve some degree of equality.
• Again, we looked into ourselves and saw another inequality, and with much effort, persuaded the Luddites among us that women also should be free to vote.
• We looked around and again saw inequality. Some people had more money than others. So we created a taxation system that attempts to equalize income.
• We looked again and saw that health care was not equal. So, we are attempting to create an equal health care system.
• We looked again and saw to our horror that the US military was unequal to others. We decided we needed to find ways to equalize this. We created rules of engagement that gave the enemy at least a fighting chance. Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes has been resurrected, eliminating the advantage of smart weapons.
• We looked again and saw that the economy of the USA was unequal to other countries. We enacted laws and regulations that handicap businesses. We will get cap and trade to further reduce our private sector economy. We will tax businesses, increase the open season of frivolous law suits, and weigh businesses down with bureaucrats, regulations, taxes, quotas and whatever other restrictions we can use to equalize our private sector with that of other countries.
• We have come a long way in the last 100 years, but still have a long way to go. Some still have more money than others, more status, more possessions, more knowledge. All this can be equalized. We still have the free market, which needs to become the equal market. We need to equalize our enemies viewpoints with our own. One man's terrorist is the other man's freedom fighter. Who are we to say what is right? We need to continue our myth until everyone is equal (except of course those who we will need to enforce this equality).

So, what myth, what vision is true? Can both be true? Can people be both equal and free? Is there not a paradox? If you and I are free, would you not have the freedom to become unequal to me? If you and I are equal, would you not be prevented from doing something that made you my better?

Some may read this blog and believe it is reductio ad absurdum. But is it really? If it doesn't prove either to be absolutely correct, then perhaps the answer is not at either extreme. Perhaps some degree of equality and some degree of freedom are both needed, both in the pursuit of something else, some bigger, more fundamental end. The continued push towards more equality is progressively (what an ironic use of this word!) being opposed by those who yearn for more freedom. It may be true that we have moved the pendulum too far towards equality and it is time to move back towards a balance that will lead us towards the next level of human advancement. I think I know what that is, but will leave it up to the reader to consider what this might be.

Fear and Trust

What are the key essentials of political life?

Some would say kindness and intelligence. If you are kind and if you are intelligent, you will be a good person. But being a good person doesn't get you elected. To quote Gypsy Rose Lee, you need a gimmick. The gimmick that most politicians use is a combination of fear and trust.

Why do you need one specific politician over another? The answer in the political ads will be that you should trust her and fear her competitor. While everyone has an opinion, I believe that the word "maverick" was just scary enough to give Obama an edge over McCain. Besides, the Republicans had pretty much spent all their trust. While some would lay this at George W Bush's feet, I believe that it truly belongs to the Congress that, while under Republican control, did little to advance the free market, libertarian agenda that most Americans believe in. Americans by nature trust themselves and fear big government.

Most people believe that Obama is intelligent and for the most part kind, but more than a little detatched. As is true for each of us, he has basic values and beliefs that are not universal. This leads many in the middle and on the right to fear his agenda and its impact on the USA as well as on world economics and politics.

On the other hand, many on the left have come to distrust him as he fails to implement his pre-election agenda. The party of the left has watched as more environmental damage has occurred on the left's watch than ever occurred on the right. Gitmo is STILL open. We are still in Iraq and now have a hot war in Afghanistan. The axis of evil now has 2 countries with nukes! And many of the 10% or more unemployed American citizens go searching for jobs while illegal aliens hold millions of U.S. jobs.

If I were a political animal (lets say, a big gray one with a trunk), I would try to position myself as being less frightening and more trustworthy than those currently in office. We need people in power who will relieve the fear on the right and improve the trust on the left.

If you believe that most people are kind and intelligent, then you will favor a land where we increase individual freedom and shrink government intrusion. If you believe that most people are evil and stupid, you will want a big government making homogenous citizens.

However, if you are smart and kind, you should fear big government which will be neither as smart or kind as you are. If you are evil and stupid, big government will give you the opportunity to wield power, assuming you can be cunning enough (or connected enough) to get into a position of influence or friction.