Even though government may have a philosophical right to do something, that doesn't mean it should

First of all, if anyone still reads this blog, I sincerely apologize for my very infrequent blogging. Part of the reason is just being busy at work. More importantly, however, is the birth of my baby girl Abigail. My wife and I no longer outnumber our kids; we have a family of 4 now.

Onto other stuff. I am a free market advocate, but I didn't have an immediate problem with the idea of capping CEO pay for banks that take bailout money. After all, if the government pays the bill, shouldn't it have some say in how the money is spent? From a philosophical standpoint, yes. (I should note that I completely oppose any current bailout or typically any financial assistance from government, though I could probably make an exception for events beyond control, i.e. airlines after 9/11) However, I started to think about it. Ideally, the government, and the people, would want the companies to get back on their feet. If paying a CEO a high salary is the way to do it, shouldn't we let the company do so?

This blog sums it up nicely.

Companies that take government assistance do so because they fear going bankrupt. Sometimes that is because they were badly managed by the CEOs and other executives in charge. What many of these companies need are new executives who can take a fresh look at their problems. Unfortunately, pay caps that leave total pay considerably below what able executives receive in other companies make it more difficult to attract these executives to companies in distress because they can earn more, and work with considerably less government interference, in companies that do not take or need aid. Moreover, severe limits on severance pay help to lock in incompetent executives who then might refuse to leave voluntarily because they would not receive any significant financial incentives to leave.

With high risk should come high reward. Why would a brilliant, qualified CEO take a position at a failing bank; where stability AND pay are low?

Hat tip to the Market Power Blog.

Unity may mean hanging out with people who disagree with you

Conservatives and liberals alike are not fond of Obama's decision to have Rick Warren do whatever he is doing at Obama's inauguration. I can understand the concerns from both sides, but I'll choose to pick on the liberals because all this time they have talked about the importance of unity. When Obama supporters talk throughout the entire campaign about how important unity is for this country, then protest when he chooses someone to pray at his inauguration who shares views different from their own, it makes me think one of two things, both of them cynical. Either unity isn't that important, or, unity is important when it means getting conservatives to find common ground with liberals, but not vice versa. People of any political persuasion are free to say whatever they want about Obama's choice, but people have to show how "unity" is important, not just say it is. Believing in unity means, maybe from time to time, you hang out with somebody with whom you disagree.

Free markets and freedom of conscience go hand in hand

I was looking at the Auburn University newspaper online to see what they thought of Tommy Tuberville's firing from the head football coach position (correction, it appears that Tuberville stepped down to the surprise of the AD) and a I found an opinion piece concerning "right of conscience" rules, which allow medical workers to opt out of performing procedures they find morally objectionable.

Of course, the editorial staff thought these rules were a bad idea, and they use the following example:

Here is a hypothetical situation for you. You arrive at Outback Steakhouse with a desire for, you guessed it, a steak! You sit down, and as you tell the waiter you would like a 6 oz. ribeye, he interrupts you.

“I’m sorry, sir,” he says. “Our cook, Geoff, is a vegan, and he will not be cooking anything involving animal products tonight.”

You’re stunned, but you have to understand what you have just heard, so you inquire further.

“But you’re Outback STEAKhouse,” you say. “Steak is in your name. Well, could you at least tell us where we could get a decent steak around town?”

“No, sir,” he says. “Geoff is also acting as the manager tonight, and he has instructed the wait staff to only point our guests toward restaurants that also serve vegan items. Can I start you off with a Bloomin’ Onion, tonight? Nevermind, the batter uses eggs…”

To which I responded,

Your Outback scenario shows that you are completely missing one half of the argument. Outback would never hire a vegan cook. In the same way, hospitals and doctor's offices won't hire people whose beliefs get in the way of performing their job. Of course, for that to work, employers would need a little flexibility in who they hire, and that probably sounds a little too "free market" for you guys.

The editorial staff even allude to a free market solution, when they close with

If this rule becomes a reality, patients will have to do some major research before they select a doctor or pharmacist. But then again, the more open-minded doctors and pharmacists will make a killing.

Yes, a reality of the free market is that sometimes individuals may have to do a little bit more research to make an informed choice, an unfortunate side effect of having "choice" in the first place. And yes, some people will make more money than others, that's what happens when people provide something people want, that others don't. Granted, things get a little more complicated when it gets to the issue of medical emergencies and saving lives, so that's where legal action and medical boards get involved.

But again, I want to reiterate that for the free market to work, choice must be allowed in the customer/provider relationship AND the employer/employee relationship. Doug Bandow writes in the Foundation for Economic Education

According to the newspapers, pharmacists throughout the United States are refusing to fill prescriptions for the “morning-after” pill and other contraceptives because of religious objections. Fortunately,we can resolve this problem without getting into the birth-control or abortion controversies. In a free society, human relationships, including commercial relationships, must grow out of the consent of all the people involved. A forced sale is theft; forced service is slavery.
The owner of a drugstore, by virtue of the nature of private property, sets the rules. If customers don’t like them, they are free to go elsewhere.They can even shop
on the Internet. Similarly, if a pharmacist-employee with convictions opposed to the morning-after pill works for someone who thinks differently, he will have to find another job if he can’t work things out with his
boss.

No one talks to our President-Elect like that!

Like Lee, I am not a member of the Obama fan club. However, something about Al-Qaeda demeaning our President-Elect makes me want to rally around him. I feel like with some issues - like protecting America - we are all in it together. We all have a common enemy. Who knew Al-Qaeda could promote such a sense of unity?

My fear about the next four years

Despite the person I didn't vote for being elected, on the bright side, we've shown that a minority can be elected President. Not only that, but the Cato Blog notes that

all 42 of our presidents have been of British, Irish, or Germanic descent. We’ve never had a president of southern or eastern European ancestry.

So, not only is he the first black President, but he is the first one not of British, Irish, or Germanic descent.

So, on Inauguration Day many people will be celebrating, but not everyday will be happy about it. I fear that those people will look like "the bad guys" for not celebrating during a historic moment.

Also, I fear that when Obama is in power, dissent will suddenly go out of style. I haven't seen anything yet to support this, and I don't want to blame liberals for something they haven't done yet. At the same time, this blog is where I share my thoughts, and hopefully I'll be proved wrong. Throughout the whole election we have heard this theme of unity, how we need to work together, etc. These are all important things (actually working together is overrated, I'm happier when government does less), but I fear that dissent against the President will be tolerated less in the name of "unity." Granted, there are constructive and divisive ways to criticize the President, and there are divisive people in politics. I just don't want people who dissent to be labeled as people trying to tear America apart. I have this idea that people see Obama as the guy who is going to fix and save America and dissenters are those who are standing in the way of his mission. And to be fair, I suppose some liberals felt the same way the last 8 years. Unfortunately, in both camps, the respectful dissenters and the not-so-respectful dissenters get lumped together.

Some post election thoughts

Many conservative Christians, or simply Christians who didn't vote for Obama, find themselves in a different situation than the past eight years. I think certain duties of the Christian, primarily praying for the President and showing a certain amount of respect for the President, have come easy during this administration, but we must remember to do the same for the next four. Also, we need to find the line between dissent and disrespect.

As I said before the election, hopefully the GOP can gain their bearings. They have only stood for slightly less government than the Democrats. Of course, no one talks about limited government anymore, it is all about what the government can do for us. Nevertheless, it will still be interesting how the party changes the next two to four years.

I voted

I placed my vote this morning in Colorado. I arrived at the polling place around 7:40 and left about 9:40. My experience took about 10 minutes longer because there was a jam in the ballot box. My wife voted around 11:45 or so and did not wait in a line at all.

Even though this election will likely turn out how I don't want it to, Election Day is still exciting.

Living in a swing state (Colorado) has its advantages and disadvantages. My experience in Colorado leaves me hating campaign commercials even more. When I lived in Oklahoma and Texas, I never saw a Presidential commercial; I have seen them all the time in these past two months or so. However, I have a lot more power than the voter living in a solid red or blue state. And that is what is wrong with the Electoral College. I'm not even saying that we need to abolish the Electoral College, but have states split votes like they do in Nebraska (I think that's the one that does it). By still having some sort of Electoral College, people will still believe their vote matters, as each single electoral vote can be decided by a few votes. If we did a strict popular vote, this would be less likely to happen.

A more exciting part of voting is getting to vote on the numerous amendments, as opposed to voting on candidates. Honestly, my voting on candidates tends to be more party line. But I like voting on amendments and referendums because I do not feel like the issues are so cut and dry along party lines. Sure, the parties each have their own recommendations on certain issues (although I never did find the Republican stances for the ballot issues), but I feel like I vote more independently of the parties on these issues and my limited government ideals can come into play more. (Case in point: Republicans back Amendment 47, a right to work law, but I opposed it based on libertarian economic ideals).

Anyway, we are blessed in this country to be able to vote. If a couple hour long wait is the worst we experience, we are in good shape.

The thing about low taxes

McCain and the Republican party have talked about taxes and spending, but I don't think they have been framing the debate very well. McCain has talked about how Obama will raise taxes and how McCain will lower taxes, and of course the former thing is evil and the latter is good. I think what he and many Republicans have failed to do is to really get to the essence of why this is a good thing.

Democrats and swing voters are well aware that no one really likes to pay higher taxes, Biden's comments to the contrary.

First of all, I like the idea of lower taxes for other people making more money than myself because I think higher taxes for others affect me indirectly. I don't want to go too much into detail into the theory what more liberal people dismiss as "trickle-down" economics, but I sincerely believe that higher taxes on the rich can affect productivity, and therefore job creation for myself and for my children. Now, this argument can be taken to the extreme. Of course if we tax the rich .5%, we won't get very much tax revenue, but the same goes when we tax at 99.5%, simply because productivity would grind to a halt. So, there is an optimal point somewhere in between, and I tend to think it may be in the teens.

Secondly, though, is that I believe that the tax rate and amount of spending is a representation of how we view the role of government. If we believe in lower taxes and less spending, both in overall amount and where it goes, of course we believe that government should have a limited role.

Unfortunately, McCain and Republicans running for office in Colorado focus on the lower taxes and less spending, but they don't focus on why this is so important. As far as average voter knows, they are in the pockets of the rich people. They have focused on my first point, the productivity argument, but not so much on the idea of why limited government is a good thing. McCain did touch a little bit on this in the final debate concerning health care, but he hasn't focused on the overall principles of limited government that resonate with more voters than we realize. It seemed like Reagan did focus on this. Even though Reagan supported a sizable military, he still talked about the idea of the government leaving people alone and believing in the sweat and ingenuity of the average American person. McCain, however, is just focusing on the possible results of this, which are lower taxes and less spending, not the higher principles behind them.

Hopefully, this likely election loss for the Republican Party will help them rediscover and effectively communicate the ideals of a government that does less. Instead of pushing for lite government, they are currently pushing for Obama-lite government.

On the precipice of political punditry

I've been somewhat hesitant to comment on the current political election, simply because there are so many things that I do not like about political punditry. Typically it is about spin, damage control, and scoring points against the opposition. They take their usual sides on the latest news in the election with predictable responses. Nevertheless, it is the stuff going on, and it's the stuff I want to talk about; I will just try to be as fair and even-handed as possible.

The Conventions (yes, I'm a few weeks late, but here it goes)

I only heard bits and pieces of the DNC. I thought Michelle Obama did well in her speech, tying in Barack the man and Barack the leader.

Concerning Barack Obama's speech, he has great delivery, but I don't feel like he offers anything new. His ideas pretty much amount to more government spending and trying to do the impossible. I know my opinion may be no surprise from a conservative, but if a liberal wants to point out how his ideas differ from the general Democratic party, I'd be willing to hear them.

Concerning the RNC, to me, the highlight was McCain's speech. The first two nights of the convention were what I feared, which was a focus on keeping America safe. While that is no doubt important, the general American populace seems to be concerned about the economy. I was more satisfied when McCain addressed these issues. I don't know if he did so convincingly, but at least he touched on them. I think Palin did a good job pointing out the lack of experience for Obama. They spent too much time exploiting McCain's POW experience. Also, low taxes are not enough to sway swing voters leaning to the left. We all know Republicans like low taxes and they provide a benefit to the individual, but explain how low taxes and smaller government benefit the country as a whole. As far as average voter knows, low taxes have no benefit beyond the individual taxpayer.

On Unity and Getting Things Done:

I don't understand why being "United" is such a big deal. Unity is a nice ideal, but the reality is that Americans hold drastically different values from each other. With respect to the general populace, I don't see the concrete benefits. I suppose being a unifier is important if we want a leader who "gets things done." But as a limited government conservative, I am actually happier when government does less. Why is government passing more rules for our daily lives and spending more of our money a good thing? And besides, I get the impression that McCain has gone across the aisle more than Obama anyway, but that may not be true.

Palin:
I like Palin, and I think McCain's choice was brilliant from a political campaign perspective, and in general. To combat Obama's celebrity, McCain picked someone who is a rising star in her own right (well, she is now anyway).

McCain:
Concerning McCain in general, he has a record of agreeing with Bush, but I believe him to be a much more competent person. I was not excited about McCain during the primaries, but I like him more and more. I hold fewer reservations about McCain than many fellow conservatives. My complaints against McCain are more of a libertarian nature (his Campaign Finance Reform Act, wanting government to get involved in alternative fuels), as oppose to conservative.

Why I will ultimately vote they way I will:
When it comes down to myself, I vote based on issues, the reason I have aligned myself much more with the Republican Party than the Democratic. I am pro-life, anti-gun control, pro-free market, etc... Obama's stance on the abortion issue is nothing short of frightening. (Sorry, using Roe vs. Wade to argue against BAIPA does no favors to Roe vs. Wade. You are telling me to support abortion rights even though with them you can't distinguish from baby already born to baby in womb) So yeah, people can talk about the experience a leader has or does not have, and they can talk about how I can financial benefit, but for me, it has always been about the issues. The disturbing thing about the Colorado local elections (and the major election to some extent), is that it focuses so squarely on how much I pay at the pump, which I feel is a self-centered way at looking at the elections. Yes, gas prices can be indicative of a larger problem, and I'm fine with people looking at those issues, but many people look at it much more in a black-box fashion. Gas prices are high, I'll vote for whoever lowers them. The offices at stake are so much more important than that.

It's not that we hate the poor...

Economic conservatives are criticized because of seemingly heartless opinions, for instance, the stance on the minimum wage. But I don't oppose the minimum wage simply because I hate poor people, or I don't care about the least of these... just the opposite.

The Political Calculations Blog writes

This chart confirms that for teenagers, those between the ages of 16 and 19 years old, all of the jobs that disappeared in 2007 were minimum wage jobs. In essence, a total of 94,000 hourly jobs disappeared for this age group overall. This figure is the net change of this age group losing some 118,000 minimum wage earning jobs and gaining some 24,000 jobs paying above this level.

This represents what we believe to be the effect of the higher minimum wage level increasing the barriers to entry for young people into the U.S. workforce. Since the minimum wage jobs that once were held by individuals in each age group have disappeared, total employment levels have declined as those who held them have been forced to pursue other activities.

Now consider this: The minimum wage was just reset on 24 July 2008 to $6.55 per hour, a 27.2% increase from where it was in early July 2007. Our best guess is that a lot of additional teenagers will be pursuing those other activities.

Meanwhile, the lack of employment opportunities for the least educated, least skilled and least experienced segment of the U.S. workforce will likely have costs far beyond the benefits gained by those who earn the higher minimum wage. The government might be able to make the minimum wage earning teenage worker disappear, but they didn't do anything to make the teenagers themselves disappear.

Now, with any economic research there are tons of variables, but the conclusions presented are intuitive, simply because of supply and demand. If something is not truly worth the price at which it is offered, we don't buy it. Why would an hourly worker be any different? Companies with inferior products price them lower to increase demand. Why wouldn't an unskilled laborer be the same? Why should an unskilled laborer not have the option to negotiate their wage without government interference? Is a job with a low wage worse than no job at all?

Many politicians realize that raising the minimum wage does no good, yet they support it to pay lip service to their constituents. Others think they have the companies in a bind. They know Safeway needs workers, so they think Safeway has no choice but to pay them the mandated wage. But Safeway can hire fewer workers, create more self checkout lines, or raise the prices of their goods, which has the most dramatic effect on the poor anyway.

Hat tip to the Market Power Blog.

Caring for the unborn after they are born.

I had talked about the topic of Conservatives supposedly not caring about babies after they are born, and Neil has this topic as well.

There is another thought about this argument, and I wonder what the point of it is. Let's say that I realize the liberals are right, that I should support more government programs, that I should vote Democrat, etc.... At the very best, these arguments would convince me to be pro-big government AND pro-life. So what's the point?

Cynicism and limited government

I was watching a Simpson's episode from the Season 2 DVD where Marge successfully bans violence from the Itchy and Scratchy cartoons. Her protests influence others to prevent Michelangelo's David from visiting Springfield. Marge regrets her actions and concedes "I guess one person can make a difference, but most of the time, they probably shouldn't." This statement resonated with me somewhat, and I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

As someone who generally favors limited government, I actually prefer it when politicians do less. When people talk about how they want to change the world and make the world a better place, part of me cringes, because usually what they mean is that they want to pass more laws, raise taxes, and spend more government money.

When I think about the people I went to college with, I think of those who got involved in a lot of activities such as student council and the like, and those who simply went to class, did their homework, and tried to have a little fun along the way.

I know that it is better to be involved with things and try to impact other people's lives, as opposed to being more self-absorbed and simply worrying about one's grades. However, the "involved" people are the ones more likely to get involved in politics and do the aforementioned things. The ones that are less involved are more likely to mind their own business and leave me alone.

I guess it all depends on how someone gets involved. It seems that government is typically the first route people take when trying to change society. But I think if people put the same amount of effort in non-governmental avenues, it could make more of an impact while keeping the average person's life free of rules and regulations. Also, when people talk about "changing society" and the like, I tend to associate it with liberal politics. And for some people, that's not a bad thing, but for those on the other side of the political spectrum, it is. I don't mean to bash Democrats or liberals, I am just saying how I feel. The idea of being compassionate and doing good is becoming less romanticized, as it is commonly associated with huge taxes and inefficient government programs. Doing good is losing its cool. Jesus has been replaced by a faceless bureaucrat. To explain how I feel to more liberal readers, think of how some self-righteous conservatives can turn people off from ideas such as "family values".

When it comes to changing society, I do believe there are times that government should be involved, but even then it should not be the only focus. Look at racism. Passing laws will not change people's heart, and it takes institutions such as the church to address the heart issue (unfortunately some of the church held people back). But just because it takes more than government doesn't mean government shouldn't be involved at all. People of all races should be treated equally by the government. The same thing with the abortion issue. Christians and others passionate about the issue should get involved in ministries that help out expecting mothers and help them to choose life. At the same time, I believe born and unborn people should be treated equally under the law.

Should government protect us from ourselves?

Randy Barnett has a good post on payday Loan centers. His opinion is that we would be better off if they were closed down. I'm not a fan of payday loan places myself, but I'm hesitant to say that they should be outlawed.

Randy implies the comparison between crack cocaine and payday loans, and while that may seem dramatic, I think that's a fair comparison. And even if he didn't intend the comparison, I will. It made me realize that both topics are really part of a larger question. Should government protect us from ourselves? And to what degree?

It's many of the same issues with drugs as it is payday loans. Is it the proper role of government to prevent someone from doing something harmful to themselves? If that thing is outlawed, would the results be worse? For instance, is a black market of drugs more dangerous than the accessibility of legal drugs? Is somebody getting a loan from a sketchy character under the table worse than having Pay Day loans on every corner?

I posted on the issue of the Drug War in the past. While I still wrestle with the same issues, I'm inclined to not support the prohibition of payday loan centers, if for simply for the reason that it is hard to outlaw such a transaction. Giving a loan to a friend or casual acquaintance is quite easy. Yes, there is less contract work involved, but it is hard to monitor something as easy as loaning money. And yes, I do believe that if payday centers are outlawed, people may resort to worse measures, whether it is some shady character or somebody running up credit card debt. (There was a post on Market Power about this, but I can't find it at the moment)

Anyway, I don't know the answer to the question to what degree government should protect us from ourselves, but in this issue of payday loans, I don't think outlawing them is the way to go.

This is pretty scary

According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

A California appeals court ruling clamping down on homeschooling by parents without teaching credentials sent shock waves across the state this week, leaving an estimated 166,000 children as possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution.
[...]
"California courts have held that ... parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. "Parents have a legal duty to see to their children's schooling under the provisions of these laws."

Unbelievable.

Hat tip to the Market Power Blog. I heard it there first.

The tricky issue of immigration

Concerning immigration, I am far from an expert in this issue. But I wanted to pen down my thoughts on issues as I see them. There are three parts of the issue I see.

1) Who do we let in?
2) What do they have to do to be let in?
3) What do we do with the people who are here illegally?

Concerning 3) I'm really not sure. This has been a point of contention among the Republican nominees. I don't want to reward breaking the law. At the same time, there are issues of practicality to consider. How much would it cost, and how effective would it be to deport a large number of illegal aliens? I would think, a lot, and not very. I'm not saying we should do nothing, I just don't know what exactly.

2) Again, I'm not sure. I think it should be fairly easy for those who want to come here to actually come here. There could probably be some requirement that somebody in the family actually get a job within a certain amount of time.

Concerning the English language, well, that's a whole other ball of wax. I don't think there should be an official language, but at the same time, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that immigrants know some basic English for everyday tasks, i.e. passing a drivers test. Concerning schooling, a purpose of schools are to teach people to be somewhat functional people, so I do believe English should be taught to all students. I know this issue seems more complicated the more I talk about it, so I'd be interested in a teacher's or school administrator's perspective on this issue.

1) This is the one I have the strongest opinion. I think the primary concern here is national security. I would support not letting someone in if there was a reasonable concern about the person from a homeland security perspective. I tend to take the more libertarian/free market position that immigration should not be capped based on economic issues. Yes, there is a real human face to this issue that concerns people losing their jobs. However, I also believe that the market is self-regulating in this aspect in that we have the immigrant inflow because of a vacuum in parts of the work force. Also, I believe the net effect for the economy is positive, even for the everyday person.

Also, some people want to cap immigration for cultural considerations, but I don't think this is a fruitful, or even desirable exercise. From a Christian perspective, there are concerns about other religions or cultures contrary to Christianity seeping into America, and that is a legitimate concern. However, I just don't think turning away outsiders is the right approach. America has been the land of opportunity for those seeking a better life, and I think we should continue to be so. I like Ronald Reagan's vision of America being a "city on the hill."

Why this conservative is against (some) right-to-work laws

Conservatives typically support right-to-work laws. On most issues I could be considered a conservative, albeit with some libertarian tendencies, and I'm a strong advocate of the free market. It is precisely this free market belief that motivates my opposition to (some) right to work laws.

Wikipedia defines right to work laws as those

...which prohibit agreements between trade unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or "fees" a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.

Now, I'm not really a strong fan of unions. However, I also believe in the employer's freedom to hire who they want. Here is an important distinction: if the government requires people to join a union to work certain jobs, or requires certain industries to hire only union workers, I am strongly opposed to that. If the employer requires union membership as a condition of employment, that should be fully within their rights. That is, as long as that requirement was made clear before hiring. While the common definition of "right-to-work" means the employer cannot choose to hire union-only, I would not be surprised if some variants are meant to repeal state government guidelines. Maybe somebody with more knowledge of these laws could help me out on this.

The common argument for "right-to-work" laws it that people should not be "forced" to join a union in order to get a job. However, if this is a requirement of the employee and NOT the government, no one is really being "forced" into anything. In the same way, just because being a Christian may be a requirement to work at a certain church, that doesn't mean I'm being "forced" into Christianity.

Another important note is that this swings both ways. A company should have the right to hire union only workers, and they should have the right to not hire union workers. Freedom works both ways.

What's missing among conservatives

The other day at church someone mentioned how they liked Bush overall, but did not like his spending policy and how government has grown in size since he has taken office. He mentioned how he thought the Republican party had gotten away from small government principles.

This talk was refreshing to hear, as I don't think the scope of government gets enough attention. I think by definition, liberals are more embracive of large government, but conservatives are not supposed to be.

It is difficult to tell if people are inherently small government people or large government people. We all talk about the evils of large bureaucracy, we all hate going to the DMV, we spend time and/or money on paying our taxes, and almost any job is associated with red tape in some aspect. Yet, at the same time, the general populace seems to embrace any law that seems to make their life better on the surface, without considering the ramifications or if government should be involved in that aspect of life in the first place.

Consider smoking bans. I think reasonable people can fall on both sides of the issue. However, people tend to think "I don't smoke, I hate smelling smoke in a restaurant" and therefore, support a statewide smoking ban. Now, I'm not saying people who do so are ignorant or just not smart, I just think that one should consider any possible negative effects, and if regulating that sort of thing on private property is something government should be doing. My main point is not that people should agree with me, I'm just saying that when it comes to any law, one should consider if it should fall within the scope of government.

But I don't want to lose people with the smoking example. What I want to focus on is just an overall perspective concerning government. If gas prices are too high, we want government to step in and fix it. If the housing market takes a downturn, we want the President to act right away. If our local team owner wants a new stadium, we run to the polls to give millionaires our tax dollars. For those who have no problems with stem-cell research, it's not enough that our state dollars fund it, it is only humane that the federal government do it's part too. We also want the federal government involved in our schools; there was a time when conservatives believed the feds should not be involved.

My tone may sound somewhat mean or sarcastic, I don't intend it to. I just think we need to challenge our assumptions of what we expect government to do. A law may sound nice, but we need to keep count of just how many laws are being passed.

Conservatives tend to support their president and candidates based on their stance on certain moral issues, or whatever issues get the press for the day. Those things are important - my deepest political belief is my pro-life position. But I think we should also consider the person's views concerning the overall role of government. At the very least, it can be a nice tiebreaker.

Inequality: Does it matter?

There were a couple of thoughtful comments to my last post.

The term inequality was brought up. So my question is this: does inequality matter?

The term "equality" gives me a new way to frame the topic of my last post. Conservatives typically look at equality of opportunity, whereas liberals tend to look at equality of resources. But doesn't resources equal opportunity? To some extent, yes.

But conservatives goal with government programs are typically different than that of liberals. Conservatives look at government as mostly a protector, even if their view is not limited to that of a military. Conservatives see welfare as being available for those who truly need it; and like the military, they may see it in terms of protecting people from bad things, such as hunger, living in the streets, etc... This is opposed to the more providing role of welfare as envisioned by liberals.

Conservatives typically view the role of welfare and other government programs as providing food and resources for those who need food and resources. It appears that liberals want government programs to "level the playing field" and provide equality.

Should equality be a goal? This is where I disagree with liberals. I think what a person has should be viewed in terms relative to their needs.

Look at it this way. If I have a 2-bedroom house over my head and I have enough groceries for 3 meals a day, does it really matter that my neighbor lives in a mansion and eats at the finest restaurants? No, I'm not saying gov't should provide homes and groceries, but my point is this: when we look at the poor, we should see if their needs are being met, not what they have relative to the rich.

When taxes are used to provide help for those who need it, I'm okay with that. When taxes are used to make sure people have the same amount of stuff, that breaks the Tenth Commandment.

Now, I'm not saying inequality never matters, because life is a competition, whether it is in school trying to get the best grades, or competing for scholarships, or competing for jobs based on the schools you attended. The schooling system is where inequality can shine through the most. But this is precisely where resources outside of government can provide the most help. The status quo with our school system is that the quality of school you get is proportional to how much house your parents can afford. School choice programs do equal the playing field.

When it comes to basic needs, comparisons between groups should not matter. However, inequality does play a role to what resources we have, and I believe school choice can greatly help with that.

A difference between conservatives and liberals

I was having a conversation with my wife yesterday about political issues and such I had this thought. Now, I am not a liberal so I cannot say for sure what liberals are thinking, but I will venture my best guess, in an effort to understand those with different opinions. Any liberal who reads this should feel free to chime in and correct me where I'm wrong.

I think the goal of many liberal policies is to change the circumstances surrounding a person. They want to make sure that someone is given the resources to ensure that they will succeed. I think resources is the key word here. They want to make sure that the public schools are given enough funding, that they have the financial resources towards college, that housing projects are in place, etc... Liberals put emphasis on community in making sure that people are not disadvantaged with respect to other people.

Conservatives see things somewhat differently. Their focus is on opportunity, and they focus less on the resources aspect. Conservatives don't focus on making sure everyone starts out equally, but they want a society in which someone has all the opportunity for upward mobility. Conservatives have a high belief in the power of the individual, even in tough circumstances.

Keep in mind, this is not an either/or. I'm not saying liberals have no faith in the individual and conservatives believe there is no role for the community. It is really a question of extent. The

These two philosophies seem to butt heads in the area of government programs and in the economy/business. The individual and community are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they can be competing entities.

Liberals believe that government programs are needed to help the individual be successful, whereas conservatives believe that too many government programs can actually hinder someone's success.

In the area of business, security and opportunity struggle against each other. Liberals believe that business must be more regulated in order to provide security for the average worker. Conservatives believe that less regulated business leads to more upward mobility for the average worker.

Liberals believe in providing resources to the average individual in order to help them succeed. They want to shape the person's environment. The conservative is less concerned with resources. They aren't concerned so much with providing things; rather they want to remove things standing in the person's way. Their goal is to provide an environment of freedom where more things are possible.

Still missing an important point: Possible breakthrough in stem-cell research

An article from Wired states that

In an unprecedented feat of biological alchemy, researchers have turned human skin cells into stem cells that hold the same medical promise as the controversial embryonic stem cells.

Scientists believe stem cell research will be able to cure numerous diseases and regenerate failing bodies. The new technique, however, doesn't require the destruction of embryos, or use human eggs or cloning. Thus, it sweeps aside the ethical objections to stem-cell research.

I think this is great, because there are ethical questions involved when using embryonic stem cells.

However, some people are still missing an important point when it comes to stem-cell research. Ethical dilemmas are not the only reason to question government funding of medical research. To support stem-cell research does not automatically mean one must support government funding, though most people think the two are synonymous. I don't want to get into a detailed list of pros and cons for government funding right now, but I think it is a question that we should at least consider.

The problem with our culture is that we assume all things good and true must be funded by government. We think the arts are important, well, let's use tax money to fund the arts! We want to support our farmers; well, make sure they get subsidies! Ethanol can increase fuel efficiency, well, by all means, give lots of money to car or oil companies to research the issue! Like baseball, well, let's give billionaires some money so they will build a stadium in this city! Think faith-based initiatives are great, well, we better throw tax dollars at them!

The idea that government is a type of benefactor is so pervasive in our minds that we think anything that needs to be done in society should be done so through laws and tax dollars. And that's unfortunate, because I believe government corrupts so many things. People complain that we should fund stem-cell research because we shouldn't let politics corrupt science, but that is exactly what happens when you fund the research.

Some people prefer a "broader view" of government. But I prefer a "separate spheres" approach. Now, I don't mean that are values shouldn't inform how we interact in politics as one can take that statement to mean. What I mean is that we shouldn't be so quick to ensure that government infests every area of our lives. So many good and pure things happen outside the reach of government. Sure, we must ensure that we have a just society and that everyone is treated equally under the law. At the same time, however, many revolutionary things, Jesus' mission for one, happened outside, and in spite of, and even contrary to, the realm of government. Other institutions, such as the family, the church, and charities, are the ones that truly change lives.