I Believe

We often hear that land doesn’t vote; people do.

How about a different perspective?

Land doesn’t have rights, but land endows rights.

What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

We often hear that “land doesn’t vote; people do.” This phrase highlights the humanity of our democratic republic. The adage emphasizes rights of the individual and the collective power of the electorate to shape governance and policy. But, the viewpoint oversimplifies the intertwined relationship between people and the soil.

Land doesn’t have rights, but land endows rights. Geographical boundaries and birthplaces shape individual rights, demonstrating the enduring influence of the land on our legal and societal frameworks.

The Latin Jus soli, or the right of the soil, is a cornerstone of our legal and societal frameworks. It grants individuals a national identity rooted in their birthplace.

Our Constitution establishes rights granted to all Americans by the soil, including rights of citizenship, representation, and national service.

This connection between land and individual rights becomes especially clear when we consider the legal foundations of citizenship in America. Citizenship’s roots grow into this concept of the soil.

Citizenship

Citizenship in America is founded on jus soli, the right of the soil, and jus sanguinis, the right of blood. The right of the soil carries into the right of blood.

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1870 to Wee Lee and Wong Si Ping. The couple were not American citizens and had no path to citizenship; they returned to China when Wong was eight.

In August 1895, at the age of 24, Wong made a return trip to San Francisco with papers certifying his identity and legal standing as a citizen born on American soil. US customs official John H. Wise denied Wong’s entry on the grounds of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1880 Angell Treaty between the US and Qing Dynasty China, which recognized America’s ability to restrict Chinese immigration. Wise ordered Wong deported.

Wong appealed the decision and remained on shipping vessels for several months off the coast of California. In 1897, the US Supreme Court heard his case. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the court found Wong to be an American citizen on the grounds of the 14th Amendment’s first clause: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

During deliberation, the court found Wong was born in the US. Further, though his parents were subjects to the Emperor of China, they were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.” The court affirmed that Wong was subject to US jurisdiction at birth and thus a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark upheld the principle of the right of the soil for determining citizenship. It firmly clarified that children born in America to foreign citizens are US citizens, even if their parents have no allegiance to America. The Supreme Court's decision established a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It ensured that the vast majority of children born on American soil are entitled to citizenship, regardless of their parents' nationality. Though the fight for equal treatment of Asian Americans continued well past Mr. Wong, this ruling has had a lasting impact on immigration and citizenship policies.

Jus soli grants citizenship to all born on US soil and carries through blood. The right of blood extends the right of citizenship across borders, allowing children born abroad to American citizens to inherit their citizenship. This dual foundation reflects a comprehensive understanding of national belonging—rights rooted in the physical land of America that reach through the blood to extend the inalienable rights to those born to American parents worldwide.

Just as jus soli grants citizenship, it also confers the right to participate in our democratic republic. This extension of rights from the land empowers us as participants in the national discourse.

Representation

The 14th Amendment is not the earliest affirmation of the right of the soil in the Constitution. The first reference to the premise that soil endows citizens with rights is earlier than even the Bill of Rights.

Specifically, Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution identifies, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…”

This section was later amended by the 12th Amendment after some drama in the 1796 and 1800 elections. It forms the basis of the Electoral College, which grants individuals the right to representation in national elections. By ensuring that residents' votes in each state contribute to the national outcome of presidential elections, the Electoral College grants them a meaningful role in the democratic process.

The Constitution achieves this by guaranteeing that every state has a certain number of electors, regardless of population. This system grants "rights" or influence to regions, paralleling how jus soli grants citizenship rights to individuals born on US soil.

Just as the right of the soil grants citizenship, it also guarantees that each geographic state has a say in national elections. Because land doesn’t vote, the Constitution extends this guarantee to the voters in each state.

“Land doesn’t vote; people do” is a misconception. The statement overlooks how the Electoral College system carefully balances geographic diversity and population. The system allocates votes in a manner that accounts for geographic distribution, thereby preventing larger population states from completely dominating national elections. It also supports the underlying principle of our democratic republic—every vote is an expression of an individual's choice, and all states have a voice in national elections.

In short, land doesn’t bestow on Americans the right to vote; it grants people from each state influence in national elections, no matter how small the state. Elected representatives from all states ratified both the US Constitution and the 12th Amendment. Therefore, every American agreed with the premise that each state has a voice in national elections.

The influence of land on rights extends into the highest offices of national service, reinforcing the critical role that birthplace plays in determining who may lead the nation.

National Service

Serving the nation in any capacity is a privilege. Serving in the highest office is a privilege only available to those who are endowed with the right of the soil.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President.” If you weren’t born on US soil or with the right of the soil carried into the right of blood, you are ineligible for the nation’s highest office.

The founders included the natural-born citizen requirement to ensure the President would have the deep-rooted allegiance to the United States that only the right of the soil bestows. They believed the requirement would reduce the risk of foreign governments having control over the nation.

Eight Presidents had parents, or both parents, who were not born on US soil. They range from Andrew Jackson, whose parents were both immigrants, to Donald Trump, whose mother was an immigrant. But all Presidents have been natural-born citizens, either born on US soil or to US citizens abroad in an official capacity.

National service is a distinguished honor, especially when it involves leading the country. Only those granted citizenship by the right of the soil or the right of the soil through the blood are eligible. This precedent safeguards the presidency from foreign influence, ensuring the President's loyalty lies firmly with America.

Now for our question: What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

Birthright citizenship isn’t a legal formality. It’s a fundamental cornerstone of American democracy and identity. It ensures that every person born on American soil is a part of the nation's fabric, endowed with the rights and responsibilities that fortify our collective future. Overturning the precedent would lead to a future where many are isolated, disenfranchised, and alienated from the civic body.

Attempting to repeal birthright citizenship would disregard the strong precedent that allegiance to America is gained through the right of the soil.

Some argue that we should repeal birthright citizenship to preserve national identity and ensure we grant citizenship only to those with a provable connection to the United States. But national identity and unity come from commitment to the American ideal, not from repealing birthright citizenship.

Some argue for the repeal of birthright citizenship because children of non-citizens place an undue economic burden on American taxpayers. They cite the costs of public education, healthcare, and other social services. This perspective overlooks the long-term economic contributions of immigrants and their children, who stay in America for generations.

Finally, proponents of repealing birthright citizenship argue it would enhance national security and more effectively control immigration. In fact, it would lead to stateless individuals inside the country, creating a marginalized group that's more vulnerable to radicalization and exploitation. Individuals born on American soil have a clear and immediate stake in the country's future, promoting societal integration and cohesion.

Throughout our discussion, from citizenship to national representation and service, we see a consistent theme: soil bestows rights on Americans.

Our Constitution firmly establishes that we are tied to the soil and the soil through blood. Birthright citizenship is crucial for American identity and the health of our democratic republic.

The Constitution grants individuals rights of citizenship, representation, and national service based on the soil. These rights underscore the importance of soil—whether a specific place of one's birth or the geographic boundaries of states—in defining what it means to be American.

National identity and unity come from shared values and commitments to the American ideal.

What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

Attempting to repeal birthright citizenship would disregard the strong precedent the Constitution establishes: namely, jus soli imprints allegiance on Americans.

May God bless the United States of America.

Has capitalism failed the housing market?

We need to examine the decisive points that lead us through some philosophy to consider capitalism’s impact on housing affordability and supply.

Ultimately, our goal should be to achieve an adequate supply of homes, resulting in a median home price of two times the median household income for that area.

Capitalism and Housing

Scottish Economist and Philosopher Adam Smith speaking on capitalism in 1776:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership of production and operations for profit. Central tenets of capitalism include wealth accumulation, competitive markets, private property, and the recognition of property rights. Private citizens control property and act in their self-interest to gain economic prosperity. Production, distribution, income, and prices are determined mainly through markets rather than governments.

Capitalism drives significant economic growth and innovation and increases standards of living. However, it can also lead to exploitation and economic inequality. Capitalism proponents assert that the most efficient use of resources occurs when individuals make decisions based on market signals without government influence.

The American housing market thrives on capitalism, but the system is a double-edged sword.

Capitalism undeniably demonstrates the ability to drive progress and meet consumer demand. It benefits America’s housing market through innovation, efficiency, and investment opportunities. The drive for profit encourages innovation and efficiency. Capitalism supports a robust real estate market. Markets allow individuals to invest in property, contributing to personal wealth and economic growth.

However, capitalism also leads to systemic challenges in the housing market. It creates affordability challenges and widens income inequality. In many urban and desirable areas, housing prices have escalated beyond the reach of middle- and lower-income families.

Moving from Adam Smith's capitalist ideals, which highlight market-driven self-interest, to John Locke's philosophical stance, we encounter a compelling case for governance that honors and protects natural rights, including the essential need for housing.

The Role of Government in Capitalism

John Locke, the foundational philosopher of the US Constitution, championed a government that actively preserved property rights. He viewed these rights as more than just material possessions. They extended beyond physical holdings to include individual liberty and the fruits of one’s labor. His vision extended beyond debates about regulation.

Regarding property, Locke, in his Two Treatises of Government, 1690, said:

The great and chief end…of men’s…putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.

In essence, Locke believed individuals consent to government to preserve their property—not just physical possessions but life, liberty, and personal estate. Protecting these elements justifies government within society. Some might argue his focus on property rights disregards the needs of those who may not have property or the means to acquire it. However, Locke’s premise was that everyone owns property, even if that property is owning yourself.

Locke’s view of property rights relates to today’s affordable housing challenges through his understanding of the government’s responsibility. We have a duty not only to protect these rights but also to create conditions under which citizens can secure their own properties, which in a modern sense includes affordable housing.

Securing basic needs allows individuals to pursue prosperity and stability. These can’t be achieved without heat in the house and food on the table, and you can’t put food on the table without a home to put it in.

Therefore, the people who lead government must address the broader economic conditions that enable individuals to acquire and enjoy property. These conditions include access to affordable housing, fair market practices, and the protection of investments.

The Current State of the Housing Market

The housing market has become untenable. The challenges aren’t an inherent failure of capitalism. They’re a symptom of market-driven systems operating with added government influence but without sufficient intervention to address societal needs.

Government officials at many levels, including cities, counties, states, and the federal level, levy additional housing rules on builders. Many of these requirements are strongly beneficial, such as plumbing, electrical, and personal safety standards. Other requirements, such as zoning, increase housing costs. All combined, the requirements represent government interference that increases the cost of building housing.

The impact of increased building costs is a reduced supply of affordable housing, which has been decreasing since 1960. Builders build bigger homes to recoup their costs. Figure 4-6 below shows a long-term trend in housing production per capita, with a notable decrease in the construction of single-family homes. This downturn in housing is especially pronounced during economic recessions, as evidenced by the gray bars. The data suggests that in our regulatory environment, market-driven production alone doesn’t meet the population's housing needs.

The supply of first-time homebuyer houses is especially low. Figure 4-7 below presents a stark visual representation of the declining trend in the construction of smaller single-family homes since the 1970s. As these homes are often more affordable for first-time homebuyers and lower-income families, the sharp decrease from nearly 40% of homes to just over 5% signifies a shift away from affordable housing. This shift isn’t just a reflection of consumer preference. It indicates market and policy failures.

Adam Smith, the capitalist philosopher, identified we can’t ask builders to build more inexpensive, smaller homes for first-time homebuyers out of the goodness of their hearts. We have to appeal to their self-interest. Building smaller homes has to be profitable.

The government's role, in the Lockean sense, needs to evolve to address the challenges presented by the housing market. The decline in affordable housing isn’t a market outcome. It’s a central concern for policy intervention.

Counterarguments

Critics argue that government regulations like zoning laws and building codes inherently disrupt market efficiencies. However, we need more than unchecked capitalism to ensure equitable access to housing. Targeted government intervention, informed by Locke's principle of protecting property rights and individual liberty, can help correct market failures without undermining overall market efficiency.

Another common critique is that merely increasing the housing supply does not address the deeper issues of market greed and speculation, which can continue to drive prices up, outpacing increases in supply. This argument overlooks the role of targeted policy measures in shaping the type of supply that comes to market. By incentivizing the construction of affordable housing through tax credits, grants, and revised zoning regulations, government action can ensure that increased supply directly addresses the needs of low- and middle-income families.

A more philosophical critique posits that capitalism is inherently unjust, leading to inequality and prioritizing profit over human needs. While capitalism does have its flaws, it is also the driving force behind innovation and economic growth. The issue is not capitalism itself but how it is regulated and directed. By aligning capitalist incentives with societal needs, such as creating affordable housing, we can retain capitalism’s strengths while mitigating its weaknesses.

Proposal

We have examined capitalism's double-edged sword and recognized the duty of government officials to safeguard an individual's rights, including the fundamental right to secure necessary resources. With this common understanding of the philosophy, we can answer our question: Has capitalism failed the housing market?

No, capitalism has not failed the housing market.

Capitalism can’t fail the housing market because it’s an economic system. It’s not accountable to anyone, and no one directs capitalism. It doesn’t aim to achieve housing for low- and middle-income individuals; the goal of a capitalist system is to enable individuals to act in their interest. The success of capitalism—economic growth, innovation, and increased living standards—orients us to keep capitalism for the housing market.

We need to work through the market and increase the supply of homes for low- and middle-income families. In simple economic terms, as the supply of an item rises relative to the demand for that item, the price in the market will decrease. In a capitalist market, the approach to reducing the cost of houses for first-time homebuyers is to increase the supply.

As an example, imagine there are only a few slices of pizza left, and everyone wants one. The price will be high because everyone wants a slice, and they are willing to pay more to get one. But if the kitchen suddenly makes more pizzas, there will be enough for everyone. The price will come down because there's no longer competition for the limited slices. This is similar to what happens in housing. When there are fewer houses available than people who want them (or low supply, high demand), prices go up.

As the latest Congressional Research Service US housing supply report implies, the supply of first-time homebuyer houses is too low. Home prices are unaffordable for low- to middle-income families. The report mentions some ideas, like grants, to reduce the challenges of building new houses. These challenges could be things like permits, zoning laws, or other regulations that make it more expensive or time-consuming to build.

The CRS report identifies other possibilities, such as tax credits for first-time homebuyers and setting goals to increase the supply of building materials. But the reality is those items aren’t direct indicators of affordability for first-time homebuyers.

The direct indicator of housing affordability is the ratio of median household incomes and home prices. The median household income in 1960 was $5,600, and the median cost of a home was $11,900. We need to measure our progress to achieve that 2:1 standard.

In addition to current efforts to increase the supply of affordable housing, we need to set a goal. We need to achieve an adequate supply of homes, resulting in a median home price of two times the median household income for that area.

Has Capitalism failed the housing market?

Capitalism is an economic system. The system drives economic growth and innovation and increases our standard of living.

No, capitalism has not failed the housing market. The goal of a capitalist system isn’t to make housing affordable. The goal is to enable individuals to act in their self-interest.

But while capitalism hasn’t failed per se, it has created a scenario where intervention is necessary to safeguard individual rights. This includes the fundamental right to secure housing.

To enable Americans the ability to secure their own needs, we need to set and measure progress toward a goal. That goal is a median home price of two times the median household income for that area.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

Mostramos nuestro compromiso con el ideal estadounidense cuando interactuamos entre nosotros con gracia y dignidad. Desde los debates sobre el idioma del siglo XVIII hasta la reciente tragedia en Baltimore, no necesitamos hablar el mismo idioma para respetar los derechos de los demás y agradecernos mutuamente por nuestro servicio.

¿Cuál es el idioma oficial de América?

El 9 de enero de 1794, un grupo de germano-americanos en Virginia solicitó al tercer Congreso de los Estados Unidos que imprimiera las leyes federales tanto en inglés como en alemán para poder entenderlas mejor. En enero de 1795, la Cámara votó en contra y el proyecto de ley no prosperó.

La votación en el pleno de la Cámara fue de 42-41. Durante al menos doscientos años después de la derrota del proyecto de ley, persistió el mito de que el Congreso casi cambia el idioma oficial americano al alemán. Eso nunca fue el caso.

De hecho, el idioma oficial americano nunca estuvo en duda.

América no tiene un idioma oficial.

El 17 de noviembre de 2000. A los 22 años, recién salido de la universidad y como un flamante oficial comisionado de las fuerzas armadas, emprendí mi primer viaje a través de América. Tras mi ceremonia de graduación como oficial, tenía en mano órdenes con 10 días para llegar a mi base de entrenamiento en la costa de California. Con un par de días de sobra, hice un desvío para ir a casa por el Missouri rural para visitar a mis padres y a mi futura esposa. Después de la visita, un amigo y yo nos encontramos justo fuera de St. Louis para viajar juntos el resto del camino. Hasta ese momento, había pasado muy pocos días fuera del Missouri rural.

Viajamos a través de Oklahoma, el panhandle de Texas, Nuevo México y Arizona sin incidentes. En la frontera de California, el agente de inspección se llevó la manzana que iba a comer como merienda, no se permiten frutas del exterior. Justo fuera de Los Ángeles, me detuve en una gasolinera para llenar el tanque. Había escuchado que el tráfico en LA podría ser complicado y no quería quedarme sin gasolina atascado en el tráfico. El empleado no hablaba inglés, y yo no hablaba español. Sin embargo, no hubo problema. Encontramos una manera para que pudiera pagar la gasolina y una Coca-Cola.

En ese momento pensaba que alguien que viviera en América debería hablar inglés. Ahora, eso no me parece importante.

Desde ese día, serví con muchos estadounidenses que levantaron la mano para ofrecerse voluntarios para servir a su nación, y no solo en el ejército. También en el Departamento de Estado, miembros bilingües brillantes de la Actividad Educativa del DoD (DoDEA), la CIA, la NSA, el Cuerpo de Paz, el USDA, y así sucesivamente.

Todos hablaban inglés, pero muchos de sus padres no lo hacían o lo hablaban mal. Pero sus padres habían buscado el individualismo inherente a América, y sus hijos sirvieron a nuestra nación como agradecimiento. Ese hombre en la gasolinera fuera de Los Ángeles, y muchos otros como él, crían a hijos que sirven a nuestra nación con distinción.

Mis experiencias personales destacan que, aunque los estadounidenses no compartamos un idioma común, podemos respetar la libertad individual de los demás. Este principio se refleja en una serie de fallos de la Corte Suprema que han abordado los derechos lingüísticos en la sociedad estadounidense.

Varios casos fascinantes de la Corte Suprema de EE. UU. tratan sobre el idioma y los derechos de los hablantes no angloparlantes en América.

En el primero, Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), el alto tribunal bloqueó una ley de Nebraska que prohibía enseñar idiomas distintos al inglés a los escolares. El Sr. Meyer, quien enseñaba alemán en una escuela luterana, fue condenado bajo esta ley. Apeló su condena. La corte tomó el caso y encontró que la ley violaba su derecho a enseñar alemán y la libertad individual de los padres para controlar la educación de sus hijos, protegida por la 14.ª Enmienda.

En ese momento, la ley de Nebraska buscaba prevenir que las escuelas enseñaran alemán. La ley pretendía "promover el desarrollo cívico inhibiendo la formación y educación de los inmaduros en lenguas e ideales extranjeros antes de que pudieran aprender inglés y adquirir ideales americanos."

En la opinión mayoritaria, el juez James C. McReynolds afirmó que "el mero conocimiento del idioma alemán no puede considerarse razonablemente como dañino."

Nuestro resumen hasta ahora: América no tiene un idioma oficial, y es inconstitucional prevenir la enseñanza a los estadounidenses más jóvenes de un idioma distinto al inglés.

El 22 de noviembre de 2008: Estaba en camino a Irak para unirme a una unidad del Cuerpo de Marines de EE. UU. por varios meses. Antes de mi viaje al campo, me quedé un par de días en el Campamento Buehring, Kuwait, a 15 millas de la frontera sur de Irak. Estaba en el Campamento Buehring para recibir un entrenamiento final en sistemas técnicos utilizados por las fuerzas británicas y estadounidenses. No pude recibir el entrenamiento en EE. UU. porque no teníamos experiencia con el equipo británico.

Nuestro joven instructor británico hablaba con un acento inglés grueso e indescifrable. Comenzó la sesión de entrenamiento contando chistes.

Al principio, ninguno de los estadounidenses en la sala entendía nada de lo que decía. El británico seguía contando chistes.

Después de un par de minutos, algunos de los estadounidenses comenzaron a reírse de los chistes. ¡Eventualmente, todos en la sala estaban aullando de risa! El instructor era realmente gracioso.

Fue entonces cuando el instructor británico comenzó la sesión de entrenamiento. Dijo que podía darse cuenta de cuándo todos comenzábamos a entender su acento porque nos reíamos de los chistes.

Incluso hablar el mismo idioma no significa que nos entendamos entre nosotros.

Un segundo caso fascinante de la Corte Suprema de EE. UU. involucrando el idioma fue Lau v. Nichols (1974). En 1971, las escuelas de San Francisco, California, se integraron y absorbieron a más de 2,800 niños chino-americanos que no dominaban el inglés. El sistema escolar público se negó a ofrecer a los niños educación suplementaria en el idioma inglés y enseñó las clases solo en inglés. Como resultado, los niños no pudieron participar en los programas educativos proporcionados por las escuelas. Los estudiantes llevaron su situación ante el tribunal superior.

En la decisión unánime, la corte dictaminó que un distrito escolar tiene el deber de proporcionar instrucción lingüística suplementaria para los estudiantes que hablan un idioma diferente al inglés. La corte encontró que el distrito escolar de San Francisco violó la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964 y negó a los estudiantes la oportunidad de participar en el programa de educación pública. La Corte razonó que simplemente tratar a los estudiantes igual independientemente de sus necesidades lingüísticas no garantizaba su acceso equitativo a la educación.

Basándonos en nuestro resumen, América no tiene un idioma oficial, y es inconstitucional prevenir enseñar a los estadounidenses más jóvenes un idioma diferente al inglés. Sin embargo, el pueblo estadounidense tiene el deber de enseñar inglés a los estudiantes cuando existe una barrera lingüística que impide el acceso equitativo a la educación.

Avanzando rápido al 29 de junio de 2017. Tuve el privilegio de liderar un escuadrón militar como su oficial comandante. Un tercio completo de los miembros del escuadrón eran inmigrantes de primera o segunda generación. Todos los miembros del escuadrón hablaban inglés, pero algunos tenían un fuerte acento. Muchos miembros del escuadrón eran bilingües. Operábamos sistemas técnicos distribuidos y nos comunicábamos con radios y teléfonos. A menudo, el enriquecimiento de la comunicación a través del lenguaje corporal no estaba disponible.

Tuvimos algunos desafíos de comunicación, pero todos compartíamos un compromiso mutuo y con nuestra misión. A pesar de nuestros desafíos, logramos los más altos niveles de seguridad, protección y preparación operativa en comparación con cualquier otro escuadrón durante esos dos años. Sin importar nuestro lugar de nacimiento, todos éramos estadounidenses, proporcionando capacidad de combate para la nación.

Sí, teníamos barreras lingüísticas, pero todos éramos parte de un equipo excepcional.

Un último caso de la Corte Suprema de EE. UU. relacionado con el idioma fue Plyler v. Doe (1982). El caso impugnó una ley de Texas que retenía fondos estatales de los distritos escolares locales necesarios para educar a niños que no habían sido legalmente admitidos en los Estados Unidos. La ley también autorizaba a los distritos escolares a negar la inscripción a estos niños.

El juez William J. Brennan Jr. escribió la opinión mayoritaria. Afirmó: "Al negarles a estos niños una educación básica, les negamos la capacidad de vivir dentro de la estructura de nuestras instituciones cívicas y cerramos cualquier posibilidad realista de que contribuyan de la menor manera al progreso de nuestra Nación."

Varios estados posteriormente impugnaron la sentencia, incluidos California en 1994, Illinois en 2006 y Alabama en 2011. Plyler v. Doe es crucial para los derechos lingüísticos ya que asegura el acceso a la educación para los estudiantes que no hablan inglés, muchos de los cuales son inmigrantes.

Este acceso es crítico para aprender inglés y participar plenamente en la sociedad estadounidense.

Temprano en la mañana del martes 26 de marzo de 2024, un buque contenedor chocó contra el Puente Francis Scott Key en Baltimore. Ocho obreros de construcción que trabajaban para proporcionar capacidad nacional a través del soporte de infraestructura fueron arrojados al agua; solo dos de los hombres sobrevivieron. The Associated Press identificó que los hombres eran de México, Guatemala, Honduras y El Salvador.

El gobernador de Maryland, Wes Moore, se dirigió a las familias en español después del incidente, diciendo: “Estamos contigo, ahora y siempre”. Su elección del idioma refleja un entendimiento de que nuestro compromiso mutuo es más profundo que una barrera lingüística. Su discurso fue un reconocimiento a nuestra herencia multilingüe, mostrando que los estadounidenses hablan muchos idiomas.

Ser estadounidense no se trata de hablar un solo idioma. América representa abrazar los principios de la libertad individual y aceptar la responsabilidad personal de contribuir a la nación. Agradezco a los trabajadores por su compromiso.

Debatimos nuestro idioma y lo que significa ser estadounidense. Los debates legislativos del siglo XVIII continúan hasta nuestros días, enfrentando desafíos contemporáneos y tragedias. Nos recuerdan la libertad, la dignidad y la búsqueda de unidad en la diversidad que nos definen.

América no tiene un idioma oficial. Por haber sido una colonia británica, usamos el inglés en el gobierno y para satisfacer la necesidad práctica de un idioma común.

América es un crisol de muchas culturas. Los inmigrantes legales vienen a América en busca de oportunidad e individualismo. Al mismo tiempo, muchos de estos inmigrantes hablan poco o nada de inglés.

Nuestro tribunal supremo ha mostrado repetidamente dignidad al asegurar que los estadounidenses tengan el derecho a la libertad individual, sin importar su idioma.

Haciendo eco de la corte, mostramos nuestro compromiso con el ideal estadounidense cuando interactuamos entre nosotros con gracia y dignidad. No necesitamos hablar el mismo idioma para respetar los derechos de los demás y agradecernos mutuamente por nuestro servicio.

Que Dios bendiga a los Estados Unidos de América.

We show our commitment to the American ideal when we interact with each other with grace and dignity. From 18th-century debates on language to the recent tragedy in Baltimore, we don’t need to speak the same language to respect the rights of others and thank each other for our service.

What’s America’s official language?

On January 9, 1794, a group of German-Americans in Virginia petitioned the 3rd United States Congress to print federal laws in both English and German so that they could better understand them. In January 1795, the House voted against it, and the bill died.

The vote on the House floor was 42-41. For at least two hundred years after the bill’s defeat, a myth persisted that Congress nearly changed the official American language to German. That was never the case.

In fact, the official American language was never in doubt.

America doesn’t have an official language.

November 17, 2000. At 22, fresh out of college and a brand new commissioned officer in the armed forces, I set off on my first cross-country trip across America. Following my officer graduation ceremony, I was orders-in-hand with 10 days to make it to my California coast training base. With a couple of days to spare, I made a detour to go home through rural Missouri to visit my parents and future wife. After the visit, a buddy and I linked up just outside St. Louis to travel the rest of the way together. At that point I hadn’t been outside of rural Missouri many days of my life.

We traveled through Oklahoma, the Texas panhandle, New Mexico, and Arizona without incident. At the California border, the inspection agent took the apple I was going to eat for a snack–no outside fruit allowed. Just outside of Los Angeles, I stopped at a gas station to fill up. I had heard the traffic in LA could be rough and I didn’t want to run out of gas stuck in traffic. The attendant spoke no English, and I spoke no Spanish. No worries, though. We figured out a way for me to pay for the gas and a Coca-Cola.

At the time I thought someone who lived in America should speak English. Now, that’s not important to me. 

Since that day, I served with many Americans who raised their hand to volunteer to serve their nation—and not just in the military. Also at the State Department, brilliant bilingual members of the DoD Education Activity (DoDEA), the CIA, NSA, Peace Corps, USDA, and on and on.

They all spoke English, but many of their parents did not or spoke it poorly. But their parents had sought out America’s inherent individualism, and their children served our nation as thanks. That man at the gas station outside of LA, and many others like him, raise children who serve our nation with distinction.

My personal experiences highlight that even though Americans don’t share a common language, we can respect the individual liberty of others. This principle is echoed in a series of Supreme Court rulings that have addressed language rights in American society.

Several fascinating US Supreme Court cases deal with language and the rights of non-English speakers in America.

In the first, Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the high court blocked a Nebraska law that banned teaching languages other than English to schoolchildren. Mr. Meyer, who taught German in a Lutheran school, was convicted under the law. He appealed his conviction. The court took up the case and found the law violated his right to teach German and the individual liberty of parents to control their child’s education, protected by the 14th Amendment.

At the time, the Nebraska law sought to prevent schools from teaching German. The law intended to “promote civic development by inhibiting training and education of the immature in foreign tongues and ideals before they could learn English and acquire American ideals.”

In the majority opinion, Justice James C. McReynolds stated that “mere knowledge of the German language cannot reasonably be regarded as harmful.”

Our summary so far: America has no official language, and it is unconstitutional to prevent teaching even the youngest Americans a language other than English.

November 22, 2008: I was headed into Iraq to link up with a US Marine Corps unit for several months. Before my trip downrange, I stayed a couple of days at Camp Buehring, Kuwait, 15 miles from the Iraqi southern border. I was at Camp Buerhring for some final training on technical systems used by British and American forces. I couldn’t get the training in the US because we didn’t have expertise with the British equipment.

Our young British instructor spoke with an indecipherable, thick English accent. He kicked off the training session by telling jokes.

At first, none of the Americans in the room understood anything he said. The Brit kept telling jokes.

After a couple of minutes, some of the Americans started to laugh at the jokes. Eventually, everyone in the room was howling! The instructor was really funny!

That’s when the British instructor started the training session. He said he could tell when all of us started to understand his accent because we would laugh at the jokes.

Even speaking the same language doesn’t mean we understand each other.

A second captivating US Supreme Court case involving language was Lau v. Nichols (1974). In 1971, San Francisco, California, schools integrated and absorbed more than 2,800 Chinese-American children who were not proficient in English. The public school system refused the children supplemental English language education and taught classes only in English. As a result, the children were unable to participate in the educational programs provided by the schools. The students appealed their plight to the high court.

In the unanimous decision, the court ruled that a school district has the duty to provide supplemental language instruction for students who speak a language other than English. The court found the San Francisco school district violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and denied students the opportunity to participate in the public education program. The Court reasoned that simply treating students the same regardless of their language needs did not ensure their equal access to education.

Building on our summary, America has no official language, and it is unconstitutional to prevent teaching even the youngest Americans a language other than English. However, the American people have a duty to teach students English when there is a language barrier preventing equal access to education.

Fast-forward to June 29, 2017. I had the privilege of leading a military squadron as its commanding officer. A full one-third of the squadron members were either first- or second-generation immigrants. All the squadron members spoke English, but some had a strong accent. Many squadron members were bilingual. We operated distributed technical systems and communicated with radios and telephones. The added communication enhancement of body language was often not available.

We had some communication challenges, but we all shared a commitment to each other and our mission. Despite our challenges, we achieved the highest levels of security, safety, and operational readiness compared to any squadron over those two years. No matter our place of birth, we were all Americans, providing combat capability for the nation.

Yes, we had language barriers, but everyone was part of an exceptional team.

A final US Supreme Court case involving language was Plyler v. Doe (1982). The case challenged a Texas statute that withheld state funds from local school districts needed to educate children who had not been legally admitted to the United States. The statute further authorized school districts to deny enrollment to these children.

Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote the majority opinion. He stated, "By denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation."

Several states have subsequently challenged the ruling, including California in 1994, Illinois in 2006, and Alabama in 2011. Plyler v. Doe is crucial for language rights in that it ensures access to education for non-English-speaking students, many of whom are immigrants.

This access is critical for learning English and fully participating in American society.

Early in the morning on Tuesday, March 26, 2024, a container vessel crashed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore. Eight construction crewmen working to provide national capability through infrastructure support were thrown into the water; only two of the men survived. The Associated Press identified the men were from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore addressed the families in Spanish following the incident, saying, “Estamos contigo, ahora y siempre,” or, “We are with you, now and always.” His choice of language reflects an understanding that our commitment to each other is deeper than a language barrier. His address was a nod to our multilingual heritage, showing that Americans speak many languages.

Being American isn’t about speaking one language. America represents embracing the principles of individual liberty and accepting the personal responsibility to give back to the nation.

We debate our language and what it means to be American. 18th-century legislative debates continue into contemporary challenges and tragedies. We are reminded of the liberty, dignity, and pursuit of unity in diversity that define us.

America doesn’t have an official language. Because we were a British colony, we used English in government and to meet the practical need for a common language.

America is a melting pot of many cultures. Legal immigrants come to America seeking opportunity and individualism. At the same time, many of these immigrants speak poor, or no, English.

Our highest court has repeatedly shown dignity in ensuring Americans have the right to individual liberty, no matter their language.

Echoing the court, we show our commitment to the American ideal when we interact with each other with grace and dignity. We don’t need to speak the same language to respect the rights of others and thank each other for our service.

May God bless the United States of America.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free subscriber!

Some grow frustrated with our progress in convincing Russia to leave Ukraine. We could take deliberate steps to increase our negotiating strength.

Just as a thought experiment, a case study—should we enforce a blockade of Kaliningrad?

June 24, 1948. Joseph Stalin, the Soviet leader during World War II, directed a blockade of all supplies going into West Berlin, Germany, by road, rail, or river. Despite controlling the surrounding territory, the Soviets could not stop air transit into and out of the isolated city.

The US and our allies responded to the Soviet blockade by airlifting all supplies for two million people into and out of West Berlin for the next 322 days. Planes brought coal for heat and electricity, as well as oil and gas. They brought food, coffee, medicine, raw materials for clothing, and other essentials. Planes even brought candy, highlighting a human touch during political tensions. At the peak of the Berlin Airlift, a plane filled with supplies landed in Berlin every 45 seconds.

May 12, 1949. The Soviets stopped the blockade due to the demonstrated American and Allied commitment to West Berlin. This airlift foreshadowed the enduring geopolitical tensions that would characterize the Cold War. It highlighted the enduring importance of resilience, innovation, and international cooperation in the face of adversity.

A key point here is that, even if it failed, the Soviets illustrated that a blockade is an acceptable strategy to exert negotiating pressure on America and our Western European partners.

The other key point is that the Soviet blockade failed due to determined American and Allied commitment.

The legacy of the Berlin Airlift echoes across the modern geopolitical landscape, particularly in the face of continued Russian ambitions to exert influence beyond its borders.

February 24, 2022. Russian forces directed by Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. The invasion drew widespread international condemnation and led to a series of sanctions against Russia.

Two years later, in a statement on February 23, 2024, American President Biden reiterated that Russian aggression in Ukraine is a threat to all of Europe and the rest of the world, including the United States.

The same day, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III outlined America’s goals for Ukraine. He stated that as a global coalition, we intend to:

Ensure that Ukraine has the capabilities that it needs to defend its people from Russian aggression, and

Take back its sovereign territory

Secretary Austin III highlighted, “This historic coalition has committed more than $87 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the start of Putin's war—including 15 U.S. allies that, as a percentage of GDP, contribute more to Ukraine's capability needs than the United States.”

Unfortunately, the sanctions and aid supplied to Ukraine have not resulted in Russian forces leaving Ukraine. Russian forces are entrenched. Forcibly removing them from Ukraine is a challenging task.

How might we reinforce our negotiating position with Russia?

Successful negotiation starts from a position of strength. This strength relies on strategic preparation and a superior Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement, or BATNA. Roger Fisher, William Ury, and later Bruce Patton introduced the BATNA concept in their 1981 book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.

A strong BATNA means having a robust and viable plan that can be executed if negotiations fail. This ensures negotiation isn’t the only path to achieving your objectives, thereby reducing desperation and improving leverage.

Strength in negotiation also comes from assessing and influencing the other party's BATNA. Understanding and weakening the other party's alternatives enhances your position.

Our BATNA is a stronger North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), improved already by enhanced military readiness (Steadfast Defender 24 exercises), new memberships (Finland and Sweden), and increased defense spending. That’s not to say we aren’t committed to Ukraine. Our commitment to our partners highlights our resolve to uphold the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

We can assess Russia as desiring a frozen conflict. In a frozen conflict, active, large-scale military hostilities cease, but the nations don’t agree to peaceful terms. These conflicts often linger indefinitely, with sporadic outbreaks of violence. This would enable Russia a degree of control and influence over the contested area without the full costs of war. Russia currently has frozen conflicts in areas of Moldova and Georgia.

One strategy to enhance our negotiating leverage against Russia would be to enforce a blockade of Kaliningrad.

Kaliningrad is strategically important to Russia. It’s Russia’s only deep-sea port that remains ice-free year-round. It serves as a critical military and logistical hub.

Kaliningrad is physically separated from the rest of Russia. It borders open water or a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nation on all sides. Its unique geographical position—isolated from the Russian mainland and surrounded by NATO members and the Baltic Sea—renders it particularly vulnerable to blockade strategies. This isolation is a leverage point in negotiations. Russia acts nervous about Kaliningrad’s isolation. In June 2022, Russia claimed Lithuania blockaded Kaliningrad when Lithuania began enforcing European Union sanctions that were a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

There’s another relevant geographic feature in the region. The Suwalki Gap is a strategically significant stretch of land approximately 60 miles long, located on the border between Poland (a NATO member) and Lithuania (also a NATO member). This narrow corridor is strategically important because it is the only land connection between the Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and the rest of NATO. It separates Belarus, a Russian ally, and Kaliningrad. Securing this stretch of land would be paramount to maintaining the integrity of NATO's eastern flank.

Kaliningrad isn’t a Russian city. Its real name is Königsberg. Königsberg was a Prussian (German) city for 700 years before being annexed by the Soviets after World War II. Kaliningrad has a complex identity that distinguishes it from other Russian cities. This historical and cultural distinction complicates Russia's claims over the territory.

Implementing a blockade of Kaliningrad would apply pressure that Russia could not easily ignore. The strategy would require careful planning, support, and coordination among NATO allies and a readiness to manage potential escalatory responses from Russia. As a permanent member of the United Nations (UN) Security Council, Russia would veto the blockade if it were brought to a vote there.

The ultimate goal of the blockade wouldn’t be to escalate hostilities. It would be to bring Russia to the negotiating table with a genuine interest in coming to an agreement to end the blockade of Kaliningrad. Our bargaining chip? Russian forces leaving Ukraine.

The blockade of Kaliningrad could serve as a tangible demonstration of NATO's capability and willingness to impose significant costs on Russia for its aggression in Ukraine and elsewhere.

The biggest risk of enforcing a blockade of Kaliningrad? A blockade is a deliberate act of war. An act of war against Russia in a NATO nation risks increasing the likelihood of expanding the war to include all of NATO.

Back to our question. Should we enforce a blockade of Kaliningrad to reinforce our negotiating position with Russia?

We should consider a perspective from one of NATO’s newest members, Finland. Finland shares an 835-mile border with Russia.

Recent remarks from Finland’s new president emphasize “a Finnish approach” to the Russian situation, i.e., “cool, calm, and collected, but determined.” This perspective highlights the importance of a levelheaded approach.

Another point regarding a determined approach: our NATO partners supported operations in Afghanistan for 18 years alongside America. Just like their support, our commitment to Ukraine and our NATO partners isn’t a short-term event.

Over the long term, patient diplomacy and economic partnership are more decisive than military operations.

That’s not to say we aren’t ready to take decisive action. Blockading Kaliningrad is a viable course of action to increase pressure on Russia without resorting to full-scale conflict. However, as it directly impacts their regional security, we would require strong consensus with our NATO partners. It's their backyard, and their willingness to support the strategy is essential for its legitimacy.

The imagined scenario to blockade Kaliningrad would be a drastic measure. It carries significant risks and challenges. It would be an act of war.

A blockade of Kaliningrad would be possible but dangerous.

History doesn’t predict future events, but looking back at the Soviet blockade of West Berlin offers a lesson: the Berlin blockade didn't win the day; patient determination won.

Diplomacy, strong partnerships, and continued economic support to Ukraine and our partners in Europe are more decisive than immediate incendiary action.

May God bless the United States of America.

We are endowed with radical freedom, but this freedom is inherently linked to societal obligations and responsibilities.

Where is the line between personal liberty and our obligation to society?

What about when others disagree with our healthcare decisions?

We are Condemned to be Free.

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) was a French existentialist philosopher, playwright, and novelist. He saw first-hand two world wars and the German occupation of France during World War II. Sartre’s philosophy explored the nature of existence, freedom, consciousness, and the human condition. He described himself as an anarchist; the only cause he believed in was human freedom.

The central concept of Sartre’s philosophy was the existentialist view that individuals create their own meaning in an indifferent universe. He believed in radical freedom and the inherent responsibility that freedom enabled. He disavowed belief in a deity. As an atheist he posited individuals are free to make their own choices and create meaning in a world that does not provide meaning.

But he also posited that we are condemned to be free. This freedom is not liberating. It’s a prison of condemnation because it comes with weighty personal responsibility for our choices and their consequences.

For Sartre, the absence of a predetermined purpose meant that each person must define their essence through actions. This freedom is inescapable. The responsibility it entails can feel burdensome, as individuals cannot blame their circumstances, society, or a deity for their choices and outcomes. They are fully responsible for defining their own existence.

Sartre could have been a libertarian if not for his belief in social responsibility and the collective struggle for justice and equality. He strongly rejected authoritarian structures and traditional societal norms. He did not advocate for anarchism as a governance structure; he was more of a socialist.

In sum, Sartre was, in part, a radical individualist. But his blend of existentialist thought, atheism, and commitment to social responsibility make him a complex philosophical figure.

Individualism and social responsibility seemingly contradict. Let’s keep digging into this unique nature of individual freedom.

There’s another concept that intersects with existentialist thought…to explore it, let's head to the American West.

Ride for the Brand!

Ride for the Brand is a phrase from the American West originating from cattle ranching culture. It embodies loyalty, dedication, and commitment to a group or cause. It refers to a cowboy's loyalty to the ranch owner or the "brand" of cattle he worked for.

The saying is widely known in the West. It symbolizes standing by your commitments, working for the greater good of the community or organization you're part of, and upholding the values and principles that define it.

Possibly the earliest written reference to Ride for the Brand is Western writer Zane Grey’s 1934 novel Code of the West. The Code of the West isn’t a set of laws; it’s a social contract. Those who broke the code became social outcasts. This social contract, underpinned by unwavering loyalty to one's commitments, was crucial in shaping social norms and expectations.

Ride for the Brand isn’t an ethos of blind loyalty. It’s a duty to uphold your commitment to a community or group's collective values and goals.

The American West’s “Ride for the Brand” demonstrates how individual freedom and social commitment coexist. We make choices, and those choices come with obligations. By riding for the brand, we commit to honoring our obligations.

We all make choices, either willingly or by the station of our birth.

Our choices represent individual freedom. Some choices are forced on us. Our parents and grandparents choose our place of birth. Our elected representatives choose other societal conditions on our behalf. We choose to pay taxes, to obey laws, and to respect the rights of others. Though we don’t explicitly make every one of our choices, they are our choices nonetheless.

These choices come with obligations.

Edmund Burke, the world’s decisive Conservative philosopher, said we have “obligations to mankind at large, which are not in consequence of any special voluntary pact.” Burke recognized that even if we didn’t explicitly choose the station of our birth, we still have obligations resulting from those choices.

We commit to honoring our obligations. We make commitments to ourselves, our communities, and our society. These commitments represent our social contract.

Here’s a mind map that graphically represents our text.

Our commitment to radical freedom is a component of the social contract. So are our societal obligations and the consequences of our choices. Our loyalty and collective values, expressed by our unspoken law to ride for the brand, are a part of our social contract.

While we each have the personal freedom to define our existence, we do so within a social framework that levies responsibilities and consequences. Our individual choices echo through our social structures, impacting others. They influence and are influenced by our collective values and commitments, much like our duty to ride for the brand.

Let’s have a concrete example…

Measles Vaccinations

Measles is a highly contagious viral disease. It’s so contagious that up to 90% of people near an infected area can become infected if they aren’t vaccinated. Measles stays in a room for up to two hours after the infected person leaves. You can catch measles just by entering this room in those two hours.

Dr. Peter Hotez, co-director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital, says, “For every 10,000 children infected with measles, 2,000 will be hospitalized; 1,000 will develop ear infections with the potential for permanent hearing loss; 500 will develop pneumonia; and 10 to 30 will die.” Possible long-term effects of measles include memory loss, seizures, and blindness; these effects can emerge as long as eight years after infection.

Babies are a genuine concern. You can’t vaccinate a child until they are 12 months old. Michael Mina, MD, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, identified that before the vaccine, measles was “likely associated with at least half of all childhood deaths from infectious diseases.”

But there’s good news! There’s a really good vaccine to protect against measles infection. Two MMR shots are 97% effective at preventing measles infection.

Unfortunately, as of a week ago, 17 states here in America have measles outbreaks.

In sum, we’ve established measles as a highly contagious viral disease that is preventable by the individual choice to be vaccinated. When enough people are vaccinated in a community, the entire community will be disease-free. Let’s consider a philosophical case study of public schools, existentialism, and loyalty to our communities.

Do you have a radical freedom right to refuse the vaccine? Yes. You can do so on whatever grounds you prefer, the most common being a religious exemption. You absolutely have a right to make your own healthcare decisions. The government should have no say in the matter.

At the same time, if you choose to use public resources such as schools, this choice violates our social contract. You can’t refuse to adhere to public safety standards and, at the same time, use public resources. This personal choice echoes through our social structures, impacting others.

If you choose to participate in social structures such as sending your kids to public schools, you have to ride for the brand. When you make the choice, you take on the responsibility. Doing so upholds the collective values and goals of your community.

Alternatively, you have a right to refuse to participate in society. There are Supreme Court cases that establish your precedent to home school for religious reasons. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) supports parental rights. In the case, the high court ruled that a parent’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion was more compelling than the state’s interest in educating their children. Courts have repeatedly found home education a viable pathway to citizenship.

There’s another consideration here: the role of government officials. Do officials first have a responsibility to protect the rights of individuals? Or do they first have a duty to uphold the public interest, including public safety? Yes, and yes.

Government officials are responsible for protecting America's bedrock—individual liberty. There is no higher obligation.

But when individual choices infringe on the rights of others, officials have a duty to protect the individual rights of the people. When individuals make choices that endanger others, they violate our social contract. Just as officials are responsible for maintaining individual rights, they have a responsibility to conserve the institution. In this case, we are still protecting the rights of individuals to make their choice. But if they choose to threaten public safety, they shouldn’t also be able to choose to use public resources.

There is no higher principle than individual liberty. No matter your belief in a deity, individuals are inherently free to make their own choices and create meaning in the world.

At the same time, this freedom comes with weighty personal responsibility for our choices and their consequences.

We are condemned to be free.

When we choose to participate in society, we must honor our social contract and commit to upholding our community’s collective values and goals.

We ride for the brand.

May God bless the United States of America.

America is torn by division. The battle for the nation's soul rages on, touching every aspect of society. An intense struggle over American culture and individual rights unfolds, fueled by deep-seated disagreements over social reform. Voices on both sides of the spectrum argue passionately. We are a society at a crossroads.

The political scene is characterized by unprecedented divisiveness. Disenfranchised communities rise against an entrenched power of elites, demanding fairer economic practices. The fire for change is a response to growing economic disparities and widespread inequality fueled by rapid technological advancements.

The media landscape has transformed, with new technologies amplifying voices like never before. This enables the media to reach new audiences. Information—and equally, misinformation—spreads at breakneck speed, influencing public opinion and shaping the national dialogue.

Immigration is a hot-button issue, igniting debates on assimilation, employment, and cultural impact. These discussions often veer into prejudice and nativism, challenging politicians and their constituents to confront the nation's values head-on.

Amid the turmoil stand two presidential candidates, both former Presidents, who have managed to alienate significant portions of their party. Their candidacies test the limits of political loyalty and ideological purity.

Of course, the subject is the 1892 US Presidential election.

America has always had culture wars.

Today, we fight over various issues: economic concerns, wealth inequality, immigration, and individual liberty. These are broad themes in American history. The 1892 contest between presidential candidates Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison shares similarities with today. Here are a few parallels:

Economic Concerns and Wealth Inequality

The late 19th century Industrial Revolution saw rapid industrialization and businessmen looking to gain power and wealth on the backs of American workers. The nation experienced significant economic growth alongside marked inequality and labor unrest, with stark disparities in wealth and power between the industrial elite and the working class. In a book of the same name, Mark Twain coined the late 19th-century period the Gilded Age, meaning it was beautiful on the surface but corrupt underneath. At the time, this led to intense debates over economic policy, particularly tariffs.

In contrast, today, we are experiencing rapid digital advancement. The Digital Revolution has reshaped the economy through information technology, automation, and artificial intelligence. These changes have increased productivity but also raised concerns about job displacement and the skills gap. Similar to the Gilded Age, we have significant economic inequality. The wealth gap has widened, with a substantial portion of wealth concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of individuals, particularly those with ties to the tech industry and other high-growth sectors. Movements advocating for economic justice, workers' rights, environmental sustainability, and social equity are pressing for systemic changes.

Immigration

The 1890s was one of America’s peak immigration periods. Millions arrived from Europe, fleeing economic hardship, religious persecution, and political turmoil. Immigrants fueled the nation's industrial boom, providing the labor force that powered factories, built railways, and transformed the American economy. At the same time, Americans feared damage to society, the economy, and national identity. Many immigrants spoke no English. Concerns about assimilation, competition for jobs, and cultural impact led to nativist sentiments and calls for restrictions on immigration.

Today, people migrate to America for many reasons—seeking better economic opportunities, fleeing persecution or conflict, or joining family members. Debates center on issues of illegal immigration and border security, especially at the southern border. Americans question the impact of immigration on jobs, wages, and social services.

Individual Liberty

Individual liberty was central to the political and social debates of the late 19th century. The culture war burned bright.

Passage of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (ratified in 1868) granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including formerly enslaved people. The 15th Amendment (ratified in 1870) enabled voting rights regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." However, the Gilded Age witnessed the rise of Jim Crow laws in the Southern states. These laws created a broad system of racial segregation and discrimination. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and other discriminatory practices disenfranchised Black Americans.

Senator Aaron A. Sargent (R) introduced a proposed Constitutional Amendment to secure women’s right to vote in 1878. Congress didn’t pass the Amendment for 41 years. Tennessee’s ratification in 1920 incorporated it into the Constitution. Opponents claimed a woman’s place was in the home, and women lacked the education to be informed voters. Some opponents feared that giving women the right to vote would radically change society and cause a breakdown in marriage and families. Finally, fearmongers spread talk of a decline in societal morals, which they said would lead to the degradation of the social order.

Culture wars, indeed. Today, we still fight over the culture of America. Our fight over individual liberty includes education, such as who gets to decide whether a child can read certain books in school that might offend someone else’s parents. But it also includes the right to freedom of speech and expression, such as whether the government can dictate what clothes someone can’t wear. We even fight over the role of technology in shaping societal norms, such as the impact of social media on democracy and privacy, the ethical implications of artificial intelligence, and the digital divide's effect on educational and economic opportunities. But the age-old fights remain. Today, women have the right to vote but not the right to make their own healthcare decisions.

Both the Gilded Age and the Digital Age reveal the recurring themes of America's struggle with economic disparities, the challenges of technological advancement, and the continuous evolution of societal values. These parallels underline the cyclical nature of history, where each new era brings challenges, debates, and opportunities for growth and reform.

The contrast between both periods identifies the same issues. They present themselves in new ways, but the fight is the same. One hundred thirty years later, we can draw lasting conclusions about the divisiveness surrounding the 1892 election.

First, working Americans deserve the ability to decide their own fate. This personal responsibility directly derives from the ability to have food on the table and heat in the house. We shouldn’t support Americans on social welfare programs because we shouldn’t HAVE to support Americans on welfare programs. Americans need to make enough money from their labor to care for themselves.

At the same time, not all businesses are the same. A hard and fast rule to raise the minimum wage would disproportionately impact retail and food service industries, which have a high percentage of low earners. In addition to raising the minimum wage, we need to give small businesses that pay livable wages tax credits. This would reward the many great American businesses that pay livable wages, raise wages for workers, and reduce the need for social welfare programs.

Second, immigrants didn’t destroy America. Immigrants became Americans because that’s what all immigrants become. Immigrants come to America because they want to be Americans. They don’t come to America intent on destroying her. We don’t support open borders because undocumented immigration leads to abuse of immigrants and strains community resources, including healthcare, education, and law enforcement. But we have no reason not to support legal immigration. At the same time, we can address security along our southern border with decisive measures.

Third, instead of the Gilded Age fight over a woman’s right to vote, we fight over a woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions. Just like we enshrined a woman’s right to vote in the Constitution with the 19th Amendment, we must enshrine her right to make her own healthcare decisions. Every competent American adult should have the right to make his or her own healthcare decisions. We must further restrict the government’s knowledge of individual healthcare decisions in the same Amendment. The government deciding someone’s personal choice is an unparalleled insult to individual liberty and clearly violates founding American principles. We can have our own opinions of the ethics, but the government has no place in the matter.

The biggest lesson we can learn from the one hundred and thirty years since the 1892 election is that the American system is resilient. Our democratic republic will sway in the winds of the 2024 election. We will continue to progress toward the American ideal, and we will never be perfect. No matter the victor this year, the American ideal will fight on.

May God bless the United States of America.

Two weeks ago, we asserted that Americans need to be able to connect to big human capital infrastructure. Job training. Education. Professional qualifications. Further, we posited that building collective individual capability fuels national growth, security, and competitiveness. We concluded that individuals collectively need effective policy, accessible education, and equitable infrastructure to build national capability.

Last week, we determined that ‘We the People’ collectively choose to fund public institutions to enable others to achieve their inherent right to pursue happiness. This includes education. We make this choice by electing representatives to act on our behalf. Representatives in every state in the union fund a public university. We concluded that this voluntary funding to enable access to education fulfills part of our social contract.

Now for the week's question: should we fund Women’s Studies programs at public universities?

Women’s Studies programs and other diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) study programs attract controversy. They challenge traditional narratives by reevaluating history and society. They question established power structures and advocate for systemic change. These challenges spark disagreement among those who perceive them as an attack on cultural values.

Now that we understand the controversy, we can ask some questions to orient ourselves on the basis of Women’s Studies.

Joel: Ava, how should we introduce our debate on Women’s Studies?

Ava: Joel, let’s start with the philosophy of the foundation of America, our Declaration of Independence.

Our shared philosophy asserts the equality of all individuals. It states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The emphasis on equality and the right to pursue happiness supports the need for education to address historical inequalities. Achieving equality of opportunity means identifying inequality.

Joel: And we weren’t perfect. We should recognize the canyon between the philosophy and the history. The founders signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. In 1790, President Washington signed the Nationality Act into law. The law established citizenship guidelines to include only white male property owners. It excluded women, nonwhite persons, and servants.

Today, we are better, but we still need to improve. With diligent effort, we continue to strive towards equality of opportunity. Much work remains.

This dichotomy between philosophical ideal and reality highlights the importance of understanding and addressing systemic inequalities. We say we believe in equality. It’s a foundational premise of America.

But we can’t say we believe we are all created equal and, at the same time, ignore deficiencies. To identify shortcomings in women’s rights, we have to look for them. To look for them means we have to study women’s rights.

Ava: At the same time, there are detractors of Women’s Studies.

Some debate the academic rigor and practical value of Women's Studies programs. Critics question the impact of these programs on students' career prospects and overall contribution to the workforce. They argue that the discipline doesn’t provide practical skills.

Critics argue that Women's Studies programs are ideologically driven and lack objectivity. They suggest that focusing on gender equity and social justice introduces bias in research and teaching.

Resistance to Women's Studies is sometimes rooted in broader political or cultural opposition to feminism and social justice movements. Critics see the discipline as promoting a particular political agenda.

Joel: Let’s look at Women’s Studies through the lens of the purpose of education for individuals.

Education for individuals builds capacity for personal responsibility.

Education fosters self-reliance. It teaches individuals to think critically, solve problems independently, and make informed decisions. It encourages self-sufficiency. It enables individuals to rely on their abilities and judgment in navigating personal and professional challenges.

Education empowers individuals by providing them with the knowledge and skills necessary to improve their circumstances and achieve their goals.

We can further examine education through the lens of national capability.

Education builds a nation's capability to establish favorable world conditions.

Education contributes directly to economic development and global competitiveness. It drives innovation, productivity, and economic growth. Diversity of thought achieved through education contributes to national security by developing citizens who can engage with complex global issues.

Do Women’s Studies programs achieve these aims?

Ava: Women’s Studies programs promote ethical reasoning, enabling students to navigate complex moral landscapes and make conscientious decisions. They empower individuals to recognize systemic barriers and personal agency. They foster personal responsibility in understanding, interacting with, and seeking to change the world.

Those who study Women's Studies programs enter various fields, from public policy and education to business and law. They contribute diverse perspectives that drive innovation and address complex societal issues.

Joel: Women’s Studies sound abstract. Do you have any concrete examples?

Ava: Sure. Let’s examine how Women's Studies scholars contribute to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). STEM fields face skilled labor shortages. Women’s participation helps address these gaps, ensuring that the most capable minds contribute to advancements in technology and science, irrespective of gender.

At the same time, research by Women’s Studies scholars highlights systemic biases in STEM education and workplaces. The March 2024 State of Girls and Women in STEM report from the National Girls Collaborative Project finds that women comprise 48% of the workforce but only 35% of the STEM workforce. Minority women make up less than 10% of the STEM workforce.

These same scholars help develop solutions to mitigate the problem. Advocates work to increase the representation of women in STEM fields. They help develop mentoring programs, scholarships, and awareness campaigns. Initiatives like Girls Who Code and the Society of Women Engineers benefit from the input of individuals knowledgeable in gender studies. They aim to inspire and support young women and girls to pursue STEM careers.

University programs sponsor Women in STEM Conferences and Women’s Mentor Programs to assist women in navigating challenges in the academic and industry workforce.

Joel: The push to improve women’s participation in STEM fields began in earnest in the 1960s. Between 1966 and 1977, researchers asked 5,000 schoolgirls to draw a scientist. Less than 1% of them drew a scientist who was a woman. In 1985, that number rose to 33%. In 2016, 58% of schoolgirls drew a female scientist.

In 1970, women comprised 8% of the STEM workforce. Diligent effort improved our capability over time.

The biggest argument in favor of Women's Studies and DEI programs hinges on whether we have a self-sustaining solution to the cycle of underrepresentation. These programs offer a self-reinforcing cycle of recruiting more brilliant individuals to generate capability, regardless of gender or background.

Education, empowerment, and leadership cultivate a society that drives capability.

Not diversity for the sake of diversity. Diversity as a source of strength and innovation.

Let’s simplify the rationale for Women’s Studies, still using STEM careers as an example.

* Brilliant people of any gender bring great capability to STEM fields.

* For many societal reasons, women historically participate in these fields at a lower level than men.

* Women’s Studies programs make measurable improvements to increase women’s participation in STEM. These efforts increase the total number of brilliant people in STEM. More involvement in STEM by brilliant individuals generates increased national capability.

Therefore:

Education in fields that challenge and expand our understanding of gender and society increases the nation's overall capability and global competitiveness.

Our pursuit of equality and liberty is an ongoing endeavor. We believe in the ideal, but we aren’t perfect yet.

We can’t say we believe we are all created equal and, at the same time, ignore deficiencies. To identify shortcomings in women’s rights, we have to look for them. To look for them means we have to study women’s rights.

Women's Studies and other diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are essential to our national toolkit. We're actively cultivating a capable and innovative workforce poised to lead on the global stage.

There are arguments against Women’s Studies and other DEI study programs. But the results speak for themselves.

To increase national capability, we need to identify and engage brilliant people in areas where they can demonstrate their talents.

May God bless the United States of America.

What is the philosophical basis for education and public funding?

The context of this piece is the premise that Americans need to be able to connect to big human capital infrastructure. Job training. Education. Professional qualifications.

Individuals and communities need effective policy, accessible education, and equitable infrastructure to realize their potential. Enhancing collective individual capability fuels national growth, security, and competitiveness.

The infrastructure in question is human capital — people's knowledge, skills, and abilities. Human capital is foundational infrastructure similar to bridges, roads, and dams. This infrastructure supports the national capability that underpins and enhances the nation's overall capability.

To set the stage for this experiment, my voice is my own. The other voice for this piece is Ava, the name of the ChatGPT voice. Brilliant ElevenLabs Text To Speech created the voice. I edited Ava’s responses so they were shorter and more focused.

Joel: What is the philosophical basis for advancing your education?

Ava: Advancing education can be explored through multiple lenses, including personal growth, societal contribution, and the pursuit of truth.

Philosopher John Dewey emphasized education's role in fostering critical thinking, creativity, and personal fulfillment. This perspective aligns with the concept of self-actualization in Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs, suggesting that education can help individuals achieve their highest potential.

From a societal perspective, education is crucial for cultivating informed and responsible citizens. It equips individuals with the knowledge and skills necessary to contribute positively to society and to participate effectively in democratic processes. Plato, in his work The Republic, argued for the importance of education in creating a just society. He highlighted its role in preparing leaders and citizens who can contribute to the common good.

Philosophically, the pursuit of education emphasizes the intrinsic value of knowledge and the intellectual fulfillment that comes from understanding the world.

Joel: That’s a very utopian view of education, and I don’t disagree with the point. But utopian ideals lack teeth. Is the philosophical basis for education not the right to own yourself?

Ava: The concept of self-ownership, or the idea that individuals have the right to control their own bodies and lives, is indeed another philosophical basis for furthering education, albeit from a different angle. This perspective is grounded in libertarian and classical liberal philosophies, which emphasize individual autonomy, freedom, and rights.

Philosophers like John Locke and Robert Nozick have argued for the principle of self-ownership, which asserts that individuals own themselves and, by extension, have the right to the fruits of their labor and the freedom to pursue their own happiness. Education empowers individuals by enhancing their autonomy and ability to make informed decisions about their lives.

Education enables individuals to develop their capacity, make autonomous choices, and engage in the exercise of their freedoms. With education, an individual can better assert control over their life trajectory, make choices that reflect their values and interests, and resist coercion.

Additionally, furthering education can lead to greater economic independence and self-reliance, aspects that are closely tied to the concept of self-ownership. With higher levels of education, individuals are often better positioned to secure employment, achieve financial independence, and contribute to society in meaningful ways, thereby exercising their self-ownership through economic means.

Joel: I’m familiar with John Locke. He is the source of individualism and, therefore, American theory. He’s the philosopher who advanced the principles that became the US Constitution. Who was Robert Nozick?

Ava: Robert Nozick (1938–2002) was an American philosopher and prominent figure in political philosophy, ethics, and epistemology. He was a professor at Harvard University and is best known for his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, published in 1974 by Blackwell Publishers.

Anarchy, State, and Utopia argued for a libertarian minimal state limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, and enforcement of contracts.

Nozick's libertarian philosophy is grounded in the principle of self-ownership, where individuals have the right to control their own bodies, actions, and the fruits of their labor. He argued against the redistribution of wealth by the state on the grounds that it violates individuals' rights.

Joel: What would Nozick have thought about the state ensuring people have a right to access to education?

Ava: Consistent with his libertarian views, Nozick would likely see education as a private good that individuals should obtain through their own efforts and resources or through voluntary exchanges and agreements.

Nozick championed a minimal state, strictly limited to protecting individuals' rights to life, liberty, and property. This minimal state is contrasted with a more expansive state that might engage in redistributive policies or provide a wide range of public services, including education.

Based on Nozick's libertarian principles, he would likely oppose any system that funds public education through compulsory taxation, seeing it as a form of redistribution that infringes on individuals' rights to their property. He argued that redistributive policies violate the principle of self-ownership and entitlement theory, which holds that people are entitled to their holdings (e.g., income, property) if they have acquired them through just means.

While Nozick might oppose state-mandated funding for education through taxation, he could potentially support voluntary efforts to provide educational opportunities. This could include private schooling, scholarships funded by private donations, or community-funded educational initiatives, so long as participation and funding are voluntary and do not involve coercion by the state.

Joel: So, Nozick would be against the entire public American university system? What was Nozick's background before he taught at Harvard?

Ava: Before Robert Nozick became a prominent figure in philosophy and a professor at Harvard University, he had a diverse educational and professional background that shaped his intellectual development.

For his higher education, Nozick attended Columbia College, where he earned his Bachelor's degree in 1959. He then went on to pursue graduate studies at Princeton University, where he completed his Ph.D. in philosophy in 1963. His doctoral dissertation focused on decision theory, which already hinted at his interest in the foundations of rational choice and ethical decision-making.

After receiving his Ph.D., Nozick took up a position at Princeton University, where he started his academic career. He remained at Princeton for a short period before moving to other academic institutions. Before his tenure at Harvard, he also taught at the University of Virginia and Rockefeller University. These positions allowed him to develop and refine his philosophical views, particularly in political philosophy, ethics, and epistemology.

At this point in our conversation, I became annoyed by the logic break.

Joel: He taught at publicly funded institutions as well as private?

Ava: Yes, Robert Nozick taught at both publicly funded and private institutions throughout his academic career.

The University of Virginia is a public university and one of the places where Nozick taught early in his career. The University of Virginia is known for its strong commitment to liberal arts education and has a significant history as it was founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1819. Teaching at a public institution like the University of Virginia would have given Nozick insight into the operations and values of publicly funded higher education in the United States.

Nozick's experience across these diverse academic settings—public and private—contributed to his broad perspective on education, research, and intellectual inquiry. However, it's important to note that while Nozick argued philosophically against certain roles of the state, including extensive public funding for services like education, his professional career did intersect with publicly funded institutions.

Joel: Would he have made it to Harvard had he not taught at UVA? I find it ironic that he would use a publicly funded resource for his own career and then later criticize public funding for others.

Ava: The perceived irony of utilizing publicly funded platforms while critiquing certain aspects of public funding and state involvement in individual lives is not unique to Nozick. Many intellectuals and academics work within publicly funded institutions, contributing valuable research and teaching that benefits society at large, even as they might critique aspects of those very systems.

Joel: Let’s dig a little deeper. Does Harvard receive public funding through grants, awards, etc?

Ava: Yes, Harvard University, like many private universities in the United States, receives public funding in the form of grants, awards, and other financial support, primarily for research purposes. These funds can come from various sources, including federal government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Defense (DoD), and other entities. This funding supports a wide range of research activities across disciplines, including but not limited to medical research, science and engineering, public policy, and the social sciences.

While Harvard's operational budget is significantly supported by its endowment, tuition fees, and private donations, federal and state research grants are a crucial component of the university's research ecosystem.

:-|

Joel: Okay, let's redirect our conversation. Nozick believed in enforcing the social contract. Americans have a social contract wherein we believe we share the inalienable right to pursue happiness. If someone requires education to pursue happiness, do we not inherently believe in contributing to others' ability to pursue happiness by supporting educational institutions?

Ava: Robert Nozick's views, particularly as presented in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, provide a unique perspective on the concept of the social contract and the pursuit of happiness. While Nozick does argue for the enforcement of contracts and the protection of individual rights as central functions of the state, his interpretation of the social contract significantly diverges from the idea that this necessarily includes a duty to redistribute funds to ensure everyone's ability to pursue happiness through education or other means.

Nozick's Entitlement Theory of Justice suggests that the redistribution of funds for social welfare programs, including publicly funded education, is unjust if it infringes upon individuals' rights to their property. According to Nozick, unless individuals voluntarily choose to contribute their resources for the benefit of others, compelling them to do so through taxation constitutes a violation of their rights.

In essence, while Nozick deeply values the pursuit of happiness, his philosophical stance does not inherently support the idea of redistributing funds for education or other means of enabling this pursuit as a state-enforced obligation.

Joel: I didn't mean to imply a redistribution of funds. I mean Americans, by virtue of being American, choose to willingly give some funds to enable others to achieve their pursuit of happiness at some level. What would Nozick think of this position?

Ava: Robert Nozick would likely view the position that Americans choose to willingly give some funds to enable others to achieve their pursuit of happiness as a reflection of individual autonomy and voluntary association. As long as these contributions are not compelled by the state and respect the principles of individual rights and consent, they could be seen as consistent with his philosophical framework. This perspective underscores the distinction between voluntary acts of support and charity, which are compatible with libertarian principles, and compulsory redistribution, which is not.

Ava isn’t getting my point. The contributions are compelled by the state. They’re called taxes. But we do choose to pay them.

Joel: Ava, here in America, we elect representatives. Our representatives choose to, on our behalf, fund public institutions to enable others to achieve their inherent right to pursue happiness. Every state in the union has a public university. Therefore, we as individuals choose to fund public institutions. Further, this means our commitment to education isn't compulsory; it's voluntary.

Ava: Your argument posits an interesting perspective on the democratic process and the funding of public institutions in the United States, including education. This view suggests that because Americans elect representatives who make decisions on public funding, including for education, this process is essentially a form of collective voluntary choice rather than compulsory imposition.

Of course, conversing with a large language model has no end. You type, and it writes back. And Ava is not the esteemed Dr. Nozick.

Individuals and communities need effective policy, accessible education, and equitable infrastructure to realize their potential. Americans need to be able to connect to big human capital infrastructure. Job training. Education. Professional qualifications.

Enhancing collective individual capability fuels national growth, security, and competitiveness.

Human capital infrastructure — people's knowledge, skills, and abilities- is foundational infrastructure similar to bridges, roads, and dams. This infrastructure supports the national capability that underpins and enhances the nation's overall capability.

In our democratic republic, we elect representatives to act on our behalf. These representatives choose to fund public institutions to enable others to achieve their inherent right to pursue happiness. Every state in the union has a public university.

Therefore, we as individuals choose to fund public institutions to enable others to achieve their inherent right to pursue happiness.

May God bless the United States of America.

Big infrastructure projects benefit Americans. These projects increase individual capability. Combined individual capability generates national capability.

Last week, we established the state has a duty to provide resources for individual capability.

An obvious question is…how should the state provide these resources? Should we create handout programs supporting individual Americans?

The passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913 empowered America to build big infrastructure. Congress could fund larger and more ambitious projects. The infrastructure projects following the passage of the 16th Amendment and their capability included:

* The Federal Aid Road Act of 1916. This act built the foundation for today’s interstate movement of goods and services. The American economy relies on this movement every day.

* Construction of the Hoover Dam began in 1931. This project transformed the American Southwest. The dam provided regional flood control, water irrigation, and hydroelectric power. Today, the dam supports power in California, growth in Las Vegas and Phoenix, and agriculture in the southwest.

* The Tennessee Valley Authority, established in 1933, improved a part of America severely affected by the Great Depression. The TVA addressed flooding and electricity and improved the economy in the Tennessee Valley. The TVA developed a series of hydroelectric dams and later expanded into coal and nuclear energy production. By later supporting the Manhattan Project, the TVA laid the groundwork for the bedrock of America’s national security.

* The 1936 Rural Electrification Act supported home and business electricity for millions of Americans in rural areas. Nebraska Senator George Norris (R), now considered by some to be America’s Greatest Senator, described the need for the act as giving rural Americans a ‘fair chance.’ This project today supports light and heat in houses and businesses across America.

In sum, big infrastructure transforms the American landscape. It fosters national economic growth. It supports American energy. It lays the groundwork for national security. It enables individual Americans to have the energy they need for life. These projects are investments in the foundational capabilities that enable individuals to thrive.

Infrastructure is capability. Big infrastructure benefits individual Americans. Individual capability generates national capability.

There’s another component of generating national capability through supporting individuals. Individuals have a lead role and responsibility to be active participants in the infrastructure. Setting conditions to empower access to infrastructure maximizes their individual potential.

That’s an interesting word: potential.

Potential is an energy word. A ripe apple hanging from a tree has potential energy. When it falls from the tree, its potential energy becomes kinetic energy.

Just like an apple has potential energy, individuals have potential. Individuals realize their potential through effort and commitment.

Back to the apple metaphor. The collective of the American people, embodied by the state, builds the apple orchard. The state plants and cares for the trees. The trees need water and sunlight. Good soil conditions. Insect mitigation. When conditions are right, the trees bear fruit.

The apples are individuals. Under good conditions, the apples grow and ripen. If conditions aren’t great, the apples may still form and grow, but they won’t be great apples.

Apples need a great orchard to be great. Likewise, individuals and communities need effective policy, accessible education, and equitable infrastructure to realize their full potential. Collective individual capability enhancement fuels national growth, security, and competitiveness.

Let’s consider a case study.

The infrastructure for this case study is human capital — the knowledge, skills, and abilities of people. Human capital is foundational infrastructure similar to bridges, roads, and dams. This infrastructure supports the national capability that underpins and enhances the nation's overall capability.

February 2024. Arlington, Virginia. The Arlington Community Foundation published Arlington’s Guarantee Pilot Evaluation Report. The website refers to the pilot program as “unconditional cash for families in need.”

For the pilot evaluation, the Arlington Community Foundation randomly selected 200 low-income working families in the county. The foundation gave these families $500 extra dollars per month, every month for 18 months. We’ll call this group the participants. The foundation studied the effects of the extra income and compared this participants group against a control group that didn’t receive additional funds.

**Note** The Arlington Community Foundation acquired all necessary funding from private donors, business donations, faith communities, and other foundations. They used no public dollars for the study. The foundation offered individual coaching to participants.

The study (pg 18) found that above and beyond the additional $500 per month, the participant group’s median monthly income grew by 36%. As in, not including the $500 per month, the participant group income grew. At the same time, the control group’s income only grew by 9%.

When the participant group had more money, they also made more money from their work.

It’s a fascinating scenario. The participant group had more time because they had more money. They didn’t have to work overtime or work multiple jobs to meet basic needs. The participants used their extra time to pursue professional credentials and job training. They went to school. They bought better clothes for job interviews. More than half of the participants made progress toward achieving career development goals.

The study gave the participant group the opportunity to connect to the infrastructure. Given the opportunity, the group invested in their own human capital.

The bottom line: when given the opportunity and coaching to connect to the infrastructure (in this case, education), the individuals realized some of their potential.

One could look at the logic of this study and conclude that we should create a broad program similar to this pilot everywhere.

But that’s the wrong conclusion. This pilot program was a success, but it’s treating individual apples instead of the orchard. Instead, this program represents a failure of Americans to be able to work one job and make enough money to live out of poverty.

Americans don’t need handouts to connect to the infrastructure. But they do need conditions that support connecting themselves. They need heat in the house and food on the table with the money they make from one job. And they need the opportunity for self-improvement. Working multiple jobs just to put food on the table for their kids takes away the ability of Americans to seek professional advancement.

Let’s get back to our premise. The state has a duty to provide resources for individual capability. How should the state provide these resources? Should we create handout programs supporting individual Americans?

Big infrastructure programs demonstrate results. National economic growth. Stronger American energy. National security.

Big infrastructure programs also demonstrate that Americans will connect themselves to infrastructure when given the opportunity. When given the opportunity to move goods across states, American businesses jump at the chance. When we need flood control for agriculture and resources for national security, Americans are ready. When electricity is available, rural Americans connect themselves to electricity.

The state doesn’t need to give handouts.

Just like an apple orchard, Americans need to be able to connect to big human capital infrastructure. Job training. Education. Professional qualifications.

To be able to connect to this infrastructure, Americans need the means to be able to have enough time to develop professional skills. They need heat in the house and food on the table from the money they make with one full-time job.

May God bless the United States of America.