Summary

I once heard noted author and speaker Tony Robbins say, “If you want better answers, you need to ask better questions.” when I first heard him say that, I thought he was way off base. I mean, a question is a question, right? You get the answer and you move on. I have discovered that Tony was right, and I was wrong.

Links and References

Charter Schools Make Public Schools Better.

Abortion

Is Illegal Immigration Illegal?

Workfare

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

I once heard noted author and speaker Tony Robbins say, “If you want better answers, you need to ask better questions.” when I first heard him say that, I thought he was way off base. I mean, a question is a question, right? You ask your question, get the answer and you move on. I have discovered that Tony was right, and I was wrong.

But it goes a level deeper than even what Mr. Robbins was saying. Let’s look at an example question. “How do we get more money for public schools?” Even assuming the best of intentions, assuming a true desire for better pre K-12 education on the part of the questioner, this approach typically leads only to more taxation. Try this as a better question. “How do we get the best pre K-12 education for all kids with the most efficient use of taxpayer funds?” The first question assumes that public schools are the best way to achieve the desired result, and that more money is main, and perhaps only, change that is needed. The second question opens the discussion to charters, vouchers and to spending money in public schools in a way that more of it is spent in the classroom, on salaries and supplies and the classrooms themselves, and less on administration. N.B. The second question does not imply any specific answers, it does open the discussion to more potential solutions.

Instead of simply looking to ask better questions, we need to get into the habit of asking questions that might--just might--lead to answers that we don’t want to hear. We must check and challenge our motivations prior to finding the questions, the best questions that will lead to the best answers.

The need to check and challenge our motivations prior to being able to ask the right questions can be applied to all of the key issues of the day. Let’s try a few more; we’ll repeat the school question for convenience:

Improving failing schools: Often heard, “How do we get more money for public schools?” A better question: “How do we get the best pre K-12 education for all kids with the most efficient use of taxpayer funds?”

Abortion: Often heard, “Why are we killing so many babies in the womb?” or “How do we make abortions more available?” Try these questions, “When does life begin?” and “When is it okay for the state to sanction the taking of a life? The first two questions assume the “correct” answer to the abortion question. The last two explore the question honestly.

Climate change: Often heard, “Why can’t we do simple things like ban coal mining and coal-fired plants?” or “Why don’t the climate change true believers get it that this is simply the cyclical character of nature?” Try this question instead, “Is there a cure that is not worse than the disease?” In other words, is there a cure that is not more costly in terms of time, money and damage, and is better, more acceptable, than the effects of climate change? This question does not make any assumptions about who might be at fault; it simply asks the question of whether it is worth addressing and trying to retard/reverse climate change.

Summary

Most well-functioning families are communist. Remember Mark’s founding principle, “From each according to their ability, and to each according to their needs.” Don’t families function that way, with the parents doing all they can to meet the needs of their children?

Links and References

Social Trust

Economic Definitions

Zero Sum Game

Common Goals

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Most well-functioning families are communist. Remember Mark’s founding principle, “From each according to their ability, and to each according to their needs.” Don’t families function that way, with the parents doing all they can to meet the needs of their children?

Families are:

Small; hey even with 12 kids, this is still a very small unit.

Homogeneous. Even a mixed-race family is far more homogeneous than any society.

Trusting: Most families enjoy a level of mutual trust. Again, compare this with even the most trusting society.

Aware of responsibilities: Everyone has a role or roles.

The very definition of “Pay it forward”: Parents sacrifice for their children. Those very children will most likely respond to that modeling and those behaviours, and do the same for their children. And so on, and so on. And it is possible that some children will one day need to sacrifice for their parents. N. B. All of this work and sacrifice is done voluntarily, not by government mandate. That’s key.

Is there a useful comparison between how families think and act and how societies with governments think and act? Yes. Let’s look two different ways of applying this:

Remember, we said “well-functioning” families. Societies that resemble the well functioning family are small, homogeneous, trusting, aware of the individual responsibilities, and are OK with being heavily taxed in order to help each other and to “pay it forward.” In these societies, democratic socialism, an adaptation of communism, a adaptation of Family Communism if you will,  has a better chance of working here than elsewhere. Scandinavian countries are a good example. And even there, they are pulling back from that model. As those countries become more diverse, they have become less trusting. The why of that is another discussion.

Societies that are not all of the above, especially trusting, are correctly not OK with being heavily taxed in order to help each other and to pay it forward. Democratic socialism would be stillborn in these societies. The US falls into this category. And it is deeply wrong to cite the success-to-date that Scandinavian countries have experienced with democratic socialism as a means of supporting that philosophy in the US.

The irony here is that the very people who are making the case for creating and deepening divisions in our society, the US, by emphasizing identity groups and pitting some against others are also calling for heavy taxation and redistribution. Worse, they want the identity groups they vilify the most to pay the most. How on earth do they think that will fly?

Hillary Clinton, the Democrat’s standard bearer in the 2016 Presidential election, used “Better together.” as a key campaign slogan. I agree; to that extent, “I’m with her.” At the core, we are one identity group: Americans. There are vitally useful differences between and amongst the different ethnicities and the genders. Different geographies can add some powerfully useful differences as well. We must get it that these differences need to be used to our overall advantage,

Summary

Economic Definitions? Really? How could that be important, or even not crashingly boring? In a world where we are seeing headlines that appear--appear--to advertise the clash between socialism and capitalism, we need to have at least basic definitions of those deeply misunderstood terms. And we are seeing more people and organizations wanting to abolish profit. Try these thoughts on for size: 1. Capitalism is necessary for democratic socialism to have anything to redistribute and 2. Profit is necessary to make any economic system’s engine run.

How are money and wealth created? All individuals and societies need both. Individuals and private groups must generate profits in order to make money and create wealth. Governments tax that money and wealth.

Links and References

Socialism Works

Killing the Golden Goose

Moral Compass

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Economic Definitions? Really, Will? How could they be important, or even not crashingly boring? In a world where we are seeing headlines that appear--appear, mind you--to advertise the clash between socialism and capitalism, we need to understand at least the basic definitions of those deeply misunderstood terms. And at the same time we are seeing more people and organizations wanting to abolish profit. Try these thoughts on for size: 1. Capitalism is necessary for democratic socialism to have anything to redistribute and 2. Profit is necessary to make any economic system’s engine run.

How are money and wealth created? All individuals and societies need both. Individuals and private groups must generate profits in order to make money and create wealth. Governments tax that money and wealth. The exceptions are communist governments and governments that use the classic definition of socialism. And we’ll get to that. In both types, the government owns the means of productions. But no matter who owns what, the enterprise producing the goods and services that a society consumes must take in more money that it costs to produce those items and services. That’s called a profit.

Here are the key definitions:

Democratic Socialism: I believe that Senator Sanders and others are talking about something other than the traditional definition of socialism. They are not talking about the government owning the means of production. They are not talking about the government owning entities like Ford and Facebook. Not yet, anyway. Democratic socialists are talking about massive income and wealth redistribution. Even more than we have now. The Scandinavian countries are an example. Democratic socialism is capitalism with heavy income redistribution.

Traditional Socialism. See above, democratic socialism, with the government owning Ford, Facebook and most everything else of size. You can keep your ice cream store if you have one. See Venezuela, Cuba and others.

Communism: Traditional socialism with the addition of prohibiting any private property.

Capitalism: A system wherein people, individuals or groups, including corporations, own the means of production and engage in voluntary exchanges of money for goods and services.

Profit: Selling things, taking in income, for more than it costs to make them, drives everything; capitalism, democratic socialism, traditional socialism, communism, no matter. We are not talking about taxes or what you do with taxes; we are talking about how you make the money and wealth that is taxed in the first place. The gozindas have to exceed the gozoutas or nothing works in any system.

Summary

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the Declaration of Independence. These "unalienable rights" are given to all human beings by their Creator. There are to be protected and defended by governments. Note the Declaration said “Pursuit of happiness.” It made it clear that happiness itself was not to be protected and defended, while life and liberty were.

Links and References

Size of Government

Life is Hard

Can’t or Won’t?

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase from our Declaration of Independence. The pursuit of happiness was included as one of the "unalienable rights" given to all human beings by their Creator. These rights are to be protected and defended by government. Note the Declaration said “Pursuit of happiness.” It made it clear that happiness itself was not to be protected and defended, while life and liberty were.

Today we can get to the core of the topic by looking at some definitions and differences:

Equal opportunity under the law vs equal opportunity, a level playing field.

Free vs reasonable access.

The right to pursue vs the right to have.

First. Equal opportunity under the law vs equal opportunity, a level playing field. As individuals and as a nation, we should insist upon equal opportunity under the law. As a fledgling nation, we set that goal, that statement of direction, some 250 years ago, and have been hard at it, committed to that goal, ever since. I’d be hard pressed to find any evidence of any remaining codified, legal lack of opportunity. Do you know of any? On the other hand, we will never live in a world of equal opportunities and equal playing fields. Some inequalities are congenital, for example if you are 5’2”, you will never play in the NBA. Some inequalities just happen. I went to public school through college, and paid my own way in college and grad school. Others had parents who paid for private schools all the way. Unequal? Yes. A natural part of life? Also yes. Are things like this something the government should fix? Oh, horrors!

Second. Free vs reasonable access. There is a lot of conversation these days about making more and more things free. Well, not free; free to the individual with the bill going to the taxpayers. Some things must be free; national defense, law enforcement and first responders and basic infrastructure. Most other things, e.g., post-high school education and healthcare, should be arranged so that everyone has reasonable access, and reasonable access does not mean free. Here’s a useful way of separating what should be free to individuals, paid for by the taxpayers, from services that the government might need to monitor and regulate, but should not pay for. In Size of Government we put forward a way for deciding if a task was properly the province of government to provide: “Ask two questions: 1. What needs to be done? and 2. Of those tasks, which are the ones that government does uniquely well?” As an example, law enforcement is properly provided by government, and things like entertainment, vacations and second homes are not. Those are easy black and white examples; others are gray and take a bit more time to answer, but there are answers. Most of life is laid out in shades of gray, and we must still draw bright lines or we will be forever waffling

The last point is the right to pursue vs. the right to have. Happiness was the word used by the Founders, but food, education, clothing, housing and more would also fit.

Summary

Q. How do you win the Blame Game? A. Don’t play. In our personal lives, we should always accept 100% responsibility. Yes, I said 100%. No exceptions. When we listen to politicians, remember they rarely accept any responsibility for anything. They will take 100% of the credit, and place 100% of the blame.

Links and References

Passing Our Debts to Our Children

Common Sense And Politics

“God Helps Those…”

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Q. How do you win the Blame Game? A. Don’t play. In our personal lives, we should always accept 100% responsibility. Yes, I said 100%. No exceptions. When we listen to politicians, remember they rarely accept any responsibility for anything. They will take 100% of the credit, and place 100% of the blame.

“It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” Harry S Truman, 33rd President of the United States. That way of thinking has to be the opposite of the blame game, right?

The politicians we vote for care about taking the credit for themselves and their party, and placing the blame on their opponents and the other party far more than they care about any accomplishments that would benefit their constituents or the country at large. Essentially the accomplishment they care about is taking credit and placing blame.

I can give you an easy example by way of proof: the growing national debt. Right now, both parties are blaming the other for the $21 trillion that we owe. That’s trillion by the way; a thousand billions. Can you even imagine that number? Republicans say that Democrats doubled the debt during Obama’s presidency. And they are right. Democrats say Obama inherited a huge annual deficit--the amount being added to the total deficit annually--when he took office, and when he left, the annual deficit had been dramatically reduced. And they are right. Trump came into office decrying the then $20T national debt, and he has added at least a trillion to the total. And the very people who were screaming bloody murder when our debt hit $20T in 2016, are strangely quiet even though it is now $21T--a trillion dollars higher.

Assume that we live long enough to see the worst, we’ll see the day where our economy--and our daily lives--are hugely and negatively impacted because 1. We cannot pay even the interest on the national debt and 2. No one will lend us any more money. Will the politicians and their parties fess up, apologize and at least try to fix something? Not a chance. They will all grab microphones and headlines in a headlong rush to fix the blame everywhere save at themselves, all while drawing their comfortable pensions. Both parties will do that. And they will both be right. Because they both did it.

This “I’m not accountable blame game” is being played over and over again in key areas like immigration, infrastructure additions and maintenance, healthcare and failing public schools. Notable areas of “success” include a growing government and lavish Congressional pensions and Congressional health insurance.

The Republicans and Democrats are spending far more time and energy hurling accusations at each other than they are trying to make things work for us and our country. It is completely impossible to accomplish anything without taking responsibility, and it is equally impossible to take any type of responsibility when you are busy blaming others. Given that the two parties are unlikely to change their methods anytime soon, is this an unfixable situation? Are we doomed? No and no.

Summary

I’m Pro Choice. Aren’t you? Aren’t we all? We all like to make our own choices. Restaurants, entertainment, faith--or lack thereof--where we work and live, who we marry, or if we marry, political and economic philosophy, movies, what’s for dinner. Are we going to have children? These are all personal choices. Somehow, we have allowed the term pro choice to mean that someone saying it supports paid abortion on demand.

Links and References

Abortion

Ratchet Effect

Charter Schools Make Public School Better

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

I’m Pro Choice. Aren’t you? Aren’t we all? We all like to make our own choices. Restaurants, entertainment, faith--or lack thereof--where we work and live, who we marry, or if we marry, political and economic philosophy, movies, what’s for dinner. Are we going to have children? These are all personal choices. And aren’t we all pro choice? Somehow, we have allowed the term pro choice to mean that someone is saying they support paid abortion on demand.

How on earth did that happen?

Language is constantly changing, usually reflecting the changes in the culture speaking that language. In my youth, a pimp was a lowlife, living off of selling women who get paid by turning tricks, and keeping them in line with drugs and physical force. Labeling someone as a pimp was highly derogatory. Not so today. The TV show, Pimp My Ride, is about restoring and customizing cars. And don’t forget its imitator, Trick My Truck. That change in language took what was once seen, correctly, as unacceptable and wrong and made it okay by making light of it; this has happened with both pimping and tricking. It’s almost as if we are prostituting the language.

But back to being pro choice. Why is it that many of the same people who label themselves as pro choice when it comes to abortion, are not pro choice when it comes to schools? Or guns? Or… It seems that increasingly it is okay to be pro choice in any area as long as you are making the right choice to be pro about. And the same machinery that is defining political correctness is defining what the right choices are. Both the insistence on political correctness and the push to get everyone to make the same choices are part of a cohesive, well-funded effort to get all of us on the same page. The Founders defined that “same page” as us coming together to guarantee each other’s civil and economic liberties. The freedom to think and say what you feel is outlined in the founding documents, and has been earned and defended on various battlefields. Remember the quote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” Now, it is more like, “I hate what you are saying, and if you say it again, I’ll kill you.”

Let’s take language back to what it should be, before the agenda-driven changes. In the abortion discussion, the language should be pro abortion, or anti abortion, not pro choice and pro life. Both of the pro titles imply that their side is correct. After all, who could be against choice? The phrase pro choice implies that the living tissue inside the mother is not human; if it was recognized as human, there would be no room for choice. And pro life assumes that the tissue is already human, else the word life would be entirely misplaced. So let’s avoid using titles for a discussion that are deliberately chosen to clearly imply that the question has already been settled. BTW, do you remember when the pro abortion mantra was that abortion should be safe, legal and rare? Now the same people are pushing to make it free and on demand.

Summary

Life is getting better along almost all fronts. The overall rates of violence and gun deaths have been falling for decades. The poverty percentages are falling, and even the poorest in the US live at about the international median.  Institutional racism and sexism are all but gone, and individual wrongs in both areas continue to decline even as the definition of what constitutes a wrong expand. With those things being true, what explains the continuing increase in both the number and rigorousness of protests?  

Links and References

Activists Don’t Want Peace

Crab Mentality

Young, Poor and Angry

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Life is getting better along almost all fronts. The overall rates of violence and gun deaths have been falling for decades. The poverty percentages are falling, and even the poorest in the US live at about the international median; 50% of the people in the world are worse off than our poorest.  Institutional racism and sexism are all but gone, and individual wrongs in both areas continue to decline even as the definition of what constitutes a wrong expands. With those things being true, what explains the continuing increase in both the number and intensity of protests?

Let’s isolate the race issue as an example. America was founded on an astonishing principle; all men were created equal: “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 most astonishing part is that this principled stand was indeed astonishing in 1776. The Declaration of Independence was an international game changer, written at a time that hereditary monarchs and dictators ruled most of the world, and concepts such as private property for all and rights given to people by a Creator were almost unthinkable. In the process, the Founders created the world’s oldest democracy; yes, that’s us--the world’s oldest democracy. The Constitution did allow slaves, and women were not allowed to vote. In 1789, only white, land-owning males were allowed to vote in most states. Had the abolitionists held out for no slavery from the beginning, there would have been no union, no America; the US would have been stillborn. But the Declaration was an all-important statement of direction. A direction we have been committed to and have been following ever since 1776.

Even prior to the Civil War (the ultimate oxymoron), the struggle between the North and South was fierce and continuing, with the South wanting more states to be slave states, and the North wanting to cap the number of slave-holding states. Over 600,000 Americans died in the war that liberated the slaves. That’s more deaths than in all of our other wars combined, including defeating the Nazis and Imperial Japan in WWII. Post the Civil War, the struggle continued as the South instituted the Black Codes as way of continuing to use blacks for free or near-free labor. It was not until 1948 that the US military was integrated. And it took until the mid-60s for black civil rights to rise to the top of the nation’s attention and be addressed.

The point not to be missed here is that 242 years ago, our nation set a new course, unique in the world at the time, a course toward civil and economic freedoms for all, and we have stayed with it. Through wars, through economic downturns, through a civil conflict that almost tore our nation apart, through evils like the KKK and the deep-seated thinking that made black children attending previously all-white schools so...

Summary

The increasing controversy about Identity Politics, groups of people identified by gender, ethnicity, etc., and Intersectionality, urging those identified groups to band together against oppressors (usually identified as white males), entirely misses the point. Use different criteria to define these groups, and everything works.

Links and References

The Dinner Table

“God Helps Those…”

Young, Poor and Angry

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

The increasing controversy about Identity Politics, groups of people identified by gender, ethnicity, etc., and Intersectionality, urging those identified groups to band together against oppressors (usually identified as white males), is capturing an increasing amount of attention. But if we use different criteria to define these groups, the controversy goes away, everything works.

Let’s start with why we would define and put people into groups in the first place. What is the goal? At the moment, all the groups that people are making various arguments either for or against, are groups that no one chose to belong to. These are groups that people became a part of at birth. Ethnicity and sex are at the core of the push to put people into various identity groups and then pit them against one another. I used the phrase “pit them against one another” because it is clear to anyone that this is exactly what is going on. Here’s the process: Create identity groups, tell people which groups(s) they belong to, tell them who their enemies are, then encourage them to have at in the name of justice. Oh, and along the way be sure to rank various identity groups along on righteous scale that pretends to measure levels of disadvantage, levels of victimization. For example, a black man would not rate to be as high on this identity group ranking chart as a black transgendered male.

What is the goal for those who define identity groups in this way? All identity politics based on inherent characteristics have negative and self-serving goals. Slavery was an example of identity politics based on an inherent characteristic--ethnicity. Slavery positioned whites as being superior to blacks. Today’s version of identity politics is trying to portray whites as being inferior, and masking their inferiority with oppression.

But, Will, the title of this podcast is “Praising Identity Politics.” Where’s the praise? Ah, good question; the praise is for identity groups chosen not on inherent characteristics, but groupings based on how we think and how we choose to go about our lives. Let’s look at some examples of groups who go about their day with positive thinking and living, e.g., those who:

Have an educational commitment, be it a GED, or a PhD in French Literature. GED or PhD; doesn't matter, the key is the commitment.

Respect authority.

Believe in both the efficacy and nobility of consistent hard work.

Practice personal responsibility; whatever it takes.

Are their Brother’s Keepers.

Now, let’s look at some groups where negative thinking and lifestyles have taken over, e.g., those who:

See themselves as entitled, either through victimhood or simply because they deserve it.

View entry-level jobs and entry-level pay as beneath them.

Resist authority at almost any level.

Feel that tasks like doing homework and working hard are for chumps.

Filter everything by examining whether or not it is good for themselves.

These two sets, groups of groups if you will; the ones who “get it” in their thinking and in how they ...

Summary

Classical Liberalism was birthed over eight hundred year ago with the signing of the Magna Carta, Magna Carta Libertatum, Medieval Latin for “Great Charter of the Liberties”, in 1215. This was the first crack in the “Divine Right of Kings”, which eventually led to the recognition of the “divine rights” of all people as endowed by their Creator as proclaimed in the American Declaration of Independence.

Links and References

Economics 101

Size of Government

We Must All Hang Together

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

The beginnings of Classical Liberalism began over eight hundred years ago with the signing of the Magna Carta, Magna Carta Libertatum, Medieval Latin for “Great Charter of the Liberties”, in 1215. This was the first crack in the “Divine Right of Kings”, which eventually led to the recognition of the “divine rights” of all people as endowed by their Creator proclaimed publically in the American Declaration of Independence in 1776. With this document, the world’s oldest democracy was founded. How did we get from that historic moment of fierce bravery and unity to today’s deep and growing divisions?

Classical Liberalism continued to find its voice. By the mid-19th century, it stood for economic and civil liberties, including the separation of church and state, with a limited government under the rule of law, private property, and market-based economies. Simply put, Liberalism stood for economic and civil liberties. Remember, under various monarchies and dictatorships in previous centuries, limited government, the rule of law, civil liberties and free economies were simply unthinkable.

By the early 20th Century, a schism appeared with Liberals emphasizing the civil liberties part, and Conservatives emphasizing the economic liberties. Why the schism? Was it legitimate in that certain people thought that one or the other was getting short shrift and needed more attention and resources? Or was it artificially created to give the impression that one view, either the Liberals’ or Conservatives’, was correct, and the other incorrect--dead wrong, in fact? My guess is that both Liberals and Conservatives started on this divided road with the best of intentions; however, once they discovered that each part of the split in Classical Liberalism had its own enthusiastic audience, those two parts of the Classical movement, the two political parties, Democrats and Republicans, warmed to the self-serving task of widening the divide. But the answer to this who dunnit does not matter; today, most voices are all in on deepening and widening the gap--the division--in the body politic. And they are doing it for their own--and their party’s--benefit. For all they care, the country can pick up the pieces later. And whatever happens, both parties will blame the other. And you and I will be left holding the bag. Most certainly our children or grandchildren will be left with the empty bag.

Worse, this is clearly a false choice: Why would an entire country be pushed unnecessarily--and dangerously--into choosing between civil and economic liberties? And how did the definition of civil liberties come to include an expanding welfare system? For that matter, how did those espousing economic liberties allow a huge and growing bureaucracy, including a 70K federal page tax code?

While we are at it, how did it happen that the separation of church and state part of Classical Liberalism's civil liberties now prohibits things like a high school coach praying on the field at a game? At the time we revolted against England, the Church of England,

Summary

Do you know why you vote? (Or do you?) Out of obligation? The positive reason of wanting your (well-researched, please) candidate and party to win? Perhaps the negative reason of wanting the other, disliked, candidate or party to win. And what about voting on tax-related issues; are you an automatic “Yes?” or “No?”

Links and References

Don’t Vote

Common Goals

Life is Hard

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Do you know why you vote? Or do you vote? Most people I know do, but we are a slim majority. In round numbers, there are about 235M people of voting age in the US; 54.9% voted in the Presidential election of 2018; typically fewer vote in so-called “off-year” elections. There are various outreach campaigns designed to increase participation; everything from helping the disabled to vote, to intentionally working to register the “undocumented.” With the sole exception of where the outreach is the only way the voter could have either registered or voted, I am against all outreach efforts. Am I against voting? Of course not. Am I against casual, if-it-is-easy-then-I’ll-do-it voting? Yes. Absolutely.

Before I reached the then voting age of 21, I remember hearing newscasts about “absentee” voting. Before mail-in ballots became commonplace, you had to prove that you were ill, out-of-town, etc., before you could qualify for a mailed ballot. There was a fair amount of inconvenience if you wanted to vote and were not able to get to your polling station for a proveable reason. They counted the absentee ballots prior to reporting the news, and reported the count the moment the polls closed. Here was a typical news report, “The absentee ballots have been counted, and 80% of them voted XX. This is not predictive of the final vote, as 80% of the absentee ballots every year vote XX.” And here was another typical election announcement, “We are having bad weather today. This will help the XX party.” The point was clear; XXs were far more willing to overcome obstacles, albeit small ones, in order to vote. They were clearly more motivated. I puzzled about this for years. What did this mean? Did it matter? Over time, I came up with a couple analogies. First. If there were certain inconveniences when it came to getting to school, and further inconveniences when it came to studying in the evening, wouldn’t the students who overcame those issues be much more likely to have mastered their studies--actually know what they are talking about--than the ones who didn’t bother? If you were a teacher and could choose your students, which group would you rather have in your class? Here is a second analogy. You are an employer in a business requiring skilled workers. Do you want workers who had to jump a small hurdle or two to learn about your company, go through an exacting application process and find a way each day--rain or shine--to get to work? Or, would you, as an employer, be okay with applicants who could not have been bothered unless you picked them up, glossed over their qualifications, and made the application process trivial?

I want the students who were willing to deal with some inconveniences in order to complete their studies. And I want those same type of motivated employees. And I definitely want those type of voters. No, I do not want to introduce artificial obstacles. I do want fully qualified, well-informed and motivated voters. They will make the best decisions. Note that I did not say they will vote this way or the other; I said they will make the best decisions.

Overall, yes, but not always. Even determined voters need to examine why they are motivated.