The Morality of a Living Wage

Los Angeles County, a region with which I am well familiar, recently approved a minimum wage hike to $15 an hour over the next several years.

I'll admit that when the $15 an hour minimum wage was initially being discussed - towards the tail end of the Occupy movement and shortly before a measure to establish the wage appeared on a Seattle ballot - I was skeptical of the idea and disposed to oppose it on the typical economic alarmism and sneering at the demographic stereotypically assigned to such jobs.

After having the discussion over and over again, and researching the issue, I eventually came around. By the time the LA County bill passed, I was getting pissed off by short sighted and flawed macros such as this one, which was running the conservative circuit on my Facebook feed today:

Besides the fact that this seems to think that the minimum wage would only apply to fast food workers, rather than raising everyone's wages; it also ignores the critical fact that the emergency personnel (as well as many retail clerks, military personnel, office professionals, manual laborers, and professional artists) are in fact also severely underpaid. It suffers from an elitist conceit that appears to argue that, because a person is new to the workforce, or performs a menial task, they are not permitted to make enough money.

I entered into an argument over a similar graphic to this one and was so put off by my opponent's cavalier dismissal of basic human dignity (complaining that such dignity comes at the expense of making him pay a marginal increase in his cost of living) that I collected the various data that had informed my reformed opinion.

Society is a cooperative enterprise. In the various liberal traditions, including democratic ones such as our republic, that enterprise further becomes collaborative. The system exists for the benefit of everyone, not simply to prop up the lifestyles of a few elite. We are remiss if we do not maintain this cooperation or advance the enterprise in a way that at is at least as beneficial to subsequent generations, and we ought to strive to constantly improve. To promote a paradigm in which entire segments of society are impoverished is antithetical to the entire premise. This is the gestalt behind the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, which established that workers will receive wages sufficient to maintain “the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being.” These words, appear to me to establish that there is a legal requirement that the minimum wage be a living wage.

An easy way to check the level "necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being" is to examine the welfare system. This system, established as a safety net, is designed to meet the needs of a person and their dependents in a manner consistent with basic human dignity. A 2013 study by the CATO institute concluded that 34 states and the District of Columbia pay welfare benefits with a value above the minimum wage. Of the 16 other states, 10 of them are among the states with the lowest cost of living in the nation and 6 of them - Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Idaho, Florida, and Kentucky - are in the bottom quartile of national average income. And a recent DoD review found that record numbers of soldiers were on supplemental income - primarily food stamps - in 2014. 

The fact that the economic safety net is set at a level above the minimum amount of money we agree can be paid to a person is the clearest possible indicator that the minimum wage is too low.

What does the social safety net say a dignified wage is? In California, the maximum welfare benefit is equivalent to a pre-tax income of $37,160/year, or $17.87/hour. This benefit includes support for dependents, as the MIT calculator for a single person living in LA county with no dependents needs to make $12.44/hour - an increase of 38% over the current state minimum wage and 24.4% over the state minimum wage in January of 2016. A couple with one person working needs to make $19.53/hour. A single parent needs to make over $25/hour. 

The California minimum wage in 2016, $10/hr, will still fail to match the highest buying power the minimum wage has had - the minimum wage in 1968 had an inflation-adjusted purchasing power of $10.51 in 2012.

In the post-recession economy, we are not just talking about 16 year old kids starting their first jobs when we talk about the minimum wage. We are talking about people re-entering the workplace. We are talking about people who had to accept any job they could find after layoffs. In 2013, Pew estimated that as many as half of minimum wage workers were adults. The 2013 Bureau of Labor Statistics report shows 49.6% of workers making minimum wage or lower were over the age of 25. The economic policy institute shows that the average age of a minimum wage worker is 35. 88% of them are over 20 and 28% have children. 55% work full-time.

This means that when we talk about keeping the minimum wage too low to make a living, we are impoverishing people who are trying to support families and in many cases find a way back to a job they lost circa 2008 through no fault of their own. We are additionally impoverishing people who, without additional income, are likely to become saddled with student debt, if they can pursue an education at all. These same people are increasingly likely to return to live at home, if they can ever reach a financial position to leave in the first place.

So in 34 states and the District of Columbia, the social safety net is not simply helping people "get back on their feet". The social safety net is practically a part of the wage structure. In nearly 75% of the nation, business is allowed to operate with increased overhead because the government is subsidizing wages for them. In cases where workers are holding two or three part-time jobs which are not required to provide any benefits, the government is also subsidizing the benefits.

It's time to adjust the wage.

My Final Correspondence with the Libertarian Party

Dear "Chair"

I will not be renewing my membership at any level of the Libertarian Party. Frankly, I'm a little embarrassed that my membership took so long to lapse.

There are a variety of reasons for this.

First and foremost, as you may or may not be aware, the LPC is incapable of culling felons from its membership. Any political organization such as yours, which intends to break into the "two-party" paradigm, must be able to present a spotless face. That incidents such as those surrounding Matthew Barnes, a convicted child molester, should even be an issue within the organization is unacceptable. Violent crime is unacceptable to libertarians. Felons are unacceptable to voters. That the issue of such persons being members of the Party was even a debated subject is deplorable and comments rather strongly against the intention of the LPC to conduct itself with principle and with an intent to succeed. My dollars are better spent elsewhere and my integrity demands I associate myself with better people than the LPC sees fit to include.

Second, the LP as a whole seems to suffer from an exclusionary, extremist, fundamentalist mentality that may not be representative of the Party but is its most vocal component. The conspiracy theorists, the anarchists, the potheads and the racists have only grown more vocal and more powerful within the party since the death of founder, guide, and voice of reason, David Nolan. To be associated with the likes of Starchild at the state level and Jim Davidson at the national level is an embarrassment and a risk to me professionally.

I do not require a reply to this. There is nothing that can be said or done to regain my membership. It is due to the several years spent attempting to improve the Party that I have even dignified your letter from "Chair" with a response. Please remove me from your lists and do not contact me further.

Regretfully,

[TheMadJack]

Thin Blue Lifeline.

I saw one of those uplifting, good news type stories in my news feed today:

Police officer picks up tab for the groceries a desperate mother tried to STEAL to feed her struggling family

I re-shared it for a couple reasons.

First, it's awfully popular to hate on the police. I understand that what they do is often unpopular, and very few of us ever have or take the opportunity to have a pleasant encounter with the thin blue line. In a larger sense, this is true of everything we do. We can be model employees, but a single fuckup is what our bosses will tend to remember. So it is important that we take time to remember that these individuals have taken a job that they know is unpopular, that doesn't pay well, and is dangerous, almost universally out of a sense of service. It is also important to remember that most of them retain that sense of service and community; and to remind ourselves in positive ways why it is that such a profession exists. The watchman doesn't just repel dangers, but checks in to ensure our well being. Which leads to my second reason:

This is exactly what the police ought to do.

I'm not saying buy groceries for folk, that was an act of charity above and beyond the duties of an officer. But it is an indicator of how the officer ought to view their role and act within that role, and that role is as a member of the community.

I've heard people wax nostalgic about the days when the cops that walked a beat in your neighborhood knew your name. I am wary of nostalgia, but this is a worthwhile goal. It fosters a sense of connection between the officers and their charges. It enhances community appreciation of the police. It means that there are enough police to have them walking about and knowing their areas and the people within them.

I'm writing about this news item here for a third reason. A while ago I opined on nullification, and made the point that while the police ought not to have de jure powers of nullification, the realities of law enforcement give them such powers de facto. This good news story is an example of this de facto nullification: the law requires that the woman, a thief, should be arrested and punished; in most cases the law is perfectly logical and therefore should remain standing. However, the officer took the time to consider the situation and chose not to enforce the law, because in this specific situation the effect of doing so would have been beyond negative. This officer, rather than act without imagination, did the right thing without the waste of time, money, and paper that would go into legislating every conceivable exception that can or ought to be made to the law.

Men of their Word

Collected from my exploits on the internet: This was taken from a discussion of George Carlin's suggestion that if soldiers were to stop "showing up" to wars, then war would end. The discussion turned to the oath that every soldier takes to obey his orders, and whether or not a person should be reasonably expected to live up to that oath.

One more point of context, else some of my arguments will likely make no sense: This discussion was taking place in a Libertarian group.

---

"You need to be more specific , as I think an oath to an institution that theoretically exists to protect a collective abstraction is questionable"

What about non-competition or non-disclosure agreements? What about being contracted in any manner? Your signature on a contract is an oath to be bound by the terms of that contract. You ARE honor bound, as well as legally bound to abide by the terms of that contract.

Even if the other party in that contract is some Corporation or Organization or Government or any other "collective abstraction".

If I suddenly "Don't feel like" finishing paving your driveway, for instance, am I justified in leaving? Or are you justified in holding me responsible for *what I said I would do*? At the end of the day, what will a jury say? That a man who doesn't "feel like" being "forced" to be as good as his word should be allowed to just up and walk out; or will they determine that I am somehow responsible for the completion of the work, whether I do it myself or end up paying for someone more responsible than I to do it for me?

Or consider it in terms of something a goodly number of people here are likely familiar with:

"I, [your name here], do hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."

Many people here doubtless signed their names to this pledge. Some of them even did so in sound mind and with witnesses. Such an oath is meaningless if people can say:

"Today, I don't feel like abiding by the non-aggression principle. Tomorrow maybe, but today it is inconvenient and perhaps I may even articulate that it is inherently immoral for me to swear such a thing or even for someone to claim that I be even remotely expected to abide by its language"

You simply CAN'T have a civilized culture without people being expected to maintain their oaths. Unless you're one of those "state's rights" folk who considers slavery "civilized". The Responsibility side of "Freedom and Responsibility" comes in many forms: one of those forms is being able to honor a promise, a contract, or an oath.

We Reserve The Right to Refuse Service to Anyone (and TSA Agents)

Collected from my exploits elsewhere on the internet. The following comments are in reply to the support a certain establishment had garnered with its refusal to serve TSA Agents.

---

"If policy told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?"

Granted, my condition is quite a bit different than that of a TSA agent, but as a soldier, the answer is "Yes". You can't refuse a dangerous order or a lawful order, and the kicker... is that the definition of "lawful" is up to a military tribunal. I repeat, it's a different situation, but it does render your argument somewhat invalid.

"no one is forcing the tsa agent to grope me before i get on an airplane"

Yes they are. It's their job vs. your comfort. In the same situation, I know what I'd pick. Similarly, do you have any idea what would happen to the TSA agent who lets a bomb through because s/he was squeamish about a pat down? The public, once so adamantly against the screenings, would then be calling for strict enforcement of the rule and the immediate, severe and preferably public castigation of the negligent agent. It's a Catch-22, and one that puts severe pressure on the agents. You act as though they have a choice, when really, they do not.

"harming people even though you know its unethical for a paycheck"

"Harming" is hyperbole and you know it. As for the paycheck, you are certainly aware that there is a recession on. It's not just that "this job is as good as any other", it's that if they don't have this job, it is extremely likely that they won't have ANY. In case you ain't noticed, we're not talking about highly trained and educated people when we talk about TSA. And when I walk into a Waffle House and get served by a waitress trainee who used to be a realtor, as I did this last December in Tucson, you begin to realize that when it comes to a roof over your head and food in your stomach, and the same for your family, you don't get to be choosy about your employment anymore. These folks are NOT going to put their jobs at risk for some mouthy stranger who knew what was likely to happen and decided to fly anyway. Especially when it won't accomplish anything, since the instant they walk out the door there will be ten people clamoring to replace them. Ten people who will either do their jobs or likewise get canned until TSA finds someone who will.

So is it really such a pain to get a little felt up? Ask yourself honestly. TSA's job is certainly important, if a little overinflated, and the "groping" is less invasive as a rule than a trip to the doctor, the locker room at the gym, or one of those men's restrooms with a trough urinal. The same search is performed by police officers regularly and people take it as a matter of course.

Consider it from another viewpoint: Let's say you have a job towing cars. Your bread and butter is impounding cars parked by red curbs, across two parking spaces, or in private lots. It's not a pleasant job, because every single time you take a car in, it means you probably have to deal with that car's owner later on. An owner which, by the way, is now having a bad day thanks in no small part to people like you.

You do your job because it's a paycheck. You went to school to learn acupuncture, but in this economy there's no work because people don't have money to waste on medicine that doesn't work. But you do your job honestly, by the book, and you try to make the process as painless for everyone involved as you can, because you understand: getting your car towed sucks. But its a part of life, and you don't make the laws.

At the end of one day you walk into a bar, still wearing your coveralls, and the barkeep has you shown out. "We don't serve your kind here," the bouncer sneers, "We don't appreciate what you do." You try to protest, but they'll hear none of it. "You didn't have to take that job, and you don't have to do that work. You're just as evil as the gummint that says I can't double park across the handicapped spaces. And I'll hear none of that Nazi talk about orders" he concludes as the door slams coldly in your face.

The barkeep doesn't know about your mortgage, your car payment, and your three kids. Apparently he doesn't understand that if your boss didn't send you out on these City jobs he wouldn't have enough revenue to run the business. More than that, he and his bouncer simply don't care. You slink away across the cold, dark parking lot and drive home, rejected, ostracised, alone, and dead sober.

From what you know about human nature, how do you think you would react when, early the next week, you respond to a call requesting that you tow a car carelessly sprawled between a red curb and an expired parking meter. As you are filling out some forms, preparing to leave, a flustered looking man comes running out, yelling the usual obscentities you almost always hear from the owners of towed vehicles coming across you in the commission of your duties. As the red-faced man's visage resolves, you slowly recognize him as the bartender. That mean bartender who cares not a jot or tittle for you as a human because you took a job he doesn't like. That jerk who doesn't understand the demands of having a house and a family, who doesn't even care to understand what it is to be bound to something beyond yourself. Look at him, screaming and flailing his arms, knowing full well what conversations will ensue, here, and later at the impound lot, and ask yourself, "Do I have any sympathy and mercy for this man? I know that my job visits unpleasantness upon people, but does this man deserve my cooperation and professional insight and aid? Will I, perhaps, cut him a deal so he can get his car home just a little faster or cheaper, at a detriment to my boss but at a benefit to overall goodwill? Or will I make his life just a little more difficult in kind?"

THAT'S why refusing to serve TSA agents is a bad idea.

---

The following comment was made later in the conversation.

---

"i also cant agree with the economic argument. so if the economy is... strong and opportunity is rampant, than its ok to oppose unethical behavior in the name of a paycheck?"

That's not the argument we're making. It's that things aren't all... black and white, and sometimes you actually DO have to weigh one evil against another. When the choice comes down to the wellbeing of my family and the comfort of strangers, then you can't really hold it against people for making certain decisions. When the economy improves and people are again able to choose their employment, then the paradigm will have changed.

In any case, I'm glad most of us are agreed that punishing the workers is not the way to be creating the changes we want. If anything, we should be finding ways to get TSA agents on our side.

It reminds me of my experience at MEPS (er ...don't know how many vets are here. That's "Military Entrance Processing Station") which is a generally unpleasant experience for everyone involved. I felt especially sorry for the doctors there, whose jobs, despite a decade of medical school, consisted of checking an endless parade of men for hernias and hemorhoids. I figure that the folks at TSA aren't (as a rule) much happier about having to look at the Backscatter Images or feel people up. Especially when you think back on all the times you've flown and the truly, um, "aesthetically unfortunate" people that are on every flight. I think that a sympathetic rather than hostile approach would be more fruitful.

Jury Duty

Collected from my online exploits.

---

Jury duty's certainly a pain in the ass (I get called every year. No exceptions. And I usually spend the whole day there) but if we accept the premises that:

1) Some form and quantity of government exceeding zero is necessary to maximizing liberty;
2) One of governments legitimate functions is adjudication of disputes and the enforcement of law;
3) A government may take what measures are necessary to effectively fulfill its obligations and perform its functions;
4) A public trial before our peers is at least sometimes a desireable method of conducting such adjudication; and
5) People hate listening to other people talk about their problems;

Then the case becomes easy to make that jury duty is no misnomer and while we need not be happy to have to deal with the inconvenience, we are better off overall for it.

Jurors and Law Enforcement

Another short essay collected from my exploits on the World Wide Web, this time on the topic of whether or not the Police should be given the same powers of nullification granted to jurors.

---

I think that denying the police such license, which by corollary binds them to strict enforcement of the law, is in fact a desireable thing.

Our current legal system is constructed in such a way that we enjoy a number of very important boons.

First, there exist limits placed on the exercise of government. Namely, that all government, from the Fed all the way down to Buttsex, Kansas City Council are bound to conduct themselves in a constitutional manner. (Nevermind whether it actually happens 100% of the time, that's a different discussion)

Second, what laws are passed that are not delineated in the constitution are passed either by the citizens or their proxies; hence the designation of the United States as a Republic, as we all remember (or at least, ought to remember) from our civics classes.

Third, there are limits that apply to the powers held by the citizens and their proxies; these limits prevent mob rule from overriding basic rights or in certain cases using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law. As Justice Walker opined in his ruling on California's Proposition 8 last August:

"The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives." It is within this construction that I frame my arguments. Less enlightened or fair systems suffer their own flaws which do not necessarily find their solutions in my argument, yada yada keep it in context =)

Our legal system is not perfect and has, at various times, been unfair to various peoples for various reasons. What it does offer, however, is a methodology whereby both the power-hunger of the leaders and the fanatical fear/greed of the populace are held in check. If we hold that such irrational or frankly malicious desires being held in check is a good thing, then it follows that nullification should not be the purview of police officers.

I will further argue that even if nullification is not granted, then to an extent it still is granted, nonetheless. This isn't a contradiction, it is just a juxtaposition of the legal/pragmatic reality vs. the real-reality, if that makes any sense. I'm getting ahead of myself, more on that later.

The idea of the police having powers of nullification is demonstrably different from jurors having that same ability. A police officer is one man; a jury is twelve. A crime is an act in progress, a constantly evolving scenario; a trial is a presentation of evidence on the past - understood to be immutable; a police officer is charged with the enforcement of the law; a jury is charged with its interpretation. From these differences, we derive that a jury nullification is built from a consensus of the citizenry, who are themselves a sort of representation of that same citizenry in much the same manner as a legislator. They are hearing facts and evidence and weighing the merits of a person, of a case, of a law and of a sentence and as such their opinion is neither the subject of whim nor of subjectivity.

Further, the decision of the jury is subject to review by additional courts and, often, additional juries. Appeal is a luxury of the courts that an officer does not have.

When such broad powers are granted to lone individuals, as police officers are, subjectivity once again becomes a factor. The case for nullification is easy to make when the law in question is possesion of a dime bag of marijuana. But that sword cuts both ways: what about the officer who opposes CA Prop 215 (which are plethora in my home county), or the officer who opposes the Civil Rights Act or any number of other liberty granting legislation?

What about laws regarding what weapons it is appropriate for an officer to carry; or when it is appropriate for an officer to use them?

By handing the power of nullification to single people, as you would be doing with police officers, you would, in reality, create tiny little dictatorships along every beat subject to whatever the whims and fancies of your local officer on that shift might be. And while some of us would be blessed enough to have our own local Tony Ryan, at least as many would be under the whip of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

If the power of nullification extends to individual precincts or departments, but not to individual officers, then you have simply created - or if not created, certainly augmented - a special interest group whose interests and powers would readily exceed those of the citizenry who are supposed to constitute their charges and employers. Bills that would increase or decrease their workloads (e.g. criminalizing or decriminalizing various activities) would be subject to their approval; as would budgeting and hiring.

It is in our best interests to have the officers bound to the laws as we, the citizenry, pass and interpret them. In such a manner, we have power over the exercise of force used in enforcing them.

I mentioned in my brief digression above that nullification would exist anyway, and here is what I mean: As it stands, many officers will overlook certain crimes in favor of enforcing more important ones anyway. Few officers will harrass a couple of teenagers breaking curfew when a bar brawl breaks out. This sort of prioritizing is a matter of course with police; the upside is that, should an officer take undue liberties with his judgement there is recourse for any negligence.

Rights and Right

In the days leading up to this most inauspicious of anniversaries there was a significant brouhaha over a Florida preacher's declaration of his congregation's intention to make of today the first annual "Burn a Quran Day" and to celebrate accordingly. Fortunately, just a few days ago he changed his mind, albeit in a rather snide and insincere manner by simultaneously demanding that the so-called "Ground-Zero Mosque" be moved to a new location. The Ground-Zero Mosque (which is neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque) and the idiocy surrounding it may warrant discussion another time, but they are not within the scope of todays article.


In a discussion of the planned Quran-burning activities I encountered a meme which I had encountered before. A person in the discussion declared that the church in question was right to burn the Quran, citing the First Amendment as his argument.


Now, I would like to be perfectly clear: there was not a difficulty in his syntax. He was not saying that the people have the right to protest and even to burn something like a book or a flag or an effigy; but rather that these people were granted either moral or factual rectitude by certain Constitutional doctrines.





The First Amendment only secures for people the Right to speak, to write, to gather, and to protest as they will and it only secures people from oppression by the government. It offers no protection from the natural consequences of your actions. Individuals are perfectly and legally capable of shunning and shaming a person who makes idiotic or dangerous statements. To find oneself unable to do business in a town, culturally and socially isolated and ostracized is not an infraction upon or a violation of one's rights. It is the natural consequence of being an ass and is a form of evil bringing about its own punishment.


I'm not sure where the idea that having a Right is equal to being right originated, but I've a sneaking suspicion it's due in large part to the failure of Civics instructors to actually impart an understanding of what a "right" is, what separates it from a "privilege", and what duties and responsibilities come hand in hand with such rights. But I digress. The point is that this idea is factually, semantically, basically, and totally wrong to a degree approaching, including, and probably exceeding absurdity.





And so, to recount for the benefit of those who never learned the full meaning and implications of the word "Citizen", I will offer this declaration: To have a Right is to be permitted to do a thing, no matter what abuses you inflict upon the good graces of the authority granting you this permission in the course of excercising it. It has nothing to do with factual correctness or with moral rectitude. Just because you CAN do something in no way means that you SHOULD, and that is the critical difference.


By way of example, the outrage surrounding our much-too-silly friends in Florida stemmed not so much from a belief that they had no permission to do such a deed, but that such a deed was offensive and could incite retribution and vengeance. The deed expressed ignorance and utter disregard for human thought (as that is what a book burning sybolically destroys, is human thought; as burning a flag symbolically destroys a nation and burning an effigy destroys a person) and there was no concievable benefit to be gleaned from such an act. In short, the act would have been immoral in almost every system of mores and ethics prevalent in the world today, excepting certain fanatical dogmas (which as I have argued before, are immoral in and of themselves anyway).


To put it in terms not so heavily vested with the emotional tinge of recentism, we could stipulate that Freedom of Speech was protected to such a degree that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building or "Bomb!" in an airport were not illegal, it would be the height of negligence and recklessness, if not outright immorality (which it would be if done with malice) to do so. Once the proverbial smoke cleared, the performer of such an action would doubtless be ridden out of town on a rail, literally or figuratively. If the ensuing stampede had caused death or grievous injury, such a person might rightly be put to death or imprisoned indefinitely. This course of action would surely not constitute a breach of Constitutional Rights, but rather would be the natural and just consequence of that persons careless, thoughtless, and dangerous actions. That people are thoughtless in such a manner with such frequency that these actions are explicitly illegal is a testament to the enduring and pervasive stupidity which informs such actions.


Still, I must give credit where credit is due, to the Pastor who heard reason (sort of) and called off his plans and encouraged others to follow his lead in abandoning their hateful actions; and to the great majority of Americans who not only refused to engage in Quran burning but openly expressed their disapproval of such abuses of the Rights we all enjoy.

A Short Proclamation of Approval

Circumstances prevented my earlier and more timely commentary on recent events. However, I feel that in light of such a momentous occassion, I cannot but register my overwhelming approval of Judge Vaughn R. Walker's overturning of California's Proposition 8. In addition, he has removed a stay which would have prevented his ruling from taking immediate effect and equality will be restored on August 18, 2010.

There is much to say on the subject, touching on such myriad subjects as the obvious equality and discrimination, to more obscure but nonetheless relevant topics as democracy and social inertia. It would be more fitting to address these in depth at another time and in another post.

For now, all that needs be said is "Bravo, Judge Walker."

Against Compulsory Federal Service

The following was originally posted as a reply to a friend of mine who had just heard of Rep. Charles Rangel's (asshole) bill, H.R. 5741, which would create compulsory Federal service for everyone.

This is the same Rep. Charles Rangel who was recently arrested for "ethics violations". You know it's bad when Congress has a problem with your ethics.

But on with the show.

---

While I am a fan of the concept of service as a requirement for suffrage (a la Heinlein's Starship Troopers, and for many of the same reasons) such service would be meaningless if it were not voluntary (a point which I believe Heinlein also addresses in that novel). Such is a different conversation.

In a more immediate sense, compulsory service is a really bad idea, especially when it becomes understood that the traditional name for such service is a Draft. I have seen the bill, and it is definitely military in focus, the service in "homeland security" being a catch-all for those who are inadmissible for military service.

Why? Take it from a pragmatic standpoint. Today's military is an advanced professional military that uses some rather complicated equipment and tactics and therefore needs people who are capable of using them and motivated to do so. The military needs to be able to refuse people who are not only physically incapable of the demands that would be placed upon them, but also to refuse the mentally and psychologically incapable.

There has also been a cultural shift in our military over the last 20 years to change the image of the military from a bunch of rednecks, dropouts and delinquents to an organization of professionals worthy of respect. Not too long ago, young criminals were often given military service in lieu of jail time. During this same period, the public image of the military was of a group of thugs, a place for people who couldn't get their shit together any other way and who only needed to be smart enough to follow orders and shoot a gun. This is no longer the case.

Military service is now career focused. The vast majority of MOS' are support roles that simultaneously give a soldier real-world skills; and even the lowliest infantry have access to a rather generous college program. On one side of things, more and more soldiers are required to learn various computer and telecommunications-based skills, while on the other squad-based tactics have taught leadership skills to everyone. Unlike 20 years ago, a soldier leaving todays military is a respected member of society. People don't look at their resume and wonder what they did that made them need to join up. In many fields, military training is an advantage and a boon and many employers actively seek out veterans.

By making service mandatory - even if not ALL government service is military, just some of it! - the military loses all these gainss it has worked very hard to achieve over the last two decades. It becomes just another branch of the public school system.

My final point that relates strictly to the military (I will address government service in a broader sense shortly. Whether you take that as a promise or a threat is up to you) is that no soldier in a volunteer army wants a draftee watching his back. Today's military enjoys an unheard of esprit de corps. Unit cohesion is keeping combat casualties at an all time low in general and friendly fire is practically unheard of. Every person in combat today is there because they volunteered for military service AND they took a combat MOS. If you start throwing draftees into the mix, morale goes down, discipline problems rise, desertion becomes a major issue, and friendly fire casualties stop being accidents. I have a lot of friends in the military (including a Captain in the Army) and every single one of them speaks with horror and disdain at the prospect of fighting alongside a draftee. I, for one, will not dishonor our troops by inflicting such horror upon them.

They have enough to deal with.

As for government service being compulsory in general, well, it remains a bad idea. First up are the economics of the idea: Somebody has to pay these people. Now in the rest of the market, a business provides a service or product, people spend money on that product, the business makes more, etc. In this system, things are being produced, wealth is being generated. If enough people want to spend money on a product, the business can pay people to help it create and sell the product. If it hires too many, it can't afford to pay them, and has to fire some. The number of employees a business can have is contingent on the value of the service or products it generates. That value is determined by how much people are willing to spend on it.

Government work, on the other hand, is make-work. The vast majority of government employees are engaged in paperwork and redundant functions. They produce no product or service. If we pour more people into this already bloated system, we alleviate nothing. We would have to pay them, but with what? We can either cut a government program to "free up" funds, which would accomplish nothing because those funds are simply being shifted to another government program. (As Robert Anton Wilson once noted, "Bureaucracies never die, they just change names) The other option is to print more money, but since money is a representation of value, and no additional value is being produced, this simply inflates an already excessively inflated economy. The end result, economically, is either 1990's Russia or 1920's Germany.

Second is the idea of entitlement. We already have enough of a problem with it in this country, and handing people a job doesn't make it any better. A person is generally granted a job based on their own merits. Usually, this job is given to them over several other applicants. Nobody was entitled to a job, they had to work to get it and they have to work to keep it. Being a high school student might qualify someone to work at McDonald's, but telling the manager that they have to hire you is a sure way to remain jobless. The most important thing for people, especially young people, to learn - what working in a place like the grocery store or a burger joing is supposed to teach a person - is a work ethic. The understanding that work sucks, but you still have to do a good job; that at the end of the week your paycheck MEANS something, that you EARNED it, is of paramount importance.

This is not accomplished by handing out do-nothing government work to any schmuck who happens to be over 18 in America. In this compulsory service system, a person IS entitled to a job. Not only can they get the work through no virtue of their own, but they can do a piss-poor job and the government has to keep them. Two years later, these people go to get their first real job, having been "prepared", and find that this "experience" doesn't make it any easier for them to find work. Why? Because EVERYONE ELSE has the exact same experience. Which means that the professional jobs which these people are suppsed to be qualified for (having been working in an office environment for two years) aren't available. They now have to go get that same post-high-school burger flipping job. That same job that barely pays minimum wage, doesn't have a union, and enjoys such high turnover that they can - and will - gladly fire any slacker they catch taking an unauthorized smoke break. Employers, on the other hand, undoubtedly start to notice that a lot of these so-called "experienced" employees don't actually know how to work. They want vacation benefits right away. They call in sick all the damn time. They complain about working overtime. All because they never actually had to work to work before. Sure, some people will excel, get promotions, move on to better jobs, but these are the SAME people who would have done that anyway, the people who know what a work ethic is, and all that has happened in their cases is they wasted two years of their lives in government service rather than getting started on their careers.

The argument that this would create a paradigm of civic duty is also bunk. There is a large amount of evidence that the exact opposite effect would actually be created. Of note is a famous study of day care centers by two economists in the 1990's. The day care centers had a policy that the children had to be picked up by a certain time. As can be expected, some parents would usually be late each day. In a controlled experiment, some of the centers imposed a fine for parents who arrived over 10 minutes late. The result was that late pickups at the centers with the fine SKYROCKETED. The reason for this result is that before the fine, the parents were bound by a sense of duty and respect to the teachers. Those who were late were only a little late. What the fine did was allow the parents to buy off their duty. For a small fee each day, they could no longer feel guilty about being late, because they had already compensated the teachers for that inconvenience. The situation in mandating service cheapens the sense of civic duty in the same way. By making it mandatory for people to serve, we actually DECREASE the likelihood of future public service because, in the minds of these people being enlisted, they have already done their time or met their quota. What is interesting about the study is that it took place in Israel, a country that already has a service requirement. If such mandatory service did indeed create the effect of amplifying a person's sense of civic duty, we would very likely have seen completely different results.

Finally, service is meaningless if it's not voluntary. You cannot imbue someone with a sense of civic duty by forcing them into it. All that creates is resentment. Besides we already have a word for mandatory or involuntary service. That word is slavery, which was, by the way, made illegal and unConstitutional in the United States by the 13th Amendment.

A TED-Talk on Moral Subjectivism. Cultural Relativism, and the Religious Monopoly on Ethics.

I came across this Talk at www.ted.com/talks and was pleased to hear that the concept of moral objectivity and the courage to have it are being advocated in the world, and ESPECIALLY in such a prestigious venue as a TED conference.



While Sam at several points betrays a decidedly Liberal bias along with his - laudable - secularism, I agree whole-heartedly with his premise: that in order to advance humanity, we must overcome our irrational and potentially dangerous fear of judging and condemning deleterious behaviors and beliefs. Adherence to subjective morality or moral relativism are cop-outs which permit evil to exist, thrive, and eventually prey upon those around and not just within it.

Sam Harris is the author of 2004's "The End of Faith" and 2007's "Letter To A Christian Nation."

Ethical Survey

Some weeks ago I was invited to partake in a survey of Ethics by a student in a college psychology program. The survey presented many questions without simple answers in a format which required a simple (multiple choice) answer. Because I found the questions intriguing, and because I didn't wish to misrepresent my answers due to semantic vagaries (a phrase, by the way, which I used with some frequency in my answers to the administrator), I wrote out answers and included them in an attachment to the student for her review. Below are the questions and my answers thereto.

---

1. I believe all people can generally be described as either good or evil.

This one suffers a semantic issue: Are ALL people generally good or evil; or does each individual fall to one side of the spectrum or the other, with no neutrality?

The first interpretation is one of the great philosophical questions. What is the nature of man? This question leads to innumerable sub-questions: Is a person who acts in a "Good" way for "Evil" reasons good or evil? Without getting further into these quandaries, and because of them, I will answer your query as though your intention was the second interpretation.

To become an important and meaningful example of good or evil requires a willful effort which most people are simply incapable of. The world is full of people too stupid, lazy, or apathetic to take any meaningful control of their lives and have willful purpose and direction. In an instance where they are provided with an ethical problem, two responses arise: thoughtless expression of obedience to a societal standard of behavior, or stubborn refusal to confront the dillema. This second response becomes more prevalent as the difficulty of the ethical problem increases. For instance, most people SAY they will pull over and help an old lady on the side of the road change a tire. When the opportunity presents itself to actually ACT on that statement these same people suddenly have a hundred and one reasons why it WOULDN'T be a good idea to stop, ranging from "I'm late" to "It's dark and dangerous and I might get hurt". Anyone who has seen a person stranded on the side of the road, even if they are not an old lady, or anyone who has themselves been stranded, has borne witness to this discrepancy.

The fact is, it is always percieved to be easier to avoid these difficult decisions and so most people will do everything possible to avoid them. As such, the circumstances of the world around them color what little morals and ethics they have. Can we call these people good or evil?

In the case of evil, I say yes. In the case of good, I say no. Evil is always easier, and a person can simply float into such behavior without willfulness. Being Good without willfulness arises universally out of fear of punitive action. A person can easily become immersed in the violent and shady world of drug dealing without a second thought. Are they evil? Certainly. Are they willful? No. But good Samaritans, pillars of the community, even students who don't cheat on tests - if the motivation is not pure, or lacks even a touch of an honest desire to do the right thing, then the person is not actually good, they are simply interested in the benefits of being good.

Therefore, I "Somewhat agree"


2. There are people in this world who are completely incapable of any type of goodness.

This one warrants a slightly shorter explanation, as I established most of my premises in the previous answer. Good requires thought, honesty, and will, and there are doubtless people in the world without the intelligence to consider an ethical choice, the honesty to appraise the situation accurately, and the will to act upon the conclusions or to follow through with a difficult course of action.

Therefore, I "Agree"


3. There are people in this world who are completely incapable of committing any evil

Evil choices are easier to make because they often provide an immediate benefit directly to a person, even if that benefit is simply a path of least resistance. If it is discovered that a friend is the most reprehensible sort of person (fill in your own blank), is it easier to write that person off or inform his family or the police, risking many of your own friendships in the process, or is it easier to shrug it off, ignore it, make excuses, and continue with life as usual? This is how cults begin, this is why abused spouses often return to the source of their agony, and this is how actively, willfully evil people take power.

Therefore, because of the magnitude of my answer to the previous question, and the militating factors on the other side of the spectrum, I "Strongly Disagree"


4. Each of us must internally struggle with good and evil.

I disagree with the language used in this question because I believe the intention of the question is more to the effect of "Each of us struggles internally with good and evil in the course of determining our lives," or more simply perhaps the intention is "Each of us should internally struggle with good and evil". "Must" is an imperative, it commands, it is absolute. Should each of us struggle? Yes, if it is accepted that being a good person is a desirable thing. Such a quality, as I have stated, does not simply arise through desire, or mere perception of oneself as a "good person". It requires willful action and many, many hard choices. There is a reason such a path is called the "Strait and Narrow"

Obviously, however, nobody is forced to make such a decision, and most people don't. Even when forced to confront a difficult decision, it is not "good and evil" or "right and wrong" that a person struggles with, but the far weaker question of "why me?"

Therefore, due to the language used in the phrasing of this question, and my reluctance to misrepresent my beliefs over an interpretive issue that may not exist, I "Disagree"


5. There are people in the world who are evil

The structure, nature, and order of these questions seems to imply that the goal of this survey is to establish the existence and gestalt of an "objective" morality. To that end, I will simply state that even if there is not an "objective" morality, it is irrelevant. I will not address, at this point, those who do not take time and effort to study ethics. Any person who adopts or crafts a system of ethics and then adheres thereto does not do so in a vacuum. Subjective ideas still have objective effects upon society at large. Ethical behavior is not relevant without society, with occassional exception. A vegan, for instance, still has ethical concerns about the proper treatment of animals regardless of the presence or absence of society. It could be argued that in such systems this ethical concern creates a society of animals, with rights that must be respected, and thus defeats any argument of ethics being a private matter of no consequence to the world at large.

I will discuss this subject further in the next question.

As for the question asked of me, my previous statements make it clear that I will "Strongly agree"


6. There are societies in this world that are evil.

We finally arrive at a question with some substance. Given that the world as a whole can be viewed as the interactions of many societies much as a society can be viewed as the interactions of the people within that society, it is certainly plausible that there are evil societies. Subjectivists will argue that ethical behavior depends on the society in which we live, but these people are fools. Stoning an adulteress is the "Right" thing to do in fundamental Judeo-Christian-Muslim society; mandatory female circumcision is "Right" in parts of Africa and the Middle East; killing Jews was "Right" in Czarist Russia, Nazi Germany, and many parts of the modern Middle East; yet all of these behaviors are viewed as reprehensible in almost all cultures except those which advocate them. The fact of the matter is that there are societies in the world, just as there are people within those societies, which engage in behaviors which cause inequality of opportunity, unjustly take lives, and endanger those around them. These things are unequivocally evil.

We cannot judge a society by the people within it. To do so is to ignore the structure and tenets of that society as there are always deviants and dissidents. The society, instead, must be judged by its structure and tenets.

Therefore, I "Strongly Agree"


7. There are political leaders in this world who are evil.

Given that a person is more likely to be evil than not, it is reasonable to assume that there are political leaders who are evil.

Therefore, I "Agree"


8. Most people have a chance of growing morally in character.

Another question of substance. The world presents us with innumerable opportunities to do the right or wrong thing. At any point a person may begin to take willful action and interest in their own moral and ethical structure and being, and thus begin moral development. This does not automatically mean that a person becomes a good person - moral growth and development of character can easily lead down evil paths, or simply be an understanding of the "Why" of an action - or even that they succeed in continual growth. Regardless, anyone can attempt ethical development and the attempt itself will affect a persons aspect, even if the growth does not continue.

Therefore, I "Strongly agree"


9. It is difficult for me to imagine good in a person who has done something evil.

This is another semantically clumsy statement. Immediately, to "imagine" something is to state that it does not exist in the first place. Does the administrator refer to empathy? Perhaps the intention is to establish whether or not I can accept that a person who has acted evilly can be or become good. Is the "good" that theoretically exists here an intrinsic "goodness" in a person, a figurative "angel on the shoulder" which engages in - and has here lost - battle with a person's demons? Or is this an allusion to the popular proverb "The path to hell is paved with good intentions"?

In the first instance, we are presented with two options: The evil is willful, or the evil is a result of apathy and inaction. If the evil is willful, then the person has committed themselves to evil action. Even if that person can act well in some other arena of their existence, this willful action to evil once demonstrates a proclivity to such actions. It is dangerous and foolhardy to seek good in such a person. This person can be expected to act evilly again. The burden of proof is upon them should they desire to be seen as good. This is called "atonement" or "penance".

If the evil is the result of apathy and inaction, then it is equally likely that a person will be just as careless again, whether in the same way or in another arena of their lives. It is acceptable, however, to seek good in such a person, and to actively encourage that behavior. Good action must become the path of least resistance. This does not make a good person of the apathist, but it mitigates the danger they would otherwise represent.

In the second instance, where a person commits an evil act with the intention of good, an examination of their definition of good is in order. As illustrated above, there are many reprehensible actions accepted in many societies. If the person is acting in accord with their social sphere, and that society is evil, then the only course of action is conversion. Since many of these dangerous societies encourage and shelter fanatics and simultaneously condemn apostacy or heresy, this course of action is not without risk. No matter what, a conversion cannot occur without atonement - that is, the burden of proving a persons good will and good action falls upon the person.

Therfore, as the statement asked after my capabilities of imagination, and seeing many qualifications for imagining such a happenstance, and I further believe that to "imagine" such a thing is dangerous and foolhardy, I "Somewhat agree"


10. It is impossible to classify people as essentially good or evil.

Once again this suffers from a semantic difficulty in whether we reference people as a whole or as individuals. As I have dealt with people as individuals, I will address them as a whole.

Given that willful people may be actively good or evil, and that the apathetic, stupid, careless, and lazy will tend towards evil, I would classify people as a whole as evil if forced to a binary choice. This, of course, carries many caveats and qualifications: I do not mean life-threatening or reprehensible, clear evil in all cases, in fact, such extreme evil is almost as rare as noble, pure good. Further, a great many people will have an approximately even balance of good and evil acts in their lives. But I repeat that, because being good both requires intelligence, integrity, and will, and because it often forces a person to unpleasant decisions and actions, most people will never be truly good.

Therefore, I "Somewhat disagree"


11. Even so-called evil people have the potential to be good.

This is essentially the same as the statement about character growth. At any point a person may experience a "change of heart" and make a willful decision to change the course of their lives, their behavior, and their moral being. This is just as true for "evil" persons as it is for "good" persons, though I would expect that it is much rarer for a person who is willfully good or evil to change given the amount of thought and the personal committment that is required. Such circumstances as bring about a change in evil people are likely extraordinary. Disappointment, disillusion, and despair can often weaken a good persons resolve sufficiently to cause them to abandon their strait paths.

Therefore, I "Agree"


12. All of us can act evilly under certain circumstances

This comes across almost as an attempt at apologetics for evil people. To put it simply: as I believe I have established here, the temptation and opportunity to do evil is omnipresent. Even a person who has made an intelligent, thorough committment to right action must constantly re-affirm their course in the face of these temptations. It is always easier to do nothing, and such apathy tends invariably to evil.

Therefore, I "Agree"


13. We are morally responsible for eradicating evil by any means necessary

Evil will never be wholly eradicated. The proclivity to avoid effort is too strong in the human condition and this tends to corruption and evil. It is easier to steal than to earn, to rape than seduce, to kill than to show mercy. However, it does behoove a good person to do good things, and when an evil person represents a physical threat, that person must be destroyed to prevent harm.

Therefore, I "Somewhat agree"


14. The use of violence is justified when it allows good to prevail over evil.

The use of violence is only justified to stop further violence. The marginal evil of someone copying a test warrants no violence, the automatic failure of the test is just and appropriate punishment. A mugger may be resisted by any means at ones disposal so long as the mugger is a threat - once the danger is past, the mugger's life is no longer forfeit. In this way, evil people MUST bring their own punishments upon themselves.

Therefore, I "Somewhat agree"


15. An orderly and safe world can only be obtained through the use of morally righteous violence.

The key words here are "morally righteous". An act of violence is only morally righteous if it addresses an immediate threat. However, an "orderly and safe" world is an impossible standard. This actually strengthens the necessity for violence rather than weakening it: A person must be permitted to meet violence with violence and bring immediate retribution upon violent evil. Absent this, evil will always prevail.

Therefore, I "Agree"


16. It is our duty to deal with the evil in the world, even if it means using force and violence.

This is a simple matter. It is not a tenable position to have a murderer arrested, held for years, and then subjected to the violence of execution with no opportunity of defense. The fight against evil must be conducted without undue bloodshed - the death of a murderer is only justified when the only choice is between the murderer and his victim. It is absolutely necessary for a person to be permitted to defend against violence with violence. It must be further understood that once there is no further danger, the violence must cease.

Therefore, I "Strongly agree"


17. Sometimes violence is necessary in order to get rid of evil leaders and political systems.

Leaders and political systems are only capable of immoral violence if they are permitted by their constituents to be. A society that does nothing to resist an evil leader or system is complicit in that evil. Without action against these violent people and systems it can be expected that the evil will continue. Absent non-violent methods of removal (elections, impeachment), or once they have failed, violence is demanded.

Therefore, I "Strongly agree"


18. The moral people in this world are responsible for eliminating moral corruption, even if it requires brute force.

All people are responsible for meeting evil and moral corruption with appropriate action, up to and including brute force. The difference in good and evil is in who has initiated that force. Moral people will not initiate force against evil people in the world. Rather, they will meet any force or violence with whatever is necessary to stop the evil action.

Therefore, due to the semantic vagaries, I "Somewhat agree"


19. The use of violence is commendable what its purpose is improved conditions for people.

The use of violence is commendable only when it stops a violent act.

Therefore, I "Somewhat disagree"


20. Morally justifiable violence is the natural way for humans to deal with evil in the world

Violence is certainly natural in the human condition. However, such as is the case with lynch mobs, violence initiated, even for an arguable good or if it results in the death of an evil person, the violence is disproportionate. It is imperative that a good person not become the monsters to which they are opposed. All punishment must be appropriate. Violence is only warranted in cases where violence has already been brought into play.

Therefore, I "Somewhat disagree"


21. There are adversaries in this world that must be totally annihilated; it would be immoral to negotiate with them.

There are doubtless evils in this world that warrant annihilation - serial killers, sexual predators, militant authoritarian theocracies - but the decision to annihilate must only be made after careful consideration and clear demonstration of the danger posed. Neville Chamberlain did the right thing by attempting to mitigate the German threat and avoid unnecessary bloodshed. Once it became clear that the danger was not going to subside, that bloodshed would not be avoided, it was justice to destroy the threat utterly.

If negotiation is an option, it must be explored, even if perfunctorily.

Therefore, I "Somewhat agree"


22. There are people who deserve to die because the world would be a better place without them.

Such an argument is without merit. There are people who deserve to die because they are an otherwise unmitigable danger.

Therefore, I "Disagree"


23. Destruction of evil people is necessary to preserve what is good in the world.

What is good in the world is created by good people. Destruction of evil people is necessary to prevent evil from being meaningful, practical, profitable, or otherwise appealing as a life choice.

Therefore, I "Disagree"


24. On November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an army psychiatrist, opened fire at Fort Hood, killing 13 people and wounding over 2 dozen. Military prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty for Hasan. Do you support the use of the death penalty in this instance?

Murder is the unjustified taking of human life. It must occur unprovoked, absent any external threat. There is no question that Major Hasan's actions warranted lethal force, but he is no longer engaged in those actions. If violence is to be met with violence, it must be done immediately. Further bloodshed serves no purpose at this point, and is murderous and immoral in and of itself.

Therefore, I "Oppose"


25. There is currently a bill to establish a US Department of Peace. The proposed Department of Peace would supplement our current problem solving system by working to establish non-violent solutions to both international and domestic conflicts. Do you support the creation of a Department of Peace?

It is the purpose of the Secretary of State and the Ambassadors of the State Department to pursue peaceful or non-violent resolutions. Creation of another Department represents an unnecessary expansion of bureaucracy, a waste of tax dollars, a redundancy of purpose, and can do nothing but oppose the actions of the Department of Defense. If and when violence becomes necessary in diplomatic conflict, it can only cost lives to delay action.

Therefore, I "Oppose"


26. The US army launched Operation Enduring Freedom in October of 2001 with the invasion of Afghanistan. The aims of this ongoing operation are to find and try high ranking Al Qaeda officials, destroy the Al Qaeda organization, remove the Taliban regime from power and spread democracy. Currently, the US government is planning on sending more troops into Afghanistan. Do you support additional US troops being sent to Afghanistan?

Al Qaeda represents a constant and unmitigable threat to our society. Their existence serves no purpose other than to threaten the world at large. As such, lethal force against them in order to prevent the continuation of their agenda.

The Taliban is an evil society dedicated to the subjugation of women and the spreading of an intolerant, violent, fanatic theocracy. They represent an uncompromising threat to the world at large and violence is justified in their removal.

The Taliban has been reduced to little more than a few loyal soldiers. Unless they are able to regain control in Afganistan, continued violence is not necessary.

Al Qaeda is an organization without borders. Its structure permits even a small number of operatives to be effectively dangerous. I do not have the appropriate information to assess whether their activities in Afganistan are of sufficient magnitude to warrant a troop surge, and will defer to the judgement of the higher military officials.

Therefore, I am "Neutral"


27. Some people believe that the US possession of nuclear weapons serves as a deterrent to escalated violence and a means of promoting stability in the world. Others argue that because the US is part of not allowing some other nations to possess nuclear arms that it is hypocritical for the US government to maintain their own nuclear weapons. Do you support the US possession and maintenance of nuclear weapons?

Now that the capabilities of nuclear weaponry are known, universal disarmament is impossible. To pursue it is as dangerous as giving your gun to a mugger and then resisting the mugging.

Therefore, I "Strongly support"


28. Guantanamo Bay is a US detainment facility in Cuba which has held many people suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. Interrogation techniques have been used on detainees to obtain information and/or confessions, including sleep deprivation, stress positions, semi-starvation, and exploitation of wounds. Do you support the techniques used at Guantanamo Bay?

The purpose of imprisonment is punitive. These individuals are accused of engaging in hostile actions against our society. Justice demands that they be formally tried and subjected to an appropriate punishment.

Force is only justified when force is being actively employed against us. War creates a different paradigm wherein a person withholding information can, in and of itself, be a dangerous and hostile act.

These individuals are no longer at war. If it is the desire of the US Military to interrogate these individuals, they should do so in the field. Once turned over to the Government, they should enjoy the rights and comforts afforded to all prisoners and be permitted to atone.

Therefore, I "Strongly oppose"

"Setsuninto - Katsujinken" by Ellis Amdur

" ...He deserves death!

"Deserves it! I dare say he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all the ends...."

--J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring


"Every minute my joy increased... because I found myself in an extraordinary state of the most complete invulnerability, such as I had never before experienced. Nothing at all could confuse me, annoy me or tire me. Whatever was being thought of by those men, conversing animatedly in another corner of the room, I would regard them calmly, from a distance they could not cross."

--Vera Zasulick, after her assassination of General Trepov, governor of St. Petersburg

The Sword That Takes Life, The Sword That Gives Life

The Japanese sword was never a mere ribbon of polished and sharpened steel. In the juxtaposition of blade and scabbard, there exists an emblem of the dynamic interplay of male and female, penetration and containment, power dependent as much upon its reserve as its expression. The sword itself was the embodiment of the principle of law founded upon hierarchy, the ruling warriors' power rooted in their submission to a web of obligations and loyalties to superiors, their weapons instruments of service rather than of freedom. In religious iconography, the Taoist sword cuts through undifferentiated chaos, introducing delineation into the universe, creating darkness and light, yin and yang, positive and negative and from this duality, the birth of the myriad forms of the universe. The Buddhist sword is the sword that cuts through illusion, the bright cold edge of mindful consciousness which requires one to face reality with open eyes and courageous heart.

Setsuninto (the sword that takes life) and katsujinken (the sword that gives life) are concepts which attempt to differentiate between the use of the sword for murderous ends as opposed to its use to protect people or to preserve the order of society.

These two phrases give rise to a variety of interpretations. At its most naive is the idea that, having power, one can choose to use it either to hurt others or lead them from evil paths. This is sometimes a fantasy of aikido devotees: that when attacked, the skillful practitioner, who could easily annihilate his or her attacker, moves in such a way that not only is the attack neutralized, but the attacker realizes the error of his ways and turns from violence. I call this naive because, even though it is sometimes possible, it presupposes that one's attacker will always be far inferior in skill, and even more unlikely, that being humbled and even shamed by one far superior, an attacker is likely to undergo a profound change of personality.

A second concept is that of surgical violence, one particularly common among the Japanese right wing,whose ideology, in many ways, is closest to those of the warrior class in pre-modern Japan. This is best shown in the phrase, "One life to save a thousand," which is used to explain various political assassinations. In this concept, not only murder, but also inaction which allows war or other disaster to develop, would be setsuninto. Katsujinken would be to "cut the head off the snake" so the war could not start.

Some pseudo-Buddhist scholars of the sword imagine that there is a state of fluid perfection, called "enlightenment," in which one can act at each and every moment without reflection or doubt, the spontaneous act being the only one suitable to that particular moment. The enlightened one, then, could cut down an individual without murderous intention, in their intuitive all-encompassing understanding that the interpenetrating web of universe is best served that this individual die. The slaughtered one's life is culminated and, in fact, "demands" death at this moment to be properly fulfilled.

Whose life is preserved in katusjinken? One's own? The enemy's? Bystanders'? Whose life is taken in setsuninto? Is this a problem only of the moment, of the two individuals in conflict, or does it encompass all whose lives are touched by violence, by apparent evil? Is this a problem only of the present, or does it extend into the past and future? Are the reasons an enemy resorts to violence relevant to how you will resolve it? Are the potential results of alternative ways of resolving violence relevant to considerations of how one must act?

Sometimes I think I know the answers to these questions. At other times, I know that I have no idea.

---

There are houses, in the state of Washington, called Crisis Respite Centers. They are staffed by paraprofessionals skilled in dealing with troubled and aggressive youth. Children, usually teenagers, who are wards of the state and unplaceable in a foster home, are placed in these houses. The Crisis Respite Centers have a no-turn-down policy.

They also have unlocked doors. The six beds might be filled with three violent 16-year-old gang-involved youths from rival "sets," along with a "sexually reactive" developmentally-delayed girl, a chronic runaway 13-year-old, and an enormously irritating chubby 12-year-old boy who taunts the gangbangers and then runs to hide behind a staff member when one of them chases after him to squash him like a mosquito. The demands upon the staff, who have to ensure everyone's safety, are enormous.

I received a phone call early one morning from the director of a Crisis Respite Center. "Ellis, we have this kid here and we don't know what to do with him. He is threatening to staff and has a violent temper. He spent several years in Allister House (a facility for mentally disturbed kids), and it came out that he had been systematically raping the younger children, terrifying them so badly that it is sure that many have never told. He's in the foster-care system. He can't return home to his family, that's impossible; he was horribly abused there when he was young. We're concerned about him being here, and also, what kind of treatment he needs. He is a pretty scary kid, and it's hard to figure out what is intimidation and what is really dangerous. Would you come out and assess him?"

Much has been written over the millennia about the nature of evil. When does a man or woman step over a line, if such a line exists, where we are justified in no longer merely condemning their acts, but the person as well? When, if ever, is an evil act the manifestation of a corrupt soul, a voluntary embrace with evil?

I have met many violent young men and women over the years. They are often lazy. One boy said to me: "Crime is the easiest job there is." They often crave pack acceptance so much that whatever their friends are doing, they will also do, despite misgivings. They often have impaired judgment. They use drugs or alcohol, and their emotions are fueled, then, as much by chemicals as by anything innate to them. They often are people with a low tolerance for any sort of frustration. There is seemingly no space between desire and the act. There is a sense of entitlement: if I want it, then I deserve it. All of these traits, however, are merely an accentuation of one or another of the more venal characteristics of all humanity. Such a person is not someone to trust, or even to like, but they are not incomprehensible. They are of the same breed as we are.

There are some, however, who seem to have set as their life task to extinguish the painful demands of conscience. At the same time, some of these people take sadistic delight in the pain of others. There is some research that suggests a capacity to distance oneself from the trauma of violence, particularly the trauma incurred when inflicting violence, is, in part, hard-wired genetics. There are people born to be comfortable with violence.

There is also research that indicates that severe trauma, particularly early in childhood, leads to unpredictable neurological changes--some children develop into timid and fearful adults, others are resilient and compassionate. Yet others are exploitative, manipulative or even further--feral conscienceless beings who have seemingly disappeared from the community of men and women. For them, other people are objects of use that move in and out of their field of perception. Their capacity to form attachments to others is minimal or even absent. When contact with another human being engenders a feeling of sensitivity or vulnerability, their reaction is often a deep and profound pain, the pain felt by the exile upon tasting the scent of home on the wind, a pain so deep that they may respond by trying to extinguish that which causes the feeling, which is usually the capacity for sensitivity, or even, in the most extreme cases, the human being who evokes the response.

No one really knows how or why some people migrate to that dark star, leaving the world of love and conscience behind. Most criminals have a capacity, to some degree, to turn compassion and empathy on and off. Others can feel it to a limited degree, but only for people within their circle. In the course of a wide-ranging conversation, I once told a young man in jail about the sense of violation I felt in having my house robbed. His brow wrinkled in sympathy, and he said, spontaneously, "Yeah, it's like someone rapes you or something." He was, as best as I could tell, outraged for me--and he was a burglar!

There are, then, a few people, who have schooled themselves to have no openings, no vulnerabilities whatsoever, to respond with detachment to what they feel they have to do or want to do. If that sounds dangerously close to the image we have of the warrior, good! It's food for thought isn't it?

---

I was already sitting in the room, waiting for him when he came in. He was a boy of wire and bone, narrow features with startlingly full, sensual lips and dirty-blonde hair. The moment he saw me, he started whirling and kicking in self-made karate, kicks of surprising precision lashing out towards me. I don't know if this was merely an attempt to show that he was tough and I'd better keep my distance, or if, in the incredible intuition of the feral and predatory, he somehow "knew" that I was trained in martial arts. Predators often have intimate access to their fear as well as their rage and perhaps, in this manner, he intended to frighten me in return, thereby letting us start on "equal" terms.

I didn't move from my chair as his feet cut the air--he was careful not to kick too close. After a minute or two, I gestured towards a sofa, saying, "Why don't you sit down, Jared?"

He threw himself in a chair, slumped down, and said, "I've been training karate for seven years! One of these days, I'm going to tear someone up. Maybe one of these staff bitches," and as if jerked by an electric prod, leapt back to his feet, and shadow-boxed and kicked in the center of the room again. He looked at me with a kind of wired glee, prancing like an imp in the coals of a fire. At my request, he sat down again and slumped, torpid as a lizard on a rock. It was as if his immobility was as much an act of will as his movement--he never could be said to be relaxed.

We talked about the place he was staying, which he did not like, and his family, whom he idealized, despite their abuse and abandonment of him. He told me how tough he was, and how, despite our difference in size, how he was sure he could take me if he wanted to. He was like quicksilver--he never responded to my questions directly, skittering off in one tangent or another, attempting to keep me off balance with threats, complaints and silliness. He didn't care if I liked him or hated him or even if I remained alive for one more minute. I was just this "thing" he had to talk to.

I asked him about the well-substantiated reports of his rapes, and he smirked, and said, "Yeah, I did do that. But I'd never do it again."

"Why not?" I asked.

"Because it's wrong," he said, making not even the slightest effort to place a tone of sincerity in his voice.

"I feel sorry for you, then," I said. This evoked a reaction--a flare of emotion emerging from behind the flat screen of his eyes; a fire banked.

"Why's that?" he asked.

I then said something that is not necessarily true, because sexual deviancy is far more complex, but I wished to find out who he was and hopefully, to evoke some truth from him. "Well, everybody knows that guys who like sex with little children can't have sex with people their own age. They just can't do it. So, if you aren't going to rape kids anymore, I guess you won't ever have sex with anyone your whole life. I feel sorry for you." At the last, my voice softened with compassion, which was real; despite my hatred of what he had done, he was still little more than a child, and I could feel sorry for him the same way I could for a brutalized pit bull, frightening and dangerous though it may be.

He rounded on me, angry. "I can too have sex with people my own age!" He said a few more sentences to "substantiate" this, but as he was talking, he picked up a teddy bear that was lying on the couch of the room, and unconsciously, with almost no visible effort, ripped its arms off. He noticed my eyes drop to his hands, and he looked down and saw what he had done.

He smiled at me, and his voice a lilting tone, said, "Aw, it's broke now." Then, placing the arms back to the body, "All fixed now!" Pulling them away, "Broke again." Back together. "Fixed again. Broke again. Fixed again. Brokeagainfixedagainbrokeagain. . . ." He stopped, and continued to smile as he unconcernedly cast the doll, arms and all, away from him onto the floor.

Our interview concluded soon afterwards. I had touched the core of pain from which he was trying so hard to distance himself. The result. Rage. I was sure that if he could have done so, he would have dismembered me just like the doll.

My recommendation was that he needed to start over somehow--to learn from the beginning how to act as a human being, to be placed in a dependent situation so that he would have to bond to caregivers like a small child. He would have to somehow be placed in a restricted 24-hour setting which would, at least, teach him that his own best interests lay in "acting" like other people. A few such programs exist, and based on this recommendation, he was placed in one.

He lasted six months. As intensive a procedure as it sounds, the person has to have a fundamental desire to return to humanity, in the same way that an addict must have a bone-aching desire to stop using drugs if treatment is to have any effect. "Returning" means to experience all the pain that one shut down in becoming a conscienceless being. Jared did not have the courage for this anymore. He had already embraced the cold reptilian safety of solitary hatred and pure self-interest. He physically assaulted staff and other youth, and was expelled. His parting words were, "I was born to rape, and there's nothing anyone can do about it."

Because of the way the laws are written, by destroying his placement in this secure facility, he was returned to the care of the foster-care system--his "parents," who were not mandated to lock him up. Once again, he went back to the same Crisis Respite Center.

He was there only a week or so when he exploded with rage towards the staff at being required to pick up some clothes. He kicked a hole in the wall, and trashed the furniture. As they called the police, Jared ran out the door with two women staff in hot pursuit. Young and lithe, he left them behind, and entered a school ground, coming upon two young 12-year-old girls. He dove upon one of them, and in broad daylight, in the middle of a sidewalk, began to rape her. Only a few moments later, the staff found him and managed to pull him off.

Aged 16, he was tried as an adult, and will be doing, I believe, 15 years in prison.

Several months later, before his sentencing, I saw him in detention from a distance. Although in the open recreation hall, he was isolated from the other boys, not because of his crime, but due to his demeanor, coiled within himself in bands of hatred. After years in the gladiator schools of our modern penal system, God help us all when he gets out.

The philosopher Derrida refers to the "community of the question." All of us who live in the martial world, either through our profession or through our avocation in combative arts, face similar questions when it comes to the responsibility we incur through our acquisition of power. So I ask the following question, not to get any answers from you, but perhaps to evoke the question within you:

Am I a moral failure in that I did not kill him?

When I interviewed that boy, I knew what he was capable of doing. I had no expectation that treatment would help him, but that was the best suggestion I could come up with. I knew he would, sooner or later, do something horrible to some poor child.

Is it my responsibility merely to offer therapy to those I can, teach as many people as I can how to protect themselves from violence, saving myself to raise my sons, saving myself, therefore, from the consequences of what I knew was going to happen?

I could have saved the child he raped an unimaginable world of pain, and probably other children, too, when he finally gets out of prison. Were you to hear that I had killed him, solely based on my intuition and assessment, what would be your reaction?

My own answer to this question is the choice I made, but I will be haunted until my death at the thought of that child, her flesh ground into a sidewalk, the sun beating down upon her pain, indifferent as the flat, shark eyes of her rapist.

What, then, is the sword that gives life?

---

Copyright ©2000 Ellis Amdur. All rights reserved.