A Citizen's Dilemma

As an individual, I'm fairly certain that I will benefit from the recent Citizens United ruling. As an employee of a corporation in a sector that does substantial lobbying to get laws passed to its benefit, it stands to reason that I will benefit also. Those favorable laws and actions keep employment and wages in this sector high, likely increasing my future income. So, in my role of individual, my best interest lies with maintaining the status quo.

However, as a citizen, I worry about the distortions that occur when money is used to amplify demands upon the government - especially when those amplifications are unequal, sometimes brought about by sector profitability that in turn is enlarged by increased sector lobbying. I might easily take up the argument, presented by Robert Reich in his book Supercapitalism, that only citizens have the right of free speech, and all political contributions should have to come directly from a citizen's income (after tax, take home pay!) - and that as non-citizens, businesses, corporations, non-profits, foreigners - in short, any entity that is not directly a citizen of the country, cannot make contributions nor lobby our government.

So, instead of the corporation for which I work being able to take company profits and lobby the government for more favorable laws to maintain and increase those profits, I would have to do so myself (if I thought it worthwhile), or perhaps pool with my fellow employees and do so.

Since it would be straightforward to assume that laws will be passed (under this second idea) that prevent a corporation from making contributions by funneling the money into an employee's hands with the purpose of passing on to lobbying, this sort of regime should level the playing field, and allow those in society that don't have access to such deep pockets a greater voice. That, in turn, should create more even laws across all sectors of our society, but the effect may be that in my particular sector, the reduction in lobbying power will curtail future profits, and perhaps my future wages (fn1) also (or, more likely, future wage growth).

So, we have a citizen's dilemma: How does one choose between courses of action when the interests of the individual conflict with the interests of the citizen? What is the moral basis for determining which is the correct decision?


(fn1: Those who know me and my work my find it unlikely that the outcomes will be much different, i.e., Neither outcome is likely to see me flirting with either poverty nor riches, nor would it for most individual/citizens. The likely difference is probably just a few percent over many years, so the moral arguments will have to be similarly nuanced and subtle. However, one can easily see that for some individuals in our society, the difference in outcomes is much larger, and hence the personal dilemma they face.)

Women Are Not Moral Agents And Must Be Subjugated For Their Protection (And Male Gratification)

That would be your conclusion if you listen to the current rhetoric or view the pending legislation emanating from the Republican members of Congress. Clearly, women are incapable of making moral decisions, and must remain subjugated in the best interests of society.

We have a long history of the difficulties women face when accusing a man of rape. They, rather than the accused, often go on trial: How were they dressed, how did they act – it's not enough that they didn't wish to have sex, or that they perhaps indicated as much; unless they took every precaution, denied him at every turn, perhaps they wished it? And now, we have bills presented that would change a rape victim's status to that of 'rape accuser'.

Notice how that changes our perception: A victim is somehow noble, pure, while an accuser can be dirty, have hidden motives, perhaps even speak falsely.

The underlying issue is this: How are men to engage in pre- or extra-marital sex if they can be easily convicted of rape? Their reputations can be tarnished, their marriages split, if women are empowered to accuse them of their dirty actions. No, better to cast doubt on the woman's actions, make it difficult for her to prove, have society aid by labeling her a tramp, a floozy, a trollop. She's not a victim, but just an accuser (it wasn't rape, until she realized he wouldn't leave his wife for her, he'll argue.)

Strange how father-daughter chastity balls have become popular amongst the conservative crowd: But where are the mother-son chastity balls? Why isn't abstention of equal importance for men as it is for women? Why shouldn't the penalties for pre- and extra-marital sex be high for men, also?

Men have had it good for so long: In the dominant position, women were property, sex could be taken at will, and any women who dared to speak up would have to suffer humiliation, while the men could brag about their exploits, free from any pejoratives.

The attempts to keep women subjugated continue, by denying them moral agency. Movements abound to force a rehearing of Roe v. Wade, in the hopes that it will be overturned. More stringent anti-abortion laws have been proposed (including the condoning of vigilantism in South Dakota!). Strangely, even the availability of contraceptives (which can prevent the conditions that would lead to abortion!) have been under continued attack (I see that Planned Parenthood faces a major funding cut under the proposed Republican budget). All appears to be part of an effort to force women to bear more children – which continues the power asymmetry, forcing women into marriage for economic reasons, or forcing them to bear the economic difficulties of attempting to raise children alone while working (which aids in keeping them from rising as far in the workplace.)

The position taken is that abortion is an absolute moral wrong. Interestingly, though, allowances are made for medical reasons, and instances of rape (and the aforementioned changes appear to be an attack on closing this loophole.) Most religious organizations have accepted that abortion in cases of rape and incest is allowable.

But that reveals that abortion is not an absolute: That it is a decision, that a choice can be made between this life and that life. It sets up judges and doctors as moral arbiters, but denies moral agency to those most affected by the decision: The pregnant woman. It continues our history of female subjugation, suggesting that men are more capable moral agents, and that women are not suited to make difficult decisions for themselves.

Our views of personal liberty should suggest otherwise. Our views should always motivate us to give individual moral agency as freely as possible – that is the very meaning of liberty. We want those closest to the question, those who will live with the consequences, to have the freedom to make the decision. Equality is there, too: If we tier our giving of moral agency, then we are creating inequality, also.

Women are equal moral agents to men (and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary!), fully capable of engaging in moral and civic life to the same degree as men. And in the case of abortion, the woman, who for whatever reasons is considering it, is the individual who will be most affected, who will most carry the consequences, who will remember. So, it only stands to reason in a free and equal society, that the pregnant woman, perhaps in consult with her friend, her clergy, her doctor, her husband, or perhaps alone, is given the right to exercise her moral agency and make the decision without interference.

There is nothing in these proposed laws that make society a better, freer place in which to exercise our individual liberty. They are decidedly skewed towards female subjugation, towards returning to a previous time. But when the previous time involved deep subjugation, an asymmetry of power, there is nothing noble about either the time or the conditions that made it so.

Sure, some men will argue that without these laws they are losing some of their liberty. But, any freedom that comes from inequality is a false freedom, for it can be quickly lost if power shifts. No, real, enduring liberty comes only when it is derived from the interactions of equal members of society, exercising their moral agency, and equally free to do so. Equal members who have to adhere to the same social mores, the same customs, where an interaction is not asymmetrical, but equally acceptable or equally unacceptable.

It also means the freedom to choose the life that we will live, defined by the choices we make. We have the liberty to choose as unacceptable some behavior, and refrain from that behavior ourselves (and perhaps influence others to copy our actions!). But in claiming that freedom, we must have the courage to grant the same freedom to all others, and the wisdom to comprehend that they won't all make the same choices we make, and will live different lives. Freedom is multifaceted, and attempts to constrain it to a single viewpoint, such as these Republican proposed laws, must be met and beaten back in the interests of all.

Copyright Tax?

In our current state of affairs, everything written gets copyright protection from the moment it is created, and for the next 99 years. This blanket protection now outlives the creator of any new work, and provides a major hurdle for new creators to derive or build upon previous work.

Sure, the answer is easy: They just have to get permission of the copyright holder to use his or her work. However, as outlined in 'Free Culture' by Dr L. Lessig, identifying the copyright holder can be more than just difficult, and in the case of music remixing, require so many holders to be identified and tracked down to post inquires to that making the derivative work is no longer viable.

I question society's benefit from such stringent and long-lived copyright laws. Not only do they restrict creativity, but they lower the possibility of competition (remember, the golden tenet of a free market society?), and pump up salaries in several fields beyond what a non-monopolized market would produce (think sports, movies, performers).

Initial copyright protection was granted for just 7 years, with a one-time renewal of an additional 7 years if the creator so wished. I would think this would be quite sufficient for the majority of cases: Either the creation is no longer worth much (if anything!) after 14 years, and could freely enter the public domain, or so much income has been received by the creator (think JKRowling) that allowing the creation to enter the public domain will not have any real affect upon their well-being.

But there are those who feel that having control of their creation is important, regardless of whether they are earning income. Perhaps Ms Rowling wouldn't want to have others writing stories featuring Harry Potter (and doing a much worse / the same / better job).

So, in the interests of getting the bulk of human creativity into the public domain quickly where it can be used as a springboard for more creativity, but allowing those few instances where there is a compelling interest in keeping it out, (and recognizing that giving copyright protection is to create a form of property), perhaps we should just allow those who want to extend their exclusive rights to their creation the option of doing so by paying a tax.

The tax would be proportional to the property's value (like all property taxes), but have a high enough minimum to prevent speculative holding of copyrights. Granted, this would still give large corporations an advantage of maintaining long-lived copyrights, but at least they would have to continually evaluate (and pay!) to do so, rather than periodically extending copyright (via legislative lobbying) in a blanket manner that prevents all works from entering the public domain.

It doesn't solve all problems surrounding copyright, but if we were to return to a seven year copyright, and then force those who want to extend their rights to at least pay a tax, perhaps it would solve many.

A reasonable proposition? Or seriously flawed? I submit this idea to a jury of my peers...

The Bigotry Of Bankers

Last week I labored. I didn't do my normal, sit-in-my-chair job of programming, but instead really worked. I framed my basement. Twelve hour days, late dinners, tired muscles. And, I realized just how much a life of leisure I live. I sit for eight hours, take my lunch at the proscribed time, make up activities just to get a little physical exertion. Sure, lifting and bicycling get my heart-rate up, but in the end, I have nothing to show for the effort: The world has not been changed, other than some extra calories burned.

But physically building, assembling something – making a structure where none stood before: That is real work. As I labored, I thought about how those who have forgotten what it means to work with their hands often look down on those who still remember: The economists for whom a day laborer is just an interchangeable unit of output, unable to command a higher salary due to the low level of education required; The Banker who believes his or her output is somehow superior due to the extra education attained and money's fungible nature.

But during the last decade, when the financiers of Wall Street paid themselves ever greater salaries and bonuses as they repackaged ever more mortgage backed securities, justifying it on the grounds that they were making large contributions to the economy, who was it that was really providing the wealth of the nation? Why, it was the laborers who were building the houses that were being securitized: The framers, the drywallers, the electricians and plumbers, the surveyors and roofers and concrete workers. Wall Street extracted its profits on the backs of those who do the work – and to add insult, the unscrupulous mortgage brokers who had nothing to lose by writing liar's loans, often saddled those same laborers with houses they couldn't afford.

When Wall Street's house of cards came tumbling down, who has paid a disproportionate share of the cost through extended and high unemployment? Why, it is those same individuals who created the wealth that Wall Street pilfered.

Yet, an unrepentant Financial Industry has beaten back attempts to write regulations and increase taxes that would move some of their ill-gotten wealth back to those who did the actual creating. Crying foul, they continue to justify what they do as something vitally important: That without them and their expertise, the economy couldn't run.

However, they are only partially correct: Money and finance are necessary components of our world, but not sufficient. In order for money to have any value, in order for a loan to return a profit, there must by some underlying worker who is actually creating something of use; building, modifying, molding. Wealth comes from the bottom up.

Bankers are experts in obfuscating this simple fact by the language they use, their allusions to (unproven) economic principles, their appeals to politicians who receive their money.

Fortunately for us, however, by pretending that they aren't riding on the backs of all of the workers of society, by claiming theirs is a privileged position that must be paid 20, 30, 100+ times what a laborer makes, their bigotry is plainly visible for all to see.

Protecting One's Nose

Benjamin Franklin famously said, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." A libertarian would probably rephrase it thus: "Your right to complain about my swinging fist begins at the tip of your nose."

In many ways, the libertarian viewpoint on when we can complain, when we can limit another's behavior is the right stance to take. It helps us remember that we don't want to overly constrain others, because we want to retain the right for ourselves to pursue our version of happiness without interference from the rest of society.

I find it strangely odd that pushes to limit who we can choose as living partners, as life partners, as marriage partners, issues from the pro-libertarian party. Sure, for decades they trumped up reasons why limiting marriage to heterosexuals protected society's (metaphorical) nose, but as each was debunked, their continued stance against same-sex marriage reveals instead a very non-libertarian viewpoint.

True libertarianism requires a highly developed sense of reciprocity - the ability to recognize that creating societal restrictions requires a strong proof that society will improve as a result, and that the restrictions don't constrain a minority's choices (paradoxically, at least to much of what is espoused as libertarian thinking, regulations fit this test: Requiring that businesses adhere to minimum quality standards allows consumers greater freedom to choose from competing products without fear of becoming the guinea pig for poison, and still gives business the options to select how and what to make). Restricting others simply because you don't like what they are doing is a form of tyranny, not liberty.

Choosing who we associate with, who we share our lives with, should be a fundamental right of all in society. Everyone should be free to make that choice without restrictions - sure, you can impose limits on yourself based upon your world-view, but really, it endangers your nose not one bit if instead of choosing Jill, Jack prefers John, and Ann and Beth want to move in next door.

It is high time that true, reciprocal thinking enters our debate on same-sex marriage, and that those who would maintain true liberty for choosing our lives stand up and drown out the tyrannical calls of those pseudo-libertarians who would instead impose their views - views that increase our liberty not one bit!