Friday, November 5, 2010

Subsidiarity and First Things

Subsidiarity is a principle of sanity. It says something about where things should be done.

You are sitting behind the steering wheel of a car, for instance, and it is your responsibility to drive. The back-seat passenger, in spite of whatever anxious inclination he may feel at the moment, is not the driver. He should not be driving from the back seat. You can take this principle--that there is an appropriate context for action--and apply it to economics, or to politics, or to business, or to religion. That is subsidiarity in a nutshell.

Subsidiarity stops nonsense in its tracks. Yesterday I came across a bit of propaganda comparing terrorism with health care reform (or the lack thereof). The advertisement was presented in the following way: At the top of the poster there is depicted an enormous pile of little skulls--a veritable field of death--representing all of the people, we are told, who died because they did not have health insurance. Down at the bottom is one little skull apart from the others, and that one tiny bit of death represents all of the people killed by the terrorists.

This reveals a great mystery. The demise of Homo erectus, for example, is now perfectly understood. No insurance! It is a miracle that our species has survived. My upper-paleolithic ancestors of the Aurignacian culture surely knew the life preserving secrets of the primitive HMO. Along with cave paintings, we can now confidently count health-plan technology among the tools of the ancients. If people die because they don't have health insurance, then it is only logical to infer that the cavemen who survived to pass on their genes must have had it.

This is stupidity, of course. People don't die because they lack health insurance. They die because of great age, injury, violence, or illness. People are not made older, injured, murdered, or sickened by lack of insurance. Thus, if we want to make claims that are at least reasonable and sane, we must admit that death comes about through nature, ignorance, or misfortune. With this knowledge, we can then plan appropriately to improve our chances at life by addressing, as directly as possible, the root causes of the problem we wish to avoid. Then we can focus on a much smaller secondary problem: how to get out of a scrape. That is what subsidiarity helps us accomplish.

It isn't so simple, though. I struggle for the glory of heaven while the Buddhist seeks the tranquility of personal annihilation. Lord Rosebery might want to be filled with "spiritual tremors," but Chesterton prefers to be filled with jam.1 What point is there talking about the proper roles of drivers and passengers, if there is nowhere to go and no car to drive? We don't agree about what we want, or even about what is possible or needed.

Even supposing we have got an idea of what we want, as soon as we look closely at it, it becomes elusive--especially when we say it must be done at the right level and not just at the lowest possible one. We say we want education, but we aren't quite sure what that means. Subsidiarity can point us in a number of directions based on our view of things, and what if our view is not really what we want and we don't even know it? What if we have second or third-order ignorance? What if we are begging for the wrong gifts? This brings me to a comment I made recently in another forum, from which I extracted my aphorism #10, and which I have edited and now include here:

I notice that we talk about teaching as if teaching were a first thing. Without the possibility of learning, there is no teaching.

But there is no objective quality that one can label "learning." This, however, does not discourage us from attempting to quantify every possible aspect of teaching. What is the proper style of education? Where does the responsibility of education belong? We are adamant that our children will be taught, but cannot seem to make them learn.

Not only should subsidiarity put things where they belong, but it should also allow them to remain in the right perspective.

Should I worry if I can’t teach my children Calculus, Latin, or any other subject? I wish to bestow the best gifts on them, but what if I can’t? Is there someone who must? Is that what subsidiarity demands?

Richard Feynman learned how to calculate at the age of 13 and was rather bothered when he discovered that his own father couldn’t quite make heads or tails of it. Feynman knew he needed to learn, so he did. No one had to teach him, but he learned anyway.

Certainly a liberal education is a very beneficial thing. But it is, nevertheless terribly fortunate, for instance, that David Farragut wasn’t given a liberal education. Imagine the national tragedy that might have ensued had the boy been properly schooled. National tragedies happen every day in classrooms where some (probably most) children simply don't belong.

My daughter loves rock and roll. She once asked me for an electric guitar. I said, “Do you really want a guitar? Then make it yourself!” That ought to discourage any foolish aspirations. I have no idea how to make an electric guitar. Guess what? It seems my daughter does, or at least is willing to make the attempt. I tried to give her good advice on how to do part of it. After ruining things according to my specifications, she redid it on her own. It worked out brilliantly without my interference. And what if I, who had the power and the right to grant a wish, had given her what she asked for instead?

It seems that gifts, when trivially bestowed, offend great desires. Subsidiarity, if it is to be right, must not demand the acceptance of gifts.

Subsidiarity has to be a very passive thing. There is a potential for right action at many levels, it is true; but right action awakens only under the current of human will and when there is a possibility for channeling it. Because a thing can be done, even at an appropriate level, does not mean that it must be done or that a way must be found.

Without the desire to receive, it is an injustice to give. Without the desire to learn, it is a tragedy to teach (and a waste of precious time). Without the need to use or to enjoy, there is no directive for making. Without the possibility of ever being, why set about realizing a proper policy for becoming?

It is, perhaps, a small thing to ask if something is done in the proper way or at the proper level. The greater question is whether the thing must be done at all. That too is a part of subsidiarity.

1. Works of Gilbert Keith Chesterton from MobileReference, version 10.1, Kindle location 112,426-59.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Aphorism #10

Gifts, when trivially bestowed, offend great desires.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Time to Vote

It's time for me to make up my mind again and, as usual, I have a dozen shades of vanilla to choose from. Do I choose the obnoxious, in-your-face vanilla, or do I prefer the more subtle, sophisticated vanilla? Can I even tell the difference? I am assured by the advertisements that the differences are clear. This candidate is so sweet, the others so bitter! Or, so they all claim.

The interesting thing is the vehemence of our politics. This is interesting when you think about who is typically vehement.

For instance, I understand that identical twins are sometimes terribly desperate. Even siblings who are close to each other in age are great rivals. This disruptive tendency in children seems less when the age difference is greater.

Women frequently despise other women while men engage each other in heated competition. Often if you put the man and the woman together, though, there emerges a blissful peace! That is to say, there is peace right up until these two different people discover their relative equality. In the moment that each individual's otherness fades from the partner's view, war erupts.

At the national level, we find that most wars happen between nations that share something in common, such as a border or natural resources.

There is greater strife between religious sects that claim the same god than there is between those religions whose gods and beliefs radically diverge.

If anything, political campaigns grow uglier even as they become more alike. The polarization of the American public isn't so much about our differences as it is our equality. We cherish our equality, yet it tears us apart. The limbo-world of equality is a terrible thing; we're always looking for a way out.

I don't see spectacular differences in the political platforms of the various candidates vying for votes in my precinct. For one thing, they all seem to agree on what the issues are. Certainly they all agree that politics is about "the issues."

All of the candidates on my ballot hold the identical view that education, for instance, has something to do with economics, and that health is something dispensed from a health care provider. If their particular ideas about these things aren't exactly alike, at least they agree about what the problem is.

Where I live, all of the candidates agree that immigration is a problem and that we should do something about it. They all believe in the rule of law. They all venerate the Constitution. They all believe, quite regardless of party affiliation, in the "sanctity of life" and in the traditional nature of marriage. They all agree that government should be limited.

None of this abundant and essential agreement has made for kinder, gentler politics. Isn't consensus supposed to result in peace and harmony? Not if we are interested in personal ownership of orthodoxy and right belief. It is almost more important for similar people to tell scandalous stories about each other than it is to speak for themselves. When men, who were evidently created equal, begin to tell their own stories, there arises a terrifying possibility that all of the stories will be the same. After all, what does equal mean if not the same? Why choose between same things?

My test for political preference has become the humanist test. In other words, do people really matter to politics, or is some other ideal elevated above flesh and blood? Is government for people, or are people for government? Do we first have to discover and worship some sublime ideal--some fundamental law--before we can be of suitable service to our neighbors? What is the nature of the civic relationship between citizens and government? Is it an abstract relationship, defined primarily by money, or is it a concrete relationship, defined by the giving of ones' self through service?

Sadly, I find very little of the humanist principle in the local political landscape. Almost everyone has some other, loftier cause that must first be served in order for humanity to ultimately profit. It is said that we have to return to the right principle, which is honor, or justice, or the rule of law, or the Constitution, or the free market. We've lost faith in ourselves--in mere people--to do anything for each other. The word on the street is that, if you want things done and if you want to see change, then you have to get the right person in office. That way, money changes hands, contractors are hired, and the world is made well again.

We've always wanted someone else to save us. When the Hebrews couldn't worship their golden calf, they began to worship their laws instead. The laws would save them!

But it seems that God Himself grew weary of their oblations and their devotion to holy ideals. What a strange new thing, this god who does not care so much for cultic worship. Instead He says, "Learn to do right, seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow."

We still don't believe it; not where I live. Our most pious politicians can hardly countenance those poor wretches who are most in need of charity. An invasion is what they are. Get the filth out of here! Give the lawbreakers what they deserve. We're surrounded by them; deviants, the licentious, baby killers, illegals. Who will put an end to it? Hide them from us--cast them out! The rule of law! The Constitution! These politicians, who draw close to God with their lips, are modern-day Pharisees.

I even read a statement from one party claiming that foreign aid in the form of private charity is a great evil. I'm well acquainted with the arguments against government charity, but this was news to me. Apparently even the Catholic Relief Services and the Peace Corps are sowers of famine and destruction. I had a sudden vision of apoplectic old Gudge, who, "if you mention poverty to him, he roars at you in a thick, hoarse voice something that is conjectured to be, 'Do 'em good!'"

"It is true that there is a thing crudely called charity," continues Chesterton, "which means charity to the deserving poor, but charity to the deserving is not charity at all, but justice."

I like that quote, but I'll be called a socialist for bringing it up. I'm sour because I'm a sorry socialist who can't find the right Marxist candidate this year. I'm just bitter because of all the successful people. I want to steal their property from them and redistribute all of it in order to create even more of that maddening equality.

Nonsense. I'm just looking for something different. I want to see someone, just once, suggest that maybe the cure for education isn't more funding. Maybe learning has a more glorious purpose than to make us fit to compete with the Chinese. I want to hear a confession from a politician about how health care and disease care are two different things, and that we don't need much money, or any experts, to take care of our health. I'd like to see someone suggest, if we really believe that families are important, that we should actually live as if they were. Perhaps then all of the other arguments surrounding the purpose of families and marriages would just go away.

I want to see a politician acknowledge that economy starts at home and not on Wall Street. Maybe then we wouldn't harbor anger about government bailouts of the bankers who duped us--because we couldn't be duped in the first place. I want to see someone put the humane treatment and merciful consideration of the millions of illegal immigrants as #1 instead of #4 on his list of guiding principles for immigration policy (if he even acknowledges that illegals are human beings in the first place).

Finally, I want to hear someone tell me that, if something is wrong in the world, I don't have to wait until election day to fix it.

I'd vote for that person.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

What Is True, What Is Good

There is a nascent secular mass-movement brimming with men (and women) of words: the self-styled intellectuals. Eric Hoffer identified the conspicuous presence of such individuals as "The Temper of Our Time." Their business is a business of debunking, as is usual with all nascent mass-movements. The purpose of debunking is to disrupt the status quo, at which point there enters a towering need for new things.

What is it that these people debunk? It is a way of knowing. We are told that there is one proper way of knowing, which is called reason. This is not a new idea, merely a new movement for an old idea.

To know is to find truth, and we are taught to believe that to know the truth is to know the good. Evidence brings forth reason, which brings forth truth, which is the Good.

This last connection is never satisfactorily explained. I suppose this is because it is never explained at all. How is the truth the same as the good? This is supposed to be self-evident--an axiom of the movement--yet it is perfectly unclear. Man has known for hundreds of years, at least, that the true and the good are different things. We have come to think that the true we know, but the good we feel.

But there it is: Should we discover true laws of economics, the laws become holy. No one shall meddle. If we see a natural cause for a defect in the body, the defect itself becomes a sacred thing. If we gain the ability to create some new wonder, it must be done. If we achieve technology, it will save us. Progress is the sign of a god who is dead, or better yet, who is man.

Herein lies the abundant irony of the modern secular mass-movement, an irony that sets it apart from all other movements since the dawn of history. This new thing is apparently driven by activists who feel justified in their claims of the good simply by virtue of their method of discovering the true. They would like to legislate truth, mistaking it for goodness. This is a primitive mode of thinking; the very sort, in fact, which they seek to debunk!

It has not occurred to these intellectuals, when they speak of the Good, that they have cast aside their reason and have wholly entered the realm of those whom they despise.

Perhaps this is why they lack success. They have nothing new to offer besides a new religion.

I can't seem to find the right words to tell them this. After all, it is not easy to get through to the religiously minded with an appeal to reason.

Aphorism #9

Culture is not something defended or justified. It is something lived. Perhaps it is accurate to say that one cannot protect what one does not have.

Aphorism #8

A belief in men behind curtains produces religious people as surely as a belief in God. A man behind a curtain is any whose ideas are sufficiently remote, inscrutable, or difficult for the believer to grasp himself.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

The World Has Changed Us



























































  3. Ibid. p. 22
  13. Capitalism and Communism. Fr. Vincent McNabb.

Monday, July 19, 2010

Vote Fascist for a Third Glorious Decade of Total Law Enforcement















* * *
  1. Competition instead of cooperation.
  2. Liberal individualism with its complete dedication to negative liberty.
Let us consider these points one at a time.










* * *










* * *






Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Aphorism #7

The qualities of the individual personality do not concern us. We do not ask if one is temperate, skilled, or thoughtful. We only ask whether one can afford to buy health, goods, or education. It is man's riches or poverty--his means or lack thereof--that make him stand out. Money makes inconsequential what it cannot buy.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Aphorism #6

Argument is more than disagreement. We claim a right to argue but seem to have lost much of the power to do so. Perhaps this has to do with a shift in our values: As with many other things, the value we place on speech has become quantitative in nature. It matters little what we say, only that we say much. Most importantly, perhaps, is that we can afford to speak last. One thing is certain: we will not want for lively debate.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Summary And Concluding Arguments for "Rights Abdicated", by Peter McCombs and David W. Cooney

This is the concluding article in the series on Rights Abdicated, which consists of the following previous articles:

Rights Abdicated: The 2nd Amendment and an Appeal to Logic
Rebuttal to "Rights Abdicated", by David W. Cooney
In Defense of "Rights Abdicated"
Response to "In Defense of 'Rights Abdicated'", by David W. Cooney

I am very pleased to have had thoughtful argument from David on this topic. For those of you who are interested in other work that David has written, please see his web site, Practical Distributism. David approaches a number of current social and economic topics from the standpoint of Distributism.

It seems to me that David adds more dimension to this argument than opposition. However, that is for the reader to decide. For myself, I have begun to think with more attention about the difference between rights and powers as well as the specific meaning of "a right".

In this article, I will present the summary of my arguments for "Rights Abdicated" as well as some final remarks. I will then include David's summary and his closing remarks. Although this concludes the debate, I welcome additional commentary on the subject from any side. It is often through argument that I refine my thoughts and ideas.

* * *

In my argument entitled, "Rights Abdicated: The 2nd Amendment and an Appeal to Logic", I made the following claims:
  1. That some rights are transferable, or alienable.
  2. That alienable rights are important in self-government.
  3. That once a right has been vested in another party, it can no longer be exercised except through the one authorized.
  4. That the Second Amendment describes such an alienable right as demonstrated by the logical analysis of the amendment.
  5. That we ought to carefully consider the ways in which we allow our rights to be delegated (or abdicated) to others. 
In defense of my original argument, I introduced some additional points:
  1. That the American system makes use of the Social Contract.
  2. That all rights to means are alienable rights.
  3. That rights under any contract are governed by positive law.
  4. That when contracted rights are retained by the people, it is only through an unjust act of bad faith or through provisions in the contract itself that regulate the portion of rights granted and retained based on specific contexts (casuistry).
  5. That some rights are obligations that we will choose to give up for the sake of freedom in other things.
It is not important to my argument whether or not there are other reasons for the second amendment right to bear arms other than the reason provided by the authors of the Constitution. For a natural (or inalienable) right, any reason given for the right must be completely sound. However, since the one reason given for the right to bear arms is clearly no longer relevant to our standing relative to the federal government, modus ponens is sufficient to show beyond doubt that the right to bear arms is an alienable right to a means and not a natural inalienable right to an end. I do believe, however, that the right to bear arms is an extension of the natural right to protection.

To the extent that we delegate our means of protection to armies, mercenaries, and to police forces, our right to bear arms is proportionally reduced and regulated. As an example of this, I point to the fact that we must now obtain permits in order to conceal and carry a firearm. We are also prohibited from obtaining some kinds of specialized arms, such as nuclear or biological weapons. The economy of protection has also made other specialized weapons quite beyond the reach of private individuals. We may not act as or impersonate a police officer or a soldier because we lack the proper authority to do so. We have given that authority to others.

These regulations are all part of the social contract we have entered into when we authorized others to act on our behalf. The capability to defend ourselves against the very organizations that we authorize for our protection is greatly reduced. We must therefore have faith in them always to act in our best interest. Although we may still bear arms, the right we now enjoy is governed by positive law and has become a privilege. We believe that we have better served our inalienable right to protection by vesting others with the right to defend us.

I further reiterate the nature of the social contract. While I acknowledge criticisms of the social contract that question how (or if) it may originate and what its limits are, these questions are not important to the argument. What is important is that only alienable rights are susceptible to the social contract and that these rights are no longer exercised in the context conceived by their natural reasons.

I consider the large-scale abdication of alienable rights to be a national tragedy. Such a course leaves many individuals and communities at the mercy of a "majority" with whom they do not agree. This damages and destroys self-government wherever these rights are more properly delegated at a local level.

I do not limit my argument to the right to bear arms. For example, I claim a right to raise my own children. I teach them at home and do not send them to school. A natural right is one that does not require special permission for its use, yet I must obtain permission annually if I want to keep my family together at home. If I do not get this permission, a man with a gun is authorized to visit my house and enforce compliance. I could be forced to adhere to standards that are not my own or risk losing my kids.

The truth is, I no longer have a right to my own children, but a regulated privilege. This is because the right to children is an obligation that we, as a majority, ceased to desire in favor of ever increasing options in the area of ease and prosperity. In order to gain the freedom of careers and of financial gain, the State has been granted much of the power and authority once held exclusively by parents. Those few of us who still desire to maintain our exclusive rights must struggle against a rising tide that threatens to sweep us away.

There are probably many other examples of Rights Abdicated. Some of us will refuse to acknowledge our own hand in this tragedy. Others will remain in delusion, as those who trade raw diamonds for pretty glass trinkets. Such will argue that they never lost their rights, only improved them.

It seems to me that, like Esau who sold his birthright for a "mess of pottage" and then blamed others for his loss, we prefer to resent a government perceived as oppressive rather than taking steps to make fundamental changes to our lives and to our culture in order to reclaim what we have given away.

* * *

David's summary and closing remarks are as follows:

The summary of my position in regard to our current discussion is divided into two areas.  The first area is that of the Constitution in general and the Second Amendment in particular.  The second area is the scope to which the application of the abdication of rights involved in a social or other contract may logically be applied.

The Constitution

The Constitution and the first ten amendments to it must be viewed according to the intent of the authors in order to understand the provisions and how they were intended to be applied.  The purpose of the Constitution was to define and limit the scope of the revised federal government they were proposing to the American people.  The federal government was only to have those powers explicitly and clearly given to it in the Constitution. In fact, they were so adamant about this, that they did not want to include the Bill of Rights because they feared that, if they started listing any specific rights retained by the states and the people, it would end up being interpreted exactly how it is now being interpreted; that the rights and limitations of the states and people are also defined by the Constitution.  

This is how you are presenting the Second Amendment; as though the inclusion of a reason for not disarming the public means that, if the government claims to eliminate the reason, the public no longer has the right not to be disarmed.  The Constitution was never intended to limit the states and people to any extent beyond those powers absolutely needed to be given to the federal government to perform the explicit and limited powers granted to it.  Any and all other rights and powers that can be said to exist remain with the states and the people, so it is not only not necessary to list them, but it is unwise to even start listing them because of the false interpretation that such a list would cause.

A perfect example of this is found in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.  I don't have my copies handy, but when they debated Section 8 of Article 1, the Anti-Federalists argued that the term "general welfare" was too vague and could be taken to mean anything.  The Federalists pointed out that the the Constitution itself defines exactly what is meant by general welfare in that same section.  All of Section 8 is one sentence.  It starts out by stating the general purpose of the powers of Congress, and then, using no division other than semi-colons, lists those specific powers which Congress is allowed to employ to fulfill those purposes.  At the end of that long sentence, Congress is given the power to make laws to fulfill the limited powers of the federal government, but is explicitly limited to only those laws which are both "necessary and proper" to do so.

In regard to the power of the federal government to raise an army, taking into account the Second Amendment, the federal government is not empowered to disarm the public because doing so is not necessary to raise an army.  History is clear that it is entirely possible to have an army and an armed public, therefore there is no necessity to disarm the public in order to fulfill the ability of the federal government to raise an army.  If it is not necessary, the federal government has no authority to make such a law because it is specifically only given the power to pass those laws which are both necessary and proper.

The view of the Federalists, the Anti-Federalists, and of the people in general is that government in general cannot be trusted, and that a remote government (and they all viewed the federal government as a remote government) could be trusted even less.  This is absolutely clear from their writings.  They hoped the states and the people would jealously guard against any attempt by the federal government to increase its centralized power by binding it with the "chains" provided in the Constitution.  In the end, the Federalists only agreed to include the Bill of Rights because they realized that it was the only way to get the new Constitution ratified.

The Abdication of Rights, With a Particular Consideration of the Second Amendment

I do not deny that one can abdicate or otherwise forgo rights.  However, the argument you present is that abdicating rights can actually separate them from you.  The authors of the Constitution, however, believed that certain rights were inalienable; therefore, even if you abdicated them in any way, they still remained with you and you remained free to exercise them at any time you felt the need.  If you remain free to claim and exercise your inalienable rights, then you logically must also retain the right to access to the means necessary to do so.

In the case of claiming your right to self-defense, you have the right to secure those means necessary to succeed in claiming them.  This right, like the inalienable right itself, remains with you at all times as a logical necessity.  Attempts to disarm the public deprive them of the means necessary to defend themselves against armed aggressors.  It is no use to say that, once you are attacked, you "regain" this right.  Once you are attacked it is too late.  If you are standing on the street and some thug threatens you with a gun, will he wait while you go to the gun store to buy a weapon for your own defense?  Will he wait while you call the police to come and defend you on your behalf?  That is nonsense.  

The right to self defense necessarily includes the right to prepare for that defense ahead of time.  Because self-defense is an inalienable right, the corresponding right to arm oneself is also inalienable. Not only that, but the fact that the purpose of this right is self-defense, you have the right to secure whatever weapons you feel you may need to defend yourself.  It is useless, in a practical sense, to defend yourself with a sword if your aggressor is armed with a gun.

This can easily be seen in how the Second Amendment was viewed prior to the very recent arguments that the government somehow now possesses the right to disarm the public.  The government had as standing army long before these arguments were being made.  Likewise, communities had established law enforcement long before these arguments were being made.  Was the establishment of these viewed as the elimination of the right for the general public to arm themselves with whatever weapons were available?  No.  In the mid 19th century, you could not only order all manner of hand-held guns, but even cannon, through the Sears & Roebuck Catalog.  They would ship them directly to your house.  

The right to do this was assumed, therefore the social contracts establishing the police and armies did not constitute an abdication of the right to arm yourself, because they were never intended to defend everyone, everywhere, and at all times. Those social contracts were made with the understanding that there will remain times when the established law enforcement won't be available for any number of legitimate reasons, and, therefore, the people would need to be able to act in order to defend themselves, or even others when the need arose.  In order to do this, they must be allowed to arm themselves in preparation for it.  The government was not assumed to posses the right to restrict, or even track through registration, the exercise of this right.  In fact the opposite is clearly the case.  The government is assumed NOT to posses such rights because restrictions would be a violation of the inalienable right of the people and tracking is not authorized by the constitutions that limit the powers of government.