Government Based Upon Natural Law - (Part 14) - Health Care

What is the current state of health care in the U.S. 

Currently our government is subsidizing health care in many ways, such as with the programs of Medicare (for those of retirement age) and Medicaid (for the poor), as well and other health-care laws passed by Congress. In addition most people still get heath insurance from their employer.  And anyone who walks into a county hospital can get medical care. 

Medicaid is not a very well-run program.  The amount it reimburses doctors is so low that many doctors do not take Medicaid patients.  My doctor takes Medicaid patients but only if they pay up front for the services provided.  The patient can then send the paperwork to the government to get reimbursed.

There are a number of unworkable and undesirable other things about the way the health care is handled.  One is that these programs are underfunded by over $40 trillion.  This means that the government has made health care promises but eventually not enough income to meet them, so some changes will have to be made.  Even so, not everyone is covered.  And we spend about 16% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health care, higher than almost all other countries in the world.

Most people receive health-insurance subsidies from their employer, which creates its own sets of problems.  For instance, if a person quits their job or is fired, they must find another company to work for, or they must soon find their own health insurance. And if they have any pre-existing health conditions, this insurance could be prohibitively expensive.  The only reason employers got involved with providing health insurance for its employees was that during World War II, the government made it a tax write off, as an encouragement to employers.  It no longer makes any sense to have employers involved with health insurance, and creates many inefficiencies and problems.

On the other hand, most Americans are happy with the quality of health care that they receive. Therefore, we want to maintain at least the same quality, while providing good health care to all, and at an affordable price to the taxpayers.

(Eventually, likely many decades from now, we will be prosperous enough so that almost all people would be able to provide their own health care.  The few remaining individuals who cannot do so could easily be provided for through charity.  At that point the government would have no role, except for the important role of having laws that protect consumers from fraud, etc. While it may be ideal for most of us to be prosperous enough to provide our own health care, it is something that will have to come about only when prosperity for most ensues).

Therefore, for the foreseeable future, I think that health care, like education, should be subsidized for all Americans (and permanent residents).  And Americans should be able to choose their own doctors, chiropractors, osteopaths, ophthalmologists, dentists, etc., that they believe best meets their needs. 

What is the best way we can provide pretty good health care for all? 

My proposal will 1) Provide health care for all Americans, 2) Do so affordably using taxes, 3) Remove the pre-existing condition problem, and 4) Be fully funded, so that we don't pass on more debt to our children.  

The essence of the proposal is to provide and fund a Health-Care Account (HCA) for each American adult, paid for through taxes.  Half of this amount would be used to purchase a high-deductible health insurance policy, and the other half would be used to pay for medical services until the deductible is met. For most people, in most years, the deductible won't be met.  Keep in mind that money for the deductible is part of the HCA and would be paid for using a patient's HCA card. 

Specifically, the government would take 10% of GDP, and provide an equal amount of this to every adult (age 18 or older).  With a GDP in 2013 of about $17 trillion, this comes out to over $12,000 per year per adult.  Thus each adult would use their HCA card buy a $6,000 per year (in 2013 dollars) high-deductible health-insurance policy, and would have $6,000 per year to spend as cash (using their HCA card) for their deductible. This very high deductible greatly helps to keep the insurance premium down.  Also, the health-insurance companies that wish to be involved in this would also be required to provide insurance for any children the adult may have. 

Here's an example as to how this would work. We'll assume that all Americans and permanent residents already have been given their HCA card.  You have the flu and go to the doctor of your choice.  Say the doctor charges $150 for a visit.  You would provide your HCA card and $150 would be deducted from your $6,000 deductible.  And that's it. It costs you nothing, and your doctor gets paid immediately.  

Now suppose that something catastrophic occurs, such as a fall resulting in two broken legs and a concussion.  The hospital costs would likely be more than the $6,000 deductible.  The hospital would first use whatever deductible was left on you HCA card, and then your insurance company would pay the remainder of the costs at 100%.  

This would provide very good coverage for all, and would save money at the same time, since we would be spending 10% of GDP on health care instead of 16%.  And it would still keep the advantages of a free-market in health care, because patients could choose their own doctors, hospitals, etc.  This is what would make it better than the "single-payer" plans that most developed countries have, because they dictate the cost of doctor's visits, as well as the costs of various procedures, and lead to many delays in obtaining health care. 

What would health-insurance companies need to do to qualify to be part of this program?  

The United States Congress would certify participating insurance companies who would have to agree to accept the amounts given above and would have to agree to accept any person, regardless of any pre-existing conditions.  They would also have to agree to insure any children of the covered adult. As is true now, they would also have to be fiscally sound. 

Also, once a person has met the deductible, their insurance company would have to agree cover 100% of covered medical costs.  There would be no more co-payments for the year.

Would health insurance companies want to participate in this program? 

Yes.  Keep in mind that these payments start at age 18.  Usually, people up to the age of 40 or 50 would not meet their deductible, but the health-insurance companies would be getting premiums during this time.  People who are older or are frequently ill would be using the insurance most years, and so essentially insurance companies would be making money on most young or healthy people, and losing money on older or less healthy people.  The difference should provide a reasonable profit for an insurance company, so that many would want to be a participant in this program.  This cushion of starting to get premiums at age 18 should also provide enough money to be able to handle the costs of pre-existing conditions.  The specifics as to what is covered and what isn't would need to be worked out so as to insure that insurance companies would want to participate. 

Q and A's

Since this would be a new government program, would it require a tax increase?

All things being equal, it would require a tax increase.  But the overall cost to individuals would decrease.  This is because they would no longer be paying their part of the health insurance provided by their employer.  Also, companies would be saving money because they would no longer be providing health insurance, and they would no longer have to have large human resource departments to deal with this.  Thus, they could afford to give raises to their employees.

Would eye care and dental care be covered?

Yes, this would be required of all participating insurance companies. 

Would all medical conditions and procedures be covered, and would coverage be unlimited? 

No. Just as now, certain conditions are not covered by Medicare, certain conditions would not be covered by this plan.  For example, a heart transplant would likely not be covered.  Similarly, cosmetic surgery would not be covered, although one could use the cash portion to pay for it. Also, a person could accumulated cash in their account which they would be able to use this for such procedures. 

Probably a lifetime maximum of around $2 million would be in place.  It's important to get good coverage for all, so some limitations must apply for this to occur.  

Would this program replace all other government health-care programs?  

Yes, and that is one way the government will save money on health-care programs.  No programs such as Medicare and Medicaid would be needed.  Taxpayers would also save money because they would no longer have to pay for county hospitals because everyone would be covered.  (A possible exception is that veterans who are injured in the line of duty would not have the limitations mentioned above.  They would have the same essential plan but any injuries they sustained would be covered, and the lifetime maximum would be increased.  There would be no more need for Veteran's Hospitals, since veterans could get their health care at any hospital). 

Studies have shown that people who take care of themselves physically spend less on health care.  Would there be incentives in place to encourage this?  

The government would not directly apply such incentives, but insurance companies would be allowed to.  For instance, an insurance company could say, "If you keep your weight in the ideal range for your age and sex, and if you keep yourself reasonably fit, and if you get regular physical, eye-care and dental checkups, we'll refund a portion of your monthly payment, and you can use that money anyway you wish."

This would be a valuable incentive to keep ourselves physically healthy.  And of course there would be the additional benefit that healthier individuals are happier and more productive. 

Are you sure it would be a good idea to sever the relationship between employment and health care? 

Very much so.  Economist Albert Brenner has said this about health care: “ Industry and commerce are not well-served by a labor force unwilling to change jobs for fear of losing health-insurance benefits.  I have seen little discussion of this issue in connection with health care reform, but health-insurance benefits are a major reason for individuals to accept employment and to continue their employment even if they are not satisfied, challenged, or motivated by their job.  The current system thereby promotes an inefficient utilization of labor by restricting labor mobility.  This inefficiency reduces productivity, profits, and economic growth and output.  Since labor costs are by far the single largest resource cost in the production of goods and services, a reform that promises to make labor utilization more efficient promises to improve productivity and to increase economic output.” 

Would health-insurance co-operatives be allowed to participate? 

Yes, as long as they meet the same regulatory standards that for-profit health-insurance companies must meet.
(Health insurance co-operatives are owned by those who purchase health-insurance policies through them.  Any profits made can be returned to the policy owners, or can be used to reduce premiums.  Thus, they may wish to provide additional incentives for its members to be physically fit). 

What could a person do with money that accumulates in their HCA? 

They could do a number of things.  A person could choose to get a refund each year for any deductible money they did not use. This would provide an incentive to find good, yet cost-effective doctors and hospitals. 

Also, they would be allowed to transfer their money to another's account.  This could be useful if, for example, a family member needed a heart transplant, or something that wasn't covered by the insurance policy.

And they could stipulate in their will that any excess money be given to another person(s).  This would add more incentive to take care of oneself physically. 

Could a person use their own money to get additional benefits by increasing their health-insurance premiums?

Certainly.  This must be the case in a free country. 

Can the well-off do something to lessen the cost of this program? 

Yes.  There should be an easy way for someone to opt out of this program, and those that are well-to-do would be encouraged to do so.  For instance, the government might ask those families who earn over $150,000 to opt out of the program and pay for their own medical care.  As our country becomes more prosperous, more people would be able to opt out, saving the government money.  The government could send a nice thank-you letter each year to individuals who opted out, to show their appreciation. 

Would this program be constitutional?

Although the Supreme Court would likely rule it to be, I don't think it would be constitutional.  There is nothing in the Constitution about the government providing health-care subsidies.  Therefore, I would want a Constitutional Amendment passed to allow for this program. The amendment would specify that up to 10% of GDP could be used for the subsidy, and that sufficient taxes should be levied so that no debt would arise as a result of it. 

It would also state that this subsidy is not a right. This is because I don't believe one can have a right that requires someone else to pay for that right. 

As an aside, are there other subsidies that you’d like the government to provide? 

Yes.  Until our civilization advances enough, I believe that government should subsidize both education and health care for all.

Additionally, I’ve previously described a Natural-Resource Dividend.  This is an amount of money that would be given each month to every American adult, to compensate for others’ use of our common natural resources. 

For example, a  family would be getting about $2000 per month from the Natural-Resource Dividend, plus government-subsidized health care and education.  These should provide a reasonable economic base for families, and would also allow most mothers of young children to not have to work for money.

Between these subsidies and the Natural-Resource Dividend, we can eliminate all other subsidies that the government provides, both to businesses and individuals.  This would save a large sum of money by eliminating all of the bureaucracy involved in these programs. 

Note also a very important point: every American would be given the same amount of money for each of these subsidies.  This will save money by reducing the bureaucracy involved, and will satisfy the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution as well as the 14th Amendment, which are both meant to have laws that apply equally to all citizens. 

Conclusion 

Having a health-care subsidy that a) provides good health care to all Americans without going into debt; b) that saves money as well; c) that encourages us to take care of our physical health; and d) that still allows individuals free choices as to how to obtain their health care, is a plan that we should adopt as soon as possible.

_____________________________________

 
Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

Government Based Upon Natural Law - (Part 6) - Military Policy

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, and to have with them as little political connection as possible.” 

George Washington

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations but entangling alliances with none.” 

Thomas Jefferson

 

Introduction

We should have cordial relations with all countries who act peacefully.  No peaceful country ought to be afraid that the United States will ever attempt to conquer it or forcibly take away its natural resources.

To countries or groups that have ill intentions toward us, our firm message should be: It would be a grave mistake to attack us, because you will end up suffering more than we will.  “Speak softly and carry a big stick” was not bad advice from Teddy Roosevelt.

We ought not to preach to other countries about how they should behave, or what their economic or political systems should be.  This has frequently led to them resenting us, rather than appreciating our good intentions.  The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund attempt to do this, and we should have nothing to do with them.

Rather, we should be humble and set a good example for other countries to follow.  What this means politically is that our government should protect our right to be free to live our lives as we deem best, as long as we don’t interfere with the right of others to do the same.

And what this means individually is that each of us ought to love our Creator and love others, by treating others as children of our Creator, and by using our talents to help make the world a better place. 

US Military Policy 

Purpose 

The purpose of the United States military should be to defend the USA if it is attacked, and to prevent an attack if a country or group has said that it intends to attack us.  This also includes eliminating in some fashion those who have already attacked us.

A possible addition to this is that if a close ally of ours is attacked, and if they request our assistance, and if we are able to help, we should carefully consider whether to use our military to aid the ally. 

Having the Best Military in the World 

Of course, the best outcome of having the best military in the world is that no rational country would attack us or even threaten to attack us. And indeed, since we developed nuclear weapons, not a single country has attacked us.

The quality of our troops, their training, and the quality of our leadership are the reasons why we have the best military.  And along with this is that we have thousands of nuclear weapons. (We used to have over 30,000 but it seems like having 1,000 would be enough of a deterrent, and much less expensive to maintain).

Some people have a desire to have a 'nuclear free' world, meaning that all nuclear weapons should be dismantled.  This is a terrible idea.  Our enemies would be ecstatic if we got rid of our nuclear weapons.  And, of course, there is no way to be sure that all other countries do not have or will not develop nuclear weapons.  Furthermore, our nuclear weapons are the greatest deterrent to those who would consider attacking us. As mentioned above, not a single country has attacked us since we developed nuclear weapons.

And because the United States is not imperialistic and does not steal natural resources from other countries, I suspect that if you privately asked most people around the world which country should have the best military, they would choose the USA. 

We should not be the Policeman of the World 

One implication of the purpose of the military given above is that we should not be the policemen of the world.  People and countries have fought each other since the beginning of recorded history, and it is not the business or purpose of the United States to intervene in such fights, unless, of course, we are attacked or threatened with an attack.  The last war that we should have fought was World War II.  Our wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have been misguided, although they were likely well intentioned.

Another implication of this is that we should not have our military stationed in any other countries, unless we are at war.  Currently, we have troops stationed in over 100 countries.  How many countries have troops stationed in the United States? None. This has created enmity and dependency, as well costing taxpayers a great deal of money.  It may help to create temporary stability in a given region, but is this truly our business? 

The Department of Defense has stated that we even need fewer military bases in the USA, but Congress has been loathe to remove bases in the states that they represent, for fear of losing jobs. 

How Different Would our Military be given the above Purpose of the Military 

If we eliminated foreign bases, wouldn't our ability to defend ourselves be degraded?  I think the opposite would be the case.  Countries would no longer be telling us to mind our own business, and terrorists would not be telling us to get out of their countries, and would have fewer reasons to attack us.

Here's a brief summary of what I believe would be the best way to protect our country:

1) Remove our troops from all foreign countries (over time).

2) We would not even need a standing army, because we are not going to get involved with policing the world, or overturning governments.

3) We could use the National Guard in this country to strictly guard our borders and ports.  Their main purpose would be to see that no WMDs, especially nuclear bombs are smuggled into this country.  And the secondary purpose would be to see that those who come into our country are legally allowed to be here.

4) As far as threats from other countries, we can use our intelligence agencies (which can of course operate overseas), our intelligence-gathering space satellites, and our Aircraft Carrier Groups, which operate in international waters, and that dominate the oceans.  No sneak attacks from other countries are at all likely to occur.

5) As far as threats from terrorist groups or other such groups who wish to harm us, again our intelligence agencies are the main line of defense, along with the border and port controls.  If an overseas threat is found, we would send in our Special Operations groups to eliminate those threats. 

Note that if all countries had this same military philosophy, there would be no war! 

Conclusion 

Following these military policies will, in the long run, bring the world close to peace, because we would not be interfering with other countries, and we would be setting a good example for other countries to follow.

A very nice side benefit is that this could almost cut in half the military budget, and make us safer at the same time.

One other way to reduce the likelihood of war will be discussed in a future post.  It deals with free trade.
______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

Government Based Upon Natural Law - (Part 15) - Voting System Reform

Why do we need voting-system reform when our current system seems to be working fine?

The biggest problem with the current implementation of our voting system is that it virtually guarantees that the two current major political parties will continue to dominate, winning most of the elected positions in government.  And it should be apparent to all that the predominant interest of both parties is either to get into power or to stay in power.  For instance, neither party has balanced the federal budget for decades (with rare exceptions) because they fear losing the votes of the particular constituencies. This is because Congress would have to raise taxes or cut spending. We need people in government who will do what is best for our country, without worrying about their re-election chances. 

What are some solutions to this, related to the voting system?

1) The first solution offers a way to lessen the impact that the two major political parties have by making it easier for third-party and/or independent candidates to get elected. The current system is designed so that either a Republican or Democrat gets elected. The solution offered here is to change our voting system to what is usually called an "Instant-Run-Off" voting system. 

A traditional run-off election occurs when it is required that the winner get at least 50% of the vote. If more than two people are running, it is possible that no one gets over 50%.  If so, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated, and a new vote takes place. This process continues until one of the candidates gets over 50% of the votes cast.

An instant-run-off voting system gives the same results as a traditional run-off election, except that each voter need vote only once in the instant-run-off voting system. In the instant-run-off system, the voter indicates his/her preferences by numbering the names of the candidates from 1 to N, where N is the number of candidates. It's very easy for the voter to do; and with electronic voting, it would be even easier, with the voting machine asking for the voter's number 1 choice, and then asking for their number 2 choice, etc. 

When the votes are first counted, only the number 1 choice on each ballot is counted. If no number 1 candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, the candidate with the fewest number 1 votes is eliminated.  Then, on only those ballots that have chosen this candidate as their number 1 choice, their number 2 choice is now used for the second balloting. This continues until someone gets over 50% of the votes.

It can be shown that this voting procedure reflects voters' desires better than the usual plurality voting that just picks the candidate that gets the most votes, because a candidate may get elected without a majority of the votes cast. A number of cities in the U.S. use this system, as well as some other countries. (For more details see the Wikipedia entry on the Instant-Run-Off voting system). 

Instant-run-off voting allows voters to actually vote for the candidates they prefer, and not feel compelled to vote for who they think might win. Currently, when voting, if you'd prefer a particular candidate you think won't win, you may vote for a candidate that you think can win so that you're not "wasting" your vote. With an instant-run-off system, you can vote the way you desire, and if your candidate gets eliminated, your next-highest candidate replaces the eliminated one, so your vote would not be wasted. Thus, voters could truly vote their conscience without worrying that their vote would be meaningless.

Another advantage to this system is that it allows us to get a better idea as to who the voters truly wish to elect, because the results for each round will be made public.

Something that we have in place now that fits well with the instant-run-off voting system is that most jurisdictions allow a person to get on a ballot if he or she receives a certain number of signatures from voters in their jurisdiction. Then, in such a system, all such candidates who qualify would be put on the ballot. The voter then ranks each candidate, and that's all the voter needs to do.

2) Another important proposal that complements the instant-run-off system is a simple-but-important modification to the current system: for the government to stop putting a candidate's political-party affiliation on ballots.  There is nothing in the Constitution about political parties, so there is no prohibition against this idea.  Not putting a candidate's party next to his/her name would require more knowledge on a voter's part – and that is a very good thing. Besides, people can bring names of their candidates into the election booth.

Implementing these quite reasonable and eminently fair actions would go a long way toward reducing the power of the two major current political parties, thus improving the chances that government reforms that could actually benefit the people could come about. 

I'd be very happy if both of those voting reforms were made, because both of these reforms would lead to a better democracy.

////////////////////////////////////////////

The last voting reform I'm suggesting here may sound more controversial, but it's hard for me to find good reasons not to do it, and easy to find a number of good reasons to do it.  So here it is.

3) This reform (an amendment to the Constitution) would require that before a citizen has the right to vote, he or she must pass a fairly simple test on the Constitution and US History.  Let's say the voting age is 18. A person could begin attempting to pass the test starting at, say, age 14. There would be no limit as to how many times a person could take the test.  The test would only have to be passed once to earn the right to vote forever.

This reform would have a grandfather clause that would allow citizens who are already able to vote without having to take the test. Also, citizens under the age of 14 would not have to pass the test in order to vote when they are 18.

The test itself would consist of true/false and multiple-choice questions and be similar in structure and difficulty to the Citizenship Test that new citizens must pass. All questions must be approved by Congress.

For example, one question might be: "True or False: One of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution is 'To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes'."  The answer to this is true, and indicates the type of question that would be appropriate for the test.

Another might be, "Who is the 16th President of the United States?" This would be a multiple choice question whose answer I leave to the reader.

Probably the best thing to do is to have Congress pick say 200 questions. Then a person taking the test would be given 50 of those questions at random. Thus, none of the questions could be considered to be partisan or biased toward a certain political point of view.

The advantages to this are numerous.  For one, schools would all start teaching children more about the Constitution and US History, so that their students could pass the test. (Teachers and everyone else would have access to the 200 questions that Congress picked). This in itself is enough to warrant this voting reform.

Also, since voters would now be more familiar with the Constitution, they would more likely complain to their representatives if a piece of legislation is proposed that does not seem to be authorized by the Constitution.

And lastly, only those citizens who take voting seriously would likely take and pass the test.

Conclusion

These voting reforms would improve our democracy and likely result in better-elected officials, because the electorate would be better informed. Therefore, they would be an important part of the comprehensive government reforms needed to make our country better.

______________________________________

 

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

 

Separation of Education and State

Don’t you mean, “Separation of Church and State?”

No, although they are related more closely than one might think. Here’s a quotation from the First Amendment of the Constitution with respect to religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This amendment prohibited Congress from creating a national religion, such as “The Church of the United States.” It also prohibited Congress from passing laws restricting the free exercise of religion.

Was this done because the Founding Fathers didn’t feel that religion was important?

Actually, it was just the opposite. The Founding Fathers felt that our country could not survive without strong religious and moral principles. But they felt that such personal beliefs about one’s faith should be up to the individual, and not dictated by the government. Additionally, they wanted to avoid infighting caused by differences in people’s beliefs, which would only be exacerbated by having laws related to religion.

Religion was too important to the Founding Fathers to have government involved in it.

How does this view relate to education?

The Founding Fathers felt that religion was essential to education. After all, how could one get a good education without a religious basis? Since all things flow from our Creator, so should all aspects of our lives.

What did the Founding Fathers actually say about religion and its role in education?

Sit back for a moment and enjoy the following quotations, some of which may surprise you.

In 1787, the year the Constitution was approved by Congress, they also passed the Northwest Ordinance. In it they outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territory, enumerated some basic human rights and also said:

“Article 3: Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

George Washington said in his Farwell Address:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion or religious principle.”

In order to exclude the dissensions of individual denominations so as to make the teaching of religion a unifying cultural adhesive rather than a divisive apparatus, Thomas Jefferson wrote a bill for the “Establishing of Elementary Schools” in Virginia in which he wanted to emphasize that the only religious tenets that could be taught in public schools were those that were universally accepted by all faiths:

“No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination.”

Jefferson later proposed that the University of Virginia extend its facilities to the various denominations so that each student could worship and study in the church of his choice. He wrote:

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed, by eliminating religious instruction, their only firm basis – a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?”

Benjamin Franklin wrote to the President of Yale University:

“Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion.”

These basic beliefs were shared by almost all of the Founding Fathers, and they sometimes referred to them as the “religion of America.” Samuel Adams said that “the religion of America is the religion of all mankind.” Thus they could be taught in schools without be offensive.

John Adams called these beliefs the general principles on which the American civilization had been founded.

Jefferson called these basic beliefs the principles “in which God has united us all.” With respect to the University of Virginia, he suggested that the responsibility for teaching:

"The proofs of the being of God, the creator, preserver, and supreme ruler of the universe, the author of all the relation of morality, and of the laws and obligations these infer, will be within the province of the professor of ethics.”

Doesn’t this contradict the idea of “Separation of Church and State?”

Not at all. The clauses of the Constitution given above were meant only to prohibit the federal government from passing laws interfering with religion. And the federal government has no authority with respect to education. The Founders expected that the States would deal with education and that schools would teach the basic religious principles given above.

So why don’t we teach these principles in our public schools today?

That’s a long story and has mainly to do with a number of Supreme Court decisions that restricted what public schools could teach with respect to religion.

Furthermore, even though Franklin’s general religious principles would be accepted by most Americans today, they would not be accepted by all. So between the decisions of the Supreme Court and the beliefs of the current U.S. population, it doesn’t appear that such religious principles will be taught again in public schools.

And to make my position clear, even though I agree with Franklin’s religious principles, I don’t want to force them (or any other belief system) on those who don’t agree with them. So it is no longer proper to teach such in public schools.

So what’s the problem? After all, parents can teach their children about religion, and so can churches.

It’s true that parents and churches can teach their children religion. The problem is that most children spend a great deal of time in school. And if their school doesn’t incorporate religion, children are put into an artificial position of keeping education separate from religion. This, frankly, is ridiculous. We are here as children of God to grow toward God, to love one another, and to help make the world a better place. These are the basic premises of most Americans and yet not a word of this can be taught in our public schools. This leads to a complete disconnect between our true, spiritual selves, and what we are being taught in schools. Without God, what is even the purpose of education?

So what should we do about this?

Because public schools are no longer a place where spiritual principles can or should be taught, and because it is not possible to separate spirituality from education, there is only one realistic answer.

And that answer is to separate out two different functions of government: that of subsidizing education and that of running schools. When we say "public education" we usually mean both, but this does not have to be so. Indeed, it should not be so.

Let government subsidize education by giving parents vouchers to send their child to the school of their choice. Then, if a school taught spiritual principles, there would be no reason for anyone to complain, because parents could send their child to a school that teaches whatever belief system they wish. Thus, there would be true freedom in education.

Furthermore, it would help to stop the artificial disconnect between our spiritual natures, and our other natures. Our bodies, minds and souls are meant to work together in our effort to grow toward God, and this cannot be done when we must forcibly keep spirituality out of schools. This has even spilled over into science, where it is frowned upon to even consider that God or his helpers might have been involved with the world. We have gotten to the point where Einstein’s idea that studying science was his attempt to understand the mind of God would today be considered prosaic, if not unscientific.

Yes, it is time now to separate government from education so that all parents (not just those who are well-off) may once again have their children taught as they deem best. For it is the parents who are ultimately responsible for their children’s moral, spiritual, and intellectual growth.

For detailed information about how school choice would work, click here for my blog post on this.

___________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
_____________________________________

Why Liberals Should be Liberal

What is Liberalism, anyway?

We can’t have an edifying discussion about liberals and liberalism without defining these terms, otherwise confusion could result. So I’ve looked up a couple of terms from a number of sources, and here are some definitions that I’ll use:

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom") is the belief in the importance of individual liberty.

Classical liberalism refers to a political philosophy that is committed to liberalism: to the ideas of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, and free markets.

Liberal refers to a person who believes in liberalism.

These definitions fit well together. Liberalism is a belief, and classical liberalism is a political philosophy that reflects this belief. A liberal is a person who believes in liberalism, and would seemingly embrace classical liberalism as a political philosophy. But some people who consider themselves to be liberals do not embrace the political philosophy of classical liberalism. The purpose of this post is to convince them to do so.

Just to be up front about it, using these definitions I am a liberal. And my political philosophy is that of classical liberalism. Today, the term libertarianism is more often used than classical liberalism.

Also, it is very important to note that individual liberty does not mean that a person can do anything he or she wants to do. Rather it means that a person can think what he wants, and can do what he wants as long as this action does not infringe on the individual liberty of others. Usually, this means that actions that cause another person harm are not part of the concept of liberty. To put it another way, liberty implies that actions that affect others be voluntary and informed. So murder, rape, theft, and assault are not voluntary, and so violate liberty. Similarly, fraud, patent violations, and incomplete disclosure of relevant issues are a form of theft, and thus also violate liberty. On the other hand, playing football in the NFL may well cause harm, but players are playing the game voluntarily, so this would not violate liberty.

So what’s the problem?

The problem is that many people in America, who call themselves liberal, are, in many ways, not liberal. That is to say, they do not seem to foster individual liberty.

To give some examples, let’s first consider public education. There are two components to public education and it is important to distinguish between them. One component is that government subsidizes education. The other component is the government decides how students are to be educated. These are quite different, but frequently this difference is not made explicit.

Most of us agree that the government should subsidize education.

On the other hand, it seems to me that anyone who calls themselves a liberal would allow this government-subsidy of education to be controlled by the parents of the child getting the education. They are responsible for their children, and should be free to choose whatever school they wish for their child using this subsidy. It would be a substantial violation of liberty for a government to only subsidize the schools that it runs, for then it can teach whatever it feels is best, even if some of what is taught violates the beliefs of the parents.

One can argue that if parents don’t like their public school, they can send their child to a private school. But this is only possible if the parents have enough money to do so. In practice, this means that the well-off get to choose their child’s school, but the not-so-well-off don’t. And since we all pay for schools, all parents should be free to choose how their children get educated.

This is not the place discuss the details as to how this would be implemented, but one thing I would do would be to take all of the education money a state has collected (in Texas this is around $9,000 per student) and give parents an educational voucher worth this amount for each school-aged child they have. They can use this voucher to send their child to any accredited public, private or parochial school of their choice. The freedom to educate one’s child as parents see fit ought to be the foundation of liberalism.

//////////////////////////

Another example has to do with government spending. Virtually everyone wants government, and everyone wants government to pass laws that protect individual liberty – the right of individuals to lead their lives as they wish, as long as they allow others to do the same. At the same time, most of us do not want government to pass laws controlling what we think, we our religion should be, where we work, etc. This can be summarized by saying that we wish a limited government that protects our right to be free. And our Constitution (which includes all of the amendments to it) does this by enumerating the powers of Congress and the President.

Unfortunately, the part of the Constitution that limits what Congress can do has received scant attention for decades now. From Social Security to Medicare to laws that prohibit the use of certain drugs, the Constitution does not give Congress the right to implement these. For instance, Social Security was passed in 1935 during FDR’s administration as part of a package we call the “New Deal.” In 1937, the Supreme Court struck down many of the provisions of this package as being unconstitutional, because no authority was given to Congress to pass such laws. FDR threatened to pack the court with more Justices that he would pick, and eventually the Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that the New Deal package was constitutional. If the gentle reader is in doubt about whether these items are permissible according the Constitution, I invite him to read the enumerated powers and see if any of these are there.

This started a trend, which has been increasingly exacerbated over the decades, such that Congress essentially ignores the enumerated powers clause. For instance, you are probably aware that the Constitution was amended to prohibit the sale and use of alcohol, commonly called prohibition. Amending the Constitution was the right thing to do since Congress had no constitutional authority to prohibit the use of alcohol. It was a terrible amendment, and was repealed, of course, but at least they didn’t ignore the Constitution. Since then, Congress has passed many laws prohibiting the use of many substances. Do you remember when the Constitution was amended to allow them to do so? Neither do I.

So what are some of the results of these extra-constitutional incursions? For one, it is estimated that Social Security and Medicare are underfunded by around 50 to 70 trillion dollars! This means that the money we are currently paying for them, the FICA taxes, are not enough to cover the promised benefits by this amount. Worse, these entitlement programs, along with the interest on the national debt are expected to consume the entire federal budget within a few decades unless some drastic steps are taken. This would leave no money for the things like defense or anything else that are actually authorized by the Constitution.

Just the interest on the national debt in fiscal year 2009 was about $3,500 per family. In 2010 it is expected to be over $4,000 per family, and will keep growing each year for the foreseeable future.

What does this have to do with liberalism? To be a liberal means to believe in freedom. And you can’t be free without money. With the astounding growth of the federal government, more and more of the money we earn is being taken, and more and more is used just to pay for entitlement programs and interest on the national debt. This means that each year we are less and less free to live as we wish. The solution? Amend the Constitution to require Congress to balance the budget, and to limit its spending to, say, 20% of Gross Domestic Product. It would take time to get to do this, but once we do, we’d start being more prosperous, and thus freer than we have been for a long time.

//////////////////////

A final example of what it would mean to be a liberal has to do with the United States becoming the world’s policemen. We have over 360,000 troops stationed in over 150 countries. I can’t even name 150 countries, but go to one of them and you’ll find American troops. What does this have to do with liberalism? It is not our duty or right to police the world. It creates enmity toward us, and likely doubles the cost of our military. We could bring our troops home, reduce their number, protect our ports and borders, train them in disaster management and emergency medical care, and give them a raise. The result is a more protected country, less enmity from others, and less defense expenditures. We would still have the best military in the world by far, and would likely be safer than we are, since many of our enemies don’t like us in their countries. At a far lesser cost, we could just do intelligence gathering overseas in order to attempt to root out those who intend to harm us. Less cost and a safer country means more freedom for us.

/////////////////////

Those are just a few examples of what we liberals should want. One could fill a 100 gigabyte hard drive with other examples, but mine is only 80 gigabyes.

“Power to the people” is what a true liberal wants. “Power to the government” is what the communists want. And we know where that leads.

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

The Supreme Court Overturns McCain-Feingold Campaign Funding Laws

Background

Congress passed the “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002” commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act. In part, it prohibited national political parties from raising or spending funds that violate federal spending limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion.

It also prohibited broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibited any such ad paid for by a corporation, including non-profit corporations.

And Now…

On January 20, 2010, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down large portions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, especially those aspects of the law that imposed restrictions on corporate spending on political issues. Essentially the Supreme Court said that, “the Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity.”

Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, wrote, "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence."

He also wrote that, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

So What?

This decision means that the United States has taken a small step back to actually obeying the Constitution. The First Amendment of the Constitution protects free-speech rights, and the McCain-Feingold law blatantly violated it. It shocked me at the time that it even passed Congress and that President Bush “reluctantly” signed it into law. After all, the President and everyone in Congress take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

But Didn’t the Law Prevent all those Evil Corporations from Influencing Elections?

That was certainly the intention, and I presume McCain and Feingold and Bush and the members of Congress who voted for it were sincere in their beliefs. Sincere or not, their oath prohibits them from violating the Constitution.

Corporations consist of individuals and those individuals separately or together have free-speech rights that are constitutionally protected. And that should be the end of the argument.

There are a few Subtleties Here

Setting aside the constitutional arguments for a moment, let’s look at the thinking behind such a law. There are two parts to this thinking. The first is that Congress can violate peaceful free speech for the good of the people. How kind of them. They violate our freedoms to protect us, but the main purpose of government is to protect our freedoms. Anyone see a contradiction here?

The second subtlety is a hidden assumption that we citizens are to be treated as children, and thus prevented from being exposed to what corporations have to say about candidates or issues. This is called paternalism. Do you want Congress to be your Daddy? And this is from politicians who are legally allowed to listen to thousands of lobbyists. So politicians can be lobbied but we unenlightened citizens cannot.

The Bottom Line

Adults are responsible for their own lives and decisions, and it is not up to Congress to protect us from what others have to say. Our politicians are not God, and it is time that they stopped treating us as their children.

The only sad part of this is that there were four Justices who wanted to uphold this law. Maybe they were reading a different Constitution than the one I carry around.


Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

Did you know that President Obama is Black?

On Sundays in the Dallas Morning News, there is a section called, “Sounding Off”, that has brief comments by those who live in the Dallas area about a particular topic. The topic is chosen by one of the Dallas Morning News editors, and those of us that are contributors to the Sounding Off section get an email from the editor whenever he is interested in getting our opinions about a given topic.

Today, I got an email requesting two or three sentences about the topic, “What is the great untold story about your community in 2009 and how would it surprise people?”

I actually didn’t quite answer that exact question, but here is what I did submit:

“One great story in 2009 is how easy it has been for us to accept a Black president. I, and many people I know, disagree with many of President Obama’s policies, but his race hasn’t ever come up in my discussions with others. We are getting closer to Rev. Martin Luther King’s vision of judging a person for who they are rather than by the color of their skin.”

This is pretty cool actually. Obviously, there are still bigots out there, but there have to be fewer now than there were, say, 30 years ago. When Kennedy ran for president in 1960, many people thought he couldn’t get elected because he was Catholic.

I would like for us to take this one step further. When discussing policies that affect us, let’s not bring up any labels that serve to divide us. For instance, for a particular policy, does it really matter if the person who is giving their opinion is a conservative or a liberal, a leftist or a rightist, or a Republican or a Democrat?

It’s not that those things don’t matter, but they have nothing to do with whether their thinking about a particular policy is something that you may or may not agree with. In other words, it is best to judge someone’s policy ideas based upon your principles and not about irrelevancies such as the person’s skin color or political affiliation. This is much less divisive, and tends to keep a discussion based upon the merit of the ideas presented.

For instance, consider these policy positions that I have:

1) I think that the private use of drugs by adults ought not to be illegal. (I’m not advocating that people take drugs, I’m just advocating that they not be illegal).

2) I think abortion is almost always bad, but don’t think it should be illegal.

3) I think that we should have the strongest military in the world.

4) I think that we should bring our troops home from all foreign countries.

5) I think having nuclear weapons has been a tremendous deterrent to war, and it would foolish to get rid of all of them.

6) I think that the evidence shows that the Earth is warming slightly but that we have little evidence as to how much humanity is contributing to it. Furthermore, limiting carbon dioxide emissions will have a negligible effect on however much global warming is occurring. (If the Earth does start warming to an unacceptable extent, there are much cheaper and more effective ways of dealing with it).

7) I think that one of best ways to increase the prosperity of Americans and eventually the world is to build lots of nuclear power plants. We would shortly have clean, safe and inexpensive energy, and would have time to properly develop other sources of energy, such as solar power.

I didn’t bring these ideas up here to convince anyone about them, but rather to show how some of them would be considered conservative, some liberal, etc. It doesn’t matter to me what labels a person gives them, and I don’t consider any such labels when thinking about my positions. I only consider my principles. Isn’t that a good thing?

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________

Government Based Upon Natural Law - (Part 8) - Foreign Trade, Foreign Relations, and Foreign Aid

"I saw that you could not separate the idea of commerce from the idea of war and peace. You could not have serious war anywhere in the world and expect commerce to go on as before. And I saw that wars were often caused by economic rivalry. I thereupon came to believe that if we could increase commercial exchanges among nations over lowered trade and tariff barriers and remove international obstacles to trade, we would go a long way toward eliminating war itself."

Cordell Hull, former Secretary of State, in his memoirs after observing two world wars

Foreign Relations

We should have cordial relations with all countries who act peacefully. No peaceful country ought to be afraid that the United States will ever attempt to conquer it or forcibly take away its natural resources.

To countries or groups that have ill intentions toward us, our firm message should be: It would be a grave mistake to attack us, because you will end up suffering more than we will. “Speak softly and carry a big stick” was not bad advice from Teddy Roosevelt.

We ought not to preach to other countries about how they should behave, or what their economic or political systems should be. This has frequently led to them resenting us, rather than appreciating our good intentions. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund attempt to do this, and we should have nothing to do with them.

Rather, we should be humble and set a good example for other countries to follow. What this means politically is that our government should protect our right to be free to live our lives as we deem best, as long as we don’t interfere with the right of others to do the same. What this means individually is that each of us ought to love our Creator and love others, by treating others as children of our Creator, and by using our talents to help make the world a better place.

As mentioned in a previous part, we should not have our military stationed in any other countries, unless we are at war. This has created enmity and dependency, as well costing taxpayers a great deal of money. It may help to create temporary stability in a given region, but is this truly our business?

Foreign Trade

Allow free trade with all nations. Free trade, not aid, is the best way to help other nations to become more prosperous.

Benjamin Franklin said, “No nation was ever ruined by trade.”

George Washington, the Father of our nation said, “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, and to have with them as little political connection as possible.”

And Jefferson said, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations but entangling alliances with none.”

It would be well to heed these three of the most influential men in the history of our country.

Furthermore, free trade with foreign nations possibly offers one of the best solutions to avoiding war. We went to war with Japan over 60 years ago. Within a few decades, we were buying a great deal of goods from Japan, who then became dependent on trade with us. Do you think that they would consider going to war with us now, even if they thought they could win?

Similarly, China’s economy is closely tied to ours, and they are very desirous of us having a robust economy, so that theirs can thrive. Thus, the more trade we have with other countries, the more we reduce the risk of war with them, and the more prosperous they and we become. It is truly a win-win scenario.

Also, there is no reason to not have trade with Cuba. Cuba has not threatened the United States since the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960s. We may not like some of their domestic policies, but that is none of our business. Cubans and Americans would benefit from trade between our nations.

Trade protectionism does not have a history of working well for our country. For instance, in 1930, the year after the stock-market crash, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act imposed an effective tax rate of 60% on more than 3,200 products and materials imported into the U.S., quadrupling previous tariff rates. Although the tariff act was passed after the stock-market crash of 1929, many economic historians consider the political discussion leading up to the passing of the act as a factor in causing the crash and/or the recession that began in late 1929, and its eventual passage as a factor in deepening the Great Depression. Unemployment was at 7.8% in 1930 when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed, but it jumped to 16.3% in 1931, 24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933.

Another important point is that when people of good will trade with each other, they naturally get to know each other. And they frequently find out that these “foreigners” usually have the same values that we do. For instance, they also want the best for their families and for their country. So free trade has the side effect of producing friendships that might not normally be made.

However, free trade cannot occur if countries subsidize their industries. For instance, the U.S. subsidizes farming (often run by large corporations and often at the behest of a strong Farm Lobby), which makes it harder for poor nations to export food to us, leaving them and us poorer. It has been proven that there is always a net benefit when we are allowed to buy and trade with those who make the best product for the best price, wherever they happen to be in the world. And the best way to make this happen is to allow individuals and companies to buy or trade with whomever they wish. This is not a guarantee, but there is no better way to achieve prosperity for all humans. Beside, freedom is the American way.

Congress can and should restrict the trade of goods or services that could harm national security, such as the sale of weaponry to countries that are hostile to us. Also, any imported goods would have to meet the same health and safety standards as domestically made items. For instance, any cars we import must meet the same standards as domestically made cars. Inspections of such goods, which should be made by our government, should be paid for by the company who is selling them. Otherwise, Congress should not restrict trade with other countries.

Developing countries are welcome to ask foreign companies, such as those in the U.S. and elsewhere, to start companies in their country. This may benefit the developing country by attracting the talent and resources needed in order to grow economically. Of course, this would always be up to the home country.

Foreign Aid

The U.S. ought not to subsidize other nations, or provide continuous foreign aid to any nation. However, the U.S. may provide temporary humanitarian aid to a nation or nations due to natural disasters or other such events.

Continual foreign aid contributes to corruption and to dependency. It also can create enmity toward our country in that other countries may wonder why their country is not getting any of our money. And, not infrequently, this money is used to purchase weapons, and buy power, rather than help the people for whom it is intended.

It may also prolong conflicts, as I believe it has done in the Middle East.

This is not meant to be a restriction on individuals or organizations, who may give time and money to whomever they wish (again with the restriction that no goods or services may be provided to individuals, groups, or countries that could harm our national security.) ______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________