This election day, I post a recent political discourse between a conservative friend of mine and myself. I have numbered their opinions and my rebuttals for ease of response. I hope you will read it, respond, and repost anything you find helpful. Pass on your thoughts, and keep the dialogue going!



---Point 1: “Not all rich people are rich because they oppress the poor.”

---Thoughts: I don’t believe all rich people are rich because they oppress the poor, no more than I believe all poor people are poor because they are lazy. Some are poor because they are lazy and take advantage of government programs, and some people are rich because they cheat the system, take advantage of tax loopholes, and generally screw people. It is unfortunate that both groups are comparatively small, and that they be demonized, and their numbers exaggerated more than they should be, by both sides. Meanwhile the rest of us plug along.

Nor do i believe it's a conscious, malicious breed of oppression. It's more of an out-of-sight/out-of-mind offence. And it has everything to do with wealth/income distribution.

Income distribution can lay on a scale from slavery to communism. The only way to make sure we don’t fall to either extreme is a regulatory/referee government. Trickle-Down economics has not worked, and will never work:

In the time of Eisenhower, the ratio of wealth distribution between Americans was 1 in 40. These days it is more like 1 in 600 and rising, (though I haven't checked that figure in a few years).

Families of the 50s were able to keep one parent home to raise the kids. My mom stayed at home with the kids for about five years before she entered the work force. These days it appears the vast majority of parents in this country must work to make ends meet and have a middle class lifestyle. Over the last ten years, we've even resorted to make-believe money and financial "products" that have blown up in our faces. Where can we go from here?

God (or if you're like an athiest, the planet) gives us only so much in the way of resources: food, air, water, HD T.V. sets etcetera. It's a nice thought that supply side economics can work to distribute it justly, but, well--I dont know--this is where I don’t have many ideas. Here is a comic that sums up my thoughts on this matter:



http://thejustlife.org/home/2008/04/04/supply-side-Jesus/

Please excuse the snarkyness--I'm sure it is being unfair in some ways.



Back to the slavery/communism scale. I think that the job of Republicans is to make sure we don’t all become communists, and the job of Democrats is to make sure we don’t revert to slavery. It's really about balance. Taxes are the best way I can think of to maintain the balance, and right now, I believe we are not taxing enough. There are other good ways to share wealth, such as charity, but I just don’t believe republicans, or democrats for that matter, would make up the difference with the money if they weren't taxed. I wouldn't, I'd probably go buy a new iPod, because it just wouldn’t be on my mind.

Once again, the only reason wealth distribution in the world is so out of whack isn't because people are jerks, it's because the transparency is not there for us to see the implications of our actions. Out of sight, out of mind. The people who decide who makes 1000 dollars an hour for crunching numbers and who makes 7 dollars for growing the number cruncher's food do it because they can, that's all.

No government is perfect, but that is why we have regulation and transparency. The only reason I can see for corporations to want to get rid of these things is, frankly, so they can grab as much of the pie as they can.

Don’t get me wrong, I think a Darwinist economy is, overall, the way to go. But don’t those whose lot is was to fail, to not have the good ideas, to make the mistakes, and even those few who just plain slacked off, don’t these people deserve at least basic human needs of survival?



---Point 2: "Governments are capable of very little good, and are capable of extraordinary evil."

---Thoughts: The parallel is that liberals often have the same thoughts about Corporations! The main thing to keep in focus is that both are organizations of people, and can only do as much good or bad as the people within them are virtuous themselves—back to the importance of accountability, transparency, and policing. I think that as long as the people of organized—um, modes of operation let’s call them—are held accountable for their mistakes and transgressions, they will succeed in helping humanity. So then, the question is: how best to police both the white collars and the big wigs? In government, we at least have elections and impeachment, so there is incentive to act as the electorate wishes you to act. In the free market—if someone ponzi schemes you, or you buy food that’s spoiled, or your oil well explodes, people won’t want to do business with you anymore, which creates incentive to make functional products.

As a liberal, I am disproportionally bombarded with examples of capitalist evils. Consequently, I don’t quite understand these next points:



---Point 3 and 4: “Many of the current financial issues in this country are not the effect of capitalism-run-wild, but actually the opposite, due to government intrusion in markets. We have not experienced true free-market capitalism in our lifetime.”

---Thoughts: What do you mean by intrusion? What is true free-market capitalism?

Personally, I don't agree with bail-outs, unemployment benefits, or economic stimulus as they are applied to citizens and companies that supply the “wants of the people”—cars, stocks, banking, guitar lessons, and so on. However, I do think that government must be the vehicle to supply the “needs of the people”—Law enforcement, Fire fighters, disaster relief (even if the disasters were punishments from God, sorry, cheap shot at Pat Robertson), basic health care, and basic food and shelter via homeless shelters and orphanages. A basic education should also be a human right, but I admit, what a “basic education” constitutes should be heavily debated.

A hundred years ago, the fire department started out as privatized—if you paid your fire department, they’d put out a fire at your home, never mind if your neighbor's house was on fire right next to yours. Also, Police forces of the past have been largely privatized. In our country today, people have figured out something—citizens should not permit other citizens to profit from houses catching fire, and no one should be allowed to profit from the victims of crime.

So here is my question: Why are people allowed to profit from sickness, starvation, and war? It is unconscionable that humans profit from human misery. Yet still, obviously, humans should be paid to combat human misery. Therein lays the great conundrum…

It’s tricky isn’t it? Doctors most definitely should be paid large amounts of money, also Firefighters and Police Officers, even soldiers sent to fight(I’ll rant about war later.)

Perhaps some balance of free market and government regulation can be instituted justly. Perhaps the rookie cops, fire fighters, doctors, and teachers who excel, honing their skills in communities which have access to only the basic government “human-needs” provisions, can increase their salaries by entering into job markets of communities that can afford to pay them more. In an ideal society that provides basic human rights and needs, these communities have made their extra money via a want-based capitalism that should indeed reward their achievements with higher quality of human-needs services. Still, I stand by my conviction that every human in modern civilization deserves soup, shelter, law enforcement, and medical attention, etcetera. That said, I hold to the belief that any unregulated company, which seeks to profit from human needs beyond human rights and survival, will inevitably become an ethical failure.

If basic human-needs companies are to be non-profit, how can a "free market" be the answer? Free market companies are under pressure to make money. So, it is inevitable that they will skimp on things that don't make them money. Failed bridge inspections (35W collapse), escalated war to sell bombs and protect oil, denied health coverage for sick people, and New Orleans citizens dying outside of the Superdome are all symptoms of a failure to instill a humane needs/wants balance in capitalism…

Incidentally, as I’m thinking of capitalism, it’s funny that 95% of my favorite artists/writers/musicians achieved greatness in art because of free market principles. They have been largely rags to riches stories, where little or no fallback plans, or social safety nets were available. Art is a want, not a need or human right, and so should be on the want-based capitalism side of the equation. My apologies to the National Endowment for the Arts—you do not deserve our tax money. :(



---Point 5: “Caring for the "have-nots" must not be handled by "the government" because it doesn't truly care about anybody. Therefore, government ought to be the last resort to solve social ills like poverty. Caring for the poor should be handled by family, by the church, and by the local community.”

---Thoughts: Conservatives think government is uncaring; Liberals think companies (and even churches) are uncaring. The pertinent question is: who can most efficiently care for the poor. The answer is—everybody!

In your blog titled “Financial Freedom Series 5 – Money”, you speak of the timesaving efficiency of money. Money is a government (by the people for the people) creation that affects everyone, and it is the most effective means to transfer goods and services. If some people used one form of money and others used another, with no means for exchange, the transfer of goods and services would be far less efficient and time saving. I believe the problem of whether the poor should be cared for by churches & communities or the government to be of the same nature.

The government should provide basic human needs and rights, while asking and rewarding religious and community organizations that wish to help. It is nothing but pride to think that any institution can do it all themselves.



---Point 6: “While no economic system is perfect, free-market capitalism is the most equitable and the most fair. Fair does not mean "equal".”

---Thoughts: Once again, it is fair that someone who succeeds in capitalism gets an unequal share of the pie—better health care, bigger TV sets. However, it is not fair that those who fail at capitalism starve. Homeless shelters, doctor’s checkups, and soup must be provided by a government run by the people, with help from religious groups, charitable donations, and community organizations. These organizations should receive rewards in tax exemptions, as they are, in practice, part of the people’s government.

On a side note concerning economic systems, the conservative worry that people who are not under the threat of starvation will not be productive, innovative contributors to the economy is, to say the least, overblown.

The majority of humans living in a homeless shelter, eating soup and feeling low, are going to think, “This is not good enough for me, just to survive—I want a home, a family, and an HD TV.”

The story of my Great Grandpa Bergstedt is this: while waiting in a depression era bread line, he thought “This bread isn’t good enough for me.” He scoured Duluth, collecting people’s junk, started a junkyard business, made money, and had thirteen kids, all of which harbored a dislike for people who take advantage of government aid undeservedly.

As Grandpa Zachary’s progeny, I also don't like people abusing unemployment benefits and welfare. I have friends and family, perfectly capable of harvesting crops or working at Bruger’s Bagels, who stay in their homes to blog or play X-box, all while on the government dole. This is why I think a modern, humane, twenty-first century homeless shelter program for individuals and families to be the best and most fair solution—healthy humans at the bottom rung of their societies thinking, “Government/Church/Community provided survival is not enough! I want to go to Disneyland! I’m going to start looking for a job!”



---Point 7 (taken from my good conservative friend's blog): “The war on terror is not a war of vengeance. We have left many, many terrorist attacks unanswered in the past. The attacks of 9/11 were not the reason for the war -- they were the last straw. It was the final event that showed to us, once and for all, that peace not only isn't the answer, it's not even an option. Terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda hate us not for what we've done, but for who we are. The war on terror, therefore, is a war to protect our countrymen, both here and abroad from those who mean to do them harm.

---Thoughts: For this next bit, you’ll have to forgive the stronger rhetoric and Christian perspective. I just can’t for the life of me find the words to make it sound postulating, rather than damning—but I mean it in a more postulating way…God is the final judge of these things after all.

I find the “War on Terror” to be an abject failure of Christian imagination.

I repeat, in earnest.

The “War on Terror” is an abject failure of Christian imagination—or, if one prefers, a failure of Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindi, or Humanist imagination, etcetera. I will continue from the Christian perspective as that is what I hope to be.

Our country spends half of our federal tax revenue on the war on terror (the interest caused by war expenses factored in.)

What if—just what if—we spent all the resources we devote to war on charity for our enemies? Instead, we pilot drone planes that drop smart bombs on terrorists and civilians alike, calling it collateral damage. When did we stop believing in the power of turning the other cheek? Have we ever believed? When did we give up on the humanity of our enemies?

Most of the people of this country have given up on the, to use a Christian concept, "salvation" of the terrorists; in so doing, they forfeit hope for their own. I see scores of Christians whom I fear will not “enter the kingdom of heaven” as it were, because of this failure. I hope this is just a fear…

Whoa! Heavy! Chill out Rick!

I dunno—I remember reading the four gospels in third grade and being like—OK, well that makes sense, I could do that. Growing up has meant having to listen to so many Christians tell me “Jesus was just kidding about most of that stuff.” It just really bugs me man, sometimes to the point of self-righteous anger, to which I channel through politics a large bit more than I should!

What else gets my goat to no end is that companies profit from sending kids to die and to put their souls on the line. I understand that if we do not fight these “evil-doers” who hate America, they may be the death of us all. Still, I believe that if we cease our aggression and hold true to principles of charity and non-violence, our enemies will have no choice but to cease their own “Jihad.” If we fail to trust this, to trust in their humanity, we are no better than they, and we deserve no more countenance in the eyes of God or civil society than they do.

Kierkegaard called this thinking the "strength of the absurd."

May we all find the wisdom in absurdity; I fear that if we do not, our hatred and vengeance will mean the destruction of every last tower, no matter its size, standing in this troubled world.