Category:

In the First Place: Why Public Debate Is Usually Pointless

6/6/2014

What are the pillars of our society?

Those who make decisions on our behalf, those who enforce those decisions and those who report them to us:

Government
Churches
The military
The media

They are all institutions whose existences are based on beliefs they do not accept
any dissension from.

Government – we are legitimate and all of our actions are legitimate
Churches – our dogma is correct and you will be punished in the next life if you disobey
The military – our wars are justified and you are not patriotic if you say otherwise
The media – what we say is true, we hide nothing important and if you disagree, you are a nut.

The institutions control public discussion by labeling thoughts that would harm their existence. The following questions will never be answered by any of these pillars:

Government – What is national security and what types of information are really hidden to the public for this reason?
Churches – Can you prove that the leader of your religion really existed?
The military – How many soldiers would you recruit if you told them the truth about why we were sending them to war?
The media – How often are you pressured into dropping stories and who pressures you?

To get these questions answered, we need another actor to join the debate. Many fear the institutions and their enormous power and do not ask why our society functions as it does.

But we need the questions answered.

Almost every debate, whether about something like guns (especially in light of recent reported shootings in the national news) or butter (like the perpetual debate of how much money to devote to the military) starts off with at least one of the false beliefs stated above. In short, the debate gets it wrong IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Be a part of a public that reasonably questions what we hear. Disregard those who state beliefs but do not back them up or who refuse to answer your questions. This is how we collectively will get these questions answered. Then we can discuss the details.

4 Comments

Would You Want Someone to Break Your Contract?

7/11/2012

1 Comment

Recently, the City of San Bernardino declared bankruptcy. Already news analysts are speculating that there will be cuts in pensions to some of the city employees as a way of bringing the city out of its fiscal crisis. Other cities voted to curb pension benefits in recent elections.

Why is the possibility of cutting pensions for public employees an issue?

First of all, PERS is a contract between the state of California and many of public employees in the state.

The key constitutional issues of the state changing the terms of the PERS contract are the Contracts Clause and the Takings Clause (5th and 14th Amendments of the Federal Constitution):

Contracts Clause - “No state shall…pass any law impairing the Obligation of Contracts”

Takings Clause – if the state interferes with property rights (such as wages or pension), it may be required to provide “just compensation.”

The first question in a court case of this type is whether the contract was whether the breaking of the contract caused participants to the contract trouble in preparing for retirement, difficulty in paying bills, etc.

If the court concludes that contract was broken to that extent, the court next considers whether the impairment served an important government purpose, such as the protection of its citizens from harm.

A court considers whether the law was foreseeable or even plausible at the time the contract was made. It can also take into consideration that when the state is faced with a budgetary deficit, the legislature has many alternatives available to it, such as reducing state services not governed by contract and raising taxes.

If the impairment to the contract is not really necessary to protect the citizens, the court will rule in favor of those who brought suit on the impairment of contract (i.e. the employees).

Bottom line: To win on the questions the court asks, employees will need to show that they have relied upon the pension system promised them when they became members of PERS. They will need to show that the state of California has alternatives to cutting our pensions. And, they will need to show that the idea of cutting pensions drastically was not foreseeable at the time they joined PERS. There is no sure way to tell how the courts will rule, but by emphasizing these themes will force the courts to recognize the value of the contract the government makes with public employees and the consequences of breaking the contract.

1 Comment

What Will You Risk to Get Truth about 9/11?

4/7/2010

0 Comments

The kinds of risks we are willing to take speak volumes as to what policies we favor for our society. Consider the following questions, all of which are predicated on the assumption that public policy will never perfectly address the problem that it covers.

Which possibility do you prefer?

1. Too many people receiving government (taxpayer) services OR too few receiving them?

2. A guilty person going free OR an innocent person punished?

3. A fetus aborted OR a child born into a life of starvation?

4. Children with access to marijuana OR adults deprived of marijuana for medical purposes?

5. Nazis with free speech rights OR government censorship of movies?

Why are these questions difficult to answer? It is because policies are designed for the masses rather than the individual. In the first question, we cannot guarantee that everyone who needs services will receive them because of fraud and error. If we crack down on fraud by hiring more investigators, for example, we increase the chance that those who need services will be judged in error, thus resulting in too few getting the services.

The same risk takes place in the other questions as well. Mathematicians call this a Type I or Type II Error system. Guilty people will go free because prosecutors, judges and jurors make mistakes or have bias that causes misconduct. The best way to remedy the problem would be to change the laws to prevent errors from causing mistrials or by changing judicial instructions. But the result would most likely be an increase in innocent people found guilty.

Likewise, by changing policy to discourage or forbid abortion, we risk more children born to parents who live in poverty. If we crack down on possessionof marijuana, we risk arresting or jailing even those who use it for medical purposes. If we tell the Nazis they may not have a parade, we will have trouble justifying a policy based on free speech for some and not others.

How do we make our decisions with these kinds of choices?

We can acknowledge that no valid opinion will please everyone. We must at some point decide that some results are simply better than others. Those who favor too many people receiving taxpayer expenses will undoubtedly risk others calling them names like "socialist" but the disdain of others must be risked to effect public policy.

We can apply this "Risk Model" to the most serious questions before us. For example, we can decide whether the public needs a new investigation of the events of 9/11. The factors include the costs to the taxpayers, time spent in Congress or whatever forum is used and the possibility of government secrets revealed.

The question before us is then: Would you prefer the possibility that guilty people go free for the crimes of 9/11 OR the possibility that taxpayer money will be wasted in the process of conducting the investigation?

It all depends on what you are willing to risk.

0 Comments

In the First Place: Why Public Debate Is Usually Pointless

Would You Want Someone to Break Your Contract?

What Will You Risk to Get Truth about 9/11?

Author

Categories

Archives