Gay Marriage Legalized in Maryland and Thoughts on the Path to Legalization

Mentioning the issue in my last post reminded me that I haven’t put out an update on this issue in a while.  This one will be a bit longer than normal.  I considered breaking it into two posts, but didn't.

Continuing a string of gay rights victories, Maryland recently legalized gay marriage.  It is the eighth state to do so (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, Washington state, and Washington DC already allow it).  As a side note, New Hampshire also recently defeated a bill in its legislature to overturn its gay marriage law, so that’s another win. 

Like Washington state, there is an effort in Maryland to put gay marriage up for popular referendum in the fall.  In addition, Maine is expected to have gay marriage on the ballot in the fall.  Minnesota and North Carolina are still expected to have gay marriage bans on the ballot in the fall, as well.  California remains a hotbed due to the recent overturn of Proposition 8, as does the federal level (DOMA).

To this point, I’ve been content to leave aside the question of what is the most appropriate avenue for getting gay marriage legalized.  I want to look at that here.  There are court rulings, the legislative process, and popular referendum at the state level, along with DOMA, the legislative process, and potentially the Supreme Court on the federal level.  I’ve never looked into the possibility of a popular referendum on the federal level, but I suppose it is possible in theory. 

Here’s the reality.  In the United States, the rights of the minority are not subject to the will of the majority.  It is one of the most fundamental underpinnings of the Constitution.  We see it repeatedly throughout the document, like the 14^th Amendment as I’ve laid out before.  This very basic tenet of America is the reason popular referendum, be it on the state or federal level, is simply not an appropriate way to address the matter.

So, with popular referendum out, we are left with the legal or legislative process.  They are simultaneously somewhat parallel, yet related, paths to the same end.  The courts could (and should) keep overturning gay marriage bans and upholding gay marriage legalization based on the Constitution, but they are limited by the cases brought before them.  The legislature, on the other hand, can write and pass a bill at any time (assuming the will is there, of course).  Both are appropriate paths to legalizing gay marriage.

We’re also left with the question of whether state-level or national-level action is appropriate.  This is kind of tricky.  On one hand, we have the states’ rights question, which I’ll address below.  On the other hand, even if we break away from the 14^th Amendment or legal rights issue, we see two additional layers. 

First, it’s my view that individual freedom is the ultimate deciding factor.  Basically, it’s the, “My rights end at your face,” line of thought.  I would pose the question to opponents how their rights are infringed upon by allowing gay marriage (it’s very obvious the rights of gay people have been infringed upon by being denied the right to marry).  This is actually a very significant question and I see no valid answer provided religious organizations are not forced against their will to marry gay people.  So, the rights of gay people are being restricted and ending that infringement would not impact everyone else.  This is an important underpinning to the gay marriage argument, and with that, we can move on to the next step.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and was written with the intent not to limit the rights of the individual, but to limit the power of the government to limit individual freedom.  Simply put, if the local and state governments are unwilling to take the appropriate action to ensure the rights of the individual, then the federal government is obligated to intervene to that end.  The inverse also applies, meaning that the state and local governments must also take appropriate action to ensure individual rights should the federal government attempt to violate them.  In other words, the rights of the individual trump the rights of the government on all levels.  The Civil Rights movement is a great historical example of the concept.  This can get very philosophical very quickly and we can branch off into a lot of other questions, but I want to stay on topic here and move onto the next facet of the federal versus state action discussion.

Second, as I’ve written before, a marriage license issued by one state must be recognized by all other states per federal law.  This is often framed in terms of age.  Suppose State A’s legal age for marriage is 16 and State B’s is 18.  If a pair of 16-year olds get married in A and go to B before turning 18, B still must recognize their marriage.  The same logic applies to marriage licenses for gay couples.  Alabama, for example, acts illegally when they refuse to recognize the legitimacy of marriage licenses issued to gay couples by another state (to my knowledge, Alabama is the only state to do this).  Interstate issues like that often ultimately require federal-level arbitration. 

The bottom line here is that, between the 14^th Amendment and interstate issues, federal-level resolution will ultimately be necessary to at least some degree unless all 50 states legalize gay marriage on their own.  I think DOMA would have to be overturned somehow (legislative process or Supreme Court ruling) because, as I’ve detailed before, a large number of states defer to DOMA.  Additionally, federal action that either explicitly disallows state-level bans on gay marriage and/or legalizes gay marriage throughout the USA may be necessary.

What about a Constitutional amendment?  It would be pointless because it would be entirely redundant to the 14^th Amendment.  We’ve seen this before.  Feminists were agitating for a similar amendment for women a few decades ago.  Back then, the amendment ultimately failed to gain traction due to the redundancy logic.  A similar amendment for gay marriage would fail in the same way for the same reason.

Note the absence of the executive branch.  Though it can serve as a bully pulpit, I don’t view executive action, either by a governor or a president, as a viable or legal path to legalization.  The executive branch lacks the power to do this unilaterally, though this hasn’t stopped them from trying (and often succeeding) to stretch/abuse their power in many other areas (also known as the imperial presidency).  Indeed, the executive branch on either level can be completely locked out from the process.  Legislatures can often overturn an executive veto with a 2/3 majority in both houses, the judicial branch is largely independent of the executive branch, and popular referendum doesn’t involve the executive branch at all.  The executive branch also has no place in the amendment process of the Constitution.

All that said, I’m a pragmatist on the matter and I want to see it legalized as widely as possible as quickly as possible.  The state legislative process is probably the best way to go on the offensive (as long of a grind as it is to get through 40+ more states), whereas the state legal process can be used more for both offense and defense (bearing in mind the limitations imposed by what cases face the courts). 

Given the 0 for 31 record gay marriage supporters have in state popular referendum, I have a different take there.  Principle and strategic disadvantage make popular referendum a bad place to be.  Obviously, playing defense there to counter bans is vital, but it’s not the place to play offense.  Victories here are still essential, especially on defense.  Going on offense in Maine is risky only in the sense that the odds of success aren’t favorable based on history, but there is nothing to lose besides resources and there is everything to gain because another state would legalize gay marriage and the momentum of a first popular referendum win would be very powerful.

Barack Obama and the Constitution

For my 100^th post, I wanted do something a bit more encompassing than I usually do, something that spans the 99 previous posts.  Because I write about a lot of different things, it’s not easy to string it all together, so I decided to take a look at Barack Obama’s presidency as it relates to the Constitution.  I figure this can help people assess his presidency.

Like it or not, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  On the whole, I think Obama’s record on the Constitution is not favorable (even compared to his predecessor, George W. Bush, who had a bad record here) and we see several areas in which he has either applied the Constitution in a questionable manner or ignored it entirely.  I find this tragically ironic because he was a professor of Constitutional law.  I’d think he’d use that expertise to uphold the Constitution rather than dismantle it so he could build an imperial presidency.  I’ve gone into detail previously on many of these, so this is more of a list rather than an expansive review of each scenario. 

On the negative side, we start with the Obamacare individual mandate, which would force an individual to engage in commerce by purchasing a government-approved health insurance product or face the consequences.  I think the Supreme Court got the ruling wrong by upholding it as a tax and it’s a very dangerous precedent, so I will count it against Obama (I’ll do a future post about the ruling and my opinion may change).  Feel free to disagree on either the constitutionality of the measure or my counting it against Obama’s constitutional record. 

Next, there’s this whole recess appointment business, in which Obama has disregarded checks and balances by attempting recess appointments while Congress was not in recess. 

Then, there was the Libya situation (probably others, as well) and Obama’s disregard for the War Powers Act.  At least when Bush took us into Afghanistan and Iraq, he took the time to get it approved by Congress versus Obama simply committing our forces to the effort without Congress’ approval.  We’ve also recently learned through the New York Times that Obama has continued and expanded the Bush administration’s cyber attacks on Iran’s nuclear program, which could be taken as an act of war.

More recently, he sidestepped Congress with regards to immigration by basically implementing portions of the DREAM Act via executive order.  Article I, Section 8 clearly empowers Congress, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” which is the Founding Fathers’ way of saying that the president cannot unilaterally set immigration policy and Congress has power in the matter.  Note that Congress has repeatedly rejected the DREAM Act in a show of checks and balances, not obstructionism.  This also gets into the 14^th Amendment questions I’ve previously discussed regarding citizenship in the US.

The biggest problems of all were in the “War on Terror”.  If you thought Bush was bad here, wait until you see how Obama’s taken the torch and run with it during his term.  In general, yes it was George W. Bush who started us down this tyrannical path and laid the foundation for the future, but Barack Obama has gone down that path even more aggressively.  Here are a few examples of how Obama built upon Bush’s foundation.

Bush opened Guantanamo Bay and Obama went back on his campaign promise to close it (hypocrisy aside, the facility’s existence violates so much of the Constitution that I don’t even know where to start).    

Bush increased security at airports, which was bad enough, but Obama’s taken that to a whole new level with invasive body scans and searches, trampling the 4^th Amendment like I mentioned a while back. 

Bush also expanded the military commissions instead of and in addition to the courts for trials.  Obama has continued this practice.  I’ve also questioned the constitutionality of using military commissions versus civilian courts (at least with regard to US citizens).

But, wait, there’s more because Obama’s done a lot to blaze his own path.  Obama also assassinated Anwar al Awlaki, who was an American citizen.  This tramples on the 5^th, 6^th, 8^th, and 14^th Amendments (probably others, too).  I didn’t post about Anwar al Awlaki at the time because I was unable to verify his US citizenship, but I did recently and this episode becomes another bad one for Obama.  The government can’t be allowed to murder its own citizens.  Also, note the details recently published by the New York Times about the hitlist meetings. 

As if assassinating an American citizen wasn’t bad enough, Obama also more recently signed the NDAA to authorize the indefinite detention of US citizens without the right of a trial.  Surely, I can’t be the only one who’s troubled by a president who thinks he has the authority to indefinitely detain and/or murder American citizens (and, as I’ve mentioned before, there’s a school of thought suggesting that the legal protections outlined in the Constitution should be extended beyond US citizens to non-citizens). 

It gets even worse as Obama also recently signed an executive order updating the government’s power of eminent domain as it applies to “emergency” situations.  This is not limited to war and can be applied during times of peace.  Essentially, the government says it is allowed to seize and control pretty much anything it wants (food, water, energy, raw materials, etc.).  To be fair, the only real changes from the 1994 version of the order were to add in the Department of Homeland Security, so we can really only blame Obama here for upholding too broad of an existing power rather than new power like elsewhere in this list.

We’ll close this sorry list out with a quick mention of the NSA’s new Utah facility, which is another attack on our individual legal rights, as it enables the government to implement Obama’s recent guidance to the intelligence community stating that he thinks they now can store digital information on US citizens with no suspected ties to terrorism for up to five years (versus the previous directive to destroy it immediately).

On the positive side, Obama did stand up for the 1^st Amendment with regards to SOPA/PIPA, essentially forcing those bills to be dramatically altered, scrapped entirely, and/or restarted from scratch out of concerns for free speech and cybersecurity.  I’m sure this isn’t the end for the matter and I see this as an ongoing battle.

Obama gets both credit and criticism on gay rights.  He repealed DADT.  Obama has not yet pushed for a full repeal of DOMA and its unconstitutional measures, but he has stopped defending it.  So, he gets credit for agreeing with me on the constitutionality of DOMA.  However, the problem is the president is required by the Constitution to, “Take care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” per Article 3, Section 3.  So, he’s violating the Constitution in the process here.  We can’t have a president deciding that, just because he disagrees with a law, he won’t enforce it, whether we like the law or not.  The same goes for a president trying to enforce a law that doesn’t exist.  Both are dangerous.  Again, this is an ongoing battle.

Did I miss any?

I think it can always be worse, but I’m not about to detail exactly how.  Obama doesn’t need my help in coming up with ways to trample the Constitution.

Book Review – Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton Fulsom Jr.

I recently read “Myth of the Robber Barons” by Burton Fulsom Jr.  This is the second book of his I’ve read and reviewed, with “New Deal or Raw Deal” being the first. 

Let me just start off by saying this is a very quick read.  I read it on my way to Las Vegas this spring, which was a 6-hour flight.  It’s a short book at less than 150 pages with pictures and a large, spread-out font.  In addition to being small, it’s also hard to put down once you start a chapter. 

Fulsom challenges the popular historical notion that all of the successful big business leaders of 19^th and early 20^th century America were evil, exploitive, greedy, detrimental to society, etc.  He does this by acknowledging that, yes, some of them lived up to the anti-capitalist rhetoric.  However, he also presents several examples of men who did not. 

Fulsom created a vital distinction early in the book between market and political entrepreneurs (MEs and PEs for brevity from here on).  The PEs are what we would call crony capitalists today, meaning entities who tried to succeed in the economy not through competition (innovation, cost reduction, addition/creation of value, etc.), but by connection to and/or preferential treatment from the government (bailouts, carve-outs, regulations that help the PE at the ME’s expense, government contracts, etc.).  MEs are what we would call free market capitalists today and succeed through competition rather than government favoritism.

Fulsom presents several examples and key takeaways from each, which I’ll list briefly below.

The first chapter looked at Commodore Vanderbilt and steam ships.  The key takeaway is that price cuts can benefit people.  By competing on price, Vanderbilt made steamship travel accessible to the average American in the regions where he operated. A luxury became a commodity, in essence.  This forced the competition to cut prices to stay up with him (who says deflation is always a bad thing?).  He also presents a good example of an ME versus a PE, with Vanderbilt being the ME and winning multiple times. 

Chapter 2 explores James Hill and railroads.  This chapter was a compare and contrast exercise between Hill’s railroads and the Transcontinental Railroad.  What was interesting here was the discussion of incentive structures in the context of the public and private sectors.  The Transcontinental Railroad builders were paid on a per-mile basis, so they would lay as much track as fast as possible, leading to both shoddy work (that would need to be redone) and inefficient, windy paths.  Hill focused on building the tracks right, with straight lines and low grade whenever possible.

And we move onto the Scrantons, iron rails, and cities.  Here, it’s a discussion of the iron rail industry in the area and a compare and contrast of Scranton versus Wilkes-Barre (both in Pennsylvania) back when the state wasn’t fully settled.  Scranton is presented as an example of smart urban planning and preparation for expansion.  The most interesting discussion here was about succession of wealth and how well families can maintain a wealthy status over multiple generations.  Basically, dynasties aren’t so easy to build and especially don’t survive as well as commonly believed.

Chapter 4 takes us to Charles Schwab, Andrew Carnegie, and the steel industry.  The main thing to take away from this chapter is that high pay for high performance actually works as a compensation model.  It was how Carnegie and Schwab were able to dominate the steel industry (on multiple occasions).  Their workers were properly incentivized.  Schwab also presented an example of wealth not necessarily staying once it’s been built. 

We come to John Rockefeller and the oil industry next.  By dominating the industry via competing on price, Rockefeller brought energy to the masses.  What was previously a luxury confined only to the rich (oil-based energy) became accessible to the average American.  This is another example of price cuts (aka deflation) benefitting people and a luxury becoming a commodity.  Rockefeller was not unlike Vanderbilt from before.

Chapter 6 looks at Andrew Mellow as Secretary of the Treasury and the birth supply-side economics in today’s terms.  Mellon’s policies, and the results thereof, showed that tax rates cannot be confused with tax revenues.  Fulsom presented IRS data to make his case, which is an interesting one. 

The last chapter focuses on why most historians today miss the mark on this period of American history.  Aside from the ME/PE distinction, there is the question of whether these men got rich through monopolies, as many historians argue, or whether they got rich by being the best at what they do, as Fulsom argues.  Fulsom also highlights that these men often succeeded where the government failed.  He shows samples from several prominent US history textbooks and why their accounts are both misleading and inaccurate.  This was a nice, neat way to close it up.

Here’s the bottom line.  This is a quick and worthwhile read.  It’s particularly good for those who believe these men truly were robber barons rather than successful entrepreneurs.  Obviously, there are more detailed books about each individual, but this is a solid compilation.

Avenged Sevenfold and Halestorm (Concert Season Review 2012 Edition Part 1)

I’m expecting a light concert season for 2012, as I only have two shows confirmed.  The first was this past Friday (Avenged Sevenfold and Halestorm at the Mohegan Sun Arena) and the second won’t be until late August (Carnival of Madness, same venue). 

I’ll put the review for Friday’s show first and follow that with a couple concert season odds and ends.

First up was Halestorm.  The name sounded familiar, but I’d never heard any of their music, live or otherwise.  Opening bands are a crapshoot, especially if you’ve never heard their music before.  Halestorm delivered in a big way and probably are the best new (to me) opener I’ve ever heard.  They were on for about 45 minutes, if I recall correctly, and their set included songs from both of their albums.  Freak Like Me, American Boys, and Here’s to Us were off their new album and were all solid performances, but the one that sold me was Familiar Taste of Poison from their first album.  I actually ordered both of their albums from Amazon the day after.  They were that good.  Musically, the band is excellent, but I was impressed with the drummer and especially the lead singer.  Their lead singer is a powerful female vocalist with the certain gruffness or edge to her sound (like a Janis Joplin) but still has a flair for softer, slower, and darker (like the lead singers of Evanescence or Nightwish, except without the classically-trained feel).  The drummer can pound and the guitars and bass come into the mix nicely, with speed and hardness, but not overpoweringly so.  Their stage presence was great, as well.  Halestorm clearly knew how to work the room and did thank the fans for making it possible.  A good opener will prime the crowd for the headliners and make a name for themselves, as well.  Halestorm did both masterfully here.

Then, we got Avenged Sevenfold (A7X).  This was my first time seeing them live and I have all five of their studio albums.  It should’ve been my second time, but that story comes later.  A7X started with Nightmare, the title track of their most recent album, and blew the roof off.  The crowd was absolutely on fire and that frantic pace kept up for pretty much the entire 90 or so minutes they were on.  These guys rock hard, really hard.  Beast and the Harlot and Welcome to the Family followed.  They even went back to the Waking the Fallen album on multiple occasions.  Buried Alive was an absolutely awesome performance, complete with pyro.  These higher-energy songs were consistently mind-blowing, but the “lighter and slower” (relative versus absolute) songs like So Far Away, Afterlife, and A Little Piece of Heaven were possibly even better, particularly the last two.  A7X is extremely talented musically all the way through.  Guitars, vocals, bass, and drums are all incredibly strong, certainly one of the best collections of talent on the scene today.  I hear both the 80’s/90’s heavy metal and the 90’s/2000’s hardcore and hard rock in A7X, which is truly awesome.  The stage presence was great and even had a little light drinking, though obviously not enough to impair performance.  They of course thanked the fans for making it possible and absolutely delivered.

Overall, this was one of the best concerts I’ve ever been to.  It was well worth the price of admission and the venue was great.  The arena played Metallica and similar rock during the intermissions.  Both bands took the time to acknowledge the fans and thank us for making it possible for the bands to do what they do (this is a simple gesture that is more noticeable in its absence than its presence, as I detailed in a previous review for a band I won’t name here).  I’ll gladly pay to see either band again and will follow them.  I even walked away with a new zip-up hoodie and a hat (I usually only get one item per show, so I was a big spender getting two this time). 

And the extra notes I mentioned.

The Rockstar Mayhem Tour in early August is a maybe.  I have calendar questions, and I have issues with the nearest venue, namely the Comcast Center in Hartford.  I went to Mayhem there last year, which was a great show, but the lawn area was flea-infested (and you’re not safe even in the seated area).  I was covered in bites.  When I got home, I stripped naked on the back porch and left clothes, shoes, and stuff outside before going straight for the showers.  Probably not what you want to hear, but this was no joke.  Furthermore, I was supposed to go to the Rockstar Uproar Tour there last September, but didn’t because I broke my foot the day before and the venue’s accommodations for injured/handicap people were, in my view, deficient to the point of being dangerous whether using crutches or a wheelchair.  Even if I didn’t have calendar issues, I’d still think twice about going there, at least during the summer.  The sound quality is sold, but the venue itself is beyond awful.

Unlike last year, when I didn’t start doing concert reviews until well into the season, I’ll do a whole post for each concert I attend.  I need stuff to write about outside of the world’s three-ring circus comprised of the 2012 US election, the Eurozone collapse, and miscellaneous history/current events. 

And that, as they say, is that.

A Look at the ESP Spectrums – Economic Part 2

In Part 1, I explored the red side of the economic spectrum, namely communism, socialism, and fascism.  But, what about capitalism and free market capitalism?  Basically, communists seek to destroy the capitalist spirit and socialists/fascists seek to subjugate it.  The capitalists are on the other side. 

The Free Market Capitalists (FMCs) seek to allow the capitalist spirit to run free, while the capitalists would seek to allow the spirit to run free with some slight checks on it.  Neutrals are in the middle by being less accommodative than capitalists and more accommodative than socialists.  Unlike socialism, fascism, and communism, these other three economic models have robust private property rights and are only economic models.  They are not also political structures.  The USA is not referred to as a capitalist regime because capitalism isn’t a structure of government.

I created the capitalist and neutral categories to allow for some space between being an FMC and a socialist/fascist/communist because I’ve seen a lot of people who don’t want to subjugate and control the capitalist spirit in the way the socialists/fascists want to or kill it like the communists want to, but at the same time don’t necessarily want it to run as freely as the FMCs do. 

The key takeaway on my economic spectrum is that, as we move from left to right, the faith in the government’s ability to control the economy and/or degree to which it attempts to do so increases. 

Let’s think of capitalism as a lion (or a pride) and explore how the various entities would interact with it (these can be plural, too).  I think it’s a good metaphor to get the key points across.

We’ve already established that the communists would kill the lion…or at least attempt to.  Whether they succeed is another matter entirely (and if they don’t succeed, survival is in doubt), but let’s assume they do succeed for the sake of argument.  The government would use the lion’s corpse for food, clothing, jewelry, and tools, then throw the scraps to the people.  This would be a tragedy, and we’ve seen it play out before with the collapse of the USSR or Mao’s China (as discussed before, they weren’t fully communist, but they’re about as close as I can think of).  Present-day examples require the same caveat and include North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela.

The socialists/fascists would attempt to control/train the lion.  Like above, success (and survival) is not guaranteed, but we’ll once again assume success and survival for the sake of argument.  They’d probably turn it into a circus or work animal, which the humans would enjoy.  The lion would live a miserable life and die an early, pitiful death.  The government would then use the lion’s corpse like the communists.  This also would be tragic.  It is why Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.”

Note that socialist and fascist are interchangeable here because both seek to control the lion.  Nazi Germany is a great example.  Also, during the Mao era, China strived for a communist model, but the China of today is more akin to a fascist or socialist one.  We can also consider portions of the slow-motion trainwreck that is present-day Europe here, too.

The neutrals, capitalists, and FMCs wouldn’t try to kill the lion like the communists would and they wouldn’t try to train/control the lion like the socialists/fascists would.  As opposed to the socialists/fascists trying to make the lion do what they want it to do, the neutrals may actively try to prevent the lion from doing something while the capitalists may take more passive preventative measures and the FMCs would be content to let the lion do its thing.  Once again, survival isn’t guaranteed, but if all else is held equal, they are probably the best in these scenarios than those outlined above because they’re not picking a fight with the lion here like they are above.  This is under the assumption the action the lion wants to take is merely an inconvenient/undesired behavior versus being a present and/or future danger to the people. 

If that assumption isn’t valid and there is a danger, the willingness to take action increases.  Furthermore I contend that, in general, the probability that the lion’s desired action would be perceived as a danger would decrease as one moves from neutral to capitalist to FMC.  Said another way, a neutral would generally be more likely  to view a given action as a danger than the capitalist would be and the capitalist would be more likely than the FMC to view that same action as a danger.  Of course, there are exceptions and whether they’re right or wrong to view the action as a danger is another matter entirely.

Thus, for lions and neutrals/capitalists/FMCs, I see a happy existence for both and no tragedy here.  The two would be able to survive and perhaps even play from time to time.  Dust-ups will happen from time to time, but nothing Earth-shattering.  This stands in stark contrast with the socialists//fascists/communists.  The United States historically presents an excellent example and most Americans tend to fall in the neutral, capitalist, or FMC categories.  I’ll leave aside the question of certain periods presenting better/worse examples than others to keep this post more brief and high-level.

One question I see coming is why I haven’t included Crony Capitalists (CCs) or State Capitalists (SCs) anywhere on the spectrum.  Here, both are entities that find that the best way to profit is not necessarily through conquering their industry with innovation, value, etc., but by using the government to make the economic landscape more favorable to them.  Crony capitalism, though commonly expressed as ‘capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down’ or ‘private profits and public losses’, isn’t its own economic system per se so much as a symptom of an economy that is being dragged away from free market capitalism and toward communism (the direction rather than the start/end points is the key here).  My view is state capitalism is largely interchangeable with fascism and does not warrant an additional category. 

Another question I see coming is why I chose a lion.  I did this because trying to control the economy the way the socialists/fascists would is like trying to herd cats.  We’re not talking about herding small housecats, however.  Rather, we’re looking at big wildcats, and lions are the biggest of the bunch (ligers and tigons, though larger, are man-made hybrids).  Also, even though they’re apex predators, lions generally don’t kill people unless they’re provoked or extremely hungry.  I wanted to convey both a generally laid-back temperament (some might say lazy, particularly with regards to the adult males and the cubs) outside of confrontation and the far-from-certain odds of survival upon confrontation.  Lions fit the bill nicely.  Lastly, this also shows the competitive nature of the economic landscape.  Survival, much less prosperity, is not guaranteed and requires physical and mental fortitude (plus luck).

The last question I see coming is about what works better.  The real-world examples in these posts hint at an answer, but this is a whole other topic best left for another day.

A Look at the ESP Spectrums – Economic Part 1

As I did with the social and political spectrums, I’m going to start this look at the economic spectrum by copying exactly from my first post in this series.  From my previous column:

“We don’t typically see a global economic spectrum, but I’d contend it looks like Figure 4.

Free-Market Capitalist				Socialist		Communist

Note the lack of partition and higher concentration of more solid colors in Figure 4 versus Figure 3.  Also, note the absence of anything to the right of socialism shown in Figure 2.  The reason is that these (republic, democracy, monarchy, theocracy, and fundamentalist) are generally considered more to be social and political structures than economic structures, and as such, these structures can, in theory, appear throughout the economic spectrum.  So, we have free-market capitalist, socialist, and communist economic structures.

But Figure 4 is flawed.  It creates a perception that if one is not a full-on free-market capitalist, one is a socialist or even a communist.  This is why I’d like to change the economic spectrum in Figure 4 to look more like Figure 5.

Free-Market Capitalist	Capitalist		Neutral	Socialist		Communist

As you can see, there is much less solid color and two new categories have emerged, namely capitalist and neutral.  This distinction is necessary because it creates a new category, the capitalist, for people who believe the economy should mostly be left to its own devices, yet sometimes requires the government to act as a referee or a guide.  Such people are often and unfairly demonized by free-market capitalists, socialists, and communists alike.” 

We’ll spend Part 1 looking at the red side of the spectrum and Part 2 looking at the green side (along with the grey).  Before we start, let’s just acknowledge as a basic premise for the sake of this post that both true free market capitalism and communism are very difficult (arguably impossible) to achieve in the real world on larger scales.  We could spend a while discussing why, but that’s way out of scope here.  The various examples that I’ll mention ultimately do not reach the far ends of the spectrum.  Mao-era China, the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, etc. all fall short of the communist ideal, just as the United States, South Korea, Hong Kong, etc. fall short of the free market capitalist ideal.

I mentioned in the political spectrum discussion that the major differences between socialism and communism are economic in nature.  I put those off until now, so here they are. 

The first question is about what to do with the remaining capitalist spirit once the socialists/communists take over.  They hold divergent views, but both loathe the capitalist spirit.  In the eyes of a communist, capitalism and communism cannot coexist.  Communists believe that the capitalist system must be destroyed.  There is no compromise, as only the total destruction of all things capitalist will satisfy the communist.  However, a socialist doesn’t necessarily embrace this mutual exclusion.  In other words, socialism and capitalism can coexist in the eyes of a socialist.  The socialist contends that the capitalist spirit need not necessarily be destroyed because the socialist can use it to advance socialist goals.  If communists wish to destroy the capitalist spirit, socialists wish to tame and control it.  It’s almost a question of hatred versus merely contempt.

Socialism and communism both have a more collective view of property ownership.  The difference here stems from the strength of private property rights, which are generally stronger with socialism than communism (in a communist model, private property rights are virtually nonexistent).  Because of this shared collective view of property ownership, socialism and communism are actually both an economic structure and a political structure.  In both cases, the government would generally directly own the means of production.

Considering the differences, you can now see why I commonly refer to socialism as communism-lite.  We could even go so far as to say that any type of government could embrace a socialist or communist economic structure.  Indeed, we see socialism and communism used quite frequently (and correctly) to describe both economic and political models.  We see the government in say the old USSR, Mao-era China, North Korea, or Cuba referred to as communist regimes. 

There may be questions about why fascism isn’t on here.  Similar to the political spectrum, fascism is something of a blend, this time between socialism and communism.  Also, like socialism and communism, fascism can be considered both an economic and political system. 

In a socialist economy, we’d be more likely to see the government directly own the means of production, but allow the people to retain property ownership.  In a fascist economy, production and property ownership are more likely to be officially in private hands, but unofficially controlled by the government.  Either way, the result is a somewhat tight grip on the economy by the government (versus the death grip communism would have on an economy, a looser grip for neutral and looser still for capitalism, and really no grip for free market capitalism, as I’ll detail later). 

This willingness to hijack the capitalist economy versus destroying it is the key factor that differentiates socialism/fascism versus communism.  Fascism would generally have a tighter grip on the economy than socialism.  On this spectrum, fascism would reside right at the border between socialism and communism.  I’m toying with the idea of amending both the economic and/or political spectrums to put fascism as its own category.  Fascism and socialism are similar enough to be reasonably combined for general discussion, but they have certain key differences that prevent them from being used interchangeably.  This is part of why I struggle with how far to separate fascism and socialism.  After all, Nazi Germany was fascist, but Nazi is shorthand for “National Socialist”.  Of the three, I would contend that present-day China is more akin to a fascist economic and political structure than socialist or communist.

In Part 2, I’ll discuss the rest of the spectrum and present what I think is a good metaphor to understand the concepts.

Book Review – “Dismantling America” by Thomas Sowell

I recently read Thomas Sowell’s “Dismantling America.”  This is the first book I’ve read by him, but I do read his columns as I’m able.  The book is a collection of some of Sowell’s syndicated columns during (mostly) the early years of the Obama presidency.  Each column is about three pages, which is nice because I can think of a column as a chapter and I like short chapters.  Note there were some multi-columns series, which made for a good change of pace, as well.

It’s a tough book to review because what you think of the book depends almost entirely on what you think of his columns.  If you like his columns, you’ll like the book.  If you hate his columns, you’ll hate the book.  It’s really that simple. 

Personally, I like his content and style.  I don’t always agree with the content and I do spot logical flaws from time to time, but on the whole, I think Sowell is one of the best mainstream, right-leaning columnists out there. 

The book explores economic, social, cultural, historical, and legal matters.  It also explores politics from both tactical and strategic perspectives, as well as taking a look at the reality behind the rhetoric.  There are a lot of great columns here.  The economic section is particularly strong, which makes sense given Sowell’s background as an economist. 

Beyond the “typical” right-wing line of thinking, there are some key takeaways.  Whether I/you agree/disagree with them is out of scope here.  I’m just highlighting them.

1.     There is no free lunch.  Said another way, the transfer of cost from one party to another is not the same as the elimination of cost.  Transferring cost from party A to party B does eliminate it from A’s expenses, but it does not eliminate it from the overall system.

2.    America has the best medical care system in the world.  This is not to be confused with healthcare.  Medical care starts upon arrival at the doctor/hospital, but healthcare includes lifestyle considerations.  Thus, the medical care system has very limited control over our overall healthcare.   

3.    There is a difference between attempting to “level the playing field” and equalize results. 

4.    The notion of “fairness” sounds easy and concrete at first glance, but it entails far more than meets the eye.

I think this book would be a better read for left-leaning people, to be honest.  It’s a relatively quick read that forces them to actually sit down and take in the arguments of the right versus ignoring and/or reflexively denying them based on source.  Similarly, people of a more neutral political orientation would benefit by reading this book because they would see the right-wing argument presented by a right-winger.  Right-leaning folks would gain out of it, as well, even if only to sharpen their positions.  I don’t know of an equivalent book by a left-leaning columnist on Sowell’s level, but if I did, I’d pick it up.

Note that this doesn’t automatically mean that someone on the left/right is always correct/wrong on an issue because sometimes both can be correct and sometimes both can be wrong, so don’t fall into that logical trap. 

So, the bottom line is it’s a worthwhile read.