A Perfunctory Guide to Government @perfunctoryguidetopolitics-blog - Tumblr Blog

Socialism v. Capitalism: Economics in America

Throughout this Democratic primary, one of the most compelling differences between Sanders and Clinton was their differing stances on economics. Simply, Clinton’s policies exemplify a fairly moderate take on current American capitalism, while Sanders championed socialist economic policies. To put a finer point on it, Clinton was not scared by the concept of government spending (as most fiscal conservatives are), but her policies also demonstrate a preference for keeping the government and economy at a healthy distance. Sanders’ policies acknowledge a fundamental connection between governance and economics, and treat the government as a legitimate economic actor as such. In this post it is my intention to highlight the differences between these two socioeconomic paradigms, and to perhaps offer evidence that suggests that socialism is not something to be feared in America.

The fundamental difference between Capitalism and Socialism is that Capitalists are concerned with building as big an economy as quickly as possible, while Socialists are willing to sacrifice a bit of size and speed to make sure that the money is being distributed a little more evenly. Indeed this can be seen even in the most basic economic models that students are taught. In these models there is no government intervention, and the end goal is to suss out what price and quantity will result in the maximum economic profit. I freely admit that within these models any sort of government intervention will retard the growth of the economy and reduce the optimal outcome. However what is worth noting is that such models work on the premise of perfect competition. In these models there are infinite sellers, all of whom are only able to sell at prices that are agreeable to consumers; lest they force themselves out of business. We do not live in this dreamy model of economics land though. There are trying realities that we have to live with, such as a limited number of producers and the resultant imbalance of economic powers and the lack of rationality that so often characterizes real life. It is from these cracks in the standard economic model that the flaws capitalism emerge. An ever increasing income and wealth gap; oligarchic government tendencies; socially dominant corporations. All of these are flaws that we have seen just within our own mostly capitalist country. Let me be clear, I am not writing this simply to criticize capitalism. As I said earlier, it is an ultimately efficient system which can motivate an impressive amount of innovation. I started this piece by listing the above flaws because capitalism is the status quo. It is what we are familiar with, and if we are to even begin considering making a change then we need to acknowledge the existing flaws. It is my firm belief that the adoption of some socialist policies could even the economic playing field, enhance our democracy, increase the quality of life within our country, and perhaps result in a more efficient country in the long run. I will also be certain to mention the drawbacks which might result from such a course of action.

Now, pointing out all of the above is instructive, but it is more useful to consider how we can solve the problem. To reiterate, a healthy capitalism depends on minimal government intervention and equal economic strength between producers and consumers, and according to the above there is gross inequality.The general solutions that are available are to empower consumers, to diminish corporations, or to reallocate the ultimate profits so that an equal outcome is reached. The first of those options is,at this point, the least realistic. I cannot conceive of a way to increase the power of consumers that is not more fairly described as reducing producers, outside of making consumers more independent. Making consumers more independent, and thus less vulnerable to unnecessarily high prices is a task which requires more resources than we presently have access to, so this solution is infeasible for the time being. This leads us to ask, would diminishing corporations have a desirable effect then? There are two primary ways in which a society might diminish the economic power of corporations: 1. Increasing competition 2. Heavy regulation. Increasing competition within a specific market would ensure that companies would suffer greater economic consequences if they were to try to increase the price of their good arbitrarily; thereby giving them less control over the market. Similarly, if the government were to heavily regulate a product than they could control the quantity and price by law; clearly such a measure would take some economic force out of the hands of corporations. The latter of these two options can be thrown out immediately since it violates the basic principles of a free market, and puts far too much power in the hands of the government. The former merits slightly more consideration. Obviously if the newly competitive firms were owned by the government that would be a substantial overreach. Not only is there no constitutional basis for government run businesses (the post office being the most notable exception), but also it would be prohibitively cumbersome to plan and operate. However, if the government were to provide grants and other incentives to help lift new companies into competitiveness, the market could flourish. Essentially, any prudent grant of such a nature would not be for an amount sufficient to sustain a firm indefinitely, and so recipient firms would be forced to innovate and compete thereby making the entire market more competitive and equal. An indirect example of such a set-up is the SpaceX contract with the American government. In this case the government was able to incentivize innovation and entry into a market by offering a contract.

#socialism #capitalism #bernie sanders #politics

Excessive Use of Force by Law Enforcement Agents: Part 2

When I last abandoned you, I mentioned the difficult journey that faced us if we were sincere in our ambition to curb the incidences of excessive use of force by law enforcement agencies. Well, I have taken that journey (with no small amount of pitstops) and found some answers. The veritable spelunking that is requisite to finding a suitable federal response to this excessive force is very much indicative of the complexity of the topic. In the proceeding discourse I will strive to unravel these issues and disseminate several solutions so that they may be viewed as nearly simple, and in the process I promise to also strive to come across as totally pompous as is possible.

As is the case when dealing with anything government related there are a swarm of tiny complicating difficulties to overcome before a solution can be reached, and of course, it is these seemingly inconsequential matters that are the most crucial. While this subject is no exception, we can simplify the discourse by considering most of these pesky issues to fall under the umbrella issue of federalism (a mostly fair assumption). Federalism, in general terms, refers to the Constitutional delegation of different powers to the states and federal government. Specifically, the Constitution provides specific and limited powers to the federal government, while leaving all other powers to the states. Among the powers left to the states are all police powers; the power to regulate actual police is among the police powers. Immediately, an active reader will conclude that since the regulation of law enforcement is emphatically within the domain of the state this post is unnecessary because the federal government is helpless to regulate the subject. However, such a conclusion is hasty; While the federal government cannot directly regulate law enforcement agencies, they can pursue certain objectives using less direct means. The most discussed of these less direct means are conditioning grants that law enforcement agencies receive from the federal government, collecting and disseminating information about incidents of excessive force, and amending the U.S. code to help ensure justice is more easily found for victims of police violence. Throughout this post I will expand on each of these methods by providing information on the constitutionality, feasibility, and usefulness of each of these sorts of measures both in reference to general ideas and specific bills.

The first method of federal response I will address is the use of grants to prod law enforcement agencies toward wanted actions. To begin, there is no constitutional issue with the general concept of conditioning grants. Indeed, it is a frequently used method that is mostly unchallenged in contemporary governance. There is however something of a grey area with regards to conditioning grants, that being the extent to which grants can be used to punish non-compliance. Admittedly I did not care to read all the court cases and other sources that would provide a solid accounting for what the precise guidelines are. My rule of thumb is to avoid anything that is a punishment rather than a gentle push toward a legitimate government objective and to certainly not do anything of such a magnitude as to risk it being labeled draconian. So while there are some limitation to what and how things can be accomplished, these instances are the extremes rather than the norm. This leaves a substantial amount of room for regulation. Furthermore, conditioning grants is an exceptionally easy way to legislate. Making an amendment to JAG or COPS grants that details a desired behavior and outlines the consequences for non-compliance is by no means a massive undertaking. Moreover, with the currently outstanding public support for reducing police violence accomplishing such a regulation falls well within the realm of feasibility. As most attempts to condition law enforcement grants can now be said to be both constitutional and feasible, the usefulness of the measures remains to be discussed. One factor immediately impacting this consideration is ascertaining what changes are realistically within the scope of a conditioned grants. Fortunately, almost anything is within the realm of regulation using this technique; provided of course that the phrasing steers clear of the aforementioned hazards. Even when we turn an eye toward realism, almost any ends is within reach provided that the dictated means are not so ludicrous as to compel law enforcement agencies to forgo the federal grants they receive. As such, I would also consider conditioning grants to be a feasible method of regulation. There is no need to take any of the above as Gospel though. The varied subject matters of the germane bills being considered presently by Congress should prove illustrative.

#excessive use of force #police violence #politics

Excessive Use of Force by Law Enforcement Agents

In the past few days the news has been clogged to the point of near stagnation by coverage of anything and everything related to the recent violent outbursts. For those of my readers who cannot stand ambiguity and/or those who have been, up until this point, living in a shack in the middle of the woods where no outside communication reaches, the violent outbursts I am referring to are the murders of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile by police officers and the chilling revenge killing of several Dallas police officers. Needless to say, these atrocities have garnered serious attention and have ignited a spirited debate about the relationship between law enforcement agents and the communities they are meant to protect. The fact that such a discussion has emerged from this tragedy should be a point of great national pride. What topic could be more worthy of earnest political consideration than the health of the relationship between the agents chosen by the government to protect the public and the actual public. Moreover, I cannot conceive of a better way to honor the memories of the lives lost than to come together,in the spirit of unity, to fix the problem that led to these deaths. This topic is indeed particularly necessary to think about now given the degree of the breakdown we have witnessed. What failures could be more severe than an officer of the law violating a citizen’s most fundamental right, their right to life, and the reverse? It is my intention to clear away some of the reactionary rhetoric presently disguising the issue, to highlight the flaws in our society that these tragedies have made evident, and then to provide solutions to those problems.

In order to satisfactorily observe and explain the rapidly developing (or perhaps devolving) discourse it is necessary to consider these violent outbursts in a somewhat chronological manner. In doing so, we, as watchful observers can note the peculiarities of each instance and can appreciate the development that each of these tragedies brought to the conversation.

This conversation was almost immediately derailed by the tragic terrorist attack on Dallas. (I realize that the attack has not popularly been labeled as such, but I feel that it is a fitting identifier. It seems undeniable that the attack was planned and executed with the intent to motivate political change by causing widespread fear and anger; the fact that an American citizen committed the atrocity is irrelevant to the classification.) When the attack occurred America’s sympathies jumped straight from being with the families’ of the men killed by police to the police officers and their associates. This jump is both appropriate in that the loss of life in such a cruel way should be mourned and inappropriate in that there was and is no need to only have sympathy for one of these sides. Nonetheless, when these murders occurred people lost their sense of outrage and began to celebrate all police officers as heroes. This drastic shift is a strong indicator that people see the issue of extreme use of force by law enforcement officers as a zero sum game. Either you support police officers wholeheartedly and see those advocating for accountability as criminals looking for ways to get away with more, or else you believe that law enforcement agencies have become corrupted by racism to the point where they are now entirely untrustworthy. I take only a little joy in saying that both extreme sides are unequivocally wrong. The only logically coherent view is to value all the life that was taken without a just trial or compelling reason, and to mourn each loss with equal sympathy. The only path to a productive, judicious future is to use these tragedies as platforms from which we may better observe our shortcomings. Once we have realized these shortcomings it is our duty to our country and to those who lost their lives due to these flaws to make every effort to have a dispassionate conversation aimed at fixing these fatal flaws. We must build upon the conversations about racial prejudice in law enforcement that were brought to national prominence by these tragedies. We must have these difficult conversations so that our neighbors, our families, and our friends all can feel safe and equal in their own homes. We must fight for these changes to honor the citizens and law enforcement agents who lost their lives due to this fermented discontent. And we must fix these problems so that our country can live up to its reputation as the land of the free and the home of the brave.

#alton sterling #philandocastile #excessive use of force #black lives matter

The Federalist Papers (21)

Summaries of old political articles here! Get your summary of an old politicle article here. Now that I’ve sold you, I hope you’re ready for what should actually be a fairly brief post. If you’ll recall from last time I posted about the Federalist Papers, I decided to skip summarizing 18-20 because they were boring and did not in a significant way address any political issues of modern salience. So in this episode I’ll be summarizing Federalist Paper 21, wherein Alexander starts getting into the nitty-gritty of what made the Articles of Confederation a failure. Said post will begin after this page break to save you from scrolling if you don’t want to read this.

#federalist papers #alexander hamilton

The Case for Context in Political Discourse (Don’t meme at me.).

Sup nerds. Im coming back at you with another unprepared idea. I could give you some more Federalist Papers summary that I have prepared, but where’s the zest in that. As an update I am halfway through the next gun control post. For this post I want to do another little article about the intersection of revolutionary politics and contemporary politics. Although rather than a compare and contrast inspired piece, this will hopefully just outline some differences between the two eras. I suppose that is just about enough rambling on without giving you a concrete idea of what I’m talking about, so I’ll just start.

As I referenced yesterday, outside of soundbites and middle-school vocabulary, the tendency to claim a revolutionary/foundation era virtue is probably the most prevalent election motif. Both the actual candidates and their supporters do not hesitate to draw parallels between their side and the Founding Fathers while simultaneously insinuating that their opponent’s are the English Crown incarnate. In these attempts at persuasion, the target audience is put in a position where they can either accept this dire moral binary, or be labeled unpatriotic, or else attempt to argue which is nearly always a fruitless endeavor at this point. Putting people between this metaphorical rock and a hard place is exactly why clothing oneself in Revolutionary virtue is such an effective rhetorical technique. But it begs the question why do voters allow this technique to be so impactful? The answer is that over the years, American society has built up something akin to a creation myth around the founding era America. The politicians who engineered the constitution have been all but beatified, and the situation has been conflated to the point where there was an absolute right and wrong. It is, in all truth, a nearly religious level devotion that has been built up around these events. It is this presumed sanctity and infallibility that has made it nearly impossible to criticize any idea that any Founding Father ever had in even semi-public discourse. Well except for slavery. That is something that most people seem to be against at this point.

The gripe that inspired this post is that hiding behind a Revolutionary visage shuts down any form of intelligent discourse in all but the most placid settings. I say the following with full knowledge of its hypocrisy, but the limitation that this strategy brings to public discourse is something that the framers would have shuddered to think of. The true shame of that anti-intellectual stratagem is that it also leads people to false conclusions. Not just about candidates and parties, but about bigger issues. It is obscenely common to see folks gravitate around a quote just because it is attributed to a revolutionary thinker. Often there are grains of enduring knowledge to be distilled from these quotes, but even more commonly they are taken out of context and dated to the point of being entirely inapplicable. It is especially dangerous when these quotes are applied to contemporary situations and it is assumed that they should tightly fit. Not even the staunchest conservative can, in good conscience, argue that rules made over 200 years ago will always appropriately fit. It is a ludicrous proposition. Even the most forward-looking individual cannot accurately foresee all domestic situations that will need to be dealt with nor all the technology that people will have access to. These two limitations alone are sufficient to cast some doubt upon the plain letter of the Constitution. There is one feature to our Constitution which I feel has indefinite lasting potential, and that is the fact that it is amendable; Without this capacity the document would be doomed to perpetual antiquity. Below I will include two quick examples to illustrate the inadequacy of basing contemporary political debate upon founding era quotes or notions.

1. This example will be relatively concise. Some ideas do not and should not last. Society’s values change, ad certain practices begin to be increasingly barbaric. High among those is slavery.

2. Technology progresses with baffling speed, and these changes are difficult to contend with. I will provide two quick examples of this. First, the firearms referred to in the second amendment were muskets, not rifles or handguns. Muskets, clearly were significantly less dangerous for a person to own. Second, there is significant discussion in the Constitution regarding how and when legislators are to meet. The guidelines set forth were done so under the assumption of the then current levels of communication and transportation. As a result, the quorum rules and attendance rules that our legislators work by are relatively lax. Although this point is more true in theory than practice given the amount of in district work that takes place.

2.5. There is a frequently circulated quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson that says something to the effect of ‘Tyranny occurs when the government will not let the people do something that it can do’. Currently it is mostly use to support unlimited gun control and to decry Hillary Clinton for the email scandal. But whoever began circulating this quote must have done so with little to no regard for the context. The Constitution itself has widespread mention of things that the government may do exclusively, such as commanding the army. Moreover, people using this quote clearly do not appreciate the mobility of technology. Perhaps this quote was valid reasoning for keeping weapons in the home years ago, but for individuals to retain equal footing with the government now, they would have to be given access to nuclear missiles, tanks, flamethrowers, etc. That’s not particularly a road I want to go.

All that I can ask that you take from this is that memes and revolutionary reverence are grossly irresponsible methods of political discourse.

#politics

Contemporary Revolutionary Forces in America.

So that’s a hell of a title huh? I apologize in advance if this post doesn't live up to your expectations; I came up with the idea when I was out running, so it is still unrefined. I should probably delay writing on the subject until I have a more clear idea in mind of what I want to say, but frankly I don’t want to. If you have a problem with it go fight @rhymeschemer .

When I was out running through a sunset dappled, rolling grassland this evening I couldn’t help but be absorbed by the gentle beauty of my surroundings; then after like three minutes of that I started to think about politics. Naturally. The topic that captured my interest was the pointed differences in the attitudes of the presidential campaigns this election cycle. On the right, Trump and his supporters are notoriously zealous and nationalistic. They repeatedly scoff at the distant government and how it thinks that it knows better than them. They very much favor a dumbed-down sort of government with simple laws that they think will make each and every true American prosperous again; regardless of the impacts that these policy choices have on other countries and people. I will refrain from offering extensive commentary regarding my opinion on this matter, as discussion of their attitudes and general the purpose of their movement is all that is relevant to the topic at hand. Plus what fun is a target that easy? On the left there is an opposite goal that is shared by both Hillary and Bernie supporters, but a bifurcated attitude. Nearly all liberals in this election cycle are in favor of a substantial federal government that uses its impressive girth to satisfy the needs of and provide desperately needed services to constituents all over the country. Those who support Hillary very much feel as though the government is working well toward that outcome presently, and want to continue the progress that has been made through the best decade or so. They want the government to use all the taxes it collects in an effort to improve the lives’ of citizens in ways which people could never accomplish independently. As such, they are fairly placid and inclusive. Those liberals and progressives who support Bernie present more difficulty in classifying. They certainly share traits with both Trump supporters and Hillary supporters, but for different reasons. The political revolution that Bernie often promises offers a strong indication as to how his supporters perceive the country. They undeniably feel that the country is presently broken due to it’s inability to provide for any but the richest citizens; that everything is ‘rigged’ in a way that excludes the vast majority citizens from equal participation. However, unlike the Trump supporters, Bernie supporters believe that the solution to this issue is to use the incredible resources possessed by the government to pave the way to equality. To those who have followed this election none of this should come as a surprise. It has been discussed repeatedly by nearly every political analyst. The novelty that I will endeavor to bring to this topic now is that these stances in some compelling ways are analogues to the passions that motivated the American Revolution.

The violent anger and animus against government displayed by Trump supporters is, as most supporters would tell you, quite similar to the passions that led to the Declaration of Independent. The people felt as though they were being egregiously burdened by a government that they had no real say in, and so they rebelled against it. Certainly, at the time open rebellion was the best way to free the American colonies of this yolk. However, is such an attitude or reaction appropriate when the government in question is a republic and domestic?

While the above was certainly visible as a motivator for the revolution, it is by no means the only attitude that pushed America onto the path to successful independence. A rather basic examination of the Constitution and the other works of many of the founders will reveal that unity and cooperation were also fundamental to the success of America. Indeed, throughout the Federalist Papers there are ceaseless mentions of the utility and liberty to be derived from a powerful and accessible federal government. I feel that it is not outrageous to contend that without these forces pushing us toward the Constitution we currently use, the United States of America would not be as strong as we are presently. This preference for stewardship and gestalt government is certainly embodied in each of the liberal candidates still remaining.

So as we approach the 4th of July give a little bit of thought toward what the Revolution actually entailed. It was not just blind anger against government, nor was it blind trust and acquiescence to government. It was a combination of many different passions which moved the colonies in different ways at different times. Without any one of those passions it is entirely possible that the America we know today would be drastically different. I feel that I certainly could politicize this post by using these attitudes to praise one candidate over another, but at a certain point unity is a virtue. So please, any time any candidate or political figure claims to have The Constitution or the founding values on their side consider the claim a bit more deeply before getting too jazzed up about it. Life is far more complicated than talking points, and all that stuff is a little dated to be holding in such esteem anyway frankly. Have a happy 4th yall.

#politics #4th of july

More Federalist Papers (16, 17)

So to start this post have some exciting news. I came up with a cool new idea for a post that I am going to start drafting tomorrow, plus I started writing the second post regarding gun control. If that’snot hype, I don’t really know what is. Enough silliness though; its time for some Federalist Papers. The two that I intend to cover within this post are plain and simple continuations of what was going on in post 15. So, buckle in for some rousing summary of why the Articles of Confederation just weren’t cutting it.

Federalist Paper 16

To begin this article, the ever cheery Hamilton reminded his readers that people are, to put it lightly, remarkably belligerent, and that as a result of this predisposition toward belligerence states in any government are very likely to ignore federal mandates and/or squabble with one another. Not surprisingly, Hamilton was of the opinion that in either of the above circumstances, the Federal government should assert itself and ensure compliance and tranquility. At this point Hamilton progressed to discuss the precise method of how a government could execute its laws, if it were free of poorly conceived restraints; that method being punishing the offending state, or marching the army into the state so that they might literally lay down the law. I will not dwell on this point presently, but I think that this is a sobering reminder that almost all of government is built upon the threat of force. As much as we pretend otherwise in modern discourse, without the looming possibility of some form of reprisal how really can the government convince everyone within it’s territory to follow the established rules? Tangent aside, Hamilton offered the critique that the Articles of Confederation left the militias (armies) in the hands of the states, to be occasionally controlled in a joint capacity by the federal government. It is not difficult to imagine who the soldiers will most eagerly follow in this scenario. This loyalty to the state over the country made enforcement a nearly apocalyptic scenario for the country. Imagine that during that period, Pennsylvania had committed some form of atrocity and the only federal recourse was to send troops there. Clearly, in that instant Pennsylvania will not send troops from its state to join the federal forces, but what of the states who labeled Pennsylvania as a friend and ally. It seems plausible that they would also neglect to supply soldiers. Hamilton quipped that this side choosing would continue until the states had divided themselves into a total civil war. From that point Hamilton described in some depth what joys would await America if such a war were to come into fruition.To put all that more briefly, Hamilton identified the tendency to catalyze civil wars as one of the least acceptable traits of the Articles of Confederation.

Moving forward Hamilton admitted that states ought to prefer a weaker federal government because such a weakening directly and proportionately invigorated the states. Hamilton then tried to rally support by reminding the readers of all the previously mentioned evils that were to be derived from a state-centric confederacy. As neither of these two outcomes seemed totally ideal, Hamilton then framed a work-around. In order to have a federal government with the capacity to enforce laws it would be necessary to change what units the government was to be bound to. Rather than states being the compositional units of the country, Hamilton proposed that the actual people of the country be those units. In such a way, the government would be able to avoid working around or through intermediary legislatures and had the power to enforce. The remainder of the article Hamilton occupied with additional pleas for this sort of solution. And just like that, onto 17 we go.

#federalist papers #articles of confederation #alexander hamilton

The Federalist Papers (15)

Hey, its me! I’m coming back at you with more summaries of the Federalist Papers. I’ll be totally honest, I got a little burnt out on these and havent been keeping up with my reading. But! I’m here now so rejoice. So, I’ll give you a splash of context and then actually get rolling. This article functions as a thematic transition of sorts. In the preceding articles the authors discussed ways in which the proposed constitution would aid the country. In this article the author begins picking apart why the current confederacy was not working. So without further ado, here we go.

#federalist papers

A Perfunctory Guide to the Second Amendment Part 1 (cont.) Supplement 1A.

Holy Sweet Mother of unwieldy titles! This is the actual last part of part 1. There’s absolutely no way that I can forget to include anything else. Like I checked my notes and everything. Sooooooooo..... As I mentioned at the tail end of the previous post, here I will discuss the damage done to liberty by regulating or banning civilian gun control, and whether that is a compelling reason for unfettered gun ownership. Please do be aware that the writing in this may be a little unorganized. I am actually just typing and posting a first draft. I literally have no idea what I’m going to be saying at all. If this tickles your fancy read on, if not go get some taco bell and have a good time.

#second amendment #gun control

A Perfunctory Guide to the Second Amendment (Part 1 cont.)

When I left you last night I was just about to describe why personal security against a criminal incursion is not a compelling reason for civilian gun ownership. I will being this post by reiterating one point that I think is an undercurrent for this argument. Natural law dictates that every person, by virtue of being alive has the unquestionable right to defend themselves against those who would do them harm. This right is not however the slightest bit dependent upon gun ownership. Frankly, it is a touch foolish to argue otherwise. Humans have defended themselves long before the advent of guns, and since that time have continued to defend themselves without the aid of guns. This is not to say that the inclusion of guns would not change a self-defense scenario, but to point out that self defense would still exist without guns. I would be willing to contend that guns do not necessarily achieve improved results in a self-defense scenario though. Specifically, it seems most plausible that the only result of the inclusion of guns is an escalation of conflict from both ends. Needless to say when a person defends themselves against some form of criminal incursion, the odds of serious injury on the part of the perpetrator go significantly up when a gun is factored into the scenario. This of itself is not necessarily an issue, although it does bring up the question of whether and to what extent it is moral/just to harm someone who sought to harm you (this is certainly beyond the scope of this post). It becomes an issue when one takes this predictive analysis a step further and considers the criminal’s response. If we assume rationality on the part of criminals, then they will fully realize that currently there is a chance that anyone who they try to harm could have a gun. It is no stretch then to imagine that these criminals will also realize that this gun could seriously hurt or kill them. As such they will either approach potential crimes with the intent to use significantly more force in order to level the playing field, or will only attempt crimes with greater rewards. If such logic is accepted then it can be concluded that using guns for self defense, as a society, yields dubious results at best due to the escalation that they necessitate.

Regardless of what one thinks of the above analysis, it is rendered a secondary consideration by one other factor. That factor being the role of the government in crime prevention and reaction. Which, to put more simply, means dont forget about the cops. Although law enforcement have been much aligned as of late (certainly in some cases for good cause), they are still highly trained and well equipped to deal with crimes. In many cases simply allowing the police to deal with criminals will offer better results, both in terms of apprehension and prevention. Furthermore, police officers always bring a degree of detachment when they intercede on a criminal act. In this way all parties are better able to avoid the passions that swirl up in the midst of a criminal act, thus avoiding an end result that is especially violent. I will certainly not say that police officers are flawless, nor will I say that they can stop 100% of crime, but they are the individuals who are best suited to resolve conflicts in a just manner. After making both of the above considerations, it seems to me that civilian gun ownership does not necessarily equate improved personal security. Rather, when additionally considering the countless casualties of gun violence, it seems that society may be safer and happier without guns.

Although there are certainly arguments for civilian gun-ownership, I feel that the above discourse has sufficiently responded to those notions, and dispelled some reasons which may initially have seemed compelling. Overall, it is my opinion that society’s safety would be markedly improved by entirely doing away with civilian gun-ownership. Please do be aware that this is my opinion independent of constitutional and pragmatic considerations.

Over the course of my next few posts I will expand my analysis to include the Constitution, historical and Supreme Court precedents, counter-arguments, and other pragmatic considerations. In this way both I and you will be better able to track the progression of my opinion, and can have greater confidence in its completeness.

P.S.: I have just noticed that this post negelcted to discuss liberty as a reason for having civilian gun ownership. I will include a supplemental post to remedy this lack. In case you need to know now, the TL;DR is the following: Banning citizens from owning guns is a reduction in liberty, but it is one that has significant precedent and may actually provide additional liberty to society as a whole.

#second amendment #gun control #politics

A Perfunctory Guide to the Second Amendment

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

For the sake of reference I have included the text of the Second Amendment here, at the top of the post. If you ever feel scared or confused come look at it.

Throughout the past eight years or so, the relentless parade of gruesome mass shootings in our country has brought gun control into our political discourse. While we have started talking about gun control, that is all we have done regarding the issue. There has been, to my knowledge, no federal bill passed to limit gun control or otherwise alleviate the burden of gun violence. In fact, each time a mass shooting prompts the politicians and media to discuss gun control a familiar pattern appears. First, there will be a vast, pained crying out for some form of ‘common sense’ gun control. Then, a related bill will be voted on, or at least brought to committee. Afterwards, the procedural necessities surrounding the measure will be dragged on ad nauseam until the public has forgotten that they care. Only at this point will a vote be held, and it seems that these votes invariably fail. This ritual disappearance is too remarkable to be without cause. However, it is outside the scope of my interest and expertise to speculate as to or what prompts this action. It will suffice to assume that a hefty portion of this is the fault of money and influence being peddled by an organization with a three letter acronym for a name.

What is interesting to me is that the Second Amendment is being discussed currently. It is, in my opinion, one of the most widely misunderstood amendments and one of huge significance presently. Confoundingly, the misunderstanding is almost certainly intentional. It is my aim to discuss a few facets of the constitutional interpretation and meaning of the Second Amendment in this and a handful of subsequent posts. In this post I will provide my unfiltered view on gun control in modern society complete with explanation.

Imagine that there was a totally wicked drum roll or guitar riff as a transition to this paragraph, because this is the moment all y’all have been waiting for: my view on gun control. But first, some organizational bullshit. In order to fully examine my own conclusion I will first offer my initial opinion and then provide a stream of consciousness style analysis in subsequent posts, In this way I have a transparent and traceable thought process. My initial opinion on gun control and the Second Amendment is based solely off what I think would be the best thing for a hypothetical society loosely based on America. Thus, this view can reasonably be viewed as my political stance. Regardless of the above, it is necessary to note that this view is independent of the Constitution. That opinion is that there is no need, nor compelling reason for personal gun ownership in the advanced society we live in. Firearms are tools which only serve to destroy; Such a tool can achieve only a few legitimate ends within society, and serve to inflame the ugly, violent passions found in many humans. The ends to which I refer are sport and security. While these ends are worth consideration, a detailed examination renders each reason null as a complaint against keeping guns out of civilian hands. Such examination will follow if you are interested.

#second amendment #gun control #politics

Military Drafts: Analysis

So now that I’ve finally gotten some free time today, I’m going to write my little bit of analysis over the constitutionality of military drafts. First of all, let me acknowledge from the outset that I do think the draft is constitutional. My reasoning is quite similar to that of the proponents of the draft referenced in the previous post. Congress absolutely has a right to raise an army, and the Constitution does give them the freedom to use necessary and proper means to accomplish this goal. What’s more, any country worth a damn does need to be able to defend itself, and the draft is a useful way to accomplish this goal. Moreover, as we,as citizens, receive the benefits of society, it is not entirely unreasonable to request service in return. I am not, however, as fully sold on the concept of a draft as Chief Justice White was in the Court case discussed in the previous post. He seemed to deem the draft as a lasting necessity, and as permanently constitutional. I, on the other hand feel that the draft should be periodically constitutional. Which is to say that the government should certainly only be able to draft people when it is necessary. There are two parts to this claim. The first is that the government should only be able to conscript civilians during times of wars. I mean this in the particular sense that the lottery system should only go into place during wartime. If this condition is met then it is prudent and expedient to permanently have individuals registered for the draft, so if the need for troops should arise there is not a damning shortage. Admittedly, this is very much the way things are done currently, but to my interpretation the precedential ruling did not mandate this to be the case. The second part of my claim is related to one of the first clauses in White’s ruling which pointed out that the mind cannot conceive of an army without men. With advances in technology, it is now possible to conceive of such, and as we now have a standing army it is now possible that come wartime there will not be a shortage of soldiers. In both of these cases it seems reasonable to reach the conclusion that a draft is not necessary and is, as such, improper. In my view both of the above are crucial distinctions to make within the constitutional discourse over the military draft. It is not likely that such changes will be made though, because they will likely be respected in practice rather than in law. Frankly, I doubt that the military would ask for extra troops from Congress unless they were desperately needed due to the fuss that would be raised. Even if the reason is so plain as they want to avoid that sort of uproar.

The last thing I want to add, as tangential as it may seem, is that I feel any portion of the Constitution which discusses a militia needs to be modernized. The concept of an actual militia is foreign to this era, and only truly serves to obfuscate certain issues.

Military Drafts

Oooh how topical given the recent addition of women to the United States draft pool. But that is actually not the case. I sorta fluked onto some interesting discussion regarding the draft during some reading I was doing on executive war powers and decided that the subject was worth digging into to a greater extent. The timing is actually 100% serendipitous. In this post I’ll provide a perfunctory overview of the history of the draft, and then discuss its constitutionality to a slightly greater extent afterwards.

The History:

Within an American context, the draft was first suggested by James Monroe shortly after the sack of Washington and the War of 1812. Following the failing military efforts of the country, Congress turned to Monroe in his capacity as the Secretary of War for suggestions on how to fix the ailing US military. The issue that Monroe perceived as most pressing was the lack of troops to draw from. The remedy prescribed by Monroe was an early conception of the draft. Specifically, Monroe wanted to conscript 4% of each state’s male population (within an age range) into the Federal Army. While none argued that this plan would not generate the sorely needed extra manpower, there was significant dispute regarding the constitutionality of the measure. Ultimately Monroe’s proposal was decided against due, in part, to fiery opposition from national federalists such as Daniel Webster.

After the initial proposal’s defeat, the idea of a draft was not revisited until the Civil War. Due to the ferocity and depravity of the Civil War, both the United States and the seceded Confederate States eventually resorted to a draft during the conflict. The United States quickly invoked a draft, which while controversial went fairly smoothly in comparison to the draft established by the Confederacy. Still reveling in the perverse, ornery cantankerousness that led the states to secede, the southern states fought tooth and nail against the draft that acting President Jefferson Davis put into place. As will be discussed later, the main gripe against the draft was that it infringed upon each state’s constitutional right to raise and control a militia. Overall, neither side was especially appreciati*e of the draft, but was willing to stomach it to various extents due to vicious animosity of the era.

The issue of the draft was then forgotten about until World War 1 wherein Congress reimposed a military draft. For whatever reason, the draft was challenged significantly in courts this time around. Eventually, a number of cases decrying the constitutionality of the draft were condensed into the Selective Draft Law Cases (1918). I will discuss the specifics of this case in the following section, but for the sake of a general overview, it is sufficient to know that this case determined the draft to be constitutional and that the precedent has stood strong to this day. This is certainly not to say that there have been no controversies around the draft since that time, but that there have been no constitutional paradigm shifts regarding the subject.

The Constitutionality of the Draft:

Although the dispute over the military draft has transcended several eras of American history, it has always been the same fundamental issue discussed in different ways. In order to provide a relatively wide perspective on the issue I will proceed by defining the fundamental issue and then offering the differing the perspectives that each era brought to the dispute ending with the Selective Draft Law Cases (1918). Eventually, I will then conclude the post by analyzing the dispute and trying to bring the precedent to the present.

Without further ado, here comes the good stuff. The constitutional basis for the military draft is twofold. First, under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution Congress has the power ”To raise and support Armies.” This phrasing seems clear, and indeed there is no dispute over this point. The controversy arises over the details. Opponents of the draft argued that while Congress has every right to raise an army, it cannot compel any citizen to serve in said army. To counter this point, proponents of the draft turn to the mother of all catch-all clauses, the Necessary and Proper Clause. Quite literally this clause states that Congress has the power “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” any of Congress’s constitutional responsibilities or privileges. So, it is around this clause that the most fundamental draft disputes form up. Admittedly, however, there are counter claims featuring other portions of the Constitution.

The first proponent of the draft, James Monroe, perceived Article 1, Section 8 as an unlimited grant of power, checked only by the explicit limits the Constitution placed upon Congress. Indeed, how could such not be the case since Monroe was of the opinion that “the conservation of the State is a duty paramount to all.” Within his view, the draft was simply a measure to accomplish this dire objective. As mentioned previously, Daniel Webster had a substantially different opinion on the matter. He disputed the lack of constitutional constraint that Monroe opined. He argued that in the absence of an explicit restraint, the general nature of the Constitution should serve to constrain Congress. Webster exclaimed that an “uncontrolled power of military conscription” was frankly repugnant to the liberty that the Constitution was based upon. His argument then ended with an eloquent claim that a draft was not a necessary nor proper means to the end of raising an army.

During the Civil War, the bulk of opposition to the draft came from the Confederate States. Given their particular political proclivities, it comes as no surprise that the opposition was motivated by a (misguided) fervor for states rights. In the view of many of these states, a federal draft inhibited the ability of the states to operate their militias. The disarray caused by this reticence to contribute to the shared army has been credited by some as a contributing factor to the Confederacy’s ultimate defeat.

Finally, the discussions over the draft during the World War 1 era will be summarized with particular reference to the Selective Draft Law Cases (1918). When the draft of this era was established, a slew of challenges came upon it. The most notable of these being challenges referencing the protections against involuntary servitude provided by the 13th amendment and challenges questioning whether forced conscription qualifies as necessary and proper. When ruling on this case, Chief Justice White cast out any and all challenges in no uncertain terms. First he gruffly pointed out that “As the mind cannot conceive of an army without the men to compose it...the objection that it [the Constitution] does not give power to provide for such men would seem too frivolous for further notice.” He then continues to elaborate upon the differences between militias and armies, insisting that the appellants had the two entities confused. After this lecture he eventually defines the National Guard as the only militias remaining in America. Finally, in answer to both Webster’s argument relating to the infringement upon liberty, and the 13th Amendment argument White patriotically reminded the country that to serve one’s country in battle is a “noble” and “ supreme” duty and thus immune to these complaints. In such a way that draft became ingrained as a constitutional feature of American government.

At some point tomorrow I will post a brief supplement which will analyze this ruling and discuss the draft contemporarily. I am not including such information tonight because my computer is being disturbingly slow, so I want to let both it and me sleep.

#draft #government #necessary and proper clause

Prerogative Powers and Constitutional Interpretation

Please bear with me through this post. I cannot think of a better way to present it than fairly chronologically, which may result in a stream of consciousness vibe at some point or another. In the course of my readings, I came across some discussion of prerogative powers with relation to American constitutionalism. While this was not anything approaching the subject I was then researching, I decided to read through the brief section anyway. What I found intrigued me (Clearly, otherwise I wouldn't be writing about it). Prerogative powers refer to those powers which the executive of a country may necessary to use in the case of an emergency. Especially those powers enacted above and beyond the scope of laws typically enabled by legislature or constitutional structure. One example of such a display is Abraham Lincoln’s presidency. During his term, Lincoln ordered a blockade without proper legislative clearance, and unilaterally suspended certain habeas corpus privileges as he felt the Civil War and secessionist movement made these actions necessary. Surely it was not constitutional to deny prisoners their right to have a court rule upon the legitimacy of the detention, but Lincoln deemed the action proper given the trying times.

Temporal leaps not withstanding, the theoretical discussion I found on the subject was actually indigenous to the Colonial period. Mirroring almost every fundamental disagreement from this era, there was a Federalist/Hamiltonian perspective and an Anti-Federalist/Jeffersonian perspective. Before delving into the murky depths of their disagreements, it is worth noting that both sides agreed that there would be occasions where the welfare of the nation would be contingent upon the executive taking extraordinary supralegal action. In such situations they also agreed that the president/executive should not be hesitant to undertake such a course of action. the point of disagreement relating to prerogative powers came largely from determining what attitude a president in such a scenario should advance with and how any prerogative powers used should be dealt with in the aftermath.

Jeffersonians favored a limited federal government, and this preference was very much evident in their stance on prerogative powers. When writing on the subject, Jefferson noted that there would be rare occasions when the welfare of the nation could only be preserved through extraordinary executive action. Moreover, in such situations “The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation”. However after taking such action, Jefferson felt that the president must put himself at the mercy of the country by yielding to their judgement upon whether his actions were proper given the circumstances. There is a certain nobility and accountability to his view that make it appealing. Similarly it provides a concrete accounting for what powers the citizens believe the president’s powers are in normal circumstances.

Hamiltonians approached such situations with a markedly different attitudes. Notable, Hamilton felt as though crises were the rule rather than the exception in government. Thus, huge saw a flexible constitution as a necessary solution. Within this paradigm, any exhibition of prerogative powers are within the rules, rather than exceptions to the rules. In other words, a Hamiltonian president has licence to act with extreme discretion.

The contrast between these two views was and is startling to me. There are points in each whci are disquieting and points in each thatare agreeably profound. Despite the virtues that each brings to the discussion, they represent two governmental and philosophical views that are fundamentally irreconcilable. Most polarizing among the differences is a broad v. narrow constitutional interpretation. Realizing that prerogative powers were essentially a veneer for constitutional interpretation gave me no small pause. I have always favored a broad interpretation of the Constitution becuase throughout my study I have noticed a tendency for such an interpretation to enhance liberty the most frequently. Yet, in reading through the arguments presented with reference to this relatively niche subject I came away with a more favorable view of Jefferson’s argument. The accountability consequent to his view seemed pragmatic, and the defined scope of his constitution was safe in its effability. Yet, I was not entirely persuaded by his view. I firmly do believe that our Constitution must have an impressive range of flexibility in order to preserve the liberties that make the document so hallowed. So is there an alternative understanding which emphasizes accountability and a wide reading simultaneously? It seems that there could not be due to the restraint that an executive or judicial figure would have to act with if he felt constantly vulnerable to an unsympathetic public. Yet, that is frankly an unacceptable answer. Clearly a worthwhile constitutional interpretation must be more nuanced than just broad or narrow, but conceiving of such an interpretation is certainly not a walk in the park. The dissonance I experienced upon being forced to confront the inadequacy of my current view created a burning shame which I had to squelch by seeking more comprehensive views on the subject.

As that topic is germane to the one being discussed presently, I will include some discussion of the different constitutional interpretation paradigms that exist. After having conducted minimal research I have found there to be six discrete methods. While none is specifically resigned to being a broad or narrow interpretation, certain methods do lend themselves more readily to one of the two extremes.

1. Originalism:

Under this method of interpretation it is only ever accurate to interpret passages of the Constitution with reference to their original effect. Within this school of thought there are those who choose to look for the original meaning of the phrase, and others who think more value is found in the original intent. Of the two, the former is a far more prevalent viewpoint. This paradigm strikes me as inevitably leading to a narrow understanding of the Constitution because, as prescient as the Founders may have been, there is no possible way they could have foreseen every issue we deal with presently.

2. Textualism:

this method of interpretation emphasizes the actual wording of the Constitution. One textualist, Leslie Goldstein, put forth that any constitutional litigation ought to be decided only on the basis of principles which can reasonably be inferred from the text of the Constitution. This method again can lead to a narrower view because it relies on archaic language, but it has a cogent quality to it. It is difficult to argue against using the the document actually says. Or, at least such would be the case if the Constitution were any regular document or contract. Rather, the Constitution is a singular document which has been and always will be steeped in historical context. The reverence surrounding the Constitution makes it difficult to consider its provisions without also considering the values and assessments that are its permanent supplements.

3. Doctrinalism:

Overall Doctrinalism is rather difficult to classify, and frankly to understand as a standalone premise. Doctrinalists resolve constitutional questions primarily by digging into what people have said about it in the past, and what current precedent is. While I can see some value in yielding to history, I see far more downsides. The positive result of this view is that it will allow people to grow comfortable with the law by preserving the status quo for some time. On the other hand, time and time again we have witnessed politicians end up on the wrong side of issues, and if we were to always defer to past judgements certain wrongs would never be righted. While I would not say that this paradigm tends toward a narrow construction, I certainly do feel that it brings about disproportionately conservative results.

4. Structuralism:

This is the point where the list of interpretational paradigms gets a little more interesting, and prospective. Structuralism refers to arguments that base their conclusions upon the general principles that are evident from the Constitution, but which do not need to be explicitly written. For instance, the Constitution never states that there is an overriding need for separation of powers, but many of the clauses in the Constitution create separations. In such a manner it can be observed and inferred that separation of powers is a structural feature of the Constitution which Structuralists then take it upon themselves to promote. Although this interpretation is constrained due to a limited supply of structural features, it does offer some intriguing insights in otherwise baffling cases. for instance, the constitutional relation between the states and the federal government is remarkably vague, but by applying the principles of federalism to such an issue a basis for argument is forthcoming.

5. Prudentialism:

Frankly I am getting tired and consider this paradigm to be a bit of an abomination so I will be brief. Prudential arguments determine which constitutional interpretation will result in the best outcome and roll with it. Not only is this method extraordinarily speculative and subjective, but it also does not guarantee any role for justice within interpretation.

6. Aspirationalism:

As the name implies, aspirational arguments will interpret the constitution on the basis of what the interpreter things the Constitution should be. Specifically, such decisions will be determined by the principles of justice and governance that are the foundation to the Constitution. Though this interpretation does still have a significant amount of room for subjectivity, the subjectivity is constrained to loftier principles than prudentialism necessitates.

Overall, it is difficult to decry any one method as inferior to another. A great deal of intelligent people have created and supported the methods over the years, and that is because they are persuasive and effective. I do not however think it is proper to just subscribe to one method or another. The Constitution is a tremendously complex document, which can only be entirely comprehended after consideration from multiple perspectives. Intellectual generosity aside, I do very much have preferences for certain models over others. More importantly, this research has given me the language to articulate the nuances of my interpretational method. I would classify myself as being an aspirationalist first and foremost. If we do not believe that the Constitution has put us on the path to true justice and equality, then why should we revere it. The lofty values which are symbolized by that document are goals that we as a society ought to strive for. Thus, it is critical to keep those values in mind while interpreting the Constitution. However there is very much more to the Constitution than what it stands for. Namely, the things it actually says. So, while it is crucial to keep goals in mind, one cannot disregard the text of what the Constitution says. This keeps interpreters slightly more accountable. Thus, I would also consider myself a structuralist and a textualist. I apologize for the trainwreck that this last paragraph has turned into . I could write more profoundly on the subject, but I am ready to be done with this subject and to sleep. L8r

#government #constitution #aspirationalism

Federalists 12, 13 and 14: The ones where I start to wonder how I will name the remaining posts

Federalist Papers 12, 13 and 14 speak less of general principles, and more of concerns that were of immediate importance at the time. Specifically, 12 and 13 discussed the reliance every government has on a steady flow of revenue, while 14 offered a retort to a popular argument against a republican union. Due to the specificity that both of those subjects entail, only very little information can be dredged from the articles that would be worth applying contemporarily. They are not however, totally barren of worthy ideas, and so I will still provide summary and commentary for each article.

Federalist Paper #12

This article begins by promoting the not entirely uncontroversial idea that domestic commerce (selling things to other countries) is the most important economic region for any country. This forward looking view was a rallying point for Hamiltonians and any federalists who favored an industrialized America. After putting forth this idea (and establishing the connection between it and the previously presented arguments linking a unified government and commercial success) Hamilton departed that issue and admitted that there are other economic regions that certainly command attention.

High among those other regions is the ability of a government to raise money; I mean what government worth a damn can’t sell a few boxes of cookies. Progressing straight to the point, Hamilton considers how and to what extent the proposed country should tax its people. Echoing the sentiment of the time, Hamilton admonishes heavy taxation. Hamilton then muses that since a government cannot effectively run without some taxes, it is necessary to consider what sort of taxes are permissible. To this point, Hamilton barks that any significant amount of direct taxation is futile in all circumstances except one where the government has some goal other than collecting the taxes in mind. Though lukewarm on the subject, Hamilton does transition into a grudging acceptance of indirect taxes. At this point the writing becomes a little more technical and antique, so I have chosen to include some definitions to facilitate understanding

DEFINITIONS

Direct Tax: Any tax in which the burden is placed directly on an individual. The burden for such a tax is non-transferable. An example of such a tax is an income tax.

Indirect Tax: A tax which is levied on a product/business. This is distinct from a direct tax because the incidence for such a tax can effectively be transferred to another party. In other words, a sin or sales tax. There are two specific types of indirect taxes mentioned in this article: imposts and excises.

Impost: Any tax which is assessed on a good for its’ movement across a political border. This is basically a tariff.

Excise: Any tax assessed to the production, manufacture, or distribution of a good. This is a sin tax and the reason why booze is so pricey.

Respecting the colonial preferences that were exhibited during the Revolution, Hamilton also launched a polemic against excise taxes. After having brutalized 2/3 of the ways to raise revenue acquiesced and suggested that imposts could prove a reasonable way to raise revenue for the government. The argument for them was basically that it would harm other economies rather than our own. After suggesting this form of taxation, Hamilton carefully linked it to the utility of a union by pointing out that imposts would be most effective if uniformly enforced; clearly, a unified government is best suited to such a task.

The sole point of contemporary interest that I found in this piece is not a novel idea, but a contrast. The rift between public opinion on taxation between Colonial times and now is staggering. The percentage that we are taxed out now dwarfs the Colonial tax rates. Independent of that point, we are presently taxed in ways that would be unimaginable to that era. The standard bearer for these differences is the income tax. Not only is it a direct tax, but it is also apportioned on the basis of how much property/wealth one has. Furthermore, we also have a dizzying array of excise taxes that are used just as much to curb behavior as to raise funds. Given my current level of knowledge, I cannot declare a cause for this change with any degree of accuracy. But I do have one notion. Perhaps the heavy government investment that Americans experienced subsequent to the Great Depression proved to be a persuasive demonstration of the good that government spending can bring about. Indeed, the American government has spent increasing amounts on public works. It is feasible in my mind that following the societal success of such programs, citizens became more willing to pay taxes since they were seeing a more substantial return on their investment.

Federalist Paper #13

This article is, in effect, a case study of how a unified economy could function. It made two primary points. First, in the case of multiple confederacies, intercontinental trading would surely breakdown due to imposts and banditry. Imposts would bring ill-will and rivalry, while banditry would force unnecessary government spending to protect trade. Such a solution, Hamilton argued, is unattractive due to its unnecessary and costly nature. Second, Hamilton tried to preempt any opponents by defining how their plan would work. By orating precisely what confederacies would come into existence in the absence of a federal government, Hamilton defines the opponent’s argument and then can decry it in exact terms. Notably, Hamilton quips that the two confederacies that would come into being would be of such an extent that that their governments could not function according to the views of his opponents.

Federalist Paper #14

Article 14 is a touch more interesting if not equally irrelevant to contemporary politics and government. This paper was written solely as a response to the popular argument that the 13 Colonies were too great in area to be effectively governed by a popular government. At the start of his retort, Madison comes across baffled as to how people can find value in such a claim. In explaining his befuddlement, he confesses that the only way he can imagine intelligent people being brought in by it is if they have forgotten the difference between a pure democracy and a republic. In order to refresh the memories of the poor souls who have forgotten such a fundamental difference, Madison provides a crash course in defining government types. Rather than include a nauseatingly esoteric discussion of these differences, I will suffice it to say that a republic can govern a greater swath of land because the governing is done by a handful of well-prepared people, rather than by everyone. There is an alluring logic to this claim. It is indeed really tough to get every citizen in one place at one time every time something needs to be done. From this educational experience then emerged a frenzy of promises regarding the benefits of the new unified country. First, Madison cooed that the federal government was only empowered to govern in relation to limited issues, and in such a way tyranny is avoided. Second, Madison points out, rather brusquely, that a republican government has already been seen to work in the 13 Colonies. Without pausing for breath, Madison additionally remarked that a federal government would bring with it the great benefits of public works. Better roads to all, and to all a good night. Finally, Madison wraps back around to the fact that there is safety in numbers (this being a point frequently alluded to in the preceding articles.) After espousing these virtues, Madison closes with an eloquent plea for amiable fraternity and prosperity between Americans.

#federalist papers #alexander hamilton #john madison #government #taxes

The Democratic Primary Going Forward

The purpose of this post is to provide a little bit of information about what the process is going forward, and what I think is likely to happen.

I’ll begin by stating the obvious, excepting the D.C primary there are no more primary elections remaining for the Democrats. Since Hillary Clinton currently has 2743 of the possible 4766 delegates pledged to her, she has a majority and has won, right? Wrong. Because each major party is at liberty to more or less make up their own primary rules things are not that simple. The Democrats, in the interest of dissuading unsuitable candidates, created a position called super delegates. Super Delegates are unpledged delegates who can vote for literally anyone they want at the convention. While that theoretically sounds remarkably chaotic, it is actually a fairly powerful control mechanism for the Democratic party. I won’t go into the specifics of how super delegates are chosen because that would put all of us to sleep, but the result of the selection process is that the delegates are more or less always people who have distinguished themselves through prominent and loyal service to the party. As these people have vastly profited from the party’s support, and are fairly involved in the party, it is a safe bet that they will vote for whichever candidate the party prefers as their representative. As self serving as this sounds, this invention is a clever way of concentrating the party’s power through a last second insurance policy. I will not present my opinion on the institution here, but having some understanding of the functional and effective truths of super delegates is necessary to fully grasp the state of the democratic primary. In the 2016 democratic primary there are 715 super delegates and 4051 pledged delegates (these delegates vote on the basis of their state’s primary results). This means that as it stands, Hillary Clinton has 2202 pledged delegates of the necessary 2383 votes to win the convention. So, in literal terms Clinton does not have the needed votes to be declared the Democratic candidate. This being said, it is naive to not acknowledge that barring some incredible event Clinton will pick up the necessary amount of super delegate votes during the convention. It is quite reasonable to assume such for a few reasons. First, Clinton is the party’s preferred candidate due to her long service to the party, and Sanders’ relative outsider status. Second, partially as a result of this status, Clinton has attracted 541 endorsements from super delegates. If these endorsements are a reliable indicator of voting (they are) this puts her safely above the 2383 vote threshold. Third, Clinton is fairly safe from people reneging on their endorsements due to the strength of the relationships she has forged with them over the course of her political career. The simple truth of the matter is that she is the establishment candidate, and so the established super delegates will in all likelihood vote for her.

So, doe this mean that it is time to crown candidate Clinton? Yes and no. Yes because all signs point to her having a safe majority. Moreover, even if some cataclysmic event scared away some super delegates, Clinton only needs 181 votes, and can certainly depend on some super delegates, such as her husband Bill Clinton, to stick with her. No because this is US politics and nobody ever knows what is going to happen. I realize this may sound pandering towards the Sanders campaign, but crazier things have happened, and with the email scandal still looming, Clinton is standing on a glass ceiling looking down at a long plummet. Admittedly, anything news sizable enough to destabilize Clinton is unlikely to break, especially given the Presidential endorsement of Clinton.

So that leaves the general election to ponder. Who will win, Trump or Clinton? It is far too early to speculate with any accuracy. Trump, is in my view a loathsome man and candidate, but insofar his racism and 4th grade speaking level has resonated with voters. It is, perhaps, fair to speculate that this tone will not sit as well with the moderates of the general election as it did with the rather conservative primary voters, but Trump is always liable to change that tone. Moderate voters is what this presidential election, just like every other, will be determined by; whichever candidates convinces the moderates and independents will win. I am not just saying this either. There is a model! What I am referring to is the median voter theorem. This theorem was devised to determine which candidate is likely to win in a majority rules voting system. This theorem is general, and so it makes a few assumptions. First, it assumes that people are rational, which is to say that they will vote according to which candidate aligns with them politically. Second, it assumes that all candidates can be placed simply along a left-to-right political spectrum . In many countries this assumption would damn the model, but in American politics there is not a real diversity of views, there are liberal democrats and conservative republicans.Thus, it is again a reasonable assumption. Third, it assumes that people vote on aggregate political agreement rather than on the basis of single issues. As single issues are often a fair indicator of party affiliation it again strikes me as a reasonable assumption.

So, now that I’ve discussed why the theorem can validly apply, I can now discuss the actual theorem and how it models elections. Here is a picture so that you can follow along.

The theorem assumes that voters can be modeled in a normal distribution. Thanks to the law of large numbers, this is a pretty safe call. On the far left of the bell curve are super liberals and on the far right Trump supporters super republicans.The two bold lines, A and B, represent where each candidate is lined up on the political spectrum. The theorem states that voters will vote for the candidate closer to them. So, candidate A will grab all the liberal candidates by virtue of being farther left than B, but will also grab most of the moderate candidates as they are also more moderate than candidate B. Overall, the takeaway from this is that moderate political stances win elections. Now you know I am not entirely full of shit.

BUT THAT’S NOT ALL FOLKS! This model also bears on one other hypothetical situation in the general election. The situation I am referring to is the possibility of Sanders running as a third party candidate, as some of his supporters have been advocating. This would be bad. When I say bad, I do of course mean that it would deliver the election to Trump.Take a gander at the model above, and imagine there is a third bold line, C, which is located halfway between the A and the L.Candidate C (Sanders) would take all the voters to the left of his position, and would split the voters between he and candidate A (Clinton). In this situation, even though candidate A is the most moderate, she would not receive the plurality of the votes. That would fall to the uncontested candidate B (Trump). That is why I fervently hope that Bernie does not run a third party campaign.

Andddddd.... that all. Fin

#election 2016 #politics

Federalist 11: Maritime Merits

I am anticipating this post to finally actually be fairly short. Here’s to hoping that I don’t let myself down. The reason that I think this post will be short is that I found #11 to be boring overall. There are certainly some points that are interesting and worth comment, but overall meh.

Federalist Paper 11 discusses the benefits that union would bring in any category related to water, more or less. It begins by generally commenting on the potential strength of American commerce. Hamilton then accentuates this point and posits that European commercial powerhouses are already rooting for us to fail because they fear the amount of competition we would come to be. Hamilton considered this fear and hope for disunion to be proof that America was a world class economy. Using this premise as a jumping off point he then mused at the strength we could exert through union. Essentially he pointed out that if the entire county were to come together under one union it would be trivial to keep British ships out of our ports. This would deny them significant trade, and prompt them to agree to a rather generous trade deal with us. After broaching the subject of naval strength and beneficial port placement, Hamilton transitioned to speak of an American navy and the glory it could bring the country. Though he alluded to many potent uses of a navy, Hamilton illustrated the utility of a navy by pointing out the importance of the Caribbean. In his view the Caribbean was the current point of contention between European powers because of the profitability of the region. With a navy, we could take advantage of our proximity to the Caribbean by policing it or offering support in the event of conflict. Either way the threat of such action would induce the European powers to treat us with respect due to our ability to interfere with their commercial machinations. The next commercial/ maritime advantage that Hamilton reported union would bring us is something I brand as pragmatic laziness. Specifically, Hamilton distinguished that right now all states have equal access to trade using the Mississippi River, to navigation using the many lakes, and to fish on our ocean territory, but if we were to divide up into separate confederacies it would raise the irksome issue of how to deal with these privileges. The several states would almost surely want to privatize the boons of their area, however where would this leave the other states. Clearly, dividing the property rights of such areas would prove tricky Furthermore, it was equally difficult to conceptualize a way to continue sharing all of the features. Among the several tricky questions that would need to be answered in such a circumstance is who would legislate such an area. So, at this point Hamilton argued that Union would allow us to crystallize into a commercial powerhouse, exert diplomatic and military force over the Caribbean, and continue enjoying the same privileges. To complete this list Hamilton reiterated a point made in previous articles that trade between states would meet barriers should we decide against union. Hamilton then closed the article by repeating his belief in a gestalt union and rallying against European Imperialism with the following fiery thought: “Let Americans disdain to be the instruments of European greatness! Let the Thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble union, concur in erecting one great American system, superior to the control of all transatlantic force of influence, and able to dictate the terms of the connexion between the old and the new world!”

That’s Hamilton for you fiery as always, and the quote also, I feel, demonstrates the profound historical authenticity that blaming outsiders in order to coalesce a group has.

See not too long. Right now i am researching executive war powers in America for m next post. Since I am doing actual research the post may be a two day post rather than a one day one. So, no being upset if I do not post tomorrow.

#alexander hamilton #government #commerce #federalist papers

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

A Perfunctory Guide to Government