Now that we have looked at different conceptions of justice and how they ultimately apply to a power broker (an overview), let us look at a key aspect of justice: equality. From here, we will gradually work our way to the end result, which is the type of government we would have and the ramifications on society’s freedom and well-being.

Barack Obama has spoken of equality on many occasions: in the context of a “living wage,” “economic equality,” and “equality of opportunity” among many, many others.

But does Obama mean laws that allow each citizen an equal playing field in the context of law or laws that play favorites with certain groups and are designed to generate equal results?

Well, in this year’s campaign, Obama has touted: a “living wage” that arbitrarily increases wages for certain workers; mandating that employers provide certain benefits that were not part of the original employee-employer agreement; equal pay for men and women; etc.

Clearly, Barack Obama intends to support legislation that will foster equal results, not true equal opportunity.

As we will discuss later, an equal playing field does not mean that every person has an absolutely equal chance because there are so many mitigating factors that cannot be accounted for or controlled. However, as we will also discuss, dictating or fostering equal results requires actions we would scoff at when thinking objectively, making the equal playing field—that is, rules known in advance—the only true equality of opportunity.

In other words, as Thomas Sowell wrote, equality is a “mirage.”

As Sowell put it, “Numbers may be equal (2 + 3 = 5) because they have only one dimension…” but because “human beings are even more multidimensional, defining equality among them becomes even more problematical and ultimately arbitrary.” That is to say that life is not a zero-sum game. A few examples:

Much of the discussion of equality, or inequality, involves “the rich” and “the poor”—the “haves” and “have nots.” F.A. Hayek, as well as Thomas Sowell, found these debates problematic.

Hayek wrote that the conflict between formal equality and substantive equality has created “widespread confusion about the concept of ‘privilege’” to the point that such words have almost no meaning. To those seeking cosmic equality, privilege exists when any inequality exists. But Hayek, too, wrote of the multidimensional aspects of human life that cannot be accounted for or controlled. Under the rule of law—again, where rules are known in advance—privilege only exists when reserved for a particular group.

While in the case of privilege as it relates to the inheritance of wealth, the law doesn’t prohibit any group from doing so. Instead, the multidimensional nature of human life creates this “privilege.”

Furthermore, Obama has used the “rich” and “poor” terminology on the stump. However, “…most of the statistics that are thrown around concerning ‘the rich’ and ‘the poor’ are aggregate statistics about income strata as of a given moment,” Sowell tells us. “In short, neither the rich nor the poor match the classic picture of a class into which people are born, live, and die…”

But still, F.A. Hayek wrote, “[S]ocialists…have always protested against ‘merely’ formal justice”—which is to say, against rules known in advance, the level playing field. Where Obama is wrong is his conception of equality. He speaks of making wages equal, which is an end result, not an equal legal structure.

In short, Obama’s mistake, according to Sowell: “…defining equality…is ultimately a conceptual, rather than an empirical, dilemma,” thus making his concept a mirage.

Over the next 100 days, we will explore the rhetoric and policy proposals of Barack Obama using two classic books as yard sticks: F.A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” and Thomas Sowell’s “The Quest for Cosmic Justice.”

Hayek’s masterpiece examines the necessary realities of collectivist thinking. Sowell’s work looks at conceptions of justice and their ramifications on freedom in society. Continuing with part I:

In “The Quest for Cosmic Justice,” Thomas Sowell defines two conceptions of justice. One is traditional, which judges justice in terms of a “process.” Rules are known in advance and everyone is “judged by the same standards.” From there, inequalities naturally occur; however, results are fairly simple to measure and opportunity is generally equal. Sowell cites former baseball star Mark McGwire, who hit 70 homeruns one season, making it easy to judge him on equal terms compared to other players and conclude that he was the best homerun hitter.

Conversely, there is social justice, or “cosmic justice,” which seeks to “eliminate undeserved advantages for selected groups.” In fact, rules known in advance are often discarded in the name of “social justice.” “[P]re-existing inequalities are to be counter-balanced.”

Essentially, traditional justice, with its rules known in advance, allows for impartial judgments precisely because the rules are known to all. On the other hand, cosmic justice “requires that third parties must wield the power to control outcomes.”

The ramifications here should be clear. Traditional justice requires some tolerance for inequalities, but all people have the same opportunities. Certainly mitigating factors exist, but the basic framework is simple and fair. Cosmic justice, with intolerance for any inequalities, demands that a power entity—government—pick favorites and determine results.

Next, move to Barack Obama: He has spoken of “economic justice.” Now that we have briefly (and albeit simply) read into opposing views of justice, one’s first thoughts about “economic justice” must be hesitant at best.

While Obama’s overtures are necessarily ambiguous at this point in the campaign, evidence still exists to clearly know what he means when wielding powerful concepts like “economic justice” (true, we already know he is a liberal Democrat and all the policy ideas that come along with such an affiliation).

Obama proclaimed, “I’ve been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served.” Indeed, he promised, “[W]e’ll ensure that economic justice is ensured,” which means “restoring fairness to the economy.”

Here it is fairly clear that Barack Obama does not mean that we all know the economic playing field before stepping onto it; that each person can attain great achievements under the same system of rules. Instead, Obama is referring to the latter conception of justice: that is, cosmic justice.

Thus, Obama implies that he is willing to wield power, as the third party, to achieve results that he sees as just. Given that a third party decides what is just, the meaning of the term shifts over time, making it the polar opposite of traditional justice, which is inherently constant and neutral. Therefore, we can be sure that President Obama will wield justice that is “hand-made” and “forcibly configured to fit the vision of the power-holders.”

 

So Congressional Democrats are considering giving us another stimulus check. It is mighty generous of them to give us back some of our own money; or, in some cases, to give us back somebody else's money.

The idea of the stimulus check is a somewhat dubious economic idea, though few will deny that it is nice to have the extra cash. It appears that the checks did have some effect on consumer spending, though the extent is unknown at this point.

What the stimulus check policy is designed to do, practically and in reality, is to garner political favor. Instead of offering a long-term solution, such as signaling to taxpayers that rates won't jump up when the tax cuts expire, Congress has opted to patch a leak in the economy with masking tape. But because we get a check, we're to be happy.

However, the politics of the situation, however favorable they may be for the wise in Congress, are only part of the equation. What I dislike about the first round of stimulus checks, and what I dislike even more now that a second round is under consideration, is the mindset behind them.

It is about control.

Rather than simply keeping tax rates low so we have more cash on hand to begin with, Congress wants to dictate when we should have more money. They dole out the bacon when they deem it appropriate.

The same would hold true in any other case where Congress wants more control, be it with energy or health care or whatever else may come to mind.

In countries with socialized medicine, when costs catch up with utopian visions, services are rationed. Patients have to wait for treatment or do without because government effectively has control over what care patients receive.

When countries have control over energy, such as oil, it is likewise rationed, creating gas lines and waste.

And it is this mentality that the ruling Democrats bring to the table. The wise know how and when to spend your money better than you do, with much less knowledge about your particular situation, to boot! It is this mentality that we cannot afford as a country.

Thus, as the editors of National Review recently wrote, "Don't stimulate me."

 

David Remes, attorney for 15 Guantanamo Bay detainees, dropped his slacks at a press conference to demonstrate the horrible acts his clients endure. Other media outlets have expressed sympathy for those held at Club Gitmo. Indeed, a good friend of mine feels that the recent Supreme Court decision bestowing habeas corpus rights upon Gitmo detainees was a good thing because it repudiated a policy he though shameful.

In other words, those poor chaps!

But Remes, our pals in the media, and my friend all forget who the detainees are, what they’ve done, and how they’ve treated our guards.

On the first two items, all detainees were caught on the battlefield or other similar settings. Each was fighting against US forces and many of them—probably most—are high-level terrorists with a great deal of knowledge.

On the third item, these detainees have ne’er been boy scouts. Their behavior has ranged from immature to hostile.

For instance, the Boston Globe reported 440 detainee attacks against US guards between 2002-2005. These attacks included: head butting; assaults with broken toilet parts, a bloody lizard, kitchen utensils, and radios; dousing guards with urine and feces; hitting guards with steel chares; and so on.

One ambitious detainee managed to escape his cell during a routine contraband search, punching and busting a guard’s tooth in the process.

Sympathy for these men is specious at best.

Source(s): http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/07/16/to-protest-gitmo-punishment-covington-parnter-drops-trou-in-yemen/; http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002355520_gitmo02.html; http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/08/01/gitmo_guards_often_attacked_by_detainees/;

 

The Democrat Party appears poised to whip the Republican Party in this fall’s election cycle based largely in part on a series of tall tales.

First and foremost—though not playing its former prominent role—is the Iraq War. We’ve been told that it is a quagmire. Senator Edward Kennedy called it “George Bush’s Vietnam.” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has just called the president a “total failure” due in part to the war.

Yet, as a poignant Veterans for Freedom ad tells us, violence is down to record lows, the Iraqi Army is taking control of more and more of the country, and political progress looms. The Administration is now talking major troop reductions.

Second is the economy. The misery index is back, at 10%, which is, of course, nothing compared to the 21% achieved during the Carter years. Chief among economic concerns are the housing crisis and oil prices.

The Congress mandated more “equitable” lending so to give lower income folks a shot at the American dream. Combined with government-affiliated groups like FannieMae and FeddieMac—which allow mortgages to be sold and pooled into securities, thus freeing lenders from giving a damn whether or not the loans defaulted—and we have a crisis.

It’s a crisis that would fix itself, but now it is spreading to depository banks. There have only been around 100 bank failures (compared to 1,000 some 30 years ago), but the government is stepping in to save failed banks instead of allowing the market to trim off the irresponsible fat. Reform and federal control is needed, we are told.

Within the economy, the main concern is oil prices. Democrats like John Dingell have said for years that we don’t pay enough for gasoline. Presidential nominee Barack Obama said that the only thing wrong with $4.00/gallon gas is that we got there too soon.

The problem here is a supply problem, combined with rising world demand (India and China). Democrats such as Senator Patrick Leahy claimed that supply could not possibly have anything to do with oil prices. Then, the same Democrats pressured the president to lean on the Saudis to increase supplies and to release strategic oil reserves to ease the supply of oil. Furthermore, Senator Charles Schumer claimed that if the Saudis produced only a half million more barrels each day, gas prices would drop considerably.

Unfortunately, this is the same party that has restricted oil exploration and refining capacity for years—behavior that continues to this day. If we could get a half million barrels each day from US soil, why not get it?

Third is the climate change scare, which is also related to the oil crisis. Reducing carbon emissions—that is, oil-based fuel consumption—was imperative. Before this year, the idea was to tax carbon (or, that is, gasoline and oil and other carbon-emitting products). That is still the plan, but the Democrats are not so vocal about it in light of oil price hikes.

But alas, this one is folly, too. A group representing more than 50,000 physicists is opening the climate change debate, thus ripping apart the “consensus” that never existed. The leader of the group, The American Physical Society, once called global warming science irrefutable; however, he now finds himself on the other side of the debate.

For a party so keen on pointing real problems (and fake problems and problems that are misdiagnosed), there are an awful lot of tall tales. Hyperbole involving quagmires, loss of civil liberties, the misery index, and a dying planet, all under the banner of “change,” has hoodwinked far too many Americans hungry for something new. Sadly, the public may realize its errors too late in the ballgame.

Source(s): http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm; http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2M3YWQ5MTE3Yzc0ZmY3OGM1YmU0OTVhZWUwZjQ0ZTk=; http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDRjYzY3OTg3MzU4ODgxNTYwODMxMTdlY2MwZGRhMTk=;

 

If I remember correctly, it was in 4^th grade (perhaps 3^rd) that my teacher presented a lesson on photosynthesis. The basic lesson was that, through photosynthesis, plants converted sunlight into chemical energy. With carbon dioxide, the plants made a needed carbohydrate, or part of its energy. The process also made plants green.

In other words, photosynthesis and carbon dioxide were good for plants.

Something must have changed, even though my biology and chemistry professors in college (circa 2003) never told me so.

Hans Joachim-Weigel of the Johann Heinrich von Thuenen Institute in Germany and his fellow researchers have discovered, or rediscovered, that carbon dioxide is, or may be, good for plants.

According to the researchers, yields for certain crops increased by 10% with higher levels of carbon dioxide.

It appears that the researchers may have excavated that 4^th grade textbook I once read. The funny part is that I, at 29 years of age, recall the lesson from some 20 years ago.

One rumor has surfaced that researchers are also on the brink of a discovery that water is also good for plants, but reports at this point are unconfirmed.

Source(s): http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080708124018.8nen8ib9&show_article=1

 

Barack Obama is jockeying for the center.

Having won the Democrat nomination by wooing an invigorated, far-left base with often ambiguous and overwhelmingly left-wing rhetoric and policy ideals, Obama has begun his inevitable moderation.

Why? Well, the average moderate voter would probably find many of his true ideas unattractive at best. Universal health care sounds like a good idea in theory, until you crunch the numbers and look at the evidence. It also sounds good to average folks when Obama pledges to soak the rich with taxes, particularly capital gains, on which he will raise taxes more on the rich (what?).

As for the jockeying: Last week, Obama said he would expand President Bush’s Faith Based Initiative. For a candidate who has said that we need a clean break with the “failed policies” of the Bush Administration, Barack Obama will now expand one of them. This idea, presumably, will marvel Christian rightists who are so uneducated that they cling to their guns and religion in tough times.

Now, Obama has “moderated” his virtually unspoken abortion position by stating that “mental stress” shouldn’t be a medical excuse to approve a partial birth abortion. This idea should woo, again, those gun-clinging, Christian rightists.

Or, at least, centrist voters who are, by and large, conservative.

But, alas, these positions are not centrist. President Bush’s Faith Based Initiative expanded government, not exactly a conservative idea. Its conservative virtue was that it allowed Christian groups to do government things and didn’t limit them to secular bodies. Likewise, stating that one particular justification for partial birth abortion is invalid means…that ONE justification is invalid. Obama clearly still supports the practice.

Ultimately, neither position adjustment will woo very many centrists. The Faith Based Initiative shift may, but the abortion shift will not. Meanwhile, those centrist voters who find themselves concerned about Obama should listen to their instincts and look at his past record, not just his Fall rhetoric.