When agenda overcomes science

I'm not too worried about whether or not global warming climate change is "true" or "false". I think the worst thing that could come from paying attention to environmental impact and striving for maximum efficiency is a cleaner and more efficient world to live in.

But then there are those who step beyond the pale of rationality. For example, Diane Francis, who suggests that the only way to save the earth is to impose a global one-child policy (following China's example) and to enforce it as ruthlessly as China has.

Or the Optimum Population Trust, which wants to sell contraception in developing nations as a carbon offset.

World population is estimated to reach 7 billion by the end of 2011, having increased by 1 billion in just 12 years - all but 4% percent of this increase will be in the less developed countries (LDCs). [... snip...] In short, one less birth into poverty is not only one less person to suffer poverty and the expected severe impacts of climate change, but also one less to produce more greenhouse gases in (hopefully) escaping poverty. (from OPT's FAQ page)

Or the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) which, in this year's "State of World Population" report, links population growth to climate change in ways that even they themselves admit are less than direct or immediate.

Although population data are generally regarded as among the success stories of social science, their integration with the developing science of climate change and its human dimensions remains poor. This applies ... to the influence of population growth on greenhouse-gas emissions and climate change adaptation....

In other words, the disastrous "influence of population growth on ... climate change" is an assumption for which they have no solid evidence. But they're certain enough to push population control measures on the non-pink and non-rich peoples of the world.

The real solution to our environmental problems - to say nothing of our economic and political problems - is to recognize that we Americans, along with much of the "developed" world, have been taking much more than is just or fair in an insatiable quest for greater comfort and convenience.

We need to curb our "standard of living". Landfills will not grow so fast if we are not basing our egos and economics and desires on the newest or latest or most disposable items. CO2 will not build up so quickly if we don't insist on the cheapest gas and food and electricity on the planet so that we can use it as much as we like without realizing the full cost.

To claim that reducing the population is the solution to our woes is simply to place the blame and burden on those not yet conceived. As a good friend of mine says, "Just enough of me, way too many of you."
Rabbert blathers on....

Profits not satanic?

Um, strictly speaking, true.

But there is such a thing as usury:

an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specifically : interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money

And one who makes his wealth by usury ought not defend himself in this manner.

I mean, if justifying your lies and theft in a church isn't also a violation of the Second Commandment, I don't know what is!

Now, seriously, lest I be mistaken for a commie pinko, I have no problem with a profit motive in business. There's nothing wrong, in and of itself, with making money.

But what is wrong is profit as the primary motive, or the only motive.

The role of a business, it seems to me, is to provide some good or service to society. The role of a bank in particular is to provide ordinary people with easy storage and transport of their wealth. This is a good and noble and necessary service. And there is nothing wrong with making profit from such a service.

So long as the service comes first.

What these banks have done is pursue profit at the expense of the service they were committed to provide for their customers. And that is wrong. It is immoral, and if it isn't criminal (which I think it is) it should be.

This is one reason I'm more a fan of non-profit credit unions than of banks. Credit unions generally do keep the service of society at the forefront. And if they don't there are more immediate consequences.

Would that many other sectors of society were run on such a basis!


Rabbert blathers on....

Larry asks...

In a comment on my recent health care post, Larry asks:

But what is "society"? In America today, that means tax money. And that's not just politics; it's our culture.

Now, I would say that "society" is a somewhat fluid category. I guess I would define society as the subject of solidarity and subsidiarity together.

I trust I make myself obscure.

Really, this discussion brings us back to the whole "common good" question. (Sorry, Amy. But at least I won't quote G.K. Chesterton this time.) It brings us back to the common good because

Solidarity is the recognition that each of us shares much in common with others. It's perhaps something like empathy, but in philosophical terms rather than psychological. (Yes, Larry, I know about the Personalist use of empathy... but bear with me a bit.) So the subject of solidarity is everyone with whom I share something in common. At its broadest, this includes the entire human race: we all share human nature in common. But it can be applied more narrowly as well: I have a particular solidarity with other Catholics, or with other Seattleites, for example, that I don't share with Buddhists or Utahns. I have a very particular solidarity with members of my family, because we share so very much in common.

Subsidiarity is the recognition that each and every individual, and group to whom that individual belongs, has something valuable to contribute to the community. So, the subject of subsidiarity is everyone who makes a contribution to a given community -- that is to say, everyone who is in solidarity with a given community. Again, this can be taken more or less broadly, but the implication is that communities based on a broader solidarity provide broad and foundational support to communities based on a more focused solidarity. Issues that affect the entire nation must be dealt with on a national level, while issues that affect the neighborhood must be dealt with on a neighborhood level.

So, any individual person is a member of multiple communities, multiple societies, ranging from one's nuclear family to the entire human race, with various forms of local, economic, recreational, and political ties in between. And each society has a certain responsibility for its members, based on the kind of solidarity they share.

Now, I'm talking in pretty abstract terms. But I do think it's important to recognize that the "Government" itself has various levels and forms, and these do not entirely encompass the organization of all "society".

In other words, yes Larry, society involves all of culture; no Larry, society does not just mean tax money. But, yes Larry, we Americans tend to think that social responsibilities are carried out through government agencies, so tax money is the first place we think to look. But this need not be the only way to work. After all, various entities of the Church provided medical services for anyone, regardless of creed or ability to pay, for generations -- because they recognized their solidarity with all humanity and took responsibility in whatever concrete way they were able.

Now the Catholic hospitals and clinics are dying, for reasons too complex for a Rodent of Very Little Brain like myself to understand. I don't think that attempting to re-create that network of hospitals is likely to succeed. But I do think that, even if a public health care option is passed through Congress, we need to take direct responsibility for the health of those in our community.

Some of us will take more direct and hands-on responsibility than others, since we all have different gifts and callings; but we all must take responsibility for our own.

Easy to say; hard to do. Let us pray for one another.
Rabbert blathers on....

Catholic criteria for health care reform

The Catholic Bishops in the U.S. have, both individually and collectively, sought reform of our health care system for many years. It was part of their support of labor unions, part of their preferential option for the poor, part of the greater ideals to which they have called the sheep of their flocks, and particularly our political leaders.

However, they have always held that health care reform should be true reform: that is, it is currently deformed, and needs to return to its true form. Health care must truly care for the health of all people.

In a letter to Congress [.pdf], the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops set out four main criteria for authentic health care reform.

1. A truly universal health policy with respect for human life and dignity
2. Access for all with a special concern for the poor and inclusion of legal immigrants
3. Pursuing the common good and preserving pluralism including freedom of conscience and variety of options
4. Restraining costs and applying them equitably across the spectrum of payers

This is very similar to a list which they articulated back in 1993, when another president was attempting to push through major health care reform. In fact, they also have re-issued this message, because its argument remains valid.

Note that the Bishops are not supporting or opposing any legislation. Rather, they are giving principles based on human nature, and which can be understood and accepted without any other relation to Christ or Christianity. They simply are voicing the concerns that arise from a Christian worldview.
Rabbert blathers on....

Health care myths

An interesting article from the WaPo of a couple weeks back: 5 Myths about Health Care around the World. Here's a quote that caught my eye:

The key difference is that foreign health insurance plans exist only to pay people's medical bills, not to make a profit. The United States is the only developed country that lets insurance companies profit from basic health coverage.

The main problem with the article's proposals is that it would require a complete overhaul of our current medical insurance system. That's something the current administration is dead-set against doing. Strange: you'd think an administration that ran on the slogan of "CHANGE" would be interested in, well, change.
Rabbert blathers on....

Subsidiarity

One of the political principles that has become very important to me in my recent researches is Subsidiarity, which is essentially the principle of dealing with problems at the level of society affected by them. In short, deal with local issues locally, and personal issues personally.

Here are a couple good articles on why this doesn't necessarily mean a "least common denominator" approach.
Rabbert blathers on....

Attempting realism

I was having a conversation with a friend about the current health care proposals going through congress. My friend is a devoted member of one of the major parties, and is a lawyer to boot. He's been following politics much of his adult life.

Meanwhile, I have spent most of my life as a political cynic, which was my excuse for remaining ignorant and inactive while reserving the right to snark. Nowadays, though, I've been describing myself as an idealist. The philosophy I have most affinity for is Distributism, but I remain woefully ignorant even of that approach.

My friend's response to my questions and arguments often took the form: "That's just not the way things work! Politics doesn't work that way!" And when I asked why not, he would list a number of causes, such as the need to campaign or the need for groups to express their interests through lobbying, and so on. He would note longstanding practices which have become a foundation for taking political action.

My questions, on the other hand, tended toward the speculative: why are things the way they are? Is there some other way things might be? How can we move toward something better? He would reply that such questions are largely counter-productive, because they don't deal with the world as it actually is right now -- a situation that I am largely ignorant about.

So ... I have been trying to educate myself so that I am not so ignorant. At the same time, I have no attachment to the current American government, nor even to the American form of government. The more I learn about it, the more it either confuses me or frightens me. Sometimes it turns my stomach. And yet, as my friend points out, a complete change of government does not seem to be a realistic option -- and even if it were, what chance is there of a better government taking its place?

The defensive part of me wants to hold strong for philosophy and ideals and justice. I refuse to believe that government, even our government, requires the level of complication and corruption and compromise of principles that appears to be the daily order of business in D.C. and in state capitols and city halls and so on around the country. But am I just being defensive? Am I clinging to a pleasant fantasy? Am I just plain naive?
Rabbert blathers on....

Real threats of socialism - UPDATED

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with government running a health care program; it's a practical matter of whether this is the best way to provide health care to all.

On the other hand, there is a very real problem with government preventing parents from educating their children. The right to an education means that government must guarantee access to education for all, not that government has the right to indoctrinate kids against the will of competent and caring parents.

UPDATE: Amy points out that, since this case involves a divorced couple in dispute, it probably is not the best example. However, I stand by the principle that education is first and foremost the right and responsibility of parents, not government.
Rabbert blathers on....

Clarifying Chesterton

So, I have many excuses for not posting much in the last week or so. But the one I'll use is this: it's not easy to speak more clearly than G.K. Chesterton!

Anyway, here's my attempt to describe what I think Chesterton means when he says the first principle of democracy, i.e., the common good, is: "that the things common to all men are more important than the things peculiar to any men."

Let me take a few examples, and see if that helps clarify things. How about 1) air, 2) a pair of glasses, and 3) the English language.

Air. We all breathe. This is not an option for us. Part of being human is breathing, and when we cease to breathe we also cease to live a human life. So air is good for us, and is good for all of us, and is good for each of us. This need for air is something that we all have in common, and therefore that none of us can own or claim exclusively. The atmosphere is a resource for all humanity.

Now, imagine a scuba diver. There is a sense in which the air in (flipping a coin for gender: male) his tank is "his own". But let's say he comes across another diver whose tank has sprung a leak, while our diver's tank is quite full. It would be inhumane for our diver to deny "his" air to the drowning diver. The air is not "his" in the sense that he can, in time of need, claim it exclusively or bargain with it economically. It is a good that belongs to the human nature we all share in common, and so it is far more important than, say, the flippers that the divers are wearing, or the color of their wetsuits.

Glasses. I have worn glasses since about fourth grade, if my memory is correct. I've worn them so long that I think my face looks funny without them, and so do most of my friends. (Some friends think my face looks funny with them, too, but that's another issue.) But these glasses really are mine, not just because I own them, but because they are made particularly for me and won't work properly for anybody else. And this is an amazing thing.

However, far more amazing than my glasses is the miracle of sight itself. That we are able to receive light and interpret it into an accurate portrayal of the world around us is something to be wondered at. It is something to be delighted in. So the whole human race seeks out visions of art or nature that delight the eyes ... and the other senses as well. This is something so basically human that we recognized blindness as a tragedy and deficiencies in vision as a medical problem requiring correction. In short, vision is something common and basic to human life and human society, while my glasses are a particular accommodation that really doesn't belong to anyone else, and, for that matter, that I wouldn't desire for anyone else.

English. I've spoken and read and written English for as long as I can remember. I literally cannot recall learning to read; the ability is part of my earliest memories. For several of my friends, English is a second (or third, or fourth) language. I expect this is true for some readers of this blog. However, for those living in Great Britain or any of the former colonies of the British Empire, English is not only a means of communication but a means of cultural connection. Certain words stir up associations -- humorous or patriotic or vulgar -- and we guess at where each other is from by our accents.

(Can you guess where I'm from?)

This is true of other languages, too, of course. Language itself is, again, something common to all humanity. And, while there is no single "human language" that is common to every one of us, we all would consider it a crime deny anyone the ability to use language. More than that, we would consider it insane to deny anyone the language that others around them use, that is, to deny them the means to communicate with their fellow human beings. So language is common to all people, but it is never something that we can hold abstractly: in fact, it is only by holding some particular language (be it English or Arabic or Chinese) in common with others, with a community, that we can have language at all.

In other words, the only way for some things to be good for me is for them to first be good for everybody, for the whole community. And that, I think, is what is meant by the "common good".

Do let me know if I've only muddied the waters further.

Rabbert blathers on....

Democracy and the common good

The "common good" is one of those concepts that is so plain and obvious that it outwits our attempts to define it -- or at least, outwits my attempts. But I have stumbled upon a particularly clear definition from G.K. Chesterton, in his 1909 book Orthodoxy (Ch. IV):

The first [principle of democracy] is this: that the things common to all men are more important than the things peculiar to any men. Ordinary things are more valuable than extraordinary things; nay, they are more extraordinary. Man is something more awful than men; something more strange. The sense of the miracle of humanity itself should be always more vivid to us than any marvels of power, intellect, art, or civilization. The mere man on two legs, as such, should be felt as something more heartbreaking than any music and more startling than any caricature. Death is more tragic even than death by starvation. Having a nose is more comic even than having a Norman nose.

This is the first principle of democracy: that the essential things in men are the things they hold in common, not the things they hold separately. And the second principle is merely this: that the political instinct or desire is one of these things which they hold in common. Falling in love is more poetical than dropping into poetry. The democratic contention is that government (helping to rule the tribe) is a thing like falling in love, and not a thing like dropping into poetry. It is not something analogous to playing the church organ, painting on vellum, discovering the North Pole (that insidious habit), looping the loop, being Astronomer Royal, and so on. For these things we do not wish a man to do at all unless he does them well. It is, on the contrary, a thing analogous to writing one's own love-letters or blowing one's own nose. These things we want a man to do for himself, even if he does them badly. I am not here arguing the truth of any of these conceptions; I know that some moderns are asking to have their wives chosen by scientists, and they may soon be asking, for all I know, to have their noses blown by nurses. I merely say that mankind does recognize these universal human functions, and that democracy classes government among them. In short, the democratic faith is this: that the most terribly important things must be left to ordinary men themselves--the mating of the sexes, the rearing of the young, the laws of the state. This is democracy; and in this I have always believed.

[Crossposted at The Good, the True, the Just.]
Rabbert blathers on....

In case you wanted to know...

I'm pretty sure that this is the text of the much-talked-about "Obama health care plan." The official title is H.R. 3200. In case you wanted to know what it actually, you know, said.

It's also available in .pdf format.
Rabbert blathers on....

An interesting proposal

According to the non-profit group Downsize DC, both houses of Congress have eliminated requirements that Representatives and Senators hear and/or read -- or even have full copies of -- legislation that they vote on. They have therefore submitted a bill entitled The Read the Bills Act and are trying to get a Congressman/-woman to introduce the bill.

They are having little success.

Now, much of the Downsize DC agenda seems to be taken from the Libertarian handbook, and I don't want to imply support for their agenda; but this piece of legislation seems pretty common-sensical to me. Is there any real objection to such requirements as a full verbatim reading of legislation before a quorum of each House? or a seven day waiting period between the final text of legislation and a vote thereon?

I'm asking real questions. If there are real problems with this bill, I'd like to know.

[Crossposted at The Good, the True, the Just.]
Rabbert blathers on....

Thinking about universal health care

My dad, who gets most of his information from radio and TV, is adamantly opposed to President Obama's proposal of a government-run health insurance program. I, on the other hand, get most of my information from the far-more-reliable internets, and so-- wait a sec.

Maybe we both ought to think for ourselves for a moment.

Let's start with a few principles. First, it's hard to deny that a basic level of health care is a fundamental human right. No one seriously believes that, if you get the flu, you should or could be denied the bed rest and clear liquids and chicken noodle soup required to get over it.

But I have some friends, one of whose kids is hydrocephalic. I have another friend who is undergoing treatment for breast cancer. In order to survive, to say nothing of living "normal" lives, they require costly and time-consuming treatments -- more costly than they are able to afford on their own.

Is such treatment a human right? Were all the generations of humanity with the misfortune to live before the mid-twentieth century deprived of their rights? What about citizens of poor or "undeveloped" nations today, who don't have access to the cutting-edge research-driven medicine of the United States of America?

This is where the notion of "rights", so foundational to our political discourse these days, might get in the way of thinking clearly. Society as a whole has the responsibility of distributive justice, meaning that we have to allocate (or distribute) the goods and resources we hold in common to our members in a just fashion. So asking, "to what level of health care do we have a right?" or "what constitutes the basic health care (to which I am entitled)?" leads the conversation in the wrong direction. I think the question should rather be, "are we using our medical resources in a just manner? do all the members of our society have access to the goods available to us as a whole?"

From a Catholic point of view, the question is asked out of charity as well as out of justice: in other words, while "strict justice" might ask what the minimum level of health care is that we must provide, charity asks how much health care are we able to provide to those who need it?

So, that said, universal health care is certainly a human right, but it will look different from one society to another depending on the resources available.

Which leads to the second principle: that society as a whole has the responsibility for providing this health care.

Now, theoretically, there are lots of ways that this can happen. We could support doctors and other medical professionals directly through patronage or sponsorships. The Church could provide health care and hospitals, as she has in decades past. We could have various private medical providers compete to offer the best care. Or, we could offer insurance policies, in which a company pools resources from individuals to pay for health care. The government may wield a strong hand, or almost no hand, in any of these systems, so long as they proceed to work justly.

I can fully understand those people, like the ones my dad has been listening to, who see dangers in too much government involvement in health care. Especially the U.S. government. Can we really trust them to be efficient? to be fair? to provide consistent treatment? Will the government legislate what "health" is? force doctors to perform abortions or euthanasia? force pharmacists to distribute contraceptive drugs? force citizens to undergo sterilization or other unnecessary medical procedures? take away a patient's choice and control of his/her own treatment?

However, morality is always the art of the practical: what do we do here and now? So, with these principles in hand, let's take a look around and see what the practical possibilities are.

It seems to me that there are only two institutions that have the scope and breadth to offer (much less guarantee) health care to the whole of society: the government and the Catholic Church. (As for a third option, starting a new private endeavor, I say: Good luck with that.)

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Church took advantage of its vast, inexpensive, and well-trained workforce of religious sisters to establish hospitals and clinics all around the nation to serve the poor and those who could not otherwise afford health care. However, those sisters are no longer so numerous, nor do Catholics contribute financially to the Church as they did, nor is the training needed to provide quality health care so readily available as it once was.

Which leaves the government to pick up the slack.

After all, left to themselves, our largely for-profit medical providers will simply do whatever they can to turn the greatest profit and reduce their own expenses and obligations. This will not lead to a just distribution of health care resources.

So, I see two practical options: either to accept government-run health care, as imperfect as it is; or to devote our time and energy and money to building and supporting a Church-run health care system on a scale we haven't seen since the 1950's. If you don't like Obama's proposal, then are you giving to the Church? Are you writing the bishops and heads of sisters' congregations? Are you volunteering your time and talents? Are you supporting young men and women to give their lives to the work of caring for the sick and injured?

To do neither is to allow our society to remain unjust with regard to health care.

[crossposted at The Good, The True, The Just]
Rabbert blathers on....

Profit, justice, and charity

There's plenty of blamestorming about the causes of our current economic troubles. Some look to George W. Bush, some to Clinton, some as far back as Nixon. But I have another proposal to make: let's blame the Supreme Court.

No, not our current Court. Let's blame the 1919 Court, who decided Dodge v. Ford Motor Company. According to this Wikipedia article, (I know, Wikipedia! -- but it covers the main points so non-lawyers can understand, and it links to the actual ruling), the argument was over whether a company should use its profits to enrich shareholders or to engage in charitable activities. That's not really accurate, as the quotes show: the real argument was over whether a company's first responsibility was to the shareholders or to the products (or services) it was providing -- and selling for a profit. The Court ruled that the shareholders have a right to a significant share of the profits.

As the article notes, this ruling has been used to justify a policy of maximizing profits for shareholders, of making profit the primary motive of businesses and the purpose of being in business in the first place. That is, the purpose of business is seen to be creating wealth and "growing" the economy.

The article also notes that the ruling does not necessitate this interpretation; but this is the interpretation that has ruled business practices and business law for nearly a century -- almost to the extent that we cannot imagine another purpose for business.

I'd like to propose one: what if business' first priority was to provide goods and services to society, to promote the common good, to make society a better place. I'm not saying that profit would disappear, nor should it; but it would come second to improving the a company's ability to provide needed or appropriate goods for the community. In other words, what if Henry Ford had won the case that the Dodge brothers brought against him?

Perhaps then, banks would not pursue such risky courses of investment in search of higher profits. Perhaps then, companies would not use cutbacks and layoffs as the first defense against a slumping market. Perhaps then, the computers and cars and toasters we buy would not be built to break down three days after the warranty expires. Perhaps...?

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that these are possibilities worth exploring. What do you think?

(Crossposted at The Good, The True, The Just)
Rabbert blathers on....