Forever

 

What would we do without the computer? When I was young no such thing existed and all its benefits were not only unknown, but difficult to imagine.ⁱ Apart from all the information it could produce and all the skills that it would impart to us, who could have predicted that it would allow us to go paperless?

Everything we produce can now be maintained without our printing it out, saving forestsⁱⁱ outside, and storage space within. What could be better? It's a win-win for the environment and for us. Paper, which used to be expensive, may no be longer so, but since it's unnecessary that is not a relevant point. And since printing documents can take place whenever they are needed, the value of this medium is unarguable. Saving the same information digitally, and making “hard” copies only when they are absolutely necessary, lessens the need both for paper and storage space, but doesn't eliminate the possibility of doing so if printed versions are required.

At least that's what I used to think.

Then we changed word processors, storage media, and computers. The rapidity of change was really impressive.ⁱⁱⁱ And now I have stacks of diskettes I can't read with documents I can only vaguely remember. Even having spent large sums on external drives to help me access the disks, I find out that the word processor I'm using now can't translate most of them. I'm reluctant to throw the diskettes out but I know rationally that they're useless and I'll never see their contents again. They remind me of the audio cassettes that are sitting around my house even though I know I'll never listen to them again. And I have to admit that I have some reel-to-reel tapes which predate the cassettes.

Even the hard disks on outdated computers are, at best, difficult to use. I've removed them from their old housings and purchased drives which allow me to read them, but here, too, I'm faced with the problem of word processing programs which are unrecognizable and other programs which my newer computers can't operate. DOS no longer rules the roost and all the work I did using DOS programs is, for all practical purposes, lost. And the same will be true of whatever operating systems, programs, and media I'm using now.^iv Unless, of course, I print out everything of importance to me and file it away. Then I can retype it or copy it if absolutely necessary. It's possible that it will yellow over the years,^v but with reasonable care I should be left with some kind of paper trail. Not so with one of my computer hard disks which failed, and which my local repair shop was unable to recover. They suggested I get a new machine, which I did. But the documents on the previous one – at least those documents I had not backed up – are lost forever.

It's not a new problem. In my attic are 16 millimeter movies that my father made when I was young.^vi And vinyl recordings etched by a machine we no longer have – recordings made using sharp steel needles. On them are the sounds I made and the words I spoke in the 1940s. But I'd need a 78 RPM record player to listen to them, and who has one of them now.^vii Nor do I have a 16 mm projector to show the movies. Even 8 mm movies are no longer used.

More recently there have been, among other rivalries, the competition between Beta and VHS and between eight track and cassette tapes, the end of film cameras and slide projectors, the gradual disappearance of land telephone lines including dial-up connections for computers, generation after generation of mobile telephones, and a wide variety of hand held devices, from calculators and little computers to book readers. And whatever you have – even if you got it today – is outdated.

I don't mean to suggest that progress is bad. I'm not a Luddite. But if I've learned one thing over the years it's that such progress will continue,^viii often beyond my ability to use it, and certainly beyond the ability to use whatever it replaced. And the same is probably true for you. So make hard copies of whatever is important. And back up whatever you have as soon as the technology changes in the newer format, before the ability to do so is eliminated as an option. And it will be. Manufacturers have to stay ahead of the competition. And it's too expensive for them to try to preserve everything.

Next episode: “God, save our flight!” – The Religion Of Atheism

i     A secret code ring was all you needed to stay ahead of your friends.

ii    And their eco-systems.

iii    Although computers have been around a long time, the introduction of IBM's PC in 1981 was the real start of the movement from the perspective of the consumer. Now there are computer applications in almost every field, and a variety of hand-held devices of all sorts that are carried around by most of the American population and numerous people elsewhere. All this in thirty years.

iv    CDs are unlikely to be around much longer.

v     And the problem of storage space will return.

vi    There were also commercially-made cartoons. I don't know where they are.

vii    In fact all record players are on the way out. There are units that will digitize your recordings and put them on your computer. There are also gizmos that you can use to digitize your negatives and slides so you can upload them. But that will probably take more time than it's worth.

viii    The more things change, the more money you can make by ensuring that they're not backward compatible.

You Get What You Pay For? Part 2

Casey Stengel said, “You can look it up.”

So I did.

And what I found in Wikipedia told me that the personal taxes in 2005 “as a Percentage of Income” in the United States averaged about 29% and the corporate taxes were just under 40% – a little behind Japan which has the highest such taxes.

But I also found, in HuffPost, a chart from the Center for American Progress which stated that the United States raised only 2.1% of its revenue from corporate income taxes, and that this was well below the average of OECDⁱ countries. The highest was Norway at 8.2%.

It's confusing. I don't know what either set of the “facts” means. I raise the issue, however, not to compare countries or clarify that difference, but because so much of our thinking is based on our perceptions of our economic situationⁱⁱ and the information on that subject is so easily “spun” by advocates of one point of view or another. And, of course, the level of tax rates is the wrong question anyway. More critical issues are the legitimacy of taxation in the first place and, assuming taxation is appropriate, what does the taxpayer get for his money. A tax of 60% for which all of a citizen's wishes are provided will be better received than a tax of 50% with none of his needs addressed. In some countries there may be fully paid health care, in others food stamps, while still others will provide for different needs, in addition to education, highways, weather forecasts, and postal services, as well as a variety of other amenities and utilities. In some nations a citizenⁱⁱⁱ may be entitled to many, or all of these – or more.

The idea of a tax is to pay for the government to perform its work. The cost, therefore, depends on what work the government has. The more responsibilities it takes on, the higher the expense and the higher the taxes. But, as the saying goes, “You get what you pay for.” If the government were anything like a business, it would attempt to keep disbursements down, unless by raising costs it could anticipate an even larger income. And it would somehow link the charges to the customer (read: “taxpayer”) to the benefits it provided that customer. How much greater is the benefit of the weather report to the wealthy than to the average person? And how much more expensive are his food stamps? There has to be some other rationale for taxes, especially progressive taxes.

Karl Marx adopted the Robin Hood logic for running a society: “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.” The idea was that the rich are responsible for the poor,^iv and that force was an acceptable way of administering such a system. Marx understood the word “ability” to refer to means rather than skill, effort, or expertise.^v In modern terms, the government is responsible for helping those in need and, may do so by forcing those who have fiscal resources to support those who don't. The goal is a leveling of society – the elimination of classes.^vi

The idea that it is incumbent on those who are better off to help those who are not, was not a new one in Marx's time. The Bible spoke of the obligation to help the widow and the orphan and, indeed, all those in need, but compulsion was moral, not legal.^vii Charity was admirable – and voluntary giving still is.

Taxes, too, had an ancient origin but tax collectors and those who employed them^viii had little interest in helping anyone but themselves with the revenues. Having “legal” support behind them, however, tax collectors usually got their way. And their pay.

The American Constitution gave Congress the power to tax^ix for “the general Welfare” but, as I noted last week, the term was understood to refer to military protection, not to “welfare” in the sense we understand it now.^x Views change, of course, and we now consider all of our citizens entitled to whatever needs Congress views as essential, irrespective of the cost and whatever the arguments against. But it should be remembered that this was not the intent of those who framed the Constitution.

Who will pay for this largesse? There is general agreement that this should be the responsibility of the rich – both individuals and businesses.^xi Or perhaps our children and grandchildren. Tax them. But not us. They have the ability. We have the need.

Next episode: “Forever” – Toward a paperless society.

i      Organisation [sic] for Economic C-operation and Development.

ii     As former President Clinton said, “It's the economy, stupid.”

iii     Or even a resident – legal or illegal – who is not a citizen.

iv     Actually, the basic premise is that the rich made the poor poor. Whether or not this is true, it is irrelevant. The common view is that they can afford to pay the costs. No one seems concerned – or even aware – that they will be passed on to all of us.

v     To each according to his expertise makes more sense. Unless the goal is equality not of opportunity but of results.

vi    Actually, communism emphasized class distinctions rather than eliminated them. It taught the hatred of classes higher than your own, and revolution against them. If there were not always the bogeyman of a capitalist class which needed to be defeated, communism would not last. The ideal of a classless society was its opium.

vii    The obligation to help others held strong moral sway. For example, in Jewish communities it was clearly understood that all had such responsibility – even those themselves receiving charity. It was an accepted idea that there was always someone worse off than yourself, and that something, however minimal, had to be set aside for that person.

viii    And, consequently, were insulated from any contact with the taxpayers, and any knowledge of their concerns or their situations.

ix     Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence [sic] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

x     However righteously indignant an individual may feel, a refusal to pay taxes and thus contribute to war and bloodshed contradicts the Constitution. A refusal to be forced to give charity, however, is not permissible because Congress has so decided.

xi    See the last two sentences of note number iv (4 for those who don't read Latin).

You Get What You Pay For?

 

All Western democracies are, to a degree, communist.

The United States is a Western democracy.

Ergo, the United States is, to a degree, communist.

That's not a compliment nor is it an insult. It is a straightforward argument exemplifying deductive reasoning. You may disagree with the conclusion, but the logic is sound. So if you disagree, it must be that you don't accept one or both of the premises. You probably agree with the idea that the United States is a “Western democracy,”ⁱ so the first premise remains has to be the one in question. Most likely, you disagree either with the word “all” or the word “communist” – probably the latter term. So let me explain what I mean when I use it.

In a world in which the original principle was “every man for himself,” societies were established. The “State of Nature” may have a lovely ring, but the “Law of the Jungle”ⁱⁱ was the general operating principle, and it was this system from which people needed protection. So societies were established: people agreed to trade some of their liberties for protection. It was a selfish agreement, but a necessary one. In fact, the American Constitution is based on the idea that the primary function of the new government was for the protection of its citizens from each other and from outside powers. To ensure governmental adherence to its limited responsibilities, and to “protect” its citizens from … From what, precisely?

That's not so clear. The Constitution was, by design, a little ambiguous on several issues. Only twice in the body of the document is the word found – once in Article II Section 1 Paragraph 8, which includes the protection of the Constitution in the presidential oath, and once in Article IV section 4 which includes, as an obligation of the United States to its citizens, to “protect each of them against Invasion.”

Congress has seen fit to enlarge that apparently limited responsibility to include many of the vicissitudes of life. The term “promote the general welfare” also appears twice in our constitution and the idea is that concern for the “welfare” of our citizens is a primary goal, though there is ample disagreement as to the meaning of the term. It seems to be the basis for the entire idea of entitlements. Indeed, much our current concern for the equitable treatment of all our citizens falls under the rubric of “welfare” – whether that was its meaning or not.

On both occasions of its appearance, “promote the general welfare” followed “provide for the common defense.” The first occasion was in the preambleⁱ and the second in Article I Section 8, which dealt with taxation. Thomas Jefferson understood that section to indicate that the taxation was not to be used for general welfare but to provide funds to support armed forces. Along the way, however, the concept of general welfare has been expanded to include far more, and those who oppose entitlements or the taxes to support them are deemed racists or worse.ⁱⁱ Nonetheless, we are left with numerous programs offering payments to many different groupsⁱⁱⁱ in terms of cash, food stamps, housing allowances, government jobs, tax breaks, health care, and a wide variety of other means to help them make ends meet.^iv We're left with the need to protect ourselves from ourselves and from others in our own society as well as threats from abroad.

We're also left with what we view^vii as high taxes and a huge national debt. But our children and grandchildren will deal with that.

We have adopted the well-known approach: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” After all, it's only fair that we help those who are in need. That's what Karl Marx said^viii and it's a shame that labeling it as a Communist doctrine gives it a bad name. What is clear, however, is that it's a costly idea, and that those who decide how to redistribute the wealth – as well as those who already have it – usually make out like bandits.

To be continued.

Next episode: “You Get What You Pay For? – Part 2” – At least most of us pay.

i     I'm sure that some of our citizens – usually members of what are politely called “fringe groups” – would disagree, but I'll proceed without their concurrence.

ii     Rudyard Kipling, in The Jungle Book, spoke of it this way:

              “Now this is the Law of the Jungle – as old and as true as the sky;

             And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the Wolf that shall break it must die.”

iii    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

That's the preamble, and it states the purpose of the entire document. Parts of it are quite clear although others, especially the idea of the “general Welfare,” are somewhat ambiguous and subject to interpretation. The same is true of the other reference.

iv    The subject of entitlements, in the context of that compromise document, the Constitution, will be treated in a future blog.

v     Including large sums for the rich by means of programs, loopholes, and various kinds of other benefits. Also gaining by such means are members of Congress, and politicians in general, who seem to be entitled to whatever they can get their hands on.

vi     The ends justify the means.

vii     Not everyone would agree, however. Some countries charge higher taxes and provide greater benefits.

viii    Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875. The full paragraph in which it appears reads:

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”