Would You Believe ...?

                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Those who read my last essay were probably expecting “Cogito Ergo Sum – Pars II” today – at least those who cared enough after reading the first part to look for the second. But, in the immortal words of Maxwell Smart, “Sorry about that.” If you don't know who Maxwell Smart is, you'll probably find him using one of the many search agents available on the internet. It's just a click away.

Clicking. That's the problem. I just learned that CES had been published a couple of days ago even though my intent was to do so today. My computer blew it.

Well, not really. Computers are stupid – they don't think on their own.ⁱ Yes I know about Halⁱⁱ and about artificial intelligence,ⁱⁱⁱ but all they do is prove my point. Their intelligence is artificial. They only do what they're programed to do. And we humans do the programing, and we're too stupid ourselves to ensure that the machines don't respond to unintended inputs and aren't given the ability to override our commands.

No. At least for the moment they respond to whatever we instruct them to do, and they're unable to alter that or act on their own. So unless there's a problem with the power source or a failure of one of their components, the errrors are ours. And GIGO.^iv We write the software and we operate the hardware.

But people, although they may operate more slowly, designed the systems based on their own knowledge and based on the way we think. We're just as programed as they. We've learned to respond to particular inputs – mediated through our senses or by internal signals – in particular ways. Our reactions, though they may be based on chemical stimuli rather than electrical, are just as mechanical as theirs. In fact much of our neural system is dependent on electrical transmission.

So, “clicking.” I guess that I must have clicked the wrong button when, a while back, I added the essay on my “to be published” list. The computer is to dumb to act on its own. And the program hasn't changed since the last time I used it. It must have been me.

But wait. I'm “smarter than the average bear.”^v I'm never wrong. The problem couldn't have been any error on my part. It must have been electrical, machine failure, or bad programing by Blogspot, or magic. Or something else.

Would you believe … a miracle? If so, I have a bridge ...

i       At least not yet.

ii      You can look him up too, right after Maxwell Smart.

iii     For those who lack, or can't afford, the real thing.

iv      You can search for that after those other hunts are done.

v       Another of those tag lines from the last century. Yogi would be proud.

Cogito Ergo Sum

 

                                                                                                          

That's what I thought; That's what I thought; That's what I thought; That's what I thought.

But I was wrong on all counts. And everyone makes the same mistake.

“I thought services started at 9 o'clock.”ⁱ That's what my friend said. “Thought.” One of mankind's greatest sources of error.ⁱⁱ Thought is too often a substitute for actual knowledge, and too often thought is confused with knowledge. For what you “know” may not be true. Certainly, as you get older your memories and your “knowledge” have a way of losing their clarity. The transmission of information from one neuron to the next isn't a sure thing. Sooner or later the memory – which is presumably some kind of chemical formulation which is passed along the neurons or resides in one of them – become corrupted, and words, ideas, and memories drop out. So grants will be sought and written to determine how to solve this problem. What, specifically, is the nature of an idea and where, specifically, is it located?

And this is where science fictionⁱⁱⁱ enters the picture. Once scientists discover how specific thoughts are encoded and recovered, and the location at which they are located, it won't be long before they figure out how to implant false ideas at those locations. Efforts to restore information will be superseded by those to implant it. Déjà vu will become reality.

The first step is anatomical. Where are thoughts located? That's not the only challenge, but it's an important one. It will probably be a while before we get the kind of answer we need, but the work has been going on for a while and we now know a little about thoughts and memories and their locations in various places in the cerebral cortex, in the frontal lobes and the basal ganglia, and in some other spots, but it will take more research before we can refine that knowledge to what we need. If the whole thing is going to work – if we're going to be able to implant thoughts the way we are learning to do with genes^iv – we'll need to know about which neurons to choose and how to get the new “fact” to stick. And of course we'll have to know what to insert to achieve the desired result.

So, needing a subject for experimentation, we recall that animals can be taught, if they have the physical apparatus both for the placement of the ideas and the performance of the acts that the encoded idea contains. They'll be the test subjects.^v After the chemical components, or the nucleic acid sequences of specific ideas are determined, and once the particular sites in the brain are identified, someone will come up with a way to insert the idea where it needs to be.

And then we'll start doing it on people. There will be numerous legal and ethical questions but they always lag behind the scientific accomplishments so it's unlikely that they will slow down the “critical” research.^vi First there will be the prisoners. Many of those destined for death will certainly be willing to offer their brains for experimentation in exchange for their lives, or for some “consideration” for family members. And once the techniques are perfected, there are likely to be some, among the elderly, who may find hope in the idea of restoration of memories. And the idea of a treatment for dementia will be extraordinarily appealing. Think of the savings for any health care program.

It will soon be noted that learning is nothing more than the acquisition of facts, so why not speed up education on the operating table? (Or “re-education,” as brainwashing is often labeled.) It is not hard to imagine a time when some amoral accountant will point out that it's cheaper to inject education – perhaps in newborns – than to pay for years of education. Of course the universities and other paid educational institutions will object, but what's wrong in having a child of Pre-K age who has the knowledge of a Ph.D? And, since the original advances in this field are likely to come from our country, perhaps we'll be able to catch up in all those surveys of education that show us behind so many countries in the free world.

Next episode: “Cogito Ergo Sum, Part Two” – The more I think about it,^vii the more I realize there's a lot more to be said.

i       It had been announced a week earlier that it would be 8:45.

ii      “Think” and “assume” are two ideas that can only get us into trouble. Both should be used with great caution and the knowledge of the risks inherent in their use – both in terms of the words themselves, and the process they reflect. If it ain't “know,” it ain't reliable. But sometimes that's not true either. Please continue with the text.

iii       Fiction at least for now. But science usually has a way of catching up with both the imaginable and the unimaginable.

iv      We're experimenting now with the transfer of genetic material to prevent, treat, and possibly cure diseases so, it will be argued, why not use the injection of facts as a cure for ignorance. It will be especially useful in those likely to have low IQs.

v      The guinea pigs, whatever their species.

vi      In fact, those doing the research will be happy if the lag is long, or even unending, so that they have the time to get whatever information, fame, or patents they seek.

vii     Yes, “think.” No one has injected me with anything yet. The fantasies are all mine.

Time And Again

 

                                                                                           

Time was when things didn't change much. Perhaps that was the most that could be said for them.  Sure there were famines, plagues and wars, but who knew?  Prices were the same from year to year and people lived their entire lives within a small area. They died close to where they were born because there was nowhere to go within the range of the transportation available to them, and it would be too expensive to try. A boy would generally do whatever his father did before him, whether that meant working by his side on the farm or in the shop, or less commonly, he would become a craftsman or a tradesman, which often required an apprenticeship to another. His sister would almost certainly, like her mother, be married off at a young age and spend life as a homemaker – if she didn't die in childbirth first.

Between the year of their birth and that of their death, prices would not change much unless some natural phenomenon – like a crop failure – dictated a temporary price rise. That reality, however, wasn't especially important since most people didn't have much spending money, and they were usually self-sufficient anyway. The technology of their latter years wasn't very different from what they recalled in their childhood. That's not to say that nothing much happened – although that is true – but most of the population never heard about what did take place.

I remember that when I was young, television was new. The radio was the staple – the known factor. It hadn't been around that long, but as far as I was concerned it had always been there.ⁱ In fact, it was on the radio that I heard the announcement of the death of President (Franklinⁱⁱ) Roosevelt, and that Harry Truman had become President. That was wrong. I knew it. It just sounded wrong. The only President I had ever known was Roosevelt. He had been around for more than twelve years by that time,ⁱⁱⁱ so his death marked a significant change in America's perception of their country and their world.

But, as the saying goes, that was then. In the past seventy years or so there has been a scientific explosion^iv with major technological and medical advances, as well as cultural changes that governed the paradigm^v of life in the new version of America. What was once an agricultural economy became industrial, and then service. Our rural population diminished as our cities enlarged. And baseball teams moved around and increased in numbers.^vi

Although the changes may have seemed rapid at the time – in comparison to the past – by current standards they were slow.^vii In my childhood, for example, there was no way we could have envisioned recent changes in communications. Television had just become available to the consumer, but beyond that all we could imagine was the Dick Tracy wrist radio in the comics. It was almost unthinkable that it should come to pass, and, even moreso, that it should become obsolete so quickly. Computers, the internet, tablets, notebooks, and a range of other hand-held devices, combined with calculators, telephones, cameras, and GPS devices, have replaced party lines, scheduled long-distance calls, home movies, maps, and other such primitive contrivances.

I should point out that some of these advances are useful to society,^viii but they're happening too quickly. Before the ethicists have time to deal with the medical advancements, the lawyers with implications of perceived new risks,^ix and the politicians and bureaucrats with new regulations, we have moved far beyond the issues with which they are dealing. Before we can digest and incorporate one change, we're faced with a new one that makes the previous seem childish. There seems to be the default position that change is always good – change for the sake of change. A change that doesn't work is a change that needs to be changed. If something fails it is wrong to criticize it unless you're prepared to offer an alternative. That's always the rejoinder when some new initiative is found wanting. There is a presumption that the change is necessary. The problem is always in the means, not the end. “Unintended consequences” will be dealt with when they occur and they are justified by the change.

But perhaps it would be more prudent to follow the old dictate: “Don't just do something. Stand there.” 1966 was a while ago, but Simon and Garfunkel got it right: “Slow down. You go too fast.”^x

Next episode: “Cogito Ergo Sum” – Think about it.

 

 

 

 

i        Very little changed when I was young. At least it seemed that way. Since I wasn't especially interested in current events, I didn't keep track of very much. I knew car models, baseball standings, and the Hit Parade, but little else.

ii       How old do you think I am?

iii      For me, of course, that was forever. For the rest of the world it was longer than everyone else, but not interminable. Not much changed during that period except a major war and the social and economic improvement that it fostered.

iv      No. I'm not referring to the atomic and hydrogen bombs, though they, too, have changed the world.

v       There has been, among other things, an almost incomprehensible increase in jargon. “Character” would have been a better word, but it's not in vogue. (Nor is the concept of character.)

vi       The world changed for the worse when the Dodgers and the Giants moved to the west coast. It was all downhill after that. Some time later the players started demanding high salaries and switching teams, and all the loyalties in the sport, and the faith in the players, disappeared forever.

vii      Of course in the future what seems to us as swift improvement in all aspects of our lives will be considered slow. As our ancestors could not have conceived of the world in our times, so we cannot imagine what life will be like in times to come – if there are any.

viii    I'm not so sure about “social media,” which seem to me to be a medium devised for the narcissistic who seem to believe that others are actually interested in them and their juvenile exploits.

ix      And real ones like texting while driving.

x       I'll explore the question again in a few months. There's much more to say about it but I'm tired. I need to slow down.

Amazing Greece

                                                                                                                      

A few weeks ago, on November 7, 2013, a meeting was held of the Town Board. They have those meetings regularly as the governing body of the town in Greece, New York. I guess it's not unusual that they should do so, and it's not worthy of special notice. On the agenda, however, was a “Moment of Prayer,” which was given by the Reverend Frank Falletta. That's worthy of comment.

According to the First Amendment to our Constitution,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …”

and while that might simply seem to apply to the nation's Congress, the Fourteenth Amendment states

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...”

so it's clear that that the prohibition is not one solely applying to the Federal Government.

Does this apply to local governments as well? I don't know. My prejudice would be that even though this is not spelled out explicitly, it does. But that's an issue for wiser minds than mine, and, as I had learned a day earlier, the practice in Greece regarding prayers opening public meetings, was a question that the Supreme Court was considering this term. Many – and not just atheists – consider this to be an intrusion of religion on the citizenry contrary to the Bill of Rights.

Different groups have different objections to the practice which, in this case, involves the presentation of clearly Christian prayers as an intrinsic part of a governmental meeting. It is likely that the original intent of the First Amendment related to the protection of the people from the imposition of a particular doctrine as a state religion – a protection of the population from a specific religionⁱ – but over the years it came to be understood also as a protection of our various religions from state influences. There is no belief system to which they are required to conform.

The current construction, however, is that instead of protecting the population from a specific state religion, the government should have nothing whatever to do with religion or any religious practice. It should “protect” the people from religion.ⁱⁱ Although some exceptions are made – like the military chaplaincy, religious mottoes on our currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance, and tax exemptions for religious institutions – by and large we have banished religion from the “public square.” It's simply not a matter for public discussion. And anyone who considers what someone else views as a religious teaching when evaluating any aspect of our society is engaging in an unconstitutional practice. We see as sacred the “wall of separation between church and state” of which Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802.^{iii iv} And a colleague of his, George Washington, wrote “We should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others,” and “religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.”

Well, I believe President Washington's latter statement – if it is understood to refer not to the theological differences between members of different sects, but to the vituperative behavior which occurs when a non-believer meets a believer. But I also wonder how his view relates to other “Rights of Conscience,” the controversies, for example, between liberals and conservatives which are “always productive of [extreme] acrimony and irreconcilable hatred,” or those who favor and those who oppose the death penalty.^v

One of the main issues in any such discussion is a definition of “religion.” It's not possible to be sure what the Founding Fathers meant by the term, but in all likelihood they were referring to “organized” religion, a system of beliefs centered on a deity. By and large, most people at that time didn't question the existence of G-d, although they may have disagreed on His^vi nature and the ways to serve Him.

The first definition in the Random House Dictionary, however, refers to the term's spiritual and divine natures without mentioning G-d.^vii I'm more interested in the second, though, which characterizes religion as “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.” As such, the definition includes atheists as well as church members. Most of them do not argue about the issue of beliefs,^viii even if they deny the existence of any deity or of existence after death.

And that appears to be the current issue: is there or isn't there a G-d? Opinions based on the concept that there is no deity are legitimate, but a corollary is that no spiritual feelings can be discussed or used as the basis of constitutional arguments. So, according to that perspective, if you accept the constitutional view probably held by those who wrote the Constitution, you had better be careful what you say. There are many who would bar you from using such ideas as a basis for political or legal positions, or for the public practice of your religion. Certainly the display of religious symbols on public property is considered a blasphemy on the secular religion we practice. The individual who argues a point that may be supported by religious teaching – even if his motives have nothing to do with any religious view – is viewed as a fanatic, and there are many who argue that he is not entitled to use his First Amendment rights irrespective both of his intent and that of our founding document's authors. They wrote “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...” That, however, appears to relate only to the use of speech educated by the secular religion we observe, not by any other faith.

The reality is that America is a Christian nation. I'm not a Christian and there are times when I'm offended by its flaunting and its display. But as long as it is not imposed on me and I am free to practice my own religion in the way I consider appropriate, I can live with reality. I can ignore public prayers like those in Greece or even argue for equal time for members of other religions. Perhaps town meetings, like school classrooms, should be deemed off-limits for prayers, because there are captive audiences present, but it seems to me that the suppression of other opinions simply because they reflect, or are coincidentally consistent with, religious doctrines, contravenes the First Amendment rather than promotes it.

So the Justices will evaluate the arguments and rule on the glory that is Greece. Was Reverend Falletta violating the Constitution?

To be continued.^ix

Next episode: “Time And Again” – Slow down. You go too fast.

i       Indeed, those who reject any divinity believe that the population should be shielded from any manifestation of religion. They do not accept the idea that there can be “non-denominational” prayers, though this would be a satisfactory solution for many of those who oppose the “establishment of [a state] religion” by the government.

ii      Free choice is accepted. Indeed, “choice” is the watchword of our times. We worship it. A democratic society like ours is a staunch believer in such a position. In certain areas it is the law of the land – like abortion and the exercise of majority rule. But it is lionized, primarily when it concerns sexual mores, and the expression of favorable opinions regarding any practice that is considered unacceptable in the Bible – whether it is abortion, suicide, homosexuality, ritual slaughter, or other similar matters. Those ideas are praiseworthy, but views supporting religious practices are not tolerated well. (It is hard not to wonder how a secular government that enforces its views on the religious differs from a religious government that enforces its beliefs on the secular.)
iii     It was in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association and ended, “I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man ...” He was not opposed to private expressions of belief.

iv     Also of interest is President Jefferson's reluctance to declare a Thanksgiving. While as Governor of Virginia he promoted a day of Thanksgiving and Prayer, yet as President, in a letter to Reverend Samuel Miller on January 23, 1808 he wrote, “I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises...” Most Americans now would see Thanksgiving as a secular holiday, but that was not his view.

v       Or circumcision.

vi     Its(?) Assigning a sex (gender?) to G-d is obviously inappropriate, even though it makes the discussion easier.

vii    The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (The Unabridged Edition), 1967, New York. Page 1212.

viii   Actually, they usually proclaim their beliefs loudly and proudly. They consider it as a lack of belief, but in reality it is only a lack of belief in a deity. They firmly believe in His absence. And they have a strong belief in “good,” which they claim characterizes all their positions, and is achieveable by human means alone.

ix      Or concluded. Depending on what the losing side chooses to do, and what variations on the case they can bring before the Court.

The Trouble With Democracy

                                                                                                                               

We live in an age of smart phones. That's new. But we also live in an age of dumb people. That's not so new. In fact, it's always been that way.ⁱ

People speak on their phones while driving. It's illegal in many jurisdictions, but people do it anyway. Worse than that, however, there are some who text or read texts. Not only do they turn their attention away from the road like those on the telephone, but they turn their vision away as well. And even worse, now that the smart phones are capable of going on line, the drivers do the same. Until they go off road, or get into some other kind of accident.

These are the people who choose our government. So it isn't illogical to question their judgment.

Our fellow citizens, however, have other endearing traits, many of which also worry me but I'll focus on one of them as an example of a different problem. No sooner did the Affordable Care Act become law than it became apparent that scams were being developed – systems that were claimed to be designed to help people navigate through the system and benefit from it, but were in fact aimed at helping the scam artists to enrich themselves at the expense of a gullible public. And there are numerous other frauds, commonly available to those who answer the telephone at home, answer the doorbell, or use the internet. The new reality is that you can fall victim to a scam while you're driving. People are larcenous. Almost all of them to one degree or another.

It's a common pastime to “cut corners” when doing your taxes, or to lie when you're conversing. White lies – excusable ones – of course. Legality and accuracy are often considered hindrances to our daily activities and to our best interests.ⁱⁱⁱ We can't be bound by what our representatives make into laws – laws from which they are exempt, or, if that's not the case, which they, themselves, will break. We, the voters, take it for granted that all politicians are crooks. We, the voters, forget, however, that we are the ones who have elected these untrustworthy representatives. And their intelligence and morality reflect our own.

There are a lot of “bad guys” around. When we lived in the wild, under the “law of the jungle,” there was always fear of those who would steal from us or kill us, so we established societies, and gave them the authority to defend us from those within, and those outside of our country – those who might be a threat to us. At the same time we established a variety of political systems with different forms of leadership and different rules under which they operated. And these systems could often function along with each other. There were monarchy and religion, benevolent despotism and tyranny, communism and capitalism, socialism and democracy.

In our country, since we declared our independence, we have, for the most part, followed the paths of capitalism and democracy. But for democracy to work, we rely on an intelligent choice of honest leaders by those interested in making the system fair, reliable, and wise. Our electorate should be educated, and it should be eager to participate in the choice of the members of our government. Unfortunately, as Winston Churchill said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”^iv The only part of that evaluation that is surprising to me is that it takes five minutes. The real trouble with democracy is demos, the people.^v Democracy, by definition, is the “rule of the people.” And people are no damn good.^vi All right. Perhaps I'm being too judgmental. We have to consider the other issues at play.

Indeed. Whatever happens, there really are no meaningful democracies that exist anywhere. Some governments employ democratic principles as part of their makeup, but, for the most part, we do not employ true democracy. The ideal of all of the people voting on all issues isn't even followed in Switzerland, which is famed as a “direct democracy.''^vii Although there may be a greater opportunity there than elsewhere for the public to express opinion, Switzerland is largely a representative democracy as is true of “democracies” elsewhere – a republic^viii like ours.

The most generous appraisal of the reality of the situation is that most of the citizens of these republics – indeed, most people in or out of these republics – have little knowledge of the mechanics of government. They often accept as fact anything they're told by politicians with a vested interest in being elected. People tend to attribute to elected officials both knowledge and wisdom they may not have. Consequently they are confused by the interpretations of many different “experts” who have different ideologies and give conflicting “information” and advice to the voters. Sadly, the electorate is not well informed. Churchill's average voter has a wide variety of problems working against good judgment.

But, of course, other systems are based on the participation of the same people, and the flaws of all of those systems will be just as impervious to cure as the ones that plague democracy – as long as people run them. Which means always. So however bad democracy is, and, among other things, it breeds the tyranny of the majority, the tyranny of the minority, bureaucracy, programs that mean a huge debt for our descendants, corrupt politicians, unqualified leaders, bickering, and the burdens engendered by all the human failings that we, and our representatives have, all the other systems have the same problems as well, along with their own inherent defects.

And among those “inherent defects” is the fact that the philosophy and leadership tend to be fixed or possibly inherited. So if, for example, you disagree with the philosophy and decisions of a dictator, you lose. There's no peaceful way to change things. If you live in a socialist system and have the ambition to improve your situation, you probably won't be able to move higher than someone who lacks the same drive. And if there is a state religion different from yours, you may be treated as a second class citizen if you don't convert.^ix

Churchill also declared, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."^x At least the citizens of a democracy have the right to change governments when they disagree with what is being done. They might be foolish to do so but it is their right – as long as their government remains a democracy. We can always choose the lesser of evils.

All we really need to get rid of the problem entirely, though, is to practice democracy where there are no people.

Next episode: “Amazing Greece” – How contentious it is.

i       And it's been the rule in all places as well, I'll be discussing our country primarily, but the same phenomena exist around the world. People have the same quirks, frailties, and limitations everywhere.

ii      Everybody does it.

iii     One of our prime goals is to benefit ourselves with as little effort is possible. So we're easy prey to those who want our money, just as others are seen by us as the prey who will help make us wealthy. We buy lottery tickets, go to some casino or other, take chances on accidents in order to save a few seconds, mislead those with whom we negotiate, use “sick” time when we want to get a day off and be paid for it, and other similar acts when we think we can get away with them. After all, everybody does it.

iv      In addition to being an outstanding British Prime Minister, Churchill was a well-respected warrior, painter, rhetorician, and writer. The quotation cited is one of many aphorisms that accurately described the situation in the world around him and us. Unfortunately I have not been able to locate its source.

v       A typical definition (in this case from Wikipedia) of the term is “The ordinary citizens of an ancient Greek city-state, considered as a political entity; population; the common people.” In this essay I refer to the people. It's the same root as is used in “demography.”

vi      The inspired sentiment of William Steig in The Lonely Ones, 1942.

vii     “Direct Democracy can be defined as a form or system of democracy giving citizens an extraordinary amount of participation in the legislation process and granting them a maximum of political self-determination.” So says the web site “Direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch. That definition doesn't include what many others do – a popular vote on all issues.

viii    A republic is generally considered to be a representative democracy but the term may be applied to any nation that is not a monarchy.

ix      And in some instances, even if you do.

x       From a speech in the House of Commons, November 11, 1947.

Not My Fault

                                                                                                              

The punch line is: “None of us was driving Officer. We were all in the back seat.”

You had to be there. It was part of a joke by Peter Lind Hayes about a drunk old lady whose car was involved in an accident, and it was very funny at the time.ⁱ Nowadays it's not so funny. We'd blame someone else now, rather than talking about ourselves.

In fact, nowadays we always seem to be focused on someone else. Everything is hisⁱⁱ responsibility. If something goes wrong he either caused it or didn't prevent it. Nothing should be blamed on me, and if something goes wrong, it's always because of what someone else did or didn't do. Or, perhaps, what he should do. Certainly he's responsible for my well-being. If I have needs, he has to fill them.

According to the Wall Street Journal,ⁱⁱⁱ the Bloomberg administration had a program that “paid poor families for basic behaviors such as going to the doctor, attending school and doing well on tests. … adults are rewarded for working 30 hours a week … and parents still get paid for dentist visits and annual medical checkups.” Ideally such a program would make it adventageous for the poor to do the things that used to be considered intelligent and that would benefit those who engaged in them. Now, it seems, society considers it appropriate to bribe people to do what might be good for them. In all likelihood, if we don't do that they'll spite us by not taking care of themselves. Perhaps it's cheaper to bribe them than to pay the costs of remediation later on, but it provides an incentive to act irresponsibly. In any event, “the experiment was largely a flop.” It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that in my day (stop yawning) the individual was considered responsible for his own welfare. Intelligent behavior was assumed.

I first noticed the problem in mid-career in medicine when I learned that it was the doctor's fault if a patient did not follow instructions or didn't show up for an appointment. It seemed strange^iv that the doctor would be guilty and held accountable if the patient didn't take his medicine, or if he didn't care enough to return when scheduled. Actually it shouldn't have surprised me. After all, it takes a village to raise^v a child. And it takes a village to support him and his family. And the village better do it.

The Bible tells us that we are responsible for each other. It urges us to give charity. In a way, that's how many of us view the situation, and the responsibility for dealing with it. All problems can be attributed to society, and society should correct them. That's the origin of social programs around the world. In the US we have Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, food stamps, homeless shelters, Head Start, and a host of other programs designed to support those who can't, or won't, make it on their own. The idea is basically one of universal insurance. We all pay the government and it supplies the services needed by those who are unable to provide for themselves.^vi And since we get govermental funding through a graduated income tax, that means that the rich pay for the poor. That's fair, isn't it?

Well, it certainly sounds fair.^vii Unfortunately for that to really happen we have to place the line between “rich” and “poor” fairly low.^viii Even much higher taxes on the “one percent,” or even the ten or twenty percent, will be inadequate to pay for all the programs we've taken on. Usually they are “feel-good” programs pushed by those who never inform the voters that they will pay for them. All they do is to inspire guilt in those whom they have chosen to be the insurers. It's good politics. They get votes from the guilt-ridden for their compassion, and from the poor for their support. From the perspective of both, the government has deep pockets and is responsible for the care of all our citizens.^ix Most forget, however, that we are the government, and we are the insurers of the welfare of our fellows.^x Ultimately, no one is responsible for his own well being. We are all responsible for that of others.

And none of us is responsible for anything that goes wrong. It, too, is someone else's fault. Another hoary joke is that if you fall, it isn't your doctor who tells you if something is wrong, it's your lawyer. And he^xi tells you whom you should sue. That way both you and he will get a payoff for whatever happened. Even if no one else caused your problem, there is likely to be someone who can be blamed. It's surely not your fault if something goes wrong. Someone has to pay. We're an extremely litigious society. The media are filled with advertising by lawyers who will try to get you money for anything that can be construed as blamable on someone else. Sadly, there is a refusal of the acceptance of any responsibility by individuals.

So there will be many who, whatever the demonstrated outcome of such efforts, will continue to encourage bribing people to act responsibly. Perhaps they'll favor subsidies for obeying the law. And general no-fault insurance for whatever people see as the inequities of life. After all, the government will pick up the tab.

Next episode: “The Trouble With Democracy” – “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

i       About a half century ago. Maybe more, but, as the saying goes, “Who's counting?”

ii          Or her.

iii       'Good Behavior' Still Pays Off, September 25, 2013.

iv        And unjustifiable.

v       Some prefer “rear,” but that's the cliché.

vi      After it pays for expenses and corruption, of course.

vii    Another name for this approach is “socialism.” The basic idea is a redistribution of wealth so everyone has the same amount. It is irrelevant why someone is rich and another is poor. Both deserve the same amount of resources. Take from the “rich” and give to the “poor.” We are all our brothers' (and sisters') keepers.

viii    By the way, who decides where to draw the line?

ix      And, for that matter, anyone in our territory – citizens or not. But at this time I won't pursue the issue of those here illegally.

x      There is no consciousness of the fact that those same individuals (all of us) underwrite it. When it's viewed simply as a government program, we ignore the bottom line that it comes from the taxes we pay. And it is the politicians, who aren't paying for it but are out for votes, who decide what is a problem requiring societal correction.

xi     Or she.