He Who Pays The Piper

A fascinating – and, to a degree amusing – article appeared on the front page of today's (May 23, 2016) New York Times. Its title was “Adelson's Era: Do Billions Erode Press Freedom?” and it was written by Sydney Ember. The article contends that the owner is putting pressure on the Las Vegas Review-Journal staff to conform to his views in the publication of the news. A specific concern is that newspaper management is guilty of “editorial interference.” The owner himself denies any participation in the nature of the stories carried, and the editors also state that he has played no part in their decisions, but it would be naïve to claim that the same editors, knowing a little about their boss, weren't eager to please him.

It's certainly a significant fear, but perhaps it is unwarranted. Before I discuss its validity, however, let me digress.

I mentioned my wedding last week, but let me make one additional comment which is apropos in light of my discussion today. We chose the band. And while we didn't have a precise play list, we let them know what kind of music we liked, and they were happy to present it for us. By and large the specifics were their choice. Not a big surprise. At least it wasn't then. But times change.

Courts have taken to deciding the nature of a baker's or a photographer's services, and who is entitled to them. Specifically the LGBTQ community. The Supreme Court argues that various aspects of cohabitation are covered by the Constitution under the rubric of “privacy” (which, however, is not a right identified in the Constitution). Based on those views it's hard to claim that the choice of music at our wedding might not be considered by the Judiciary to be just as much a Constitutional issue as “Press Freedom.”

The concept of a free press began in this country with the acquittal of John Peter Zenger, in 1733. His trial established the right of a newspaper publisher to air his views. That was before there was a First Amendment or, indeed, a Constitution, but it was a freedom needed then, one that's still the basis of our liberty. And it is a freedom that includes the right of property [newspaper ownership and the right of the owner to publish what he wants], also viewed by our founders as a basic principle upon which our country was grounded.

Press freedom, as I said, is one of the pillars on which our country and our liberty stand. (Some restrictions on it exist but they are limited and governed by, among other things, the laws of libel, sedition, and public safety.) All of the media enjoy it, but it doesn't guarantee that all press organs will be objective – nor should it. They needn't all be fair and balanced. And they're not. All have editorial policies which reflect the biases of their management. And all observe the five esses (in addition to the five double-u's) of journalistic messaging: selection, size, space, slant, and spin. (It's funny to see one paper accuse another of tampering with the news. They all do it. Even on-line, “trending,” and “social media” sites. So we have a lot of sources available and can choose the point of view to which we already adhere.)

The New York Times is a good example. It's a “liberal” paper (reflecting the views of those who own and run it), which means that it is left-leaning, anti-Republican, and anti-Israel (pro-Palestinian – favoring the “weak minority” of Muslims in the Middle East). That's not an accusation, it's a fact. [Adelson is a Pro-Israel conservative Republican which justifies his selection for a front-page condemnation.] And that's what the Times's readers want. It's been in business long enough that the staff knows what is expected of them. Applicants are likely to share the same philosophy, and those hired can be relied on to tell the stories that management wants, and tell them in a way that is desired. (Indeed, they may be “advocacy journalists” who include opinion in what readers assume is objective reporting.) The staff has been selected. Of course when there is new management of a paper the shaking-out process has not yet occurred and staff, who might not have sought employment under the old ownership, are not yet in place. And when such a change occurs current members of the staff may decide that they don't want to hew to the new line.

Selection plays another part in the process. The choice of stories, and their placement, also reflects the paper's (management's) perspective, and is aimed at getting the “right” message to those who only read the front page or the editorials. Those stories that cannot be ignored, but which may conflict with the approved message, are likely to be buried inside or otherwise inconspicuously. The same is true of (small-print) corrections which, though undesirable, must be made when the (prominent large-print) news presented is in conflict with reality.

Size is another criterion considered when a story is published. More space (including number of or articles as well as their length) is devoted to what carries the preferred message, and less to what opposes that viewpoint – if it is published at all. Look at the letters to the editor and you'll see that those questioning the paper's view tend to be short, and they are overwhelmed by those that support the agenda. Strange, then, that the Times was critical of the Review-Journal for shortening stories critical of its owner.

First paragraphs of stories – the ledes – present the slant. They tells the impatient reader all (s)he needs to know in order to have the correct perspective on a subject. While a more accurate understanding of the situation might result from reading the full story – with important facts “clarifying,” and possibly contradicting, the premise of the writer found deep in the story. Fortunately most readers don't get far beyond the first paragraph, so they know only what they are directed to “know” based on the initial slant.

But the icing on the cake – what tops it all off – is the headline. And that is the artfully written spin that directs the thinking of the laziest of readers. Once they've seen the headline they know, and probably agree with, the outlet's message.

All in all, when, for example, the public reads an editorial supporting a President who has knowingly misled the electorate, they will know that the editors are only laying out the organ's dogma. Readers expect the media to present the views their owners are trying to sell. After all, no one is surprised when an auto company fails to disclose all its product's problems or a lawyer tells only what is favorable to the jury. We believe what we want to believe – but we probably believed it before someone tried to convince us. It doesn't take billions to do so, but we'd take it if it were offered to us.

Anti-Social And Anti-Socialism

I'm anti-social. I've said it before. But I recognize that most people aren't like me. They enjoy interacting with others and want to instill the same values in those whom they rear. And, to a degree, I accept that judgment. Society requires socialization.

Share. And care. They're among the first lessons we teach our children in jargon and political correctness. We see them as necessary steps in that socialization. And they are. In order to get along you have to go along. That's the theory, but the theory is stifling us as members of a democratic commonwealth. We've turned into a nation of sheep that would not be recognized by our Founding Fathers. For example – although it's not the focus of this discussion – the concepts of Freedom of Speech and Religion have been converted into the freedom to say only what is acceptable to the loudest and most dogmatic among us (lest your right to speak be withdrawn), and freedom from religion. But I won't dwell on those perversions of America's philosophy today. I have another concern on my mind. Taxes.

Yes, taxes. I don't question their legitimacy. They have an important place in managing our government and our lives, and they're prescribed in the Constitution – primarily to pay debts and to provide for the defense of our country and the protection of our citizens.

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

Who can argue with that? But, of course, the devil is in the details. Who gets taxed, and how much? And what is the meaning of “Welfare,” which seems to be related to “the common Defence [sic] ... of the United States?”

For most Americans the answers to these questions are uncomplicated: tax those who have more money than I do, and provide for me whatever I believe I need for my welfare. Perhaps that's too much of a simplification, but I suspect that it doesn't miss the mark by much. The “Occupy Wall Street” movement (and its clones) made the will of “the People” clear: tax the rich (“the 1%”) and provide everyone else with whatever he or she wants. That, however, would seem to be a direct contradiction of the philosophy of most of those who wrote and adopted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Their view was that people were

endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [sic] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

and that, in accordance with John Locke, “pursuit of happiness” meant “estate.” Locke also wrote

Reason, which is that Law [“Natural Law”] teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.

And

Government has no other end, but the preservation of property.

It's unlikely that Locke, or the Founding Fathers, would have understood or accepted Marx's view (actually it was stated [in French of course] by Louis Blanc nearly a quarter of a century earlier)

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

It represents a socialist philosophy which favors the redistribution, by government edict, of one's possessions. It's forced sharing. It's a system that denies the individual the “unalienable [sic] Right” to dispose of his or her property as (s)he sees fit (including the right to pass it on to children). It reflects the envy of the possessions of others, and the readiness to give away or take what isn't yours. And by demanding that kind of action from the government they rationalize it as a societal need. But whatever the claimed justification for such redistribution, it (including a punitive tax system designed to accomplish its ends) is no more than theft. But calling it “redistribution” makes it sound so much better. It makes it sound like sharing and caring. And we all know how idealistic and “right” that is.

When we teach our children to share, however, we are teaching them to voluntarily provide others with the things that are important to them. We are less sympathetic when others noisily make demands of them. And we're unlikely to tolerate an outside party taking from our children and giving to the squeaky wheels. There's a difference between charity and extortion.

When we think about the principle of respect for private property it is worth remembering that it is an old precept. And perhaps the ancient proclamation of that principle played a part in our founders' thinking as it should in ours.

You shall not covet ... anything that belongs to your neighbor.

A Perfect World

                                                                                                   

“The poor will never cease to exist in the land ...”ⁱ So says the Bible.

But another authority has a different perspective. According to the BBC News Magazine,ⁱⁱ the average annual income of the 7 billion people alive at the time of publication was $10,000.ⁱⁱⁱ There are a lot of “fudge factors” built into that calculation, and there are many involved in its interpretation, but if everyone received $10,000 annually (that's $50,000 for a family of five) it would be necessary to rethink our definition of “poor.”

The problem, of course, is distribution. At present the money is, for the most part, hoarded by a minority. Thus there are the “rich” – the minority (or, at least, some of them) – and the “poor” – everyone else.

But, for the moment, let's forget the reality of maldistribution and imagine a world in which everyone received an equal share of the earnings each year. It certainly sounds good. The world would be a utopia, and we would all be equal.^iv We might fulfill the words of our own Declaration of Independence, “...all men^v are created equal...” As I said, it sounds good. It's the ideal for which we should all be striving.^vi After all, wouldn't that solve most of the world's problems? If we were all equal we wouldn't covet the possessions of others, and crime would no longer exist.

For the poor the answer is certainly “yes.” But Americans are not poor, and some of us might not be willing to cooperate in such a plan. Based on US census data (2010), our average household income is $69,821, and our highest average family size is in Utah, where it is 3.56 persons. The lowest family size is in Maine and it is 2.83. Thus the average per capita income in the US is somewhere between $19,613 and $24,672. The numbers suggest that the average American would be badly hurt by such a redistribution.

Such an attitude, however, is selfish. A more generous approach is an equal division of income, even if it is harmful to us. And it would also be reasonable to divide all the land mass equally^vii among the earth's people and to give them equal shares of corporate earnings as well as personal earnings. And equal shares of the corporations, as well. Indeed, all property, real and intellectual, should be everyone's. Add to that world citizenship and a single currency system,^viii and we've achieved our perfect world.^ix All needs would be met and we'd all contribute to that paradise. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”^x

Of course you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that there are a few kinks with which we might have to deal. Before we began with even the first step, we'd have to establish a bureaucracy to deal with the complex decisions and the steps necessary to implement the new system. We'd need a government. (In all likelihood, they would feel entitled to some extra compensation because of the difficulty and responsibility inherent in their tasks.) Having accomplished that, these new civil servants would have to formulate a method to redistribute the funds and to divide up the land and other property – as well as to get it to each citizen. Decisions would have to be made concerning the choice of land for each person,^xi since there are different levels of fertility and different climates. Perhaps a lottery would be the fairest way.^xii It would mean that friends and family might be divided, but that's an acceptable price to pay for paradise.

It's possible that the new economic system might have consequences which were not intended. How would the banks and stock market react to the breakup and sharing of corporate wealth, and to the equalization of funds around the world? Who would run the businesses that now exist? And what's in it for them – or, indeed, for those who work in those businesses? After all, if there is going to be an equalization each year, there's little to be gained by excessive effort or initiative. For that matter, there is little to be gained by any effort or initiative at all.^xiii

Who – if anyone – would buy what the factories produce? What would be the consumption pattens of the newly-rich and of those who may have lost most of their assets? Would there be any investment of new wealth? Would wealth (“resources” is probably a better word) be heritable or otherwise transmissible? Would parents be able to administer the “earnings” of minor children,^xiv or adult children of elderly and incompetent parents? It is assumed that the government would provide medical, legal, and other services for everyone.^xv And, of course, that government would decide on what music and art should be supported and available to everyone. That's more efficient than having differences based on folk themes or styles^xvi that differ around the world, and it will contribute to the uniformity that we all seek.

The trade-offs are doable. And the result is perfection. What right-thinking person^xvii would argue with that? And who would not be willing to accept the limitations of the new paradise?

I'll bet the world will look a lot better to the next generation.

Next episode: “Planned Parenthood” – Discouraging pregnancy.

i       Deuteronomy 15:11.

ii      March 29, 2012.

iii     The BBC got its numbers from the United Nations' International Labour [sic – that's the way the Brits spell it] Organization (ILO).

 

iv     In this case, those who favor such a utopia would probably be seeking an equality of outcome (or, more accurately, income) rather than one of opportunity. They're not the same. And neither could possibly believe that we can all be physically or intellectually equal. But what good is equal opportunity if everyone doesn't have it (and they don't) and if some make more of it than others and wind up with greater incomes?  So let's make it equality of income. It may not be better, but it sounds better.
v       In modern parlance, “men” would be replaced by “people.” (Parlance, not fact.)

vi      Individualism will, naturally, be discouraged since it only leads to inequality.

vii     Will they be equal in size, productivity, or value? What happens to the buildings already on the land?

viii    As well as a common religion, or atheism, for all.

ix     Management of paradise, and our own adjustment to it, will be aided by a population that all think, believe, and act the same.

x      That was Karl Marx's vision of equality as outlined in his “Critique of the Gotha Program” (1875). “Needs” are difficult to assess. Those accustomed to more (the rich) may “need” more.

xi      Would land have a cash value? Could it be inherited (indeed, the whole question of inheritance of money and other property would require evaluation) or would it be assigned to the newborns as people died? These are decisions that would be made by our government – our honorable co-citizens who surely have our best interests at heart – not their own.

xii     People would have to be transported to their new property, so there would have to be workers in the transportation industry.

xiii    Knowing that all our needs will be provided for will free us all up to do what we want. For some – the do-gooders among us – sitting still is not an option and they'll want to be productive irrespective of the need. For others, however, and I am one of them, would prefer to loll around or otherwise waste time rather than be productive.

xiv    Actually, sexual contact should be unlimited and open to all. Any children would be cared for by the state and not be a bother to their parents. That would limit both administration and inheritance problems.

xv    Rationing may be necessary but that's the subject of a different discussion. It brings us back, however, to the question of who governs us and who makes the decisions. Assuming a single world government with over seven billion citizens, individualized evaluations would be difficult.

xvi    Since people will be moved around following the land lottery, however, that should no longer be an issue. The prior countries will no longer exist, and their music and arts will disappear.

xvii  Or non-thinking person.

Richard Brodsky, Edward G. Robinson, General Patton, And Robin Hood

                                                           

Quite a collection.

It's hard to know where to start, so I'll begin with a little background on each before getting to the point: Richard Brodsky was a New York State Assemblyman (1983 to 2002); Edward G. Robinson (1893-1973) an actor; General (George S.) Patton (Jr.) (1885-1945) was a United States officer during the First and Second World Wars; and Robin Hood, who may have been mythical, but if he lived at all, it was probably some time between the twelfth and seventeenth centuries.

What have they in common? It was a noteworthy view of human nature, responsibility, and man's relationship with his fellow.ⁱ Interestingly, the most memorable of them is the least believable. In all likelihood, the Robin Hood we all know was a conglomerate of various different legendary characters, and the act for which we most remember him – stealing from the rich and giving to the poor – wasn't attributed to him until about the nineteenth century.ⁱⁱ Still, whether or not he ever actually existed, his name will always be associated with this particular version of resource distribution – a kind of medieval socialism that was instituted by an individual rather than by the government.

Richard Brodsky's view – actually it was proposed as a governmental policy – was that an individual's most personal physical resources – his organs – would be up for grabs after his death. It would be presumed that he wished to be an organ donor unless he specifically denied such a choice,ⁱⁱⁱ and his heirs couldn't overrule his “wish,” whether expressed or assumed. One might wonder if it is ethical to impose such a policy.^iv However the view that the resource should be shared – that there is no inherent property right unless it is demanded – is considered more pressing than views in opposition. And there are many ethicists who support that view.

The ideas of these two – Robin Hood and Richard Brodsky – would be imposed on people irrespective^v of their wishes. Their views might be wise policies in some sense, and ethical in the view of those who want a share of the resources, but they are not voluntary. They reflected the philosophy of those who favor “the greatest good for the greatest number” – which is, in essence, “Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!” – “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”^vi That is another way of saying that we are may take property from those who have it, and we should give it to those who don't. It's up to us. We are entitled to dispose of the property of others if that is what seems fair to us. It's the philosophy of socialism and was the way Karl Marx viewed an individual's responsibility to his government and his fellows.

“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” That was General Patton's take on bravery and responsibility to one's country and countrymen. Patton was a soldier and a patriot. He knew about love of country, responsibility, and bravery. He knew of those who had died to protect their fellows and their country. But he also knew that such actions were not the general ideal, even if necessary in some cases. Better that the forces of the enemy die than that you do so; better to kill than be killed. Don't turn the other cheek or a blind eye to tyranny. Many might not view this as the ethical position, but they're usually those who preach from the sidelines.

Patton's position was more like capitalism than the others. His perspective was very different from that of Karl Marx, and from the way Marx viewed an individual's responsibility to his government and his fellows. Patton instead believed that the best thing you can do for your country was to keep and preserve it and your own most important property – your life; not only weren't you obligated to give your property for your country, but he discouraged it. True, there were times when it might happen, and they might be the result of governmental decisions, but they were “collateral damage” and were regrettable rather than the specifically desired outcome.

Sol Roth, the character played by Edward G. Robinson in the science-fiction film “Soylent Green,” had a different view from that of his society. Living at some time in the future,^vii he learned of a conspiracy which was contrary to his view of human behavior, and he related it to his friend, Detective Thorn (Charleton Heston). Both were appalled by it. So much so that Roth chose suicide (in the form of government-sponsored euthanasia) while Thorn was shot^viii trying to expose and stop what was happening. It was a time of overpopulation and food shortages. And, unknowingly, society had turned to cannibalism. There were forces^ix that took and processed into “vegetable” wafers the corpses of those who submitted to the euthanasia provided by government, though those who chose this option presumably trusted society and were ignorant of what would then happen.^x Almost no one was aware of the next step for them, and there was no knowledge among those others about the source of their food.^xi The conspirators, who made large amounts of money in the process, used human remains in place of other food sources – sources that had been exhausted. The entire body was the possession of the state and there were no property rights at all. And it is hard not to wonder if this is the direction in which we are heading.

“Life, liberty, and property.”^xii These were the three legs of the stool on which our country was founded. They were the basis for our separation from Great Britain. Unfortunately they are no longer fashionable. Individualism and individual responsibility no longer exist. They are outmoded. General Patton spoke out for them and Sol Roth died for them, but Robin Hood and Richard Brodsky had other ideas and favored the redistribution of “resources” – society over the individual.^xiii

So always ask what your country can do for you. And whine about your need and the unfairness of someone else having what you want.

Never ask what you can do for your country. The politicians have already figured it out.

Next episode: “Sandy's Children” – First the bad news.

i      In Robinson's case he portrayed such an individual.

ii      J. C. Holt, Robin Hood, cited in Wikipedia.

iii    Actually, rather than his wish, it would be his denial in writing of a contrary assumption. If he disagreed with the policy he would have to opt out. But even if he knew about such a possibility, he might not take the time to act on his wish. So for most people the default position – one that could not be overridden – would hold sway.

iv     Is it ethical to impose such a policy? What are the ethics of preserving resources for future use and denying them to those not considered valuable to society? Is euthanasia ethical? Who decides in particular cases? Will presumption of wish to donate, along with the need for transplantable organs, lead to other medical decisions than would otherwise be taken? What are the religious implications?

v      Notwithstanding Mr. Brodsky's presumption, the failure to opt out of a program is not the equivalent of a decision to opt in.

vi    Karl Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Program,” (1875) – Many consider “ability” to mean property or resources. While this is not a precise definition, it expresses Marx's view.

vii    2022 to be precise. The movie appeared in 1973.

viii   And presumably killed, though this is not explicit in the film.

ix     It's never made quite clear who they are.

x      Roth did know, and it is ironic that he chose euthanasia. But it was an easy, and depicted as desirable, method of dealing with the intolerable situation. Both he and Thorn knew that irrespective of their efforts, there was no way to end the conspiracy. It was too profitable and too useful in wake of the overpopulation.

xi     In all likelihood they wouldn't have cared. Self-preservation was all that counted and as long as they had food it wasn't important where it came from. Dirty as they may have been, they were cleansed of morality.

xii    The “Pursuit (not achievement – emphasis added) of Happiness” – was the phraseology used in the Declaration of Independence instead of “Property” which had had been the term earlier, but it is clear that the Founders were referring to the right to own property which, at that time, was an evidence of liberty. Indeed, “taxation without representation” – the ability of a government to take your property without your consent – was viewed as tyranny.

xiii   Property rights no longer existed either for the deceased or his heirs. The dead gave all for society. It was the greatest good gone mad. Except for those who profited.

Richard