Rules and Safety

There's been a lot in the news lately about the changes to TSA practices, including full-body scanners and invasive pat-downs. All this is, of course, a direct result of the 9/11 attacks on our nation. We have, as Pogo said, redoubled our efforts after having lost sight of our goals.

The problem on 9/11 wasn't that terrorists got box-cutters onto planes. The problem was that we were operating under a given set of assumptions and the terrorists found a way around those assumptions to accomplish their goals. Up until 9/11 everyone had a set of assumptions about hijackings: Comply with them, you'll fly someplace you don't want to go, land safely, then the hijackers will make demands which may or not be met, the hijackers will make threats that may or not be carried out, actions will be taken against the hijackers which may or may not result in the hijackers being killed or captured, and eventually it's likely everyone will live to go home to their families and put it all behind them.

All that changed on 9/11. We now know a successful hijacking is a death sentence. We hardened cockpit doors and, more importantly, we hardened our resolve not to comply with hijackers. I've only flown a hand full of times since 9/11, but every time I've boarded an aircraft since then I've decided that if something bad happens I'm getting involved. I've made the choice between me possibly being killed and everyone on the plane (including my wife) almost certainly being killed. I'm not going to sit there hoping there's an Air Marshall in first-class. I made that decision despite the TSA's insistence on removing from me anything that could outwardly be used as a weapon.

So we now have a new set of assumptions. We scan shoes. We frisk passengers. We produce pornographic images of teenagers. We allow children, CHILDREN, to be groped by strangers in a manner that would get them lynched if they weren't wearing badges (because apparently no pedophile would even THINK of applying for a job with the TSA). We can't bring nail-clippers, pen-knives, or bottles of liquid on board. All this for a false sense of security.

The terrorists are watching all this. They'll find the hole, the crease, the seam they can exploit. They'll make their plans and carry out their attack. If their attack is unsuccessful it won't be the TSA that'll stop it, it'll either be vigilant and courageous passengers on the plane, or it'll be plain old dumb luck.

Public Service

In comments on my previous post, buddy Larry asks the following:


"Chris Christie is walking the walk. Cutting and reducing the government, fighting the special interests, and helping NJ. How do we identify others who will follow through?"


Now I don't pretend to be a big fan of Governor Christie, but he's about the closest thing to a Libertarian leaning Conservative New Jersey would elect. Still, I think he understands the nature of public service and of holding public office.


To understand what I mean requires a trip back into history. Up until the 20th century people didn't consider politics a career. Most elected officials had successful careers outside of politics, and most served with the intention of returning to those careers after their term was over. They looked at elected office much as modern people look at jury duty, a temporary, unpleasant, but necessary duty incurred by a citizen which allowed our society to function as intended. In addition, political office was a part-time job. You went to Washington DC for a few months a year, did your civic duty, then went home until it was time to go back or until some emergency prompted a special session. You were first a farmer, lawyer, or whatever occupation you followed first and secondarily a Congressman or even President.


Now people study Political Science in school. Congressmen and Senators spend DECADES in office. Some rarely return home to meet with their constituents except when running for re-election. They're more concerned with preserving their own legacies than with representing the people who sent them to Washington in the first place.

So my answer to Larry's question would be, the candidate who will follow through is the one who looks at elected office as a temporary job. He or she probably doesn't particularly WANT the job, but they realize that someone has to do it so it might as well be them. They probably look upon the idea of holding elected office with distaste, again much as we look upon jury duty. On the other hand, a person who wants to hold elected office, who desires deep down to be called "The (insert title) from the great state of (fill in the blank)", who is more concerned with having the title than what they'll do once they get it, should most definitely never be allowed near the levers of power. Unfortunately, there are a whole bunch of people holding office now who fit that description.

Authority

Throughout history people who rule others have had different claimed sources of their authority. Sometimes it's just whoever happens to be stronger, whoever can defend his rule against others who would rule. Sometimes rulers claim that their authority comes from God, or they may even claim to be gods themselves. Sometimes the authority to rule is determined by heredity. In Platos's proposed Republic the philosopher-king was authorized to rule because of his wisdom. Sometimes the ruler is chosen by the majority of the people. In most cases, the ruler or rulers have near absolute authority over the people, and the people exist to support the ruling class.


In July, 1776 Thomas Jefferson and company thundered forth with a radical concept, that all men are created equal, that all men, without exception, are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That men form governments for the sole purpose of protecting those rights, that a government that fails to protect those rights is not valid and that the people have the right to abolish such a government and form a new one that will protect those rights. That, in short, the government exists to serve the people and not the other way around.


This radical idea turned the political world on its head. No longer could the ruling class do whatever it pleased, no longer were the people powerless in the face of political might. On the contrary, the ruling class existed and continued to exist at the sufferance of the people. They could be replaced any time the people found them not doing the job they were selected for, namely the protection of the rights of the people.


Under such a political system, the ultimate authority rests with the people. The people choose to delegate some of their authority to a group they choose, thereby freeing themselves from the need to protect their own rights individually. My choice of the word "delegate" was intentional. If I delegate someone to act on my behalf, they do so under my direction and at my pleasure. If I ever decide, for any reason, to replace my delegated spokesman I may do so. He may object, but the final decision is mine and mine alone.


We've forgotten that we are the ones with ultimate authority. We have elected officials who look upon the electorate not as employers, but as sources of income. They see their job not as serving the people they represent, but as telling those people whatever they need to in order to be elected, then once in place they do whatever will increase their power despite the promises made to their constituents. Those same constituents accept their representatives lies with a shrug and with the statement "All politicians lie and break their campaign promises." When the 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992 (not only within the lifetimes of most of my readers, but within their adulthoods), states that Congress could not vote itself a change in pay unless an election of the House of Representatives (which is elected in its entirety every two years) had occured since the last such change and they get around it by voting themselves an automatic cost-of-living-adjustment every year, AND the Supreme Court upholds that travesty, it makes me wonder what it would take to send the populace to Washington armed with torches and pitchforks. Such a situation would have had our Founding Fathers reaching for the tar, feathers and rails, not to mention ropes.

We need to reclaim our birthright as Americans. We need to remind our elected officials that they serve at our pleasure and sufference. That they act in our names and for our best interests or they will not act at all. That we are not ruled, we are represented. That they are public servants, not public masters. That they need to employ themselves at our business or they will find themselves among the unemployed.

That's the difference between a citizen and a subject, between a master and a serf, between a free, sovereign individual and a second-class person.

Work Ethic

The other day my wife and I ate in a restaurant we frequent, it's near the theater we likewise frequent, so when we go to a movie we often have a meal there before or after. There's one waitress there who's our favorite, her name is Julie. She has that uncanny ability to be out of the way when we don't need her for anything, but as soon as we want something she's right there to find out what it is. She's efficient and helpful but at the same time unobtrusive. A glass is seldom empty for long before she's there to find out if we want another, but she doesn't constantly interrupt our meal to see if everything's alright. Honestly, if I were to open a restaurant of my own I'd do my best to hire her away from her current employer. And yes, I've complimented her to her manager and I always tip her well, good work ought to be rewarded.

This is a young lady working in what many would consider a menial occupation, but who does it well. She has the one thing it's almost impossible to teach, a work ethic. There was a time when work ethic was common. My grandfather, an immigrant from Norway, started working at the local ship yard cleaning the bathrooms. He used to say the work was dirty but the money was clean. By the time he died he was a foreman at that very same ship yard.

Nearly every day I encounter people begging for money. I encountered those same people when unemployment was low, when anyone who wanted a job and was physically and mentally capable of holding one was employed. If pointed out that if they could stand on a street corner, in the rain, asking people for change they could stand behind a counter in a fast-food joint asking people if they wanted fries with their meal, they'd reply that such a job was beneath them. I've also encountered people with menial jobs, like emptying trash cans in my office, who did a lousy job of it, all the while complaining about how badly their job sucked. Honestly, if you can't (or more likely won't) do a good job of emptying trash cans, how is anyone going to entrust you with a better, more responsible (and better paying) job? If you are faithful with a little you will be entrusted with more, but if you are unfaithful with a little even what you have will be taken from you.

I don't know Julie's personal story. Maybe, like so many waiters and waitresses, she's an aspiring actress or musician. Maybe she's working as a waitress while she goes to school. Perhaps she doesn't intend to work as a waitress forever, but it's only a temporary job until she gets something better. Regardless, if she brings the same ability, attention, and (if I can use the phrase once more) work ethic to whatever else she does I suspect she'll be successful.

Gambling, Risks, and Bail Outs

Whenever I get together with my in-laws the guys wind up playing poker. It's strictly a fun game with no money involved. We divide up the chips, and if someone runs low someone who has more will give him some. At the end of the game the chips all go back into the box, and we really can't tell who did well and who did poorly. I find that in these games I am much more likely to stay in a hand I shouldn't, or I'll ride a hand much longer than I should just in case something good happens. I'm not above chasing an inside straight. Every once in a while I pull a hand out of the trash, but mostly I end up donating my chips to one of my in-laws. It's all in fun, I've got nothing to lose.


On the few occasions I've played poker for money I play very differently. I'm much quicker to fold a bad hand, or even a fair hand if people are raising. There have been times I've folded hands I would have won had I stayed in, but for the most part if I stay in the hand I either win or come close to doing so (the most expensive poker hand is always the second-best one). In short, when I play for no stakes I don't do well, but when I have a stake in the game I generally come away at the end of the evening with more money than I started with.


Businesses work the same way, they make decisions based upon risk and reward. A poor decision can end up costing a company lots of money and may even cause the company to go out of business, therefore companies spend a lot of time and effort in analyzing risks and weighing them against potential rewards. Successful companies do this well, less successful ones are the ones for whom stock certificates are now collectables instead of having value as a share in the now non-existant company. This system mostly works.


The balance gets thrown off when a company is deemed "too big to fail". Those companies are just playing for chips, if they win they reap the rewards, if they fail they get bailed out at taxpayer expense, so they'll take much bigger risks than they otherwise might. If there's no consequence for failure there's no sense expending the effort to analyze the risks, just try it and see what happens.


The funny things is, just as in my poker example above, paying more attention to the risk/reward balance leads to more success, not less. If a company is truly too big to be allowed to fail it's also too big to be permitted to risk such failure, and the only way to ensure they don't fail is to maintain failure as a possibility. I know, that seems counter-intuitive, but removing potential failure from the possible outcomes makes ultimate failure that much more likely.


So let's stop bailing out companies. Let's let them go bankrupt, they (or whoever buys up their assets) will come back stronger and better afterward. The alternative is a nation full of unsuccessful companies supported by taxpayer money.

What Government Is

I'm sometimes asked why I take exception to government controlling, well, just about anything. This question generally comes from people who hold a very different view of what government is than I do, so from their standpoint it's not an unreasonable question. To offer my view of what government is, allow me to quote someone who was much wiser than I could ever hope to be: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” That was the view of the very first person to hold the title of President of the United States, George Washington.

Don't believe me? Let me offer you a scenario: Suppose I decide (with no input from you) that you owe me a sum of money each year, let's say $12,000 for a nice round number. I send you a letter to the effect that you much remit to me $3,000 each quarter, by a date I determine. If you fail to do so I begin collection proceedings against you, taking your savings, your paycheck, or taking over ownership of your home. If you resist I send a group of heavily armed men to your home in the middle of the night, they break in your door, kill your dog if you have one, tie you up, drag you from your home and lock you in a cage until such time as you agree to pay the amount in question, with penalties for late payment. If you resist this intrusion into your home you will be shot and likely killed. If I did such a thing I would be thrown in jail for (at the very least) breaking into your home, assault, and kidnapping if not murder.

Try not paying your property taxes sometime and see what happens.

Government maintains a monopoly on the proactive use of violence to enforce its will. No matter how reasonable the government's request, no matter how eloquently the request is delivered, that request is backed up by the iron fist of force. As far as I'm concerned the fewer aspects of my life government is permitted to bring that force to bear upon, the most comfortable I am.