It’s a matter of right and wrong.
WHY TEAPARTY? It’s a matter of right and wrong.
It’s way beyond parties and politically correct outcomes.
Hi, my name is John Powser. I am the Independent representative to this grass roots effort. I am concerned for individual freedom, free markets, and the constitution.
If I am fortunate enough for anyone to read this, I would appreciate both brutal and friendly feedback. Before I go into detail pursuing this vector, I need to know if anyone else gives a hoot.
I would like to deal with a subject that is so large that is both exciting and intimidating.
I want to explore the currently dominant philosophy of moral relativism and why it leads to immoral and irrational government action. (It depends on what the definition of is is.) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/
The opposite of moral relativism is moral objectivism. Objectivism holds that there is an objective, tangible reality that exists independent of our feelings and perceptions. Our reasoning mind is the means of understanding and dealing with reality. If a society is to grow and prosper, there must be objective codes of conduct to assure predictable and effective interaction.
The founding fathers based the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution on this. They understood, on an unprecedented level, that freedom of individual action would create a hyper dynamic of growth and prosperity.
Life - Liberty – Pursuit of Happiness, these should protected by government, not constrained by government. Government’s role is to protect the codes of behavior and the laws of interaction that allow individuals to strive and succeed without violating the rights of their fellow citizens.
This seems so obvious to us. How could we have strayed so far from the intent of the Founders? My premise is that moral relativism is at the root of this evil. If all codes are relative, then any code is valid – it depends! Progressives see the Constitution as an inconvenient constraint that gets in the way of their preferred outcomes.
If enough of you are interested, we can explore why a lack of moral objectivism leads to the irrational and immoral government that we have today.
We can explore and explain irrational actions such as:
Spending on government at levels that will certainly bankrupt the country,
Taking the output of producers and giving it to moochers,
Devolving our sovereignty through open borders,
Having given up control of huge portions of our markets and our liberties to government,
Etc, Etc.
It’s not a matter of Party, It’s a matter of Principle.
Let me know what you think.
John Powser
4-30-09
May 14th, 2009 at 10:03 am
John Powser and Peter Lewis, I thank you for the informative and civilized debate. If only politicians did the same. People might actually be informed when they step into the voting booth.
John, in response to your response to Chad:
Ron Paul is the only candidate I know who has brought the issue of the morality of government action to the table. Unfortunately, he is not met with the kind of debate we have here. I would love to see it though. Maybe if the Republicans get wise and select him as their primary candidate we could have some really interesting Paul v. Obama debates.
Jacob Rainey
May 14th, 2009 at 5:12 am
This response is to Irv Williamson.
Thanks for your post.
Happiness is NOT the mindless pursuit of hedonism.
Each individual has intrinsic value and capabilities and the right to actualize them.
An individual pursues happiness when exercising that right.
An individual realizes happiness when their value is expressed in achievement.
Moral achievement takes many forms:
Completing a challenging accounting project
Founding a business
Creating a work of art
Founding a moral country like the USA
The ongoing success of a loving relationship
John Powser
5-14-09
May 12th, 2009 at 11:40 am
This is for Irv Williamson. Note that this is not my material, just the best I could find. Thomas Jefferson and most of the other founders of our Country were educated in the “classics” such as Plato and Aristotle. When they say, “the pursuit of happiness,” they were talking of the classical, Aristotelian meaning.
For Aristotle, a happy life is a good life. In other words, happiness is good. But other things are good, too — such things as health and wealth, knowledge and friendship, and a good moral character. We recognize all these things as good. All of us want them, and would regret being deprived of them. How does happiness stand in relation to all these other goods? And how are they all related to happiness? Aristotle tells us a number of things which enable us to answer this question. He says, in the first place, that all men agree in speaking of happiness as the ultimate good, the highest good, the supreme good. We can understand what this means when we realize that happiness is that state of human well-being which leaves nothing more to be desired.
A happy man, Aristotle would say, is the man who has everything he really needs. He has those things which he needs to realize his potentials. That is why Aristotle says that the happy man wants for nothing. Aristotle then points out that this cannot be said of other goods.
Thus a man might have health, but not sufficient wealth. Or, he may have both wealth and health — but he may lack friends. Another man may have great knowledge — but still lack other human perfections.
According to Aristotle, although a man possesses one or more of the things which his nature craves, he may lack others, and then he cannot be considered happy. There would be some real goods missing which he should desire and try to obtain.
This leads Aristotle to his definition of the happy life as a life made perfect by the possession of all good things such as health wealth, friendship, knowledge, virtue — all these are constituent parts of happiness. And happiness is the whole good of which they are component parts. That is how happiness is related to all the other goods.
This shows you that happiness is something you seek for its own sake, whereas you seek all the other goods ultimately for the sake of happiness. Happiness is the only good of which this is true. It is the only good which we seek for its own sake, as Aristotle says.
“Happiness is desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. But honor, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves, but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for anything other than itself. Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient.”
And now, in the light of this definition of happiness, you can see why Aristotle says that the pursuit of happiness takes a whole lifetime, and that happiness is the quality of a whole human life.
I am going to assume now that you have begun to understand what Aristotle means by happiness and why, in his view, its pursuit takes a whole lifetime. But you may still be wondering how one becomes happy in the course of one’s life — what one has to do to engage effectively and successfully in the pursuit of happiness. Aristotle’s answer to this question is very interesting. Let me tell you the answer first, then try to explain it briefly.
Aristotle tells us that the most important factor in the effort to achieve happiness is a good moral character — what he calls “complete virtue.” But a man must not only be virtuous, he must also act in accordance with virtue. And it is not enough to have one or a few virtues. He must be completely virtuous and live in accordance with complete virtue. Aristotle makes this point most emphatically.
“He is happy who lives in accordance with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods, not for some chance period but throughout a complete life.”
What does this mean? Remember, first of all, that happiness consists in accumulation, through the course of a whole lifetime all the goods — health, wealth, knowledge, friends, etc., that are essential to the perfection of human nature and to the enrichment of human life. This requires us to make choices every day of our lives, and carry out our choices in action. We must choose between this and that thing which we want, or between this and that course of action. We make a right choice whenever we choose the greater of two goods or the lesser of two evils. But sometimes the lesser good is enticing and promises immediate pleasure, while the greater good involves effort and pain on our part. Let us take an example.
There are times when we may be faced with the choice between enjoying the company of friends or calling it off because it is late and we have important work to do the next day. Here is a choice to be made between good things. The immediate pleasures of the evening are attractive — but the work to be done tomorrow is more important. Still, it may take quite an effort of will to call it a night.
And so we see that having a good character consists in nothing more than being willing to suffer some immediate pains or being willing to give up some immediate pleasures for the sake of obtaining a greater good later on. It consists in nothing more than making the right choices. And right choices are always those which calculate on what is good in the long run. They are hard to make. But if we do not make them, we are likely to have some fun from day to day for a while — and in the long run ruin our lives. In the process of building our lives. Aristotle says we must keep our eye on the future — and on the result we want to achieve for our life as a whole, counting all the days to come. What he teaches us is that we cannot become happy by living for the pleasures of the moment. We often have to choose between having a good time and leading a good life. And this is something, Aristotle says, most men do not do.
To judge from the lives that men lead, most men seem to identify the good, or happiness, with pleasure: which is the reason why they love the life of enjoyment. The mass of mankind are evidently quite slavish in their tastes, preferring a life suitable to beasts.
I would like to conclude this brief account of Aristotle’s theory of happiness by mentioning two points which will help us to test our understanding of that theory. Both points bear on the difficult question of whether happiness is the same for all men. Most people — in Aristotle’s time and in ours — do not think it is:
“With regard to what happiness is (men) differ, and the many do not give the same account as the wise. For the former think it is some plain and obvious thing, like pleasure, wealth, or honor. They differ, however, from one another — and often even the same man identifies it with different things, with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is poor.”
Moreover, as Aristotle points out, most people think that happiness is, for each man, whatever he himself thinks it is, and that there are as many different notions of happiness as there are different men, each of them as right as any other. In other words, of all the different notions of happiness that men have, one is not true and all the rest false. That is what most people think!
But, Aristotle contends, on the contrary, that there is only one true conception of happiness and that when happiness is truly conceived, it is the same for all men, whether they think so or not. One example will suffice to help you see what he is driving at: and then you can decide whether or not you agree with him.
Consider the case of the miser. The miser thinks that happiness consists solely in accumulating and hoarding a pile of gold. To achieve this end, he ruins his health, lives in isolation from other human beings, does not take part in the life of his country — and is subject to wild fears and constant worries. There the miser sits fondling his gold. Is he a happy man or is he miserable?
Aristotle would say that the miser is completely miserable — the perfect type of human misery. For he has thwarted most of his normal human cravings, and stunted his human development! He has deprived himself of most of the good things of life — health, knowledge, friendship and many other forms of human activity — in order to acquire wealth: wealth which he does not put to good use but simply gloats over.
True, he thinks that his happiness consists in the possession of gold. But that is a mistaken judgment on his part. It has led him to do violence to his own nature and to ruin his life.
The second of the two concluding points I want to make has to do with the criteria by which we can tell whether something is truly a part of happiness when that is rightly conceived.
Suppose, for example, that someone thinks that happiness consists in having power over other men, and not being subject to the power of anyone else. Some men, we know from history and experience, actually think this — and want power more than anything else. They think it is most essential to their happiness. What is wrong with such thinking? You can readily see what is wrong. If power over others were truly an element in human happiness, then happiness would not be attainable by all men. Because if some men attain it, that would preclude other men, subject to their power, from becoming happy. Everyone cannot be on top — and if you have to be on top in order to be happy, only some men can achieve happiness at the expense of others. Hence, if everyone has a natural right to the pursuit of happiness, and if that means that happiness must be attainable by all, then we know at once, do we not, that power over other men cannot be a part of human happiness — for if it were, happiness would not be attainable by all. The pursuit of happiness must be co-operative, not competitive.
We do not have the right view of it unless we see it as something which men can help one another to achieve — instead of achieving it by beating their neighbors. This is the deepest lesson we can learn from Aristotle about happiness, and it was, I should think, a lesson which was not lost on the framers of the Declaration of Independence. You remember I said that Thomas Jefferson and other signers of the Declaration had read Plato and Aristotle — this was part of their education.
Mortimer Adler.
June 7th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
What the hey are you smoking?
May 11th, 2009 at 6:15 am
I celebrate your courage here! In this politically correct world we live in, there are too few people who stand up for what they believe.
Support for life and liberty is universal. It’s the pursuit of “happiness” that sends us in different directions. Regardless of the origin, isn’t a nation committed to pursuing happiness a bit miss guided? One man’s happiness is another man’s foley.
May 8th, 2009 at 5:20 am
Second response to Peter Lewis.
Peter,
Once again, thanks for a thoughtful response. I have struggled over many decades with the same issues. It probably won’t be a surprise that I disagree. Schweickart’s ideas are seductive but in the end I have to go with the Austrian School and it’s most recent famous spokesperson, Milton Friedman.
I have responded to some of your points…
Peter Lewis: “Still, it’s important to separate capitalism into an economic- (not social- or socioeconomic-) model; there are plenty of examples of undemocratic and authoritarian capitalist societies. I would surmise that capitalism is not a sufficient condition of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
On this you agree with Friedman.
Milton Friedman: “History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition.”
Peter Lewis: “With regard to central government planning, or socialism … Milton Friedman … would add that it capitalism *is* a necessary condition to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I suspect that this argument, much like the popular TINA (There Is No Alternative) defense of capitalism, is based on the often-horrific failures of socialism and communism in the past. Like before, I’d quickly point out that we’ve seen plenty of failures of capitalism but I’d also add that the very little opportunity we’ve had to experiment with socialist / centrally-planned policy makes its universal condemnation a bit premature.”
John Powser: I look at history and come to the opposite conclusion. The Soviet Union and Communist China have been extended and very intense experiments in central planning and now they reside in the dustbin of history. Real Capitalism has never been tried. The world has gotten close a couple of times but government always comes up with a “better way” and meddles until it kills the essence of Capitalism. We stand at the brink of killing it again.
Peter Lewis: “I do believe that, if our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are to survive, a free market under classical capitalist policy must not be continued.”
John Powser: I am curious to know what it is about Capitalism that you feel threatens our rights.
Peter Lewis, points 1 & 3 on Economic Democracy:
1) Worker self-management: Each productive enterprise is controlled democratically by its workers.
3) Social control of investment: Funds for new investment are generated by a capital assets tax and are returned to the economy through a network of public investment banks.
John Powser: This approach voids at least one key element of Capitalism, Creative Destruction, which is crucial to innovation and progress. Social control and public policy will result in a majority of people striving to preserve the status quo rather than to achieve breakthroughs.
Specifically on point three, this is now a fait accompli. The government bail out and control of the banks is one of the things that got people disturbed enough to Tea Party.
To close, here are a few pertinent quotes from Milton Friedman.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that’s why it’s so essential to preserving individual freedom.
Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else’s resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property.
The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.
Cheers,
John Powser
5-8-09
May 7th, 2009 at 4:43 am
Reply to joni.
Joni,
Thanks for becoming involved in this post.
In dwelling on the minor human foibles of the Founders, you miss the point that they created the most successful and prosperous society in history.
Perhaps you also missed the significance of this pledge:
AND FOR THE SUPPORT OF THIS DECLARATION, WITH A FIRM RELIANCE ON THE PROTECTION OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE, WE MUTUALLY PLEDGE TO EACH OTHER OUR LIVES, OUR FORTUNES, AND OUR SACRED HONOR.
When they wrote this, the Founders knew that they ran a high risk of ending up dead or in jail.
They lived in a world where people acted at the consent of government. They created a world where the government existed by the consent of the people.
Now we have come full circle. The government has taken back control from the people. The government allows us to live our lives and allows us to pursue our happiness. We do not even have the Liberty to keep the fruits of our own labor or that of our family.
This is why people Tea Party.
John Powser
5-7-09
May 6th, 2009 at 11:18 am
I include the link as it substantiates i hope some of my comments:
Briefly,
Life Liberty and Property” was the original wording and was changed for the purpose of selling war and conscripting lower class.
I take issue with a great many of the ideas relayed above but will address each on it’s own as and if i’m able.
To understand our ‘forefathers’ who were far from how you portray them means looking at where their interests lay and fact is very far from what you portray above.
peace and connections,
joni
May 6th, 2009 at 4:54 am
Response to Peter Lewis.
Peter,
Thank you for your thoughts. It seems we find ourselves agreeing and disagreeing. This is the kind of civil, logical, unemotional debate that escapes our politicians. They seem to be screaming at each other: if you disagree you are an evil traitor.
Regarding my use of the word “constraint” in reference to how progressives see the constitution.
A. I took the word from a recent speech by the President to a military group when he said that “Al Qaeda is not constrained by a constitution”. He could have said guided, governed or led.
B. I realize that Progressive means different things to different people but if we always have to define all of the value laden terms, our articles and posts would be way too long. Since you said “the philosophy which I’m really focusing on right now is the one espoused by these re-tea parties: unification toward life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, you are probably not progressive in the sense that I was using it.
AT THE VERY LEAST WE HAVE FOUND IMPORTANT COMMON GROUND
Hopefully this is the spirit that will motivate people to turn out and be heard at the Tea Parties.
Regarding your comment that “I think that it’s a mistake to believe, uncompromisingly, that the founders were correct (or even in agreement) on every single statement made in the constitution”.
Even the Founders agreed with that; hence the mechanism for amendments.
Peter, I am curious to know where you would stand on Free Market Capitalism vs Central Government Planning.
Which one is more favorable to individuals in their pursuit of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?
John Powser
5-6-09
May 6th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Hi John,
I couldn’t be happier that you asked about free market capitalism vs. central government planning, as I’m on a personal crusade to spread the word about a socioeconomic model that lies somewhere in between.
First, let me make a brief comment about each. Free market capitalism is a system that greatly freed and expanded the capabilities of hundreds of millions - if not billions - of people. Still, it’s important to separate capitalism into an economic- (not social- or socioeconomic-) model; there are plenty of examples of undemocratic and authoritarian capitalist societies. I would surmise that capitalism is not a sufficient condition of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
With regard to central government planning, or socialism (commonly), someone like Milton Friedman would agree with me on that last point but would add that it capitalism *is* a necessary condition to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I suspect that this argument, much like the popular TINA (There Is No Alternative) defense of capitalism, is based on the often-horrific failures of socialism and communism in the past. Like before, I’d quickly point out that we’ve seen plenty of failures of capitalism but I’d also add that the very little opportunity we’ve had to experiment with socialist / centrally-planned policy makes its universal condemnation a bit premature.
I do believe that, if our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are to survive, a free market under classical capitalist policy must not be continued. I also believe that central government planning under classical socialist policy is too risky to be played with right now. So let’s forget about all of that. Here’s the system that I’m really hoping will put us all on a common course for the future: Economic Democracy.
E.D. has three basic features (taken from David Schweickart’s “After Capitalism”):
1) Worker self-management: Each productive enterprise is controlled democratically by its workers.
2) The market: These enterprises interact with one another and with consumers in an environment largely free of governmental price controls. Raw materials, instruments of production, and consumer goods are all bought and sold at prices largely determined by the forces of supply and demand.
3) Social control of investment: Funds for new investment are generated by a capital assets tax and are returned to the economy through a network of public investment banks.
As I’m no position to rewrite the book on E.D., I’ll just recommend reading the book I’ve referenced above - David Schweickart’s “After Capitalism”. He calls it a capitalism-socialism hybrid and I definitely think he’s struck gold with it. It’d probably be best if you had a chance to read through the book but, for now, I’d be happy to expand on E.D. in whatever ways you’re interested in.
Peter
May 6th, 2009 at 12:51 am
I have to take issue with at least one line, John: “Progressives see the Constitution as an inconvenient constraint that gets in the way of their preferred outcomes.” I’d count myself as a progressive and I definitely think that that’s an inaccurate statement. I don’t see the constitution as a inconvenient constraint, I see it as an incredibly important contract which is, unfortunately, imperfect. I can appreciate the philosophy of strict constitutionalism but I think that it’s a mistake to believe, uncompromisingly, that the founders were correct (or even in agreement) on every single statement made in the constitution or that they had the foresight to control for every conceivable injustice allowed by their policy recommendations.
Back to the moral argument: I believe in non-cognitivism (a branch of moral relativism, I believe) but that doesn’t require me to respect the moral philosophies of others. I don’t believe that genuine, tangible moral “truths” exist but I recognize the need for their creation if our society is to function. Therefore, I’m quite happy to impose my moral stances on those around me, especially my government. Even though I believe that the people running the government have developed different (different both from us and amongst themselves) moral values which are as “legitimate” (or, rather, as I believe “illegitimate”) as everyone else’s, I also believe that there are common moralities which we all can and ought to adhere. “Good”, to me, just means “adheres to or supports the goal of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all”.
Anyway, the philosophy which I’m really focusing on right now is the one espoused by these re-tea parties: unification toward life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So on that note, thanks for an intelligent (if disagreeable!) post and for supporting this non-partisan event!
Peter Lewis
May 1st, 2009 at 6:35 am
Amen.
I’m glad Americans are getting upset about taxes, but I agree that this is a much deeper issue…one of morality, of philosophy.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Bravo…seems to be in line with Natural Law, no?
Thank you for sparking this dialogue, I hope it can be expanded.
May 1st, 2009 at 5:59 am
Chad,
Thanks so much for your comment.
In most ways Natural Law and Objectivism are the same thing.
What surprises me is the lack of discussion on the morality of government action. Do you know of any politician that brings the dimesions of right and wrong to the debate?
John Powser