Once the Gordian knot between Religion and Politics is untied ..
.. Conservatives can trump the puffery of 'holier than thou' liberals by consistently stressing:

* self interest over altruism
* freedom over enslavement
* fairness/justice over entitlement

It isn't easy to take this road - the temptation to sound altruistic is all too real. Particularly since conservatives know that the freedom to pursue one's self-interest actually IS beneficial to society at large!

Most issues can be categorized along three axes -Economic, Nationalist or Social, with some overlapping areas.

Economic: conservatives should hold laissez faire capitalism as the economic model with a proven track record and one that is consistent with individual freedom. Encapsulated in these principles are property rights, individual freedoms and objective laws that make it impossible for any group to be enslaved for the supposed benefit of others. This would make public education, welfare, universal health care and other tax coerced institutions illegal.

Nationalist: conservatives should support an America-first policy that is based on American self interest. As in the case of domestic policy, this doesn't result in 'exploitation' - although this charge will be levelled by the usual suspects who believe that everything is a zero-sum game. Such policies will raise other nations as trading partners, encouraging them to match our accomplishments.

Social: conservatives should support an agenda that is based on individual freedom and justice, but without the dogma of any particular religion. This will be difficult for many conservatives, particularly those who have found these issues to be vote-rich. However, we can't have it both ways! Issues like abortion, gay marriage and others will be particularly thorny -there will be some issues in which we may have to reconcile our politics with our religious convictions. 

I'm not a Biblical scholar, but .. consider the following:

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)

"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." (Luke 6:17-26)

"Therefore, I urge you brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God - this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will."
(Romans 12:1-2)

"Then Jesus went to work on his disciples, “Don't run from suffering; embrace it. Follow me and I'll show you how. Self-help is no help at all. Self-sacrifice is the way, my way, to finding yourself, your true self. What kind of deal is it to get everything you want but lose yourself? What could you ever trade your soul for?” (Mathew 16:24-26) 

There are numerous references in the Scriptures, as well as in sermons, that extol the virtues of self-sacrifice, renunciation and other 'virtues'.

In most denominations, the most stirring sermons occur when the pastor gave real-world examples of self-sacrifice.

Of course, there are numerous references and parables that support hard work as well as the proper utilization of ones talents.

It is therefore natural (and maybe even right) that religious people develop a sense of morality that is based on altruism. And, I'm not here to say that it is wrong to help one's fellow-man. Just that if altruism/self-sacrifice are raised on the pedestal as universal values, then it becomes impossible to argue the IMMORALITY of well-intentioned socialist ideas.

It is also the reason that many good people are naturally drawn towards socialist ideas in their early years. After all, there are centuries of morality built into the creed of self-sacrifice as a virtue.

What I would like to see is conservatives arguing their case in economic or political terms w/out the support of altruism-inspired rhetoric. Imagine a foreign policy debate that was based on American self-interest and security, and did not begin with "we must help the poor, starving people of ____."

In most cases, we DO put a premium on American self-interest. But we always seem to seek the cloak of a self-effacing, morally liberal position that resonates with the UN-types.

Conservative (and some liberal) leaders of a few generations ago didn't seek that false mantle - it is a relatively new dichotomy in our politics. But it ties us up in knots!

Religion and Politics sure are touchy issues! And, we're told (as children) not to discuss politics & religion in polite conversation. But here goes, anyway ..

In my opinion, religion is a deeply personal matter. Also, it IS the source of many of our values and virtues. However, we also can be blinded by religion - if we accept EVERY value & virtue that is extolled by religion, into politics.

For example, all major religions extol the virtues of self-sacrifice. And that is the moral basis of socialism. Once we accept the maxim that 'self-sacrifice is a boundless virtue' into our DNA, the dice is loaded IN FAVOR OF socialism.

As a result, you find religious conservatives arguing against socialism ONLY on pragmatic grounds (e.g. it doesn't work, therfore it is evil). We no longer have a MORAL argument against socialism, and have to resort to contortions like 'compassionate conservative' against the charge that we are selfish, cold, unfeeling ...

Leftists have exploited this weakness. It is also the reason why good people begin their lives as leftists (it just SEEMS like the moral high ground), until their life experiences make the blinders come off. You've heard the saying "if you aren't a liberal at age 20, you have no heart; if you aren't a conservative at age 40, you have no brain!" - I'm paraphrasing a bit, but I'm sure you've heard this?

For this reason, I am atheistic in my political beliefs. In my personal life -- well, that's personal, and mama told me not to .. y'know!

I don't discount the contributions that are inspired by religion, and by religious people.

If religion is the ONLY source of morality for many people, then it should be encouraged. However, I think that we would be selling our compatriots short by making that assumption.

Also, religion (and often, the interpretation of religion) can bring inconsistencies into our political and social lives.

For example, altruism is a core tenet of Judeo-Christian principles. Altruism, when applied as the philosophical basis of political and economic policy, leads to 'feel-good' legislation such as minimum wage increases, universal health care, welfare, progressive taxation, and other unworkable premises.

Observe the helplessness of Religious Conservatives when they try to vote down such proposals - while still trying to appear to have the moral high ground. All that they can do is to whine plaintively that "it doesn't work".

Without the albatross of altruism, Conservatives should be able to say that "It is immoral to ask productive people to be victims AND it doesn't work".

The mess that results from this is that non-religious Liberals absurdly seize the moral high ground with well-intentioned but fallacious arguments. Note that the liberals' mystical beliefs merely replace "religion" with some euphemism such as "the state", or "the common good".

Does it boggle the mind to think that a self-proclaimed conservative (and a staunch supporter of Capitalism) would say that "Capitalism is a dirty word because of .. religion".

Before you click over to another channel in disgust, answer this question.

Q) What human attribute is most commonly associated with Capitalism?

Did your answer contain any of the following words or their synonyms?
* selfishness
* unsympathetic
* cold, lacking human warmth
* un-feeling
* not compassionate

Now, think about the fact that most religions have value systems that would consider the above words to be pejorative in nature.

And, since most people base their values on religious beliefs -- "Capitalism is a dirty word because of Religion".

Q.E.D.

Actually, the words that SHOULD'VE come to everyone's mind when considering the above question are "FAIR" or "MORAL". But those are not words that are usually associated with Capitalism!

Capitalism - which actually represents the ABSENCE of central control of an economy, provides the most FAIR playing field for individuals and businesses. It is MORAL, because it doesn't require the enslavement of anyone for the supposed benefit of others.

Click on the link to read  "Why some good, religious people are Liberals" 

When did we Americans get to the point of being such snobs?

I realize that Democrat politicians like to claim that their 'humble beginnings' ensure that they are in touch with the 'working people'. To which I usually say "Bollocks!"

Most people recognize that for what it is - hypocrisy & reverse snobbery! One is reminded of the political slogans from Soviet Russia, as in "he was proletariat, not bourgeois".

But conservatives shouldn't make apologies for anyone who may (or may not) have been born into 'big WASP money'? All that matter is if the person has anything sensible or original to contribute. 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009715

This is what principled Democrats would sound like without the political posturing that has become the norm in our Congress.

Note: Lieberman may disagree with conservatives on many other policies, but he earns my respect as a man who realizes that political opportunism should not drive national security issues.

Kudos Senator, for your principled position!

Let's begin with some semi-serious, semi-philosophical ONE-LINE definitions.

Joy (aka happiness): what you experience when you attain your values

Value: that which you seek to obtain or retain

Virtue: the actions by which you seek to obtain or retain your values

----and now for some analysis----

I'm sure that a suicide bomber feels a perverse kind of 'joy' just before he blows himself up. After all, he has just attained his 'value' which just happened to be the destruction of innocent lives. In his loony-tunes world, his action is 'virtuous', truly deserving of multiple virginal defloration rewards in his benighted paradise. For the record: my sympathies are with the virgins!

So, it comes down to this: happiness depends on your value system. So, the 'pursuit of happiness' (per se) cannot be defined as a universal 'virtue', although it has come to be known as the foundation of a free society.

Values, on the other hand, make all the difference.

Somewhere in all this is a clue to WHY conservatives are losing the MORAL debate.

[whine] Oh fudge, it's just 'too hard' to think about all this serious, buzz-killing stuff. Much easier to slouch off into another night of mindless gluttony and leftist debauchery! [/whine]
=========================
Response to "Sonny" who posted in a TH forum about the differences between JOY and HAPPINESS.
------------------------------------------------
I don't object to your definition: happiness is a transient, ephemeral version of joy - which, you state, is a more lasting emotion.

That is analogous to a statement that an emotion is a 'transient' thought, not always representative of a fully-reasoned, rational, cognitive response. By this definition, an emotion can be subjective (or even wrong). Sort of like an instant 'barometric' response, but one that may have to be replaced by more deliberate thought. People who are more objective in their thought processes (and values) are more likely to experience an objective emotional response - which is consistent with the fully-reasoned thought that follows.

Example: [whine] I really, really want to watch the Superbowl on an expensive 100" plasma HDTV [/whine] - but the tradeoff is that I have to put my kids in a sub-standard public school (and I happen to disagree with the premise of Govt-run education). A subjective emotion may pull me momentarily in the direction of the splendiferous TV; an objective thought soon replaces the emotional pull, but only if I VALUE the education of my kids.

With the definitions understood - let's stipulate (in the context of a discussion about the 'pursuit of happiness') that we're talking about a lasting joy (aka happiness).

No doubt we can ascribe all the ills of leftist ideology to the whiny 'it feels good in the short term, so it must be OK' mentality. Although it does apply in some cases (e.g. drug use, casual sex etc), that is an oversimplification in the larger context.

Why is it an oversimplification? Contrary to popular conservative analysis, mature leftists ARE capable of thinking long-term. Consider a semi-trivial example: leftists are often quite conscious of healthy diet & exercise. If their viewpoint was only one of instant gratification, that would hardly be the case. Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that leftists are more health-conscious than their conservative counterparts?

So, if leftists ARE capable of long-term thinking, why does their world-view not reflect that? Thomas Sowell touches on this topic in his "Vision of the Anointed", but he stops short of exposing the 'values' inconsistency.  Ayn Rand identifies - and defines - values and virtues better than anyone that I've read. Disclosure: the above one-line definitions are paraphrased versions of hers!

We should also ask ourselves "Do modern-day conservatives espouse a consistent world-view"?

I am interested in identifying the reasons why mature, intelligent people (of both left and right persuasions) choose an inconsistent value system.

Comments, anyone?

A recent post on this blog from 'everyonesfacts' stated the following (excerpted and edited only for spelling and format), in response to a previous blogpost titled "Johnny MUST go to school".

------------------begin post by 'everyonesfacts'-------------------------------- 
Public schools have over time educated more and more of our populace. The U.S. has gone from graduation rates of about less than 50% from 8th to 9th grade at the end of WWII to 70% of 12th graders today. It could do better, but the improvement is clear.

Surely the education of the black minority has improved since 1945 or 1954 and there is a new focus on why they are not doing as well as other groups - the achievement gap - the difference other than family background is that a student in an urban school doesn't have as good a teacher. The schools could do better, but the improvement is clear.

I recommend the recommendations of College Board's Teachers and the Uncertain American Future as the best remedy for public education's current state.
see link .
------------------end post by 'everyonesfacts'------------------------------------

Dear 'everyonesfacts',

It would seem that you are a teacher - and one who feels quite passionately about education. Quite possibly, you are a parent too, which can only INCREASE your commitment to education. I am a parent of two kids, so I TOO have a very direct stake in the quality of education that we have in our country.

I have also done some math & science teaching, mostly on a voluntary basis - I have a fairly lucrative non-teaching 'regular' job. Being a degreed engineer with an interest in Math, Science and Computers, I have also run MathCamps & computer classes for middle-school kids. I'm sure that I don't have your level of experience or commitment in the field of education, but I have had some exposure to the 'system'.

I have read the report (at the link that you provided) .
Note to readers: whether you agree or disagree with my point-of-view, please click on the link and read the report; it is quite an eye-opener.

While the report is well-intentioned, in my opinion, it panders to the orthodoxy of the status-quo.

There is a reason why teachers are not paid enough in the US. It is that they are treated as a commodity - a replaceable, interchangeable stream of warm bodies, paid by their yrs of service, but not by their ability. The fact that teachers are unionized only ensures the treatment of teachers as a commodity!

Yes, one easy 'fix' is a salary hike. A 20% hike across-the-board sounds fine; I would be the 1st to say that it is well-deserved. The result will be a modest increase in recruitment and a momentary increase in motivation.

But the modest improvement that it might accomplish is dwarfed by the magnitude of the current failure - the very definition of a 'band-aid' solution. It is time for us to have a strategy that converts teachers from assembly line 'commodities' to the professionals that they are. It is time to catalyze change in our schools - from altars of mediocrity to high-quality institutions that America is capable of creating. Such a change will NOT come from band-aid solutions.

We have to question the fundamental decisions that led to the existing shabbiness and grime. We have to fix the motivations and incentives that apply throughout the system.

If we can suspend our status-quo thinking for a moment, let's think about how teachers, schools and parents COULD (and SHOULD) think, instead of how they operate within the existing system.

TEACHERS [highly motivated, since it is their careers at stake; and most of them love their profession]
All educators should be asking themselves
* "Why aren't we TREATED like professionals"?
* "Why aren't we ACTING like professionals"?
* "Do unions help us"?
* "Are we doing the best that we can for our customers (parents and kids)?"

Note: since teachers ARE professionals, this type of thinking is easy for them. It wouldn't be surprising if many of them have already thought this through. Unfortunately, many who think along these lines, typically leave the profession (under the current system).

SCHOOLS [lacking the motivation, it isn't so easy to get them to think outside their existing, comfort-zone]
* "Are we SO entrenched in the status-quo that we don't want improvement?"
* "Do we exist because of the needs of our customers?"

Note: Although I seem to bash "schools", I actually respect school administrators - they too are hard-working professionals who would like to see their schools as producers of high-quality output. However, that (quality) is hard to define by the providers, unless they look OUTSIDE. For example, in the pvt sector, companies look at their customer's needs and work hard to achieve them. In our schools, the 'needs' are defined by the providers to suit their whims (or the rhetoric of political bureaucrats) - so, soft-soap goals are set e.g. diversity.

Excuse me, school administrators, but have you asked your customers (parents) what THEIR needs are? Most will tell you that they want a rigorous curriculum grounded in the basics, not the touchy-feely stuff that come from someone's political agenda!

PARENTS [highly motivated, since they are the consumers (and customers) in this scenario]
* "Are we getting a good value for our education expense?"
* "Would we accept mediocre quality in any other area (food, healthcare, utilities, products)?"

In the current system, schools are neither motivated nor free to compete for teachers.

Imagine a scenario in which teachers are sought after - like doctors, lawyers, engineers. Administrators try to recruit them to THEIR schools, in the hope of creating all-star teams that parents (customers) insist on buying from.

Sounds like a dream?

But that is exactly how the market is for engineering professionals (I can speak from experience). It's not that different for Doctors, Lawyers, Nurses, Technicians and other well-trained professionals. What is the difference between these professionals and a teacher? Not much, in terms of education and training. The ONLY difference is in the market that professionals and teachers operate.

Here are my responses to some of your specific points:

It is true that public schools have educated a vast percentage of our populace and graduation rates are at 70%. But that just means that we have pushed more kids through a faltering system. My thinking is that in a country which strives for the best, the performance results (including the achievement gap) should give us considerable pause.

Have you thought about why there should even BE an 'achievement gap' after all these decades? Your point is correct - urban schools don't have the best teachers. How do we fix that?

Could the principal of an urban school offer a higher salary to attract better teachers? No, that is not allowed. Union terms forbid such 'discrimination'. So, the rules that were ostensibly designed to protect teachers actually hurt our schools! Also the urban school principal wouldn't have enough money to recruit better teachers, under the current system anyway! One of the unintended effects of the property-tax supported school districts is to CREATE boundaries that have led to segregation.

Would a 20% across-the-board salary increase result in better teachers at urban schools? No, teachers would still prefer to avoid the 'difficult' schools.

Kids who live in urban areas don't have a choice but to go to schools within reach (exceptions being for charter schools etc). How do we fix that?

If schools had to compete for parents (customers), would that give the schools a reason to enforce higher standards? That is the premise behind "school vouchers", and that solution is a step in the right direction.

THERE IS ONLY ONE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD THAT HAS A PROVEN TRACK RECORD FOR DELIVERING "HIGH QUALITY" OUTPUT FROM A "NORMAL" WORKFORCE.

Engineers, Technicians, Doctors, Nurses - all benefit from a free-enterprise system in their respective professions. Many of them deliberately AVOID the few public-sector opportunities that exist for them, and 'take their chances' in the private sector. With K-12 education, we have deliberately created the opposite scenario - a mammoth public sector, and a stunted private sector. WHAT WERE WE THINKING? It is time to admit that we made a mistake that must be rectified.

A visitor from a foreign country would be justified in making the following observation: "Free-enterprise institutions work well in America, delivering good quality at prices that are affordable to everyone. Americans must love their food and entertainment, because they have made sure that those areas benefit from this uniquely American thing called free enterprise.

"It would also appear that the quality of education is unimportant to Americans, as long as there is access to it.  Why else would they have utilized a worn-out, broken down system to educate their kids? Americans also seem to consider teachers to be inferior professionals . Somehow, Americans think that they are not really qualified. They NEED a Union, they need to be cocooned from the marketplace."

I disagree vehemently with any notion that teachers are 'weak', either intellectually or morally. I've met many, many teachers who have the intellectual and moral strength to succeed in ANY profession. They choose to be teachers, because it is THEIR LIFE. But, any success they have comes IN SPITE of the system - not because of it. They will continue to be the best teachers in a free-enterprise system of education. In fact, they will be 'recruited' by many schools, bidding desperately to get the best staff on their teams.

The current system is designed to attract mediocre people into the teaching profession. The exceptions to that rule are a few really good, motivated, talented people who burn out after a decade and (if they're lucky) get recruited by the few private schools that manage to survive in the swamp created by Public Education.

We love to think that our system attracts thousands of Jaime Escalantes a la "Stand and Deliver". But that is not what really exists in our schools. We're all impressed by the movies that show a heart-of-gold teacher with the forbearance of Mother Theresa and/or Gandhi, the intellect of Edison or Mme Curie and the street cred and toughness of Morgan Freeman. The fact that some teachers exist who embody all those attributes is wonderful - but in a macro sense, a system that is designed to work only when run by supermen and superwomen is destined to fail.

Observe that the private sector produces SUPER quality (forced by competition) while being run by seemingly NORMAL individuals. Similarly, a private sector education system would also produce high quality output (well educated kids) while harnessing the productive abilities of teachers and administrators.

If we don't switch to free-enterprise education, we are dooming future generations of students to mediocrity. We will also lose many potentially wonderful teachers.

Sorry about the provocative title. 

This is just a follow-up to my previous post on WEIRD science (aka Global Warming). If you are disappointed, please accept a full refund of the price of admission, and go back to whatever it was that you were doing.

The Environment (which has now replaced the Flag, Motherhood and Apple Pie in its significance to many Americans) is ONE area in which few people (Right or Left) can disagree that some intervention is required.

However, it is precisely in the TYPE of intervention (translated: control) that the Leftist ideology rears its ugly head.

Apologies in advance, much of the rant that follows is not DIRECTLY related to the Environment, Global Warming or the Kyoto Accord. Those who manage to stay awake until the end will see the connection.

Still with me? OK, here goes!

Many of our societal problems have come from the institutions that we have created to limit the 'negatives' associated with capitalism. Most of those problems are actually worse than the ills that they were supposed to cure.

To elaborate my point, consider the analogy of our economy as a powerful system that is driven by individuals in their 'pursuit of happiness'. The prosperity of our country is one of the many POSITIVE outputs of this system. Environmental damage (and any other supposed 'problem' caused by unbridled capitalism) are relatively small but NEGATIVE by-products.

The beauty of capitalism is that there are self-corrections built into it. Most of the NEGATIVES, feed back into the system (w/out Govt intervention) and impose a correction that very quickly reduces/eliminates the problem. For example, interest rates rise quickly to prevent an increase in speculative investments if there is an over-bought sentiment in the markets.

In the case of Environmental damage, it takes years, decades or centuries for the effects to be fed back. So, this is an area in which intervention seems necessary. 

After all, my right to swing my arms freely ends at the bridge of your nose. Likewise, my 'right' to spew toxins into the air ends (literally) at your nose! Note: please refrain from any scatological thought processes at this point.

Most of the institutions that are supposed to monitor and/or control those NEGATIVES fail because of the power given to a group that doesn't directly benefit from a POSITIVE output. We created the Dept of Education to monitor, control and even run our schools - but they don't benefit from a positive outcome! They get MORE money when more schools fail.

In some ways, environmental problems are similar to the educational problems (disparities) that were used to justify the Govt takeover of education. Why? Both are long-term problems - not with relatively short cycle times like economic swings. In education, as with the environment, it takes a few decades before we can collect data and detect a problem. So, it is particularly important to have the right incentives at work.

So, can anyone suggest a method that allows us to monitor and control environmental pollution - without giving power to a group that doesn't benefit directly from the POSITIVE output of our economy?

Clearly the Kyoto accord (and other millstones) don't meet the above criteria. None of that "one-world über alles" stuff ever works any way, so our methods have to be uniquely American to succeed.
 
I have one somewhat imperfect suggestion: each industry voluntarily creates different 'classes' of pollution levels. These classes can change, as technology improves; a non-Govt impartial industry group (funded by companies who voluntarily submit to compliance testing) sets these classes. Companies are graded into classes, six-sigma style, based on their performance against their competitors. The system could be used to compare the products of a company, it's processes, or both.

Class0: best in class
Class1: almost the best
: : : : : : : : : : : :
Class10: awful, filthy, polar-bear-drowning, murderous swine

Class0 companies are exempt from any taxes on their profits. Class10 (or worse) companies pay 100%, an average company pays 50% and .. well, you get the picture! Good companies can use their 'rating' as bragging rights against their competitors. Green-keen individuals can (voluntarily) choose to buy products from Greener companies - if the tradeoff means that prices are higher, well, that's their choice.

Any comments? Suggestions? Noxious fumes?

In our befuddled state, it matters little whether Global Warming is 'real' science or 'junk' science.

I propose that we file Global Warming under the category of "Weird Science". When politics and science intersect, we enter the realm of "weird science". And no, although I'm a big fan of what's-her-name, I'm not referring to the popular '80s teen-flick that bore the same name.

For all the learned and scientific thrust-and-parry on the subject, once Global Warming has been politicized the 'science' has already been taken out of the equation. At best, we can call it 'consensus science', and that should be enough to prove it's weirdness.

Isn't it funny that all Leftists think that American affluence is responsible for drowning all those cuddly polar bears (insert ominous music here). And Right-ists (is that a word?) think that the markets should determine our course of action on environmental matters.

As a self-identified "laissez faire capitalist", I have trouble with the reliance on 'the market' to provide guidance on environmental issues. No doubt, the market (in the form of specialized companies) will provide the solutions - but I worry about the efficacy of market mechanisms in implementing self-regulation to prevent long-term environmental problems.  I invite thoughtful comments from anyone who can show how the markets can self-regulate in this area. After all, if a clean environment is a scarce commodity, then there must be an economic theory that can rationalize the best allocation of this scarce resource.

Having said that, it is true that "the environment" is one of those feel-good issues. After all no one can be AGAINST the environment! 

To digress briefly, 'feel good' is the reason why ANTI-WAR rallies are popular. Although some wars are necessary, no sane person can be consistently PRO-WAR. So, anti-war rallies feel good, and are a great place to pick up young, attractive, feeble-minded dates. There's probably no better venue to find people, who need people! Ahh, that sense of purpose that comes from marching together in matching tie-dyed t-shirts, while saving the world.

Oy, the humanity, the love, the warmth, the witty, rhyming slogans. So conducive to meeting idealistic, attractive, empty-headed people of the opposite (or same) gender ..

In the strange world of "Weird Science", the Leftists have a winning issue with the environment in general, and Global Warming in particular. Even laissez faire capitalists recognize the real problems of environmental pollution. Therefore, Leftists can bleat ad nauseum in favor of crippling 'reform' a la Kyoto, claiming for themselves the moral high ground. In the "Weird" world, that's all that matters. And that's how political careers are made (or revived, a la AlGore).

It should be noted that although I'm unsure about the ability of 'the market' as a force for limiting environmental damage, I am DECIDEDLY AGAINST crippling regulations such as those called for under the Kyoto protocol.

Realistic Leftists (is that an oxymoron?) are aware that they can pass crippling laws, secure in the knowledge that by the time the Global Warming debate is settled, they would already be grazing with their beloved Arctic moose in the sky.

And, if they are unsuccessful in passing those draconian laws, they can blame it on the Right and garner some more votes during the election cycles. So, as an issue, it is win-win for the Leftists. Hooray!

Quoting 'drivebyposting', a thoughtful visitor to this blog:
"More than one conservative lawyer has argued that conservatives need to be very careful about declaring life at conception has full rights.

Because if so, liberals will take that to mean things I don't think anyone wants to ponder.

For example, fetal alcohol syndrome is well known and understood. Women should not drink during pregnancy. If the baby's rights trump the mother's rights then where does the line end, and more importantly, WHY? You have to make the compelling case. The lesson here is that conservatives when arguing for laws banning abortion because the baby is a full human with full human rights have to grapple with the legality of the mother's lifestyle during pregnancy damaging the baby.

This argument has already come up. A women tried to give herself an abortion by using a gun on her baby. She shot herself and killed the baby. Did she commit murder? If not, why is what she did any different than if someone else pulled the trigger? Ultimately it was ruled that since abortion was legal that she could not commit murder. But where do you draw the line. What if a depressed woman starts heavily drinking during a pregnancy and the baby has serious birth defects? Can the state sue the mother on behalf of the baby? If not, why not? An argument needs to be applied about a subset of full rights else the baby has full rights."

Drivebyposting has a point ..

Clearly, this is a slippery slope for pro-life conservatives who also believe in a limited Govt that does not intrude into people's lives.

If a fetus has full rights from the point of conception, then do child-endangerment laws apply to the fetus in the event that a pregnant mother drinks heavily? Should there be laws preventing the sale of alcohol to pregnant women? Otherwise, isn't it the same as serving alcohol to a minor?

Or, to avoid the slippery slope, should we say that a fetus has the same rights as that of a minor child. Unless the state can prove negligence or endangerment, it is left to the discretion of the individual? But does that too give too much power to the state?

I invite comments from those who can address this point based on legal rationale or thoughtful moral justification rather than emotion or religious fervor.

It is a common misconception that without child labor laws there would be widespread exploitation of children.

The historical reality is that it is ECONOMIC conditions that determine whether parents will permit their children to work to augment the family income. The evidence for this is the fact that Child labor is high in poor countries irrespective of whether they have Child Labor laws.

Another misconception is that the Industrial Age (and the advent of Capitalism) led to an increase in Child labor. This point is often made by those who view pre-Industrial Victorian England through rose-colored glasses.

Quoting Wikipedia:
"claims of increased misery...[are] based on ignorance of how squalid life actually had been earlier. Before children began earning money working in factories, they had been sent to live in parish poorhouses, apprenticed as unpaid household servants, rented out for backbreaking agricultural labor, or became beggars, vagrants, thieves, and prostitutes (Nutten). The precapitalist "good old days" simply never existed"[7]
"The pre-factory age was not a time of happy, contented kids. From 1730 to 1740, 75 percent of children in England died before age five. From 1810 to 1829, supposedly the evil age of the factory, infant mortality fell to 32 percent and would continue to drop. Capitalism and the industrial revolution gave youngsters a chance to survive. "[8]
Laws were passed to prohibit child labor in the industrialized countries; however it is unclear whether this legislation is the principal cause of the decline in levels of juvenile employment.[9] Research by Clark Nardinelli suggests that child labor was already decreasing in the United States and Western Europe prior to the passage of legislation, due to an increasing demand for educated and literate adults brought about by an increasing technological sophistication of industry. The demand for educated workers also provided an incentive for children to stay in school to meet the new demands of industry.

My point is not that we shouldn't have Child Labor laws - they are necessary to protect children who are otherwise vulnerable to exploitation.

My point is that Leftists who have a 'feel good' law to solve every social problem would be well advised to understand the positive effects of a healthy economy. Most 'feel good' laws create an additional burden on the economy - e.g. the recent increase in the minimum wage. Such laws often harm those that they were supposed to benefit.

In the Wonderland of Washington DC, political rhetoric trumps common sense.

Should every parent be required by law to send their children to school?

Anyone who answers "yes" to that question must accept the premise that Education is a right - it would then follow that it is acceptable to use tax revenues to pay for schools.

My response:
Parents should NOT be required to send their children to school. That is in the same vein that parents cannot be REQUIRED to feed their children nutritious food. With the exception of child endangerment, all these decisions should be left to the discretion (and pocketbook) of the parent. Those who regard education as a value, will send their children to the best schools that they can afford.

Is it worthwhile to consider the application of the Medicare/Medicaid model to education?

In this model, the Govt is a provider of insurance for the elderly or the indigent. Govt insurance is accepted by mostly private medical providers.

In my opinion, this would be a somewhat better system than having the Govt actually own & operate schools - which has been a complete disaster. In some ways, providing school vouchers (for those below the poverty line) that are accepted at private schools would be analogous to the Medicare/Medicaid model. At least there would be a competitive market model for private education system. If our K-12 education were to function at least as well as the Medicare/Medicaid model in healthcare, we would be better off as a country!

After all, the Govt got into the business of education in order to ensure an equality of opportunity for poor children. Unfortunately, despite the laudable sentiments, the worst possible model was chosen, mandating Govt to own and operate schools! Needless to say, the poor children are not getting the best possible education - and neither is anyone else who sends their kids to public schools. So, the Govt accomplished the 'equalization' of opportunity for poor kids - by reducing the quality for everyone.

That said, I think that school vouchers are at best, a half-measure, and would inevitably be prone to similar problems as Medicare/Medicaid. Higher costs and lower quality invariably follow any kind of entitlement (see my blogpost titled "Of Tortillas .. and men").

In my previous post I discussed a common mis-statement by Leftists and liberals that "Brown vs the Board" established education as a 'right'.

But if education is not a right, does that mean that it isn't important - of course not!

Education is a VALUE, something that all well-intentioned Americans realize is extremely important.

Leftists often interchange 'rights' with 'values' - an honest mistake, but one that should be examined.

A 'value' is that which we seek to gain or retain. To those who value it, Education is a 'value'. Education has to be acquired, usually at a considerable cost.

A 'right' is a claim that cannot be taken away. Education cannot be 'claimed' without the enslavement of its providers. Similarly, neither affluence, food, shelter, transportation and medical care are rights.

I've found that if you ask the question "at whose expense?", it becomes easy to identify 'rights'. If a particular right comes at the expense of someone else, then it is probably NOT a right.

You may apply the "at whose expense?" test on all of affluence, food, shelter, transportation and medical care , and you will find that they fail. So, if you claim 'medical care' as a right, ask the question - and you will see that if you claim medical care as a 'right' you are effectively enslaving doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and others.

So, education is a VALUE and not a RIGHT. Despite the euphemistic rhetoric of 'free public education' we are all paying for it now via taxes.

Education is (and has always been) a VALUE in America. There has always been a considerable cost to attaining this value, a cost that parents are always prepared to pay.

BTW, the 'values vs. rights' discussion is more important than the semantic differences implied.

That is because many Leftists BEGIN with a false premise, e.g. 'education (or health care) is a right'. Armed with that erroneous position, they set national policy and create Govt funded bureaucracies to administer those flawed policies.

I am vehemently opposed to public funding of education. I oppose it on moral grounds (the enslavement argument) as well on pragmatic grounds (it doesn't work).

Education, like most other things that have value, is a scarce commodity. Central planning, the panacea of Statists, has been the worst solution to just about every problem. So, by choosing a 'central planning' solution to education, we are giving tacit approval to the placement of education at a very low priority.

Q) How much importance do I give education?
A) So much that I want to see it done well - and therefore seek to privatize it.