No on California Proposition 8

If any of you are interested in reading a personal appeal on the issue of gay marriage, click here.

Taxes, Spending, and Political Morality

Public discussion about the role, scope, and function of government is terribly misleading. It should worry us that our leaders can systematically manipulate public opinion on government policy using little more than vague inflammatory language.

Take for example the reliable consternation against “big government.” No politician endorses “big government.” Most insist that they prefer “limited government.” Unfortunately politicians rarely explain what they mean by “big” and “limited,” and this allows people pursuing radically different agendas to sound equally reasonable.

Democratic government is the vehicle through which citizens act collectively. Using the vehicle of government the people, through our elected representatives and political appointees, accomplish two basic things. We set and enforce the rules that shape our common life and we administer programs aimed at promoting the general welfare.

Because government has two basic pursuits, there are two basic ways it can exceed proper limits. One way is for the rules of our common life to become onerous, intrusive, or oppressive, or for our law enforcement agencies to become so. The other involves our engaging in unjust or ineffective public projects, or allowing expensive bloated bureaucracies to grow up around these projects.

Responsible critics of big government specify the sense in which they think our government is too big. When responsible critics think our laws are overly intrusive, they tell us which laws offend them, why, and what alternative laws (if any) should be enacted. If they think the agencies that enforce our laws are overbearing, they identify the agencies, describe the abuses, and advocate measures to restrain them. If, on the other hand, they believe we’re engaged in unjust, unnecessary, or ineffective public projects, they tell us which projects are problematic and why. If they think government bureaucracies are bloated and wasteful, they identify the offending institutions and propose specific reforms.

Unfortunately, political opponents of big government do far too little of this, particularly when their targets are social programs. Most direct our attention towards taxes and spending, vaguely construed. In pursuing his original tax cuts, President Bush regularly issued warnings noting that “the American people have been overcharged,” “the surplus must be given back to the people before congress can get its hands on it,” and “it’s not the tax cut that threatens the budget; irresponsible spending by congress is the real threat.”

It’s not that we should have dismissed such warnings. They might have been correct. The problem was we couldn't evaluate whether or not they were correct without confronting far more fundamental questions about what we should or should not be doing through the vehicle of government. And that discussion never took place.

Consider the idea of a “budget surplus.” A surplus exists when anticipated tax revenues exceed currently planned spending. That’s simple enough. But this tells us nothing about whether currently planned levels of spending are appropriate. Suppose we eliminated all social programs aimed at alleviating poverty? We’d then be running unimaginably large surpluses at current levels of taxation. However, if we added health insurance for all of our nation’s citizens, we’d be facing inevitable tax increases.

Should we pursue either of these options? People disagree. What’s clear, however, is that we cannot determine the right course simply by citing or criticizing current revenue projections or current levels of spending and taxation. That’s because these are not financial questions. They are moral questions. They are questions about the proper role and scope of democratic government. How high government spending ought to be, or how heavily we ought to tax ourselves, must be determined in light of plausible answers to questions of political morality, informed by current circumstance. They cannot be rationally determined on any other criteria.

Sadly, the accepted form of debate reverses this process and lets the tail (taxes and spending) wag the dog (our conception of proper government).

Politically speaking, this is understandable; it’s an effective strategy. The problem is that it undermines the deliberative capacity of the nation and results in bad policy. Citizens of every political stripe should work to prevent our leaders from shaping public policy to their liking by focusing on taxes and spending in the abstract. And this includes a President Obama. We must force libertarians, socialists, and everyone in between to state their philosophies plainly and defend their visions of democratic government on their merits.

Otherwise we’ll continue to get policies reflecting the interests of the most successful rhetoricians, and nothing more.

Joe H.

Obama the Marxist or Obama the Christian

Much ado has been made about Obama’s penchant for "spreading the wealth around." I’ve heard McCain campaign surrogates refer to this sentiment as "marxist" and "socialist." One Florida reporter went so far as to quote Marx’s famous dictum "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" in a question [to Joe Biden] about Obama’s latent marxism.

Click here to watch the video.


What I haven’t heard anyone call Obama in reference to his redistributive instincts is "Christian." That’s remarkable, because it was the Apostle Paul who endorsed "spreading the wealth around" as the Christian ethic.

The eighth chapter of Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians finds Paul urging the church at Corinth to fulfill its prior pledge to provide aid to the impoverished church at Jerusalem. The sub-text is that the church had sent part of a promised gift, but had grown reluctant to fulfill the entire pledge. In his letter, Paul appealed to the church’s reputation and to their Christian calling. Paul also assured them that the person chosen to collect and administer their gift was beyond reproach.

But most importantly, Paul argued that the purpose of sharing their abundance was not to burden productive and wealthy believers so that others could rest on east street. The purpose was to knit Christians into a wider community committed to meeting one another’s needs when each fell on hard times. See verses 13-14.

What's remarkable is the authority Paul cited for his admonition. "As it is written, he that gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little had no lack." See verse 15. Paul’s reference was to Exodus 16:18. Exodus 16 describes God’s provision of manna to the complaining Israelites as they wandered through the desert. God expressly forbade anyone from collecting more manna than they needed for a single day - and when some tried, the bread rotted and became worm infested. This forced all of the Israelites to trust God for their "daily bread."

Exodus 16:18 summarizes the distributional results of God’s program. By citing this story and its summary principle, Paul reminded the church that when God distributed the social product, he made sure that no one hoarded an excess and that no one went hungry. "He that gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little had no lack." Paul’s implicit message was unmistakable; If that’s the way God organized things when he was directly in charge, well, go thou and do likewise.

Of course, manna fell from heaven for the Israelites, whereas the Corinthians had to work and apply skill and effort to produce things they could sell on a market. The Corinthians might have objected that if manna fell from heaven to be gathered with ease by anyone, they wouldn’t object. But because they had produced their wealth through their own efforts and ingenuity, the analogy was invalid.

However, Paul knew about the different circumstances and advocated the sharing ethic anyway. Had he been directly challenged, I could imagine Paul developing a circumstantially updated version of the distribution principle applicable for conditions of moderate scarcity. Perhaps, "those who are able to produce abundantly should insure that those who remain in need have enough."

I don't know. Something like that.

Now, I’m neither a socialist nor a marxist. But the redistributive instinct that Obama acknowledged favoring is not merely socialist or marxist - it is Christian to its core.

And if any Christian has a problem with redistribution being done by the government and/or the operation of law, you should breeze through the old testament laws, starting with Leviticus 25:8.

Joe H.

Kicking God Out of the Public Square

Christians frequently accuse liberals and secularists of wanting to "kick God out of the public square." Of course, were liberals and secularists actually trying to evict God (himself) from any particular arena, they’d find the going pretty rough. If someone were plotting to kick God out of Honolulu, I’d laugh and say "good luck." I wouldn’t worry too much. God can take care of himself.

This means that the liberal/secularist project of "kicking God out of the public square" is not an attack on God at all. It is an attack on Christians and other religiously inspired folks. But what kind of attack?

Many think of it as an attack on the foundations of our nation. Prior to 1960, Americans predominately understood our laws, constitution, customs, and social order as based on the principles of Christianity and resting on the authority of God. Anyone who doubts this need only read appellate court decisions rendered prior to 1960, where they will find numerous acknowledgments and affirmations of this view of our nation. However, over the last fifty years the courts and society at large have abandoned the traditional "Christian" view for a more secular interpretation of our nation’s meaning and origin. A view more conducive to our ever increasing pluralism.

Truth be told, we are debtors to John Locke for the foundational assumptions of our democratic and constitutional order. But that doesn’t really matter. There was a long standing and widely shared conviction that the United States was a "Christian nation." Many Christians understandably feel that the changes that have occurred over the last fifty years amount to a theft of their Christian nation - and they’re working to take America back.

Much of the effort to take America back has focused on securing Government endorsement of Christian symbols. That’s what the fights over keeping "under God" in the pledge of allegiance and displaying the Ten Commandments on the courthouse walls are all about. Personally, I’ve never gotten particularly worked up about these fights. I think small compromises regarding symbolism pay big dividends. Having won all the major battles over the last fifty years, the secularists and liberals should be magnanimous in victory as the price of a fuller peace.

Yes, I realize this response is patronizing. When the take America back coalition accuses secularists and liberals of wanting to "ban God from the public square," they’re not saying that the winners should be gracious and grant them a few symbolic victories. They’re saying that Christian symbols deserve government endorsement because they represent the correct view of the nation. I disagree for a number of reasons. However, because I don’t oppose government endorsement of Christian symbols, I feel no obligation to tackle the real argument. If anyone wants an account of my disagreement on this issue, let me know.

What the debate over symbols demonstrates, with unmistakable clarity, is that the "public square" referenced in the accusation concerns the formation of government policy, be it about symbols or other matters. The take America back coalition believes that secularists and liberals want to preclude Christians from citing divine authority, including biblical teaching, as legitimate grounds for public policy. That’s what it really means to "kick God out of the public square." The fight over symbols is relatively meaningless compared to the fight over whether divine authority is a legitimate basis for public policy.

My view? The secularists and liberals have this one right. Consider the following argument.

Any proposed governmental policy can either be justified by appealing to grounds that are universally recognized as valid - e.g. public necessity, social utility, the national interest - or it cannot. If a policy can be justified by appealing to universally accepted grounds, the policy is justified and the fact that it may also be supported by religious teaching is irrelevant.

However, if a policy cannot be justified by appealing to universally accepted grounds, but instead requires an appeal to an explicitly religious authority, imposing it on people who don't share the religious premises amounts to sectarian totalitarianism.

So, with regards to government policy, religious authority is either irrelevant or illiberal. Either way it is illegitimate and should not be invoked.

What do you know. God should be kicked out of the public square. Can that be right?

Joe H.

Proposition 8, Gay Marriage, and Moral Certainty

The debate about Gay marriage reminds me of a young man who told Socrates that he intended to prosecute his father for murder. The case was complicated. The young man’s father had killed a family slave. But the slave had killed another man in a drunken rage. Moreover, the young man’s father had not executed the guilty slave, but merely bound him and left him outside in a ditch while seeking guidance from the authorities. Unfortunately, the bound slave died of exposure before the authorities issued their ruling.

Upon hearing the young man’s story, Socrates marveled. He noted that only a man of "advanced wisdom" would act so decisively in a case featuring obvious complexities, not to mention one’s own father. Socrates then asked the young man to teach him about morality. Unaware of the trap, and eager to display his wisdom before Athen’s most renowned citizen, the young man accepted the invitation. Unfortunately, as their discussion unfolded it became clear that the man knew absolutely nothing about morality. Once Socrates’ questions exposed the young man as an ignorant zealot, he quickly rushed off to avoid further embarrassment.

Feelings of moral certainty are empowering. They often move people to act decisively for the good. But moral certainty has a dark side. That dark side is illustrated by those times in which we’ve tenaciously clung to long standing beliefs with feelings of absolute certitude, only to subsequently realize that we were dead wrong. In those cases, our actions ignorantly harmed, and often destroyed, many ordinary people’s lives. And every so often, as the executions of Socrates and Jesus demonstrate, the frenzy of our moral certitude has pushed us to reach beyond the merely ordinary and to strike down the most virtuous and wise of our kind.

American history is replete with instances where widespread feelings of moral certainty sustained systematic injustice. One need only watch the footage of the civil rights protests, particularly the footage of white people hurling vicious and vividly animated insults at the “agitators,” to see the dangers of certainty. I’ve often wondered how many of the young white teenagers appearing in that footage now recoil in horror as they watch their previous conduct. I’d be surprised if many didn’t.

Currently, a slim majority of Americans continue to oppose gay marriage. Conservative activists in California insist that a constitutional amendment is the only way to preserve the institution. But as I listen to the “arguments” offered by the opponents of gay marriage, I can’t help but think that most of these opponents will eventually look back on their attitudes with a profound sadness.

I say this because of one very simple truth. There are no compelling arguments for condemning homosexuality or for excluding gays from civil marriage. Opponents can cite no feature of homosexuality establishing that it is immoral, nor can they cite any specific and reasonable worries about the effects of allowing gays to marry. As far as I can tell, the basis for the feelings of moral certainty that motivate the opponents of gay marriage boil down to two familiar premises. “God condemns homosexuality” and “Ick!”

I don’t know whether God condemns homosexuality. Theologians are divided on that question. I think it far more illuminating to ask why God would condemn homosexuality? Why would God care that a small percentage of his created beings vary from the natural heterosexual theme and love members of their own sex? Why would same sex copulation offend the Almighty so much that he would declare it an “abomination?” Being a Christian myself, I’ve asked numerous religious friends this question and no one has ever given me a satisfactory answer. What I have noticed is that when people try to answer my question, and are pressed to defend their answers, they inevitably fall back on the “Ick” premise.

And it’s not that I don’t understand their feelings of “Ick.” I still feel them myself to some extent. But I also remember my Father’s “Ick” lecture to my older sister, when she wanted to date a black man in the early 1970’s. And I remember his regret over that lecture in the early 1990’s, when I married interracially. The fact is, feelings of “Ick” are a not a reasonable basis for moral certainty. They are especially problematic when they form the foundation for a political crusade. In the story, the young man’s prosecution was motivated by pure moral fervor. There was no insight behind his zeal. But as far as I can tell the same thing is true regarding the opponents of gay marriage.

Let me encourage those who oppose gay marriage to stop and ask yourselves whether there is anything more tangible than feelings of “Ick” behind your conviction. Doing this may save the gays of our nation a great deal of pain in the coming years. It may also save you some regret in the late 2020’s.

Inaugural Post

Here goes.

I initially wanted to call my blog "unsolicited thoughts." That name was taken, but I quickly realized that after my initial post, what you'd really be getting is more unsolicited thoughts, which is even better. Fortune is already shining on this endeavor.

Unsolicited thoughts are mildly presumptuous. That doesn't mean I can resist expressing them when I feel strongly about something. Blogs are a great compromise. We express our thoughts and they are preserved for anyone who thinks them worthwhile (or worthy of response). No one else need be bothered.

I'll mostly be sharing my thoughts about philosophy, politics, current events, law, public policy, and Christianity. However, it is my firm conviction that beliefs and opinions should not be sheltered from criticism. I welcome hard hitting feedback regarding anything I say. If I'm wrong, I want to know as soon as possible.

I also agree with the philosopher Karl Popper, who noted that modern inquiry consists in "letting our hypotheses die in our stead." Ideas or beliefs are fair game - they have to earn every ounce of respect they get. If they die, so be it. People are a different matter. I see no reason to personally attack someone I disagree with, either by questioning their motives, calling them names, or in any other manner. I ask that anyone who interacts on this blog do the same.

So, to my friends who've graciously endured my periodic outbursts over the years, I dedicate this blog to you.

Joe H.