Another take on "freedom isn't free"

You hear that a lot, "Freedom isn't free".  That is the excuse you hear all the time for letting the government listen in on your phone calls, torture suspects, and arrest and threaten people without a warrant, and lie to you every day.

But that is not what I think about when I hear that.  When I hear that phrase, a completely different thought comes into my mind.

Freedom is not for the timid.  By that I do not mean that a timid individual has no place in a free society, but that society as a whole cannot be timid.  Freedom is dangerous.  In a free society, bad people will do bad things, and it is the responsibility of society to punish them for those bad things.  But until they have actually done something bad, they are just free people in a free society.

But what about....there are a whole lot of those.  And the answer is the same.  You want to be free, you have to give that freedom to everyone else.  And that means big brother is not constantly stepping in to prevent someone from hurting you.

Does that mean they government cannot tap the phones of organized crime or suspected terrorists?  Of course not.  But it does mean they have to stand up in front of a judge and lay out a real reason why they should be allowed to.

Would we miss some threats, if the government could not be constantly mining all of your cell phone calls and emails for key words and patterns?  Probably yes, although not as many as the government would like you to believe.  But you know what?  That is the price of freedom.  That is what freedom not being free really means.

There really are only two choices.  A free society, or a police state.  Yeah, you can put a pretty face on a police state, make most people feel like they are mostly free, but it is all a facade.  You are free or you are not.  And it takes courage to be free.  The politicians who write things like the Patriot Act are counting on you been too much of a coward to object.

Nuclear Power and the free market

There has been a lot of talk about our need to be getting more of our electricity from nuclear power, and of course a lot of people raising concerns in view of what has been happening in Japan.  But for all you free market get the government off our back types, there is one more tiny little gotcha.

A lot of the free market types (except for the tiny percentage that is ultra rich, who are living off your back, and your tax dollars) believe in self reliance.  That means taking responsibility for your actions, and the consequences of those actions.  Sometimes you take risks and you lose, and you suffer those losses.  This is essentially the way the rapidly diminishing middle class lives today.

But when you are talking about nuclear power, there is a different set of rules.  The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act limits the liability of the operators and builders of these power plants.  And the government offers loan guarantees for the construction of new ones.  These were part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and there has been a proposal by the Obama administration to expand them significantly.

So I pose these questions.

• If they are really safe, and it is the intent of the operators to operate them in a safe manner, then why can they not purchase private insurance.  Why are they unwilling to accept the consequences of their own actions?  
• If the consequences of their actions are limited by law, what is their incentive to not cut corners?  After all, if they screw up, you pay for it, not them
• If nuclear power plants are such a good bet, why cannot the money be found on the private market?

So all of you rugged individualist types, how does the idea of subsidizing a power plant on the other side of the county with your tax dollars sound to you? 

A small step for a more polite society

I had occasion to got to Kohls department store today, to pick up some dress shirts for work.  I am mentioning the store not because they are unique to this practice, only because it just happened there.  I know Target does it too.

There were three registers open and six to eight people in each line.  The lines were not moving quickly.  Then the cashier rung up the woman about four customers in front of me.  A big notice on the display at the check stand told the woman that she could receive an additional twenty percent off if she applied for a Kohls credit card.  The cashier reinforced that idea with her own pitch.  The woman said yes.

For the next ten minutes, that line did not move.  I moved to another line, and was finished with my purchases while that woman (and of course the people behind her) was still waiting for approval of her card.  When my cashier told me I could receive an additional twenty percent off if I applied for a Kohls credit card this was my reply.

"I cannot imagine being so rude as to make the people behind me wait in line while I apply for a credit card, and I find it offensive that you as a store would encourage such rude, antisocial behavior."

So next time you are offered a discount if you will inconvenience the people waiting behind you, tell them the same thing.  If enough people say that, perhaps the customer behind you will think twice before being so rude, and maybe, just maybe, the stores will find a less offensive way of drumming up credit card business.

It has always been here

As was true in Europe, there has always been class warfare in the United States.  The difference is that in this country it has been, for the most part, a one-sided fight.  The middle and lower classes have always been pitted against each other, made to fight over the same scraps.  It is another variation of the game of 'blame the victim'.

When Malcolm X suggested that blacks should respond to violence against them by having guns to defend themselves, that was called advocating violence.  When someone points out that the disparity between the ultra rich and everyone else in society is the largest it has ever been, they are 'instigating class warfare'.

Think about it this way.  When was the middle class was growing, when people were moving out of poverty into the middle class?  What is different about then, than now?

• The income tax rates were higher, particularly for the most wealthy
• Inheritance taxes were higher, which, despite the rhetoric, had little impact on the lives of ordinary Americans.  The tax has never applied to the passing of an estate between a husband and wife, and the amount excluded from taxation for everyone else in 2001 (the earliest date I found in a very brief internet search) was $675,000.
• There were real limits on how many media outlets in the same market a single company could own, so that a real diversity of voices existed.  One or two companies did not control all you see and hear.
• Your tax dollars were not subsidizing the shipment of your job overseas.

Was life worse for you then?  Were your kids likely to find decent jobs when they graduated from college?  Could you actually afford to send them to college without having to bankrupt yourself or make your child hang debt to last the rest of their life around their neck?

Yes, there is class warfare going on..  And we are losing.