Abortion, race relations, fear of terror, income equality, social justice. American politics are obsessed with relative trivialities while the very existence of the country hangs in the balance.
I want you to consider the following statistics. First - according to lifenews.com (admittedly a biased publication) 62,502,904 lives have been aborted since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Second - according to archivist Wm. Robert Johnston (who maintains a running list of terror attacks and their causalities), between 30 JAN 1835 and 02 APR 2021, there have been 5,433 deaths and 23,461 injuries of U.S. citizens as a result of terrorism - all sources - foreign and domestic. Third - according to slavevoyages.org, 305,326 black Africans were imported to what became the United States; at the time of the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, 4,000,000 slaves were freed. If we add up these numbers - 62,502,904, 5,433, 23,461, 305,326, 4,000,000 we get an aggregate number of 62,502,904 souls affected (my own term) by three "highly pressing" issues in current American political discourse, over a span of roughly 300 years as applicable.
Now consider this number - in 2019 alone - there were 69,100,000 Americans on Social Security. Also please consider that (as predicted last year in The Socratic Review) according to the most recent estimates from the Social Security Administration as reported by CNBC the trust fund supporting these payments will run out of money in 2033, a year earlier than predicted in 2019 (before the pandemic) and only 12 years from now. And Social Security is but one dire issue before our country.
In the September 01 2021 Socratic Original - America: The Land of the Chaste and the Home of the Humbled. Hopefully. we explored the role vengeance and imperialism have played in U.S. public policy over the past 100 years. In this essay, we will explore something even more perplexing - the utter absurdity of some U.S. political priorities especially at the federal level, and why a dose of pragmatism is not only desirable - it's imperative.
In opening this piece, I cited three prevailing social concerns - abortion, terrorism and slavery. I chose these three for a reason. Each of them are valid concerns academically and ethically but are utterly intractable legally and morally.
Let's take abortion first. The number of potential lives affected in the statistic provided above is suspect from a practical point of view if its extended to potential lives lost, this is because it is impossible to determine which fetus would have been born, survived to adulthood, miscarried, been stillborn, etc. As an ethical and academic issue it is valid, because asking philosophical questions such as the nature of life is a matter of both faith and science. But as a matter of law, which is based on the concept of reason free from passion, it is not valid and is thus immoral.
One of the reasons the abortion issue cannot be satisfactorily resolved as an issue of public policy is for that very reason; it is completely infused with "passion" and utterly devoid of "reason." The very bones of the issue are nearly impossible to codify. Is an embryo a human life? If so does it have rights? And if it has rights, do those rights extend to property rights? How about manslaughter? If someone inadvertently causes a miscarriage by negligence in say, a car accident or ice on some steps, are they civilly responsible for what the child might have become? How is that valued and indemnified? If it isn't a human life, what else can it be from a biological standpoint? Is it an appendage of the mother's body? If so, is an abortion self-mutilation? And if it is self-mutilation, are other form of self-mutilation acceptable? Do father's have rights to the products of their sperm? If not, why can they be held financially responsible for a child they did not want, and why can they not demand (or even sue) so that the child be aborted to avoid that financial responsibility? If the right to abortion is based on "privacy" does that extend to the raising of children? Do parents have an inalienable right to extract labor from their children if done in the privacy of their own home? See the many problems?
This debate is surreal because even those involved in its mantras and dictum cannot see the conflict of their arguments. If men and women are equal in every way, and gender does not matter? How can we have equal protection and unequal protection under the law simultaneously?
The relativism of abortion is complex and nuanced; not so for terrorism. With "terrorism" the concept is entirely dependent on perspective and point-of-view irrespective of cause or effect. An example I am fond of (and have been since the 11th grade) is the American Revolution. From our point of view, tar and feathering, riding out on rails, and burning "loyalist" farms and houses was "patriotic." From the British point of view it was both treason and terrorism. And don't think our founders didn't realize this as well. John Adams was physically ill at his cousin Sam Adams' antics in anarchy and Benjamin Franklin's oft quoted (and perhaps apocryphal) "we must all hang together, or surely we shall all hang separately," was more than a tacit acknowledgement of what they were about to embark upon in 1776.
To show how quickly the perspective of a thing like "terrorism" and "treason" can change, even within the same country, you don't have to go any farther than our own country. A mere 84 years after we sent a letter to parliament seceding from the British Empire stating that it was the right of the governed to severe "the political binds that tie them," the south took that declaration to heart and seceded from the union (that they had voluntarily joined) and a rather nasty four year war ensued. You would be very hard pressed to convince any southerner that Sherman's "March to the Sea" wasn't terrorism. Even in a war of secession.
The point of this being how can you codify an abstraction? Terror by its very definition is relative. I may be terrified of spiders and you of snakes, but in either case the terror is irrational. Terror is not anxiety, nor apprehension, nor wariness. It's terror - a very real thing, but utterly psychological and impossible to quantify by its very nature.
A "war on terror" is even more ethereal. How does one wage a war against an abstraction? There are many in government who will go one further - they will say that this war on abstraction has been an "overwhelming" "success" because since September 11, 2001 there have been no "serious" terrorist deaths. But when one considers that the official death toll on September 11, 2001 was 3,190 out of 5,433 total terrorism deaths since 1835 (59%) isn't that somewhat disingenuous? It's also a lot like the abortion "lives lost" statistic above in that it relies on proving an abstract negative. No one died (an abstraction) from terrorism (an abstraction) because we've prevented it by fighting it (an abstraction) in advance. Surreal.
The last of our big three is American (U.S.) black slavery. I make these distinctions because for whatever reason, even through systematic slavery and forced labor have existed and thrived (and thrives) in the world since before the dawn of history, the only slavery we ever seem concerned about is American (U.S.) black slavery. This in itself is a surrealty, because the only country to import less slaves into the New World from Africa than the United States was Denmark.
It's a popular parlor game these days to wonder what might have been had the British Colonies (and the United States that followed them) not permitted slavery. This is a rather simplex parlor game in reality though. Considering the U.S. slave market was an infinitesimal share of the total (2.5%) it's doubtful it would have made much of a difference at all. Consider this - of the estimated 12.1 million slaves imported into the Western Hemisphere from Africa, 8.8% went to the Spanish colonies, 48.3% went to the Portuguese colonies (namely Brazil), 26.9% went to the British sugar islands (namely Jamaica) 4.6% went to the Dutch sugar islands, and 11.4% went to French sugar islands.
One of the reasons slavery was never very popular here (as it was in the Caribbean) is because the crops grown here were not as labor intensive as sugar. That changed with the cotton gin, but that was at the end of the run. In the days of the American Revolution, savvy planters like George Washington were already seeking a way to get out from under slavery. Not only for moral reasons, but for economic ones. Wage labor (many determined, Washington being one of them) was cheaper in the long-run. Which is exactly what happened once slavery was abolished, and is still happening today, and for the most part, illegally.
The current discussions over race and slavery are rife with abstractions none of which are solvable. Take reparations for example. Would a descendant of a slave from Louisiana be entitled to reparations from the United States? Probably not. First, when the United States was formed, Louisiana was part of France; same with Mississippi, Missouri Alabama, and Arkansas. Does the United States sue France? And if so, in what court? How about Spain with regard to Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Puerto Rico, Guam, and California? Clearly the United States did not import these slaves. They were inherited with ceded territory? Does the United States then look to a pro rata approach? And what about France and Spain? Should they counter-sue African nations like The Ivory Coast (that didn't even exist) because some tribal leader sold a bunch of slaves to a Dutch trader 300 years ago? Does everyone just sue the Netherlands and be done with it? Or perhaps the Ivory Coast? How about slave families of mixed title? Ones where mom was from Louisiana and dad was from Virginia? And this is only slavery itself - not even the largest abstraction of all - racism. First, we have been told for decades that "race" is a false construction (which it is) so how then can we make policy of any type based on a false construction? And how can we determine if an action is based on "race" if indeed we simultaneously maintain that "race" does not exist?
In each of these three scenarios we are dedicating a lot of time and energy discussing philosophical abstractions that in the scheme of real life are trivial. Yes. We should try to educate people into making responsible reproductive decisions. Yes; we should be mindful of threats to our safety and yes; we should all strive to eliminate decisions and attitudes based on what we perceive as race; but none of these three things should be matters of law. Equity perhaps. Situations where a person may sue for remedy or plead for binding arbitration, but not law; and certainly not policy; our legislators should (and do) have more pressing issues to contend with at the moment.
As stated above, in 12 years (more likely less) Social Security is going to be in serious trouble. This is not an abstraction; this is a fact. Another hard fact is that our Social Security Trust Fund is holding (as of 2019) $2.9 TRILLION (13.3%) in special treasury bills as reported by the Pew Research Center. In other words, when the money runs out over at Social Security, the trust fund will have to be reimbursed by an already bankrupt U.S. Treasury. I say already bankrupt because we currently owe over $30 TRILLION in debt and counting.
These facts alone are disturbing enough, but even more so when you carry them to their logical (different from abstract) conclusion. When 2033 gets here (or in my opinion, an earlier date, perhaps as early as 2028) benefits will have to be cut by 25% with little to no warning. This in itself will be devastating to recipients, but even more so when you consider what inflation will be based on the public debt and the borrowed money we used to raise salaries, thus raising costs, thus devaluing salaries, etceteras. At the rate we are going in 2021, a 2021 dollar will be worth about .75 (perhaps less) after 12 years of inflationary spiral, and that's before we add in the costs associated with shifting away from a carbon based economy which several states are attempting to accomplish before the end of the 2030s
Several things are contributing to this perennial short-fall, but first and foremost is income deficit. There are not sufficient withholding taxes coming in to offset more payments going out. Back in the 1980s Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil took a whack at fixing this mess - and it held though now (more or less). Since then however, each subsequent administration and each subsequent Congress has whistled loudly while dashing through the cemetery - but not before debating trivialities and racking up a bit more unnecessary (and expensive) debt for pet banalities. Addressing the social wants of abortion, terrorism and slavery are noble idylls, but they are not a social contract. U.S. citizens have paid hard money into a pension scheme with the fulsome belief that they will collect. If a modern Chief Financial Officer lent money out of a pension fund to pay for a payroll or to finance a scheme from somebody on the board of directors, they would be dressed in orange so fast their head would spin. Our legislators need to put a stop to examining and debating the social awareness of things they cannot define (let alone control) and get working on things they can define and do control. Like a functioning tax structure.
Let's go back to Social Security for a moment. Since 1936 when we rolled out Social Security we have averaged 7,031,289 barrels of crude oil a day per the United States Department of Energy. Imagine if you will, if we had heavily taxed petroleum extraction and put those proceeds into a fund (much like Alaska chose to do) rather than relying on withholding taxes. We love to misuse the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, but here is an example where it really applies. Can anyone say that oil in Texas is really not coming from under Arkansas? How about oil in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico? I'm no socialist, but really? Ores, minerals, petroleum, even artisanal water should be a question of interstate commerce, and any proceeds derived from federal investment to extract or control them should go into a general trust fund like Social Security, preferable with trustees chosen at the state level.
And this is just one example. Withheld income taxes are very inefficient and easy to avoid - especially "progressive" ones; and utterly useless in times of unemployment. Current affairs offer an excellent example As unemployment rises, the government borrows money to stimulate the economy and prompt employment, perhaps raising employment by 10 to 20 percent. Those employees will pay 16% income tax - maybe - unless the job acquired falls into a "progressive" tax pocket where the wage is not suitable for taxation. Then we pay the wage earner. Again. This also presupposes that people will return to work, which often times they do not, preferring to take other "under the table" employment that protects current unemployment and stimulus benefits and is furthermore, not taxable.
If it were me, I would leave sales and income taxes to the states and focus on a Value Added (VAT) tax which is uniquely suited for a federal system with interstate commerce like we have, and is next to impossible to evade. I would also be spending some time thinking about a tax structure for minerals mined in space, energy produced in space and beamed to earth, and excise taxes of goods and services going to and from earth and space; because in reality, that is the next wave of commerce and taxation, and it is already well underway, and it is already the "wild west" as far as taxation and regulation go. Some other action items on my list would be...
Legislation supporting a national wireless power grid and a wireless electric Interstate highway system. States would be encouraged to work alone or in consortia with other states to eliminate wire transferred power by the end of the century, and to upgrade their portions of interstate highways to be wireless power friendly. The savings to the federal government in FEMA payments to fix power grids five and six times, and the advantages of wireless highways to support electric cars and reduce battery size, should make this a huge priority.
Legislation supporting intercity high speed rail and airship transportation. Whereas the POV is a valuable part of the American experience and should be preserved (if modified) a reduction of jet air traffic is not only desirable, its inevitable. In full disclosure, I hate air travel. Not because I'm afraid to fly, but because I find the whole experience sordid and undignified, and not a little disgusting and uncomfortable. Replacing short run flights with high speed rail is long overdue, and airships like the new Airlander 10 (due to stat flying.
Commercially in 2025) will offer a lot of comfort if not a lot of speed (top speed about 80 MPH) however, that is a two and a half hour flight between Washington and New York with hardly any emissions, extreme comfort and spectacular views. Sign me up!
Another seemingly futuristic but highly imminent (if not overdue) legislative need for debate and consideration is robotics. Oddly, this very real problem touches on each of the three abstractions we explored at the beginning of this essay. Robotics involve the meaning and definition of life, the dangers of stealth and perhaps extra national threats, and the very essence and ethics of slavery. Last month Embry-Riddle in Daytona, Florida rolled out a fleet of 20 autonomous Starship Food Delivery robots on its campus, all commanded by phones.
How much longer before fast food restaurants currently relying on casual gig labor to deliver their products (often cold) decide to take out a loan and buy a fleet of robots? How about grocery stores? Hardware stores? Any stores?
By the time we get out of this pandemic the urge (and need) for businesses to shift away from wage labor will be overwhelming, and that is going to have a devastating effect on tax revenues based on income, not to mention the mental anguish and true need millions of unemployed people are going to mean to society in general. And don't think its only going to affect fast food workers. AI (Artificial Intelligence) applications are going to cut into a lot of white collar jobs as well. As it is now, I can barely write a text message without my phone telling me (or at least guessing at) what I'm going to write. True, humans will have an interpretive and creative roll to play with data, but that will shift from craft to art in my opinion, leaving many "technicians" in the lurch. And this is not even a question of increasing specific education, for certain tasks, no amount of technical education is going to override the fixed cost and accrued benefit of a programed and updated robot.
The dawn of the robotics age will be even more jarring than that of the industrial revolution, because in the industrial revolution, the nature of labor shifted from one vocation to another. In the robotic revolution, labor will shift from negligible vocations to no vocations at all. There simply will not be any jobs to be had anywhere. Period. It's not inconceivable to imagine that even barbers will be robotic by this date in 2121.
Governments at all levels need to consider this now, not when there are bread riots in the streets. "Progressives" obsessed with "living wages" should start considering that their base constituencies are soon not going to have any wages at all. Employers and owners of commercial real estate need to start considering plans, B, C and D for their holdings as real estate needs in current configurations evaporate (as is already happening). If we start dealing with these problems now; if we start incentivizing small privately owned businesses that could be augmented by robotics, things like small local farms carved out of existing commercial real estate, we may have a shot of ameliorating serious social unrest and perhaps anarchy.
And that is the moral of the story. Bloated societies who philosophically dissect the past while avoiding the present and ignoring the future all suffer the same fate. Societies who feel their place in the world rests on moral superiority and the leisure to pursue trivialities all fall the same way. This is the classic definition of hubris, and conversely, the very essence of surrealty and a swan song for the absurd.
Comments