In Defense of Corporations

Citizens on the Political Left generally consider as suspect, two terms key to America’s economic greatness. Those terms, capitalism and corporation, have a mixed history in service to the “well-being” of the nation.

But as Any Student of Adam Smith knows, nothing inherent in capitalism or incorporation creates the kinds of excesses that we, the people, have wrestled with for at least the last 150 years.

It Is Not “Capitalism” That Is the Evil. It is the deadly sin of “greed” that is the culprit.

Some Few Large Corporations in America subscribe in practice to the more-socially oriented capitalist ideal. We keep our own personal list of American corporations which in practice exhibit the kind of business activities and stakeholder responsibility that would do Adam Smith proud.

Two Favorites, for the purposes of this discussion, are Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway and John Mackey’s Whole Foods:

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC:
One can hardly read Warren Buffett’s annual letter to the shareholders without an appreciation for what authentic corporate stewardship means. The link below leads to 32 years of such letters. If capitalism and investment mean anything to you, you could hardly do better than to read some of these letters.

For what it’s worth, Mr. Buffett claims to vote Democratic, and believes that we, the people, through our shared government, should limit the legal ability of corporations to damage the overall society.

WHOLE FOODS, INC:
The annual shareholder letter by Whole Foods founder and current CEO John Mackey is less-direct than Mr. Buffet’s letter, perhaps. But these letters convey Mr. Mackey’s sense of a “mission” for the company, which mission goes beyond the mere issue of profit. Mr. Mackey clearly believes in using the structure of incorporation to spread his ideals of healthful living. Mr. Mackey also advocates the “stakeholder” concept, rather than the more-common “shareholder” concept that is honored more in the breach than in practice.

For what it’s worth, Mr. Mackey considers himself to be a Libertarian. He notoriously wrote a letter on health-care reform, which letter was published in The Wall Street Journal in an edited version. Mr. Mackey argued the Libertarian view that health-care is best provided through the structure of the employer. (While his perspective seems naive, given general, corporate practices in relation to employee welfare, his ideological integrity is substantiated by practices at Whole Foods.)

Corporate Links:

Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway shareholder letters, 1977—2009:

Whole Foods, Inc., annual reports:

John Mackey’s blog 

(In the case of Mr. Mackey’s communication, I appreciated his most-recent blog post, entitled, “Creating the High Trust Organization”)

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

The Constitutionality of Health-Care Reform Is Clear

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution legitimizes the Federal Government’s authority to enact the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Here are relevant passages of the Constitution. (The highlighing in bold italics is mine):

“The Congress Shall Have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”

(This means that Congress has the power, as exercised under the PPACA, to collect taxes on those who fail to provide for their own health care, for the “general welfare of the United States.”)

“To Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,”

(We know this clause as the catch-all clause of the Federal Government, which clause continues toirritate those who believe that the South should have won the War of Northern Aggression.)

“To Make All Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

What’s to Argue with That?

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

Advancing America to the Rear

Only by Turning Around and marching toward the rear can we Americans sustain an illusion of ourselves as the most-advanced nation. For some people, an illusion of leading is more important than progress. As of this today, with the signing of healthcare reform, into law, those Americans are momentarily held at bay.

Let the Republican Party keep putting all of its creative energy into derailing and repealing this important change. The rest of us don’t have that luxury: we need to keep moving forward.

Back in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan defined government as the problem, not the solution. That’s like complaining that air is often polluted, so we shouldn’t breathe it. We have no real choice about whether to breathe the air, or whether to have government.

And So While the Republicans prefer to keep fighting against government rather than improving it for all of the people government serves, the Democratic Party keeps working at making the government “of the people” and “by the people” do a better job of serving the necessities “of the people.”

Throughout the Course of the healthcare-reform debate, the Republicans have insisted that they believe in reform, yes, too, but: We need to take it slow. We need to start over. We need to go step-by-step. Etc.

Now, the Majority in Congress has managed to pass reform—through the ugly political process by which all difficult change is made. And the best thing for the Republican Party to do, to be true to its word throughout the process, would be to get to work with the majority in Congress, making healthcare-reform work better for all of us.

Instead, State Attorneys General—Republican attorneys general—are initiating a lawsuit to block the bill. Republicans in Congress say that they will fight to repeal the bill.

Was There Ever Any Truth behind their “we believe in healthcare reform, too” and.....whatever else they said in their festival of denial? Show us some evidence.

Government Is an Inefficient and messy process of compromise. Nobody really likes it. But some of us have to be more mature about how we deal with it. Just as in any family, the adults of the American populace cannot afford to spend their time throwing tantrums. There is much more work to be done.

The Republicans Continue to assert that compromise is not an option for them. Fortunately for us, they have some good ideas that have been included in the new law. Fortunately for us, the Democrats seem to take it all seriously, trying to make the best law they can get for the American people.

Meanwhile, the Republicans moan and shout. They initiate law suits and vow to repeal. The new law moves us forward. While the Republicans throughout government insist on turning around and marching backwards. Continuing a thirty-year effort to lead the United States as “the most advanced nation” in the world—marching loudly and proudly to the rear.

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

What Is a “Right”? Is the Left “Wrong” about Healthcare?

Every Time We Hear That “Healthcare Is a Right,” it pushes our buttons. But then we remind ourselves to review this “rights” concept. The real question—which we Americans have never fully addressed—is “What constitutes a ‘right’?”

Here’s How Rousseau Poses the Question in the opening passages of his book, The Social Contract:

“The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.”

—The Social Contract Or Principles of Political Right, by Jean Jacques Rousseau.

Rousseau’s Definition of the Problem divides the concept of “right” into two parts. The latter part—described as permitting each person to “still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before”—is what the Founding Fathers intended by their term, “unalienable rights.”

These Are Rights Which Cannot Be Granted; they can only be withheld or denied.

But Rousseau’s Former Part—“to defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate”“—is what James Madison labeled a “social right.”

When People Make the Entitlement-sounding Claim that “healthcare is a right,” this is the sort of a “right” that they mean.

The Most-striking Facet of the Right/left Political Divide in the U.S. is between (R) those who believe that our nation’s greatness rests on defending the “unalienable rights” while minimizing the “social rights” and (L) those who believe that our nation’s greatness combines the best of both kinds of rights.

The Left Wants to Expand the American Social Contract so as to include as many citizens as possible within the level playing field of opportunity.

The Right, Believing That America Inherently Provides a level playing field, wants merely to keep government small, and to limit the complications of the social contract.

Both Sides Have Validity. The discussion on “rights,” here in America, is long-overdue.

The Reason for the “Coffee Party” Approach—rather than the “Tea Party” approach—is that one side would rather work together to solve our problems, while the other side is prepared to use force (Louder voices. Financial advantage. Fear tactics. Foreign invasions, if necessary. Etc.) in order to prevail.

May the Best Nation Win!

Here Are Two Relevant Links:

Coffee Party USA 

Tea Party Patriots.org 

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

Why It Makes Economic Sense to Pass Healthcare Reform Now

ChannelingBarackObama Has Posted an Argument supporting the economic sense of passing healthcare reform now, right at this difficult economic time. I encourage everyone on both sides of the issue to read the post.

People on Both Sides of the Issue shout so loud, and repeat their talking points so much, hardly any real debate is taking place. The Democratic side ignores the relationship between healthcare costs and the Federal deficit. The Republican side ignores the desperate necessity for reform as soon as possible, with the need brought on by a combination of a failed competitive environment for the insurance industry and Republican refusal to fund the costs of government.

Whether America Needs to shrink government and increase individual responsibility somehow, or to expand and pay for government in consideration of changes to business scale between the 18th and 21st centuries, what America needs is to talk about the issue and the challenges. Ideology alone cannot answer the question, of “nanny state” government or the Libertarian model. We need to put “ideology aside,” to educate ourselves, and to work this thing out.

But in the Mean Time, people and the economy are drowning out here. The longer we delay, the deeper we sink.

Here’s the Link to a Pretty Good Economic Argument:

Why It Makes Economic Sense to Pass Healthcare Reform Now

Regards,
(($; -)}
Gozo!

Newton's Fourth Law

If We Are Controlled Entirely by Our Fears, we will never do anything. Because every action is subject to Newton’s Third Law of “equal-and-opposite-reaction,” and every major change to a complex system is subject to the so-called “Law of Unintended Consequences.”

Because Every Liberal or Progressive Move Forward generates a Conservative or Republican reaction, the political Right are generally considered “reactionary.” This concept comes from Newton’s law.

The Human Urge to Do Nothing reflects the fears of these two, unrelated laws. And yet, sometimes we can’t afford to do nothing. Sometimes, we just have to do something.

Despite the Flaws and Unintended Consequences that will surely come from the current bill, these things can be fixed. American ingenuity and invention knows no bounds, and we will be able to make this better. We will be able to limit the ways that government controls our healthcare—but we are virtually powerless to limit the way that our insurance company controls our care.

If the Bill Is Scrapped, the determination and drive to get it done will have been wasted.

If the Bill Is Passed, Newton’s First Law will kick in: a healthcare reform law in motion will tend to remain in motion.

The Determination and Drive of the American People to fix the thing will give us no choice but to move quickly and earnestly to make it right.

America Has No Constructive Choice but to Pass the Bill, get it started, and then get to work on making it better and better. When an object can’t go back and can’t stay put, it has not choice but to go forward.

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

Unalienable Rights or Social Rights?

Those of Us Who Oppose Government Benefits as “rights” believe that only “unalienable rights” should be the provenance of government.

Because Services Such as “National Defense” and “universal healthcare” can be taken away or withheld by government, these cannot be unalienable “rights” in the sense that those of us—generally considered “conservative”—think of rights. Thus, Conservatives oppose any form of national healthcare.

Founding Father James Madison Believed in what he called “social rights.” Many of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights constitute social rights.

Those of Us Who Support a Social “Right” to universal healthcare and national defense—generally considered “liberal”—use the term in the Madisonian sense. Liberals believe that the social contract includes national healthcare. This is what they mean when they say that national healthcare is a right.

Both of These Positions Have Validity. Our national discussion—including the healthcare debate—might go better, and the government might get more done, if we addressed the topic directly, instead of trying to redefine “rights” on a continual ad hoc basis—to suit our various political agendas.

But Then, “Outrage Is Easy,” as the saying goes. It’s easier to shout out our anger and frustration, while learning little about economics and politics, than to study it directly ourselves, or to trust our elected representatives to get the job done well.

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!