The Ethics of Capitalism vs. Socialism vs. Communitarianism

Capitalism is a system of social interaction which uses money as a medium of exchange for goods and services. It evolved from barter, in which items were merely traded, value for value. As long as the value of the money relative to whatever is being exchanged is agreed upon, then a capitalistic transaction takes place - it matters not whether the currency is in salt or seashells - as in ancient times; or in gold or silver; or the paper dollars, yen or marks of today.

What gives capitalism its potential as a moral system is this aspect of fair trade, of a voluntary transaction where both parties agree and both freely trade a value for a value. The benefits of such transactions, such as creating wealth, freeing up commerce and providing incentives for technological advancement and human achievement, are in great example and undisputed.

However, examples of capitalism's corrupting influence on social interactions also exist in great number. A product might be sold to satisfy a certain need under false pretenses, such as the milk manufacturers in China that used toxic waste to expand the product resulting in many deaths to small children. This extreme example is not atypical in a capitalistic system, where the acquisition of money becomes of paramount importance over personal and social responsibility. Understand: When the quest for profit becomes more important than doing what is right, capitalism, as a social system, fails. As such, capitalism mirrors human nature: It shines when the individuals involved are moral, aware of their actions, intent on being fair, treating the other as they would like to be treated; and on the flip-side greed: the desire for the unearned, drives individuals to trick, deceive, coerce, extort, and basically rip-off the unsuspecting consumer or robbed victim.

To consign capitalism to be purely a benevolent system is as ideologically dishonest as condemning it to be always malevolent and greed-infested. Like Democracy, capitalism is only as good or as bad as the people which exercise it, as it is the relationships between people that make up any social system. The acquisition of capital provides the incentive to do great things and also to do unspeakable evil.

There can be little disagreement on this reality: For every example of a positive benefit from capitalism, there can be found another with a negative outcome. A manufacturer moves an operation overseas to take advantage of lower wages, while eliminating jobs and hurting families here, he creates opportunity and a higher standard of living for the new workers, but at a high cost to them as well - they work in substandard, dangerous and unhealthy working conditions for long hours, and without a strong government to enforce environmental regulations, the corporation dumps toxic waste into the drinking and bathing water resulting in cancer outbreaks long after they have moved to the next poor country to exploit.

Capitalism's greatest virtue is fair trade, its greatest failing is putting profit before people.

For those that advocate laissez-faire, that capitalism and the individuals and corporations involved should be given free reign, consider the social costs. The only legitimate role of government is the protection of individual human rights, among those are to breathe uncontaminated air and drink pure water, at the most basic level; and to make sure that a fair trade really is one, and if it is not, to have legal recourse to correct an injustice. Laissez-faire is a fantasy where everyone acts like the moral characters in an Ayn Rand novel, without the moral failings all-too-common in the real world.

Socialism exists in a dependent parasitic relationship with capitalism. As such, it relies on and works within a monetary system. The basic premise behind socialism is a redistribution of capital by the use of statist government force. Indeed, without government to do its bidding, socialism could not exist. Likewise, without capitalism to provide the capital for goods and services, socialism would not exist.

One can not only consider the positive benefits or negative consequences of a particular system to appraise it. The positive derivatives of socialism are many: A space program, the pride of the entire world, achieved landing men on the moon and exploring distant planets. Deadly diseases have been eradicated. Advances in science and technology were made in areas not profitable to corporations. Preventing starvation and homelessness to the poorest. Providing medical care to the needy. And so on.

The negative consequences of taking away money from someone to give to another is as infinitely varied as those who give, who now have less of their money for their own needs and ambitions. Less money might mean less education or healthcare for their families, less consuming which means less manufacturing and less jobs, less investment which depresses the economy. But even if the economic effect in total was a zero net sum, meaning money taken here is spent over there equally, the main negative consequence is one of a polluted moral environment.

And here socialism fails as a social system. The moral equivalent of socialism is theft. As in Robin Hood, it may steal from the rich to give to the poor, but it is still stealing. Here, statist government dictates who should be the recipient of the money and who should be the giver. The corrupting influence on politics is evident everyday in the hustle for money and programs on Capital Hill. Political influence is the overriding determination as to where the money ends up, notwithstanding any concepts of need and especially not justice.

Coupled with capitalism's incentive for greed and socialism's political power of taking, the moral environment is one satiated with the predatory hunt for the unearned. In effect, this environment defines American culture and all of its failings, for when a society reaches such a low point that it sees institutionalized thievery as a right, it will begin to consume itself with cannibalistic self-destruction. No redistribution of wealth, no printing or borrowing of capital to stimulate a slowing economy will save a society bent on robbing itself blind.

Statism: The government system of force to gain the unearned which makes socialism possible. Its operating premise is false: that the end justifies the means. Should a government exist that would abolish and abandon this false doctrine and concentrate on enforcing human right laws instead of political influence and expediency, then it would be another government indeed. Would wealth still be redistributed? Just as surely as corporations must be forced to undo the damage they do, then yes, capital from the guilty to the victims would change hands. Personal responsibility must be enforced with a strong, but fair government hand. To do right implies a mandate to do right or face the consequences. Is this socialism? No, it is called Justice.

Communism: Totalitarian socialism. Communism is a high-degree to total control statist socialism, in which the normal everyday free capitalistic exchanges are manipulated and controlled by government. From childhood, the communist regime molds and shapes the individual to determine his best career to serve the State. Those with more athletic prowess are carefully trained apart so they can excel, while others are steered towards careers as doctors depending on their innate inclinations. Literacy reaches 100%, medical coverage is universal. Only the top government officials enjoy a privileged and lavish lifestyle and a high degree of freedom. To travel to other countries is considered a privilege, not a right. For all the benefits that a communist country promises one truth remains, expressed best to me by a Cuban - "We are a nation of 12 million slaves".

Communism's failure is evident by its curtailing of human freedom of action. To restrict freedom of speech, to forbid its own citizens to leave, to repress dissent through prison and even death - all these indicate a system that would collapse without totalitarian controls in place to maintain the status quo. Human freedom of action is dictated by Nature, any dictatorships to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Altruism, in the context of economics and of morality, is a giving of oneself or one's acquired capital to others. Altruism can never be forced, so a giving of capital extorted through taxation to the needy is not altruism, but socialism. Charitable institutions rely on altruism, just as altruism relies on the capitalistic system to exist.

Altruism outside of a capitalist context, where one gives of himself without the involvement of money, could be called Communitarianism. If someone donates a book to a public library, the money transaction long-passed, then this would be one example. If public moneys are used for the public library, i.e. tax money, then it is socialism. But it can be, and often is, a combination of both social systems. Public television operates on private donations (altruism), volunteers (communitarianism), and taxes (socialism) all in the framework of a capitalist system.

The ultimate expression of communitarianism - (my term not his), is Jacque Fresco's Venus Project. In this social engineering vision of a future social system devoid of capitalism or socialism the needs and human rights of the community are provided for by a combination of volunteers and robotic mechanization.

The basic fundamental principle is that all of the world's natural resources belong to all. As the sun begins its trajectory across the sky radiating more free energy upon the Earth in one day than in centuries of human fossil-burning activity, the logic of harnessing and living in harmony with Nature seems sublime.

The ethics of a free public library has made the technological leap to the the internet and only statist government intrusion will try to curtail this natural advancement in freedom of information and expression. The internet is the greatest example of today's communitarianism, one that we all embrace and acknowledge as a huge step forward in man's evolution, as significant today as the Gutenburg press of yesterday. To the children of today, the internet is as free and natural as the sunshine.

While Fresco's vision of the future may seem hindered by our own negative associations with the failed and failing systems of socialism and communism, rest assured that the internet is none other than part of this technological and social eventuality. It represents the first preliminary stage of a communitarian society and the end of capitalism and our artificial political and economic world as we know it.

Only time will tell how the governments of today will hinder or aid the upcoming robotic revolution, or whether mechanized intelligence will be used for good - the power of Venus or for war - the power of Mars. Just as it is an obvious megatrend that manufacturing is becoming more automated causing the loss of human jobs, it is even more worrisome that government's may harness robots to kill anyone, anywhere, anytime with the touch of a button. The day of the first to die by US drone attack has already passed. This age is dawning and we will all have to choose to take the path of Love over Hate, before it is too late to express any dissent to the contrary.

Tax Day: A Moral Reckoning

There is a Spanish proverb which translates: "There is no ill which lasts one-hundred years, nor a body that can withstand it." Cubans say this about Castro's regime, but it also applies to our oppressive system of taxation.

Since 1913, Americans have had to bear the burden of a tax upon their income. The time to file this mechanism of involuntary servitude onto the garbage heap of abusive institutions is long overdue.

Some argue that the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional, that it was not properly ratified, etc. But insofar as judges are part of the same governmental system, and none are inclined to be the one to shut down the IRS, any constitutional Supreme Court challenges will likely be ineffective. The only judge necessary to end this injustice - is you.

We have always had the power to oppose unjust laws. Without the support of the people, no government can function. Pressure from the citizens ended unpopular laws such as Prohibition and Segregation, wars as Vietnam. The power of each individual to act according to his conscience was proclaimed 16 centuries ago by St. Augustine: "An unjust law is no law at all".

Each person has his own moral imperative, dictated by conscience, to judge whether he should obey the law or resist by simply and resolutely saying, "No". The following propagandizing slogans challenged by reality and truth:

The Land of the Free: Freedom means unimpeded action. It is a contradiction to be at once a free people and be compelled to surrender the fruits of our labor. There is no such thing as a free slave, even if he puts on his own shackles. Though government agents of repression can violate his freedom by using physical force and imprisonment, a freeman does not surrender his freedom to threats.

The only certainty is Death and Taxes: Income tax is anathema to civilization because civilized behavior does not include using force against others to gain the unearned. Government services can be paid for by user fees - moneys collected at the gas pump to pay for our highways are one example. Fair funding of government must follow one moral premise - the end never justifies the means.

Government and its War on Terror keeps us free: No soldier truly fights for our freedom, as we are born free and remain so until acted upon, or until we surrender from the threat of violence against us. "Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and Nature". - Benjamin Franklin. Government can not free us, but it can violate our freedom through its tools of coercion and intimidation.

Justice for All: A government that relies on the threat of violence against its own citizens to collect revenue can not be counted on to be just. Over half of the nation's collected income taxes fund the military-industrial complex. The Bush doctrine, the baton passed to Obama, advocates preemptive war - the initiation of force. It is a recipe for war, not peace. If all countries followed this policy, it would mean world war. It violates the Golden Rule - "Do unto others..." Justice does not entail the killing of the innocent. Herein lies the greatest calumny - that a peace-loving people should be forced to give up their hard-earned wealth to spill blood for the benefit of the war-profiteers and resource-grabbing corporations.

One responsible for his actions, knowing that the majority of income tax goes towards the destruction of human life, can in no way morally contribute to such a fund. To do so would be tantamount to being ordered to murder one's own child - the answer would not be that one is opposed, but that simply one cannot. Given this moral reckoning my own conscience does not allow me to kill indirectly by paying the "war tax". My conscience prohibits me from violating my core values and beliefs. These include Life, Liberty and Justice... Does yours?

Immigration and the politics of Freedom

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:

I lift my lamp beside the golden door." - Emma Lazarus



The rivers of hypocrisy run deep in these United States and lest I be accused of sharing in this all-too-common malady, I freely acknowledge that, as descendant of Spanish immigrants, first generation American, I am thankful to all those that invited my parents to this great country. My father, a man of science, was recognized to be an important asset to the chemical industry and secured his green card through legitimate channels.

That said, I confess that in pondering the immigration question, that despite the legal nature of my parents' arrival, I question: By what right may one person be admitted to this country while another is denied admission? By what right does the government have to impede the free migration of those that seek a better life?

If one is to be consistent in defending the ideals of freedom, without falling into the snares of hypocrisy and contradiction, then as surely as the Statue of Liberty still stands and as long as she represents ideals central to our cultural identity, then I must stand firm in defending the right of any decent human being to make his way here and call this land his new home.

Admittedly, this viewpoint is not the prevailing one, but that reflects the huge chasm that exists between American ideals on one side and the corrupted, protectionistic, statist, racist, nationalistic and otherwise hypocritical positions on the other. Oftentimes, the rhetoric of freedom is used, twisted and manipulated by the so-called patriot in such a way that it appears that he is on the side of Americanism, as I would call American ideals rooted in Liberty. But the true test is not whether he claims to defend freedom, but whether he in fact advances the cause of freedom or tries to diminish it.

The immigration question reveals the true nature of the false patriot. Some have called for a huge wall to be raised to stop the migration. The very definition of freedom is unimpeded action, so how does the building of a barricade advance the cause of freedom? Clearly, freedom, as a concept, is not a consideration to the wall builder. His motivation is protectionism - he may be worried about protecting from an attack by terrorists or he may believe he might be protecting jobs, but the last thing on his mind is defending freedom in the purist sense of the word.

The great wall of America is a bad idea for several reasons, not the least being that it is anti-freedom and therefore anti-American, as I have suggested. Should the motivation be to protect from another terrorist attack, then a wiser and less costly move would be to open our borders so that those who wish to seek legitimate work or travel could enter through normal routes of entry and thereby be screened by Immigration officers for suspicious characters. Given the choice of freely taking the public highway or crossing the treacherous desert, I suggest that any person in their right mind would take the safer path of least resistance and cross at the checkpoint. That leaves anyone trying to cross through the desert or taking the wet route extremely suspect - What is he up to? Could he be a smuggler or a terrorist? This option would effectively neutralize the terrorist threat while maintaining a consistently American ethos of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As to protecting jobs, the reality of the global marketplace is finally hitting home. For too long, Americans have enjoyed relatively high wages because of geographic isolation, but today that no longer is the case. Americans are now finding that they must compete with Chinese and other laborers that earn far less. That is the reality of the modern global economy and no amount of protectionism can make that harsh reality go away. In the last decade or more we have seen many US companies move operations overseas or south of the border to try to remain competitive. Would not it have served American interests if, instead, these manufacturing plants had remained at home and simply hired the willing labor of immigrants?

Consider the growing record US trade deficit: Had US manufacturing companies stepped up production in this country, hiring those immigrants seeking employment here, then we could have gone head-to-head with any country. Why would we buy a Chinese made product when we could have made the same product for a competitive price right here at home? You might argue that that would be impossible, given our minimum wage, and given the pitiful Chinese wage, and that would be true, should maintaining a minimum wage be a priority and not creating jobs. But should the good-intentioned, but wrong-headed minimum wage be set aside and should we let the market decide what the minimum wage should be, then we would find we have a huge, untapped source of manpower available in this hemisphere alone.

Those of socialistic leanings would decry such a policy, but it is a policy of pure Americanism, of pure liberty and the pursuit of a better life for millions. Consider the effect to our economy if instead of a record trade deficit, we had a record trade surplus. What if the US could be on top of the manufacturing world once again? Where would all those millions of workers spend their hard-earned money?

Those of you that are workers and fear that someone will do what you do for less are working on borrowed time anyway. Consider the tens of thousands of auto workers that have recently lost their jobs. Consider it a far better alternative to have fellow Americans take over your job, even if they are recently arrived neighbors, while you figure out how best to profit from the boom times to come from the trade surplus. By what right does the unskilled worker claim a higher wage over another unskilled worker? In an environment where companies are profiting and growing the worker who has skills will always command a premium over those that do not, so that incentive will always exist to better oneself. In any event, better to have America as a microcosm of the global economy and keep jobs here than keep losing productivity to foreign countries, especially those decidedly antagonistic to the freedoms we profess to cherish.

What has happened in this country is that our leaders have failed to exploit the opportunities that exist in the global economy. While the word exploit has a negative connotation, I mean it in the sense of fully utilizing a potential. Trapped by a socialistic policy bent on saving the worker from himself, the immigrant would gladly work and be grateful for the work and the wage and leave the socialist to his theorizing. Immigrants do this every day, many working - of their own free will at very low wages, that to him represent a step up from where he came from.

Now, back to our false patriot, crying that we should jail all illegal aliens and those that hire them: How is freedom advanced by that notion? What could be more anti-freedom than to take away a person's liberty and imprison him? Is not that more akin to the Soviet police state than Jefferson's independent vision of America? Clearly his motivation is not freedom, but something else - subservience to the State.

How many times have we heard that the immigrant should be arrested for breaking the law? that they should respect the Rule of Law? that no one has the right to break the law? I say: Wrong on all three counts. If I was a most ignorant person, oblivious to the history of these United States and its record on laws, I might be in agreement with these sentiments. However, I happened to grow up during the Vietnam era, and I have seen too many wrong laws, such as the laws that created the draft, the laws that defended segregation and opposed civil rights. In fact, the entire history of this country from its inception is replete with wrong-headed, self-serving, malicious and just plain stupid laws. From the beginning when slavery was legally defended, to the foolishness of Prohibition, to today's equally damaging legislation and rulings, the rule of law in this country might be that today's illegality might be tomorrow's legality and vice versa.

So, I put myself in the mind of the "illegal" alien. Perhaps he does not possess the education of a learned man like my father, or have the backing of industry clout to get to America through legal channels. But he is hungry, maybe not starving, mind you, though he might be, but he sees that his life is going nowhere. For no fault of his own he was born in a country where the corrupt politicians and the power elite have created an environment of diminished opportunities. He dreams of a better life. I would not let a law, an artificial law, written by men, flawed men writing flawed laws, usurp my natural right to the pursuit of happiness. Would any of you? Are there any real red-blooded American men left in this country that can honestly defend America's most noble values?

And then there are the fools that decry the black market economy of the immigrant. They whine that the immigrant does not pay his taxes, as quick to put the yoke on this hard-worker as on himself. Where does the American ideal of Liberty stand on life-long involuntary servitude?

As it stands, should the suggestions of the false patriots be implemented the following would result: Billions upon billions will be spent building and defending a barricade hundreds of miles long. It might slow the tide, but there is not a wall high enough or a fence tough enough to conquer the spirit and will of a man willing to pass over, through, or under it. Should all illegal aliens be jailed and those that hire them, billions of dollars would be spent on new prisons and the growing police state. The so-called black-market economy that helps support the "legal" economy would shrink causing serious financial repercussions. The cost of living from removing this source of cheap labor would increase, especially reflected in higher food prices and other necessities.

This last measure might be the last straw to break this empire - a nation that has lost its ideological roots, replacing liberty for nationalistic shortsightedness. I dare say historians will write that they came so close, only to let it slip away...

We let manufacturing slip from our land, we squander billions in wasteful and unnecessary foreign aid and foreign wars, we let our trade deficit increase along with the national debt - owing money to our ideological enemies, and now we turn upon the hardest working element of our society and call them criminals. Is the American ideal dead?

The Implications of Justifying Torture

Thomas Sowell, the political advisor and columnist, writes that it is acceptable to torture non-Americans, specifically terrorist suspects, who, he maintains, should not have rights extended to them.

C. Rice, goes on a European tour, claiming the US does not commit acts of torture, if only within the narrow definition that the Administration goes by.

The first, destroys principles by nationalistic subjective annihilation. The second destroys thought by concept annihilation.

Principle one: Let no human being be subjected to cruel and unusual treatment, as exemplified by the spirit of Article VIII of the US Bill of Rights.

Principle two: All humans possess inalienable rights, as exemplified by The Declaration of Independence.

Principle three: A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, as forms the basis of all civilized law known, at least, since the ancient Greeks and Romans.

That a debate even exists on the use of torture is proof of the vitiation of America. Beware of the implications of the tortuous reasoning that is behind justifying torture. Disarmed of concepts with which to think, disarmed of principles by which to act, we sow the seeds of tyranny upon our own homeland with the same contempt for humanity that we wreak on others.

On Justifying Torture: The Vitiation of America

Counter-point to Thomas Sowell essay on torture laws


Honor. Integrity. Principles. These qualities of a great nation have fallen by the wayside as the moral degeneration continues to lower America's standing in the world. The latest argument of shameful self-abasement comes from academics, columnists, and leaders that justify the inhumane treatment of other human beings, specifically rationalizing the use of torture against suspected terrorists or captured insurgents.

Those scholars that influence policy decisions by advising government officials must maintain the highest ethical standards, providing a much-needed moral compass to politicians that all-too-often are found lacking in character and driven by expediency.

One recent voice, cavalierly and smugly apologizing for the use of torture, comes from the Hoover Institution's senior fellow Thomas Sowell in his syndicated newspaper column. In his essay, he basically attacks those that would argue that torture is wrong in principle and should not be used under any circumstances. He introduces a moral grayness, where torture is acceptable under certain situations, using the hypothetical example of a captured terrorist who knows where a nuclear bomb is planted and argues that we should not be "too squeamish" to get that information by "whatever means are necessary". He also puts up the weak argument that the terrorists would tie up our judicial system with spurious litigation.

These two arguments form the basis of his essay, "Torture laws are not an all-or-nothing deal". The first counts on fear as the justification, the second the wrong-minded idea that people who are not American citizens should not have rights extended to them, to paraphrase Sowell's own words.

In the nuclear bomb scenario, it is more than a bit naive to believe that an act of torture would save the day, given the fanatical and suicidal disposition of the terrorist. Are we really to believe that someone who would strap explosives to themselves to kill a small crowd of people would suddenly cave-in to torture when they stand to take out an entire city? This foolish underestimation of the enemy's mindset explains why the US is still fighting a determined insurgency in Iraq. Did the same brilliant thinkers and advisors to the Administration fail to predict the rebellious outcome of the invasion?

So, this extreme hypothetical example, playing on our worst fears, is not even workable in practice. What it does do, however, is open the doors to apply torture to any other cases. Once you destroy a moral principle, in this case that torture is cruel and inhumane treatment and should be forbidden, then there is no stopping its application. On what grounds, then, could anyone say when torture should not be used? What moral basis would anyone use?

Taken to its logical conclusion: What prevents the government from turning this method against its own people? The nationalistic dehumanization of excluding non-Americans from human rights is only the first step against all humans, including Americans. In my own family history, my grandmother and her brother were tortured by their fellow countrymen, for the non-crimes of being a schoolteacher and a mayor. What happened in a fascist tyranny then and there, can and will happen here unless this type of moral relativism is stopped dead in its tracks.

Consider the result of vitiating America's high-minded ideals. Instead of "All men are created equal", rights pertain only to Americans. Instead of a principled stand for humanity, torture is advocated. Instead of peace, a war of aggression is initiated. Instead of eliminating human rights abuses in Iraq, the US abuses prisoners in Hussein's same prisons, and the new Iraqi government follows suit. Instead of acting with dignity, the US shamefully corrupts the Iraqi media. When will this disgrace end?

The destruction of the American ethos is the bane of our society with consequences more dire than any one hypothetical scenario. We are witnessing the fall of the great American empire from grace. The false ideology of power with its motto, "The end justifies the means", has corrupted the spirit of this great nation. More than fear the attack of individuals who have grown to hate America, we should fear this insidious rot from within, of an America without principles, without a conscience, where the indefensible is defended, and leading thinkers try to convince that what is wrong, is somehow right.

Hurricane Katrina and Human Nature

While down in Mexico I heard tell a little story to try to help me understand why someone or something was a certain way... Seems that one day this frog was sitting by the stream and a scorpion came crawling up to it and said, "Good day, Mr. Frog. Would you be so kind as to take me across the stream, you see, I can't swim and I simply must get to the other side." The frog looked the scorpion over and said, "Not so fast, Mr. Scorpion, I'm afraid you'll sting me." The scorpion insisted and argued, "Why would I do that? - if I sting you, we will both drown." After thinking it over for a moment the frog reluctantly agreed and allowed the scorpion to climb aboard its back and he started swimming across the stream. About half way across the frog suddenly felt the agonizing pain and quick paralysis of the scorpion's stinger. "Why did you do it?" he gasped with his last incredulous breath. "I can't help it," said the scorpion before disappearing under the rising water, "it is my nature."

While watching the catastrophe unfold, we reacted with feelings of disbelief. "How could this happen in America?", was the phrase which quickly became a platitude amidst so much suffering. Yet, should we have examined the nature of things and human nature, we should not be at all surprised at what transpired.

First, the hurricane, a natural phenomena, was predicted with great accuracy and fair warning. In contrast, consider the thousands that were caught unawares in Galveston a century ago. They did not have the benefit of satellites and modern technology to accurately predict storms. We do.

Next, it was a well-known fact that much of New Orleans sits below sea level and equally well-known that a levy breach was possible. After all, the levies were only designed to support a category three hurricane.

So, knowing this, that a category five hurricane was rolling menacingly towards New Orleans, what did many thousands do? They decided to stay put and weather the storm.

For someone living in the bowl which is New Orleans - how could it have come as a surprise when the water started rising around them?

Now, the media has been quick to blame the Federal and local government for failing on many levels, and I will address that shortly. But I think it bears mentioning something that nobody likes to talk about, and that is the question of personal responsibility. I understand that there are poor folks, and then there are the really miserably poor - people that should have been given a helping hand, by neighbors, local government, whomever. But I ask you - of the people that chose to stay, despite warnings, how many had vehicles? had a way out? but chose to stay anyway? We all saw countless vehicles up to their mirrors and higher in water. I know poverty, but honestly, how many of those people do not even own a car? Maybe not a late model SUV mind you, but some clapped-out jalopy that could at least take you out of the danger zone?

So, you live in an area prone to flooding, as you and everyone in your neighborhood knows and has always known. What is your plan? What are you going to do when the Big One hits the Big Easy?

I will tell you what many did - nothing. I will tell you how many prepared - they did not prepare. I will tell you what plan they had to protect their loved ones - they did not have a plan.

Why? Now, the answer lies with human nature. Many who suffered needlessly in that catastrophe will have to do some soul-searching to find the answer to that question. That is, if they stop blaming everyone else, except themselves, for their dilemma. What they will most likely find, is that they, like many of us, have flaws. Flaws which cause us to make poor choices in our lives.

I have always been told that the true test of a person is when he finds himself in a crisis - that is when you know the true nature of a person. We know just how true that is in our relationships with other people. You think you know your girlfriend or husband, or whomever, until one day something happens, and he or she is put to the test, and either you are pleased he/she is all that you hoped, or more times than naught, you are very disappointed. A crisis, will amplify a person's character - it will bring out the best and the worst in anyone.

So, if someone's nature is to be a procrastinator, for instance, or lazy, or just plain irresponsible, or foolish - then that flaw is what will cause you not to have a plan. It is that flaw which might just get you killed. It is your nature which failed you when Nature brought a day of reckoning.

For those I risk offending who suffered mightily because they did not seek higher ground, I hope that this catastrophe has taught you, as it should teach all of us, of the importance of having a plan. Though, we might not live in a bowl by-the-sea, all of us should prepare for some catastrophic event, whether it be a tornado, earthquake, or some man-made folly.

We humans, do have the ability to change, but sadly, it often takes a personal catastrophe before we do. What is the nature of your character? Will it make you a survivor or victim?

Next, I consider the nature of government in light of the supposedly surprising revelation that our local, state, and federal governments were proven to be incompetent. For those citizens that were told to go to shelters and arrived at a dark human cesspool with no power, no toilets, no water, no security - I share your outrage. For those that had no means of escape, while public school busses stayed unused in their parking areas - Did the government, on any level, have a plan? Clearly, they did not.

How is it possible to have a shelter for people without generators and fuel to run them? It is possible because they did not have a plan. Whoever heard of a shelter without sufficient food and water? No one - because it was not a shelter - it was a warehouse for human suffering, not unlike and reminiscent of a slave ship's cargo hold.

Why? Because government, like a person, also has a nature. After all - what is government if not a collection of individuals chosen to serve the public? Sadly, the worst characteristics of people also find expression in the public servant. Laziness, procrastination, indifference, greed, corruption - you name it and you will find a human flaw exemplified in government.

Therefore, it should not have come as a surprise that government is bound by bureaucracy and incompetence. That, is the nature of modern statist government. It may be the nature of governments since time immemorial.

If we were not so lazy and subservient, we should demand more from our servants. At least, many will see government in a new light - unable or unwilling to do the only thing it was invented to do - protect our lives and property. Sadly, many will only place blame rather than seeing its true nature.

Lastly, I thought about the sad nature of all those that shamelessly used the tragedy to advance their own agenda. "We should have spent millions on the levies", we heard, "we should pour millions of dollars to help the poor not be poor", "we should blame Bush for global warming which causes hurricanes". Everyone trying to gain some political advantage, none asking the hard questions: What is the nature of a person that keeps him impoverished? What is the nature of our society that it provides opportunity to some, but not others? What is the nature of a thug that causes him to loot and pillage during a crisis? What about someone would make him fire upon rescue workers? What is the nature of someone who would hurt others when they are already down? What kind of person is insensitive to the suffering of others to the point of having the power to help, but refusing to exercise it? What is it about government that makes it fail at the moment of truth?

All the answers to those questions and many more about human and governmental nature are there for the asking and revealing on the stage of the human drama of catastrophic devastation brought by hurricane Katrina. May we learn the lessons well.

A Rational Ethical Opposition to the Iraq War

To those Americans whose love of country is not blinded by faith, political allegiance or subservience to its government, I appeal to your reason and conscience against the current ruinous path.

The Iraq War is, and has been since its inception, wrong in conception and execution, strategically, politically, economically and most importantly - morally.

A paramount principle of a civilized society is that the use of physical force may never be initiated against another person, group or government. One who initiates physical force against another or others is, by definition, a criminal. The only justification for the use of physical force is in retaliation.

Retaliation may only be used against and in response to those that have initiated physical force. The moral difference between initiation and retaliation is the difference between murder and self-defense. However, to prevent that retaliation does not degrade from an act of self-defense to mere bloody vengeance, the highest standards of objectivity, humanity and justice must be the final arbiters of its use.

If a criminal act has been committed, first the criminals must be identified and found guilty, then a measured and appropriate retaliatory response may proceed. In the case of an intruder breaking into one's home, the response may be a life-saving split second. But in the case of terrorism, operating independently of any official government, retaliation is not always as clear cut and a response must be carefully measured to avoid taking innocent life.

9-11 will forever live in infamy as a criminal act perpetrated against the innocent. No moral justification exists for killing innocent people, no matter what political point one is trying to make, no matter how damaging this act may be against a government one despises, no matter how much it succeeds in terrorizing an enemy's nation. Terrorism will always equate to criminality. Its fundamental premise is a false one - that the end justifies the means.

(The ideology of militant Islam defies any moral precept, it contradicts the teachings of the Koran, which decry the taking of innocent lives. Militant Islam is fueled by the lust for power, enshrouding a doctrine of hate with a veneer of religiosity to attract its followers who confuse might with right. Take note that these characteristics are just as evil when they are embraced by our own American leaders. How many lust for power? espouse hate while claiming to be good Christians? also confuse might with right? and use the same tactic when they claim to uphold Christian virtue, yet ignore the commandment against killing at their convenience?)

Retaliation against those that perpetrated this despicable act of terrorism is not only justifiable - to act in self-defense is a moral imperative of rational self-interest to prevent future criminal acts. To do nothing would only embolden the terrorist, nothing would stop him from acting again with impunity.

The correct response would have been to identify the guilty, track them down, infiltrate their organizations and either bring the terrorists to justice when possible, or eliminate them when not. A superpower must exercise extreme discretion in the use of force and retaliation. All the resources available to bring the enemies to justice swiftly and effectively must be called upon, yet with the great responsibility of not becoming like the enemy and taking the lives of the innocent. All the military intelligence, all the spies in the field, all the satellites and high-tech resources, should be able to surgically remove the threat without collateral damage to others or our reputation as a just nation. Justice means that the guilty, and only the guilty, suffer the consequences of their actions. Retaliation means that the guilty are prevented from committing further acts of murder. Have either of these principles been respected and brought to bear?

Let history bear testament that the correct response was not taken. Instead of acting with discretion, wisdom and intelligence, the Bush administration has initiated aggression against a nation not linked to the September 11 attacks - a secular nation that was a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism. True - it was a nation led by a ruthless leader - a tyrant that for many years was supported by the US and a short-sighted foreign policy less interested in human rights than political expediency. Still, the evidence shows that the Iraq War and the "War on Terrorism" are unrelated. The terrorist threat was shamelessly used as a pretext for this agenda-driven war. While the true authors of the attack on our homeland have still not been brought to justice, the force and might of the United States has turned Iraq into a breeding ground for insurgency, spawned a civil war and aided the enemy in recruiting those newly fed by hate to their cause. Instead of safeguarding American lives, many were placed in harm's way and lives were needlessly sacrificed. I say needlessly, because they did not die for "freedom" or any measure of justice.

As the world watched in shock, the United States set a terrible precedent of initiating force against a weak defeated country that was not on the attack. At that moment, any moral authority that the United States ever had as a just nation, any respect for American ideals, any posturing of righteous superiority, was destroyed and our nation's honor shamed. In an instant, all the sacrifice of those revolutionary ancestors who resisted the oppression of a tyrannical empire, all the fallen who have nobly fought against those many enemies that have initiated force against America or weaker nations or allies, have been dishonored. Should another country follow the US' poor example and invade another, how can we now say they are wrong, yet the US was right?

What we Americans most despise and have fought so hard against - the aggressor nation, the United States has become.

The military intelligence that justified US action, yet could not persuade the United Nations to act against Iraq, has turned out to be flawed at best, false at worst. To act upon flimsy circumstantial evidence was an exercise of poor judgment that followed from failed moral character. No court in the nation, or the world, could conduct a trial by such poor standards. Yet, the Bush administration acted with typical indignation that their judgment should be questioned. And in another instant, the credibility of our nation vanished. Should the intelligence community ever really find weapons of mass destruction in another place and time, how could they or our nation ever be taken seriously, again?

While to some "shock and awe" was merely a media-directed slogan, to others it meant experiencing first-hand the horrors and tragedy of war. While some were killed instantly for the unlucky state of existing near military targets, others lost loved ones, or were maimed and crippled for the remainder of their lives. Collateral damage excused away lives destroyed by a nation that supposedly values life and decried the taking of innocent lives.

Strategically, I have said, this war was a miscalculation. Surely, the force and power of the most powerful military in the world quickly swept across this crippled and weak nation with blitzkrieg-like ferocity and efficiency. Would one expect any less from the self-proclaimed pre-eminent superpower? Yet, the arrogance of the "shock and awe" confidence has given way to the realism of a prolonged war of insurgency that the supposed experts did not see coming. Wrong again - wrong to assume the Iraqis would welcome the "liberators" with open arms. What deluded thinking could have possibly lead to such far-reaching miscalculations? How could anyone expect the Iraqis to welcome our army as the French did in WWII? Did anyone stop to consider that only a few years before we had been at war with this same country, incinerating and bombing into oblivion thousands of sons of Iraq - unfortunate souls who were conscripted into a tyrant's army? Did we really expect a warm reception?

The same type of deluded and foolish thinking gave rise to calling all the insurgents "terrorists". With the invasion, the enemy ranks swelled. The United States' government literally made enemies - they made enemies with those that before had no intention or opportunity of firing upon an American. I ask those of you that consider yourselves patriots: Should our country be invaded - would you not raise arms against a foreign power trying to force their way of life upon you? The honesty of your answer presents you with the degree of understanding of the meaning of insurgency.

Remember the moral imperative of retaliation - that to concede to the use of initiated force would be against the moral imperative of punishing the aggressor for his transgression. It matters not the supposed good intentions of the invader. It matters not that we are trying to give them "freedom" or democracy or any of our other Western values. When it comes to war, the invaded have the moral upper hand over the invaders, I say, the defender is on the side of right over the aggressor. Know this and understand this, for it goes a long way in explaining why the United States will never gain a decisive victory in this misguided and illegitimate war.

Though the insurgents may feel themselves doing their patriotic duty in defending their homeland from the invader, there are others who have joined in the fight who may share sentiments more closely aligned with militant Islam, many having crossed the borders from neighboring Syria, Saudi Arabia or some other Arab state. To engage the "great Satan" in holy war is the highest achievement in their twisted ideology. I speculate that the attacks on the US were done to incite exactly the type of response that was forthcoming, that the terrorists predicted the actions of "Bring them on!" diplomacy. I am saying that the United States government was drawn into a fight that the terrorists wanted. Why go to America to kill Americans, they might have reasoned, when they can kill them in the Middle East? Since dying in Jihad is a quick ticket to Heaven, they believe, then their strategy of drawing the United States' military into a fight has proven very successful with over 1,800 American soldiers killed so far and countless of their numbers dying a glorious death. For the enemy, this is a win-win situation - a losing proposition for the US military.

The foolish believe that the war against terrorism is succeeding because we haven't had an attack at home since we attacked Iraq. I am countering that they no longer have to attack us at home to kill Americans, thanks to Bush's foreign policy.

In the game of chess known as geopolitics, it appears that Bush and his administration and the US Congress have acted with the ineptitude of one that can not grasp the game of checkers.

Consider the aftereffects of 9/11: Billions spent on the bureaucracy of home security for fear of another attack, US spending billions more to fight the war, death and injuries to our servicemen and women with more to come, weakening of our standing and respect in the world community, weakening of our economy by reckless deficit spending with no end to the spending in sight. To call the terrorist strike the most successful attack on the United States would be an understatement. Sadly, it is the US response to the attack which magnifies this tragedy into a major catastrophe. Tragic to lose two great buildings and several thousand innocent lives in NY, catastrophic to plunge the US into war and cripple our great country by saddling it with debt.

My point is that the majority of the cost of 9/11 was created by our response to the attack, more than the actual attack itself. Though we did not choose to be attacked, we had the choice of choosing how to react. An over-reaction, an unjustified reaction, a wasteful reaction - was chosen over a carefully thought out and cleverly executed retaliative counter action. Is it possible that the US has underestimated its enemies and played into their hands?

Many in the US still resist pulling out of Iraq - a country that we ravaged, in effect leaving it at the mercy of competing tribal religious factions in a civil war that we provoked. But what are the possibilities of a united democratic Iraq? In a land that has no tradition of democracy, only the heavy hand of dictatorship was capable of keeping the peace, crushing insurrections with no regard to human rights. Was it ever realistic to force democracy on a country - the way the Communists tried to force Communism upon nations? If the Iraqi people feel more of an alignment to their particular religious sect than to an ideal of democracy, how many years must the US remain in this tribally divided country until it finally becomes democratic? five years? twenty? one-hundred? or until it is bankrupt?

The past can not be undone. We must make an honest assessment of the current situation - not a wishful-thinking fanciful interpretation. In a cost-benefit analysis, the cost has been and continues to be excessive, the benefit is mostly questionable and artificially hopeful. Without a doubt, the only ones who have benefitted are the war profiteers - the military contractors who profit from this dirty business of war. The human cost also has been high, besides Americans already mentioned, consider the many thousands of non-combatants that have been killed by both US forces and the following insurrection since the beginning of hostilities.

Know this, my fellow Americans, as the aggressor nation, the United States government is responsible for these deaths. Had the US not attacked how many of these people would be alive today? So, too, the blood of the innocent is also on the hands of every individual that ever supported the war, directly or indirectly, through votes or opinions, or who has ever contributed tax dollars that have gone towards the bullets, bombs, fighter jets, aircraft carriers and all the other instruments and weapons of modern warfare. Each must determine by the dictates of conscience his degree of culpability and take personal responsibility for his actions.

The invasion of Iraq by US forces has destabilized a country that before was an island of secular order in a sea of Islamic fundamentalism. A democracy is supposed to rise from the ashes at gunpoint, amidst an environment of car bombings and coercion. This is not the fertile field of rebellion of our forefathers who were educated by the Enlightenment. This is a country whose culture embodies the values of tribalism, of a people who see themselves as Sunni, Kurdish or Shiite. They will put the interests of their tribe before that of their nation. The civil war that we have unleashed by unsettling the ruling elite has already begun. We can not help any one side of Iraq without hurting another side of Iraq. That is the nature of civil war. The side we help will always be stigmatized by the other side as being our lackeys or puppets, so to some they will always lack authenticity.

Today must be our last day in Iraq. No amount of time will make a wrong into a right. Every day that goes by represents more American lives unnecessarily sacrificed, Iraqi lives destroyed, affirmation for the terrorists, vindication by the insurgents, and millions more dollars wasted.

The time has come for atonement. As a nation, we must insist that reparations be forthcoming for the death and destruction we have wrought, especially to the families here and abroad that have suffered mightily by this nation's actions. We must each take responsibility for our part in this conflict.

There are those who have suggested that our leaders have indirectly or directly profited from the war. I can only say that should a public servant have used his sacred office for personal gain then he must be tried for high treason. Let us form our own war crime tribunal to discover if any one of our own is guilty of violating international convention. I say, let us clean our own house before the international community shames us into doing it.

As a true patriot, one may love his country eternally, but may not its imperfect government that is only as good as its best members and as bad as the worst. The war in Iraq represents moral failure in leadership bereft of principles. To continue on this path will only weaken our country and bring it to ruin.

Instead of respect around the world, we are scorned. Instead of making friends we have made enemies. Instead of punishing and retaliating against the terrorists, they still remain at large to strike again. Instead of being on the side of truth and justice, we have seen deception and have taken the role of our traditional enemy - instead of defender of the free world, we have become the aggressor against the world. Instead of leading by example, we try to impose by force. Instead of maintaining our economic lead and power, we foolishly squander billions on warfare and bureaucracy.

Stand against this war - a war without principles, without justification, without any foresight or an exit strategy, without any clear definition of victory, with no limit to spending, with no regard for the human cost, with no regard to American honor.

Lastly, to reiterate principles: The war on Iraq will forever live in infamy as an unprovoked criminal attack against the innocent. No moral justification exists for killing innocent people, no matter how much one despises a tyrant or his government, or succeeds in overthrowing these, no matter whether one claims to bring democracy or "freedom", no matter whether US interests benefit by securing resources, no matter how much it might "stabilize the region", no matter how many terrorists might as a consequence be killed, no matter what benefit might be gained... A war of aggression will always equate to criminality. Its fundamental premise is a false one - that the end justifies the means.