The Problem With Calling Heathcare a Human Right

Human rights are certainly good things, and certainly humanity has an ethical duty to urge their adoption in every corner of the world. However, economic necessities are not human rights, and the most effective way to see them adopted throughout the world is not through their designation as such. Similarly, governments do not have an absolute duty to provide for the unlimited welfare of every citizen, but rather to provide a basic level of health and security which every society should be allowed to approach as they see best fit, through the will of their own residents.

Many who support the argument that everyone deserves the right to be taken care of, and that therefore governments have an ethical responsibility to provide for citizens (and, for many who argue this, for all people) if they became ill and need medical attention. This view is based on different justifications; commonly a form of social contract theory for those who argue that government’s first responsibility is to those within a state, or natural law or humanist arguments for those who argued that it is humanity’s duty as a whole to provide for everyone.

I am skeptical of this. Certainly access to health care is a necessity for an individual to live a long and fulfilling life; equally certain, for a society to advance and develop as a whole its people should be healthy. My argument against it being designated a right, however, is twofold and based on the belief that there is a fundamental distinction between what are known as civil or political rights (such as the right to choose one’s government, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to live under the rule of law, with an institutionalized and impartial legal system, which grants all who are brought before it a fair trial and presumption of innocence) and those rights which are called social or economic rights (such as the right to work, the right to housing, to an education, or to receive health care).

This first group of rights is straightforward, with fairly clear definitions and with generally clear oppressors and oppressed. If someone is being denied their right to say what they wish, or to have a fair trial for a supposed crime, the solutions are generally clear, the oppressor easily identified. Economic rights are much more muddled, however. If someone has no access to health care, then who is to blame exactly? What is the solution? There has never been a government system where everyone has been guaranteed a real job. Indeed, those systems which have tried the hardest have generally proven unsustainable and ill-equipped for a world which is ever changing. By guaranteeing a society the right to vote and live with political and civil rights, we give the society the ability to determine for itself what system they wish to use, to take care of their people as they think is best.

The counter-argument with the most merit is that which argues that the fastest way to ensure that the many poor and impoverished people across the world who lack these basic necessities, to help those who are uneducated, jobless, or sick become educated, healthy, and productive, is to designate them as universal rights, thereby making it an ethical duty for governments to provide aid to make it happen. While there is some merit to this argument, (I would probably accept it as legitimate if I was convinced it was true, and would help these people the fastest) it opens up a new source of problems. First, I believe strongly in the social contract, and while I certainly support increasing global governance, and support the proliferation of international organizations, while states remain sovereign they have a duty to first provide for their own residents. On an international level, if one ensures that political and civil rights are kept, then the citizens of a state will have an active role in determining the government’s priorities, and if they are generally or vocally supportive of foreign aid, it will be forthcoming. For example, in the case of AIDS, successful activism movements throughout the world have resulted in massive transfers of cash and medicine, as can be seen in the case of PEPFAR, the Global AIDS Fund, and other examples. On a domestic level, the most effective way for a government to function properly, legitimately, and with long term success, is for the residents to enjoy those civil and political rights I have mentioned. It should be up to the citizens within a state to determine what kind of health care system they think will best provide for their society, what kind of economic system will provide the most or best jobs, and what kind of education system will best educate their children.

On a fundamental level, health care, jobs, education, and other economic necessities are services provided by the government or private companies, and the taxpayer should determine how they are best allotted. The most effective way for a society to efficiently allocate these goods is through an informed and empowered citizenry, determining what to do at the ballot box. There have been many cases of governments which ignore political and civil rights, and focus instead on giving their people a low level of economic necessities, following a particular ideology. Almost invariably this leads to an overstretched, corrupt, and unsustainable form of government, which becomes increasingly authoritarian until it falls or, if lucky, transitions away from such a system.

The condition of humanity is such that if a large group of people gather and make decisions, some people will always be better off than others. However, most free societies will also decide that governments should have a safety net in place, that the poor should have access to certain economic necessities, and where this isn’t the case, dedicated groups and individuals can work successfully to swing the opinion of society around, provided they have access to political and civil rights. I am not arguing that a system in which the bottom third of society has no health care, a poor education, and will likely lack many of the social benefits which lead to good jobs and living conditions is a good one, or is morally acceptable, I am simply saying the solution is not through a continual expansion of things designated as rights. I have only respect for an individual who feels as though he or she should spend their lives helping others, advocating for the material well-being of the poor, but I do not think they will accomplish their goal faster, or with any more lasting success, by designating economic necessities as rights.

The designation of economic necessities as human rights muddles what a right is without helping solve the many concrete problems faced by humanity. A government’s first responsibility is to the wishes of its people, and when these people are granted political and civil rights they are best able to determine what kinds of social programs will best help the poor in their area, and what gaps need to be filled in to raise the safety net to a higher level. Foreign aid can help raise this net to a level unreachable for many developing countries, and many citizens of the developed world have pushed for their governments to give aid; hopefully this trend will continue and increase in the future. The ability to engage in political debate and decision-making, whether through activism or the ballot box, is the best way to ensure better health and opportunities for the many people in the world whose voices aren’t heard; to focus instead on proclamations of unenforceable rights is more of a distraction than it is a solution.

Gettting to 270

In order to win the election, a candidate must get to 270 electoral votes, or one more than half of the 538 total votes out there. On the eve of the election, I wanted to look at the electoral map and examine how both candidates can win, and what states will be important to look at tomorrow night.

First, we can give each candidate the states where they are far ahead, and where their opponent has not campaigned or attempted to win. For Senator Obama, those states are: Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Washington D.C., Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii. This gives him a total of 224, leaving him only 46 EC votes away from the presidency. Senator McCain has a much smaller number of states which are certainly going to vote for him. They are: South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah,and Idaho. This gives him only 118 EC votes leaving him a whopping 152 more to go.

Clearly, the path for Senator Obama is the easier one. In fact, if we give him the states which are currently leaning his way, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada, then he already has achieved his goal, and will have 278 EC votes and be our President-Elect.

For Senator McCain, the way is much more convoluted and unlikely. He must first hold onto the three states which are only leaning his way, Arkansas, South Dakota, and West Virginia, which will give him an additional 14 EC votes. Then he must take all of the toss-up states, which have a combined 128 EC votes. These states all voted for Bush in 2004, but many of them did so by narrow margins. They are: Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Arizona, and Montana. If Mr. McCain can hang onto all of these states, which is anyone's guess, as the polls in them are all right around even, then he has a chance. This would bring his total to 260, meaning he would only need to snatch one or two states from Mr. Obama to win. There are three plausible (though unlikely scenarios where he could do this)

1) He could flip Pennsylvania, where Mr. Obama had trouble in the primaries. If he does manage to win Pennsylvania, he could afford to lose Virginia, which appears likely.
2) He could take two out of the three small western states leaning for Obama, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.
3) He could miraculously pull out Minnesota, winning the presidency by one EC vote.

He could also manage to pull out a tie, by winning one of those small western states and New Hampshire, or by winning Colorado, but it is very likely that this would simply delay his eventual defeat.

It is almost impossible to imagine a scenario where he comes out ahead, but one never knows, so certainly everyone should be watching Tuesday night. Personally, I will be looking at how close some of the important eastern swing states such as Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and Georgia go. If two of those five go for Senator Obama, then McCain will be writing his concession speech, and if three do he will be getting ready to deliver it. If, on the other hand, McCain miraculously wins New Hampshire, we might be in for a long night.

What to watch it on....

FoxNews: If you want conservative talking heads.
MSNBC: FoxNews for liberals. All the thoughtless screaming one expects from FoxNews, just aimed at conservative instead of at liberals.
CNN: If you like lots of cool gadgets and results broken down into a thousand pieces. Reasonably balanced, fairly mindless.
PBS: Quiet and thoughtful commentary from reasonable people; hopefully David Brooks, who is one of my favorite people, will be on.
Comedy Central: John Stewart and Stephen Colbert will be on from 10 to 11, for a fun comedic change-of-pace.

I will be live-blogging on the Economist's Democracy in America blog, (probably arguing with commenter forbese, a strong McCain backer) likely watching PBS and CNN, with John Stewart making me laugh at 10.

Whoever wins, I promise you that they will lead America better during the next four years than we have been led the last 8, and I hope that everyone gives the winner a chance to prove themselves before casting judgment upon them. Happy voting and TV watching everyone!

The Origins of The Crisis: The Housing Bubble

First off, it’s essential to state that the underlying causes of the current state of the economy are complex and are not universally agreed on or even completely understood by economists and intellectuals; so I will not be able to supply a completely correct and objective answer. What I hope to do here is to provide a basic overview of some of the most important reasons that America and the world has reached the point where it is today, and the interesting and important information about these reasons.

The first and perhaps most important thing to understand is that house prices lie at the heart of the problem. American house prices rose by incredible amount throughout the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, with house values tripling in some places in less than 15 years, with the majority of this occurring after 2002. Understanding why this happened is essential to understanding everything that has followed.

Most things in the economy follow a pattern of boom and bust. As more people want to own a home, due to income rises and increases in population, prices will rise. This increases the incentive for builders to build more new homes, as they can now sell them for more. Over the long run this leads to an oversupply of houses on the market, which decreases the price. Buyers stop buying, waiting for prices to drop, further decreasing demand, which causes builders to stop building. (This is where we are now in America) Eventually this decreases the supply of houses on the market, first stopping the price-slide and then eventually increasing prices, and the cycle begins anew. In the real world things are immensely more complicated, but understanding that this cycle exists is a good starting point.

When this boom cycle began, U.S. economic growth was high and prosperity was widespread. Average U.S. household incomes grew throughout much of the 1990’s, increasing the percentage of families who could afford to buy homes. People were living longer and more of the elderly were remaining in their homes or moving to retirement communities where they owned property. An increasing number of people, having reached the middle class, were buying vacation homes. Immigration was high, as strong economic growth drew a wide variety of people to America. Highly skilled professionals flocked to Silicon Valley and other high-tech centers. The unskilled were employed in hotels, restaurants, and as itinerant farm workers, keeping prices low and freeing up the American labor force to move into middle class service industry positions. All of this led to a sustained and widespread increase in demand, particularly in places with large vacation and retirement communities (Florida, Nevada, and California).

People who buy houses generally don’t do so by writing a check. They save up enough money to pay for 15 to 20% of it, and then ask a bank to pay for the rest. In return, they agree to pay the bank back over a set time period, generally 30 years. The bank makes money by charging the home owner interest on the debt. This interest rate is set at a certain level, based on the market, which is generally a few points higher than Federal Reserve’s benchmark interest rate. Banks do not just give out loans to anybody, however. They check to make sure that the prospective buyer will be able to pay back their loan, looking at their credit history, annual salary, etc. If a prospective buyer is risky the bank will seek a way to minimize that risk to them. They can do that by charging higher interest rates (in this way they trade increased risk for increased profit potential). In America, two very large institutions known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been created to help people who are relatively poor or young. These people, who in general would be seen as too risky by banks due to their lack of credit history and assets, are able to buy houses because Fannie and Freddie buy their mortgages from banks and thus eliminate the risk to the bank. If for some reason a buyer does default on their loan down the road, the bank will generally repossess the house and then sell it to someone else in order to recoup the money they are owed. As always, this is a simplistic overview, but it gets at the most important points.

So why did this housing boom turn into a bubble? First, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve at the time, Alan Greenspan, had lowered the interest rate coming out of the 1992 recession which swept Bill Clinton into office in 1993. However, he did not really raise it much in the economic boom which followed in the late 1990’s on the back of technology and the internet boom. The Federal Reserve is very concerned with inflation, which it wishes to remain in the low single digits, and Greenspan believed that if he raised interest rates then inflation would fall to zero. He looked at the increasingly globalized economy, and the flood of cheap labor from the former Soviet countries and China, as well as the cheap goods which were being imported for American consumers from factories throughout the developing world, and his concern for these deflationary pressures kept him from raising rates quickly. After dropping them to 3% in 1992, he had increased them to 6% in 1995. As the economy grew fairly regularly over the next few years, he held them more or less steady, lowering and raising them by small amounts.

The technology boom turned to bust suddenly, and many I.T. companies collapsed, causing the economy to slow and fears of recession to arise. This was exacerbated by the events of September 11th, 2001, and it appeared likely that the country would slip into a downturn. In response to these events, Greeenspan quickly began dropping interest rates, bringing them below 2% in July, 2002, and reaching a low of only 1% in 2003. Most people now think he made some mistakes; first by keeping interest rates too low during the 1990’s, exacerbating that boom, and then by lowering them too far in the early years of the decade, and keeping them extremely low for too long. The incredibly low interest rates during this second period, lasting from summer 2002 to summer 2004, overlapped with house prices rocketing up at an incredibly fast pace. As explained before, interest rates for house mortgages are based off the Fed rate, so by keeping this too low people had an increased incentive to buy new and more expensive homes, as they would be able to afford them due to the low interest rates.

It is necessary to look further into the increase in demand for homes. In addition to the reasons mentioned above, we must look at how much easier it became to purchase homes. In the 1990’s, Democratic government strongly supported Fannie and Freddie, and passed legislation making it easier for them to take on loans from risky borrowers, as this helped poorer families qualify for buying homes. Upon his election, George Bush encouraged the continuation of this trend, calling for what he termed the “…ownership society.” Thus both Democratic and Republican governments encouraged a continually increasing pool of lower-middle class families to buy homes at interest rates which underestimated the risk of their defaulting. Banks also played a part in increasing demand. Whereas historically most banks did not lend to risky borrows, as previously mentioned, they increasingly began to utilize different forms of loans to attract these poorer buyers. Subprime lending refers to lending to people who do not qualify for prime rate loans, because they are perceived as higher risk. Due to the aforementioned low interest rates, subprime lending became a popular way for banks to give loans to high risk people, by charging them a higher (subprime) rate. There has been much criticism over the way lenders gave these loans out, and there is no doubt that some practiced deceptive techniques, not fully informing their customers of the fees which came with these mortgages. For example, many of them reset at higher interest rates after two years, or a like period of time; others involved hidden fees which did not become clear until after the loan had been taken out. Not everyone who took out these loans were being taken advantage of, however, as many were simply real estate speculators who hoped to flip the house for a profit before the higher rates kicked in, or were simply families buying homes they could not afford. Regardless of the reasons why people used subprime loans to buy houses, however, there is no doubt that they vastly increased demand and pushed house prices ever higher through the early years of this decade.

The final piece of the puzzle is to understand why banks were suddenly so eager to engage in this high-risk lending, and why they were able to, but that is too much information to put in here...

Sarah Palin and the Debate

I have to admit, when McCain first announced Sara Palin as his running mate part of me was excited. She was a fresh face, she was exciting, she was young and full of energy. It seemed clear from the minute he picked her that the dynamics of the race had changed. No longer did Barack Obama have singular ownership of claims on vitality, youth, and crowd-pleasing rhetoric. Perhaps she was just what the Republican party and McCain needed. That has worn off over the last few weeks, as I mentioned in my last post. Her lack of knowledge about vital situations essential to someone a breath away from the presidency is stunning, not to mention her fundamentalist views and odd associations with Alaskan Independence parties and a church which banishes demons from her and professes that Alaska is the Land of Refuge, to which we of the lower 48 states will thankfully flee in the (imminent) end times.

I will attempt here to briefly sum up a few instances in which Governor Palin has said something which causes me concern, specifically within the context of the interviews over the last few weeks with various members of the media. The first sign was her interview with Charlie Gibson of ABC, in which she was completely unaware of what the Bush Doctrine meant. It was completely clear that she had never heard this phrase before, which has been the central tenet of U.S. foreign policy in the years since the September 11th attacks (although it could be argued that it has quickly faded as a paradigm). After this interview I was concerned; how could someone with no knowledge of current foreign policy be expected to take the reigns in the middle of an undoubtedly challenging and demanding international situation for the U.S., in the middle of two wars, with a resurgent Russia, a rising China, and an unstable Middle East.

I resolved to hold off on my verdict for the time-being, and waited for Katie Couric's interview, to see if she would handle herself better with another week of study and prepping. She instead showed herself more unprepared, if possible. She began with incoherent statements about Vladimir Putin floating into Alaskan airspace, and then continued by failing to name a single Supreme Court case besides Roe v. Wade which she disagreed with. After this performance she had lost all credibility with me, and I awaited the vice-presidential debate with interest, half-expecting her to self-destruct on stage.

The debate itself was rather disappointing in its mundaneness. Senator Biden, fearful of saying anything which could be interpreted as "bullying" Mrs. Palin, ignored her the entire time, directing his attacks on Senator McCain, and only indirectly acknowledging that she shared the stage with him. Boring as he was, though, it was clear he had a grasp of every issue, and his competence was never questioned. Given that a large portion of the country shared my expectation of Mrs. Palin coming into the debate, all she had to do was not dissolve into incoherent babble and she would come out alright. She managed this handily, by relying on a set memorized responses of around twenty talking points, which matched up loosely with the questions asked. Early in the debate she cannily explained to those watching that she would not be answering the questions as posed, because she would rather speak "directly" to the American people. She threw in some of her folksy charm,winking at the audience and giving a "shout-out" to third-graders back in Wasilla.

After it was over, it was clear that Biden had won the debate if one measured it through the rubric of having and explaining policy differences, or through being qualified to run the country. Given the incredibly low expectations set for Mrs. Palin, however, it seemed that she came out of the debate as having done "better than expected," which perhaps will allow her to reclaim some of her momentum and status as an outsider. This debate seems likely to be looked at overall as a draw, much as last Friday's presidential debate was. This is good news for Senator Obama, as he has decent lead in most swing states and the overall polls, and without a dramatic event (such as the original, but temporary, boost to the McCain ticket when Mrs.Palin entered the race) things look grim for Senator McCain. Sarah Palin, however, lives to fight another day, and if she can manage to remain governor for a few more years, or even grab a Senate seat (depending on circumstances) she could be a force to be reckoned with in the coming years, just based in Anchorage, not Washington.

Choosing Sarah Palin Ruined John McCain

I have always thought the biggest reason to choose McCain over Obama was his proven ability to make ethical choices he believed to be correct in the face of opposition and in disagreement with his own party, his maverick quality, if you will. On tough issues like climate change, judicial nominations, torture, and immigration reform he had refused to march in lockstep with his party, instead doing what he believed to be correct. Early in his presidential campaign, when the Democratic candidates were pontificating against the surge, and even the other Republican ones were wavering and engaging in copious amounts of double-talk, McCain never wavered in his support, famously saying he ould rather lose an election than lose a war. Clearly it is not enough just to make decisions one believes are correct irregardless of public opinion and presssure, as we have found out to America's detriment during the Bush presidency. What sets McCain apart is that he is so often right, whereas Bush has been so often wrong.

In choosing Sarah Palin, however, McCain has failed this test on both levels. It has become clear that he initially wanted to choose Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman, two men who share many of his idelogicial views, are moderate, and have years of experience in Washington. Unfortunately, they are both pro-choice, and the evangelical base made it quite clear that they would be unwilling to support McCain if he chose one of them. Already weak with the religious base, he caved in to the pressure and chose someone who appealed to them instead.

In choosing Mrs. Palin, McCain went against his own judgement for political gain, and in so doing undercut what I believe was his strongest argument. Not only did he not follow his inner convictions, he also chose someone who will bring no substantive benefit to governing. Think about it. Can you imagine her doing anything substantive as vice president? Furthermore, one of McCain's greatest weaknesses has long been his age. I have always argued that this should be a moot point, assuming he chose a vice-presidential nominee who would be qualified to lead the country should he ever be unable. Having listened to Ms. Palin for a few weeks now, she is quite clearly unprepared to lead this country. Her lack of knowledge and comically absurd views are hard to reconcile with her possible future as head of the most powerful country on earth.

John McCain may not have been willing to lose a war to be president, but he was apparently ready to lose his reputation for honesty, good judgement, and independent decision-making. It pains me to write this, but I think John McCain is a maverick no longer, and I have come to believe he may not be the best choice for president.

Principles to Think On

In this election season, I think it is essential that we explore the underlying principles upon which each one of us should be basing our choices, and upon which we build our views and interpret the policies of the various candidates. What follows is a brief overview of my own principles. It builds upon the two previous posts, which lay the framework for my worldview.

My conception of humanity means that every human life is unique and valuable. This will manifest itself as a protection of individual rights and freedoms. As a unique individual, each person has right to choose their religious beliefs and to express their thoughts through publication and gatherings. Every person has the right to any thought they wish to think, no matter how heinous we may view it. When introduced into the public realm, however, each person’s rights do not extend infinitely. There is a natural limit whereby their rights meet another individual, and beyond which they cannot further extend without harming that individual. Thus, while a person has the right to believe as they see fit, and to introduce their original thoughts into the marketplace of humanity, they lose this right if, for example, their religion is dedicated to the subjugation of women, or their speech is specifically meant to incite violence against Muslims.

With the freedom of protecting one’s individuality there comes also responsibility, where each person as a human is responsible for their own good. I reject, as a limitation of each person’s liberty, the idea that such things as health care, food and water, and employment are innate human rights, on both practical and rational grounds. Each individual is accountable for his or her own actions. Each is responsible for these actions, and to put into place a system where the government operates on the assumption that as humans we have a right to a physical good means that the government has an ethical duty to provide it for all. It must do this by constraining its individual’s choices, either through mandatory entrance into certain programs as a condition of citizenship, or through increased taxation. We reject the idea that government has the right to restrict our freedom (therefore harming us), in order to care for those who have, as self-conscious human beings, ignored their rational drive and done something such as engaging in risky sexual behavior as directed by their survival drive, and have acquired HIV. However, I acknowledge that this issue quickly descends into a gray area, and while I will attempt to clarify that in the following sections, I admit it that there will always be areas of confusion, which are best solved at the ballot box.

In order to escape a system of injustice, we must provide each of our citizens the tools necessary to engage their rational drive. As we examined in the tour of human history, it took humanity thousands of years to escape from the singular compulsion of the survival drive. This was accomplished through knowledge and through a ready supply of food. Thus the constitution will have within it the guarantee that each child receives an education and a secure physical environment (including food and safety). As children are not yet mature, and are still developing the self-awareness which allows them to access the rational drive, we are able to take certain decisions on the nature of the good for them, specifically that of education. This education must be one which teaches rational thought, and opens the mind for the rational drive. Thus it must teach such scientifically valid concepts as evolution and the currently accepted scientific theory of the earth’s origins. It will teach the distinction between man as subject and man as citizen. Man as citizen is the embodiment of the rational drive, and they should be taught that this can be fully expressed through voting and through government service. Man as subject is the embodiment of the survival drive, and students will learn that they must seek to harness it and utilize it only in certain instances.

I do not believe in home schooling, unless it conforms to the curriculum, and will likewise govern any private schools (they may teach religious explanations, but may not do so in a science class, and they must teach scientific theories). I do not advocate a Platonic system where the concept of parents is completely obsolete, but nor do I believe that parents have any rationally exclusive claim to determining the good for their child. If they are unwilling or unable to provide for them in a manner consist with giving them the ability to exercise the rational drive, then society will either remove the child from their custody or properly equip them to care for their child, on a situational basis.

This raises the important issue of where the government has a right to intervene, and here it is important to reiterate that the government is the ultimate guarantor of each individual’s innate rights. The clear conclusion is that the government will intervene to protect them, but will always seek not to infringe upon them. If these come in conflict, the future right of the child to be free will be upheld over that of the adult’s, as it is assumed that the adult has made a poor decision which has resulted in them infringing upon the child’s rights, whereas the child is blameless. In this way one can justify removing a child from the home of an abusive parent or a drug addict. One will always seek what is best for the child.

What if the person whose freedom is being violated is not a child, but an adult? For example, if a man is abusing his wife. Based on the principles so far, one might assume that, while we will arrest and jail the violator, we will not engage in pity towards the victim, as she likely entered this relationship as a conscious choice, and thus should bear the responsibility.Society is not so callous as to ignore that she is likely now in a state of reduced freedom, and her choices may be constrained by fear and emotional damage. While I assert that through proper education, these situations will be lessened, I acknowledge that their will always be manifestations of the survival drive, as we are human, and that these may manifest themselves in a way which leaves others in a state of reduced freedom. Society will thus cautiously proceed in such situations, at times attempting through the state to restore people to a state of freedom, at other times letting them bear the full responsibilities of their actions. The decision will be based on whether we feel the responsibility is theirs, or whether we find extenuating circumstances which have lessened their ability to make these choices.

A good example is that of a child born HIV positive; they are clearly completely innocent of the situation which they were born into, and deserve to be taken care of as best as the society within which they are born into can do. Clearly most cases lie in between this and the other HIV case mentioned above, such as when a young girl may become HIV positive by engaging in dangerous sexual behavior when she is not educated on the dangers, or not fully engaged in the decision-making process. Similar moral dilemmas can be found in the cases of drug users seeking to escape from awful lives, the mentally ill, or those who have become HIV positive through a longtime partner’s unfaithfulness. In these cases society does have a certain ethical responsibility to take care of its less fortunate, and government programs will be initiated to do so. However, these situations will be considerably lessened with a successful education program. All of our citizens, as humans, have the right to a fair trial if they are accused of a crime. Every person has the right to a trained defense attorney to advocate on their behalf, and that there is a burden of proof which the state must surpass before it has the right to take away anyone’s individual freedom. We are not legal experts, and as such are unsure of how to implement a system which would provide a defense disentangled from the trapping of wealth, and guarantee an equal defense to a person regardless of their material well-being; we would however actively search for and advocate such a system.

An Overview of Human History

Eons ago, humanity slowly emerges out of Africa and begins it 200,000 year journey to the present day. In the beginning, this is an extremely violent time, as the survival drive manifests itself supreme upon the various hunter-gatherer groups which slowly spread across the planet. There is very little time to develop rational thought and knowledge, which is the path of escape from the singular impulses of the survival drive. Life is short and the physical struggle relentless. The physical processes of finding food and ensuring the survival of the next generation take up most of the day. Humanity is organized in small groups, which is a remnant of their evolutionary past, and allows them to better survive in the hostility of nature. When groups meet, they are just as likely to war with each other over scarce resources as to trade or share fledging technological advances. Groups must continuously move in search of food, and never settle in one area permanently (This also ensures that they eventually span much of the globe).

This savage condition of humanity continues for a seeming eternity. Then, 10,000 years ago, we can see another man (or woman), who suddenly makes the most important discovery known to man, the invention of agriculture. This is revolutionary. There is now both a means and reason for permanent settlement. There is a surplus of food, which leads to an increase in population. Urban settlements arise. Whereas before work had been merely divided between hunting and gathering or along other rudimentary lines, it now becomes increasingly specialized, with large sectors of the population escaping the tedium of a lifetime spent searching only for food. The surplus of food and increased specialization leads to some people engaging in jobs which need knowledge and information not found merely within the survival drive. Large societies arise around 6,000 years ago, and around 2,000 to 3,000 years ago, empires in Rome and China arise. The study of knowledge becomes increasingly important, with the Greek philosophers perhaps the most famous example. Technological and philosophical innovations continue, and drive humanity relentlessly forward.

This is not to say the survival drive has been abandoned. Its manifestation as power becomes ever more important as societies grow larger and larger. Whereas the initial division of power within small tribal groups was often based on physical strength or a predilection for finding food, it becomes an increasingly complex affair. Whole systems of government arise to entrench leaders in power, organized militaries appear, and rulers do everything they can to attempt to maintain their evolutionary advantageous position at the top of human society. Religions emerge, either as attempts to explain why the power system is naturally inequitable, or to foment revolution and attempt to bring a new group into power. In this way civilization is slowly built up, but the survival drive is the dominating force, and the species survival matters far more than the individual.

Man’s ability to overcome the survival drive also begins to irregularly manifest itself. The sciences arise, and a rational explanation is sought to explain nature’s compulsions. Political systems are developed which seek to advance the concept of man as having self-worth, and in which the individual is more than just a cog in the survival of the species. In the beginning, they prove unstable and prone to domination by the few (Greece and Rome quickly devolve into totalitarian systems). Theorists such as Hobbes seek to provide a justification for authoritarian political systems.

Then, in the 17th century, the Enlightenment brought about a new interest in rationality and the uniqueness and importance of the individual. Theorists such as Kant, Mill, Locke, and Rousseau imagined different concepts where the individual had innate value as an individual. New governments were put into place guaranteeing individuals certain rights, and stating that they had the same human status as their rulers. However, the French Revolution was an abject failure; it quickly transformed itself from the triumph of rational thought to the animal will of the mob, and then returned to its previous system of authoritarian rule. This is because the theorists of the time attempted to build a political system based solely on the rational drive, which we can recognize as impossible because man is not solely a rational creature. Other political systems which relied on man acting as only a rational being were also doomed to failure, with the perversion, rise, and fall of Communism as a prominent example.

Finally, we reach the present-day, and see much that is good in the world and has built on the lessons of history, but much that is left undone. There are many government systems which rely on some combination of our two drives, although there are also many which are still structured solely around the survival drive. Economic systems which seek to utilize only man’s rational drive have been abandoned, as it became clear they were untenable and inherently prone to abuse by those citizens who exercised merely their survival drive. The world has embraced the market system, and varying societies have advanced different mixes of the two drives to form unique combinations. Respect for the individual is on the rise; a few troubling counter ideologies remain, such as Muslim extremism, Fascism, and in a few places remnants of Communism, but humanity can glimpse a not too distant future of peace and plenty, with a basic respect for the individual enshrined as a global norm.

Musings on Human Nature

Every living being on this planet shares a survival instinct, refined and reformed over millennia by Darwinian evolution. Each plant and animal engages in a variety of functions which are aimed at survival for its particular species. The singular purpose of every organism is to reproduce, and thus to ensure species survival. A chicken’s only evolutionary goal is to produce as many eggs as possible, and to give them the best chance to survive until they too can procreate. Understood through this framework, it is simple to look at any animal’s physical characteristics or behavior and realize that it is all driven by this evolutionary mechanism of nature, which we will term the survival drive.

Each individual member of their species is merely acting out of evolutionary impulse to further his personal drive to procreate. This survival drive is composed of natural tendencies, of engaging in actions based on the laws of nature. All living things have this drive, and it is a particular drive, composed only of moments of necessity in time. Thus the senses are a product of this drive, as they are each organism’s individual mechanism for physically navigating through the world. This drive then depends on the individual, and the specific place and time in which he is doing the experiencing. Despite this dependence on the individual to physically navigate nature, it is important to realize that in the sense of having meaning, there is nothing at all different between every living plant and animal on this planet, as each one has emerged as it has in its specific time and place out of a long series of evolutionary choices made by the survival drive, and its particular manifestation is unimportant. Despite its particular manifestation as an individual organism, it has no claim to individual importance, being merely a set of impulses and instincts.

At some point in the distant past, however, which contemporary research suggests was about 200,000 years ago in Africa, there emerged a new species. This was a species unlike any other. It certainly contained the survival drive, as it was a living thing, and thus its members often behaved in a fashion which was fitting with that concept, attempting to procreate and further their species. However, it had the unique ability of self-realization, with which an individual member of this species could look upon their actions and consciously recognize the heavy hand of the survival drive as a compulsive force. While we may never know who made that first revolutionary realization, we can imagine a situation where a primitive man looks upon his actions, suddenly realizes that he had been engaging in them out of a compulsion, and begins the eternal struggle to resist the survival drive’s hitherto unchallenged rule over the actions of all. This capacity of resistance is what makes man unique in the cosmos. Having been fitted with self-realization by the process of evolution, he can now resist the compulsion of nature, and seek to make decisions based on concepts of knowledge, to advance a concept of morality and ethics, of the eternal and unchanging. This ability we call his rational drive.

Here it is important to note that we can never fully escape nature, nor would that escape be desirable. We, as human beings, cannot fully conquer our survival drive, as that would be synonymous with saying we are no longer physical beings. Clearly, we will always exist as physical beings within nature. Thus, while we may, through the utilization of our rational drive, make specific decisions based on our concept of the good, instead of in our self-interest, we can never fully escape our predilection for acting in our own self-interest.

We must now consider what that means, and to explore more fully how this interacts with our rational drive. This drives finds truths across space and time, which are eternal regardless of the individual experiencing them, and the specific time and place in which he is doing the experiencing. Perhaps man can exist without this drive, but he will do so at the expense of his humanity. If man becomes only a product of his survival drive, he ceases to exist as a human being with content, and becomes merely an instinctual force, driven on by his natural tendencies, simply reacting to each situation as it arises, following his feelings, much as any other organism within nature. Conversely, if man becomes only a product of his rational drive, he ceases to exist as an individual, and thus has no form, but is merely an automaton existing outside of time, with no individual identity (an impossibility, or at least outside of our conception).

Our unique human condition is thus found in the interaction between our survival drive and our rational drive, and the way this manifests itself within us. This also makes each individual unique and sacred, as through self-realization one can escape being merely a cog in nature’s complex system, and become a being which has the capacity to make decisions opposed to the designs of nature. Thus, while we always exist as specific instances in space-time, we also have the ability to connect these instances with unchanging eternity, and concepts which are valid regardless of their specific manifestation in the physical world. This is how we contact ethics and a sense of acting for the good, not simply for the pleasurable or for sensory satisfaction. Humanity, then, always has the compulsion of the survival drive, but can only sometimes act in according to the tenets of the rational drive. Having established this framework, we will go through a brief overview of human history, in order to explore how these two drives have manifested themselves throughout history, and to gain a better understanding of how to build a good political community.

A Philosophical Conversation

There are many diverse views of human nature in philosophy, and from them come an equally varied amount of political systems. Today three of the most famous political theorists, whose views have been essential building blocks upon which the governments of the Western world are built, have gathered to discuss their ideal political systems and the forces of humanity which drive them into being. Thomas Hobbes first published his famous treatise The Leviathan in 1651, in which he sets out his view of human nature and the ideal political system which will result from it. Jean Jacques Rousseau followed with his most famous work, The Social Contract, first published in 1762, a political treatise which basks in the enlightenment and rejects much of his predecessor’s philosophy. Finally, James Madison, the man responsible in large part for the American system of government, wrote his Federalist Papers in the late 1780’s, drawing upon ideas from his famous forebears to craft a new political system, which has proved remarkably durable and resistant to sweeping changes, and under which we live today. These three men will discuss their views, and we will observe and learn from their arguments and engagement.

To start then: the three will commence with a discussion of their view on the role of citizens in the government, and Rousseau has begun with the statement “…as soon as any man says of the affairs of the state, what does it matter to me? the state may be given up for lost.” Rousseau explains that the state is composed of the joint input of its entire citizenry, who must regularly gather to decide what is best for their society, and voice their opinion of this good. This constitutes the general will, and in so doing it the people form a sovereign, and thus legislate themselves. Rousseau goes on to say that in his conception of a state, the people will generally agree on the good, and eventually will come to recognize it to the point that decisions approach unanimity. He argues that if people elect representatives to legislate for them or if they merely stop attending out of apathy, then the general will is lost, as is the freedom found in the citizens as sovereign, and thus the justification for a just political society to exist. He does suggest that people will need an executive “lawgiver” to enact the laws which the people have decided upon, and a judiciary to help in situations where the government and the people have reached a disagreement, or individual people differently interpret laws, but the fundamental power to legislate must remain with the people en masse.

Hobbes appears derisive of Rousseau, and is mocking him, asking him if he has discovered a new species to populate his state, or if he plans on living in a city of angels. Hobbes explains that people will in no way approach decision making as a way to enhance their community, but rather act in a self-interested manner to further their own agendas. People are driven towards a material need to enhance themselves at all others expense, and will do so if there is a reasonable expectation they will be able to accomplish it without adverse consequences. Rousseau’s system is a perfect one for any person who wishes to take advantage of others, and Hobbes assures Rousseau it would not in practice work, but rather is incredibly unstable and prone to violence and abuse. Better, says Hobbes, to place all power in one person, whom he has termed a leviathan, and thus escape the uncertainty and instability of sharing power. In fact, Hobbes says, the citizens have no place at all in deciding how their society should be governed, aside from their initial decision to voluntary give the leviathan the power to govern them, and outside of defending themselves against execution. The most stable government structure, which will ensure the security of people and limit their ability to act in any selfish way which would return society to chaos, is one with an single absolute authority governing as a monarch, with the ability to both legislate, interpret, and enforce the laws.

Madison appears skeptical of both men, and thinks they have crafted equally flawed political systems. Responding to Hobbes, he appears a bit concerned at his unconcern for the individual and his willingness to trample upon what Madison terms their inalienable rights. He quotes Rousseau in saying that life is tranquil in dungeons, but that people are not happy there. However, he is not enamored with Rousseau either, and makes many of the same criticisms as Hobbes has made. People will tend to act in their self-interest, Madison asserts, and one cannot form a government based entirely on the concept that people can behave as rational citizens, concerned only with the common good, regardless of the adverse effects which they themselves may experience in response. Madison explains that in Rousseau’s system factions will arise, and that in practice the governing body will be composed of different groups arguing for their own conceptions of the good, which will likely be intertwined with self-interest. Thus Rousseau’s system will be unstable, as Hobbes has pointed out; prone to violence and abuse.

The speakers have became quite sidetracked by this discussion of factions, with Madison summing up his interpretation of his peer’s theories thusly; “There are… two methods of removing the causes of factions: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence (here Hobbes nods happily); the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” Rousseau explains that in his view the second one is quite close to what will occur in his state, but that citizens must only exercise this sense of unanimity when engaged in the legislating process. Also Rousseau says, he has placed strict limits on the size and diversity of his state for just this reason, and he candidly admits his ideas may not work well in a larger or more diverse state; furthermore, he asserts, people must be well educated. At this point he gets up and begins passing out copies of Emile to the audience, while Madison attempts to respond. Rousseau’s ideas are quite impossible, he says; man is fallible, unequal, and will always seek to advance different notions of the good. To say that something as subjective as a proper education will make them otherwise is completely asinine. Hobbes merely explains once again that factions cannot form if the government keeps a close enough watch over the people that they cannot exercise any political activities, and reasserts that stability and security are the most important products a government must provide, and that its people cannot ask for more.

Madison is now fleshing out his answer to the original question of people’s participation in government. Citizens, he says, must elect their own representatives, who are likely to be the wisest among them, and in so doing hope to control the power of subversive factions; in short, as there is no just way to prevent the causes of factions (Hobbes throws up his hands in disgust here), one must seek to control the effects. This is achieved by setting checks and balances upon the government, though different divisions. First, the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive must be held by different people, with complete separation between so they cannot influence each other. Here Madison turns to Rousseau, who has returned to his seat after running out of copies of Emile, and confronts him on the size of his state, asking him how in the contemporary world he could realistically expect to form a state in which the people are so similar, and the size is so small. He doesn’t wait for a reply, but explains that in his republic, the larger size and diversity is an asset, not a liability, and that a federalized form of government will ensure that minority voices are not trampled over, but rather given a pedestal upon which they can give voice to their concerns. Rousseau’s system, asserts Madison, will fall victim to the tyranny of the majority, whilst Hobbes is a simple tyranny; neither is suited to forming a just and effective government. He appears to have won the crowd over, and is receiving standing applause.

At this point questions are being asked, and the theorists are asked to flesh out some justifications and underlying foundations for their theories. They are asked their ideas concerning human nature, and to explain how their political systems have grown out of this interpretation. Hobbes, eager to regain some momentum, quickly responds. We must not think humans have any inherent goodness, he says, quickly gaining the crowds attention. Although not everyone is evil, and not everyone will act only in their self-interest, a great enough number are and will that it is rational to conceive of humanity as self-interested, and to base our actions upon that concept. At the base of this self-interest is a quest for individual survival, and all of our actions come from that concept. Furthermore, we are all roughly equal, and the greatest one of us is not so much greater than the weakest that we are immune to harm from that person. This leads to a concept of original society, a state of nature, as Hobbes terms it, where people each act according to their own survival instinct, and each has an incentive to distrust and preemptively engage another, in order not to be a victim. Their lives are “…solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” and the clear conclusion he draws is that any anarchic structure of society would be in effect a constant state of war. People will thus form a covenant, voluntarily giving up their own power to the leviathan, and giving him absolute control over the formation of society, to do as he pleases as long as security is maintained. In this way, and this way only, will peace be maintained and the awfulness of the state of nature escaped. The crowd is hushed, and Hobbes looks triumphant. He asserts that his prison does not look so bad, now that people understand the alternative.

Rousseau jumps into the quiet with a rejection of Hobbes’ view. People, he says, are by nature inclined towards two things. First, they look towards their own survival, and secondly they have a natural pity towards their fellow man. In his theory of the state of nature, people begin isolated and alone, and are moved only by basic physical needs. They are hunter-gatherers, and are limited enough in population that there is no scarcity, in contrast to Hobbes conception. They are also motivated towards pity of their fellow man, and are naturally disinclined to engage in violence or aggression towards him. However, this pity eventually leads them to form societies wherein they can help each other and more efficiently allocate their efforts. Living in society leads to emotional attachment between people, and thus to comparisons and value-setting, and people begin to view each other as having worth and status. People, once having become dependant on one another both physiologically and materially, cannot return to the original state of nature, and no longer live merely according to their natural needs. People then become dependant on material status, namely property, and economic inequality leads to political systems where the rich seek to perpetuate their wealth and keep the poor from changing the status quo. This leads to a political system based upon the rule of the strongest. Rousseau points out that Hobbes’ justification is merely a perpetuation of this political idea, and has been used by those in authority to maintain it at the people’s expense. That is why, he argues, his form of government is so important to enact. Having lost their natural freedom to the chains of materialism and wealth, which is expressed through the unjust political society they live in, people can only find freedom in the expression of themselves through the general will, and thus return to a state where they are self-governing, as they were in the state of nature. He notes here that it is important to realize that in the state of nature they were governing themselves according to physical laws, while in the just civil society they are governing themselves according to reason.

Madison has been sitting quietly for quite some time now, absorbing his colleagues present their contrasting views. Once again, he says, his colleagues have each presented flawed arguments; while each has captured a part of the truth, they have not managed to explain the complexity of human nature, and have each arrived at flawed conclusions. First of all, he says, they are both wrong in their assertion of natural equality. Man is clearly unequal in any number of ways, ways which are important and which directly affect their ability and method of interaction with political society. Some men are wiser than others, some are more likely to put their own good first, some to put the general will first. What is important is that they are all equal before the laws of society, and that no man can claim immunity from the law based on right of birth or supply of gold, including the executive, a point upon which he and Rousseau are in agreement (Hobbes, however, grimaces in clear disagreement). Madison agrees with Hobbes that man is by nature self-interested enough that he cannot be expected to enact laws according to an abstract general will, and explains that the government, as he previously observed, is created to ensure that this self-interest is controlled. He does agree that man has an innate self-worth, a right to that equality before the law, and a right to express their differing opinions. Like Rousseau, he sees property rights as the founding justification of government, one which has led men to engage in forming factions to protect their interests, and which has led to different classes, namely the property-owning and the proletariat. Since men are naturally unequal, they will necessarily acquire property unequally, which is just and which the government must protect; once again, what is important is their equality before the law.

Madison says his theory of human nature is the accurate one, and points to the success of his system as opposed to Rousseau’s and Hobbes’ ones, each of whose he once again critiques. The best form of government, he says, is one in which people’s self-interest is allowed to drive society, not one in which they must completely subjugate it to beneath reason. Better to let the government attempt the creation of laws concerning the good, and let the people engage in their selfish activities as long as they remain within this framework of laws. This political system will recognize man is not to be trusted to act in a moral fashion. Madison now quotes another of his colleagues whom he was known to disagree with, Thomas Jefferson, as having once said, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Man then, is bound by a web of regulations and norms which govern his behavior, and he is expected to make his way within them as best he can, putting himself first, and the community a distant second. Neither Hobbes nor Rousseau appears at all convinced, but then, as they are no longer living, how could they be?

What Happened To Karl Marx?

Marx’s revolution never happened; at least, not as he envisioned. After Marx and Engels wrote their theories, argued with their critics, oversaw or influenced the beginnings of numerous fledging Communist parties and movements, and finally passed awenvisioned and wrote about. When Lenin emerged as leader of the USSR it was through his own adaptation of Marxism, one meant to hasten the inevitable triumph of the proletariat and avoid the capitalist stage altogether; he did not follow Marx’s blueprint (although Marx did write that Communist revolutions could take place in agrarian societies, provided other criteria were met). The Communist regimes which followed, from Stalin’s Russia, Tito’s Yugoslavia, and Mao’s China to Pol Pot’s Cambodia and Castro’s Cuba, not to mention a host of other countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and South America which adopted its tenets to some degree, all failed to achieve what Marx had envisioned. Indeed, all those which showed any permanency were marked by similar characteristics. They did not allow for rival political thought. They did not allow or seeked to subvert religion. They centralized power. They forced dissidents to work in labor camps. They set up vast internal spy apparatuses. Inevitably, they moved towards handling people merely as a resource, which could be mobilized as needed, and who were valued merely for how they fit into the great machinery of the state. The worst of them brought about some of the greatest horrors mankind has seen, from Stalin’s gulags to the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge. With the fall of the Soviet Union and its client states, Communist as an alternative ideology has virtually disappeared from planet, and the few remaining cases are connected more by their poverty and repression than by any successful realization of Marx’s ideology.

Any interaction with Marxist ideology must address its failure to manifest itself as a workable political system.

To those who would defend him still, the meaning in his writings were subverted, the revolution came too early, or was never fully or energetically implemented. For those who see the innate contradiction and incoherence of his ideology, what happened was the inevitable result of a flawed theoretical construct of the world, based less on the science it claimed to be a product of than on the flawed writings of an admittedly brilliant man, whose attempt to reduce the entirety of human existence, past, present, and future, to a simple calculation of economic progress and process was ultimately unachievable.

The lack of success in achieving Marxist society, and the abuses and hardships which resulted from attempting it are a direct product of the flaws within his original theory. Marx believed that the state would ultimately ‘wither away.’ In order to achieve the goal, however, he espoused centralization, increasing the government's power. Marx’s theory claimed to explain the entirety of human existence; however he left out many specific policies and ways of achieving them, often explaining that these would become clear only through experience. He wanted to liberate the working class; but to do this he argued for a strict hierarchical structure of revolution under tight central control. He supported the use of terror by the Jacobins in France; he argued for the violent assumption of power by the proletariat. His depiction of economics as the primary factor within which history flowed was overly simplistic, and his denial of the importance of religion and culture, and his own vision of a future free of them, led to further oppression wherever Communism took root. Communism did not manifest itself as totalitarian despite Marx’s views; it did so because of them.

This is not to say Marx’s ideas did not have value; the very scale of his vision is stunning, and he exhibited instances of prescience. His depiction of economic globalization was dead-on. His vision of economic activity as ever-increasing was accurate. His view of capitalism as rewarding those who minimized labor costs through innovation and increased efficiency was brilliant (His theory of the value of labor does not account for technological innovations or efficiency gains as an alternative means from which the entrepreneur could extract the surplus however, as he maintained it was always at the expense of the laborer).

In a different sense, the ideas he espoused were interpreted in ways which increased the power of labor vis-à-vis employers. Strikes, collective bargaining, and unions all came about as a result of leftist pressure and organization, from intellectuals and activists who often had read Marx. Similarly, pension plans and social security blankets were adopted by government in order to defang Marxist critics. Although Marx himself would surely be furious at those interpretations of his writings, seeing them as a betrayal of his uncompromising vision, they have surely benefited the world and its inhabitants. This seems to be the remnants of Marxism today. Well, that and its use as a critical framework to examine the negatives of capitalism. Pointing out negatives, however, does nothing besides pass the time if it is not used as a tool to search for solutions, and Marx left it to others to accomplish that.

Why Thomas Hobbes Matters Today

Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan was a groundbreaking work in its time, and the ideas he put forth still hold importance and relevance to us today. His essential argument is that people are by nature self-interested and concerned primarily with their own survival. Any anarchic structure of society would thus be in effect a constant state of war, which can only be stopped if the participants submit themselves to an absolute authority. This argument is easily understood, and the elements of truth in it are evident anywhere authority breaks down (Somalia, Yugoslavia during the breakup, etc..). Despite this, virtually no one in today’s world, and particularly in the developed world, would agree with all aspects of Hobbes’ thought, especially his assertion that we must always submit to the Leviathan, who may act as brutally to us as he so wishes, trampling upon our individualism, so long as absolute authority is maintained.

My primary area of disagreement with Hobbes philosophical thought is his simplistic construction of human instinct in such a way that it always manifests itself as a drive for individual survival. A cursory study of human history shows many instances where man has martyred himself for some perceived cause, be that his family, his faith, his country, his culture, or some other reason. In smaller ways too, men have shown a capacity to act against this individualistic nature (survival instinct), offering others sustenance or shelter at their own expense. Indeed, a woman in nature must do this biologically if she is to fulfill her natural purpose of reproduction, weakening herself in order to provide nutrients for her child (both before and after birth). Although a complete survey is likely impossible, it is relatively simple to examine a few prominent examples of individual sacrifice.

Family sacrifice – As mentioned above, a mother must routinely go through sacrifice for her child. Parents in general will weaken or even martyr themselves for their children, or even their spouse. This can perhaps be explained through the urgings of evolution, as evolutionarily each individual is just a vehicle for carrying our genes to the next generation.
Religious sacrifice – Religious martyrs are a timely example of individual sacrifice, as the individual kills himself for a perceived spiritual gain. Perhaps this can be explained by the belief in an afterlife, making this sacrifice just a rational decision to ensure a better eternal life, but it still contradicts Hobbes’ insistence on survival in this plane.
Sacrifice for country or ideals – This sacrifice is hardest to justify, as one must extrapolate the survival mechanism onto ensuring the survival of certain ideas or culture as being more important than the individual, which Hobbes does not seem to allow for.

Although it seems clear that Hobbes does not account for the survival mechanism’s transcendence of the individual, could we instead view Hobbes arguments n the sepcies level. In the above examples, we could construct a unified argument which asserted that every case of persoanl sacrifice as done for the greater benefit of advancing humanity. However, I would argue further that the survival mechanism is not always the proper construct to view a man’s actions. Instead, I would argue that each individual has within them an ethical self which is capable of overcoming their survival instinct, and making decision’s based instead on a greater good. Looking at the world through this medium, it is easy to see whereby a man might sacrifice himself for a cause he viewed as ethically right, ignoring his survival impulse. If this view is accepted, it also leads one to see why Hobbes Leviathan would be unjust in his ability to terrorize the individual for the good of society, as the intrinsic value of each human being must be protected, often even at the expense of society, an idea which has been used often in our own country’s history.

This is not to say Hobbes’ theories do not have worth; they have been valuable in constructing theories of international relations, and I believe they do largely explain the evolutionary side of man’s dual nature. Also, there is an important and often overlooked part of Hobbes’ theory which I think has been essential to shaping Western society, and at some level has contributed to the success and development of the Western world. This is his insistence that the power of the Leviathan comes from the people. In the 1600’s much political thought was based upon the idea that sovereigns ruled by a divine right, (given to them by God) and thus their authority existed outside of their subjects. By constructing a theory where the sovereign’s authority comes from the people, Hobbes helped put in motion what would become the separation of church and state, and eventually the ability of people to check the authority of the executive through certain other institutions (admittedly, he did not intend to argue for a modern republic). The increased importance of this idea coincides with the rise of Western power, in contrast with the decline of Persian and Arab empires, where this idea did not gain primacy (although it existed in some form), and helped set in motion the power structure of today’s world.

Barack Obama and the VP Nominee

So who will Barack Obama pick as his choice for vice-president?

Does it matter? After all, the vice-president is really only responsible for one important function; voting to break ties in the Senate. After an initial burst of news, the vast majority of dialogue will quickly revert to the candidates themselves. Barack Obama generates headlines by the minute, and his support comes more from his soaring rhetoric and personality than for policy minutiae, qualities which lend themselves to his certain overshadowing of any candidate he might pick. Many vice-presidents have gone four or even eight years without making any significant policy decisions.

Others, however, have been an instrumental part of their boss’s team (one need look no further than the last eight years to see perhaps the most influential vice president in history). Young and in perfect health, full of energy and lofty (if vague) ideas, it is unlikely, although not impossible, that any vice president in an Obama administration will have significant influence in making policy decisions, as Dick Cheney and, to a lesser extent, Al Gore enjoyed.

Despite all this, it does matter; his choice of running mate will indicate the region or policy area where Mr. Obama feels he needs a little boost, and help frame the issues which the campaign wishes to disucss. So what qualities does Mr. Obama possess that will narrow down his choices, and what might he be looking for in a running mate?

Love him or hate him, Barack Obama is a mold-breaking politician. The most mentioned theme running through his campaign is his race. As a black man running for president in the United States, he has had both challenges and opportunities that no previous white nominee has experienced. By running on a message of unity and emphasizing a focus on healing divisions, he has sought to portray himself as a post-racial candidate, one who can bridge the black-white divide and act as the embodiment of America’s final atonement for its racially charged past, leading the country into a glorious future of unity and understanding. Although this is a strong message, and one his many supporters frequently point out, it has not stopped racially based fear and mistrust. Thanks in part to the Clintons’ tireless attempt to portray him as a “black candidate,” and helped immeasurably by Jeremiah Wright, the primary polls showed an increasing number of white voters who said that race was a factor in their decision, and an increasing number of those who did not vote for Mr. Obama. This was especially true in states in which both black and white voters were living in large numbers and intermingling; hardly meshing with his theme of unity and a post-racial America.

His speaking ability and message of hope has inspired many, but it never caught on in heavily blue-collar areas the way it did with young voters or those who worked in white-collar America. Partly due to the lack of specifics beneath his hopeful rhetoric, and exacerbated by some ill-advised statements he made about blue-collar people “clinging to guns and religion,” he was increasingly portrayed as an elitist who was out-of-touch with everyday American concerns during the primaries. John McCain has continued to emphasize this, running ads proclaiming that Mr. Obama is the “biggest celebrity in the world,” and his recent vacation in Hawaii has not helped matters.

A companion to the idea that Mr. Obama is an out-of-touch celebrity elitist is the inescapable fact that beneath his soaring rhetoric lays a politician with remarkably few accomplishments or convictions. He has been a national politician for less than a single term. He has virtually no foreign policy experience (outside of undergraduate school), and his time in the Senate has passed with relatively few laws that he can claim to have had any part in helping to craft. He has no executive experience, and has never been in charge of anything noteworthy. If not for an amazing speech in 2004, it is highly unlikely he would have even ran for president, never mind inspiring the millions that now extol his virtues.

When thinking of who to pick for his running mate, what must Barack Obama consider? Generally, candidates are looking for certain qualities in a vice-presidential nominee. They can balance the ticket, providing reassuring experience and accomplishments in an area where the candidate is weak. Mr. Obama can thus attempt to offset his most glaring policy weakness, his lack of foreign policy experience in the middle of a war. People such as Delaware Senator Joe Biden or New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson would appear to be good choices if that is his main focus. Or perhaps he is most worried about his inability to connect with white working class voters. Joe Biden still works here, but an all minority ticket with Bill Richardson might be too much of a test of America’s tolerance, as might one with a woman such as Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. He may want someone with executive experience, such as Virginia Governor Tim Kaine. The last reason to pick a candidate is to win a certain state. The names mentioned most often for this reason are Mr. Kaine and Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, another white man, who would appear to give the Democrats a good chance to win Indiana. Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania would also work based on this reasoning, but he appears an unlikely choice based on his propensity to speak a little too freely, and his tendency to criticize everyone.

There appears to be a final three who would be up to the job and meet the most important criteria; namely being a white man without major baggage. Messrs. Biden, Kaine, and Bayh would each bring something different to the ticket. Joe Biden, a former presidential candidate in his own right, has a long and impressive foreign policy resume, and would take care of Obama’s biggest policy weakness. He has spent the last few days in Georgia, prominently backing that country (at least with words) in its conflict with Russia. On the surface, he seems to be the strongest candidate, one who can appeal to a vast majority of voters, and who is well-respected for his knowledge and experience on both sides of the aisle. Look closer though, and his weaknesses appear. He was laughed out of his first presidential campaign after stealing large swathes of speeches from a British politician; last year he offended many by proclaiming that Mr. Obama was the first clean-cut black man to run for president. Mr. Obama could go with one of the other two, who are both calming presences and more prone to boring speeches than off-the-cuff gaffes. It could depend on which state (Virginia or Indiana) could be put over the top by his choice. The risk to choosing Mr. Kaine, who is pro-life, is that women who supported Hillary Clinton may view it as the one slap in the face too many, and the love-in Mr. Obama has planned for the convention in Denver, which is supposed to unify the party behind him and bring the remaining Clintonites into the fold, could turn into an ugly spectacle. Mr. Kaine also has no foreign policy experience, and would not seem to help Mr. Obama too much outside of Virginia. The risk to choosing Mr. Bayh is that his early support for Iraq and his generally centrist policies could anger Obama activists who are already unhappy about their man’s move to the center, although most of them would grudgingly admit that they would vote for Mr. Obama no matter how far he moves out of the hard left. Mr. Bayh would also help to heal the rifts left over from the primaries, as he was a strong supporter of the Clintons and is seen as more of an insider politician, something which carries its own risks.

All in all, it should come down Mr. Bayh or Mr. Biden, and the recent events in Georgia would seem to give the edge to Mr. Biden, although a last second gaffe or some new scandal can always tip the balance (as can an unknown affair or other piece of dirt). No one involved in choosing Mr. Obama’s running mate is likely to forget George McGovern, and the disaster that was Thomas Eagleton and electroshock therapy.