The Macroprudential Motive

America's founders distrusted pure democracy.  They feared it would devolve into a tyranny of the majority whereby majorities would act as dictators over minorities and individuals.  For this reason, they established a constitutional republic, a representative democracy, buttressed by a Bill of individual Rights.

We often hear demagogues propose what is big-picture best: policies that will minimize pain for a majority or maximize gain for the many.  Their arguments are compelling.  They seem to contemplate what is best for the most.  They express sympathy for what seems to be mainstream.  Often, they are propounded by experts.  Of course, we should always consent to such macro-prudence?

For example, some might assert that to save or stimulate the economy more extreme and extra-legal interventionism is prudent as dictated by the Federal Reserve.  After all, isn't resuscitating our economy worth every and any expense?

What is arguably macro-prudential may be adverse to what is micro-existential.  If pure democracy might devolve into a tyranny of the majority, macroprudential policy might become a tyranny of enforced opinions dictated by "experts" to "save" the rest of us dumb blokes from ourselves and our individual rights.  Recognize that, in crisis, macroprudential arguments are used to overcome restraints (ie. constitutional restraints, legal restraints, moral restraints, restraints on government).  The pursuit of what is prudent from a macro-perspective is good as long as it is restrained by the rule of law.  When it isn't, it is just the prudence of a pack as sensed by the olfactory of a fallible, hungry alpha male.

Police State

According to an article entitled "FBI Agents Say Rivals Encroach on Their Turf" the Wall Street Journal reports, "In the past year, 61% of the FBI's field offices have run into 'severe' or 'moderate' conflicts with other federal law-enforcement agencies, according to an internal (FBI) survey."  State and local law-enforcement agencies are persuaded that other federal agencies "are attempting to.....usurp the FBI's role in ongoing investigations" according to an internal FBI memo.  And most FBI special agents have experienced "mission creep" as a result of encroachment by other federal police.  But the FBI survey reflects the alarm of agents only, not the concerns of FBI leadership, according to an agency spokesperson.

It is notable that overlapping police jurisdictions are a defining characteristic of totalitarianism.  Overlap makes authority arbitrary and bureaucratic.  It has the effect of atomizing (Hannah Arendt's word) humanity.  This makes a policeman no more secure in his authority, purpose, jurisdiction, employment, and safety, no more certain of his certitude in execution, than is a lay person in her identity or innocence.  Everything, (ie. authority, identity, security) is an arbitrary grant in a totalitarian state--and subject to arbitrary seizure.

The Anti-Diversity Agenda

While many gay rights advocates consider themselves champions of diversity, there are elements of anti-diversity to gay marriage.  One is biological.  The emerging science of behavioral epigenetics asserts that environment determines, in part, the psychology and behavior of future generations.  In other words, what you are biologically is determined, in part, by the events and experiences of your father’s and grandmother’s life.  Environment imprints our forefathers and foremothers, activating some of our genes and deemphasizing others.  This imprint from environment is passed to one’s progeny biologically.  Notably, children raised in same-sex marriages are reared by a single sex.  They lack the heterogeneous influence of both--very different--sexes in parenting.  Their parents are homogeneous—not just physically--but psychologically and behaviorally.  Confrontations, conciliations, and compromises between gender heterogeneous, independent individuals are not observed by these children at home.  This homogeneity of behavior and psychology at home, this lack of diversity in their environment will be expressed epigenetically in them.  Their children and grandchildren will inherit it.  It may be amplified in their future relationships—homogenizing the psychology and behavior of their children and grandchildren.

For good or ill, homogeneity will induce conformity and collectivism—perhaps unconsciously enforced by epigenetics.  And conformity and collectivism has risks.  Under this prospective regime, the individual might be as discernable to the human eye as is a seal lying supine amid a sea of barking sames.  Such colonies might be attuned in the collective to some dangers but will they be alert to the dangers of conformity and collectivism?  Or, will homogeneity eliminate the discernment and discrimination that defined and preserved our species?  Also, will compromises between truly heterogeneous ideas and individuals become impossible?  Or, will divergent psychology and behavior, bifurcated by identity and reinforced by epigenetics, irreconcilably divide and ultimately destroy society?  Without more time and information, to the general satisfaction, we mortals can’t say for certain.  But while we retain the consciousness and discretion to discern the risks inherent in the homogeneity of homosexual unions, before diversity is pared and paired away epigenetically—shouldn’t we exercise caution, investigate the effects of homogeneous pairing across generations, and openly debate the merits and demerits of what is a draconian, unprecedented, unpopular, and unscientific shift in social policy?

It is unfortunate that this reasoned thesis might incense some.  They may accuse the author of ‘hate speech’—denounce him as a ‘hater’—because he advocates caution, discretion, study, debate, and time.  They may seek to censor or silence him as they have others.  Or, levy new economic and social sanctions against him for his opinions.  And they may succeed—if so nefarious a thing can be termed success.

Remarkably, anti-diversity in the form of censorship has flourished in America:  opposition to gay marriage has not really had a hearing recent years in any mass media outlet—including outlets as avowedly conservative as Fox News (ie. consider the Craig James firing).  The silencing of dissent about gay marriage in America coincides with America’s plunge in terms of relative press freedom:  Reporters Without Borders has demoted the United States in its international press freedom index from a ranking of number 17 in 2002, the first year the index was produced, to number 46 in 2014—to a position between its new peers, Romania and Haiti.  Perhaps the censorship of opposition to gay marriage in America arose much as it has emerged in Italy:  the Italian press, which reports from an overwhelmingly Catholic country, has recently been enjoined by a European decree to portray total societal acceptance of and to gag all opposition to homosexual relations and unions.  For a reporter to contradict such censorious edicts from supranational sovereigns may be to sacrifice one’s standing and career in media—such edicts may be enough to cow content providers.  Apparently, one of the risks of the homogeneity of homosexual unions is not just manifest but is, in fact, realized—conformity in the form of coercive political correctness already chills free speech and stamps out diversity of opinion in the American and international media.

Moreover, an incapacity for compromise appears already in America in the scorched earth strategies of those who promote, as a minority, homogenous marriages.  For example, many of these partisans refuse to buy the products (ie. chicken at Chick-Fil-A) of their political opposition.  For example, observe how the promotion and continued employment of Mozilla’s eminently qualified co-founder, the creator of JavaScript, from Chief Technology Officer to Chief Executive Officer was contemporaneously undermined by Mozilla employees and a Mozilla-affiliated company, OK Cupid, because he made a contribution to support Proposition 8.  Observe the contemporaneous departures by members of the Mozilla Board after he was promoted.  Apparently, he was rejected as unfit to lead not because he once opposed gay marriage (even Harry Reid and Barack Obama did this) but because he would not renounce his beliefs and affirm gay marriage. 

An un-diverse incapacity for compromise also appears in federal workplace policies promulgated by the Justice Department—the arm of the executive charged with establishing justice in America.  While the Constitution provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any public Trust under the United States”, the Attorney General has promulgated workplace policies that assay one’s affirmation of alternative lifestyles.  To comply, managers: “DON’T judge or remain silent….. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval”; “Attend LBGT events sponsored by DOJ Pride”; “display a symbol” (ie. a DOJ Pride sticker).  The persons promulgating these policies are not content to censor others, they require a pledge of allegiance to LGBT lifestyles.  For many, this is unconscionable.  It would require a renunciation of their faith—as a test of their compliance with unconstitutional workplace policy.

An incapacity for compromise advances in our courts.  Observe how judges have, by fiat, recently overturned statutes and amendments defining marriage in many states—including conservative states—contrary to the popular will.  In rejecting the popular will, the judiciary does not appear to be deliberative—but desperate, inflammatory, and uncompromising. 

For example, consider how Wisconsin and Indiana were given a pre-verdict bench whipping by "conservative" Illinois judge Richard Posner as they sought to defend their populist constitution and laws.  He interrupted their arguments early and often to lecture them and to observe:  "You don't have any empirical or even conjectural basis for your law.....funny."  Does Mr. Posner have any empirical or even conjectural basis against the laws--is that why he is altogether dismissing populist laws--at the risk of inflaming the majorities (ie. 3.3 million Wisconsin voters) who passed the laws on some basis whether empirical or conjectural?  In his book "Reflections on Judging" Mr. Posner observes:   "in many cases judges can't have any confidence in the soundness of their decisions if they do not have empirical data concerning the likely consequences of deciding the case one way or another" (never mind the rule of law) but apparently Mr. Posner will make this decision based on conjecture only and needs no empirical data--because empirical data about same sex marriage is virtually non-existent.  Same sex households only made their debut in U.S. Census Bureau data in 2010 (in the American Community Survey estimates)--representing 1% of the population.  Questions such as those that follow about same sex households cannot be answered empirically with data.  What is the duration of a typical same-sex union?  What fraction of the $250,000 cost to rear a child is incurred by a same-sex household?  If it is much lower than the fraction incurred by an average household, does this economic disadvantage deter other Americans from child-bearing?  What is the typical level of educational attainment, crime rate, divorce and separation rate, suicide rate, unemployment rate, median income, savings rate, and tax rate among same-sex households and among households comprised of children raised by same-sex households?  At present, these questions cannot be answered with data.  Even if Mr. Posner, the most cited legal scholar in America, omits to consider whether law or justice will be coherent without the Judeo-Christian moral objectivity of America's founders, without empirical data to support "the soundness of (his) decision"--which data does not exist--Mr. Posner's opinion, to redefine marriage by overturning populist laws, must be based solely and hypocritically on conjecture.  It must be arbitrary and make laws arbitrary.
 

If heterogeneous speech and acts continue to be repressed in America by an uncompromising, censorious, anti-diversity minority, we might anticipate at any day now the establishment of that most homogeneous regime of all, totalitarianism--a regime in which all expression and all thought yield--a regime which sacrifices humanity and humans--to homogenous ideology.

This trend leaves many of us wondering, what is the paradigm of this anti-diversity minority?  We recognize that censorship and political persecution—even censorship and persecution of ‘bigots’--is un-American.  Alarm about this trend is increased by observing that one of the declared goals of the Communist party (in 1963) was to “present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as ‘normal, natural, and healthy’”—a goal this censorious minority supports.  We recall it was communism and its isms like Stalinism and Maoism which dictated that some individuals, identities, and ideas were dispensable, and so, dispensed of them.  We remain incredulous that this is their ideal only because once speech is subdued, once folks are just factors, can these fellow Americans really expect not to be an eventual offering on their own anti-diversity altar?

For more on this topic, see the post entitled "Abraham Lincoln, Conspiracy Theorist".

On Cults of Personality and Social Capital

Even among social conservatives, some suggest that there are persons who are so good, so noble, so virtuous, and so unselfish that laws ought not to bind them--that such persons ought to be above liability.  In some state, somewhere in America, there is an executive, so secure in the trust of administrators and legislators that he enjoys an exemption by law or execution from law and liability.  In some church, somewhere in America, there is a shepherd, so secure in the trust of his sheep that he need not fear to disregard the law and reap the consequences:  his sheep know that he observes a higher law.  Above the law, these persons might slander, defraud, coerce, and oppress others without legal consequence.  But they won’t, some assure us, even though they are, actually or effectively, lifted above the law, because of their perceived virtue.  And if they ever do, it will only be for the good of all--including those who have been slandered, defrauded, coerced, and oppressed by them.

While some persons may exhibit supreme goodness, unless they are supreme in every way—a virtual and virtuous dictator—is there any security in license for them or others--even in their virtue?  So long as they are subject to higher authority and subject to less virtuous cults of personality, might they not be coerced, by their superiors, to use their license for evil--unless they are willing to sacrifice everything that they value (ie. life, liberty, health, wealth, reputation, family, community, and etc.) for any virtuous principle at any time?  In other words, is there any integrity to virtue when it is released from liability and law but still under authority less virtuous?

An example will illustrate this problem.  Suppose there was a judge so goodly and wise and virtuous that his people made him king--setting him above the laws of man.  His word and person became the very law of the kingdom itself.  His picture adorned every building in the kingdom.  And the people rejoiced.  But time passed, and the kingdom was annexed by a greater kingdom.  A stronger king arose who was not without virtue, but almost.  This king was shrewd.  He knew of the esteem enjoyed by the lesser king because of his virtue.  So, he did not dethrone him.  Instead, he put his words and ideas in the lesser king's mouth.  In loyalty (?), the lesser king spoke them.  And the subjects obeyed them.  But in time, it appeared that the words and ideas of the stronger king were not loyal to the first kingdom and its people.  In fact, they divided the kingdom against itself.  This caused the virtuous king to mourn.  Out of virtue (?), he avoided conflict, secretly (!) snubbing his superior and any who took sides.  But his head was on fire and his heart was at war:  to preserve his virtue, he must, out of loyalty to his kingdom and people, sacrifice himself for virtuous principles; but to keep the people generally secure beneath his better influence (?), he must betray the principles of the first kingdom and its people.  Would he trade individual virtue and conscience for general peace and security?  He grieved:  "if only", he thought:  "if only, our king were subject to just laws; if only I were subject to just laws--and not lifted above them by the esteem of others for my unbounded virtue."

Once above the law (by policy or practice) but still subject to less virtuous others, such persons will face unconscionable choices:  for example, what level of lawlessness will they tolerate in their masters, in others, and in themselves?  Will their license as an arbiter become the means of lawless pardon or condemnation as they obey authority and/or expediency?  What lengths will they go to uphold an order for others that they themselves are above?  Will they, for example, put themselves at hazard for laws that apply arbitrarily to others only?  What virtuous principles must never be compromised to license (ie. the license of one's superior)?  In other words, what level of lawlessness would cause one, lifted above the law, on principle, to reject higher authority and to sacrifice life or liberty, health or wealth, reputation, family, or community?  Also, will license, even in virtuous practice, necessitate cascading lawlessness out of fear that one's subordinate license will come to be prosecuted by higher authority?  Will the virtuous, perhaps overwrought by the demand for charismatic leadership, perhaps out of love toward family and friends, confer their license on others?  Who, then, will remain liable to the law except the obscure?  Will the just and lawful interests of the least ever trump the license of one acting on behalf of the many, influenced by the most, under his license of virtue?  License exercised within but acting outside a rule of law is deceit.  It is antithetical to integrity and to virtue.  When it lacks sovereignty, doesn't the license of virtue become just a wicked and corruptible law unto itself?

Anti-Semitism as Strategy

The Holocaust, the extermination of six million Jews and others, manifests how specious were claims, by the Nazis, of Jewish domination in pre-war German society.  If the Jews dominated, how did the Anti-Semitic Nazis rise meteorically—almost without opposition?

While some deny it even occurred, many have sought to understand this enigma of evil, the Holocaust.  After all, to understand it may be to avert future atrocities.  So, many ask:  how is it possible that such overt evil ever came into existence?!?

Often, this search for understanding pursues evidence of provocations—possible provocations by Jews from Germany's past or from Hitler's early life.  For example, to understand the Holocaust, some point to parts the Jews had in German politics (ie. communist revolution).  Others point to parts Jews played in Hitler's life--so as to identify possible provocations.  But while historic provocations may help us understand pre-war prejudices against Judaism, they cannot explain or excuse the enigma of Nazi atrocities.

Some blame the Holocaust on religion.  Hitler, they insist, was a Christian; and his avowals attest it!  They would have us take the Fuhrer at his word—spoken by a delusional megalomaniac to manipulate a Christian populace.  Efforts are afoot to revise Nazi history:  some seek to delete or discredit the many shockingly godless, atheistic, Social Darwinist statements once attributed to Hitler even as revisionists seek to conflate National Socialism and Christianity.  If Hitler can be connected to Christianity, atheist theories are vindicated:  the enigma of evil, the Holocaust, is explained—this conflict, like all others, is, at heart, religious; and outlawing religion, man might have peace.  While some might construe Hitler’s words to be a Christian’s; none can construe his works to be a Christian’s.  Christianity concerns itself with means; but Nazism never did.  It is hard to imagine anything more woeful than the fruits of Nazism--those gassed and gaping Jews.  And by their fruits, we know them.  No, National Socialism was not Christian; it was applied Social Darwinism: it was evolution engineered by the state—eugenics vulgarized, collectivized, fanaticized, and militarized.

Some have characterized Anti-Semitism as element of Nazism only—as an extreme, fringe element that was not elemental to Nazism.  But that was not Hitler’s view.  And it was not his policy.  He considered Anti-Semitism--not just an element of--but elemental to National Socialism.  It was integral.  It was not a tactic:  it was key strategy for National Socialism.

Remember, the Nazis sought to transform Germany.  They would usher in a millennium of Germanic governance—a Third Reich, the Reich of a Thousand Years.  It was their burden to conform the past and future to their world view—to make themselves heirs of the Holy Roman Empire and champions of a Third Reich.  Because Judaism offered an alternate, competing, compelling, ancient and future world view, the scapegoating of Jews was strategic for Nazis.  It eliminated an alternative world view.  And it cowed many Christians.

The Frowny Flappy Birds of U.S. Foreign Policy

Anymore, it seems like American foreign policy is a video game. In the media, it looks virtual; it seems like an online sport with scores (ie. 300 in Ukraine). And it is about as consequential to polls. 

Sometimes, we look like Flappy Bird. Our delegates dodge swelling convulsions in foreign countries--flapping over, under, and around them with frowning faces. Their faces seem to say the mayhem is kept down by their frenetic frowning and dodging. Perhaps the 'game' manual they opt to reference contains instructions like these: "use only three of the controls to win--the arrows to evade, the grimace button, and the gorilla grimace button--use the gorilla grimace button only for extraordinary emergencies". But is the object of this 'game' to frown and dodge? Who is actually at the controls? Is this video game something we can just turn off and put away like a teen when we tire of it or when we get 'poned shamefully for confining ourselves to only three controls (among many) and keeping one hand tied behind our back? If we do, will its mayhem land in our living rooms and its gore spatter the walls of our homes?

Law-ful-less-ness

God's law is love.  In fact, as John, the Revelator, noted, God is love.  The earthly throne of Jehovah, the throne from which he judged the children of Israel was the 'mercy seat'.  It was perched on the ark of the covenant which enclosed Israel's law (the Ten Commandments written on tablets of stone).  This symbolized God's judgment:  law is less than love toward God and man.

Often, men stumble in judgment as Micah observed (Micah 6:6-15):  "O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"  Micah was outraged that judges in Israel executed the law without love toward God and man--using "wicked balances" and "deceitful weights"--respecting persons and not fearing God.  Then, as now, laws were executed without the priority and perspective that only love of God and man brings.  He denounced elevated exactions under human law:  "thousands of rams..... rivers of oil, my firstborn for my transgression".  Micah worried:  to expect men to do more than what is just, merciful, and humble toward God might be too much--they might muddle love and law.

Love of God and man is what Jesus embodied.  For omitting vain observances, for committing acts of love arguably prohibited by law, for chastening others out of love, Jesus was arrested, condemned, and crucified.

So began a historic tug-of-war between love and law.  Consider another example:  legalism deceived Paul.  And it later defied his preaching.  That tension persists:  loveless legalism recurs today.

Laws and judgment are honest and simple when they are based on love of God and man.  They don't need volumes of legalese nor expert interpretations and arguments--the least and the layman understands them; they are applied unequivocally to everyone: no one is above or beneath the law.  Legal priorities and perspectives are ordered by love of God and man.  Love confirms the moral authority of the judge, legislator, and executor.  Even the censured are elevated by such laws.  In short, where charity is the law, there is security and stability.

In contrast, unless it is founded on love of God and man, human law oppresses.  It makes some men the conquest of others.  Those that lack love resort to legalism to exalt themselves and to abase others.  Multiplying and magnifying commandments in minutiae, like Pharisees, they make themselves a law which others can't know or keep--preferring certain outward performances to uncertain inward faith and love--preferring substance and social standing to the insecurity of seeking God's will.  With a corner on law and lawyers, they condone (ie. for profit) or condemn and divide others at will.  As the law itself, they acknowledge no interpretations of law but their own.  Their law-ful-less-ness seeks security for self even as it keeps others insecure.  This then is their doctrine and law: to be alone established in the earth; to be alone exalted everywhere.  Ultimately, the dark edicts of men eclipse the light of God's love.  Men's hearts fail; love wanes and waxes cold.  Man, following such law-ful-less-ness, deserts God's love in favor of secular security and becomes apostate.

Then, the wicked rule; but God is not mocked:  out of love, he defers judgment--granting men the consolation they choose.  Some crave secular security however fleeting, however licentious, and however hazardous to one's soul; others put their faith in God's love, peace, and security, however tenuous it may seem to some.  Ultimately, men will reap the fruit that they have sown.  Thorns will bear thorns.  And vineyards will bear grapes.  Without love and without God, human laws and commandments are just snares both to the trappers and to those trapped by them.  They condemn the persons they judge uncharitably (and therefore unjustly) and condemn the judge, legislator, and executor for their lack of love.  The people lose their respect for law when it respects persons.  Without the priority and perspective only love can lend, authority is made contemptible--and must rely on cults of personality, travesties, and surveillance to maintain order.  Eventually, legalism--law, without love of God and man--invites fearful insecurity for all.  Unchecked, law-ful-less-ness will consume all secular security.  And all but the poor and meek, those who put their trust in God, will be left without consolation.

Without love of God and man, fear and compulsion prevails.  Fearful and insecure because they deny God and love and distrust others, the law-ful-less consult the Oracles of technology (unconstitutionally and uncharitably) to peer in upon others, to ascertain the color of their thoughts, to discover disagreeable propensities that might be prosecuted or retroactively outlawed for arrests and convictions, to stamp out and counter discouraging and dissenting words before they are spoken, and etc.  Ironically, this acute judgment judges them.  It leaves them without consolation even in the kingdom they make to themselves.  Love and truth rots in them.  What they are becoming, treacherous and barbarous misanthropists, is what they see in surround and what they produce by contact.  Their own madness descends upon them:  treacherous, they cannot trust (ie. in truth), barbarous, they know no sympathy (ie. for self); without trust and sympathy, because they are human, they can have no emotional security.  So they seek physical security in cynical community, in perishable accumulations, in sleepless, ubiquitous surveillance, and in arms.  But security defies them:  human, they are incapable of insuring their own unassailable security--and daily security seems slighter to them.  For their continuing vulnerability, for His concept of and conditions on security, they resent God and begrudge the faithful.  This unholy social cycle spins.  And security is daily more elusive because of the treachery, barbarism, and inequality introduced by the law-ful-less into their own kingdom.  Ultimately, the means will be the end:  the cycle will end with those who set it in motion--when they let the love of God and man back into their laws and lives or when treachery and barbarism cease to respect persons.