But what about governments...

A recent thread caused me to start thinking about taxes of all things. The particular topic of taxes is divisive obviously. The truth is that if we remove self-interest, the conversation should be more abstract.

Taxes are necessary in order for a government to operate. Governments are necessary for the continuation of human civilization and for a number of other reasons. Those other reasons are what we pay for.

The preamble of our constitution spells out many of these reasons. These reasons are the very reasons why anarchy is not a realistic goal. Governments are designed to provide services individuals cannot provide for themselves. They are designed to take care of our infirmed. They are designed to build infrastructure. Interstate commerce would be impossible without a federal government. Further international relations are facilitated by governments.

Governments vary. Their involvement varies. But their goal is to provide those things individuals cannot provide for themselves. I cannot build a bridge. I cannot gather a coalition of individuals to build a bridge. Without a government of some sort, no bridges would be built.

Many of the debates currently going on involve economic oversight by our government in particular. I hate to say it, but that's not the government's job. The government's job is to provide an environment that allows individuals the opportunity to rise and fall. The government's job is to setup the criteria under which commerce can take place. They are not a bank. They are not an entrepreneur. They are not a safety net.

That being said, they cannot be uninvolved. They must regulate. They must decide the laws. They must protect consumers. They must keep the game fair. The alternative is unbridled capitalism. This simply doesn't work. It is unsustainable. We see it's effects everywhere. An asbestos plant long since closed that still negatively effects the ground water. Thousands of acres of land which will never allow growth again due to the slag piles left there. Debts that have caused international incidents. Thousands dead in fires, explosions, and other accidents which could easily have been prevented.

Some may argue this, but I have met very few people who believe that some regulation of commerce isn't necessary. The robber barons had to be stopped. The Pinkertons needed to be disbanded. Children have no place on assembly lines. You may note that the tactics of the Pinkertons and use of child labor is illegal. Yes, it is.... now.

The truth is that energy companies are not going to stop burning coal of their own volition. Laws and regulations must be passed banning its use. There is no reason to aid companies in transitioning. There is no need for levying or tariffing. The simple approach is the most straightforward. No need to measure output levels etc.

But there are issues which are not as cut-and-dry. Let me take the simple example of high fructose corn syrup. I have attempted to avoid the product for years. Why? Simply because I don't need any more corn in my diet and I would prefer less chemicals in my food. It is clear however that there was some reason why companies making consumer products began using it en masse. I have heard it noted that it is cheaper and easier to process. By and large studies regarding high fructose corn syrup have revealed no health concerns. For this reason, it is not the government's job to limit its use. If it is found to have harmful effects, its use should be prohibited. But, I must wonder whether it is cheaper as a result of the ridiculously subsidized corn industry or simply because it is. We made an error in the past. We had our reasons for this error but in truth we confused aiding our fellow men with aiding an industry.

An industry has no rights. It can live and die. Humans banding together do not provide them with any different protections than their members. I realize that without subsidy, many companies would fail. They would simply be replaced by other companies. Humans need very little corn in their diet. It is not the job of our government to control what people do and do not grow. Does this mean that human stupidity can lead to widespread failures? Yes. I see no problem with this. Would I prefer that we use ethanol as a fuel? Yes. Do I therefore feel that ethanol production should be subsidized? No. A requirement on utilization will suffice.

I am not saying that regulation is simple. The production of ethanol is a perfect example. Does one first require car manufacturers to produce vehicles that can use it? Or simply require that only a certain amount of fossil fuels can be burned by vehicles? Do we require gas stations to pump a certain percentage of it? Do we require that they offer an alternative pump? We cannot require consumers to purchase it. What if they do not? Do we then subsidize its creation so that it is economical for the purveyors?

I do believe that the government should be less involved in the inner workings of industry. I feel that market correction does happen. I feel that a "free market" economy is a good approach. However, I have very little interest in reducing regulation. I am interested in reducing subsidy, tariff, and price control. It is the government's job to protect your person. It is the government's job to protect your freedom. It is the government's job to protect your rights. It has never been the government's job to protect your income or your share price. At least not the government of this country.

It is my last name after all...

I would like to thank the people at Pandora for reuniting me with parts of my mind.

I often "aim" posts at those who have lost faith. Not faith in something beyond this physical plane, but it their fellow human beings. In a way, this is simply defense of my world view. In my little world, we our are only hope. My faith in humanity is what allows me to see another world, a better world.

So, occasionally I wonder why I maintain this belief. I question everything. It is my nature. Why then given the visions of humans at large would I choose to see "good" and light? The answer is simple in a way... music..

Art as a whole would be a more precise answer but avoiding the rhetoric of the definition of art seemed simpler. We as humans have learned to communicate beauty, love, anger, and pain. The greatest among our wordsmiths can evoke emotions regardless of distance, time, or listener. The poets touch us, move us. But over the millenia, we have combined this poetry with mixtures of percussion, vocalizations, vibrating strings, bending reeds, and changes in air pressure. The very air has become our tool. And when combined, the world changes.

There are many that have been moved by Whitman, but everyone knows the words of Lennon and McCartney. Whether or not they moved you... Whether or not you connected with them... The words are there. My very mention of the name has had an effect.

We have done this as a group. We have learned to communicate in moments decades of thoughts, feelings, and knowledge. From those that created the instruments, recording equipment, and broadcast systems, to the artists, to the listeners themselves.

The tones, rhythms, and timing give phrasing to the words. They add a depth the words alone can not. In some cases of spoken word, these tones are from the words themselves, but the very bending of the air around us has the power one would expect. It suffuses us. It penetrates. It evokes.

I would also put forward that it does not overpower at its best. Unlike its cousin the motion picture, it does not attempt to tell the whole story itself. It lets the listener add their own visuals, just as the still photo and work of paint and pen allow the viewer to add their own soundtrack. Yet, it conveys more of the artist intention than the work of print.

Not to downplay the power of any of these works. The emotion of fear has not been evoked by music in my own case, yet movies and live performances have had this effect in numerous cases. The works of Steinbeck have brought tears to my eyes on many occasions. I have felt the joy of protagonists and loathed antagonists and vice versa more times than I can count. The mere mention of the name Jane Austen causes me to become irrational.

But, where I do feel music has an advantage is its response time. A poet with the aid of musical accompaniment can have their effect in moments. Causing listeners to rise up, to come down, to remember the lost, to feel the need for loved ones, to wish for a different time, to wish for time to stand still, to move, to stay still, to dance, to laugh, to smile, to cry...

With this ability to generate beauty... With this power at our disposal... How can I not see the light in my fellow humans? They are all listeners.

Why I don't write....

If one looks back at this collection of 0's and 1's, they would think that the tragic has avoided me. To a large extent it has. My life has been simple and my cares small.

But there is another factor. I have spent a good deal of my life being silent. I believe that words have power. I believe that a wordsmith can change the world with them. Although I will not credit myself with that title, I hope that my words have some effect.

What I have never been able to do with words is mend. Words may be able to heal, but I lack the skill to use them in that way. In truth, I have not witnessed words heal. I have seen them tear and harm. I have seen them change people before my eyes. I have never seen them silence grief. Where a hand can offer strength, offer aid, offer support, offer warmth, offer friendship, connect 2 humans... words are a poor surrogate.

We humans have spread out. We can communicate across countries, across continents and oceans, in select circumstances across millions of miles. But what we have found out again and again, is that human interaction was designed for occurring within the range of 2 extended hands.

I can show you photos of other worlds, other stars, the other side of our own world. I can speak to you about warmth or cold, about pain and joy. You can hear the song of whales in your living room or view a mountain range on the other side of the world from your chair. But what I can't do is let you touch the water. To feel the wind on your face, you have to be there. To offer my hand or my shoulder, I must be near you.

And so, these bits are inadequate. There is no use in storing them. I have no perspective to add. I can not say anything to ease pain. I don't wish to store the failure for later review. Perhaps, if I do, I can learn from the failure.

But the risk of adding to the pain is simply too great. And so, I will simply try to digitize a touch, a handshake, a hug. If I fail, no one will know of it. If I succeed, I will have something to offer other than silence.