Justification

"No God condones terror.  No grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives, or the oppression of those who are weaker or fewer in number."

Interesting remarks by the president at a prayer breakfast remind us that what we see in ISIS is not a uniquely Middle East horror.

"We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions."

"So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religion for their own murderous ends?"

He went on to paint reality as it is, "Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ."

He didn't mention the thousands of lynchings of black Americans.  He could have, though.  Blacks, well into the 20th century, understood their place wasn't necessarily a safe one.  Lynching (reported) continued into the mid-60's (or 80's). Hate crimes continue.  Orlando, Dallas, San Bernardino, Boston.

March 2014, a leader of the Traditional American Knights of the KKK told a reporter, “We are a Christian organization.”  "It's not a hateful thing to want to maintain White Supremacy," he explained.  On a Twitter feed, he claimed the Klan is “about love for God, race and nation.”  Imagine the confusion in the minds of children being raised in that culture.

It's worth remembering that such hatred and discrimination are destructive and murderous. Justification by religious rhetoric only compounds the depth of harm done.

Dealing with root issues is difficult.

In 1970, I was in a Navy school in Georgia.  My friend Freddie and I had Sunday free and were glad for the chance to get away, go to church, and eat lunch off base.  At the Baptist church in town, we were met by the deacons as we entered, "You'll want to go someplace else," the head deacon told us.  It hadn't occurred to Freddie or to me that him being black was an issue.  I don't hold a grudge, and I hope Freddie doesn't, but that particular knife wound in my heart still hurts a bit sometimes.

When I see hatred and selfishness played out under some religious veil today, well, it's difficult to respond graciously, as you might imagine.  "No God condones terror.  No grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives, or the oppression of those who are weaker or fewer in number." ⁽¹⁾

Liberty and justice for all, as we're reminded today ...
That's our declaration, our deeply-held conviction, perhaps our calling.

We are thankful for every life and inspired by every individual who courageously stands for justice.  It's no small service.

___________________________________________________
Consider: Terrorism has no religion as a perhaps starting point for further inquiry.
Or (ref), (ref) (ref), it is an ongoing discussion and objectivity is difficult for the fearful.

No big deal

Judge William Young sentencing the shoe bomber

Remember the fellow who got on a plane with a bomb built into his shoe and tried to light it?

His trial is over.

Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say.  His response: after admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his "allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah," defiantly stating, "I think I will not apologize for my actions," and told the court "I am at war with your country."

Here's what the Judge Young had to say:

"Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you.

On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutively. (That's 80 years.)

On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years, again to be served consecutively to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you for each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000, that's an aggregate fine of $2 million. The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.

The Court imposes upon you an $800 special assessment. The Court imposes upon you, five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.

This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence.

Now, let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether the officers of government do it, or your attorney does it, or if you think you are a soldier, you are not-----, you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're no warrior. I've known warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and the TV crews were, and he said:

'You're no big deal.'

You are no big deal.

What your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have, as honestly as I know how, tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today?

I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty, and admit you are guilty, of doing? And, I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know.

It seems to me, you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose. Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom. It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom, so that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely. It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf, have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges.

We Americans are all about freedom. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. The day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure.

Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America , the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice, is in fact being done. The very President of the United States through his officers, will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America . That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. And it always will.

Mr. Custody Officer. Stand him down." 

______________________________________

Not bad, sir. Not bad at all.

Citizens and their message to elected officials

Dear elected officials,
If we're not making progress toward LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, you're doing it wrong.  You need to shape up or ship out.  
 
For the scorekeepers, the bottom 90% have seen little improvement in recent decades while the nation's wealthiest have profited extraordinarily. Higher education is more difficult to achieve.  Social and economic mobility have declined, and economic inequality (the GAP) has increased.  That trend now infects the rest of the developing world.(1) (2) (3) Our elected officials did that, and that's both parties as influenced by wealth.

What might a nation's purpose be?  A corrupt and inexcusable outcome would be the advancement of the elite at the expense of all others.  That's the path we've walked for the last half century.  You can understand why the citizenry might be angry.

American History - The Nation's First Words

Here's a perspective that might look familiar to today's observant citizens.

Prelude to War!   In Virginia, the French and British were quarreling over land and the right to settle folks on it.  Land companies had been formed in Virginia to exploit the development of the region.  The French and Indian War that followed was just another contest, a continuation of the conflict between the two empires, and it was, as we now understand, an economic war for who gets the riches and the right to rule. 

The French and the British had long been engaged in conquest for wealth and expanse.  Claiming a land as their own, everything in it became national property. The method, sometimes called 'mercantilism', is a government's practice of controlling the economy for the purpose of increasing the wealth of one nation alone. It is monopolistic; i.e., an exclusive privilege to develop and conduct trade.  By granting monopolies to those companies and people whom they control, governments increase the wealth at their disposal.  That's how it works.

Mercantilism is sometimes described as economic nationalism, since it aims at enriching the nation at the expense of others. It is based on the premise that in international trade, one nation must gain and another must lose. 

Adam Smith spoke clearly against the idea in his Wealth of Nations. Mercantilism, he argued, is the equivalent of economic warfare, and often leads to war between nations. Free trade, on the other hand, when unencumbered by mercantilist practices such as government subsidies for certain industries, tariffs, and monetary restrictions, tends to promote peaceful relations between countries.  Is he right?  How are we doing?

By the time of the French and Indian War, the French and British empires had been at each other's throats for more than half a century. This would be but the latest engagement in a long series. These imperial wars spanned the European continent and spilled into to the Atlantic, the Caribbean and North America, into the Indian Ocean and beyond. The French suffered a humiliating defeat in the French and Indian War, perhaps one reason they were later eager to help the Americans in their rebellion against the British.  

1754-1763 

• Nine years of the French and Indian War; meanwhile, empire and wealth rule.

1763-1774

• King George raises taxes on trade in the colonies, hoping to salvage the Brit's national economy; their war debt is crippling. It causes opposition in the colonies, of course; the Tea Party, etc.  Tension escalates steadily through the years; violence ensues along with revolutionary rhetoric.

1775

• The War of Independence finally begins with the battles of Lexington and Concord.

1776-1780

• Our Declaration of Independence announces the birth of the nation, and the Articles of Confederation are introduced as the war rages on.

1781-1782

• The Articles of Confederation are ratified, and finally after seven years, the war ends.

1783-1791

• Our first years as a new nation, learning and laboring to build a process of good government.

• The Constitutional Convention and subsequent ratification of our Constitution by the states.

The path of revolution spanned decades.  The price was extracted in lives and deaths over those years and afterwards.  Childhoods and dreams, days of peace, of joy, and years - forfeit.  All for the sake of - our freedom.  And it changed the world.

The Nation's First Words  --  The revolution was entered into by men and women who understood.  I will no longer sacrifice my life and that of my children for the sake of a king's wealth and dominion.  I will not pour out my life for some empire builder, nor will  I will sacrifice my children's future for some distant wealthy few who mercantilize the very reason for our existence.  

"What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760–1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington."  President John Adams

There was clarity and extraordinary nobility in that revolution and in the principles upon which the nation was subsequently founded; it was quite personal.  

So today as monied influence again controls the political arena, as multi-national corporations rule the world marketplace, as trade has become yet again an economic warfare whose first purpose is the extraction of wealth from individuals and from countries for the sake of the wealthy few, what might the response be from a good conscience before God?  Is our culture focused on things of which He might approve?  And, how might He describe our lifestyle?  Is this the needle's eye, perhaps, through which neither camel nor the wealthy might pass?  

If you've not lost a beloved father, a precious child, or a dear friend to the wars of empire and the economic warfare that continues today, you are unusual in this world.  Through poverty, deprivation, oppression, and armed conflict, most of us have. Gladly have the kings of this world offered up our children on the altar to their gods of wealth and rule.  

As we were reminded on a recent Sunday morning, in the history of mankind, there's been only one who, rather than requiring of us the sacrifice of our children, has given His own son for the redemption of us all.  That which we see happening before us today is not the world He offers.  Not yet.  :)

______________________________________

So, is this coming election a turning point in our national history? Or as some have suggested, is it the bottom of our decline beyond which we might rise to some more noble stature? :) Living through history is such a pain, and it takes years longer than we'd like. There are so many great things about being an American and about living in this country. We can only hope that this deadly era will one day be far behind us.

From our declaration, and worth refreshing our memory,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The Virtue of Selfishness

Ayn Rand - in Manhattan in 1957

Ayn Rand wrote a book by that title in which she justified the selfish choices everyone makes. She went on to condemn altruism as incompatible with the requirements for human life and happiness.  She was a brilliant lady, an atheist and objectivist who insisted on "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Selfishness is both necessary and morally right, she tells us, and a person's reasoning is the only law.

Is she right?  Is altruism just wrong thinking?

In the book, she compares the industrialist/producer with a bank robber, both pursuing personal fortune.

• The producer is virtuous, she says, despite having the same motivation of greed.  She offers us, “Yet . . . there is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery...."  She's perhaps right about the industrialist/producer, of course.
• She considers the robber's behavior to be sub-human and the producer to be noble.
• She encourages the wealthy to pursue more, motivated by healthy greed.
• And personal sacrifice is abhorrent.

So, did she notice that business motivated by such greed is likely to be abusive?   We know that problems may arise when you consider the capitalist model in which the industrialist operates.

• The industrialist/businessman can look exactly like the robber with the only difference between the two being the legality (or illegality) of their behavior.  
• It is illegal to rob a bank.  
• It is legal, however, 
• to underpay employees, 
• to limit hours to avoid paying benefits, 
• to avoid regulatory compliance by offshoring artificial transactions, 
• to target (neuromarketing) advertising to children, 
• to misrepresent (lie about) a product's value and utility, 
• to extract wealth from the economy without providing benefit in return.

Is business good or bad?  To be fair, there are those who innovate and improve our world, and there are those in business who do harm.  Some contribute wonderfully, and some suck the life out of us.  It would appear that Rand's observations of greedy business were perhaps idealistic, ignoring the depth of unconscionable practices common in the business community even during her formative years.  The only 'ethical' criteria applied to such practices was (and is) profitability and avoidance of legal repercussions.

She arrived at her basic thinking as a teenager, she tells us.  Born in 1905 in Russia to a middle class family, she and they were devastated by the revolutions of the time.  The family business was confiscated, and they were driven from their home.  They fled for their lives, nearing starvation on multiple occasions before finally settling in the U.S.  Today ...

"Her ideas permeate contemporary American policies and institutions. Hundreds of former protégés, including Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan, Libertarian Party founder John Hospers, former Barron’s editorial director Robert Bleiberg, and best-selling psychologist of self-esteem Nathaniel Branden, lead government agencies, publications, corporations, and popular movements. Forbes and Fortune regularly mention Rand as a present-day hero of young Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Television hosts and Tea Party activists invoke her name. Hundreds of campus study groups and clubs continue to debate her views."

“A trader,” she writes, “is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved.  He does not treat men as masters or slaves, but as independent equals.  He deals with men by means of a free, voluntary, unforced, uncoerced exchange - an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgment.”

Ah, there we come to the heart of the matter.  Ayn Rand is quite clear that her view of capitalism is precise and ideal and virtually unrelated to modern business practices.  There is nothing wrong with capitalism, but capitalists can be lying, murderous sub-humans, not unlike the bank robber in her earlier description.

Wealth distribution in America in the years since Ayn Rand

"Pure capitalism," she concludes, "has never existed: but in the countries that approached it, with America in the second half of the nineteenth century leading the way, the individual was able to flourish. This is because capitalism is the only system that fully recognizes that man is the rational being who 'has the right to exist for his own sake,' free from coercion by others."   

And there you have it.  We perhaps came close, briefly. Ayn Rand died in 1982, just as explosive inequality and the GAP began to infect the world marketplace.  The nation she knew had been growing with opportunity for most.  Subsequent years saw opportunity and gains going exclusively to the wealthiest 10% at the expense of everyone else.

I don't agree with Rand and her followers on many issues, but on this one point (and perhaps only this one), we agree.

"We've never seen pure capitalism."  

Perhaps that's because there are no pure capitalists, and some (not all, but some) are these greedy sub-humans that are willing to get rich at the expense of other's lives, literally.

As for altruism, well that's another story entirely. I suspect she may have disagreed with herself on that one. 
Thanks and a hat tip to my friend Joel for provoking this re-review.

Note: Ayn Rand is rather famous for being slightly off the mark in her attacks. Take a look at her website and see if you can spot any misidentification of opposing values and subsequent off-target responses.

By way of example, she tells us her opinion of the communists who took over her homeland when she was a child; "The advocates of collectivism are motivated not by a desire for men’s happiness, but by hatred for man . . . hatred of the good for being the good; . . . the focus of that hatred, the target of its passionate fury, is the man of ability." 

Notice how, as she attacks this group, ...

• she ascribes a root motive (hatred for man),
• then she ascribes a behavioral rationale (hatred of the good for being good), 
• and identifies a hypothetical innocent victim (their target ,,, the man of ability) 
• for the group's irrational and evil behavior (that hatred, passionate fury).   

She passes judgement on the basis of her critique, but each attribution is oddly unreasonable and unsupported by available evidence.  Still, she's popular, and not for her objectivity but for her literature; all wonderfully illustrative and engaging.  Needless to say, she's been a controversial voice.

Academic philosophers have mostly ignored or rejected Rand's philosophy.^[ref]  Nonetheless, Objectivism has been a significant influence among libertarians and American conservatives.^[ref]

Thoughts on her contribution to our culture?

Rising Inequality

Rising Inequality: How to Reverse It.


DEVELOPMENT & SOCIETY : Sustainability, Poverty, Economics, Social Development
2014•11•10 Annett Victorero and Dominik Etienne, United Nations University

The last decade has witnessed a revival of concern over the impact of high-income concentration on economic development and wellbeing. The global distribution of income has for decades resembled a ‘champagne glass’, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Distribution of world GDP, by quintiles; richest 20% top, poorest bottom. Source: Ortiz and Cummin (UNICEF, 2011).

Today, the top 20 percent receive more than 70 percent of the global income, and the top 1 percent (70 million people) earn as much as the poorest 3.5 billion people — that is half the world population. Some positive news can be found, for example in the case of Latin America, but progress is much too slow. At the current rate of progress it would take 800 years for the bottom quintile to get even 10 percent of the global income.

To discuss why it is crucial to integrate the economic equity perspective into national and international development processes, UNU-WIDER, the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) organized a policy seminar and shared examples of policies that have worked.

On 23 October more than 50 representatives of over 20 international organizations — among them 13 UN agencies and bodies — and permanent missions to the UN joined in the discussions with an expert panel consisting of Isabel Ortiz, Richard Kozul-Wright and Giovanni Andrea Cornia. The meeting was chaired by Tony Addison, Deputy Director and Chief Economist of UNU-WIDER.

Inequality must be a cornerstone of the development agenda post-2015

According to Ortiz the case for equity is now enormous; it is not only about social justice. Equity contributes to growth and builds political stability. Indeed some countries in Asia and Latin America have been focusing on cutting inequality in order to foster national demand and consumption.

But in order to bring equity into the development agenda and policy advice of international organizations the key will be to mainstream it systematically into all sectors — from agriculture, education and health to finance, trade, industry and others (Figure 3). It is not enough to simply be undertaking a few interventions in selected areas.

Sector	Typical interventions with equitable outcomes	Typical interventions with inequitable/regressive outcomes
Education	Universal free education; scholarships and programmes to retain students	User fees; commercialization of education; cost-saving in teacher’s salaries
Energy and Mining	Rural electrification; life-line tariffs (subsidized basic consumption for low- income households); windfall social funds; contract laws ensuring local benefits from natural resources	Untaxed oil/mineral extraction
Finance	Regional rural banks; branching out to local areas; managing finance (regulating financial and commodity markets, capital controls)	Financial liberalization; rescue of banking system (transfers to large banks); subsidies to large private enterprises
Health	Universal primary and secondary health services; nutrition programmes; free reproductive health services	User fees; commercialization of health; tertiary highly specialized clinics that benefit a few (e.g. cardiology centers)
Housing	Subsidized housing for lower income groups; upgrading of sub-standard housing	Public housing finance for upper income groups
Industry	Technology policy to support competitive, employment-generating domestic industries, SMEs	Deregulation; general trade liberalization
Labour	Active and passive labour programmes; employment-generating policies	Labour flexibilization

 These excerpts are from a longer article that first appeared in WIDERAngle newsletter.  United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER).  This work is licensed under a CC BY NC SA 3.0 IGO License.  Included here for perspective on shared concerns.