I've thought often about what kind of vows I consider taking should I ever have the privilege of marrying someone.  

Without going to far into my own thoughts on what I would say, I offer these as a good set of vows.  They are clearly Christian, and they are deeply rooted in the text and context in which we understand Ephesians 5.  Before anyone takes offense about misogyny or chauvinism, I submit to you that having a husband who leads by sacrificing isn't 重男轻女。。。The challenge to any couple making vows like those below is realizing that they are both unattainable as broken humans, but that they can remain a sign post or a pole with which to organize one's marriage and responses to the stress and challenges that are implicit in the journey of marriage.

Mull.  I'll respond to these more personally in a later post by this weekend.

Yes, it's been a long time.

Thanks CY and TC, EN and MN!

 

Bride-

 

I vow to you before friends, family, and God these things, which apart from the grace of God, I cannot fulfill because of my present weaknesses and continued sinfulness.

 

As the church loves Christ sacrificially

so I vow to give up all things to love you apart from Christ

As the church loves Christ supremely above all else

so I vow to always delight only in you apart from Christ

As the church loves Christ eternally

so I vow to love you until my dying day

As the church cherishes Christ

so I vow to regard you as my greatest treasure next to Christ

As the church submits to Christ

so I vow to submit to you

As the church represents Christ

so I vow to represent you with all dignity and honor

As the church obeys Christ

so I vow to respectfully obey you

As the church serves Christ

so I vow to serve you with all humility and patience

And just as the church

Will forever remain the bride of Christ

 

So I vow to never depart from or abandon you,

For richer or for poorer

In sickness and in health

For better or for worse

Until death do us part

 

By my love, I hope to prepare you

For the Lord Jesus Christ, whose love

I can only hope to faintly imitate.

 

Groom

 

I vow to you before friends, family, and God these things, which apart from the grace of God, I cannot fulfill because of my present weaknesses and continued sinfulness.

 

As Christ loves His church sacrificially

so I vow to sacrifice all for your sake apart from Christ

As Christ loves His church supremely

so I vow to forever delight in only you apart from Christ

As Christ loves His church eternally

so I vow to love you until my dying day

As Christ provides for His church

so I vow to provide for you

As Christ sanctifies His church

so I vow to lead you in holiness

As Christ cherishes His church

so I vow to make you my greatest treasure next to Christ

As Christ leads His church

so I vow to lead you in accordance to the holy commandments

of our God and King

As Christ serves His church

so I vow to serve you with all humility and patience

And just as Christ has promised

Never to leave or forsake His church

 

So I vow to never depart from or abandon you,

For richer or for poorer

In sickness and in health

For better or for worse

Until death do us part

 

By my love, I hope to prepare you

For the One whose love

I can only but hope to faintly imitate.

It's very interesting to me that the debate in congress and with the Oval Office centers on taxing the rich.  For disclosure, I will have my taxes increase under the proposed changes, so read this with a grain of salt.

The discussion on taxing the rich is actually quite a sad misdirection in that the concept that made so many upset with Romney was his effective tax rate in the teens.  The present changes do nothing to affect his tax rate, nor most of the 0.1% and up, because the majority of their wealth is from capital gains rather than in wages.  Small business owners are in this category as well - their business earnings will be taxed as personal income tax at the highest rate should they exceed 200K/250K depending on marital status.

Net effect?

Working professionals are taxed more, truly wealthy are largely unaffected.  This has 0 effect on a trust fund kid or an heiress, as they have no wages.  Many Congressmen and Senators become wealthy from investment as well, taxed at capital gains rates... and many finance firms earn their money from capital gains rates as well - although some of these Bush era changes are going to expire as well.  If the top tax bracket tax does go up, it just widens the gap between the truly wealthy and the rest of us.  

If the government really wanted to narrow the GINI, this isn't the way to do it - the towering piles of capital exist in the leadership of both liberals and conservatives - I find it humourous that these tax changes will not disproportionately affect them.

One of the things I think is very interesting about economic perspectives on current growth rates.  There seems to be an assumption that growth should occur indefinitely and at high rates.  A recent article in the economist talks about why Canada should increase consumption to boost economic growth. 

I'm not sure GDP growth should be looked at as some sort of arbitrary target.  Borrowing to drive growth cannot be a long term solution; repayment of the debts used to drive growth eventually curtail growth... you borrow now, but will pay later...  this isn't rocket science.  The pursuit of stable growth rates isn't a science - and macroeconomic, regional and global forces affect it.  To believe that one nation can control its growth rate indefinitely is poppy-cock.

The sooner our economies adjust to the reality of debt and overspending, the better.  Better pain now than later - because the uncertainty of colossal debt (yes, we could default - but that results in economic upheaval - vis a vis Argentina or even pre-Reich Germany.  Government/societal default does not normally presage good times.

F

Boldly streaking across the sky

Electric flashes

 

Thunder resounds

Stentorian

 

Rain lashes against the stone and brick

Relentless

 

Water, sweet water, drenches the earth

Slaking its parched thirst

Gifting itself

 

With abandon

Well, the choice ends up being Romney vs. Obama, round 2.  

Last election, it had been interesting up until McCain picked Palin.  While Palin has evolved into a formidable (though largely unelectable) political force/pundit, her appearance and behavior on the ticket made McCain an impossibility in my mind.  What had been his key quality - his indomitable independent way of doing things - became subsumed in a consensus platform of views that highlighted his worst qualities and eclipsed his strengths.  Obama had a walkover, running on the promise of better government, more government, and a new way of government.

One cycle later, after a particularly grueling series of primary battles, Romney is the de facto Republican candidate.  

An unlikely candidate at that...  Despite the noisy far right parts of the Republican caucus, the typically dominant voices in protestant churches, and the groups that focus on abortions, gay marriage and the like, Romney was the last one standing.

As a rather conservative person religiously, libertarian governmentally, and a believer in a federalist, republican form of government, I find myself strongly in support of Romney, especially given the options.  I'm going to address this topic from 2 perspectives - one from faith, and the other from economics.

For the easy one.  As a person who believes in the inspired nature of the Bible, and a person who's credo agrees with the Apostle's Creed, and is Calvinist theologically, I don't hold much truck with LDS church's Christology and understanding of Deity.  On the other hand, the general life-choices that the LDS church encourages are objectively in agreement with what I agree with (despite hypocrisy on my or others' part).  I agree strongly with the Separation of Church and State.  Government exists to create a framework within which private citizens interact - not to control their behavior, in either a liberal or conservative fashion, but more on that later.

Insomuch as we elect officers for such a government, our key obligation as an electorate is not to find persons that parrot our conceptions, but rather rule fairly and reasonably.  I am strongly of the opinion that morality cannot be legislated - so attempts to do so by either conservatives or liberals are to be opposed.  Acts may be illegal and immoral, or illegal and moral or legal yet immoral.  Laws, at best, create a framework that approximates a moral system, but do not provide for the inner, philosophical workings that lead to consistent thinking and action that really breathes life into a population.  

Governments do not create great citizens - but they can get out of the way so that people can grow up to be mature, contributing members of society.

The main point:

Our most pressing problem in this country is our debt and our economic productivity.  We could borrow more, and gamble that, by doubling down with the "house's" money, we can get a blackjack and come out even - or even ahead.  It might work with more neo-Keynesian stimulus - borrowing more, and hoping that the liquidity allows entrepreneurs to grow more jobs and businesses.  To my mind, it is more likely good money after bad.  We borrow to fund an economic ecosystem that isn't performing as well as it ought, and we're more likely to simply end up in more debt.  Moreover, increased prices on equities doesn't ultimately mean a better economy - the USD value of the economy might increase, but the excess liquidity also continues to fuel inflationary pressures.  Net effect may not be so efficacious for the private citizen.

Yes, to my mind, we're merely delaying the inevitable calling to account that happens when governments and societies borrow too much, and cannot change their lifestyles in keeping with fiscal realities.  Governments and societies take longer to "fail" but fail they will when mismanaged.

Romney strikes me a man who believes in building stuff.  Yeah, people can call VCs vultures, but the reality is that the model is neither good nor evil - it's just an approach.  Helping good business ideas become profitable is the way that capitalism evolves - and killing off bad models is good as well.  The best case scenario is when you have a whole ecosystem of businesses growing and replacing and killing off one another keeping growth and development reasonably smooth over an economy.  But having completely chaotic regulatory and tax environments is really a bad way to grow businesses.

If Romney just wanted money, he should've stayed at Bain.  If he wants to be a big name, just become a pundit.  Getting into politics when you're already influential and rich is either complete arrogance or ... reflects a real zeal to help society.  He strikes me as someone who wants to help and build society.  Whether that's misguided is a completely different question.

To this end, one must ask, what does he bring to the table?  Doesn't he have big business' interest in mind?  Well, businesses provide the vast majority of jobs, and pay the majority of wages in the US.  And thus, the US tax base is essentially contingent on an economy of businesses.  Kill the businesses and everyone suffers.  A good business can take care of its employees - companies that did this are well regarded - though not always maximally profitable on a quarter to quarter basis.  Understanding the ecology in which businesses function is essential to encouraging growth and getting out of the way effectively (and intervening when necessary as well.)

There's no one better than a business veteran coming into try to fix the milieu - perhaps bringing in some unpleasantness, but also creating a pro-growth environment.  Companies do need regulation - but appropriately.  Regulation should be scalpel like- accurate, and effective, but not clumsy and heavy.  Regulation shouldn't burden industries such that they do more paperwork than their actual work.  Taxes need to be structured with fewer loopholes and incentives.  It's just possible that Romney can work towards this end.  I wouldn't be surprised if he did, given the chance.

Yep, I do think that if elected, he'll be a very pleasant surprise.  Right now, we need a person with fewer cloudy dreams - and more grit.  Someone who will work hard to build an ecosystem favorable to businesses - and particularly businesses that have long term growth and, thus, have a long term interest in the welfare of their employees.

I didn't know whether to expect much from the Obama presidency, but I can say that I don't think his policies have been very savvy.  Unless something drastic changes, I think I know who's got my vote.

Can't vote for Ron Paul - but I do hope some of his ideas make it to the White House.  Quantitative Easing won't work.  We need to stop QE, and start paring back government, government handouts, and structures that increase inefficiency.  Can we free up our citizens to take care of one another and work productive jobs?  

I just watched the Artist while on the plane back from Hong Kong.  It was, in a word, superb.   Craft.  There are some things that one can recognize as a wonderful example of craftsmanship and artistry upon contact. 

 The score emotes with a deft touch – lilting movements and playful strands of sound – at times waxing playful, pompous – at others threatening and violent.  The music is from a time long gone – when the sounds of the score needed to tell the other part of what the motion did not.  They worked together to complete the cycle of sight and sound.

 Talk.

The word is used again and again, and expresses the critical conflict in the film, the revolution in technology that would redefine Hollywood, and the difficulties that the disruptive technology would inflict on the starts and heroes of the silent picture world.

Out with the old, in with the new. 

The inexorable march of progress is unrelenting.  As of now, I stand at the forefront of my field – not ahead, no, I wouldn’t dare say that – no, just with the others that work with new technologies, trying to learn how best to treat my patients with ever evolving devices, some revolutionary, some merely improvements.  But already I can imagine the days where my ways are old, and outmoded.

The female lead is Youth.  She is the female talky film star that represents the wave of change that ends his stardom and his way of life.  And in a way both bittersweet and beautiful, Youth is first aided by the Artist even as she deposes him. 

At the beginning of the film, at the height of his fame, he helps make her – subtly yet importantly crafting a piece of her that would help define her stardom.  And, at the bottom of his descent, she finds him a new way forward by demanding that they work together for Kinograph films (Kino-move, graph-draw/picture/image).

And then, the Artist must struggle with his Pride, for that hubris was the poison that barred him from riding the tide of Sound’s arrival.

 At a more general level, the Artist articulates something very profound about the male identity – even at age 24 I perceived something in my own heart – even then, I realized that the day would come when I wasn’t very useful anymore, when I had nothing left to offer the world, or those that I loved.  If one day, I had the pleasure of being married, would a younger, brilliant woman have any use for the outmoded, irrelevant man that I would one day become?

 And that is a part of what the Artist struggles with in dealing with living and being loved by Youth.  Grace and affection tendered by Youth to the Artist is a poignant, even devastating reminder of his own ineffectuality.  When he discovers that everything he had sold had indeed been purchased by Youth (an act of her love and devotion – and worship), he finds that he cannot accept it – going home to his own, burnt out hovel.

 One of the scenes that really amazed me was his nightmare, where objects in the movie made sounds as they moved.  It was such a clever portion – I almost wished they let the movie transition to a talky – but that wouldn’t be true to the films ethos.  

 Whereas movies like Dreamsville moved from black and white to colour (to visibly show the change), this movie did not use such a trick, for which it should be applauded.   In a sense, it kept true to the initial premise, only allowing sound and speech at the end, completing the Artist’s emergence into the age of Sound, and affirming the mutual affection that Youth and the Artist share for one another.

 As couple of final thoughts, I love the 20s – the dance, the fashion, the excess, the dizzying heights of capital and industrialization.  It is very much what the PRC is going through now, we have yet to see whether a bust will follow the rapid expansion of the middle class and the capital intensive infrastructure projects that parallel the like developments in the US 20s.

 We forget so quickly that Rockefeller and his peers sponsored art that celebrated industry and development – a time when the smokestack represented progress and rapid urban expansion desirable.   Statism may or may not be desirable, but it was not so long ago that N. America was, in effect, statist – and in that period, industry and government colluded – though at a personal level not in cross-ownership.

 Last thought –

 A different era without sound in movies – in capture – required actors and actresses to express nearly the whole of their persona through body language.  There’s so much richness to body language – something that we sometimes forget in the midst of advanced camera techniques, CGI, speech and mood music, that the center of human drama is human.  All the other dressing should enhance, not distract from the experience and sharing of humanity.

 I cannot give up Sound.  As much as I adore visual beauty, sound still strikes me more deeply.  I hope I never have to do without any of my senses – but sound is so beautiful to me.  The voice of loved ones, the sound of my mother’s singing – I miss it…

 The Sound of humanity. 

 It is a kind of grace to hear art.

 

Defining permanence
In the waves of variance
The art of stability
is the eye of tranquility

Vagaries and vortices
Buffet and batter
The circumstance and happenstance
Aside

One cannot control
One cannot rein
The things outside in the hands of the Divine

Peace within
Acceptance without
Grace in the grasp of His storms
His rivers
Streams
And
Vales

I want for nothing

03.24.2012 Hong Kong

Aristocracy - Etymology Online

Definition - Answers.com

(ăr'ĭ-stŏk'rə-sē) 
n., pl., -cies.

1. A hereditary ruling class; nobility.
2. 1. Government by a ruling class.
   2. A state or country having this form of government.
3. 1. Government by the citizens deemed to be best qualified to lead.
   2. A state having such a government.
4. A group or class considered superior to others.

[Late Latin aristocratia, government by the best, from Greek aristokratiā : aristos, best + -kratiā, -cracy..]

-------

I think it's always useful to look back at how words are built to understand the underpinnings of the concept.  So often, in modern speech, we forget origins of the word, and thus may not note the development of what the word describes.  Aristocracy, in a sense, describes what very naturally happens everywhere.  We select leaders because they seem better than "the rest of us", whether they were taller, smarter, stronger, more beautiful, more long lived or what have you.  Heritence being what it is, it generally follows that the children of impressive people should have good genes - as well as the nepotism that's inherent in this thinking.  Aristocracy then, typically evolves from the strong or best taking rule, and handing rule to their children under the auspices that the best have the best children, so to speak.

And as long as your "best" stay "best", that's not a bad thing... except they get distracted, selfish, aloof, unmotivated, and forgetful of what leaders are supposed to do... which is to serve the people they are leading.

So that's the ethos of aristocracy, but what of the substance?  In most cultures, aristocrats primary power was the ownership of land and territory.  In medieval europe, for instance, landowners got grants of land derived from monarchic power that allowed them to make money from use of the land, worked by serfs in a subsistence living arrangements.  With serfs working the land, able to live, but unable to amass capital, there is semi-stability.

So what is the New Aristocracy?

It's not new really.  With the growing clout of the merchant class post agrarian society, amassing capital apart from land and military rights became, for the first time, possible. When the amounts of capital were small to moderate, they already had clout.  As time has gone on, it has become possible to amass gargantuan amounts of capital - and with the development of diverse and sophisticated investment vehicles, I'm arguing that investment capitalists are the new landowners - which is to say, the current equivalent of the aristocrat landowner.

By investing capital into businesses, the middle class now works on behalf of capital to make a living, which may be significant gains for an individual, but not nearly enough to deplete capital... in fact, it isn't far removed from landowning rent-seeking behavior... now we have rent-seeking capital behavior.

While death taxes are supposed to level the playing field a bit generation to generation, the creation of trust funds and circuitous transfers of ownership allows for preservation of capital across generations.

Is it wrong?  

Not inherently.  But one should ask is that what we want from a governmental philosophy that espouses equality before God?  As in the French Republican "LIberte, Egalite, Fraternite"

None of this is, in fact, shocking...  but just like one had indolent, dilettantish nobility plaguing the latter days of the medieval age, and through the enlightenment, we have that now (I'm not naming names).  It is in society's interest that capital is efficiently invested... and when capital is controlled by a disinterested, or even wasteful owner, it's a loss for society.

Social contract asks the ruler to be accountable.  In a sense, we now have a shadow ruling class that is not legally accountable via democratic checks and balances (this is true around the world with land owners, and capital owners).  To me that's a broken feedback loop.

In the long term, I would argue that having a large, vital, middle class helps development.  Where they spend their assets tends to affect more people positively than when capital and conspicuous consumption is concentrated in the hands of the few.  

How do you fix this?  As much as I want to help my theoretical kids, I think that there needs to be a death tax with teeth.  And... I think we should have small govt... so that a big govt isn't present to waste that tax receipt...

Negging - XKCD - Urban Dictionary - Wikipedia

I've actually not been very familiar with this concept and ran into it as of last week, courtesy of XKCD.com.  Following a little reading and a couple of fun discussions, I'm writing this discussion on criticism.

For the purposes of this entry, criticism will relate to criticism of another person, rather than the concept of art criticism or textual criticism or similar, where a critic evaluates the object of criticism, and renders an opinion or valuation.

-------

What is the purpose of criticising another purpose?   More often than not, we think of criticizing someone as a fault finding act, though the original eytmology simply relates to evaluation or judging.  As would follow, critical analysis might actually yield favourable observations of another.

Criticism, at its best, should help the recipient improve.  Careful, objective, yet sympathetic assessment of another person can be very helpful for character development and so forth.  At its best, it can be help another prune away debris from their lives and their habits... at its worst, it can be denigrating, debilitating and fully destructive.

As a launching point, "negging" is predatory; because the intent of use is to destabilize and manipulate the recipient of criticism.  In fact, the underlying premise of "negging" is to disturb the subconscious, rather than engage the analytical part of the recipient's psyche.  This is plainly egregious.

On the other hand, it's probable that some people engender insecurity by virtue of their accomplishments/positive qualities...  but a truly great person should not seek to make others feel smaller - rather they should encourage growth and inspire by example.

There is, thus, an art to constructive criticism, which is redundant, in a sense, as accurate criticism is neither good nor bad, per se, but it is the intent, the delivery, and the nature of the response that determines whether criticism is constructive or destructive.

How does one constructively criticize?

From a biblical perspective,

 Matthew 7:1-6

 ¹ “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. ² For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

   ³ “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? ⁴ How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? ⁵ You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

   ⁶ “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

I think this perspective is invaluable.  One should take care when one criticizes (recall, that the root for criticism is the Fr. Critique, and kritikos, Greek - to Judge, related to krinein - to separate.) as that may be applied to you in a karmic sort of way (and, in a judeo-christian point of view, in a personal way via God's judgment).  Criticism blinded to its own hypocrisy is often inflammatory, rather than salutory to the listener. 

Verse 6 is interesting as well.  First, if verse 6 is related to 1-5, it would suggest that criticism can be precious.  Indeed, well considered criticism is valuable.  It takes time to think through, for it examines the recipient, considers the problems, and should naturally provide solutions.  It takes effort to really critique another person.  Yet communication requires two parties.

If the critic gives observations callously, it can be bloody hurtful and damaging.  Thoughtless, ill considered words are like explosives - watch out for the blast.

On the other hand, even the most assiduously prepared words may be delivered with perfect gentility to a person most adamently opposed to changing or growing.  In that case, the words may be ill-received with no fault on the part of the critic, but wholly because of the stiff-necked attitude of the listener.  Verse 6 suggests that this consideration should be on the mind of the critic as well.

As a listener to criticism, sometimes the words may be rash, ill-considered, cruel, or even maligning. 

Yet:

Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; 
reprove a wise man, and he will love you.
  Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; 
teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning. (Proverbs 9:8-9 ESV)

A truly wise person notes the truth of criticism, even when it is ill-conceived and ill-delivered.  A discerning person can extract areas for growth even in malignant criticism - but best of all when both giver and receiver's aim is to grow and mature and develop.  Indeed, well received reproof can be construed as a form of love...

The last comment on this topic pertains to this - well fashioned and well aimed criticism can be a very attractive thing to receive.  Being built up is a good thing.

In a way, it's a form of mercy!

 

My fellow Americans,

  As we approach this election year, we face a slow burning crisis that threatens the fabric of who we are, and the people we remember ourselves to be.  It is a crisis of confidence, of integrity, and of purpose – and it is this crisis that I wish to address today.

  What is the purpose of government?  Somewhere along the way, we have forgotten that government is for the people and by the people.   Governments serve people by taking the resources of that people to apply them for the people.  Governments, made of people, cannot, by nature, have all the answers.  To make that mistake makes us believe that governments are an ultimate power – but they are not.  No, governments cannot summate all the creativity and industry that a people can be…

Governments should not even try. 

What governments should do is clear the field so that the people can be a people of industry, and they channel their hearts, dreams, strengths and aptitudes towards productive goals while keeping the peace between those citizens, and defending those citizens against foreign interlopers.

What have we become?

America, you were built by the sweat and labour of men and women brought from afar – from England, from Germany, from Europe… from Africa.  You were built by those from the Indian subcontinent, from East Asia and Southeast Asia.   On the plains where once Native Americans once roamed, America built its cities, now mighty and sprawling.  We have made mistakes, we have murdered innocents.   We have fought, died on foreign soil, and toiled to build a better nation for ourselves and our posterity.  By some mercy, we have become a great nation.

And now, as we face increasing foreign competition, deficits that exceed an easy ability to pay – unemployment, income inequality, pernicious poverty, and serious differences in our opinions of morality – we face a question of what is it that we should do?

Blaming others is not the way.

We were once the factory of the nations.  Our arms and hands labored longer and harder, and we built more, built better.  We were productive and industrious, even when we fought and bled and died for others.  Our scientists, hailing from a host of other nations, came to think and discover – and our engineers designed and built and innovated.  Perhaps we still lead, but our leadership is now in question.

There is no harangue or diatribe that we can employ to reassert dominance, nor should we try to find one.  No, I say the way forward is humility and strength.  How can we say that our work should be paid more because we live in America?  How can we say that our sweat, is somehow more precious?  If hands in Brazil makes something better and cheaper than what we make, why should it not sell more popularly?  If  arms in some dark corner southeast Asia is willing to work longer and harder, and learn faster and pay more attention to detail, why should they not be paid more?

There is no law that guarantees that America should be great, nor any law of nature that guarantees that every citizen of America can attain happiness.  If we are a nation of persons that would like to watch TV, enjoy a sports game, sing, dance, drink and be merry – we should not expect to be the most industrious.  Nothing is free, my fellow Americans.  Someone must labour to allow us to buy those tickets and dance in those dance halls.  China won’t buy us dinner, Brazil won’t pay our way to prosperity.

America has to work, and the buck stops here.  We have to work harder and diligently and not simply wait for a free lunch.  That includes those that own businesses, and those that work for those businesses.  That includes those in government offices, and those that consult.  It includes our agriculture and our entertainment community.

We have lived decades of excess, believing that there wasn’t an end to the party, and easy credit and fast money are addictive.  Today, the party’s over, and the hangover is on.  We can, as a society, look for the next drink… but I say, we’re better than that.  We can tighten our belts, and get our house in order.  Balance the checkbooks, and get ourselves out of debt.

It won’t be easy, nor will it be fun. 

But we can do it.

How are we going to do it?

I will simply the tax code.  Loopholes help those who take them – and those that take them are perfectly legal, but they possess an advantage that many others will never take.  The tax code shouldn’t provide advantages for those with the connections or the wiliness to take advantage of that code.  Simplify it, and make it predictable.  I’m happy with a progressive tax that taxes the wealthy more than the poor – but not so much that there is not incentive to accumulate wealth.

I will simplify regulation.  There are too many laws on the books trying to protect the citizen, but ultimately hurt society.  If it’s too hard to start a business, the government is harming society.

I will reform finance.  Finance should make capital available to growing businesses and promising ideas – not about moving large sums of money back and forth, for a price.  Excessive rent-seeking behavior is not okay.  The people that should be rewarded most in society, should be the ones that build society most.  I would like the brightest in our society to know that they will be rewarded for building businesses and creating meaningful jobs more than simply trading on differential odds.

If I have a second term, I will reform healthcare and tort. 

We have neither a public nor private system, but rather have a system that has the inefficiencies of both.  We lack the price signaling mechanisms in a true capitalistic system, and we lack the cost control mechanisms present in a true public system.  We want the best doctors, but we don’t have the system that will both employ them gainfully, yet align their interests with the patient.  Less is often more, and prevention is better than cure – that’s how we should incentivize physicians.

Law and justice are bedrock ideals upon which our nation was founded.  We have mistaken legality for justice, allowing the mechanics of the legal system to replace good common sense and civic responsibility.   If it is only the threat of a law suit that will compel good behavior, we live in dark times.  If acts can occur that allow injustices to be legal, we live in dark times.

Jefferson said that revolution was good for a nation, for it clears the air.  Tacitus wrote, “korruptisima re publicae, plurimae leges.”  We need a revolution – perhaps not with arms, but with our laws and our government.  If you elect me as President, I will strive to simplify our laws, reduce our corruption, and level the playing field so that more Americans may, through the sweat of their brow, advance their interests, and pursue happiness. 

Thank you.