Privileges versus Rights

There was a very interesting and thought-provoking article published in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal by Lawrence Lindsey. As the former director of the National Economic Council, Lindsey's an experienced and credentialed economist, and he uses many numbers and economic debates to make his points, but at the heart of this article Lindsey tackles a question of political philosophy. Specifically, he discusses the difference between privileges and rights, and the trouble our government seems to be having distinguishing between the two.

Note: I don't agree with everything said in the article. Lindsey seems to get hung up on a few GOP talking points (the percentage of Americans that don't pay income taxes, rebuttal= even though they pay a greater percentage of their income in other taxes; the fact that the rich pay more in income taxes than ever before, rebuttal= even though in truth the rich receive far less of their wealth from income and more from capital gains and other forms of interest and speculation which are taxed far less than ever before). I'm going to concentrate on the question of privileges versus rights, here.

Lindsey begins with Geithner's implication that being an American and living in this country as a free citizen is not a right but rather a privilege. Such thinking is incredibly scary to those who defend freedom and the basic civil rights of life, liberty, and property. (Jefferson deliberately misquoted Locke so as not to inflame the already touchy subject of slave-holding in the Declaration of Independence; it would go on to be debated and included in the Constitution.) To Geithner, Lindsey argues, being an American, owning property, and earning an income are all privileges bestowed upon us by a benevolent government. We must pay for that privilege, and the rich should of course pay more.

Being an American and having the ability to earn a living in a free society, where we are protected by the rule of Law is a right, not a privilege. These rights, as understood by our Founding Fathers and defended with the blood and lives of men and women over the past two and a half centuries, are not gifts from government. We retain them as living human beings and citizens of this nation. We are "endowed by our Creator" with these "inalienable" rights, and we give to government certain limited and just powers to secure our liberty, establish justice, and insure domestic tranquility.

When government exceeds those powers and begins to think of itself as an all-powerful entity that bestows upon us "privileges" of freedom and liberty, of keeping what we earn, of live our lives the way we choose instead of the way we are told, then government has lost its legitimacy.

UPDATE: So, after I wrote this but before I posted it, I came across the fact that Geithner's quote may have been taken out of context. That takes little away from the points I've made above, though. Even if Geithner's words were not exact, the meaning and belief that being an American is a privilege rather than a right is still present in our present government's actions.

BOA Irony

I think this is what we call sweet, delicious irony.

Bank Of America Plaza Auctioned Off For Missing Mortgage Payments

Bank of America Plaza, the tallest building in Atlanta, went on the auction block today, in a perfect example of things that go around you know, coming around. How does that medicine taste now, Bank of America? Your landlords missed mortgage mortgage payments and now they have to sell. We're sure that must be soo hard.

....

While the skyscraper isn't owned by Bank of America — nor is BofA the building's main tenant — but we like to think that having your name attached to a huge building in foreclosure must rankle BofA just a teeny bit. In the words of our tipster Jeff, "Is this not sweet justice?"

Not the best PR move. But it certainly is suitable.

Endorsements

Donald Trump announced today to anxiously waiting and speculating media and crowds that he would be endorsing Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination for President of the United States. Newt Gingrich, who was so sure he would get the endorsement, pouted and said that he had received signs that Trump was going to endorse him before Mitt changed his mind. Now everyone is breathlessly waiting to see who Sarah Palin will endorse.

Can someone please tell me why we give a damn?

Seriously, these endorsements from marginal, crazy people are just desperate cries for attention from both the candidates themselves and the people making the endorsement. Trump and Palin never shy away from making absolute spectacles of themselves, and the media shamelessly fawns after them, waiting to see what they're going to say.

And why do we care who Trump is going to vote for? Who cares who Sarah Palin thinks will be a good president? These people are political hacks who failed at their own bids for power.

And yet, Palin is called a "leader of the Tea Party." The candidate I worked for even sought her attention and her endorsement, knowing that simply by having her mention his name or put him up on her website would bring thousands of dollars to his campaign.

WHY?!

The only thing that should be informing our votes is what sort of role these candidates would play if elected into office. What policies will they pursue? What legislation will they veto? How will they conduct themselves in foreign affairs? Will they lead our country with good conscience or will they sell us out to the highest bidders? Will they embarrass on the global stage or will they be leaders we can look back and be proud of? What are their beliefs? Will they address our deficit? Will they limit civil rights? What kind of justice will they nominate for the Supreme Court when Ginsburg retires? What will our country look like under their leadership?

Not, "Who does Sarah Palin or Donald Trump like the best?"!!!