Why Civility Failed
The Real Problem With American Politics
Know The Issues
Another reason that people don’t get along is that they have no idea what each others’ true positions are. They hear terms like “trickle-down economics” or “spiritual warfare” and get all angry without knowing what those terms actually mean. When they encounter someone who proudly supports such things, the conversation is much more often a yelling match than a learning experience.
It doesn’t help that there are a lot of lies floating around out there. I’ve been told that pro-life people believe in the authority of men over women and the church over the state, but every pro-life person I’ve ever talked to has never said anything like that. For them, it’s all about protecting the lives of the unborn. I’ve also been told that those who endorse the old legal definition of marriage simply hate homosexuals, most likely because of religion, but I know that at least some of them make nuanced legal arguments reflecting legitimate concerns.
One of the things I tried to do on my old blog was to educate people as to what the issues actually are about. I have adapted some of my old posts to fill out this chapter. The more you know, the better arguments you can make.
What is Trickle-Down Economics?
Some people hate trickle-down economics. They speak of its “failure,” its “victims,” and they claim that it “doesn’t work.” On the other hand, some people like it – but what is it?
My first exposure to the term came from reading those who endorse it. They define it as the phenomenon that occurs when those of high productivity are able to keep more of their earnings, passing on the benefits to those with less productivity. In other words, when “the boss” has more money to dispose, everybody gets a raise (especially when the boss’s competitors are giving out raises and he/she wants to retain employees). Benefits may not always take the form of higher wages, of course; they may also come in the form of lowered prices, increased hiring, or greater spending by “the boss” that ends up putting money in some other boss’s pocket, spreading the wealth around, eventually helping everyone.
Some rightly point out that “the boss” makes his money from the consumption of others, and so stimulating consumption (or removing anything that might be holding consumption back) also stimulates the economy and should result in increased wages, lower prices, or both. However, there are at least two problems with doing it this way. One is that increased consumption means increased demand, which will tend to raise prices, partly negating the effects. The other problem is that this indirect route is less efficient. Not all consumers are created equal. Some people are better at spending their money than others – at least in ways that will stimulate the economy as a whole. Some people are more productive than others, and since the value of one’s goods or services can be defined no other way than by the amount someone is willing to pay for them, productivity is equal to income. One who makes a lot of money must have generated something of value for so many to pay them so much for it (unless of course there is fraud or force involved), so those with money must be producing something of value to people.
Of course, when “the boss” has “more money” is relative. More money than when? Since it is always possible for there to be more of a drain on the economy than there is, all economics is trickle-down economics. It is a redundant term. No matter how much of a drain there is on the economy, as long as some economic activity remains, and as long as somebody is receiving wages from someone else, there is trickle-down occurring. All economics is naturally trickle-down, because left alone, the markets reward those with the greatest productivity the most, and they can then reward everyone else.
No matter how much a society might deviate from this ideal by using forced redistribution of wealth, some economic activity will remain. All economics is free-market capitalism; it’s only a matter of how much there is. Even communistic, command-economies with much central planning experience some trade, whether it happens informally when the state isn’t looking, or whether it happens through the commands of the state. Government spending is still spending – but rarely by those who know best. It isn’t that government doesn’t work at all; it’s that the free market works better, and history seems to suggest that socialist economies grow slower.
This is why I was at first confused when I heard the claim that trickle-down economics hasn’t worked. That’s ridiculous; it’s the only thing that has ever worked. Where did all the wealth we have come from if not from trade? I eventually realized we were speaking different languages. What they mean by trickle-down is any large deviation towards freedom from our current capitalist-socialist compromise economy.
I agree that extreme inequalities in wealth are concerning, for reasons I won’t get into now, and I like safety nets of some kind, though not necessarily the ones we have, so I empathize with those scared of pure capitalism. I just wish they would understand what trickle-down means before rejecting it.
What Is Spiritual Warfare?
When God speaks to humans he often uses images they are familiar with so they will understand him. When he speaks of spiritual things he often uses analogies with commonly understood activities within the local culture. Faith is compared to the mustard seed, Jesus to a foundation, and resisting the devil is called spiritual warfare. There are many ways to resist the devil. One can exercise prayer, forgiveness, or generosity in the face of mistrust, hate, rejection, or even outright persecution by others. There need not necessarily be any actual violence. It is spiritual warfare, not physical.
Unfortunately, when Christians speak among themselves, they often use terms that outsiders do not understand. I have encountered those who thought poorly of another who had used the term “spiritual warfare,” thinking him a confrontational person out on a crusade to aggressively evangelize the unbelievers and skeptics. This term has been the source of much misunderstanding.
Now to be fair, there have been cases of overzealous crusaders (and of course, the actual crusades fought with the Muslims 1095AD-1291AD), but the bible makes it clear: “We fight not flesh and blood, but the principalities and powers of the air.” - Ephesians 6:12
So remember, don't be too quick to judge. Someone who seems scary you might have misunderstood, and someone who seems scared might have misunderstood you.
Are Corporations People? Is Money Speech?
Corporations are obviously not people in the usual sense, but they are considered legal persons in that they can own property, sue and be sued, and spend money as they choose within the limits of the law. I was taught this in school the early nineties. I assumed it was common knowledge. Of course, corporations cannot get married (yet), and corporations can be owned by other people (including by other corporations) even though it is no longer legal to own real people.
What all this debate over the definitions of personhood misses is that this question of personhood only became an issue when the supreme court took on a free speech case. The deeper question is whether government should be in the business of regulating speech at all.
Since individuals have the right to speak freely on issues they care about, they also by extension have the right to purchase airtime and run commercials. Since this can be too expensive for anyone other than the super rich, multiple individuals often pool their resources into a PAC, union, corporation, or other entity that speaks for them. Corporations might not be people, but they are each made up of many people. So legally speaking, they do have first-amendment rights. That’s what all the fuss was about.
Is Carbon Dioxide Poisonous?
There has been talk of the EPA wanting to regulate CO2 emissions in the past. Why would the EPA want to regulate CO2? Is it poisonous?
Any substance can be disadvantageous in large amounts or if used improperly. Water is considered non-toxic, but a glut of water causes flooding, and trying to breathe it will drown you. Even the safest over-the-counter drugs can be deadly if you overdose on them. Carbon dioxide is no different. It is a necessary part of our ecosystem. Animals produce it as a waste product of metabolism, and plants absorb it to use as building material, before being eaten by animals. Carbon dioxide is necessary and ubiquitous. On the other hand, in large amounts atmospheric carbon dioxide traps heat on Earth, not allowing it to radiate into space. Combined with light coming in from the sun warming the Earth’s surface, this produces a greenhouse effect, and is suspected to be the main cause of global warming.
This is what I watched happen several years ago: Some global warming alarmists started pushing the idea that carbon dioxide was toxic – probably as an easier way to win support from a populace too scientifically illiterate to understand things like the greenhouse effect. To this, the skeptics responded that the gas was not toxic and was in fact important to the ecological system. Once the skeptics were on record saying such things, still others picked up on their words, unaware of the original context, and used it as evidence that the skeptics were very confused and uninformed about what the real problems with CO2 are. “Nobody ever claimed CO2 was toxic!” they said.
Before long I started encountering everywhere the arguments that the alarmists were stupid to think CO2 toxic and the skeptics stupid to think that anyone had ever claimed it was toxic. It was one of the most pointless debates I have ever seen – and I have seen some very pointless debates.
Evolution And Creation:
I was raised by Christian parents but was allowed to pick my own reading material. This is how I was exposed to the theory of evolution. One of the things that drove me into the evolutionary camp at a young age was the inane questions that some uneducated Christians ask, such as: If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of evolution and a tiny dose of common sense should know how stupid that question is. Why wouldn’t there still be monkeys? It is believed that both monkeys and humans evolved in parallel, reproductively-isolated communities from a common ancestor that may have been monkey-like enough to legitimately call it a monkey. Populations of animals do not evolve only under pressure from their local environment, which can differ a great deal from place to place, but also in response to random genetic drift from cumulative mutations. Rates of evolution can differ from place to place and from time to time. There is no basis for thinking that the existence of modern monkeys in any way invalidates basic evolutionary principles. I easily grasped these principles while I was still in elementary school, but my Sunday school teachers could not.
Later in life I was exposed to the intelligent design hypothesis, the existence of irreducible complexities on the molecular scale, the information problem, and many other good arguments against evolution. I no longer believe in it. Unfortunately, evolutionists do not want to listen. They write me off as uneducated the same way I used to write off my Sunday school teachers – but as often as not, I am more educated than them!
This is another reason why civility failed: Most people have absolutely no clue what they’re talking about.
It doesn’t help that there are a lot of lies floating around out there. I’ve been told that pro-life people believe in the authority of men over women and the church over the state, but every pro-life person I’ve ever talked to has never said anything like that. For them, it’s all about protecting the lives of the unborn. I’ve also been told that those who endorse the old legal definition of marriage simply hate homosexuals, most likely because of religion, but I know that at least some of them make nuanced legal arguments reflecting legitimate concerns.
One of the things I tried to do on my old blog was to educate people as to what the issues actually are about. I have adapted some of my old posts to fill out this chapter. The more you know, the better arguments you can make.
What is Trickle-Down Economics?
Some people hate trickle-down economics. They speak of its “failure,” its “victims,” and they claim that it “doesn’t work.” On the other hand, some people like it – but what is it?
My first exposure to the term came from reading those who endorse it. They define it as the phenomenon that occurs when those of high productivity are able to keep more of their earnings, passing on the benefits to those with less productivity. In other words, when “the boss” has more money to dispose, everybody gets a raise (especially when the boss’s competitors are giving out raises and he/she wants to retain employees). Benefits may not always take the form of higher wages, of course; they may also come in the form of lowered prices, increased hiring, or greater spending by “the boss” that ends up putting money in some other boss’s pocket, spreading the wealth around, eventually helping everyone.
Some rightly point out that “the boss” makes his money from the consumption of others, and so stimulating consumption (or removing anything that might be holding consumption back) also stimulates the economy and should result in increased wages, lower prices, or both. However, there are at least two problems with doing it this way. One is that increased consumption means increased demand, which will tend to raise prices, partly negating the effects. The other problem is that this indirect route is less efficient. Not all consumers are created equal. Some people are better at spending their money than others – at least in ways that will stimulate the economy as a whole. Some people are more productive than others, and since the value of one’s goods or services can be defined no other way than by the amount someone is willing to pay for them, productivity is equal to income. One who makes a lot of money must have generated something of value for so many to pay them so much for it (unless of course there is fraud or force involved), so those with money must be producing something of value to people.
Of course, when “the boss” has “more money” is relative. More money than when? Since it is always possible for there to be more of a drain on the economy than there is, all economics is trickle-down economics. It is a redundant term. No matter how much of a drain there is on the economy, as long as some economic activity remains, and as long as somebody is receiving wages from someone else, there is trickle-down occurring. All economics is naturally trickle-down, because left alone, the markets reward those with the greatest productivity the most, and they can then reward everyone else.
No matter how much a society might deviate from this ideal by using forced redistribution of wealth, some economic activity will remain. All economics is free-market capitalism; it’s only a matter of how much there is. Even communistic, command-economies with much central planning experience some trade, whether it happens informally when the state isn’t looking, or whether it happens through the commands of the state. Government spending is still spending – but rarely by those who know best. It isn’t that government doesn’t work at all; it’s that the free market works better, and history seems to suggest that socialist economies grow slower.
This is why I was at first confused when I heard the claim that trickle-down economics hasn’t worked. That’s ridiculous; it’s the only thing that has ever worked. Where did all the wealth we have come from if not from trade? I eventually realized we were speaking different languages. What they mean by trickle-down is any large deviation towards freedom from our current capitalist-socialist compromise economy.
I agree that extreme inequalities in wealth are concerning, for reasons I won’t get into now, and I like safety nets of some kind, though not necessarily the ones we have, so I empathize with those scared of pure capitalism. I just wish they would understand what trickle-down means before rejecting it.
What Is Spiritual Warfare?
When God speaks to humans he often uses images they are familiar with so they will understand him. When he speaks of spiritual things he often uses analogies with commonly understood activities within the local culture. Faith is compared to the mustard seed, Jesus to a foundation, and resisting the devil is called spiritual warfare. There are many ways to resist the devil. One can exercise prayer, forgiveness, or generosity in the face of mistrust, hate, rejection, or even outright persecution by others. There need not necessarily be any actual violence. It is spiritual warfare, not physical.
Unfortunately, when Christians speak among themselves, they often use terms that outsiders do not understand. I have encountered those who thought poorly of another who had used the term “spiritual warfare,” thinking him a confrontational person out on a crusade to aggressively evangelize the unbelievers and skeptics. This term has been the source of much misunderstanding.
Now to be fair, there have been cases of overzealous crusaders (and of course, the actual crusades fought with the Muslims 1095AD-1291AD), but the bible makes it clear: “We fight not flesh and blood, but the principalities and powers of the air.” - Ephesians 6:12
So remember, don't be too quick to judge. Someone who seems scary you might have misunderstood, and someone who seems scared might have misunderstood you.
Are Corporations People? Is Money Speech?
Corporations are obviously not people in the usual sense, but they are considered legal persons in that they can own property, sue and be sued, and spend money as they choose within the limits of the law. I was taught this in school the early nineties. I assumed it was common knowledge. Of course, corporations cannot get married (yet), and corporations can be owned by other people (including by other corporations) even though it is no longer legal to own real people.
What all this debate over the definitions of personhood misses is that this question of personhood only became an issue when the supreme court took on a free speech case. The deeper question is whether government should be in the business of regulating speech at all.
Since individuals have the right to speak freely on issues they care about, they also by extension have the right to purchase airtime and run commercials. Since this can be too expensive for anyone other than the super rich, multiple individuals often pool their resources into a PAC, union, corporation, or other entity that speaks for them. Corporations might not be people, but they are each made up of many people. So legally speaking, they do have first-amendment rights. That’s what all the fuss was about.
Is Carbon Dioxide Poisonous?
There has been talk of the EPA wanting to regulate CO2 emissions in the past. Why would the EPA want to regulate CO2? Is it poisonous?
Any substance can be disadvantageous in large amounts or if used improperly. Water is considered non-toxic, but a glut of water causes flooding, and trying to breathe it will drown you. Even the safest over-the-counter drugs can be deadly if you overdose on them. Carbon dioxide is no different. It is a necessary part of our ecosystem. Animals produce it as a waste product of metabolism, and plants absorb it to use as building material, before being eaten by animals. Carbon dioxide is necessary and ubiquitous. On the other hand, in large amounts atmospheric carbon dioxide traps heat on Earth, not allowing it to radiate into space. Combined with light coming in from the sun warming the Earth’s surface, this produces a greenhouse effect, and is suspected to be the main cause of global warming.
This is what I watched happen several years ago: Some global warming alarmists started pushing the idea that carbon dioxide was toxic – probably as an easier way to win support from a populace too scientifically illiterate to understand things like the greenhouse effect. To this, the skeptics responded that the gas was not toxic and was in fact important to the ecological system. Once the skeptics were on record saying such things, still others picked up on their words, unaware of the original context, and used it as evidence that the skeptics were very confused and uninformed about what the real problems with CO2 are. “Nobody ever claimed CO2 was toxic!” they said.
Before long I started encountering everywhere the arguments that the alarmists were stupid to think CO2 toxic and the skeptics stupid to think that anyone had ever claimed it was toxic. It was one of the most pointless debates I have ever seen – and I have seen some very pointless debates.
Evolution And Creation:
I was raised by Christian parents but was allowed to pick my own reading material. This is how I was exposed to the theory of evolution. One of the things that drove me into the evolutionary camp at a young age was the inane questions that some uneducated Christians ask, such as: If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of evolution and a tiny dose of common sense should know how stupid that question is. Why wouldn’t there still be monkeys? It is believed that both monkeys and humans evolved in parallel, reproductively-isolated communities from a common ancestor that may have been monkey-like enough to legitimately call it a monkey. Populations of animals do not evolve only under pressure from their local environment, which can differ a great deal from place to place, but also in response to random genetic drift from cumulative mutations. Rates of evolution can differ from place to place and from time to time. There is no basis for thinking that the existence of modern monkeys in any way invalidates basic evolutionary principles. I easily grasped these principles while I was still in elementary school, but my Sunday school teachers could not.
Later in life I was exposed to the intelligent design hypothesis, the existence of irreducible complexities on the molecular scale, the information problem, and many other good arguments against evolution. I no longer believe in it. Unfortunately, evolutionists do not want to listen. They write me off as uneducated the same way I used to write off my Sunday school teachers – but as often as not, I am more educated than them!
This is another reason why civility failed: Most people have absolutely no clue what they’re talking about.