The first guiding principle enumerated in the Constitution claimed that one of the purposes of the government was "to form a more perfect Union." While it is easy for modern readers to dismiss this phrase as mere hyperbole--an expression of the desire to make America better than the traditional monarchies of the Old World--this phrase had direct and visceral importance to the delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Those delegates knew that the first constitution of the United States was failing, and they knew from painful experience why it was failing. In 1787, the phrase "to form a more perfect Union" had to be the first guiding principle because the union to be replaced was crumbling under Articles of Confederation that did not give the central government sufficient power to hold the United States together for much longer.

The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation in November, 1777, and they were ratified by all thirteen states in 1781. The country they established was a confederation of 13 sovereign states. Each state controlled its own commerce and collected customs. Geographically fortunate states exploited their ability to control the flow of goods to and from less fortunate neighbors. The central government had no authority to collect customs. State legislatures were supposed to raise the money that funded the central government, but the central government had no authority to compel the states to pay anything or to provide any supplies. This put the Continental Army under a perpetual threat of disintegration during the Revolutionary War, and created post war financial pressures that ultimately led to Shay's Rebellion in late 1786. The failures of the Articles of Confederation, specifically a central government that was too weak to discharge its responsibilities, led directly to the effort to "form a more perfect Union."

Rep Conor Lamb (D-PA) pointed out that the Pennsylvania election in November was carried out under a law crafted and passed by the Republican-led state legislature, and that some  Republican candidates got more votes than Donald Trump did... on the same ballot and with the same voters.  He pointed out that there were cameras, and observers, and that the election had been heavily scrutinized without finding evidence of any voter fraud that would have changed results.  He points out that he presents these facts for the people of America, because he knows the Republicans in Congress, many from other states, are not interested in the truth but rather in cynically advancing a narrative that they know is not true and that caused the attack on the Capitol on Wednesday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/democrat-rep-conor-lamb-blames-capitol-violence-on-gop-election-lies/2021/01/07/a5ead590-1066-4564-a689-0a51778c3514_video.html
​

In our last blog, we established that governments are NOT formed by people surrendering the imagined freedom of a pre-social, pre-governmental state for some specified benefit. The fact is that there is no pre-social state for human beings--the nature of our reproductive process and our long, vulnerable childhood make basic social cooperation at the family unit level essential for the survival of the species. Furthermore, any pre-social, pre-governmental state would lack meaningful freedom because everyone would have to spend all of their time meeting basic needs.

The only way to escape the tyranny of each person having to provide for every essential need is by expanding social cooperation to such a degree that specialization becomes possible. At that point, people can meaningfully speak of the freedom to choose a specialization they like or at which they are competent. At that point, people can decide how to spend the surplus time made available through specialization. The formation of broader social groups and governments then, is undertaken as a means to achieve the most basic freedom rather than a departure from that basic freedom.

The benefits of expanded social cooperation lead to increasingly complex cooperative arrangements. Governments come into being to manage these increasingly complex cooperative arrangements, and to protect or enforce compliance with group norms through the exercise of state sanctioned violence. What passes for a statement of purpose in the United States Constitution is really no more than an expression of guiding principles for how the founders envisioned the American government carrying out its management, protection and enforcement functions.

​Specifically, the United States Constitution provides its guiding principles in the following statement: "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

There are two key elements to ensuring that you are properly informed: (1) consult a range of sources that span the spectrum of perspectives on key issues, and (2) ensure the sources that you consult are reputable sources of news.  In order to have an intelligent opinion on any subject, you must be able to respond intelligently to criticisms of that argument. You cannot respond intelligently to criticisms of your position unless you understand how people with different perspectives view your position. To gain this understanding, you must listen to sources that present those perspectives fairly, honestly and in the best possible light. 

Fifty years ago, you could turn from one news program to another on the three major networks and get basically the same perspective on the news. Now, there are far more than three options for news.  Each source is likely to have its own editorial slant. The stories that are emphasized are often completely different, and the editorial slant given to the common stories are likely to be completely different.  

Sometimes there are good reasons for different media outlets to offer different perspectives on the same issue. After all, there are different ways of identifying the correct or optimal solution to any given challenge. As discussed in previous essays, we can identify different approaches to any issue—constitutional perspectives, arguments from various moral or religious perspectives, and efficiency argument. All may have merit while yielding different solutions. 
Because sources of news have become more politicized and polarized, it is necessary to consult multiple, reputable sources across the spectrum to get a fair and honest portrayal of opinions contrary to your own. It is often hard to watch programs that present the opposing view, but you should make a practice of monitoring news as it is portrayed by media outlets that make you uncomfortable. Take note of the stories they cover that your favorite channels do not cover, as well as how their coverage of common stories differs.  

Reputable news sources are sources that do not deal in falsehoods. If you are watching or reading a news source that continually broadcasts or publishes stories that are subsequently identified as misleading or false, then you should find a higher quality source for news. Often such sources are labelled as “tabloids” rather than newspapers. 

Some of my recommended sources for serious news are the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Economist, both the broadcasts and website for NPR.org, and the BBC.com. You will often find this set of sources will cover the same major stories. These sources are world famous, have different owners, and have a reason to preserve their credibility as a source of their competitive advantage. For that reason, you can often use these sources to judge the quality of other media outlets, and to identify significant omissions or editorial slants. 

Surveying coverage over a range of media outlets can also help hone your skills at identifying better and worse quality in media outlets. For instance, you can get a liberal slant on stories by watching CNN and a conservative slant by watching Fox News. When you compare coverage with a magazine like The Economist or an outlet like NPR.org, you are likely to notice when CNN and Fox spend their time covering different stories. You will notice when they give very different perspectives on issues and personalities, and develop a feel for what is more likely to be true.  

In sum, broadening the scope of your news intake to cover a range of sources will make you a better-informed citizen. You will be more prepared to defend your opinions because you will be familiar with opposing views. Over time, you will build up your ability to discern quality in media coverage of current events. ​

In the last blog, we concluded that people are not born free. Rather they are born into a condition of necessity that initially precludes freedom. From the outset, there is an irreducible element of social cooperation. Humans would never survive their relatively long and vulnerable childhood without some minimal level of social cooperation. However, the necessity of providing essential needs like food, shelter and protection precludes meaningful freedom until such time as social cooperation expands enough to allow for some specialization and a surplus of time within the social group.

Political philosophers differ in their ideas on the nature of the most basic social cooperation and how government evolves from it. Often, the differences in political philosophy arise from different assumptions about human nature. Some assume humans to be fundamentally good creatures. In this context, good is defined as accepting social cooperation as a foundational value and subordinating self interest enough of the time to prevent unnecessary harm to the group. On this model, good people will, if properly informed, comply with a natural law where all are treated equitably and none will resort to violence except in self defense. Others assume humans to be fundamentally selfish creatures who will use any means necessary, including violence, to ensure the most favorable distribution of social goods for themselves even if their actions put the group at risk. On this view, any social agreements are fundamentally coercive and the chief characteristic of government is power and the monopoly of violence. It seems likely that there is no definitive "human nature" corresponding to one or the other of these extremes, 

The thought experiment by which political philosophers justify their preferred form of government is to project their vision of human nature backwards to some imagined, pre-governmental state of nature. Various visions of human nature have led to different depictions of the state of nature and have been used to justify very different forms of government. Often, the presumption is that individuals surrender the "freedom" of the state of nature to enter into a government that is based on a social contract.

But as we noted previously, the imagined "freedom" of a pre-social state is a fiction. First, the idea of a pre-social state is itself an illusion because the long period of vulnerability associated with human childhood demands some minimal social cooperation as a starting point. We are inherently social animals. Second, what we commonly refer to as freedom arises only when social cooperation expands to the point where specialization is possible. Specialization increases efficiency in meeting basic needs, and a surplus of time allows individuals freedom to choose certain voluntary activities over the tasks that would otherwise be required to meet basic needs.

As the modes and methods of social cooperation become more complex (in order to generate more surplus time and resources), one function of government is to manage the complexity of social cooperation. Ideally this is undertaken with the goal of enabling the greatest amount of freedom and well-being possible for citizens. Another function is to arbitrate the inevitable conflict that arises among stakeholders in the course of cooperative endeavor. In order to be able to truly serve as the arbiter of conflict, the state must possess the authority to force compliance with its mandates. In other words, the state must have a monopoly on the use of force to support the law.

In the next essay, we'll consider the merits of our United States government in performing these functions.

Rousseau famously said, "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains." Let's start by bringing Rousseau into the 21st century, correct his gender bias, and consider his meaning to be "People are born free and everywhere they are in chains." Rousseau wants to make bad government wholly responsible for the chains, but he clearly misses a step. The notion that we are "born free" is fundamentally incorrect. Before we can arrive at anything approaching an appropriate model for good government, we must begin by understanding the flaw in Rousseau's initial condition of freedom, and the implications this has on the necessary purpose of government.

People are not born free in any meaningful sense of freedom. If I were to define a human being, I certainly would include self awareness and free will. But the definition of a human must also include a description of the essentials of the body in which self awareness and free will abide. That body comes with inherent constraints. We experience the world from within individual bodies that exist in time and space. Those bodies grow during a long period of vulnerable childhood, require food and shelter, and a possess diverse sensory mechanisms inclined to feelings including emotional attachment, joy, sorrow, pleasure and pain. People are not born free--they are born in mortal danger of perishing immediately, unless there are other people willing and able to provide for their needs until such time as they can provide for themselves.

In the abstract, providing for oneself is a full time job. It takes a lot of time to secure and prepare food, find and maintain shelter, and perhaps reciprocate in duties of care for others. We see, immediately and inescapably, the fundamental need for some minimal social cooperation in order to sustain human life. But at that minimal level of social cooperation, there is no real freedom because most, if not all, available time is consumed in the provision of food and shelter and care for our immediate social group. Time is the universal constraint: we have only so much of it, and if we have to spend all available time providing for basic needs, then there really is little scope for freedom. And in a condition of even moderate scarcity, we might expect the individual pursuit of essentials to lead to conflict and thereby create another essential need: protection.

It is not hard to see that we can increase the scope for individual freedom through social cooperation. Tacit or explicit agreements on specialization with those in our own and neighboring social groups allow us to provide for our essential needs more efficiently. At some point, this efficiency may yield sufficient surplus time to allow us to meaningfully consider the concept of freedom. We are not born free. We are only able to speak of freedom once we have a level of social cooperation that allows for efficiency in meeting essential needs and creates a surplus of time.

It is hard to understand how anyone could still believe a single word uttered by President Trump, or how any American in their right mind would still vote for him.

Every credible member of his administration has abandoned ship, from former Exxon Chairman Rex Tillerson (who referred to the President as a "f*ng moron") to his own former Chief of Staff, retired Marine General John Kelly and his former Secretary of Defense, retired Marine Corps General James Mattis.

Speaking about Trump, Kelly recently told friends that "The depths of his dishonesty is just astounding to me. the dishonesty, the transactional nature of every relationship, though it's more pathetic than anything else. He is the most flawed person I have ever met in my life."

And now, on top of the condemnation by even his former chosen cabinet members, we learn that Trump has a Chinese bank account from which he withdrew over $15 million AFTER he was president (New York Times, Oct 21, 2020)... this from the guy who staged a press conference at the beginning of his presidency with stacks of paper and allegedly signed over control of all his business interests to disinterested parties.  We have never had such a bald-faced liar and crook in the White House.

Shame on all of us if we allow this fraud another term. Please vote, and like me, please vote for Joe Biden.