Democratic Socialism: Profile of Failure

Capital Punishment: Fallacies & Facts-An Argument for Abolition

2009-11-01T02:05:00.000-08:00

As a pro-bono research investigator for the wrongfully convicted, I have more than sufficient reason and experience to argue against the death penalty. I have independently researched information for The Innocence Project and other defense counsel. I have likewise contributed findings to several U.S. Attorneys and the FBI Laboratory. The depositions and evidence of wrongdoing presented to various participants in capital cases stand in condemnation of a system of punishment that is all too often in error. This essay will provide a succinct and compelling argument against capital punishment wherever it is used, regardless of a defendant’s guilt or innocence.
When capital crime, such as treason, pre-meditated murders, some arson, murder-for-hire, and other serious crimes take place, there are many events that happen within the first few hours. Almost the entire subsequent turn of events can hinge on how the initial crime scene process is carried out. It is true that the evidence tells the story. Problems occur when there is a rush to judgment and existing evidence is used to fit a foregone, often erroneous, conclusion of guilt. There is temptation to not investigate every aspect fully, especially when the “good guys” feel they have a solid case and enough evidence, albeit circumstantial. Follow this with a forced or coerced confession, poor defense counsel, an ambitious prosecutor, and corrupt practices with regard to the turning over of exculpatory evidence. Thus, a human life hangs in the balance of what becomes a sophisticated game of Us vs. Them (us being the prosecution and them being the defense). In fact, there are too many such cases sitting in a number of death row cells as I write this. I have met my share. I have been rewarded when a person is exonerated at the eleventh hour, and I have played some tiny part in the delicate rebalancing of the Scales of Justice. Sometimes a guilty party is given an alternate sentence of life without the possibility of parole. This, too, is a victory. The guilty remain incarcerated, justice is served and another execution is cancelled.
To quote you cases of exonerated innocents is not the purpose or the task of this essay. It is, rather, to provide enough data for you to realize that if one innocent person is executed, the whole system has failed gravely in its performance. One of the first lessons in law school is that it is always best to err in favor of the defendant.
The defendant who has eye witnesses (verification), the same shoe prints (evidence), and an earlier altercation (motive) is well on the way to execution. To precede this with a confession that was obtained by giving false information to the defendant, or using other psychological games solely to obtain a conviction, is patently a corruption of justice. There are cases where some detail that would exonerate a defendant is left out, hidden, or otherwise not turned over to the defense. You must know that the keeper of all evidence in any case is the prosecutor’s department. The defense must rely on the honesty and integrity of the prosecution. In a high stakes election year, to pick up a lagging career, to gain fame as a star prosecutor or to add a “notch” to one’s win record; there is all too often foul play. This can go so far as to involve forensic laboratories, crime scene specialists, and even the FBI.
More disheartening is the brutal reality that the poor, minorities and those whose defense is wholly inadequate are more likely to be sentenced to death than a better educated, mainstream, Caucasian who has greater wherewithal to obtain a good defense.
The old maxim, “an eye for an eye” is sometimes brought up as justification for the death penalty. However, that biblical measurement for revenge or payback, if you will, was intended as a limit on the amount of revenge one could take. That is, one cannot take a head for a tooth or an arm for a leg. The objective was to control the retribution. One might argue that it is then a life for a life. Since the bible establishes that God is the Giver of life, then it would seem rather contradictory that He who gives life would allow His creation (humankind) free rein to take it as they see fit. Added to that, the Ten Commandments stipulates clearly on the taking of life through murder. What then is execution if not legalized murder?
Certainly it has been proved at various times that capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime overall. It certainly is a deterrent to future commission of crime by one individual (i.e., the one who is executed.) To carry out a legal act of punishment upon a wrongfully convicted person, however, violates all that defines us as a civilized and highly evolved society. It is quite sufficiently primitive to use capital punishment at all—especially in view of the fact that we now have more than adequate methods of warehousing some criminals for life without release.
Another strong argument in favor of lifetime incarceration is the cost of an execution. It costs far more to kill a person by a death sentence than to feed and house that individual for the remainder of natural life. This is true for those convicted who are factually guilty of the crimes for which they are accused. In other words, there are no sound arguments in favor of capital punishment, because one must support that all facets of the arrest, trial, conviction, and punishment are faultless and flawless.
ANTI-THESIS
Capital Punishment Should Continue
It is true that some countries still approve and use the death penalty as their primary deterrent to heinous crimes. The successful argument is that other would-be capital offenders are discouraged in the commission of crime because of the fate of someone else. The only deterrent achieved however, is that one specific individual will absolutely no longer commit a similar crime. Equally true is that life without parole or possibility of parole guarantees the same result.
Isaac Ehrlich posits in “The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death” (2009):
“…the verification or estimation of the magnitude of the deterrent effect of the death penalty—the determination of the expected tradeoff between the execution of a murderer and the lives of potential victims it may help save—can, in turn, influence evaluation of its overall desirability as a social instrument even if that evaluation is largely subjective.
Is it true that minorities and the impoverished receive a less brilliant defense? It may be that some minorities have great support from cultural and political sources to look out for the best interest of the defendant, guilty or not. These issues are still hotly contested. Combs and Comer (1982) substantiate in their study that debate over capital punishment has remained a divisional issue between blacks and white throughout the sixties and seventies. I would add that this is still a factor in the twenty-first century.
A crime scene is meticulously kept, the evidence gathered by procedure, and the lawyers on both sides are responsible, engaging persons whose careers are in good stead. They present their case well, and a conviction is rendered from a jury of peers. The loser here is, of course, the defendant, but also the defense team. Let us assume furthermore that the defendant is, in fact, guilty of the crime for which he was tried. Execution is legal and that is the sentence. The costs involved in carrying it out are well beyond anything feasible. Execution is not an easy end of the line. Costs really get interesting when the appeals process starts and often does go on for several years. Our legal system enjoys the Constitutional benefit of habeas corpus. This means the accused has ample opportunity to get the sentence reduced to life, or to argue for special circumstances thereby lessening the original severity of the crime. It might be a case of Joe factually killing Jim with a crowbar, but after ten hours of harassment by Jim, causing Joe to lose control of his actions. Thus, the process continues. Following two or three rounds of appeals, our defendant is now on death row for several years. The appeals have been lost and now the date of execution is growing close. An entire new process begins and it is, in itself, an industry. There is a special team, a chaplain, psychological counseling, and rehearsals. There are many tests of the equipment to be used to carry out the final payment for crime. There are family issues, sometimes involving even the victim’s family. The witnesses to the execution are mustered and briefed. The execution is a well-oiled machine.
In many court cases, the oratory on both sides frequently cites Biblical passages establishing the right to life and to take life. The image of an indignant God demanding temporal punishment is one of many aspects of support of capital punishment. Robert L. Young (1988) has written about his research addressing the relationship of religion and race toward attitudes about the death penalty. His survey suggests that some faiths (particularly the fundamentalist and evangelist) have significant but very different functions in the attitudes about capital punishment. The race of the religious adherent also altered the survey analysis. It was opined that more research inclusive of sub-groups was warranted.
SYNTHESIS
The Facts Weigh In Heavily
There is little if any resolution to the ongoing debate of capital punishment. There are those of religious fervor on both sides of the fence. There are factions among minorities and whites that disagree with the mechanics of capital punishment. There have been arguments even on the grounds that it is cruel and inhuman because the execution process is painful, even if just, and should be halted on that cause alone.
Cost is clearly established as a contributing factor to abolishing the death penalty. For something to cost into the seven-digit figures, especially when it might be administered to an innocent person, strengthens the anti-death penalty position.
Religion, over all, neither wins nor loses this debate. However, it was established by Unnever, Cullen and Bartkowski (2006) that those with a close personal relationship to God were unlikely to favor the death penalty.
Returning to Isaac Ehrlich (2009), the thrust of his research is the “multi-faceted opposition to capital punishment which must rely upon ethical and aesthetic considerations.” Ehrlich recognized the risk of errors that are present in a legal system. These errors can be caused or aggravated by all of the things mentioned earlier. It is a logical conclusion that errors where capital punishment are concerned cannot be appealed or reversed. The only justice at that point would be posthumously won.
The media has touted the fact that the United States leads the world in prison population. With five percent of the world’s population, the U.S. warehouses approximately twenty-five percent of the total number of prisoners in the world. It logically concludes that the great number of prisoners have truly not been presumed innocent. A 1992 National Law Journal poll revealed that twenty-eight percent of jurors believed that if a case gets to the trial stage, the defendant is “probably guilty.” They simply do not believe that our system would go to all that trouble if someone were innocent.
Salerno (2009) states appropriately that our system of crime and punishment have not changed for “several millennia.” He further explains that our ideas of good and evil may be “unsuited to a world where abuses of power can have an apocalyptic reach in impact.”
I have been privileged to be included in specific research on behalf of incarcerated persons that proved their innocence. Some of these are certainly not choirboys, but they are human beings who spent years living mere steps away from an execution chamber and who were not guilty of the crime for which they were convicted. Others of these wrongfully convicted were just ordinary people like you and me, going about their business, when one day they are thrust into a nightmare of phenomenal proportions. To have finally met these persons, sixteen of them, in fact, was a tremendous event for me. These were all “dead men walking” only a couple of months or years before I knew them. We all met at the First Conference on the Wrongfully Convicted held at Northwestern University downtown Chicago campus on a brisk November weekend. The Innocence Project was center stage at this conference. I realized that helping in this endeavor was something I would do whenever called upon. One person had received a stay of execution four times. That is four times preparing to die. What an outrage when innocent.
Salerno (2009) rightly avers that confessions are among several categories of evidence, once the keystone of any case. Recently technology has presented challenges to this form of resolving a case. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld founded the Innocence Project in 1992. It has used DNA evidence to clear sixteen convicts awaiting execution and more than 235 other prisoners; many of them had made self-incriminating statements, signed actual confessions, or accepted plea agreements. The methods of procuring these so called confessions are topics for another time.
This sums up why I oppose the use of the death penalty and support only the maximum sentence of life without possibility of parole. I urge you to research the topic yourself. Seek out and speak with those who have been vindicated. Contact the Innocence Project and get informed.
There is nothing so horrible as the execution of an innocent person. When it happens, it is a black mark upon all of us. It can never be recalled. There are no other chances for an executed person. Justice is not served; it is mocked. The victim is not avenged; another one joins him. Until you have looked at evidence once thought hidden, or discovered intentional and/or sloppy investigative work, you cannot know the impact of it all. Looking into the eyes of innocence preparing to die by lethal injection, gas chamber or electric chair, is to say “No more!” to a punishment that does not serve the public interest or the conscience of a moral nation.

References
Combs, M. W., & Comer, J. C. (1982). Race and capital punishment; a longitudinal analysis. Phylon, 43(4), 350-359. doi:http://www.jstor.org/stable/274757
Cullen, F.T., Fisher, B.S., Applegate, B.K. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice, 27, 1-79.
Ehrlich, I. (1975, June). The deterrent effect of capital punishment: a question of life and death. The American Economic Review, 65(3), 397-417. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1804842.
Salerno, S. (2009). The flaws and fallacies of the American justice system. Skeptic, 15(1), 34-42.
Tyler, T. R., & Weber, R. (1982). Support for the death penalty; instrumental response to crime, or symbolic attitude? Law and Society Review 21, 1982-83, 17(1), 1. Retrieved from Heinonline.org.
Unnever, J. D., Cullen, F. T., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2006). Images of God and public support for capital punishment: does a close relationship with God matter? Criminology - American Society of Criminology, 44(4), 835-866.
Young, R. L. (1992). Religious orientation, race and support for the death penalty. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31(1), 76-87.

What's It All About...Ethically Speaking

2009-11-01T01:51:00.000-07:00

Ethical Integrity is best described as that which is the answer and not the question. That is, it is about taking a position for the right and the moral good. To define ethical integrity is to review the actions of the doer in relation to the issue at hand.
A whistleblower reports malfeasance where he works; a member of a church group tells all about the pastor’s embezzling of funds or sexual deviance; a politician casts the deciding vote against the party line for what he/she considers the greater good. With regard to these acts, many ask: “What are you doing?” In fact, it is precisely that which the individual’s actions have answered at the onset. What he/she is doing, according to the actions, is acting with ethical integrity. But what causes one person to act ethically and another to act immorally, feloniously or not at all? Is it habit, environment, genes, some of each, all of all? Let’s see if the wisdom of the great ethicists, moralists and philosophers say about integrity in ethics. Then we can decide for ourselves if we agree with them completely, in part or at all.
Stephen Covey(1989) comments on ethics and its components thusly: He defines "habits" as knowledge, skills and desires. Knowledge is a habit; it is even a virtue. Skills are not habits; they are more like the results of habits. Desire is not a habit. Desire is the appetite. Intellectual desire is the will. Now Covey means the knowledge that one human activity is good, the skill to be able to conduct this activity and the desire to keep conducting this activity. He does confuse all the issues here. Like Socrates, Covey states that to know the good is automatically to want to do it. It took Plato and then Aristotle to refine this belief. It was strengthened with the addition of a need to grow in knowledge independently of the need to grow in the will to do good. Plato equally taught that a virtue grows with practice. Along these lines, one should take care to keep fresh and in shape physically, mentally, socially and spiritually. This, too, contributes to what one might refer to as a moral, or ethical, disposition. Unlike Plato, I believe that the capacity for evil also increases with repetition. An individual who commits the same felony repeatedly is now numb to “guilt.” His criminal activity becomes a way of life. There is no longer the adrenalin rush, the thrill of the forbidden.
In the fairly heavy amount of research performed to compose this paper, there was a continuing challenge. In almost no case was there any topic covering integrity and ethics alone. My textbook (Ruggiero, 2008) seemed to have most of what I needed, but I knew the search would have to be broader and more inclusive than that. There was little documentation, per se, about integrity in ethics. It all seemed to be about integrity in ethics as applied to other disciplines. There were ample resources for integrity in ethics vis á vis military engagement, government, corporations, health care, foundations and so on. To facilitate the search for information apropos to the topic precisely, it seemed prudent to define the component words integrity and ethics. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (2000) defines them as follows:
Ethics - ethikos (ἠθικός), meaning "moral, showing moral character".
a. A set of principles of right conduct.
b. A theory or a system of moral values
Ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.
[Middle English ethik, from Old French ethique (from Late Latin thica, from Greek thika, ethics) and from Latin thic (from Greek thik), both from Greek thikos, ethical, from thos, character; see s(w)e- in Indo-European roots.]
Integrity - in·teg·ri·ty (n-tgr-t) n.
[Middle English integrite, from Old French, from Latin integrits, soundness, from integer, whole, complete; see tag- in Indo-European roots.]
1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
Armed with definitions, now the task is to set forth how integrity in ethics works and should be applied to our daily lives—at least as a template for human wholeness, wellbeing and good.
I believe we all have anecdotal episodes wherein we have displayed integrity and/or ethics or have experienced a total lack of same. We tell stories of events at the workplace where someone was terminated unfairly, or a time when someone took credit for someone else’s idea or work. There are even tales of integrity in ethics in the daily news. Too great a lack of ethics is what makes the news as embezzlement, insider trading, and other crimes. Ethical drought results in crime, both petty and grand. The causes of such a drought in a person or a society are as many as the pressures upon them. So we can conclude that some people succumb to these influences for what they may consider, albeit temporarily, a greater chance for success in whatever enterprise they are engaged (i.e., school, business, relationship).
I was pleased to be acquainted with former Special Agent Fred Whitehurst of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. During the well-publicized O. J. Simpson trial, Whitehurst’s whistle-blowing status emerged. It was indirectly connected to certain aspects of the investigative and evi-dentiary areas of that notorious double homicide. While this was going on, I was engaged in research dealing with another person, Special Agent Michael Malone. It was my project to prove that this agent had perjured himself repeatedly in many legal cases, some of these being matters of capital crime where human life was at stake. I had obtained court transcripts of three cases wherein SA Malone had clearly perjured himself. He later attempted to clear his name by saying that his caseload was extreme, and his experience so great, that he had erred, perhaps, in his statements. A successful determination of perjury would mean that every case involving Malone would need to be reviewed and, most likely, appealed (at government cost), retried and/or acquitted. The phenomenal cost in both money and reputation (of the Bureau) would demand an utter overhaul of the system, review of the agents in the field and in the laboratory. Ultimately, Malone was semi-victorious. He was not charged with perjury, his excuse of caseload was accepted, and the whole issue went away. Malone soon retired, and Fred Whitehurst had an awesome victory. He sued the FBI and Malone in civil court for access to Freedom of Information Act documents that pointedly attest to Malone’s false testimonies, and false laboratory conclusions. Malone would not be tried, but Whitehurst got his documents, 125,000 pages of all manner of investigative debauchery, along with a modestly healthy settlement. Whitehurst created a foundation for justice and now works to help others who may be caught in the intricate web of the F.B.I.’s laboratory or investigative techniques. Sadly, Malone’s victims will not be able to appeal their cases in which his testimony or laboratory conclusions contributed to their verdicts. Indeed, perhaps a great percentage of the defendants were guilty, but what of those who were innocent? I, Fred Whitehurst, several former Special Agents, and others involved in groups such as The Innocence Project, will always lend a hand to those who are innocent and need assistance to understand how the system works, or—in some cases—fails to work. Clearly, in this abridged anecdote, we see graphically the result of the practice of ethics (Whitehurst) and the total disregard for anything even remotely resembling decency, a moral code, a conscience, virtue or ethics (Malone). One incredible facet of this story occurred while Whitehurst was in the middle of his revelations to a congressional committee. He was approached by two of his former colleagues, supposedly to “have a drink.” In short, the two placed a revolver on the table and suggested that Whitehurst knew what had to be done. This has all the drama of old Rome where the dishonored senator is allowed--urged--to take his own life in order to spare his family and friends the ignominy of his actions and secure his pension for his wife. This example is a huge violation of integrity in ethics. Every day this occurs in smaller ways, or in things not yet discovered and brought to the light of day, but they are all important. These instances are the weave of the fabric of our society. Our consolation is that although there are Malones and those who abet them, there are also the Whitehursts and those who support them. I like to believe that ethical persons far outnumber the morally broken. It is up to us to preserve, practice and lead others by example. We must be, in a fashion, evangelists of ethics.
Dr. John A. Halen (2002) said it well:
Our technology being so powerful, we feel a need for organized reflection on the far-reaching consequences of our decisions. Standing in conflict with a need for reflection is an ability to almost instantly communicate and implement decisions. We can be made to feel as if the process of choosing an action should be as undelayed and immediate as the means of communicating it. This conflict creates tension in the boardroom and battlefield alike. The human decision-maker increasingly becomes a scapegoat in the timeline of action. His immediate decision and action receives higher value than his responsible, thorough, and organized reflection.
How can we organize our ethical decision-making and maintain ethical integrity under the demands of this age? How can we resist arbitrary pressures from superiors, peers, society, and our own hurriedness in order to reason responsibly and even defend our decisions when necessary?
There are many different normative ethical theories—act and rule utilitarianism, ethical egoism, virtue ethics, Kantian absolutism, “The Golden Rule,” etc. Each of these theories draws strength from recommending that we decide rightness or wrongness of actions by considering either our own happiness, the happiness of others, or reasonableness of principles. Even virtue ethicists such as Philippa Foot argue that cultivating virtues and acting virtuously is better on the whole for the agent and society—a variation of the benefit perspective. See Philippa Foot, Virtues and Vices, (Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press, 1978), p. 3. Also, “The Golden Rule” is an interesting application of the principled perspective, asking us to consider, for example, if we would reasonably desire all other persons to practice the same action toward us.
Even Florida has composed a good set of ethics guidelines. I am setting forth merely a selection of the eleven points used to clarify an ethical position. This is an excellent way to keep a quasi ethics check in day to day life. I suggest copying these and posting them near your workspace.
1. Define problem.
2. Determine if it is actually ethical- related.
3. Isolate ethical dimensions of problem.
4. Is it a case of conflicting interests or a question of right or fairness?
5. Who can help? Distinguish technical aspects (cloning or stem cell discussions).
6. Whose problem is this? (personal, role defined, organizational, social, etc.)
7. Who is affected by decisions?
8. Reduce number of alternatives.
9. Weigh the impact of each alternative.
10. Is there a law against the alternative? Violation of moral rule? Offense to policies?
11. Does it accurately reflect the kind of person or organization you want to be?
So here we have individuals and groups from the highest seats of government, business, academia, and religion/spirituality echoing that Golden Rule. No matter how complex the situation, how deftly arguments are stated, how many volumes of lofty philosophy printed, the end product is to do the “right thing” when the contrary would be easier, more expedient, or more richly compensated. After all, if one person can walk away from another’s pain or ignore a community deceived by government or industry, then we all fail. We fail one another, and we fail “the Good.” Whether spiritual, religious, atheist, naturist, naïve or sophisticated, ethics plays off of conscience--our inborn sense of what is right. Conscience stands alone regardless of our philosophical and theological disposition. We can all choose to follow its, and our, higher standard.

References
Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Florida local government ethics. (2008). Retrieved February 22, 2009, from State of Florida Web site: http://dc.cflge.org/cgi?article-1000&context=ethics
Haien, J. A. (2002). Maintaining Eehical integrity--The rules of engagement. Available February 22, 2009, from Department of Philosophy - Metropolitan State College of Denver Web site: http://www.accts.org/ministries/ethics/latvia/Papers/haint.htm
Ruggiero, V. R. (2008). Thinking critically about ethical issues (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright 2000 Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Democratic Socialism: Profile of Failure

2009-11-01T01:45:00.000-07:00

Democratic Socialism - A leftist political ideology that emphasizes the principle of equality and usually prescribes a large role for government to intervene in society and the economy via taxation, regulation, redistribution, and public ownership.
Martin Wolf wrote in New European: Nation, State and Globalisation:
Few serious people now imagine that an economy can function without extensive
private ownership or that a socialized economy could support a stable democratic
order. Many complain that globalization means the destruction of the state, of
democratic choice and of national self-determination (pp. 3-10)

Young Democratic Socialists (n.d.) believe that by democratic socialism if a fight for poltical and economic democracy as a collective, and the democracy, social equality, and economic justice are all curtailed by capitalism and other systems, like white supremacy and patriarchy (allegedly mutated and shaped by capitalism). They believe that only through unified action can social change be made. It means being organized. They mistakenly recognize Martin Luther King, Jr., as a socialist. Whatever their success, the seeds of their system are sown at the college and university levels.
There is a proverb from Lao Tze (Waller, 2008, p. 187) the father of Taoism, “Give a man a fish and he eats for one day; teach him to fish and eats for a lifetime.” It is crippling for a strong society to alter its standards so that the only goal is mediocrity among the masses. I have lived this abroad and am now experiencing it in my daily life in the United States. This proverb is the best way for me to explain how Democratic Socialism works.
Democratic Socialism would not allow us to teach this hypothetical man to fish for himself. That is too condescending. After all, if he wanted to fish, he certainly would. Perhaps the fish are not biting, or the supply depleted where he likes to fish. It would be unfair and arrogant to force him to go to another area to fish. So, we must take the fish from the man who has worked industriously for several days. We will distribute all but one day of his catch to those who could not fish for one day. The man who does not fish will get to eat regardless.
The successful fisherman was set to share his catch with several of his neighbors who went out to fish but did not do as well as he did. He was extending charity. He was also going to put some in his icehouse for the lean days to come when the fish would not be biting. He was being thrifty and wise. He was also going to sell a few of those fish. He was being entrepreneurial. He was even going to hire two more fishermen to help him, give them a portion of the catch and a percentage of the fledgling business. He was being ambitious and enterprising. Now his fish will be taken and all of the people will have enough for only one day.
That is, for me, the heart of Democratic Socialism. In this approach we would strive to be mediocre, not only not praised for individual accomplishments, but derided precisely because we dare to achieve above the status quo. I have lived in such a system of government and find that it fails. Wolf (2001) further states:
One of Adam Smith’s most brilliant insights was the idea that free trade gives a
country the benefits of membership of a great empire. Size increases power, but
it is irrelevant to prosperity. Consider Ireland or Switzerland, Hong Kong or
Singapore. All these are tiny economies that have managed to achieve high and
rising standards of living, while behemoths like Russia and Nigeria, India and China
struggle. The power seeker’s lust for size contributes nothing to citizen prosperity.

But this democratic socialist mentality has crept into our daily lives. I received a letter from my auto insurance company telling me that I would now have to advise them of my odometer readings every three years. I dared to ask why. That was unanticipated. The replies I received ranged from a regurgitation of corporate pabulum, with no substantive answer, to “the state demands we do it” and “I don’t know, but it’s supposed to aid us in recalculating your rate. What that means was since zip codes are not acceptable for calculating insurance rates, the use of actual driven miles would be the new standard. In essence, a person who lives in a high-crime area, belonging to a gang, driving four thousand miles per year, would pay less than a person in a low-crime area driving seven or eight thousand miles each year. I dared to ask how their concept could be accurate if, let us say, I took one car trip—and only one—to Chicago and back. This would obviously affect the odometer by several thousand miles and would not be indicative of my normal driving pattern. Again, there was no answer. What if I refused to send in the form? What if the odometer was broken? The answers were: “We would automatically recalculate your driving to twelve thousand miles per year, which is the standard.” To the latter question: “If it’s broken, then you have to go to a mechanic and see if he can help you fix the odometer and get the right mileage on it.” Who can take these people seriously?
In the above example, we see that the “standard” for all drivers was arbitrarily calculated by some imp in a cubicle, following many meetings with other cubicle imps, and would now be applied across the board to those who do not follow the orders, get in step with the rest of the herd, shut up and fill out the form. On the other hand, if I drive thirty thousand miles per year, and ignore the form, then this great plan would work well for me. It would reduce my average by eighteen thousand annual miles. I suspected yet another somewhat sinister move at hand. In California, there is talk of taxing people for the miles they drive. How easy it will be to know the miles driven by using the insurance company methodology. Here is a clear case of the fish being carved up without knowing why we’re carving it or for whom.
Before we proceed, it is worthy to note that Friedrich von Heyer (awarded a Nobel Prize in Economics) argued that even social democratic reform intended, not to overthrow capitalism, but only to curb it. He outlined the differences between social democrats and democratic socialists. The latter believe(d) that capitalism could never be sufficiently humanized. They state that if your push unemployment too low, inflation results; if job security is too strong, then labor discipline will erode (Young Democratic Socialists).
Now we will move on to yet more Democratic Socialism in action. I used a debit/atm bankcard to make a large purchase, knowing that I would have to contact the bank to get a release for that sum to be cleared in one single transaction. The bank was closed and so I would have to call first thing in the morning. I did precisely that. When I casually indicated what I wanted, the bank representative refused, saying that for this week only the bank “couldn’t possibly approve the release of those funds” because bank ownership was “in transition.” He was even haughty and patronizing. I asked how he could even remotely think that he could retain my money. He replied that I could go to the bank and withdraw it. I now had to explain that if I were disabled and could not do that, then there would be grounds for an “American with Disabilities lawsuit.” Now I had really confused things. The telebanker was losing ground, but held fast to his great power. He asked me why I just did not put my purchase on a credit card “like other people.” So, the Democratic Socialist drum kept beating ever more loudly. The gentleman now proclaimed that these “limits” are for my protection. Now that is absolute folly. Of course they are not for my protection, but rather for the bank’s protection. If they release any funds, they are the responsible party. Not for one minute should any of you ever believe that a bank, of all places, is worried about you, or me, or mom, or the girl next door. As the vernacular states, “It ain’t so.”
This is all blatant and nonsensical on its face. True socialistic democracy is much subtler. Wolf (2001) again comes to the fore with his wisdom:
Many think that globalization is the destruction of the state. Democratic politics
can still range between Scandinavian social democracy and American conserv-
atism. Patriotism will also survive. It is helpful to the modern integrated state. An
open economy permits small nations to combine domestic political independence
with prosperity.
Here is another example of how a system could work in a balanced, free society: About three years ago, a young woman I had helped was trained and able to get a job at a well-known hotel. The salary was low but it was a start. She could envision herself coming out of hard times and making something of herself. She aspired to go into catering. She started her job. Immediately, her children’s health care was cut—not reduced, but cut entirely. All food stamps and small apartment rental benefit were halted. Now the young mother was in way over her head. She had to take a bus to work, so she had even less money than when she was on welfare. There was an easy solution, but no one would listen or try it. I proposed a plan where her insurance through the state would continue until the work place coverage would start. Also suggested was to continue the food stamps until her earnings increased by a certain amount per month. Thereafter, the welfare would reduce by the amount she was earning, after taxes. This would mean that if her welfare was one thousand dollars per month and her take home pay was eight hundred, that she would receive two hundred. As her pay increased, the welfare would decrease. When the money went above her former welfare amount, then the food stamps would diminish. Then she could see daylight. No one would consider it. She struggled but lost the job. She had no way to get childcare, couldn’t afford it for full care days. Then she took the children to a family member, on the bus, and then another bus to get to work on time. She was leaving her home at 6 a.m. to accomplish all of this by 8 a.m. The same mess occurred in reverse at quitting time. The children got cranky and unhappy. The family member was not a good babysitter. In fact, because no one could/would teach her to fish, she went home and ate the fish that was given to her each day.
The Democratic Socialist scheme even wants you to limit your family to parents plus two. No, that is not legislated. It is cleverer than that. We have a rule about seatbelts in every state. If you have five children or four and a mother-in-law living with you, you cannot put them all in one normal-sized sedan. You must own an SUV, mini-van, and be criticized as an ecological enemy, gas hog, capitalist pig and many other pejoratives. If you cannot afford a large car, or the gas to fill a monster guzzler, what then? There is an answer. You should have fewer children. Neither is this legislated, but it is the unspoken alternative. Fewer kids mean less expense. Yet, the state absolutely wants us all to be living equally, but equal to whom? Will I be entitled to a home more like Beverly Hills or a barrio? What if I do not like either? Whose salary will I get, a lawyer’s average or a clerk’s? Where are our many ethicists to solve the dilemmas?
Then will come the medical care. The state will decide that at sixty-five, or maybe fifty-five, a transplant would be wasted. Save that for the younger ones. Certain treatments will not be available for everyone, only those who are screened and deemed suitable. Who will decide? Yet, if you are hoarding some gold, or find funds, you will be able to get what you want, on the black market that thrives under such extreme regulation. Essentially, the desire of the human being is to succeed because he is built that way. Humans are built to use their intellect to be better, do better, accomplish, or conversely, to plot, manipulate, distort, and/or live in a morally negative way. Yet, the choice should always, ultimately, be theirs and not the mandate of some faulted system in a forced egalitarianism.
Schweickhart (2006) says that there can be material equality without democracy as well as democracy without material equality. Plato advocated a material equality for his ideal state. Schweickhart further infers that religious orders have practiced a material equality and emphasize strict obedience to superiors. Yet he disregards the fact that those vowed to religious life in an order, so so voluntarily with a spiritual focus, and do so entirely for spiritual reasons. This would be more clearly a theocratic lifestyle, in my opinion. Plato had a great deal to say about democracy and its potential to deteriorate into tyranny. Perhaps this is why we must guard it and protect it so zealously.
Some in government, the United States government, would have you believe they know better; that they will care for you when capitalism fails you. Well, remember our humble fisherman? He was hiring fishermen, sharing the fish, teaching to fish, etc.. Now, of course, there is no fish at all. With no one learning how to maximize the catch, conserve certain types and harvest others, they all just got eaten up, devoured in a very short time. No one questioned; they acquiesced in silence. It was a sad day for the fishermen and the fish. Democratic socialism succeeded in only thing—loss of a resource for everyone, equally.

References
Wolf, M. (2001). New European: nation, state and globalisation. European business review, 13(5), 3-10.
Schweickhart, D. (2006). Democratic socialism: Sage reference project. Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice, , . Retrieved from http://homepages.luc.edu/~dschwei/demsoc.htm.
Waller, B. N. (2008). Consider ethics - theory, readings, and contemporary issues (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.
Wolf, M. (2001). New European: nation, state and globalisation. European Business Review, 13(5), 3-10.
Young Democratic Socialists. (n.d.). Retrieved May 11, 2009, from Young Democratic Socialists
Web site: http://www.ydusa.org/printable.php?printable=/news/getinvolved