Legl Writing

 

I would like to write about the philosophy of the law as well as write legal fiction. Years ago I read “The Worldly Philosophers.” It made a big impression on me and was a big part of why I decided to major in economics in undergrad before going to law school. I realized from my undergraduate studies that the discipline of economics post graduate level was highly mathematical. I am fascinated by math, but I am just not very good at it. Trying to understand calculus formulas or formulas in theoretical physics or advanced econometrics or taxes makes me want to cry. I took a computer programming class in college and thought it was hell. I have to use a certain amount of math in my work involving bankruptcy and chapter 13 plans and tax calculations, but the majority of estate planning is not centered around math, it is centered around relationships, concepts and distinctions. I am more comfortable there. I do have great respect for the math masters. They are like composers of symphonies hearing what others don’t and making sense of the endless complexity. Math is painful for me. So when I see people frolicking in what would be excruciating for me, enjoying the challenge of it, I am amazed and deeply impressed. The math masters have the keys to the kingdom. Everyone else only gets in because they let us in. I think that a true worldly philosopher has to traverse the fields of economics and law like a native recognizing plants, animals, soil and rock types, wind and water and weather knowing that what we can experience with our senses and interpret and experience with our brains and bodies, as magnificent and copious as it is being all of possible human experience, is but a tiny peephole into the infinite. A finite amount of space and time no matter how large, over 13 billion years as the approximate age of everything in the known universe for example, is a flash of light in the distant darkness appearing and then disappearing as quickly as it came.

What are the distinctions among: legal rights, human rights, civil rights, & moral rights?

These concepts are related but distinct:

1. Legal Rights:

• Definition: Legal rights are rights or entitlements established and protected by laws within a specific legal system. They are creations of statutes, regulations, or court decisions and are enforceable through legal processes.

• Origin: They arise from a particular country’s political and legal system.

• Scope: Legal rights are geographically limited and vary depending on the jurisdiction.

• Examples: The right to vote, the right to a fair trial, the right to own property, freedom of speech, and due process. 

2. Human Rights:

• Definition: Human rights are inherent rights that all human beings possess simply by virtue of being human. They are universal and inalienable, meaning they cannot be granted or taken away by any state or government. Human Rights may be abridged, disrespected, and ignored. However, Human Dignity remains in the Slave, the Prisoner, and the Tortured.

• Origin: They are derived from ethical principles and a fundamental belief in human dignity, often associated with concepts of natural law.

• Scope: Human rights are universally applicable to all people, regardless of nationality, race, religion, or any other status.

• Examples: The right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of expression, the right to work, and the right to education. 

3. Civil Rights:

• Definition: Civil rights are the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality. They are legal protections against discrimination and unequal treatment by governments, organizations, or individuals.

• Origin: Civil rights are typically granted and guaranteed by the state or government to its citizens. They can be enshrined in a constitution or other laws.

• Scope: Civil rights are often specific to the citizens of a particular country or jurisdiction.

• Examples: The right to vote, equal treatment under the law, and protection against discrimination based on race, gender, religion, or other characteristics. 

4. Moral Rights:

• Definition: Moral rights are rights that arise from ethical principles and are not necessarily codified in law. They are based on societal values and ethical considerations, even if they are not legally enforceable.

• Origin: Moral rights are based on ethical principles and beliefs about fundamental human dignity, fairness, and Justice.

• Scope: Moral rights can vary depending on cultural values, personal beliefs, and ethical frameworks.

• Examples: The moral right to be treated with respect, to tell the truth, or to help others in need. 

Relationship between the concepts:

Moral rights can inspire changes in legal systems. Moral rights can serve as a foundation for justice and motivate individuals and societies to advocate for legal reforms. 

Human rights can form the basis for civil rights. When a government recognizes and protects human rights within its laws, they become civil rights for its citizens.

Human rights, which are considered universal and inherent to all human beings, become the basis for civil rights when governments choose to put those human rights into national laws and constitutions. 

Here’s how this process typically works:

• Human Rights as Universal Standards: Human rights represent a globally agreed-upon set of principles based on the idea of inherent dignity and worth of every person. They are seen as fundamental and inalienable, applying to everyone regardless of their nationality, race, or other status.

• Translation into Domestic Law: When a country recognizes these human rights and decides to protect them within its legal system, it does so by enacting laws and constitutional provisions that reflect and operationalize these principles.

• Civil Rights as National Protections: These national laws and constitutional provisions establish civil rights, which are the legal entitlements of citizens within that country. Civil rights are essentially the legal mechanisms within a nation that ensure the protection and enjoyment of specific human rights for its citizens.

• Enforcement through Domestic Legal Systems: Governments, through their domestic legal systems (including courts, legislation, and enforcement agencies), are responsible for upholding these civil rights and providing remedies when they are violated.

Examples:

• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) includes the right to a fair trial. Many countries, including the United States, have incorporated this right into their civil rights by guaranteeing it in their constitutions and laws, such as the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

• International Bill of Human Rights

• Freedom of speech, recognized as a human right, is protected as a civil right in many countries through constitutional provisions like the First Amendment in the U.S. 

In essence: Human rights provide the ethical and moral foundation, establishing what rights people inherently possess simply by being human. Civil rights are the legal framework and protections implemented by governments to ensure that these fundamental human rights are respected and upheld within their respective nations. 

---

Legal rights may or may not align with moral rights. It is possible for a legal system to uphold laws that are considered morally wrong or unjust.

When is it permissible and why for the law to protect activity considered to be immoral?

The permissibility and reasons for the law to protect activities that might be considered immoral are rooted in various philosophical and legal theories, particularly those advocating for the separation of law and morality

. 

1. Legal Positivism:

• Legal positivists, such as H.L.A. Hart and John Austin (1790-1859), argue that the validity of a law is determined by its source and whether it was enacted through legitimate procedures, not by its moral content.

• From this perspective, a law can be valid and legally enforceable even if it is considered immoral.

• The separation of law and morality allows for objective analysis of legal frameworks without being influenced by subjective moral beliefs.

• This approach can be seen in situations where laws might support practices considered immoral, but their legality facilitates legal reforms without requiring moral consensus. 

2. Protecting Individual Liberty and Autonomy:

• Laws may protect activities considered immoral to uphold principles of individual liberty and autonomy. John Stuart Mill’s “harm principle” suggests that the only legitimate reason for state intervention is to prevent harm to others.

• This principle implies that actions that do not directly harm others, even if considered immoral by some, should generally not be subject to legal prohibition.

• Protecting individuals’ freedom to make choices, even if those choices are perceived as morally questionable, is crucial in a diverse society where moral values vary. 

3. Promoting Tolerance and Avoiding Tyranny:

• Legal systems that avoid enforcing a specific moral code help promote tolerance and prevent the imposition of one group’s moral beliefs on others.

• Separating law from morality can also act as a safeguard against judicial overreach or tyranny, preventing judges from substituting their personal moral beliefs for established legal principles. 

4. Maintaining Social Order:

• While laws often reflect societal values, their primary objective is to maintain social order and protect basic rights, not necessarily to enforce morality.

• Laws ensure social cohesion and stability by regulating behavior and providing a framework for interactions within society. 

5. Reflecting Evolving Societal Values:

• Laws may lag behind evolving societal morality, reflecting different moral perspectives on issues such as homosexuality or abortion.

• Changes in laws often occur as a result of shifts in societal values and moral norms, demonstrating the dynamic relationship between law and morality. 

In summary:

The law can protect activities considered immoral based on the principles of legal positivism, the protection of individual liberty, the promotion of tolerance, and the need to maintain social order. The separation of law and morality is not meant to disregard morality altogether but to ensure that legal validity is determined through established processes, allowing for critical evaluation and potential reform of laws based on evolving moral standards and societal values. 

This is what AI has to say about why both matter.

Writing about the philosophy of law, also known as jurisprudence, is essential for several reasons: 

1. Examining and Critiquing Legal Systems:

• Philosophy of law allows for a deeper examination of the fundamental assumptions and principles underlying legal systems.

• It enables one to question even the most basic premises of law, using various philosophical ideas to evaluate their validity. 

2. Understanding the Nature and Purpose of Law:

• Legal philosophy explores questions about what law is, how it functions in society, and what its aims should be.

• It analyzes legal concepts like justice, rights, and obligations, providing clarity and promoting their understanding within legal systems. 

3. Informing Legal Practice and Theory:

• Legal philosophy provides a theoretical framework for legal professionals to understand the underlying principles guiding their decisions.

• It helps lawyers and judges make informed and well-reasoned decisions.

• It can also inform legal reform and policy-making by providing critical perspectives on legal practice and theory. 

4. Promoting Social Justice and Human Rights:

• Legal philosophy examines the relationship between law and morality, exploring whether laws should reflect moral principles and promoting social justice.

• The concept of human rights, a central concern of modern jurisprudence, is closely tied to the philosophy of law.

• Legal philosophy helps evaluate the moral and legal legitimacy of laws and institutions, promoting justice and human rights. 

5. Developing Critical Thinking Skills:

• Engaging with legal philosophy challenges one to think deeply about complex legal issues and question assumptions, fostering critical thinking skills essential for legal professionals.

• It provides different perspectives on law, enabling one to develop their own informed viewpoint. 

6. Understanding Law’s Relationship with Society:

• Legal philosophy explores the interplay between law and societal values, examining how legal frameworks reflect and shape those values.

• It helps understand how law can be a tool for social change by challenging existing norms and promoting reforms, as seen in historical examples like the Civil Rights Movement. 

In essence, writing about the philosophy of law is crucial because it allows for a rigorous and critical analysis of legal systems, helps clarify legal concepts, informs legal practice and theory, promotes justice and human rights, fosters critical thinking, and enhances understanding of law’s role in society. The concept that human rights are defeasible, meaning they can be legitimately overridden or canceled under certain circumstances, has a long and complex history in philosophical and legal thought. 

Philosophical Roots:

• Ancient Greek Philosophy: Some scholars trace the origins of defeasibility back to figures like Plato, who in his Statesman, discussed the inherent imperfection of general rules and the need for exceptions.

• W.D. Ross and Moral Philosophy: W.D. Ross, a 20th-century moral philosopher, used the concept of defeasibility to criticize Kant’s view of absolute duty, suggesting that certain duties could be overridden by other moral considerations. 

Influence of Legal Philosophy:

• H.L.A. Hart: H.L.A. Hart, a prominent legal philosopher, is often credited with introducing the term “defeasibility” into philosophical discourse in the 20th century. He explored how legal concepts and rules can be understood as defeasible, meaning they can be defeated or overridden in certain cases.

• The rule of recognition is a concept in legal philosophy, particularly within H.L.A. Hart’s legal positivism. It is a secondary rule that provides the criteria for determining which rules are valid laws within a specific legal system. Essentially, it’s a master rule that defines how to identify other rules as valid laws. 

• Here’s a more detailed explanation:

• Foundation of a legal system:The rule of recognition forms the foundation of a legal system, providing the basis for identifying which rules are considered legally binding. 

• Identifying valid laws:It outlines the criteria for determining what counts as law within that system, such as whether a rule was enacted by a competent legislature or established through consistent judicial practice. 

• Social practice:The rule of recognition is not a formal written rule but rather a social practice among legal officials, who accept and apply its criteria. 

• Resolving uncertainty:It helps resolve disputes about what the law is by providing a common standard for identifying valid rules. 

• Example:In the United States, the Constitution is often cited as an example of a rule of recognition, as it provides the basis for determining the validity of other laws. 

• Key in Hart’s theory:The rule of recognition is a central concept in Hart’s legal positivism, distinguishing it from natural law theories, which ground law in morality or inherent principles. 

• Function:According to legal scholars on Wikipedia, it serves three key functions: providing a test for legal validity, conferring validity on other rules, and unifying the legal system. 

• Ronald Meyers Dworkin

• Property Law: The idea of defeasibility has roots in property law, particularly in historical legal forms like the maritagium, where an estate could revert to the donor under specific conditions, illustrating the concept of a right that is valid unless defeating conditions apply. 

Evolution of the Concept:

• Over time, the concept of defeasibility has expanded beyond property law and moral philosophy to influence areas like epistemology (the study of knowledge), logic, and artificial intelligence.

• In contemporary legal systems, legal rules are often understood as defeasible, allowing for exceptions and adaptations to avoid unjust or erroneous outcomes. 

Important Considerations:

• While the term “defeasibility” may be relatively recent in philosophical language, the underlying idea that rights and rules can have exceptions or be overridden has ancient roots.

• The concept of defeasibility highlights the complex and often context-dependent nature of rights and legal rules, suggesting that they are not always absolute or unconditional. 

The concept of defeasibility continues to be debated and explored in various fields of study, including law, philosophy, and ethics. 

---

Writing legal fiction is important for a number of reasons, impacting both the legal profession and broader society: 

For the Legal Profession:

• Humanizing the Law: Legal fiction helps lawyers and law students connect with the human element of legal practice, reminding them that they represent real people with real problems.

• Developing Skills: Reading and writing legal fiction can enhance critical thinking, analytical skills, and the ability to construct compelling arguments, which are all crucial in legal practice.

• Promoting Empathy: Engaging with diverse characters and their experiences within legal narratives fosters empathy and a deeper understanding of the impact of legal decisions on individuals.

• Improving Legal Writing: Reading fiction can inspire creative legal writing by exposing writers to diverse writing styles and narrative techniques. 

For Society:

• Raising Awareness: Legal fiction can educate the public about legal concepts, social justice issues, and the complexities of the legal system.

• Shaping Public Perception: Literary portrayals of lawyers and the legal system can influence public attitudes towards the legal profession and encourage trust.

• Inspiring Legal Reform: Legal fiction can expose injustices and shortcomings within the legal system, leading to public debate and potentially inspiring legal reforms.

• Promoting Dialogue: It contributes to discussions about law, justice, and society by encouraging readers to engage with complex legal issues. 

In essence, legal fiction serves as a bridge between the abstract world of law and the human experiences it affects. It offers unique perspectives on justice, morality, and societal issues, enriching both the legal field and the broader public understanding of the role of law in society. 

My Life as a Liberal

 

lib·er·al/ˈlib(ə)rəl/

adjective

willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas.

relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.Similar:tolerantunprejudicedunbigotedbroad-mindedopen-mindedenlightenedforbearingpermissivefreefree and easyeasygoinglaissez-fairelibertarianlatitudinarianunbiasedimpartialnonpartisanindulgentlenientlaxsoftOpposite:narrow-mindedbigoted

noun

a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.

a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

The adjective liberal involves being open to, respecting, and accepting ideas and behavior different from one’s own.  This requires education.  Without education, exposure to new ideas is limited.  Wrestling with the challenges posed by new ideas is limited.  Knowledge of one’s self, and one’s place in the World is limited without education.  Education is the cornerstone of being liberal.  Without being open to new ideas, personal growth and development and the growth and development of societies is limited.

A painful lesson in the consequences of not being open to new ideas is the history of what happens when a steel-age culture with guns and trains encounters a stone-age culture with bows and arrows.  By not being open to the new idea of a written language, and preserving and maintaining traditions for tens of thousands of years, the indigenous First Nations people of North America left themselves open to being killed by the millions, and American Buffalo being killed by the millions resulting in the Indian Reservation System we have today.  Native peoples couldn’t defend themselves or their culture against the much larger more technologically sophisticated cultures with Guns, Germs, & Steel.

EDUCATION

The best education is an enlightening experience and process of facilitating learning, and the acquisition of knowledge, skills, values, morals, beliefs, habits, and personal development. Education is also transmission of cultural heritage from one generation to the next.

Education is about individual character and the character of societies as well as about scientific and technological advancement.  Life is a battle for survival.  People and societies who are the most open to all of the ideas in the World who pick and choose and adapt those ideas for their own purposes devoted to progress are more likely to survive and to defeat individuals and societies who do not do so. 

The best education has an element of reconnaissance to it.  Openness to new ideas is in part openness to the early identification of threats.  Information and its analysis allows more accurate predictions of hostility.  For example, by having highly educated and experienced software engineers and analysts, we can see the kinds of malware, ransomware, spyware, and other attacks on our infrastructure and how those attacks change and increase in sophistication.  Our defenses must account for and adapt to the attacks. We fail to do so at our peril.  Other examples include the use of sophisticated high and long flying drones with supersonic missiles that literally strike targets before the sound reaches the target.  We simply cannot afford to be so attached to traditional ways of doing things that we fail to adapt to new ideas which include new threats.

Educated people live longer, produce more, earn more, and are generally happier and more satisfied with their lives.  Educated people also tend to have educated children and grandchildren.  That is not to say that some people without education cannot achieve all of those things, they most definitely can.  The wide availability of education and correspondingly high rates of literacy tend to increase opportunities for large numbers of people.  Of course, some individuals such as actors, professional athletes, or entrepreneurs spectacularly exceed the benefits education provides for many people, but the balance of probabilities is that most people are more likely to benefit from education than from the few gateways to wealth, fame, and power available available to an immensely talented and driven few.

Therefore, policies relating to universal access to the best education for the most people based on merit without regard to sex, race, ethnicity, religion, disability are of paramount importance.  Management of costs of education and of student loans and of teacher quality matter to a liberal society.  Legacy admission not based on academic merit is anathema.  Affirmative Action admission not based on academic merit is anathema.  Access to resources to develop academic merit and breaking down of barriers to those resources is what is required so that all higher education graduates display excellence.  No unqualified or underqualified graduates based on family money or influence or lack thereof should be permitted because those seats could be filled by those with the ability and ambition to make the most of the opportunities presented.  The fact that all graduates are white anglo-saxon protestant males for example would be prima facie evidence that opportunities for others are not available.  The white male supremacy based system that created such an imbalance when “minorities” may make up more than half of the population when women and people of color are included, did not begin at the level of college admission.  It started much much earlier, and must be remedied much much earlier.  The cumulative effects of privilege over about 18 years is what produces the gap between the dominant and the dominated.  A change in admissions policies admitting less qualified people of color is a shortcut through a field of poison ivy.  It is shorter, but it results in being covered with itchy sores.  The long hard work of breaking barriers that exist before children are born and persist throughout their lives is what is required. 

I remember the pain in the voice of an African American history teacher I had in high school who graduated from Georgetown, but pronounced Constantinople as Constantinopolee.  He told us he knew he wasn’t as smart or qualified as other graduates, but that he got a free Affirmative Action Degree because it was offered with lower qualifying standard than other students had to meet.  The solution is not to admit the unqualified, it is to get more diverse people qualified.  I have good friend who is a pilot who told me how scared he was about what Affirmative Action was doing to aviation safety.  Hiring an unqualified African American pilot who lacks the proper training and experience is dangerous.  Give that pilot the opportunities to get the training and experience so we call can be safer and happier.

REDUCING INEQUALITY WITH A SOCIAL SAFETY NET

INCLUDING EDUCATION, HEALTHCARE & HOUSING

If equal access to education by those with the academic merit to make the most of educational opportunities is foundational to what it means to be liberal, and poverty, unemployment, drug addiction, crime, mass incarceration, race-based policing, behavioral health issues, and the legacy of the whites only redlining of America are interfering with that equal access resulting in college admissions skewed in favor of male WASPS (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) such that women and people of color are underrepresented based on the percentage of the population those groups, (more than half), then reducing inequality of opportunity and improving the social safety net is key to supporting the highest liberal value placed on education and opportunities for getting an education.

Scandinavian countries are known around the world for their strong social safety nets and low levels and wealth and income inequality.  Education, healthcare, and housing are rights of citizenship.  Democracies are robust and free of voter suppression based on race as is the case in the U.S..  Not surprisingly, countries like Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland consistently rank high in personal happiness relative to other countries.

Healthcare and housing support education.  It is difficult to go through the process of getting an education if you are sick or unhoused.  These are obstacles to achieving the cornerstone value of universally available merit based education without the burden of student loans.  Every student should be allowed to get as much education as that student’s choice to use ability and ambition can get them.  Women and people of color should be encourage to get education, not discouraged in various ways under our current system.  Education should be like Juilliard.  You can’t pay.  You earn your way in and earn your way out.  It doesn’t matter if you don’t have shoes.

PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT & WORKERS

Education, healthcare, housing, and relatively low wealth and income inequality aren’t much use if climate change makes the world increasing less habitable for humans and low wages, union busting, and dangerous conditions, make work increasingly miserable for many people. The world needs large numbers of people who do not have higher education.  Higher education can serve to make workers less satisfied because they are underemployed and have higher aspirations for themselves.

So, society should both encourage education for those who want it, and not judge those who don’t.   People who do not attain high levels of education but work hard and are honest are a credit to society.  They are the backbone of society.  Without them, we would just be a blob of goo on the floor with a head reading and thinking as we starved to death.

The Earth itself supports all life (with help from the Sun).  If a person is in a coma on life support we wouldn’t play around unplugging the ventilator for a few minutes to see what happens, or slowing the IV fluid or feeding tube to see if it makes a difference.  You just don’t play around with a person’s life support.  It is not a joke.  They literally need it to live.  Yet, that is what we do to ourselves and our planet.  Sometimes what we inflict on ourselves is much worse that what we would tolerate from others.  If some alien civilization was pumping carbon into our atmosphere and increasing greenhouse gasses to degrade our climate, the world would mobilise and unify in opposition.  However, since we are doing it to ourselves the alarm bells are heard by many people, but not everyone and we slowly work toward reduction.  Undoing the harm we have already done and returning the climate and the Earth to what it once was before we maimed it is not even considered as a possibility.  Only slowing the rate of harm is discussed.  Only slowing population growth or slowing economic growth is discussed.  The idea that we have too many people to support with a fossil-fuel economy making baby steps toward renewable energy is apparently unthinkable and unstated.  Reducing population size and the size of economies and the militaries supported by those economies is sacrilege.

Saying so is heresy akin to what used to get people burned at the stake.  Today, you would just be cancelled rather than incinerated alive,  but it is metaphorically similar.

So, yes, I do believe that liberal means smaller government, but not in the sense of a smaller social safety net.  I think it means smaller government in proportion to a smaller population, economy, military, and empire.  Smaller in a liberal sense means less intrusive into personal matters relating to sexuality, abortion, raising children, and religion. Smaller means more tightly focused on the well being of the majority of citizens.  If we lived by Adam Smith’s definition of the Wealth of Nations being the standard of living of the majority of citizens and the ability to recreate that standard again and again, I think we would be better off.  How most people live, and how their children, and grandchildren live, should be the standard by which we measure ourselves.  Doing so would preclude military empire deficit spending which threatens the standard of living of present and future Americans.

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES, DEMOCRACY, & FREE ENTERPRISE

These values can sometimes conflict with a strong social safety net, low wealth and income inequality, and merit based non-exclusionary access to education.  All three of those values run counter to male WASP supremacy.  Protecting workers, policing fraud and corruption, filling in the holes in Capitalism which creates and maintains a permanent underclass does conflict with individual wealth creation to some degree.
The individual right to do as one wishes with one’s land and the air and water adjacent to that land is limited by government agencies such as the EPA.  Individual rights and civil liberties are limited by everyone else’s individual rights and civil liberties.  The value of a vote is increased when the number of votes cast is decreased creating an incentive for voter suppression, which is alive and well in America today and not limited to the literacy tests and poll taxes of decades past.  Free enterprise is limited by the SEC and the FTC.
To be liberal means to weigh and balance these competing values and to keep searching in order find optimal policies to strike and preserve balance.  For example, protection of the Spotted Owl in Oregon does have an economic impact on the logging industry.  The conflict is real and can be heated.  An editorial in the Oregonian said, “I love Spotted Owls; they taste like chicken.”  Protesters sometimes chain themselves to trees to attempt to prevent cutting down of trees.  Getting all of the information and making conscious, informed, public policy choices regarding preserving an endangered species and mitigating harm to loggers and the logging industry is necessary and important.  Some government assistance to mitigate harm would be appropriate.  These are difficult decisions that require open minds that are not overly prejudiced and are tolerant.
I was heartened by the testimony of Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve Chair who was a proponent of the philosophy of Ayn Rand and believed that government had no role in policing fraud and corruption in capital markets.  He said he was wrong.  Lack of government oversight is what allowed the orgy of greed that created the worldwide economic collapse of 2007.  Unfortunately, it does not appear that we have learned from our own history and continue to have a multi-trillion dollar opaque derivatives market even larger than we did before 2007.
I used to wonder why we can’t learn from experiences like Vietnam and repeat them in Afghanistan and Iraq.  I don’t wonder anymore now that a leaked recording of President Biden has him explaining that he learned from Nixon that we can pull out and leave those who supported us behind to be tortured and killed and there is nothing anyone can do about it.  We did learn.  We just learned the wrong lesson.  We are like Jesse Pinkman in Breaking Bad who comes out of Rehab and says he learned his lesson, which was “I am a bad guy.”  That is not the lesson rehabilitation from drug addiction seeks to teach, but it was the message received by Mr. Pinkman and by Uncle Sam.
Free Enterprise Capitalism the the most powerful economic engine yet devised in the history of the World practiced in various forms even in Communist Countries such as China and Russia.  No other system can compete with the wealth building of free people seeking to maximize profit.

Unfettered Capitalism is hellish and practiced by no nation on Earth.  Irish laborers coming to America as ballast in ships blown up by dynamite building railroads were cast aside for more Irish immigrants because slaves were to valuable to be abused in that fashion.  Chinese rail workers died or were maimed and were replaced by more Chinese workers.  The environment had no protection from coal burning and buried and dumped waster.  Unemployed workers had to protection.  The elderly had no protection, nor did the disabled.  Women and people of color were denied access to all that should have been their as tax paying citizens.  Fraudulent investment scams were rampant.  Robbery and cattle rustling were common.  Now ransomware is common.  Human Nature is not changed by technology, it is just expressed differently.

No rational person can argue that Government does not have a role in protecting and managing these harms.  Every civilized Country does so in some manner to some degree.  The issue is what is the cost benefit analysis of government regulation.  When do regulation and taxes strangle business and initiative and when do they promote entrepreneurship and investment in research and development and improvement of good and services.  What tax rates are too high and why?  What tax rates are too low and why?  What regulation is to much and why?  What regulation is too little and why?

Getting the right amount of tax and regulation requires an open mind, tolerance to different ideas, public debate, and effort in reaching compromises.  That is what liberal means to me and why it is important for the world.