Beloved Father

The memorial service for my father was held Saturday afternoon, March 26th, 2006. More than 100 friends and family joined together to honor him and his life. I gave the following remembrance. I did not use prepared notes for my introductory words, but I recreated them here, for those who did not attend.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I suppose my father might open with a joke. There is one joke I told him that he enjoyed telling – I know many of you have heard him tell it, at some point. I’ll tell you a little secret about where I heard it. At the time, I was a preteen. My father would often nod off in his recliner, while reading medical journals and texts. I would be lying on the couch next to him watching TV. Sometimes he didn’t perk-up to send me off to bed, and I got to stay up late enough to see the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. That is where I heard Flip Wilson tell this joke during a stand-up routine.

A young man had a parrot that started acting sickly and depressed. He took the parrot to a veterinarian. The vet said that the bird was lonely and he just needed a companion. The man couldn’t afford to buy a mate for his parrot, outright, but the guy at the pet shop said he could rent one for just $25 a day. So, the young man took the rented parrot home and put it in the cage with his. His bird was not interested. He kicked the rented parrot to the other side of the cage and moped.

The man took the parrot back and complained that it was no good. The guy at the pet store had a better bird and guaranteed it would make his parrot happy. But! it would cost $100 just for the day. Well, the young man takes the $100 parrot home, puts it in the cage with his parrot. He covers the cage, puts on some soft music and steps out of the room. The next thing, he hears loud squawking and the cage rattling awfully. He runs in and pulls the cover off of the cage, and there is his bird on top of the rented bird, pulling out feathers and saying, “For $100 a night, I want you naked!”

Dad thought it was particularly amuzing to hear his little boy telling such a provocative joke. And now to the matter at hand…

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

My father was an intelligent and driven man. He constantly challenged his loved ones to live up to his expectations and high ideals, just as I am challenged today to do him justice within the limits of the spoken [or written] word. As his children, we were in a uniquely difficult position to deal with the demands of our complex patriarch. To us he was lord and law.

This was a side of my father that only his children fully knew. He expected the world from us, because he wanted only the best for us. At times the demands were too much to bear, causing each of us, in our own time and way to pull away from Dad. He and I were out of contact for a dozen years. It took all that time for me to build the strength of character and self-esteem necessary to deal with my father on my own terms. Such resilience was essential to connecting with my dad as an adult, so as to avoid reverting once again to an insecure or insubordinate childhood state.

I had the good fortune to reach such a state of personal grace, and reconnect with my father a few years ago. I hope that our connection was as much a comfort to him as it was to me. Still, I know it troubled him that his family life had been so turbulent. At the same time, he accepted the outcome of his life. In his later days, he seemed to understand that his consuming passion for his career and his drive to improve his status came with undesired, but perhaps natural consequences for his family life. At least he was comforted to have me close again, not to mention the warmth and support offered by his wife, Mary Ann, and all of her extended family. I am so grateful to all of you for the tenderness and care you offered my dear dad, especially since I do not live nearby.

Certainly, my father spent much of his career building years as a man on a mission, like a freight train, unstoppable, and at times with blinders on. Given his childhood circumstances, his determination was both remarkable and necessary. Many would have accepted their desperate circumstances in an impoverished country further oppressed by the Great Depression – not my father. He traveled the globe, burning midnight oil all along the way, and leaving much of our family’s daily life in the hands of my mother. Sadly, as his mission largely came to fulfillment, he found his family had become fractured.

I am deeply sorry for the pain this caused him. I have forgiven myself, my sisters and my mother. In the end, I think Dad forgave all too. Well at least, he accepted his own accountability for his place in life – it was an enviable life, at that. He accomplished so much, and impacted so many lives in positive ways. He was a man of character, a man of morals, a responsible man. He had immense love to offer, even when he could not easily show it. Those of us who shared in that love are forever changed for having him in our hearts.

Namaste Father
We will love you always.

Disconnected Permanently

In memoriam to my Father, Jag Deao Serabjit-Singh, MD

Born March 30, 1927 – died March 20, 2006, at 6:30 PM

I learned at 8:00 AM on Monday that my Father’s condition had grown more worrisome, and my stepmother suggested it was time for me to visit, which could only mean the worst. She never advocated visiting him in his various hospital stays, preferring to have me visit after he returned home to recuperate and enjoy the time with me. I spent the day booking air travel to Buffalo, NY and nailing down everything as best as possible at work, before leaving. With a flight planned first thing Tuesday (today), that gave me the evening to put affairs in order at home.

My Dad faded quietly in his hospital bed at Millard Fillmore Gates Circle Hospital, and reportedly passed without struggle. I am grateful he seemed to go peacefully – this man who struggled and fought for everything in life. While he had suffered a recent fall and head injury, he had seemed to stabilize, before having a setback and progressive fading of his vital signs. Just days from his 79th birthday, my dad lived a full and abundant life. He took life on his own terms and was as ready as anyone can be to pass to what lies beyond.

Having learned the news not long after he died, all of our travel plans are delayed until later in the week, with Pat now joining me. My father will be cremated, and sadly, there will be no viewing or casket – he did not want to be part of what he considered to be a morbid ritual. On the other hand, I would give anything for one last time, just to hold his hand, even if vacant and lifeless. And I will always regret not making it to his bedside sooner, for one last connection with him.

I loved that man. There is a little hole in my life where he used to be. We will fill it with the love we had for each other, as I believe love carries on. In time I trust I will heal, though I will always carry a scar where that hole once was. I trust I will have more to say in the days to come.

Blessings to all who knew him, or knew of him through me. Many thanks for your love, patience and support.

Namaste Father
Rest Well

Important Details

Memorial Service
Sunday, March 26th, at 4:00 PM

Urban-Amigone Funeral Home
3645 Genesee Street
Buffalo, NY 14225

Reception to follow at a neighbor's restaurant

Italian Village Restaurant
804 Wehrle Drive (corner of Union)
Williamsville, NY 14221

Both are in the immediate vicinity of the Buffalo Intl Airport
_________________________________

In lieu of flowers, it was my father's wish that you send donations to one of the following organizations:

Buffalo Aero Club
Po Box 817
West Seneca, NY 14224

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
501 St. Jude Place
Memphis, TN 38105-1942
_________________________________

Obituary on-line -- Buffalo News 03/24/2006

Also included here:

SINGH - Dr. Jag D. Serabjit, radiologist -- 3/24/2006

Dr. Jag Deao Serabjit Singh of Lancaster, a radiologist and research chemist, died Monday in Millard Fillmore Hospital after a long illness. He was 78.

Born in Jamaica, West Indies, he was a graduate of Emmanuel Missionary College in Berrien Springs, Mich., and Roosevelt University in Chicago.

After working as a research chemist for American Transportation Corp., where he invented a method for nickel-plating magnesium, he attended medical school at King Georges University in Lucknow, India, on a full scholarship, graduating in 1958.

A board certified radiologist, he worked at Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Sisters Hospital and Deaconess Hospital and was director of radiology at St. Francis Hospital. He also was director of radiology at Somerset Community Hospital in Somerset, Pa., and worked in hospitals in Bradford, Pa.

He was an assistant professor of radiology at the University at Buffalo Medical School and was a member of the American College of Radiologists and the Erie County Medical Society.

An avid flier, he was a director of the Buffalo Aero Club and a member of several other aircraft organizations. He earned his pilot's license at age 50 and flew for 25 years, commuting to medical assignments in several states where he was licensed to practice and flying to his winter home in Jupiter, Fla.

Surviving are his wife of 20 years, the former Mary Ann Kowalski; a son, Kirk of Jeffersonville, Ind.; two daughters, Cosette of Raleigh, N.C., and Sandra Welch of Chapel Hill, N.C.; two half-brothers, Bertram of Montreal and Balram of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; a half-sister, Janet of Jamaica; and four grandchildren.

A memorial service will be held at 4 p.m. Sunday in Urban-Amigone Funeral Home, 3645 Genesee St., Cheektowaga.

Who Gains?

The Disconnected, part 2

So, you might write me off as just another wacko, prattling on about vague conspiracies to demoralize and fragment our society. My kind of worldview is often marginalized and pushed out to the fringe. It is a convenient way to dismiss views that are unpopular or alarming. Even people close to me – especially people close to me – prefer to turn a deaf ear, rather than allow any kind of challenge to their deeply entrenched and comfortable views. It amazes me how people will cling to popular ideas simply because they are popular. Even if these ideas are wrong-minded and in the end destructive, people stay with the crowd, like proverbial buffalo charging over a cliff together.

And that precisely is the enemy: the normal human tendency to go along with the herd. That’s what makes our enemy all the more deadly and our struggle more challenging. No, I am not deluded that there is some sort of organized conspiracy to spoil us into complacency, mediocrity and utilitarian compassion, while disconnecting us from each other. I understand that something bigger is at work here. Collectivism. It is a grand ideal that plays perfectly into our pride and preys on our fears and guilt. It is also a natural extension of tribal, familial and even genetic urges to further the species. But all forms of collectivism suffer from the same moral bankruptcy as was popularized so eloquently by Karl Marx. That vile little Rasputin-like man who could not love himself much less understand true love for another, has infected all of civilization with his insidious, cynical, spoiled-rotten, lazy views.

Throughout the halls of academia, Marx is taught as a modern saint, selfless and interested in the well being of everyone. Well, that was "his concept" of well being in any case. "Whose concept" of well being is the operative point. It doesn’t really matter if the ideas are played out in the Soviet style or Maoist style, as communism, socialism, democratic-socialism, mixed economics, as good old American styled social insurance or simply as academic notions like utilitarianism. The operative point always comes down to who gets to decide – who the decision makers are. Who decides how many natural rights and individual liberties must be violated to serve the good of the many and do the greatest good for the greatest number? And I don’t mean the uninformed masses. They largely are expected to pick between two big levers, the left and the right. The masses decide little or nothing, even with the help of public opinion polls, activism and political coalitions. The big talk about the so-called equity of democracy is just talk.

The kinds of personalities who come to power in society are fairly predictable. The ruling class tends to be aggressive, ruthless and deceptive; one does not ascend to power otherwise – puppet rulers excluded. They must also be charming to the point of narcissism, so that when they tell you what to do, it almost sounds like it was your own idea. What better way for an opportunist to seize power than to wrap oneself in an ideology that boosts the public’s pride and sense of charity, and plays on their fears, while soothing them and promising a safe future. It doesn’t hurt to have ready-made enemies. Better yet, if they are pervasive yet elusive enemies like corporations and capitalism – eerie modern day replacements for the Jews of World War II.

Finally, success is all but guaranteed if you can get people to act out of their own selfish interests, while ironically demonizing greed and promising to fight poverty. Because, if you can manipulate people to start lying to themselves, then your own lies will ultimately be more palatable. The easiest way to rule society is to get the people to subjugate themselves voluntarily – they will shout down and shun any dissident fringe for you. Marxism and every other form of collectivism since share these attributes. They make no room for exceptions. As I’ve said before, big government is collectivism.

No. No one wants to hear the message of liberty. Blunt assholes like me aren’t going to stroke you gently and tell you everything is going to be okay. Your big lies are more comfortable than the truth we have to offer. Even worse, we won’t let you play off your self-interest as being charity towards others; we think that pretending that we don’t all act out of self-interest is dishonest. We think self-interest is the source of much of the good humanity has to offer. We will expect you to pull your weight. Well, we’re not going to pull it for you anyway. If you can find some suckers who’ll carry the weight of a slacker, that’s your business. And likewise, count me out if you plan to waste time and money on hopeless causes, making it easy for those most in need of a collective kick in the ass to continue sitting on their asses. I’ll do my part – do it even better with you and government out of my way. My time and money will do my bidding rather than someone else taking it from me to serve their own interests and system of values.

Passionately protecting our natural rights and individual liberty IS for the good of the many and IS the only way to create the greatest good for the greatest number. A person or group who takes any of your liberty when you have done no wrong, has oppressed you. Oppression doesn’t always come in the guise of steel jawed sergeants breaking down your door. On the contrary, the cruelest kind of oppression demands your consent, that you fall in line with the rest of the mad stampede. And, if people like me can’t avert tragedy and send the herd charging off in safer directions, then the surviving few, those who were not trampled or dragged over the cliff against our wills, can take bitter solace in being right.

The Disconnected

First, please excuse the extended hiatus I took from this blog. Since the end of January, I have been unavoidably swamped with my day job. It is a familiar story, where I was assigned more responsibilities without adequate time to delegate existing commitments. After weeks of digging out, the worst seems to have passed. In any case, I hope to reconnect with you kind readers, which is on point for today’s topic.

Division, derision and partisanship. We are a society divided. More notably, we are a society disconnected from each other. We seem to like it that way. We tell ourselves it is a sign of our freedom, that it sustains our sense of independence and dignity. We are told that individual charity is amateurish and condescending – only institutional charity and compulsory social insurance can be dispassionate and professional. We need not be humiliated into admitting dependence on the good will and mercy of our neighbors or even that of our families. We are not impotent and needy; we are empowered and entitled. We have no need to depend on each other when we can petition government for all of our needs. We all deserve to have our basic needs met. Dear lord, this is America in The Twenty-First and 1/16th Century – Blah! Whatever…

The only word that comes to mind is “delusion”. It is pure fantasy, but today, that is the state of affairs. Most people have an inclination toward such visions of an ample, undemanding society. It is touted as true and good and wholesome. To speak against it is to be deceptive and evil and depraved. Well, here I stand against it. Take your best shot. My motives are only the most honorable.

Pat and I bought a house together last year, after a number of years renting a small house on the other side of Jeffersonville. A couple of months after moving in, we held a housewarming one Saturday afternoon. Neither of us have family in town, but we invited the usual assortment of friends and co-workers; attendance over the course of the day was plentiful. We also did something that, in retrospect, was too radical for today’s standards. We invited the nine households immediately contiguous with our new home to join our housewarming.

Our house is in a well-established sub-division, built in the late nineteen-seventies. The neighborhood seems stable and is home to a pleasing cross-section of Americana. The couple immediately to our right are the original owners of nearly 30 years – long enough to raise all of their children to adulthood and watch a son go off to Iraq. The family across the street has been there 17 or more years, and the family on our left has lived there more than a decade. We too hope this neighborhood will be our home for decades to come. Having signed-on for the long haul, we wanted to be congenial and get to know our neighbors; we imagined they too would be curious to know who had moved, literally, into their own back, front and side yards.

Even if they weren’t curious about us, I thought, perhaps they would like an opportunity to meet and greet their long-standing neighbors. With that in mind, we set aside the first two hours to get to know our new neighbors without the distraction of our established friends. Those first two hours were pretty quiet. All in all, only the prior owners who sold us the house and two of our new neighbors visited. One was the retired husband of the couple on the right, whom we had already come to know while out tending to our yard. The other visitor was the young adult son of the family on the left. We had previously chatted with his father and mother, but he was the only one home when we delivered the invitation to our housewarming. He was bewildered and at the same time pleased by the invitation. He said, “No one ever does this.” I think he attended for the sheer novelty of it all.

I imagine that had we done this forty or fifty years ago, the reaction would have been much different. There was a time when neighbor meant more than “lives nearby.” All I know is that despite our best intentions and high ideals, our so-called “advanced society” seems to be fostering detachment from our friends, our neighbors and our families. We are increasingly alienated, and it is supposedly for our own good. We can be cavalier in abandoning familial and neighborly ties, and maintain our foolish pride that we are not at the mercy of others. We can travel around the world and move halfway across the globe from our families; all of this is possible only through the popularity of institutionalized social insurance via big and powerful governments.

I am told these “advances” are blessings. Why do they feel like a curse?

Delays, Delays...

I regret not being able to post a new article this week. Please check back in a few days.

Until then, you might take a look at the lengthy exchange with our friend Bartleby in last week's comments.

:)-K

Control

I face a persistent misunderstanding when talking to people about our society, our government and politics. People reflexively assume that I intend to impose my particular worldview on them and the rest of society. So they are defensive and unreceptive to the concepts I am eager to share. It becomes a contest over "your way" or "my way" – they are not looking for a win-win solution. While extremely annoying and frustrating to me, it is no longer surprising. After years of reflection, I have come to terms with this barrier to sharing the freedom mindset.

Actually, it makes perfect sense. Our whole system is based on the lust for power – it is consistent with the primal animal drive in the human condition. Democracy is an orderly form of mob rule, where might is right – this is a horrible method and means. So horrible that once you look beyond your own fear and let your head clear, you may wonder how you ever tolerated, advocated and participated in such a wretched process. This is the crucial gap between having a genuine orientation toward freedom and rights and having most any other view. It puts modern liberals and conservatives on the same side of the fence; it does not matter that their goals may differ slightly. While appearing civil, they sustain the barbarism that is our legacy as a species. They have in common a belief that imposing their will, their lifestyle, their value system, their judgement on other people is a legitimate use of power – we believe otherwise.

We believe it is wrong to impose with force one’s views on others. This principle is essential to a freedom orientation, so those of us who hold this principle are not trying to impose our will or views on you. However, the public’s mindset is so focused on power and the control of others, they assume that we are trying to take away "their way" of life and impose "our way" on them. Might is right – that is the only way most people know – it is the way they expect us to be.

We promote the use of non-violent means to accomplish social goals. We believe that violence and the threat of it in any form is revolting. We understand force is sometimes necessary and appropriate. Even so, we believe every new use of force must be a choice of last resort – every peaceful and voluntary means must be exhausted first. Whether on a local or world scale, we are not strictly doves or hawks. We are pragmatic and support the use of force in response to force or in response to fraud, which is an intellectual form of assault.

This principle on force is the unfortunate crux of the divide among libertarians regarding the Iraq War. I believe we all share the same philosophy on force and non-violence. We only disagree whether military action in Iraq is a plausible response to direct violence or a credible threat of it, or if it is an act of vengeance that has no connection to an ongoing threat. We would be hypocrites to advocate acting as the world’s police force, imposing our values and will where there is no threat to the people of the United States. Therefore, pro-war libertarians believe Iraq is an immediate and continuing threat. Anti-war libertarians believe that the war is retaliatory and punitive, rather than offering any real protection.

Regardless, libertarians agree it is wrong to tell others how to live their lives, and it is uncharacteristic for us to force this or any view on society. As such any form of collectivism might exist in a society founded on individual liberty and natural rights. This is because people who believe in individual liberty respect the right of people to band together and share their resources in any way they choose. My marriage is an example of just such a voluntary affiliation. Pat and I may be libertarians, but our household is communist; we each give according to our ability, take according to our needs and put the good of our relationship above our individual interests. It is our choice. It is given freely. Had we forcibly imposed on each other the burden of our needs and demanded the other’s abilities, resentment would be the natural consequence.

In contrast, a collectivist viewpoint is inherently antagonistic towards expressions of individualism. Individual freedom cannot be permitted in a collectivist society, where the needs of the many are valued over the rights of the few. I am talking to you Democrats and you Republicans – if you turn to expedient government solutions before exhausting private ones, you are advocating collectivism. You are looking to impose by force your idealized way of life on everyone. You can’t realize your vision and allow people to pursue their own vision; your vision involves controlling them. You will tolerate only so much failure and you will permit only so much success. So you invite government to regulate every aspect of our lives to ensure mediocrity, limiting both failure and success. When we fail miserably you will force your aid on us, including providing medical treatment if we are injured or ill. You could not allow us to suffer, even if we never contributed towards a medical plan and we claimed no entitlement to such services – you would not let us die if we begged you to. Even your charity is oppressive. When we succeed too blatantly, you must diminish that success, because that would allow some individuals to have more influence than others have. It is also necessary to take away the "excess" fruits of our enterprise in order to alleviate all the suffering you won’t tolerate.

This is the worldview that the Republicans, Democrats and statists of all stripes are collaborating to cram down our throats. For them government is not about keeping the peace and defending the natural rights of individuals. It is not about creating an open society where people have the choice to collaborate or not and succeed or fail. How do we, as libertarians make our voice heard, that we want to be left to our own devices, without being politically active? There are other ways to get our message out. This article is one of them, but political action seems an obvious choice. Silence is considered our consent to the will of the majority. Unfortunately, participating and losing is also taken as our consent, but we don’t always loose; we do have some influence. More important is that politics is entangled with the use of force and a controlling mindset, which are contrary to our ideals. When we speak out politically as Libertarians, people assume that we wish to control others and force our ways on society. That is the nature of politics – intellectualized barbarism – it is similar to fraud, the other form of intellectualized violence.

Libertarians do not want to prevent you from collaborating with others. We believe it should be your choice to pool your liabilities and assets as well as your contributions and demands. We simply want the choice not to. As much as we believe that a liberty mindset is empowering and beneficial to all, we would not force on you a preconceived vision of how you should run your life. We want only to be left to our own devices. That includes reducing our compulsory contributions and limiting our entitlement to government services to the basics – sort of a "basic cable TV" version of government – public access, news and local channels, but no HBO, no Showtime, etc. – public roads, highways, police and military, but no Medicare, no Social Security, etc. This pay-as-you-go system is what I call "opting out", a concept I will continue to explore.

Overture to a Bailout

The letter came in the mail this week. The news was disturbing but not surprising. The Louisville Orchestra is still unable to pay its bills and "continues to operate with an annual structural deficit of approximately $850,000." After the trouble three years ago and the massive public and private bailout to save the Orchestra, my wife and I did our part to support the Orchestra, an organization we believe makes for a better Louisville; we have been season ticket holders for the last three seasons. Also, throughout my years in Kentuckiana I have continuously supported the Fund for the Arts. "Even with increases in ticket revenue (up 8% in FY05) and donation and sponsorship income (up 10% in FY05)… it is probable that [the Orchestra’s] current financial position will affect the remainder of the current season." They tentatively reassure us that, "the Orchestra will do everything in its power to honor [our] ticket purchases."

We are willing to step up our direct support to the Orchestra, if it will make a difference in keeping it solvent. I only hesitate because I worry that I am just throwing good money after bad. Would I be sad if our town lost its orchestra? Most certainly. I would be even sadder to see the Orchestra draining resources from our community, because it won’t learn to live within its means.

Don’t get me wrong. I understand that there is a price to be paid to keep talented musicians, but I find it hard to believe that there is not some fat to be found in the budget and room for compromise. And if the Orchestra can never survive on ticket revenues alone, then it had better learn to be more effective at fund raising. I wonder if Orchestra management has been too distracted with their conductor search to do the needed canvassing. There are plenty of deep pockets in this town who benefit from the Orchestra much more than working Joes like you and me – they have much better seats than we do too.

Though, I can’t imagine a more effective means of fund raising than for the Orchestra to have a crisis like this – it worked three years ago and it will probably work this year. Big business will make great gestures, but not as big as they might. After all, they know, just like you and I know that the city will step up and cover whatever shortfall there is. If the city is going to fund a bail out, then why should they bother? Why should I? I can save my money and spend it on something else. I might redirect my check to Habitat for Humanity, which is self-sustaining and works within its budget. It is also worthy of the contributions it gets because it promotes responsibility – it sets an example and donors can offer their support with confidence.

Our orchestra could use that kind of responsibility. I would love to be confident that upping my support would make a difference, but I cannot justify extending my support beyond the current level if the city steps in again. Sure, I would benefit directly from a bailout, if I continue to attend orchestra events. Since I work downtown, I pay Louisville’s city income tax. I don’t object to the city spending my tax dollars on the Orchestra; they took those taxes against my will; they may as well spend it on something I believe in. However, they are not spending only my tax dollars, and I will not advocate spending other people’s hard earned dollars on something that private interests should be supporting. The more that government takes responsibility, the less responsible that little pockets and big pockets alike become.

And have no doubt. Those who advocate a bailout will tell you how important the Orchestra is to our community, and that we all benefit from it in numerous tangible and intangible ways. Well if that is true, why not jump big? We could publicly fund the Orchestra, and not just a little, not just to fill the gaps. Let’s have the city pay for the whole damn thing. We can call it The Louisville Free Orchestra. Tickets will be available free of charge to all interested Louisville resident and non-resident taxpayers, by way of a lottery.

Can’t you just see it now? Standing in Whitney Hall, looking out across a sea of T-shirts, jeans, shorts, sneakers and flip-flops – not that some patrons don’t already dress that way, but they are in the minority. Better yet, many will be talking and even using cell phones. What a joy that will be – kind of like going to one of those dollar theaters that play second run movies. You can’t really complain. What do you expect for $1.00? What would you expect for free? And since the deep pockets aren’t footing the bill, you would no longer find them in the box seats, except by random chance or by way of scalped tickets. What is that sound? I can almost hear the rustling of deep pockets and scribbling in checkbooks.

And why is that? Because the deep pockets know that they benefit disproportionately from the Orchestra, both tangibly as with preferred seating and intangibly in terms of that stature the Orchestra lends to our city. Affluent cities have orchestras only because there are enough deep pockets to keep them afloat. The Orchestra is a bit of opulence that tells the world that Louisville is a Cadillac, an Acura or a Mercedes Benz – even if a compact one. Heaven forbid that the upper crust of Louisville society should have to drive a Hyundai to a dollar theater. Money attracts money, and in a real way, the Orchestra protects their existing investment in Louisville as a prestigious home.

I oppose the political attitude that says we should soak the rich. Today’s government already goes far beyond keeping the peace and protecting our rights. It seeks to fulfill our every want and need at the expense of the successful, and I think punishing success is morally repugnant. Yet with the Orchestra, we have a perfect opportunity to let the wealthy voluntarily carry the weight for us. We have to make sure they realize it is in their interest to do so. Letting Metro Government pay any part of another bailout lets them off the hook, while acting as a disincentive to rest, like me.

Missing a season or so may be just what is needed, and I will gladly forfeit the last half of our season tickets in the process. Most people won’t even notice, and before I became a supporter, I too would not have felt the impact. But the loss might lubricate those deep pockets, and perhaps it will wake up our fine musicians to the economic reality of their chosen profession, making them more receptive to compromise. I trust that native and transplanted musicians alike will find that our city offers them great benefit, just as the Orchestra offers our city.

What is White?

My father is full-blooded East Indian, the second generation born in Jamaica, the West Indies, and the first in his line to marry outside of the Indian community. My mother was born in Alabama, at least the second generation born in the US and believed to be of Scots-Irish and German heritage. My parents met and married in Chicago in the early 1950’s. My sisters were born on opposite sides of the planet, the first in Chicago, the second in India, and eventually my family ended up back in Jamaica, where I was born years later. Before I turned 5 years old, we moved to the US permanently.

Shortly after moving to Buffalo, NY, we settled in the northern suburbs, perhaps not completely by coincidence on Jamaica Road. As you might guess, we were the only family actually from Jamaica living on that street. There was a notable and diverse bunch of kids on our road, and for the most part we all played together. My best friend during that time, Alan, and his Irish-Catholic family, the Carmichaels, lived a few houses down on the same side of the street. Like me, he had two sisters who were older, but closer to our ages, especially the younger one, Kathy. Across the street lived a Jewish family, the Wolfishes, and their daughter Carol. Also across the street were Ricky and Susan Majerowski from a Polish-Catholic family. Farther up that side of the street was Reggie Marsh, the son of the only African-American family on our street at that time – to be honest, there could have been others, but I only remember the families with kids and our next door neighbors. In any case, I wouldn’t call them a token African-American family, not when you consider the diversity of ethnic communities represented.

Keep in mind, we lived there for a five year period starting in 1969, when I was only 5 years old – how integrated was your neighborhood back then? These kids were all within a year or two of my age, except the older of the Carmichael girls. Both Kathy and Susan were one or two years older, while their brothers Alan and Ricky were both a year or so younger than I was. Only Carol and Reggie were my age. I think Carol went to some sort of religious school, so Reggie was the only neighborhood kid in any of my classes. Unfortunately, he singled me out to bully, but I was not the only recipient of his aggression. He was always civil in the presence of authority figures.

There was some period of time early on, when the bullying was physical. He would push and taunt me during our four block walk home after school. One day I finally lost it. He was behind me, pushing, and I swung around and cold cocked him pretty sharply right on the chin. It was just a flash of penned up anger that finally burst out. When my fist connected with his chin, I saw the damage I could do and lost any will to fight. He tackled me, wrestled me to the ground and made me cry "uncle". It is true what they say about the psychology of my situation – I was more afraid of my own anger and capacity for violence than of getting hurt.

There was the predictable meeting of the parents, arising in part from Reggie’s complaints about his sore jaw. Reggie’s physical bullying stepped back a notch but continued for a while – perhaps to establish that he still had the upper hand – then eventually stopped. After that, he relied mostly on verbal bullying and intimidation. For example he enjoyed threatening to injure or poison our family’s cat. I guess it is no surprise that he tended not to socialize with the rest of the kids on the street. Regardless, Reggie and I had plenty of contact both in school and in the scouts.

We sustained a workable truce for most of those years. I find it sad that we did not learn to be real friends. After all, our fathers’ skin was equally dark, even if the tone and hue was somewhat different. In this regard, he had more in common with me than any other kid on the street. Yet, since my mother was White, I had just as much in common with the other kids on the street. This might have established my fondness for neutrality on life’s big questions. It may also explain why Reggie targeted me, possibly resenting how readily I integrated with the other kids. I have long considered in what ways I might have invited Reggie’s cruelty. Perhaps I was just a convenient target – playful and hyperactive, and pushy in my own way.

Sometime after our physical confrontation, I remember making a big blunder. One day, Reggie was still taunting me as we walked home. To throw him off, I parroted as best as I could, something my father had said. I told Reggie that he had a chip on his shoulder because he is "Negro" – this was the accepted term in Jamaica at the time; the term "Black" had not been widely adopted. In any case, Reggie started screaming that I had called him a "Nigger" and ran home. I had no idea what he was screaming. I had to ask my parents to explain it to me. It was only then that I learned of this horrible word, because I had never heard it before.

Not so for Reggie. That word must have been so deeply ingrained into Reggie’s sense of self that he expected to be victimized by it. Perhaps there was some truth to what my dad said about the chip on his shoulder. Of course, much of the blame must be attributed to a dysfunctional society in the midst of righting itself. And I don’t hold Reggie responsible for any racial bias passed on from his parents. My dad did his share to pass on his not-so-balanced worldview on race and in no way prepared me to handle Reggie’s personal issues.

My dad always demanded to be treated "White", and he raised us to expect to be treated as Whites. His bias was undeniable and unapologetic, though not entirely reconciled with his equally strong identity as an Indian. He was entrenched in the "us and them" paradigm. That’s how it was in Jamaica, where Africans were in the overwhelming majority. All other ethnicities, primarily British, Chinese and East Indians were few in number but affiliated strongly with each other. So in Jamaica, if you were Indian, you were considered White. It is possible – even likely that I unwittingly revealed some of this racial bias in a way that provoked Reggie. I would like to think otherwise but must allow for the possibility. We were just little kids; anything is possible. Except for the dubious "N word" incident, I hope that Reggie would look back and report that I never denigrated his race.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I felt much more White when I was still a child. We weren’t in Jamaica anymore, and I faced my share of discrimination as the years passed. My dad doubts whether I have any pride in my Indian heritage, because I legally shortened my last name when I was in my mid-twenties – my name at birth was Kirk Narinder Serabjit-Singh. In spite of this questionable choice, I do take my heritage seriously. Given my father’s view on being White, you might think that I would check the boxes next to "White" on all of those ethnicity questionnaires. I don’t. I also don’t dutifully check the boxes marked "Asian". Wherever possible I indicate my ethnicity as both White and Asian.

That is exactly how I reported my race on a Human Resources form that I submitted to one of my managers in the mid-1990’s. My manager delicately asked why I listed my race this way – not for any business related reason – but to satisfy his own curiosity. I explained that I felt equal claim to all of my ethnic make-up. He was surprised at my views. He expected that I would report myself simply as Asian. The view that any racial mixing corrupts Whiteness is typical in the United States. You are only White, if you have no claim to some other ethnicity. Contrast this with Jamaica, where all non-Africans seemed to consider themselves White. Even my first wife held this typical American view on White purity when we met. However, after hearing my perspectives on ethnicity, she was startled to see her own unconscious bias. She was White; my manager was Black.

Today, our society is undergoing tremendous demographic change. If I had known early in my career that eventually, half of my coworkers would be East Indians, I might never have shortened my name. Back then, it was much easier to navigate the business world with a short and simple name. Even now, I hear complaints that Indian names are difficult to pronounce and remember – to be honest, I have trouble with some of them too. Many people are patient and do what they can to adapt to our new neighbors. Others are fearful or resentful. India’s highly skilled and immense workforce is becoming a serious threat to America’s place in the world economy. There is a growing bias against the influx of Indians and outsourcing of jobs to India. The bias can be seen subtly in the workplace and on the street, and blatantly in the mass media. Again, I am somewhat neutral, allowing me affinity with both sides, if only at arm's length.

I understand that at first, I am a curiosity to my Indian peers. Until just a few years ago, there were very few East Indians in the US. Indians today can tell from my name and facial features that I must be Indian, but they are surprised at my first name, light skin, lack of accent and how well assimilated I am into western culture. Once they get to know me, I am no longer White, Indian or something in between – to them, I am All-American. Americans seem to agree and embrace me as one of their own, just as our new Indian immigrants might hope to be embraced. I doubt that Indians have much interest in being called White anyway, not when you consider India’s long history of occupation by invading White Europeans. On the other hand, I don’t suppose they would care to be confused with Africans. Calling them Asians lumps them together with the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and other people of the far east, with whom they have little more in common. They are simply what they are – Indians.

That’s all that really matters – what we each think of ourselves. The real trick is to embrace your ethnic identity in a way that gives you a meaningful connection with your family, without coloring your view on others, or putting a chip on your shoulder. The first step is to ask yourself if you hold any of the biases I have described. What does Black and White mean to you? Me? I am White; I am Indian; I am a person of color in a rainbow of race and ethnicity. Take me as I am – judge me for my deeds.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Postlude

A quick check in an Internet phonebook (to confirm spelling) reveals to my surprise that all of those families from my youth still live on Jamaica Road. Every last one. We were the only one’s who moved away, my nomadic father never being content to stay in one place too long. I have not contacted anyone on my old street since I was 16. I wonder how Reggie is doing after all these years. I guess I should drop them a line and see what happened to the old gang.

Our First Date

Happy Anniversary my dearest Patricia!

We knew each other almost a year before going on our first date, four years ago today. From the moment we met, it seemed like we have always known each other. You are my haven, when the world is unbearable. You are the centered, tolerant and peaceful person I hope to be. Every day I count my blessings to have you in my life.

Your True Love,

Kirk

Complexapathy

Does it seem like everything is extremely complex these days? I am a tech-head, and most days I hardly notice, but when I see my own father struggling with things I consider to be relatively simple – remote controls, cell phones or his PC – it hits me how technical our world has become. This increasing complexity is probably a temporary trend, when it comes to using technology. Overall, the trend is to simplify the user experience. Even home computers are reaching a level of sophistication where they are starting to require less technical know-how. Plug and play is becoming a reality.

Some day we may raise a generation of people who won’t need to know how to operate the knobs of faucet, because the faucets will all turn on and off automatically. A future generation may not learn how to drive cars, because the cars will do all of the driving. These are not concepts of an inconceivable distant future. It is all very likely. Remember that only 15 years ago cell phones were still uncommon, and now you can watch streaming video on full color displays, take pictures and play mp3’s on them. Dick Tracy’s videophone wristwatch can’t be far behind.

Yes our lives will be simple because we will have extremely powerful and complex tools that are so sophisticated and intelligent that using them will require no expertise at all – except for those who build and maintain them. Government is like that too. Its laws and regulations have become so complex that the common person is incapable of grasping their significance without hiring professionals like attorneys and accountants – those who build and maintain our complex social system.

But, as with technology, I am convinced that this trend toward complexity is temporary for government as well. The weight of laws on us is increasingly onerous, forcing people to withdraw from the fringes of our society, and defining ever newer and nearer fringes. This is the natural result of demanding a safe, predictable, controlled society – it tends to eliminate diversity. Those of you who see no end in sight to the "good things" that government can do, please open your eyes and be honest about what your mindset advocates. You are demanding a homogenous society where the standards for normal and acceptable behavior are very narrow.

This is one of Ayn Rand's most powerful and oft quoted lines from Atlas Shrugged:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

Persistently narrowing the bounds of acceptable behavior has disturbing and perverse impacts on us. It creates an environment where, much like a minefield, it is safer to fall dutifully in line, step-for-step behind those ahead of you, than to risk running afoul of an overwhelming and incomprehensible system of laws. This highlights the difference between moral conscience and simple obedience. I say "simple", because obedience requires no thinking, soul searching or rational thought. In fact, in an obedient society one does not even need to understand the difference between right and wrong.

At some point, the mountains of rules and regulations will become so restrictive that we can simply throw them away. We will no longer have to worry over the details. Eventually the process becomes amazingly simple, anything that is not explicitly permitted will be forbidden. And don’t struggle to understand what is permitted. The expectation will be simple – fall in line and do what others do.

This is not the future advertised by those who are heralding it. They say they are protecting us and at the same time empowering us. They say that everyone’s contribution must be equally valued, whether doctor or cashier, plumber or garbage collector. It won’t matter if we already have thousands of artists making finger paintings with their own feces – by god, if finger-poop paintings are your passion in life, you must be paid a "living wage" to paint them. This is the "replicator" society that I previously discussed, where everyone can have everything they ever need – that future is just a hair farther fetched than Dick Tracy’s videophone.

Advocates of government controls will talk about all kinds of elaborate rights, rights to things that are only abundant in the most affluent societies today; a right to work; a right to a living wage; a right to health care; a right to housing. They leave out the part where we pay the price for this abundance – that price is obedience. For if we have a right to things produced by other people, those people become slaves, conscripted to fulfill our expanded "rights". Likewise, we are enslaved to them, as they have a right to our labor and products as well. And don’t worry if demand for your finger-poop paintings falls off. If necessary, we will stockpile them – so keep painting!

No, a society that is "simply obedient" has nothing to do with rights. A society founded on real rights is far different from a society encrusted with rules and supposed "guarantees". A society found on rights demands that people think. It expects them to act responsibly. It holds them accountable when they violate the rights of others, instead of wasting time and effort confining them to artificial boundaries and rules. Most of these restrictions are just institutionalized infringements on our liberty and do nothing to promote an accountable citizenry.

You can have a stable but empowered society without oppressively complex regulation. The answer is simplification. Take for example the volumes of law regarding the use of motor vehicles. Most of us have little if any familiarity with the full extent of those laws. So it is ineffective in restraining behavior. People do just as I have described. They do whatever they see others are getting away with. They observe each other – they see how far one can stray from the beaten path before hitting a land mine.

It all boils down to enforcement. Enforcement is costly in more than just financial ways, though technology is making it more affordable every day. So instead of focusing on real criminal elements – real threats to our safety – law enforcement largely spends its time making examples of people who are technically in violation of statutes and otherwise present no particular danger to anyone. This serves the dual function of funding the enforcement and creating a visually intimidating spectacle on our roadsides.

Make no mistake. No one is learning the laws out there. The public learns only what they can get away with. That is inevitable in an overly complex social system. It all depends on our fear and on the judgement of police to selectively enforce the laws. Sure, even if the public doesn’t know all of the laws, laws act as a convenient framework for the police to use – but that’s a cop out (sorry) that relieves the police of the more difficult task of distinguishing safe behavior from unsafe behavior. We can continue the pathetic cat and mouse game where law enforcement tags you out when it catches you crossing the myriad technical boundaries. Or, we can admit that we can’t hold people to the letter of the law, and that we rely almost completely on the judgement of the police to decide who will be made into examples. If order hinges on the judgement of law enforcement, doesn’t it make sense to build a system around that key fact?

If so, then we only need one rule on the roads – a person may not operate a vehicle carelessly or recklessly. Now, I admit (for you legal eagles ready to chop me up – this is my "disclaimer") that I am oversimplifying somewhat for clarity and effect, but not by much. With this approach, roadway regulations would become only guidelines and advisories. This simplified approach honestly deals with the limits of law enforcement. It re-tasks the police to spend their effort singling out those who demonstrate plausible threats to the public. Such threats should be dealt with decisively, harshly and without compromise.

This approach closes loopholes. For example we would not need specific laws prohibiting driving while using cell phones or eating or putting on make-up. The truth is that some people can safely use mobile communications and perform other activities while maintaining command of their vehicles – others cannot. For example, the police and trucking communities have been using "hands on" mobile communications for decades without much complaint. We should target drivers who are, for whatever reason, driving erratically or in an unsafe manner. No matter how equal we all are in eyes of the law, we are not equal in terms of alertness, focus, strength, aptitude and eye/hand coordination. We gain nothing by arbitrarily punishing those who use their phones safely, just because so many people can’t, won’t or don’t.

It is simple. Instead of a fearful and marginally obedient society, we could create a responsible population of drivers, drivers who understand that protecting everyone’s safety is the first and only rule.

______________________________

There is a big collection of Rand’s quotes at WikiQuote, though they failed to source this particular quote back to Atlas Shrugged.

Decide for Yourself

{This article is now complete}

As another year concludes, I feel the urge to explain how I came to be an advocate of self-government. I did not realize at first how personally revealing this article would end up becoming. Though, I am glad to have this opportunity for self-reflection, and I hope it is a compelling look at my past.

I suppose it all went wrong – my indoctrination to mainstream thought – because my parents were not of one mind. Especially on the bigger questions of life, I was free to decide for myself. Of course my parents each hoped I would turn out like them; parents do that. Usually, people are raised in homes with a prevailing set of views on life, morality, spirituality or government. In fact there are religious and political forces that advocate indoctrinating children in these areas. They claim it is irresponsible not to impose some sort of preconceived belief system on children. And perhaps, they are right, after all, I am the product of such an "irresponsible" home.

Images of rebellious youth are charming, as with Vietnam era hippies coming from conservative homes, followed by a resurgence of conservative youths in liberal homes (as personified by Michael J. Fox on television’s "Family Ties"). Yet this model does not represent most people, and even when it does, it is usually just short-lived youthful rebellion. Most people are products of their upbringing. It seems natural and even healthy for each generation to believe itself more "enlightened" than the previous one. Yet, I find that many view life in much the same way their parents did, with that being the sole justification for their perspectives; they made no conscious decision. This is especially true where strong political and religious affiliations are concerned.

I too was a product of my home, but not because I see life the way my parents and older siblings did. Instead they served as an example that, despite all of the claims to moral superiority, the opposing popular views on life are not necessarily superior to each other. They are locked in a struggle for power and are thus forced to make never-ending, uncomfortable compromises of their own ideals. I was in a unique position to consider the strengths and inadequacy of each, the truth and hypocrisy of both sides and decide for myself.

And yet, it seemed that I was destined to be a liberal, and indeed, I still have great affection for socially progressive goals. For the longest time, most everyone in my life leaned left of center, including my sisters, and all of my friends and social circle. I was born in St. Andrew, Jamaica in early 1964 and raised by my parents and two sisters who are 9 and 11 years older than I am. When my family moved from Jamaica to Buffalo, New York, in November 1968, my sisters were almost 14 and 16; the older one had already started attending a Junior college in Florida, and was not as active in raising me after that. Nonetheless, all three women were a significant influence at the height of the women’s movement. So I had memorable exposure to and feel great affinity with socially progressive ideals.

On the other hand, there was my dad representing a very traditional, and often imposing conservative viewpoint. Overall, the ladies had the advantage, both in numbers and because my dad was cast in the role of authoritarian, the bad guy – a role he filled without apology. While my father was strict and often heavy-handed with discipline, he was no more imposing with his ideologies than the ladies were. So, I got a relatively balanced look at both sides. Neither side was particularly vocal around me with regard to political philosophy, and I only recall a few politically revealing moments during my childhood.

I was about 10 when Nixon resigned, which was disturbing for me, as he had been president ever since we moved to the US. I was aware of McGovern’s bid for the presidency in 1972 and understood that Nixon could be unseated. The Watergate hearings were on TV every afternoon when I got home from school, and I remember having been convinced that Nixon must be a bad man. I even parroted something derogatory about Nixon to a neighbor, who felt it necessary to remind me of some good things Nixon had done. Even so, by the time he resigned, I had come to think Nixon would always be president. During the 1976 general election, I remember my parents arguing over whether they should bother going to the polls, because my mother’s vote for Carter and my father’s vote for Ford would nullify each other. They ultimately did go to the polls.

By the 1980 elections my parents had been divorced for 2 years. My mom and I were on our own in Chapel Hill, NC, not far from my sisters’ homes in the Triangle. I was halfway through high school and struggling to assert my independence. Though, except for occasional visits with my father, that struggle was only with myself. My mom made a deal with me after the divorce. She said that we were both free from my father’s confining grip, and at the age of 14, if I had not already learned the difference between right and wrong, she probably could not do much about it. The deal was simple – don’t screw up, be respectful, maintain her trust in me, and she will have no reason to impose restrictions. She handed me the reins to my own life, along with enough rope to hang myself. But she was always there when I needed her.

That was a pivotal moment in forming my views on self-governance, personal responsibility and accountability. Innocent until proven guilty – What a fresh idea! That was certainly not the premise in my father’s home, where "better safe than sorry" was the order of the day. Even with all of that freedom, it was easier to choose among prevailing preconceived notions than to seek or innovate a third way. I ultimately decided that conservatism, much like my father, was the dark side and jumped on the liberal bandwagon. A public school education did nothing to disavow me of this notion, and reinforced it in both blatant and subtle ways.

But I was mistaken about liberalism, at least as executed by modern democrats. I equated liberalism with the nurturing and empowering attitudes of the women in my family and conservatism with my father’s overbearing ways. This view was particularly easy to justify during the administrations of Reagan, then Bush, the father, much as it is today with Bush, the son. Yes, for a dozen years, it was easy to blame all the ills of the world on the Republicans. If only the Democrats could be put in power, we would all be safe again… and Free. In 1992, this wish came true. For the first time (and perhaps last), my pick for president won. Now everything would be different, I thought. By mid-1993, Clinton had been in office only a few months, and it was already clear that nothing was going to be different, at least not in the ways I hoped.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

During the next couple of years, I was what the Advocates for Self-Government call "politically homeless." As I approached the age of 30, I was finally awake to the realities of politics and government. The democrats were not there to undo anything the republicans had been up to; there is no branch of government dedicated to repealing the meddling of past administrations. The democrats would not loosen the grip of the right hand around our necks. Instead, the left hand would simply tighten its grip. That’s when I came to understand how morally bankrupt our system is. It is an artificially complex version of the same barbarism it claims to be preventing. Might is right – that is the basis for our so called "government of the free."

No, in my mind there was nothing about either major party that represented me in the slightest, especially when it came to the moral basis for their actions. It seemed that there were endless things people should be free to do that are none of the government’s business, and yet are forbidden by one side or the other; that’s all it takes. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Where was my benefit of the doubt? Why is it presumed that I am not to be trusted, and restrictions are necessary? Why must my liberty pay the price for the misdeeds of those who came before me? None of the political powers were building a society like my mother’s open, tolerant and empowering home. The game is rigged to keep us all in my father’s overbearing home, where we are dependent on arbitrary rules instead of our own moral compass, where there is no trust and freedom takes a back seat to "better safe than sorry." I have no interest in a coloring book filled with someone else’s pre-conceived line drawings that I must color-in neatly between the lines. I want a blank pad of paper that does not restrict the amount of creativity, ingenuity and energy I can put into our society.

Then, sometime in 1994 or 1995 I made a wonderful discovery. I was not alone. There were others who felt the way I did. I remember it well. I was at one of the mega-sized flea markets at the fairgrounds in Louisville. A couple was selling very unusual flip-flops that had no thongs or straps and stuck to the soles of your feet like a sticky note. That’s all they were selling – one of those "amazing product" booths. But, in their booth they also had a modest little stack of 3x5" placards, printed with the World's Smallest Political Quiz. That is how I discovered that libertarian views were compatible with mine. For the longest time that was one of very few noteworthy connections I had with libertarians; this was at a time when I was just starting to become Internet savvy, and I did not spend much time surfing for political commentary. I did vote for Harry Browne and others on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1996. It was not until the 2000 presidential campaigns that I started considering the world of libertarian viewpoints in depth.

In the years before then, I continued to refine, primarily through self-reflection, my commitment to advocating a voluntary society. I am not much of a recreational reader, so I was not influenced by writers like Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein or economists like Friedman and Hayek. I had never even heard of Harry Browne before 1996 and was not aware of other libertarian radio personalities like Neal Boortz and Larry Elder. The closest thing to libertarian influences in my youth included Neal Peart’s lyrics to the songs of the rock band Rush, such as "Free Will," "Tom Sawyer," "Red Barchetta" and many others. The music of Frank Marino & Mahogany Rush (not the same as Rush) is also very important to me. Frank expressed a freedom orientation in many of his songs, particularly in "Try for Freedom" and "Free" (the connection is subtle, isn’t it?). Only during the last few years have I started reading libertarian classics such as Rand’s Anthem, which inspired Peart’s lyrics to Rush’s epic song "2112." It only took me twenty-odd years to get around to it. Just this week I finally read Heinlein’s libertarian classic The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

I have come to find that my experience in self-discovery is not typical. The works of popular libertarians are very influential. For decades, Rand’s Atlas Shrugged has been winning converts to Objectivism and libertarianism and still sells by the hundreds of thousands. To me, reading such libertarian works is like finding kindred spirits, rather than being instructive of new ideals. Not surprisingly, I did it the hard way by cutting my own path, but there were benefits. I am less attached to and less likely to refer to the works of others as authoritative. As a result, I hope to hold myself to a higher ideal in making rational arguments and taking principled stands. I hope to add a distinctive perspective to the marketplace of libertarian ideas, revealing and emphasizing what should be self-evident to all, in my own way. Perhaps by recording my philosophy and sharing my story, someone else will find his or her way back to the simple truths of life that we consider essential.

Have a Great New Year!

Freedom from Religion

{I touched on this topic in my last article, and this is as good a time as any to build on that discussion.}

There has been much fuss over the years, and with growing traction among public officials, by those who believe they have a "right" to be protected from religion in virtually any and every way. If you read and understand my views on rights, then you may already see where I stand on this one. I believe you have a right to worship or not worship as you see fit. That is about the limit of it.

I am concerned with all natural rights, not just those few captured in the US Constitution. Still, I am glad that the framers added the "anti-establishment" clause. This clause was an awkward way of saying what I put plainly above: you have a right to worship or not. In the Bill of Rights, many of our rights are stated as limits on government. As a result, the wording of the first amendment is a distraction from the underlying rights it protects. We should focus on our individual right to worship as we see fit. Instead activists focus on trivial and normal interactions between governing bodies and long standing religious traditions. Until our government uses force to prevent or compel the public to worship, our freedom of religion remains intact. As with the right to bear arms, it would have been clearer to state the rights plainly and simply rather than expressing them as limits on government.

However, the framers took this approach with good reason. They had just won our freedom from rulers who established a state run religion. It was not possible to hold certain public offices and civil service positions if you were not a member of the Church of England. We are not talking about a child in a public school who wishes Merry Christmas to other students. We are not talking about hanging a copy of the Ten Commandments in a lobby. We are not talking about the word "God" on our currency. The first amendment prohibits state run churches, because it is natural for such churches to take away our voice in government. This would be unacceptable whether on a local or national level.

The founders naturally focused on limiting government rather than on outlining our rights. Yet that’s exactly where they went wrong and bollixed the whole thing. Over the last few decades the idea of anti-establishment has mutated. Perversely, many now believe it is their right to be free from religion, and government must protect them from religion, no matter what its form and no matter what its origin. This overzealous "separation of church and state" crowd claims that both public and private individuals cause them great harm with simple gestures like wishing them a Merry Christmas (of course I rarely hear complaints about wishes for a Happy Hanukkah or Kwanzaa – but that is another story).

And yet, I understand why the freedom from religion faction reacts so strongly. I place the blame on equally zealous, often fundamental, religious groups, and not because of any connection with government, per se. It is because these churches create enemies within their own ranks, who turn sour on the entire idea of religion. The emotional pain, guilt and destruction of self-esteem inflicted by insensitive religious groups is coming back upon them. Using the deadly force of government is a way for the disenfranchised to express their anger and resentment towards organized religion. For them it is not about protecting the integrity of our country; it is about persecuting churches in retaliation for the pain they feel.

Does it trouble me that wishing "Merry Christmas" might tear at someone’s unhealed emotional scars? Certainly it does, but I did not create those wounds, and there is nothing malicious in my spreading the joy of the season. I won’t be so crass as to tell these injured souls to get over it; I do understand their pain. I have had my share of unpleasant experiences with religion, both from a young age and again, more recently than that. Even so-called "progressive" churches have managed to foster feelings of betrayal and resentment in me. Nevertheless, I can’t imagine telling someone she must not express her religious freedom within view and earshot of me. The same goes for expecting civil servants and public officials to suddenly neuter themselves spiritually as they perform their duties. One should not have to yield her natural right to worship in order to serve the rest of society.

This may sound crazy – I am not making this up – there are those that expect all public officials to behave as atheists and to conceal all spiritual beliefs and religious affiliations in order to hold their positions. Limiting participation in government to apparent atheists is no better than if religious extremists were to hold all public offices. It requires that individuals disavow their own religious preference and instead present themselves as atheists. That is no different than what the British did leading up to the American Revolutionary War. British citizens had to publicly disavow their own religion and present themselves as members of the Church of England.

I realize that this argument holds no water for some atheists, especially the sci-theists discussed in my last article. They think everyone is better off without religion. To those folks, religion is idiotic, and asking someone to disavow all religion is just being sensible. However, it is still an imposition of one group’s religious perspective on others, and it is wrong all the same. I also realize there are minority religions in the United States that believe religious neutering of public places will "level the playing field." That nonsense will end abruptly the moment some civil servant or public official is told she cannot publicly celebrate Hanukkah or wish anyone a Happy Kwanzaa or bring a copy of the Koran to work.

The anti-religion bunch is attempting to cast their right to freedom from religion in the same light as the right to life. With our natural right to life comes an obligation to protect our lives by not taking unnecessary risks. Certainly, we ask governments to aid in protecting our lives from aggressors, but the primary obligation is ours. If we behave in a devil-may-care fashion, it is no one’s, not even government’s responsibility to save us from ourselves. When it comes to religion, I never heard of anyone who was denied the right to his own beliefs because a clerk at city hall wished him a Merry Christmas or because a copy of the Ten Commandments was hanging in the lobby.

Any comparisons between government protecting our lives and protecting us from public expressions of faith is ludicrous. Anyone who is so easily harmed by exposure to Christmas displays or the Ten Commandments is doomed to a life of "victimhood," and will die a thousand deaths before the end comes. The only way to adequately protect such delicate individuals is to keep them safely locked away as wards of the state. To me, that is preferable to making the rest of society as antiseptic and spiritually void as a state hospital.

I know that sounds harsh. And no, I do not advocate that we actually lock anyone up. Yet, except for the sci-theists and minority faiths, my personal experience is that much of the anti-church faction consists of tortured souls with painful religious experiences, who are more in need of emotional healing than in need of government protection. Perhaps my bad religious experiences were mild by comparison. Perhaps, I am blessed with greater emotional resilience. Perhaps I have achieved greater closure with my religious past. Or perhaps I simply believe it is immoral to punish all religion for the wrongs of a few churches.

That being said, I send to all of you my love and best wishes for emotional and spiritual contentment during this most appropriate time of year.

I Don’t Know

Neutrality as Spirituality

Jolly Chriskwanukkahstice to all! It makes sense to me that as you try to carve up traditions, people just roll them altogether again. Despite all the demands for cultural identity and drawing attention to our differences, ultimately we are all very much the same. We all desperately need to believe in something.

Spirituality is another area where I have thoroughly staked out the middle ground. You see, I am neither a true believer nor an atheist. When it comes to the questions of what lies beyond our physical existence, I have an irrefutable answer – "I don’t know." Sure, I have feelings I can’t explain and desires to touch a greater consciousness, at once so simple, yet it lies far beyond anything that can be captured in writing. What that is exactly, again, I do not know. Someone once called my viewpoint "honest agnosticism". This is because, while I am conscious of my limited being and limited capability to understand, I don’t use that as an excuse to close my mind to the possibilities. I still yearn for truth and answers to the deepest questions of life (this is where the religious types perk-up, sensing an opportunity to save a lost soul).

Sure, my lack of commitment to a particular viewpoint on religion puts me on the "needs saving" and "will burn in hell" rosters, if you talk to the serious religious types; I’m no better off with the pure science folks. Their reaction can be just as alienating. I think I get credit for not being deeply mired in religious dogma, but I disappoint them when I won’t deny the existence of God outright. I would no more deny the existence of God than I would profess with certainty that I understand the nature of God or what God’s intentions are for my life.

Over time, it seems inevitable that science and technology will meet nearly every human need, but I doubt it will ever adequately answer even the most essential questions like, "Why are we here?" and, "What consciousness exists beyond our physical being?" And let us not forget, "What is the difference between right and wrong?" but we’ve discussed that one enough for now. No, my neutrality isn’t enough for die-hard atheists, many of whom seem as devoted to scientific process as any of "the faithful" are to religion. I call them sci-theists, because they get from science all of the comfort and reassurance that religion offers so many others.

You see, the sci-theists do know. They are certain of everything. In fact, they are damn certain that there is no God. You could say that they are as certain that science will give them all of the answers, as the deeply religious are sure that their path will lead to revelation. So, once again, in religion as in social philosophy, I find myself caught between two deeply divided schools of thought, neither of which sees room to allow for neutrality. You’re either all-in or all-out. There are of course those odd few who are able to fully reconcile religion with science and are deeply invested in both views on existence. They are all-in on both camps, and I suppose I am all-out.

I don’t mind really. I can take comfort in being consistent. For me the choice over doing A or doing B always includes the choice not to do either one. Sadly, that third choice is too often unconsidered, and also correct. So I tend to advocate that third way; you could say I am a champion of the "wait and see" choices. And when it comes to blind faith in religion versus blind faith in science or a combination of the two, I think my way has just as good a chance of yielding all of the same answers, at least to the most important questions.

For me, neutrality is a form of spirituality in itself. A close comparison in terms of popular philosophy would be a basic form of Taoism ("dow-ism"), well summarized in the following definition:

"…4: philosophical system developed by of [sic] Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu advocating a simple honest life and noninterference with the course of natural events…"

[ per WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University ]

I genuinely believe that shedding our attachment to the physical world and material possessions can bring us peace. Much of our emotional and psychological pain arises from unfulfilled expectations of ourselves, our loved ones, our society, even of life itself. That is really what both religion and science do for us; they give us peace of mind that we won’t have to suffer and the reassurance that everything will be okay in the end.

My reassurance comes in knowing that the universe does not revolve around me, and that I am not responsible for its trajectory. Like my momma used to say, "I am gonna leave the world pretty much the way I found it." I do my work and then let go of it, hoping for the best and not discouraged by failure. I can control only the means – that is, myself. If I live with respect for the natural rights of others, then I have lived ethically and morally. These themes of diligence, tolerance and consistency between means and ends are common threads not just throughout many of the world’s religions and philosophy, but they resonate in environmentalism, psychology and elsewhere in scientific circles as well.

So why all the bickering over the holidays? We are all largely looking for the same things. I am not a Christian, per se – though my wife Pat and I have been attending services at a Friends Meeting House (Quakers) off and on – I still celebrate Christmas. Should I be offended because there is not some officially recognized celebration of East Indian traditions at this time of the year? On the other hand, as an agnostic, should I be offended by every public display that has the slightest religious overtone? That’s just silly. I am not diminished should someone wish me a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah, a Happy Kwanzaa or a Joyous Winter Solstice (perhaps the sci-theists can share this one with the pagans – it is after all a holiday based on celestial movements). It is all part of assimilating into society with each other. My East Indian, West Indian, Scots-Irish and Germany heritage all co-exists quite happily in me. What harm is there in us all celebrating life together in unity, just once every year? This is a time for coming together, not for tearing apart.

Let us come back together again, and share in the Jolly Chriskwanukkahstice Season, in love and tolerance for our differences and in celebration of our similarities.

Namaste
_________________________

Note: As of the initial publishing of this article, neither the term Chriskwanukkahstice nor the term sci-theist returned any matches in a Google search. They should be fun for a Googlewhack.

What Is Right?

I. The Basics

These are some of my favorite things…

• Safe food and water
• Information and education
• Meaningful employment
• Health
• A sound home
• Security

These are undeniably basic necessities, and life would hardly be worth living without them. We should work to ensure that everyone, everywhere can meet these needs.

Yet, no one has a right to any of the above.

That’s right. No one has a right to any of these seemingly essential elements of what we call life today. You may think I have lost my mind, but I challenge you to read on. First, clear your mind of all of the trappings of our modern world, and consider life on its most basic level.

II. The Desert

The band America said, "In the desert you can remember your name…" and all the better since at times and in places, all you have is your name – your identity – a point where you cannot strip down human existence any farther. Every one of our basic rights is represented in that stark mode of existence:

• The right to live
• The right to speak freely
• The right to worship or not worship as you see fit
• The right to associate or not associate with whomever you choose (if there are others in the desert with you)
• The right to be left alone – right to privacy
• The right to work towards improving your lot in life
• The right to whatever property you can earn, invent and secure without initiating force or using fraud to take it from others
• The right to defend your life and your justly acquired property using any reasonable and appropriate means available

These rights hold true from the desert to the metropolis and from the dawn of time to life among the stars – and beyond. They are essential, inalienable, or if you like, god given. Regardless, we are born with these rights and must demand that nothing infringe upon them – no person, no business, no government, no social program – not without our consent (voting and losing is not consent). These rights must be more than a line in the sand. They are the mark of a civil society.
I have been told that a desert or island scenario is irrelevant – that it is not valid to compare a harsh isolated existence with living in the developed and powerful societies of the first world today. I do not see why. These are truths – the building blocks of every valid, moral and ethical relationship among people. No matter how complex a superstructure rests on this base, it will crumble if this foundation is weakened. Perhaps we call them natural rights because you have to get out of the city and back to the core of our existence to see the truth of them.

So let’s stay in the desert for just a little while longer. Imagine that two people now cross paths in the desert. What are the just boundaries of their interaction?

Is it acceptable for one…

• To kill the other?
  -- No, that is murder.
• To gag or use the threat of force to silence the other?
  -- No, that is assault and oppression.
• To force the other to stop worshipping or force him to worship in a particular way?
  -- No, that too is assault and oppression.
• To foist himself on the other?
  -- No, that is harassment.
• To forcibly or surreptitiously search the person and effects of the other?
  -- No, that is an assault and a violation of his sovereignty and dignity.
• To subjugate and limit the choices and movement of the other by force?
  -- No, that is slavery.
• To take by force or fraud the provisions of the other?
  -- No, that is theft.
• To prevent the other from protecting his life and property?
  -- No, that is to be an accessory to murder, assault or theft.

No, it is not acceptable for either to violate any rights of the other. If we cannot agree on these principles, I fear that human existence will never be peaceful. These basic rights do not change when a third person arrives on the scene. They each may agree voluntarily to pool and manage their resources through democratic or other processes. If two agree to collaborate and the third does not, the two may have enough power to force their "solutions" on the third. However, their might does not give them any special or additional rights just because of their sheer numbers. Nor does the third forfeit his rights in the face of overwhelming numbers. It does not matter if there is a fourth and a fifth or if there are ten billion of the same mind, with just one outsider – all of his individual rights are just as natural and valid and should be protected.

III. Benevolence

But back to the first two… Let’s suppose that the first one has nothing but a shirt, jeans and boots; the second one has the same, plus a full pack with enough provisions to last for several days. Neither knows how deep they are in the desert. In this scenario, the first person does not suddenly earn special rights to the provisions of the second, just because she is in need. Likewise the second does not forfeit the right to her provisions, just because of her relative advantage.

You may justly say that due to her advantage the second has a moral responsibility to assist the first. Yet that is a matter of conscience. It is not morally superior for a powerful, unbiased third party, i.e., the mythical benevolent dictator, to intervene with force to take from the second and give to the first. The second has done nothing wrong. The second is not responsible for the circumstances of the first.

Such redistribution could mean death for both rather than allowing one to survive. The first may be so inept or unfit that she will die in the desert, even if she takes all of the provisions from the second. The second may be better suited to survival in a harsh environment and her provisions may be just enough to sustain her. No one has an all-divining eye to see the truth of these or most any circumstances. There is no perfect, benevolent dictator who can guarantee desirable or optimum outcomes. For this scenario, one might produce an "equality of outcomes" – a seemingly popular notion these days (Karl Marx would be proud). While I agree that ensuring death for both is equal, it is neither desirable nor optimum. Some would disagree; some openly advocate and prefer equal oppression to allowing freedom for some to fail while others succeed. I cannot comprehend such a mindset. The only "field" that can justly approach being leveled is that of our essential rights.

We are accountable to ourselves, our peers and our maker to be charitable people who take care of those in need. Helping people in need has no moral value, if those helping are coerced with threats of force. True charity must be conscious and voluntary. Even charity that is prodded by social pressure and guilt has greater redeeming value. Even if it lacks a generosity of spirit, at least it reflects a sense of accountability and social or moral responsibility. At least it does not invite violence; we always risk violence when we resort to force.

Yet there are countless numbers who are betting on the benevolence of an overarching society. They want to voluntarily pool their resources and use democratic process to manage them, helping those in need and at the same time building infrastructure that benefits everyone in ways that are ubiquitous and too numerous to measure. That is how villages, towns and cities come to be.

IV. Metropolis

I think that song had it right. We do forget our name, our essence, our truth, when thrown to and fro amongst huddled masses. It is easy to forget that not everyone has what we have, and that even our most basic needs can never be guaranteed as rights can. It is easy to forget that we could easily have nothing tomorrow: no job, no health care, no home, no car, no food, and no security. It is harder to take away natural rights than material needs. You see, natural rights can only be taken by something called a criminal – oh, and governments can take them too.

Still, we are impressed by the throngs of humanity and we convince ourselves that, at least as a species, we are immortal. The social engineers, politicians and scientists, who all know what is best for us, know that we will be better off when we are united towards the same goals – and by god, they will tell us what those goals are – so just shut-up, dig-in and pull your weight. Everything will be decided by benevolent committees. You won’t have to think for yourself or pursue your own goals, or even know the difference between right and wrong. Just follow along. We will all be complicit in every crime and ostensibly in every achievement too. In reality, blame will be shared by all, and credit will go to the committees, along with our thanks for their sound guidance.

There seems to be a common theme pervading the favored social, political and scientific avenues of thought on the future of our species. Even in the most egalitarian and hopeful visions of the future, as with the "Star Trek" television and movie series, we will be united in common purpose, and we will shed our focus on personal gain. We will cease to act as individuals and becomes cells in a larger organism. There is no denying the prevalence of such sentiment.

And strangely, if such a grand vision had to be accomplished though force, I know it would fail. Instead, I suspect it will succeed precisely because we will relinquish the freedoms afforded to us by our natural rights, willingly. We will yield them in exchange for having our every need met and for the promise of safety. All of our needs and none of our rights. Wow! Surely, some of you are saying that sounds pretty good. "What a deal! All I gave up were my rights. I wasn’t even using them." Me? I will take my chances and gladly fight and die to keep my rights.

Certainly, enough will yield that the few holdouts, like me, can be easily marginalized and criminalized. This grand society will come about because we are intoxicated with the comfort, power and technological achievement that only a rich society can offer. In fact, I know someone who says that people will only shed their focus on personal gain when everyone can have anything they could ever need, just like Star Trek.

V. The Replicator

You might suspect that with a name like mine, I would be a big fan of Star Trek. After all Captain Kirk’s arch nemesis was ("Wrath of…") Khan Noonien Singh. Does that make me my own worst enemy? Well, I do like the series and even own a couple of collectibles, but I’m not exactly a trekker or even a trekkie. For those not familiar with Star Trek, I will explain. You see, they have this gadget they call a Replicator. This technology of the 24th Century can create most any physical object practically out of thin air.

So, in the world of Star Trek, everyone can literally have anything they would ever need. The same technology imagined for the Replicator also manifests itself in "holodecks". These are entertainment rooms that go beyond virtual reality to create concrete physical environments with lifelike interactive people, and all can be programmed to our dreams and desires. You can bet that the only time anyone ever leaves the holodecks on the Starship Enterprise is when their rationed time runs out or their shifts are starting (or the Romulans are attacking). If you could spend a few hours a week fulfilling your every fantasy, there is probably no end to the subjugation you would endure the rest of the week.

For now that is pure fantasy, but even the modest technologies of our time are beginning to lull us. I see the malaise setting in all around us. When I speak out to reclaim my rights, people don’t understand why I won’t get with the program, why I won’t relinquish my rights in exchange for the comforts offered to me. The argument seems to be that if I benefit from society in any way, then I turn over my destiny to the majority who get to decide what rights will be traded for what comforts and protections. It is all or nothing.

No, that’s not true. Nothing is not an option. There is no way out. There is no paying your own way or carrying your own weight. You cannot exist amongst the rest of society without being forever in debt to it. For some, like me, this is unacceptable. We demand that life be voluntary and that our freedoms not be relinquished except by our direct individual consent, which we will not give. We do not consent to the will of a simple majority. Again, voting and losing is not consent.

And for those of you who might say, "Well you can just leave, if you don’t like it," I say that is not an option either. For now I suppose it is still possible to find pockets of freedom in communities that do not consider you inextricably entangled, each with the other’s fate. Yet, for any socialist, communist or Marxist society (pick your flavor of collectivism – they all taste the same to me) to succeed, it must be all encompassing. It must resist any dissent. It must not allow anyone to escape its grasp. Total dominion is the goal of all such collectivist schemes. The reason is simple; people with talent, creativity and initiative are oppressed in societies that demand mediocrity. And that is what collectivist societies do. They are systems of oppression that produce relatively equal outcomes by limiting both failure and success.

The other day, a friend aptly pointed out that there is plenty of room for collectivist communities in a libertarian world, but there is no room for libertarians in a collectivist world. I have no doubt; eventually there will be no refuge from the tender mercies of a society united in lust for comfort and safety. Our only choices will be to comply or be crushed, but I am looking for a third option. I want to opt out.

[Look for me to discuss "Opting Out" in future articles. – Kirk Narinder Singh]
___________________________

I think this fella was trying to say some of the same things but drank too much coffee and got a little testy. I may be brewing up a rant of my own...

• Modern Bill of Rights

I almost forgot. This is an excellent opportunity to share a link from the International Society for Individual Liberty. It is a 10 minute Flash presentation (1.01 Mb, 3+ minutes to load by dial-up) and is available in other languages directly from the ISIL home page. Please support them if you can.

• "Philosophy of Liberty"