Freelance work is becoming a big deal in the U.S. for several reasons. One reason is that the currently very poor economy (yeah, they claim it is improving, but really it is only getting better for the wealthy but no one else) is still making it extremely difficult to find decent work. Right, you heard on TV that unemployment is decreasing, but did they bother to mention that most of the new jobs are low paying jobs? Did they even point out that wages are staying stagnant while inflation is still increasing? A lot of Americans are finding that freelance work is easier to get than permanent employment. That is not the big driver of freelancing though. Over half of freelancers are doing it entirely voluntarily. They have chosen freelance work over long term full-time work because they like being their own boss. They like setting their own hours. They like the ability to choose what work they will do and what work they will leave to someone else. Many even like the fact that they do not have to work a full 40 hours a week to get by. Freelancing comes with a cost though: No benefits.
Aside from social pressure, wage slavery is primarily driven by mandatory benefits. I know many people who would like to start their own businesses, but they cannot, because they cannot afford private health insurance. Other benefits are a problem as well, but health insurance is, by far, the biggest problem. I even know a few people who have their own businesses and work a regular job for the health insurance. Businesses, like Lowe's, that offer these benefits even to part-time employees are a great blessing to business owners who cannot afford private health insurance. (Years ago I worked at a Lowe's store, and at least two other employees there owned their own businesses, but worked 10 hours a week at Lowe's for the health insurance package.) This is a problem, because it discourages freelance work and the creation of new businesses. For the most part, only independently wealthy people can really even afford to start their own business, and I am not just talking about businesses with really expensive startup costs. I have several computers, I have access to all of the tools I needed, I have all of the necessary knowledge and training, but I still cannot afford to start a software company, because I am stuck spending nearly all of my time working for someone else. Even most middle class employees are stuck in this situation.
What is the solution? Get rid of mandatory benefits. In fact, ideally, all non-monetary compensation should be prohibited. Someone still has to take responsibility for health insurance, because costs are still too high. Obamacare made health insurance mandatory, but it did not solve the underlying problem, which is that it just plain costs too much. At this point, a single payer system seems like the best option, and the retirement of Medicare and Medicaid would go a very long way in funding it (actually, if you add all the costs of the multiple Obamacare failures, it might make up the difference). Further though, if there was still a deficit, another side effect of this would cover that and then a whole lot more. The single most abused benefit is stock options. Eliminate those and tax revenues (especially from CEOs and such) would increase dramatically.
Taking the burden of health insurance off of employment would release millions of Americans from wage slavery. Of course, they still have to work to survive, but they would have much more control over that work. Without employer provided health insurance, more people would be motivated to start new businesses, and more people would be willing to work for those businesses. More people would be able to go the freelance route. In addition, one more awesome benefit of this is that more people would feel free to choose part-time work instead of feeling compelled to work full-time, making more jobs available for others. More Americans would be free to choose their own paths than ever before.
Now, I am sure you are aware that I endorse a basic income in addition to this, and a basic income would free Americans to a degree never before seen in all of human history (accepted history, anyhow). Even without a basic income though, eliminating all non-monetary benefits would go a long way to increasing freedom in the U.S.. Of course, if stock options were eliminated, the increase in tax revenue would likely cover a large chunk of the costs of the basic income. I just wanted to point that out.
29 December 2014
27 December 2014
Unions
I have a problem with unions. It comes down to two things: Unions are too powerful and too easy to abuse. Unions are currently absolutely necessary to take care of problems that the government refuses to treat fairly.
The recent Supreme Court ruling on a dispute between an Amazon contractor and its warehouse employees (which I have discussed in more detail in a previous post) illustrates the second part of my problem. Without unions, many workers are just plain not treated fairly. In the Amazon case, workers were being forced to go through excessively long security checks daily without pay for the time spent. Our Supreme Court justices (whom I must assume are idiots, because the only other option is that they are deliberately helping to enslave and oppress innocent Americans, and I want to give them the benefit of the doubt) declared that businesses do not have to pay workers for time spent doing anything that is not, in essence, part of the job description. At this point, this declaration now counts as an infallible part of U.S. law. The government offers no protection for what amounts to blatant wage theft. There is only one solution: unions.
Unions were originally created in response to government inability to enforce fair labor practices. In the early U.S., it was common for employers to underpay workers and to require far more hours of work than is healthy or fair. Unsafe work conditions were more common than safe ones by a very wide margin. People were regularly inured or killed in workplace accidents that could have easily been prevented, because owners were too cheap to spend even small sums to ensure safety. Children were treated as slaves, working 16 hours days in these conditions, for so little money that entire families had to work, and that was still not enough to get by. The government was not powerful enough to do anything to stop these unfair practices, and in many cases, the government did not have enough reach to even be aware of them. The solution was labor unions.
Workers in these conditions eventually banded together, demanding fair treatment. Their employers refused the the demands and threatened to fire anyone who continued to dissent. Eventually the workers realized that if all of them dissented at once, their employers would be unable to replace them all fast enough to avoid financial catastrophe. The worker strike was born (it was actually born in France, but it was quickly adopted by oppressed U.S. workers). Nearly all of the workers in one or more factories refused to continue work until conditions, hours, and wages were improved. Employers were powerless against the unions because they were dependent on the employees. Firing them all would result in financial ruin for the company. Initially the government panicked: Worker's unions threatened the U.S. economy. If workers had so much power, they could easily force businesses to pay so much that it would cause rampant inflation. Besides that, even short strikes resulted in production halts, and in factories that produced necessities, those halts could result in serious harm. This did something else very important though: It put the problem of workers right in the face of the government, where it could no longer be overlooked or ignored.
The government realized that treatment of workers was a major problem. It also recognized its responsibility in doing something about it. The government still did not have the power or reach to handle the problem on its own. It did have the power to protect the workers in their own attempts to deal with the problem. Business owners lobbied the government to make unions and worker strikes illegal. Their claim was that these things caused economic instability. Their claims seemed reasonable, however, the government eventually recognized that the underlying problem was not the strikes, but the unsustainable hours and pay, as well as the often deadly work conditions provided by employers. Laws were passed to protect unions and striking workers from retaliation. Currently, workers cannot be fired for discussing unionization, actually unionizing, or for striking. Workers who are striking on economic grounds (wages, other compensation, or work hours) can be "permanently replaced" (they cannot be fired, but if a willing replacement can be found, the strikers hours can be reduced to 0 indefinitely, which is approximately the same as being laid off). The government also created a set of safety and treatment requirements and guidelines for how employees may be treated. Strikes related to these issues are further protected, prohibiting even permanent replacement. When it comes to safety and other government protected employee rights, replacements hired during a strike must be fired to make room for striking employees returning to work once the dispute has been resolved.
The potential for abuse of unions was still clear, so some restrictions have been added. Closed shops, where the company may only hire union members, was strictly prohibited. Closed shops allow the union to control all hiring decisions by restricting admittance into the union. This gives the union veto power over any hiring action. In the U.S., closed shops are illegal. Union shops, where new hires are required to join the union after being hired, are legal, as well as agency shops, where non-union members must still pay union dues, and open shops, where employees may choose but are not required to pay dues if they are not union members, are all legal in the U.S.. Prohibition of closed shops prevented the most obvious abuses of unions, but it still left some loopholes, most of which still exist.
When unions were originally created, they were necessary. They were very useful, and they did a great deal of good. Since then, many things have changed. The biggest change is power and reach of the government. Workplace safety is no longer a serious union issue, because OSHA, a government agency, defines and enforced workplace safety. If a workplace is unsafe, it is faster and easier for an employee to report the violation to OSHA than it is for a union to try to resolve the issue, and the penalties for those violations are enforced by the government, making workplace safety violations fairly rare. Wages are still a problem, but not because the government is not powerful enough to do anything about it. They are a problem because the government refuses to do anything about it. Worse, the most common places for wage issues are not well suited to unions, because employee turnover is too high. In the past several decades, most union wage issues were not problems of employers paying unfair wages. Most of the issues were greedy employees who were already being paid far higher than the U.S. average wanting more than their fair share (and, in the case of the U.S. steel industry, this was one of the blows that ultimately killed it). Unions are no longer useful tools for enforcing fair wages. Instead they are tools for overpaid employees to rip off their employers even more.
Work hours were another major thing that unions were good for. Twelve to sixteen hour work days were common. Unions pulled the U.S. work week down to 40 hours and the work day to 8, requiring extra pay for any time worked beyond that. Of course, the goal was actually closer to 35 or 30 hours a week (20 according to some), but unions lost sight of that goal almost a century ago. Unions are no longer necessary to enforce this though, because the government has enacted laws prohibiting employers from giving employees more than 8 hours of work in a day and 40 in a week, with an additional requirement that when this is violated, employees are paid extra for time beyond those limits. This is no longer a union problem; it is now a government problem. Worse, despite unions and government, the average American voluntarily works an average of 50 hours a week and often the overtime goes entirely unpaid. When the workers don't care, there is little unions can do to fix the problem.
Overall, unions have lost most of their usefulness. They still have potential for abuse though. Unions have a great deal of lobbying power. In Alaska, in the mid '90s I believe, the workers at some of the power plants went on strike. I don't know all of the details, but I do know that the labor union exercised power that belongs only to government and individual citizens, by manipulating the state government in making some very harmful laws. The power plants hired electrical workers from Washington state, as temporary workers until the strike was resolved. In retaliation, the union lobbied the state government to change certification laws to require electrical workers in Alaska state to have gone through their training in-state. In other words, a journeyman or master electrical worker in Washington state could only be hired as an apprentice in Alaska, without going through all of the time required for certification within the state of Alaska. The union did this to put more pressure on the power company by denying them well qualified temporary workers (the law specifically prohibited hiring them into positions that normally required journeyman certification). Besides being a low and very unethical blow, this has some severe economic implications. I am certain the argument given to the legislature and governor was that hiring out-of-state workers would drain money from the state economy. I don't think this justifies using the law to lie about a person's job qualifications, but besides that, this economic justification was incomplete. The end result was that the workers got most of their demands. The economic consequences of that was increased cost for power, which resulted in economically damaging inflation in a state where the cost of living is already quite high. There may have been short term economic costs of hiring out-of-state workers, but the long term costs of not doing so were far worse. There is also another long term economic cost: The electrical workers union in Alaska now has a legally enforced monopoly on electrical labor. The political power held by unions has not just been harmful in Alaska. In other places in the U.S., unions have used the law or other political influence to merge with other unions against their will (by "merge," I mean "hostile takeover").
Unions have largely become for-profit institutions in the U.S.. Their primary goal is no longer doing what it best for the workers or even representing the workers. Their goal now is to do whatever gets the union the most money. This frequently means demanding higher pay even when it is not needed or fair. It also preempts any requests for reduced hours, because reduced hours means lower gross pay, which means lower dues. By allowing union and agency shops, the government has allowed unions to force employees to become union members and to pay union dues against their will. Unions in the U.S. typically have a number of permanent employees who are not actually members of the union. In many unions, this includes a CEO and other administrative positions, who make decisions about what the employees want, without actually having any experience of being one of those employees. Some of these positions, like lawyer and accountant, are justified, but full-time administrative positions in a union are absurd. Unions are now run primarily by people who are totally disconnected from the union members and their work environment. Frankly, a union that is a for-profit business should not have any degree of legal protection beyond what is normal for any other for-profit business. Otherwise, it is even more prone to abuse.
So, now we come down to the problem: The government now has the reach and power to make unions entirely obsolete, and it has already made them mostly obsolete. Instead of doing that though, it is actually making unions more necessary. Unions should no longer exist, because they should no longer be needed. When they were created, the potential for good outweighed the potential for abuse. This is no longer true...except, when the government fails to do its primary job of representing the will and best interest of the people.
The Amazon case is prime example of where unions are useful. The employees are being robbed by their employer. They could unionize and strike, demanding pay for their time worked, demanding that the security check be listed in the job description (making it an essential part of the job, and thus legally part of paid work time), or demanding that the security checks be discontinued. They could even unionize and heavily lobby Congress to repeal the highly constitutionally questionable law the Supreme Court used to justify its appallingly oppressive decision (even abuses of power can have legitimate non-abusive uses). The problem I have with this is that they should not need to unionize to get paid for all of the time they spend doing work required by their employer.
An employer should have the right to require employees to do worthless work (plenty already do it anyhow), but employees should have the right to get paid regardless of whether the work required is profitable or not. This should be legally protected. What free society has a law that explicitly permits employers to blatantly and openly require work time from an employee that does not need to be compensated?
The recent Supreme Court ruling on a dispute between an Amazon contractor and its warehouse employees (which I have discussed in more detail in a previous post) illustrates the second part of my problem. Without unions, many workers are just plain not treated fairly. In the Amazon case, workers were being forced to go through excessively long security checks daily without pay for the time spent. Our Supreme Court justices (whom I must assume are idiots, because the only other option is that they are deliberately helping to enslave and oppress innocent Americans, and I want to give them the benefit of the doubt) declared that businesses do not have to pay workers for time spent doing anything that is not, in essence, part of the job description. At this point, this declaration now counts as an infallible part of U.S. law. The government offers no protection for what amounts to blatant wage theft. There is only one solution: unions.
Unions were originally created in response to government inability to enforce fair labor practices. In the early U.S., it was common for employers to underpay workers and to require far more hours of work than is healthy or fair. Unsafe work conditions were more common than safe ones by a very wide margin. People were regularly inured or killed in workplace accidents that could have easily been prevented, because owners were too cheap to spend even small sums to ensure safety. Children were treated as slaves, working 16 hours days in these conditions, for so little money that entire families had to work, and that was still not enough to get by. The government was not powerful enough to do anything to stop these unfair practices, and in many cases, the government did not have enough reach to even be aware of them. The solution was labor unions.
Workers in these conditions eventually banded together, demanding fair treatment. Their employers refused the the demands and threatened to fire anyone who continued to dissent. Eventually the workers realized that if all of them dissented at once, their employers would be unable to replace them all fast enough to avoid financial catastrophe. The worker strike was born (it was actually born in France, but it was quickly adopted by oppressed U.S. workers). Nearly all of the workers in one or more factories refused to continue work until conditions, hours, and wages were improved. Employers were powerless against the unions because they were dependent on the employees. Firing them all would result in financial ruin for the company. Initially the government panicked: Worker's unions threatened the U.S. economy. If workers had so much power, they could easily force businesses to pay so much that it would cause rampant inflation. Besides that, even short strikes resulted in production halts, and in factories that produced necessities, those halts could result in serious harm. This did something else very important though: It put the problem of workers right in the face of the government, where it could no longer be overlooked or ignored.
The government realized that treatment of workers was a major problem. It also recognized its responsibility in doing something about it. The government still did not have the power or reach to handle the problem on its own. It did have the power to protect the workers in their own attempts to deal with the problem. Business owners lobbied the government to make unions and worker strikes illegal. Their claim was that these things caused economic instability. Their claims seemed reasonable, however, the government eventually recognized that the underlying problem was not the strikes, but the unsustainable hours and pay, as well as the often deadly work conditions provided by employers. Laws were passed to protect unions and striking workers from retaliation. Currently, workers cannot be fired for discussing unionization, actually unionizing, or for striking. Workers who are striking on economic grounds (wages, other compensation, or work hours) can be "permanently replaced" (they cannot be fired, but if a willing replacement can be found, the strikers hours can be reduced to 0 indefinitely, which is approximately the same as being laid off). The government also created a set of safety and treatment requirements and guidelines for how employees may be treated. Strikes related to these issues are further protected, prohibiting even permanent replacement. When it comes to safety and other government protected employee rights, replacements hired during a strike must be fired to make room for striking employees returning to work once the dispute has been resolved.
The potential for abuse of unions was still clear, so some restrictions have been added. Closed shops, where the company may only hire union members, was strictly prohibited. Closed shops allow the union to control all hiring decisions by restricting admittance into the union. This gives the union veto power over any hiring action. In the U.S., closed shops are illegal. Union shops, where new hires are required to join the union after being hired, are legal, as well as agency shops, where non-union members must still pay union dues, and open shops, where employees may choose but are not required to pay dues if they are not union members, are all legal in the U.S.. Prohibition of closed shops prevented the most obvious abuses of unions, but it still left some loopholes, most of which still exist.
When unions were originally created, they were necessary. They were very useful, and they did a great deal of good. Since then, many things have changed. The biggest change is power and reach of the government. Workplace safety is no longer a serious union issue, because OSHA, a government agency, defines and enforced workplace safety. If a workplace is unsafe, it is faster and easier for an employee to report the violation to OSHA than it is for a union to try to resolve the issue, and the penalties for those violations are enforced by the government, making workplace safety violations fairly rare. Wages are still a problem, but not because the government is not powerful enough to do anything about it. They are a problem because the government refuses to do anything about it. Worse, the most common places for wage issues are not well suited to unions, because employee turnover is too high. In the past several decades, most union wage issues were not problems of employers paying unfair wages. Most of the issues were greedy employees who were already being paid far higher than the U.S. average wanting more than their fair share (and, in the case of the U.S. steel industry, this was one of the blows that ultimately killed it). Unions are no longer useful tools for enforcing fair wages. Instead they are tools for overpaid employees to rip off their employers even more.
Work hours were another major thing that unions were good for. Twelve to sixteen hour work days were common. Unions pulled the U.S. work week down to 40 hours and the work day to 8, requiring extra pay for any time worked beyond that. Of course, the goal was actually closer to 35 or 30 hours a week (20 according to some), but unions lost sight of that goal almost a century ago. Unions are no longer necessary to enforce this though, because the government has enacted laws prohibiting employers from giving employees more than 8 hours of work in a day and 40 in a week, with an additional requirement that when this is violated, employees are paid extra for time beyond those limits. This is no longer a union problem; it is now a government problem. Worse, despite unions and government, the average American voluntarily works an average of 50 hours a week and often the overtime goes entirely unpaid. When the workers don't care, there is little unions can do to fix the problem.
Overall, unions have lost most of their usefulness. They still have potential for abuse though. Unions have a great deal of lobbying power. In Alaska, in the mid '90s I believe, the workers at some of the power plants went on strike. I don't know all of the details, but I do know that the labor union exercised power that belongs only to government and individual citizens, by manipulating the state government in making some very harmful laws. The power plants hired electrical workers from Washington state, as temporary workers until the strike was resolved. In retaliation, the union lobbied the state government to change certification laws to require electrical workers in Alaska state to have gone through their training in-state. In other words, a journeyman or master electrical worker in Washington state could only be hired as an apprentice in Alaska, without going through all of the time required for certification within the state of Alaska. The union did this to put more pressure on the power company by denying them well qualified temporary workers (the law specifically prohibited hiring them into positions that normally required journeyman certification). Besides being a low and very unethical blow, this has some severe economic implications. I am certain the argument given to the legislature and governor was that hiring out-of-state workers would drain money from the state economy. I don't think this justifies using the law to lie about a person's job qualifications, but besides that, this economic justification was incomplete. The end result was that the workers got most of their demands. The economic consequences of that was increased cost for power, which resulted in economically damaging inflation in a state where the cost of living is already quite high. There may have been short term economic costs of hiring out-of-state workers, but the long term costs of not doing so were far worse. There is also another long term economic cost: The electrical workers union in Alaska now has a legally enforced monopoly on electrical labor. The political power held by unions has not just been harmful in Alaska. In other places in the U.S., unions have used the law or other political influence to merge with other unions against their will (by "merge," I mean "hostile takeover").
Unions have largely become for-profit institutions in the U.S.. Their primary goal is no longer doing what it best for the workers or even representing the workers. Their goal now is to do whatever gets the union the most money. This frequently means demanding higher pay even when it is not needed or fair. It also preempts any requests for reduced hours, because reduced hours means lower gross pay, which means lower dues. By allowing union and agency shops, the government has allowed unions to force employees to become union members and to pay union dues against their will. Unions in the U.S. typically have a number of permanent employees who are not actually members of the union. In many unions, this includes a CEO and other administrative positions, who make decisions about what the employees want, without actually having any experience of being one of those employees. Some of these positions, like lawyer and accountant, are justified, but full-time administrative positions in a union are absurd. Unions are now run primarily by people who are totally disconnected from the union members and their work environment. Frankly, a union that is a for-profit business should not have any degree of legal protection beyond what is normal for any other for-profit business. Otherwise, it is even more prone to abuse.
So, now we come down to the problem: The government now has the reach and power to make unions entirely obsolete, and it has already made them mostly obsolete. Instead of doing that though, it is actually making unions more necessary. Unions should no longer exist, because they should no longer be needed. When they were created, the potential for good outweighed the potential for abuse. This is no longer true...except, when the government fails to do its primary job of representing the will and best interest of the people.
The Amazon case is prime example of where unions are useful. The employees are being robbed by their employer. They could unionize and strike, demanding pay for their time worked, demanding that the security check be listed in the job description (making it an essential part of the job, and thus legally part of paid work time), or demanding that the security checks be discontinued. They could even unionize and heavily lobby Congress to repeal the highly constitutionally questionable law the Supreme Court used to justify its appallingly oppressive decision (even abuses of power can have legitimate non-abusive uses). The problem I have with this is that they should not need to unionize to get paid for all of the time they spend doing work required by their employer.
An employer should have the right to require employees to do worthless work (plenty already do it anyhow), but employees should have the right to get paid regardless of whether the work required is profitable or not. This should be legally protected. What free society has a law that explicitly permits employers to blatantly and openly require work time from an employee that does not need to be compensated?
16 December 2014
Legalized Wage Theft
This article discusses a recent Supreme Court ruling that Amazon does not have to pay hourly employees for time spent in mandatory security checks. The case involved several workers at Amazon warehouses, where post-shift security checks are mandatory to prevent theft, and the time spent waiting in line routinely takes more than 30 minutes. The justification was an ill advised law from the middle of last century stating that work that is not essential and integral to the job position does not have to be paid. The Supreme Court concluded that since the security checks could be eliminated without harming the work of the employees, Amazon (or rather, the company they pay to manage the warehouses) does not have to pay employees for this time.
This is an absurd case of legalized wage theft. In this case, the verdict should be simple: The security checks are mandatory. This makes them an integral part of the job. Even by that old law, the employees should be paid. Any mandatory activity that is part of a job should be part of the job description. If it is not, then it should not be mandatory. And, if it is part of the job description, then it is an integral and essential part of the job and thus should be compensated.
This ruling leads to other problems though. It sets a legal precedent for allowing businesses to squander employee time without compensating them for it. Some easy examples that have been given include sharpening knives in meat packing. This is an important task, because it affects efficiency and safety, but, unless a knife will no longer cut, it is not essential or integral to the task. The Supreme Court has said that their ruling does not apply to things done for safety or efficiency, but as a legal precedent, it does apply, because the law in question does not say otherwise. Given this, another major concern is time spent putting on and taking off safety equipment. Legally, employers no longer have to pay employees for these things, because the Supreme Court has ruled that something which can be eliminated without removing the ability to do the job does not need to be compensated.
The real problem here is that employers have been given a level power over employees that is entirely abusive. What if Amazon's security checks get longer? What if employees are now stuck in line for 2 hours? It is still not essential to the job, and the Supreme Court has declared that it is permissible to detain employees on pain of firing without paying them for that time. What if that time goes to 4 hours? Now, most employees are staying at work for long enough to get significant overtime, but according to the Supreme Court, it is still totally legal to detain them without paying them for that time.
Frankly, I don't care about that old law. It was a bad idea, but the problem is far deeper: The Supreme Court has more or less signed over the right to hold employees against their will indefinitely, without any accountability. At least requiring employees to be paid for the time is an effective deterrent. If that security check is not part of the job description, employees should be able to easily bypass it without any adverse consequences. If the employer tries to detain the employee, then the employer should be charged with and convicted of holding the employee against her will. If it is part of the job description, then by definition, it is an integral and essential part of the job and should be paid as such. Really, there should be criminal charges going on in this case, not just a question of getting paid for that time.
This is an absurd case of legalized wage theft. In this case, the verdict should be simple: The security checks are mandatory. This makes them an integral part of the job. Even by that old law, the employees should be paid. Any mandatory activity that is part of a job should be part of the job description. If it is not, then it should not be mandatory. And, if it is part of the job description, then it is an integral and essential part of the job and thus should be compensated.
This ruling leads to other problems though. It sets a legal precedent for allowing businesses to squander employee time without compensating them for it. Some easy examples that have been given include sharpening knives in meat packing. This is an important task, because it affects efficiency and safety, but, unless a knife will no longer cut, it is not essential or integral to the task. The Supreme Court has said that their ruling does not apply to things done for safety or efficiency, but as a legal precedent, it does apply, because the law in question does not say otherwise. Given this, another major concern is time spent putting on and taking off safety equipment. Legally, employers no longer have to pay employees for these things, because the Supreme Court has ruled that something which can be eliminated without removing the ability to do the job does not need to be compensated.
The real problem here is that employers have been given a level power over employees that is entirely abusive. What if Amazon's security checks get longer? What if employees are now stuck in line for 2 hours? It is still not essential to the job, and the Supreme Court has declared that it is permissible to detain employees on pain of firing without paying them for that time. What if that time goes to 4 hours? Now, most employees are staying at work for long enough to get significant overtime, but according to the Supreme Court, it is still totally legal to detain them without paying them for that time.
Frankly, I don't care about that old law. It was a bad idea, but the problem is far deeper: The Supreme Court has more or less signed over the right to hold employees against their will indefinitely, without any accountability. At least requiring employees to be paid for the time is an effective deterrent. If that security check is not part of the job description, employees should be able to easily bypass it without any adverse consequences. If the employer tries to detain the employee, then the employer should be charged with and convicted of holding the employee against her will. If it is part of the job description, then by definition, it is an integral and essential part of the job and should be paid as such. Really, there should be criminal charges going on in this case, not just a question of getting paid for that time.
10 December 2014
Tech for Teens
We will not be buying smart phones for our children. We will also not be allowing them unsupervised use of technology. In addition, we are teaching them good manners and responsibility.
The question of whether parents should buy cell phones for their teens has been a hot topic off and on over the last decade and a half. Many parents see a high potential for abuse and a low value to giving teens mobile communication devices. Their arguments seem to be justified by the fact that cell phones have become a major distraction to students in class, and they are almost exclusively used for socialization. The other side of the argument claims that the socialization itself has a very high value. They also claim that teens need to be able to contact parents at any time for personal safety. Both sides have some truth to their arguments, however, as cell phones have begun to proliferate among teens, we have gained a great deal of additional data.
Over the last 6 months, I have read at least 6 articles on how mobile communication devices are used by teens for bullying, revealing private information, and even for distributing child pornography (typically images of other under-aged students). This has become very common. Recently, yet another anonymous communication app has been condemned for its use in high school bullying and distribution of child pornography intended to defame its subjects. This is a huge problem. In fact, it has gotten so big that the FBI has gotten involved in multiple cases, and Apple even temporarily took one of these apps off of their app store, while the creators made some changes to make bullying and other illegal uses more difficult. Some parent groups are even petitioning Apple to remove the app permanently.
Here is what I get out of this: The average teen is not responsible enough to trust with a smart phone. I don't care if the justification is personal safety; a teen who deliberately compromises the safety of others with a mobile communication device should not possess it. The problem, however, is not the teens themselves. The people who are responsible for the behavior of those teens should bear a large portion of the responsibility. Parents have the final say in whether a child younger than 18 years old possesses anything, including a smart phone. Those parents have a moral and legal responsibility to provide oversight. Before buying or allowing a teen to buy a mobile communication device, parents need to seriously assess the maturity of that child. If that child is not mature enough to handle the responsibility, the parents should forbid the device, and they should enforce that decision. When parents do not do this, and someone else is harmed by their child's poor choices, the parents should be charged with neglect, and they should be held responsible for the crimes committed due to that negligence. The default should not be permission. The default should be not to give a teen a cell phone. Truly responsible parents should not give their teens mobile communication devices unless those teens have shown an unusually good level of responsibility and civility. If your teen still calls people names or is heavily involved in teen drama, you can be certain that a smart phone will become a weapon for harming others in the hands of your teen.
Parental oversight is essential in the appropriate and legal use of technology. Parents should not be allowing their teens to use these tools unsupervised. Parents who do allow their teens to use communication technology without direct supervision should check histories, texts, and any other logs to make sure their teen is using the technology responsibly. Parents should also forbid the use of anonymous communication that does not store logs. Is this an invasion of privacy? No! Parents have a legal responsibility for the behavior of their minor children. Part of this responsibility includes prying to make sure their children are not doing things that will harm others or themselves. So long as a parent is a legal guardian of a child, that child legally owns nothing. Even if the child pays for with money he or she earned, the property belongs to the parent until legal guardianship ends. This means that a parent has every right to confiscate a cell phone that is being misused. In fact, a parent has a responsibility to do so. Teens are going through a period of brain development that leaves them especially vulnerable to making poor choices. Part of the responsibility of parents is to help get their teens through this time without making choices that will cause substantial harm to themselves or to others.
Looking at the outdated arguments that are still used to justify permitting or forbidding cell phones for teens, here is my conclusion: Cell phones are a major distraction in school (not just classes). They do have the potential to help with social things, however, their potential to cause massive social harm is extremely high in the hands of a person that does not yet have well developed reasoning skills. Personal safety is the only argument in favor of permission with any strength behind it. There are, however, alternatives. "Stupid phones" are still readily available. Our plan is to buy a TracFone (or some similar pre-paid phone) model that only does calls (and perhaps texts) for our children. When they go out somewhere that we think a phone would be a good idea, they will be issued a phone (we may need more than one, as our children are close together in age). When they return, they will give the phone back, and we will log the time spent. If any time was spent on calls to anyone but us, the child will be grounded. This will not be a social phone. It will be for communication with parents exclusively (though, emergency provisions, like 911 calls, will also be permissible). The phone will not be a smart phone, and if we can manage it, it will not have internet access at all. If our children want to buy cell phones with their own money (and pay their own subscription fees), we will only permit it once they are 16 years old, on the condition that we are to review all histories each day, and then only once we have evaluated their capacity for responsible use of the device. Some might consider this policy restrictive and invasive. Perhaps it is. As a parent, with a responsibility to both my children and general society, this is my job. If you are a parent, this is your job as well.
This epidemic of electronic bullying and crime by teens is ultimately the responsibility of their parents. I sincerely hope to see FBI investigations on this problem end with massive fines for the parents who are ultimately responsible for allowing their teens to harm others. A parent who, through negligence, allows their teen to perpetrate this sort of crime is a failure as a parent. I do recognize that some teens will be sneaky and circumvent even the most strict parenting (and I do not condemn parents who are a victim of this), but when parents allow their minor children to harm others or themselves without even trying to be responsible, they are just plain bad parents.
What this comes down to is that the group against giving teens cell phones was right. The potential for harm is far greater than the minor social advantages. I am sure there are some teens responsible enough to have their own cells phones. Ultimately, this should be up to the judgment of the parents. Understand, however, that going easy on this judgment to appease your teen may turn out to be a massive parental failure to both your teen and to society as a whole.
(And, if parents will not step up and take responsibility for this problem, I will become a strong proponent of requiring licenses, at least for teens, to possess mobile communication devices. And, as a supporter of free exchange of information, I really do not want to do that. I am already opposed to allowing students to have cell phones in public schools.)
The question of whether parents should buy cell phones for their teens has been a hot topic off and on over the last decade and a half. Many parents see a high potential for abuse and a low value to giving teens mobile communication devices. Their arguments seem to be justified by the fact that cell phones have become a major distraction to students in class, and they are almost exclusively used for socialization. The other side of the argument claims that the socialization itself has a very high value. They also claim that teens need to be able to contact parents at any time for personal safety. Both sides have some truth to their arguments, however, as cell phones have begun to proliferate among teens, we have gained a great deal of additional data.
Over the last 6 months, I have read at least 6 articles on how mobile communication devices are used by teens for bullying, revealing private information, and even for distributing child pornography (typically images of other under-aged students). This has become very common. Recently, yet another anonymous communication app has been condemned for its use in high school bullying and distribution of child pornography intended to defame its subjects. This is a huge problem. In fact, it has gotten so big that the FBI has gotten involved in multiple cases, and Apple even temporarily took one of these apps off of their app store, while the creators made some changes to make bullying and other illegal uses more difficult. Some parent groups are even petitioning Apple to remove the app permanently.
Here is what I get out of this: The average teen is not responsible enough to trust with a smart phone. I don't care if the justification is personal safety; a teen who deliberately compromises the safety of others with a mobile communication device should not possess it. The problem, however, is not the teens themselves. The people who are responsible for the behavior of those teens should bear a large portion of the responsibility. Parents have the final say in whether a child younger than 18 years old possesses anything, including a smart phone. Those parents have a moral and legal responsibility to provide oversight. Before buying or allowing a teen to buy a mobile communication device, parents need to seriously assess the maturity of that child. If that child is not mature enough to handle the responsibility, the parents should forbid the device, and they should enforce that decision. When parents do not do this, and someone else is harmed by their child's poor choices, the parents should be charged with neglect, and they should be held responsible for the crimes committed due to that negligence. The default should not be permission. The default should be not to give a teen a cell phone. Truly responsible parents should not give their teens mobile communication devices unless those teens have shown an unusually good level of responsibility and civility. If your teen still calls people names or is heavily involved in teen drama, you can be certain that a smart phone will become a weapon for harming others in the hands of your teen.
Parental oversight is essential in the appropriate and legal use of technology. Parents should not be allowing their teens to use these tools unsupervised. Parents who do allow their teens to use communication technology without direct supervision should check histories, texts, and any other logs to make sure their teen is using the technology responsibly. Parents should also forbid the use of anonymous communication that does not store logs. Is this an invasion of privacy? No! Parents have a legal responsibility for the behavior of their minor children. Part of this responsibility includes prying to make sure their children are not doing things that will harm others or themselves. So long as a parent is a legal guardian of a child, that child legally owns nothing. Even if the child pays for with money he or she earned, the property belongs to the parent until legal guardianship ends. This means that a parent has every right to confiscate a cell phone that is being misused. In fact, a parent has a responsibility to do so. Teens are going through a period of brain development that leaves them especially vulnerable to making poor choices. Part of the responsibility of parents is to help get their teens through this time without making choices that will cause substantial harm to themselves or to others.
Looking at the outdated arguments that are still used to justify permitting or forbidding cell phones for teens, here is my conclusion: Cell phones are a major distraction in school (not just classes). They do have the potential to help with social things, however, their potential to cause massive social harm is extremely high in the hands of a person that does not yet have well developed reasoning skills. Personal safety is the only argument in favor of permission with any strength behind it. There are, however, alternatives. "Stupid phones" are still readily available. Our plan is to buy a TracFone (or some similar pre-paid phone) model that only does calls (and perhaps texts) for our children. When they go out somewhere that we think a phone would be a good idea, they will be issued a phone (we may need more than one, as our children are close together in age). When they return, they will give the phone back, and we will log the time spent. If any time was spent on calls to anyone but us, the child will be grounded. This will not be a social phone. It will be for communication with parents exclusively (though, emergency provisions, like 911 calls, will also be permissible). The phone will not be a smart phone, and if we can manage it, it will not have internet access at all. If our children want to buy cell phones with their own money (and pay their own subscription fees), we will only permit it once they are 16 years old, on the condition that we are to review all histories each day, and then only once we have evaluated their capacity for responsible use of the device. Some might consider this policy restrictive and invasive. Perhaps it is. As a parent, with a responsibility to both my children and general society, this is my job. If you are a parent, this is your job as well.
This epidemic of electronic bullying and crime by teens is ultimately the responsibility of their parents. I sincerely hope to see FBI investigations on this problem end with massive fines for the parents who are ultimately responsible for allowing their teens to harm others. A parent who, through negligence, allows their teen to perpetrate this sort of crime is a failure as a parent. I do recognize that some teens will be sneaky and circumvent even the most strict parenting (and I do not condemn parents who are a victim of this), but when parents allow their minor children to harm others or themselves without even trying to be responsible, they are just plain bad parents.
What this comes down to is that the group against giving teens cell phones was right. The potential for harm is far greater than the minor social advantages. I am sure there are some teens responsible enough to have their own cells phones. Ultimately, this should be up to the judgment of the parents. Understand, however, that going easy on this judgment to appease your teen may turn out to be a massive parental failure to both your teen and to society as a whole.
(And, if parents will not step up and take responsibility for this problem, I will become a strong proponent of requiring licenses, at least for teens, to possess mobile communication devices. And, as a supporter of free exchange of information, I really do not want to do that. I am already opposed to allowing students to have cell phones in public schools.)
08 December 2014
CDC Apology for Poor Flu Vaccine?
Did the CDC actually apologize for a poor flu vaccine last Wednesday? There are multiple reports that it did, but they are not strictly true. I was immediately skeptical when I first heard this, not because I trust the flu vaccine, but rather because I seriously doubt the CDC would issue an apology even if this year's vaccine did not work at all. According to Snopes, my skepticism is fully warranted. The CDC did not issue an apology, and they also did not alter any recommendations regarding getting the vaccine. They did, however, issue an advisory stating (in different words) that this year's vaccine kind of sucks. This is not entirely their fault, because flu vaccines have to be made far in advance, so selecting the right strains is mostly guess work. Further, the flu mutates fairly quickly, and even the best guess cannot protect against a totally new strain. The common strain this year happens to have drifted enough that the vaccine is somewhat less effective than usual. The point of the advisory was to let doctors know that flu cases should be treated more aggressively, since the vaccine is not likely to help as much.
What does this mean about getting vaccinated? Well, the CDC has not changed their recommendation, and they recommend that everyone get vaccinated. This season's vaccine will still help, just not as effectively. Even vaccinating for the wrong strain will help at least a little, because there are still similarities. For some people, however, it will not help at all, and for others it will help, but not as effectively. This means, even with vaccination, more people will get the flu this year, and those that do will probably have more severe symptoms than usual. The CDC advisory recommends that doctors use anti-viral drugs early on for high risk patients to mitigate with this.
I want to present the actual numbers, for several reasons. The first is to show that the difference is actually not as big as it is made out to be. The second is to show that the flu vaccine was never that effective in the first place.
This article goes over the data in more detail than I will, and it is much more clear than the CDC advisory. It also references a study done around 2 years ago on the effectiveness of the flu vaccine. It turns out that the flu vaccine has never been much more effective than 59% on average. A newer version of the vaccine has shown higher effectiveness, but some studies have shown it to be entirely ineffective in children when administered as a nasal spray (to my knowledge, the most common delivery system for it). The one currently being administered, however, is the one with 59% effectiveness. This year's vaccine is estimated at 48% effectiveness. That is not an enormous drop, but it is significant, and it does put effectiveness below half. The part that is bad is that the effectiveness was so low in the first place. (Admittedly, a few studies before the 2012 one estimated between 80% and 90% effectiveness. Flaws in those studies prompted the most recent one. The medical industry honestly thought effectiveness was between 80% and 90% until recently.)
Does this low efficacy warrant second thoughts about getting vaccinated? Probably not. There is a risk factor that should be considered when making this decision, but for most people, even a 48% effectiveness is probably a good gamble for what is a fairly cheap vaccine. Knocking down almost 50% of flu cases before they start should reduce the number of cases by well over 50%. This is because those who do not get the flu will not be contagious, so they will not spread it. Reducing the spread may ultimately have more value than preventing an individual case when it comes to vaccinating.
I have discussed the risk factor before. Pre-drawn vaccines typically contain latex. Also, some other common ingredients of vaccines are allergens. Cheap vaccines are especially likely to contain allergens. For people with latex allergies, or even a family history of latex allergy, minimizing the number of vaccinations may be wise. For people who have ever had a reaction to a vaccine, the risk may also be especially high. For these people, it would probably be a good idea to weigh the risk of allergies against the vaccine that will only reduce your chance of getting the flu by 50%.
The flu vaccine is very complicated. It is more or less a guessing game. On average, it will reduce your chances of getting the flu by around 60%. Each year, however, the exact percentage is different. In one year, it measured at 10%. In others, it has measured closer to 80%. In cases where the risk of allergies is very low, the cost of the vaccine is low enough to make it worth gambling on. In cases where the risk of allergy is high, gambling may be unwise regardless of how low the price is. Overall though, the flu vaccine is not 100% effective, and it should not be treated as being that effective. Even at a low efficacy, it does have some benefits to heard immunity, but the current vaccine will never eliminate it entirely. The flu vaccine does little more than keep the flu in check. Refusing to vaccinate for the flu because of unfounded fears actually has little impact on the overall effectiveness, so long as plenty of other people vaccinate. This year, the impact of choosing not to vaccinate is even lower than usual. None of this is the fault of the CDC. It is a persistent problem with trying to vaccinate against a disease that is highly adaptable and widespread in a large human population. That said, we have known about the low effectiveness of the vaccine for at least two years now. It would be nice if the medical establishment would stop misrepresenting it as a highly effective solution.
What does this mean about getting vaccinated? Well, the CDC has not changed their recommendation, and they recommend that everyone get vaccinated. This season's vaccine will still help, just not as effectively. Even vaccinating for the wrong strain will help at least a little, because there are still similarities. For some people, however, it will not help at all, and for others it will help, but not as effectively. This means, even with vaccination, more people will get the flu this year, and those that do will probably have more severe symptoms than usual. The CDC advisory recommends that doctors use anti-viral drugs early on for high risk patients to mitigate with this.
I want to present the actual numbers, for several reasons. The first is to show that the difference is actually not as big as it is made out to be. The second is to show that the flu vaccine was never that effective in the first place.
This article goes over the data in more detail than I will, and it is much more clear than the CDC advisory. It also references a study done around 2 years ago on the effectiveness of the flu vaccine. It turns out that the flu vaccine has never been much more effective than 59% on average. A newer version of the vaccine has shown higher effectiveness, but some studies have shown it to be entirely ineffective in children when administered as a nasal spray (to my knowledge, the most common delivery system for it). The one currently being administered, however, is the one with 59% effectiveness. This year's vaccine is estimated at 48% effectiveness. That is not an enormous drop, but it is significant, and it does put effectiveness below half. The part that is bad is that the effectiveness was so low in the first place. (Admittedly, a few studies before the 2012 one estimated between 80% and 90% effectiveness. Flaws in those studies prompted the most recent one. The medical industry honestly thought effectiveness was between 80% and 90% until recently.)
Does this low efficacy warrant second thoughts about getting vaccinated? Probably not. There is a risk factor that should be considered when making this decision, but for most people, even a 48% effectiveness is probably a good gamble for what is a fairly cheap vaccine. Knocking down almost 50% of flu cases before they start should reduce the number of cases by well over 50%. This is because those who do not get the flu will not be contagious, so they will not spread it. Reducing the spread may ultimately have more value than preventing an individual case when it comes to vaccinating.
I have discussed the risk factor before. Pre-drawn vaccines typically contain latex. Also, some other common ingredients of vaccines are allergens. Cheap vaccines are especially likely to contain allergens. For people with latex allergies, or even a family history of latex allergy, minimizing the number of vaccinations may be wise. For people who have ever had a reaction to a vaccine, the risk may also be especially high. For these people, it would probably be a good idea to weigh the risk of allergies against the vaccine that will only reduce your chance of getting the flu by 50%.
The flu vaccine is very complicated. It is more or less a guessing game. On average, it will reduce your chances of getting the flu by around 60%. Each year, however, the exact percentage is different. In one year, it measured at 10%. In others, it has measured closer to 80%. In cases where the risk of allergies is very low, the cost of the vaccine is low enough to make it worth gambling on. In cases where the risk of allergy is high, gambling may be unwise regardless of how low the price is. Overall though, the flu vaccine is not 100% effective, and it should not be treated as being that effective. Even at a low efficacy, it does have some benefits to heard immunity, but the current vaccine will never eliminate it entirely. The flu vaccine does little more than keep the flu in check. Refusing to vaccinate for the flu because of unfounded fears actually has little impact on the overall effectiveness, so long as plenty of other people vaccinate. This year, the impact of choosing not to vaccinate is even lower than usual. None of this is the fault of the CDC. It is a persistent problem with trying to vaccinate against a disease that is highly adaptable and widespread in a large human population. That said, we have known about the low effectiveness of the vaccine for at least two years now. It would be nice if the medical establishment would stop misrepresenting it as a highly effective solution.
04 December 2014
Religion is Government
Throughout history, religion has played a major role in how people act. In many cases, religion is better at controlling how people act than law is. Historically, many nations that recognized this co-opted religion as an additional method of control, creating or adopting state religions that encouraged people to act how the government wanted them to. Religion has always been more personal than government though. Even within one religion, members understand doctrines differently from one another. Because religion is about personal belief, it should not be forced on someone, and as the American Revolution approached, this started to become far more obvious. This fact was ultimately one of the driving factors in that revolution. If you ignore the aspect of personal belief though, you may notice that religion has a lot in common with government.
First, to be completely blunt, religions are governments. They are not secular governments, but they do govern their members. The most important difference between religion and secular government is free will, and this is why government and religions have no business being legally connected. When a state religion is created, it becomes an arm of the government, and the free will that makes religions what they are is lost. This even applies to nations that adopt atheism as the state religion, banning any other religions. As micro governments, religions actually play some very useful roles.
Religions have some power over the behavior of their members. Now, some people perceive this as a bad thing, but it is not actually. The reason is that participation is entirely voluntary. Where religion is free from the influence of secular government, it encourages people to be civilized of their own free will. Religions to do wield legal power to punish their members in any universally meaningful way. They might excommunicate members who do not follow the tenants of the religion, but in most cases, members who are expelled from a religion have shown either through their words or actions that they do not actually believe the doctrine of that religion (there are occasional exceptions), and thus, no serious harm is done to them. Religions are more or less social institutions that impose social rules and punish deviation through entirely social means. People are free to choose their social rules by choosing which religion they are a member of. This is unique, because people have little power over their secular government beyond relocating to the realm of a different government. Even in a democratic government, those who do not agree with the majority have little control over how they are governed. When religion is free, each person can choose his or her own social rules, and if there is not a religion that fits, it is always possible to create a new one. Overall, religions help keep civilization civilized, and more effectively than government can.
Religions act as an additional check and balance to secular government. Religions help unify people. Groups of people who choose to have similar beliefs is far more united than the people of a nation that is forced to follow only one religion. Religions can unite against unjust government actions. Religions can help encourage political dialog that can drive positive change. Religions give the people more power and ability to unite against the government when necessary (religions even played an integral role in starting the American Revolution). When governments choose to work with religions, the voice of the people can be better heard by the government, without the need for the people to unite against the government. Viewed as independent governing entities who represent their followers, religions can work with secular governments to enhance communication between the government and the people it represents.
Religions also tend to be better at social welfare than governments. Because religions cannot impose mandatory taxes, they are limited to the voluntary donations of their members, which is why some forms of welfare must be handled by secular governments, however, religions can often get into places that secular governments cannot. This does not just include countries in need of foreign aid that doubt the motives of secular governments. It also includes homeless people, who do not have permanent addresses or even identification. Secular governments just cannot afford the man power required to effectively distribute all needed welfare, even in their own regions. Religions often have plenty of members willing to spend some time on charity work, who can distribute welfare with less concern for accountability. Because the funds are donated voluntarily, religions do not have to worry so much about abuse of the system. Also, because religions typically have more limited funds, abuse of religious social welfare is rarely very profitable. In addition, because religions are autonomous and have less accountability, they can be more flexible. In the effort to enforce fairness and accountability, government often inadvertently leave gaps in their social welfare programs. Religions can fill those gaps, though perhaps no so well as the government could by analyzing the system and making adjustments. Without religions helping with social welfare, much of the world would be doing far less well than they are.
The most unique thing about religions is that participation is voluntary. This is very useful. First, it encourages each person to choose a religion. Most people in the U.S. are members of some religion or other. Of those that have no official membership, many still identify with some religion, even if it is just a generic version of some category of religions (for instance, non-denominational Christian). Those who do not identify with any religion often still have some personal religious ideology that guides they actions. This means that most Americans subscribe to some religious ideology that encourages them to get along with others. Further, because religion is voluntary, people feel compelled to keep the tenets of their religions, because they made a personal choice to do so. There is a great deal of work that government does not need to do, because religions do it for them. Integrity is only legally enforced when legal contracts are involved, however, most people are honest most of the time, even when it may not benefit them. Most people don't steal, even when they know they will not get caught. Most people overlook minor harm that was unintentional. There are no laws enforcing most of this good behavior, and in the cases where there are, they are not reliable. People choose to be civilized anyway, and in a large part, religions are responsible. Religions encourage civilization and making wise choices, and because participation is voluntary, members are more likely to follow the commandments and recommendations, because they chose them of their own free will.
Secular governments have a monopoly on violence, and perhaps that is for the best. In the past, religions that have been permitted to use violence have abused that authority a majority of the time. Even limiting religions to using violence only on their own members is probably a bad idea. Likewise, religions have something of a monopoly on personal belief. Again, this is probably for the best. Allowing secular governments to control the beliefs of people has almost always ended in disaster in the past, and forcing a large group of people to have the same beliefs has never turned out well. Government and religion complement each other in very important ways, when they are autonomous from each other. When they are combined, however, a major conflict of interests almost always arises, and one or the other is assimilated and becomes an engine of tyranny.
First, to be completely blunt, religions are governments. They are not secular governments, but they do govern their members. The most important difference between religion and secular government is free will, and this is why government and religions have no business being legally connected. When a state religion is created, it becomes an arm of the government, and the free will that makes religions what they are is lost. This even applies to nations that adopt atheism as the state religion, banning any other religions. As micro governments, religions actually play some very useful roles.
Religions have some power over the behavior of their members. Now, some people perceive this as a bad thing, but it is not actually. The reason is that participation is entirely voluntary. Where religion is free from the influence of secular government, it encourages people to be civilized of their own free will. Religions to do wield legal power to punish their members in any universally meaningful way. They might excommunicate members who do not follow the tenants of the religion, but in most cases, members who are expelled from a religion have shown either through their words or actions that they do not actually believe the doctrine of that religion (there are occasional exceptions), and thus, no serious harm is done to them. Religions are more or less social institutions that impose social rules and punish deviation through entirely social means. People are free to choose their social rules by choosing which religion they are a member of. This is unique, because people have little power over their secular government beyond relocating to the realm of a different government. Even in a democratic government, those who do not agree with the majority have little control over how they are governed. When religion is free, each person can choose his or her own social rules, and if there is not a religion that fits, it is always possible to create a new one. Overall, religions help keep civilization civilized, and more effectively than government can.
Religions act as an additional check and balance to secular government. Religions help unify people. Groups of people who choose to have similar beliefs is far more united than the people of a nation that is forced to follow only one religion. Religions can unite against unjust government actions. Religions can help encourage political dialog that can drive positive change. Religions give the people more power and ability to unite against the government when necessary (religions even played an integral role in starting the American Revolution). When governments choose to work with religions, the voice of the people can be better heard by the government, without the need for the people to unite against the government. Viewed as independent governing entities who represent their followers, religions can work with secular governments to enhance communication between the government and the people it represents.
Religions also tend to be better at social welfare than governments. Because religions cannot impose mandatory taxes, they are limited to the voluntary donations of their members, which is why some forms of welfare must be handled by secular governments, however, religions can often get into places that secular governments cannot. This does not just include countries in need of foreign aid that doubt the motives of secular governments. It also includes homeless people, who do not have permanent addresses or even identification. Secular governments just cannot afford the man power required to effectively distribute all needed welfare, even in their own regions. Religions often have plenty of members willing to spend some time on charity work, who can distribute welfare with less concern for accountability. Because the funds are donated voluntarily, religions do not have to worry so much about abuse of the system. Also, because religions typically have more limited funds, abuse of religious social welfare is rarely very profitable. In addition, because religions are autonomous and have less accountability, they can be more flexible. In the effort to enforce fairness and accountability, government often inadvertently leave gaps in their social welfare programs. Religions can fill those gaps, though perhaps no so well as the government could by analyzing the system and making adjustments. Without religions helping with social welfare, much of the world would be doing far less well than they are.
The most unique thing about religions is that participation is voluntary. This is very useful. First, it encourages each person to choose a religion. Most people in the U.S. are members of some religion or other. Of those that have no official membership, many still identify with some religion, even if it is just a generic version of some category of religions (for instance, non-denominational Christian). Those who do not identify with any religion often still have some personal religious ideology that guides they actions. This means that most Americans subscribe to some religious ideology that encourages them to get along with others. Further, because religion is voluntary, people feel compelled to keep the tenets of their religions, because they made a personal choice to do so. There is a great deal of work that government does not need to do, because religions do it for them. Integrity is only legally enforced when legal contracts are involved, however, most people are honest most of the time, even when it may not benefit them. Most people don't steal, even when they know they will not get caught. Most people overlook minor harm that was unintentional. There are no laws enforcing most of this good behavior, and in the cases where there are, they are not reliable. People choose to be civilized anyway, and in a large part, religions are responsible. Religions encourage civilization and making wise choices, and because participation is voluntary, members are more likely to follow the commandments and recommendations, because they chose them of their own free will.
Secular governments have a monopoly on violence, and perhaps that is for the best. In the past, religions that have been permitted to use violence have abused that authority a majority of the time. Even limiting religions to using violence only on their own members is probably a bad idea. Likewise, religions have something of a monopoly on personal belief. Again, this is probably for the best. Allowing secular governments to control the beliefs of people has almost always ended in disaster in the past, and forcing a large group of people to have the same beliefs has never turned out well. Government and religion complement each other in very important ways, when they are autonomous from each other. When they are combined, however, a major conflict of interests almost always arises, and one or the other is assimilated and becomes an engine of tyranny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)