Punishment, Crime and Culture - Part 2 Additional: Enforcement

Law enforcement is... a tricky situation. I didn't actually intend to write this bit here, but we've had some many problems lately it almost feels like some sort of epidemic is upon us. "What sort of epidemic?" you ask.

Rogue police who shoot first and then lie about it afterward.

Before we're done with this it is entirely possible that you may come to suspect that I am not a fan of the police...

New Crime Policy #4: Dissolve the police and replace them with Public Safety Conscripts.

This one is easily going to be the hardest one to swallow yet. I won't blame you if you have to think about this for a year or more before coming to see my point. That's fine really; major policy changes should never be made lightly, even if innocent people have to die in the interim. The cost of real progress will never be cheap no matter what the subject matter is.

Here is the problem in a nut shell: Have you ever stopped to think about what kind of person actually wants to become a police officer?

No really. I bet you actually know people who have been or are involved in law enforcement; think about what you know about them as people, what their personalities are like, what their emotional re-activity levels are like. (Not to mention their testosterone levels...)

Here's the question you need to honestly answer for yourself: Do you trust them?

Let me tell you something about me that you can quite easily verify for yourself if you like: I have no criminal record whatsoever. I don't even have points against my driving record. I have never been in any trouble more significant than a moving traffic violation. I am a law-abiding, tax-paying - white, middle-class, male - model citizen. And I don't trust the police.

Why would I feel that way? Because they don't act trustworthy.

I have to tell you, I'm really upset about the recent shooting death here in Saratoga Springs. True, I do not know all the details. Unfortunately, the details I do know have already proven that the initial statements of the officers involved were lies. They killed an essentially unarmed, probably mildly autistic, young man - shot him in the back as he was, quite literally, running for his life. And why?

I can't answer that. If I had to guess - and because they've already proven themselves to be liars, we're all going to have to guess - I would say that their imaginations are more real to them than the abstract reality of bullets tearing flesh. Dead men tell no tales, but ballistics do. These particular "officers of the law" are criminals. They deserve to be tried for murder and "punished" as the current system demands.

Not that that will solve anything, mind you. The kid is dead and is going to stay that way. Besides, as you will recall, punishment is only another word for revenge. I would kind of like a little revenge right now, to be honest. But instead I will make it a point to never learn these officer's names nor any more of the details about their inexcusable, emotionally reactive, organic crime. They are examples of what not to be, as well as perfect examples of why we need to implement my new policy.

The problem with police is that they want to be police. They want the prestige - and the authority - the appears to come with the job. They want to be "respected", which, just like in the thug culture that I'm going to refer to in my conclusion to this series, means very little more than "feared" and "obeyed".

And yes, I know what you're going to tell me: "I know police who aren't like that." I'm sure you do. There are exceptions, or at least partial exceptions, to every generalization. (Otherwise it would be a "law of nature" and not a "generalization".) I have to tell you, whether there are or aren't "good cops" still out there really doesn't matter anymore. There have been so many bad apples - especially recently - that if we don't do something truly pro-active soon, we are going to have a civil war on our hands.

And won't that just be the most ironic thing ever; the very people whose job it is to maintain the peace will have been the ones who destroyed it. Such a thing really must not be allowed to happen.

So let's talk a little about why the current police force can't do their job. I do need to be fair here, after all. Plus this is still, ultimately, about goals; in this case, the goal of enforcing the codes of organic and inorganic criminal law.

The first reason that the police can't do their job is because they've been required to enforce artificial laws. Here's a piece of truth that you can take to the bank and/or use in your own defense at the Pearly Gates:

All artificial legislation is unsustainable.

In fact, you could go ahead and generalize that even further by noticing that all artificiality of any kind is unsustainable. But I really shouldn't derail the topic by going on abstract tangents, so let me just say:

The fact that you have to expend ever greater - and never smaller - amounts of energy, money and/or lives to keep a policy going proves that it is both unsustainable and artificial. It proves that there is something fundamentally unnatural about your approach, and that it should, at the very least, be revamped, and at the very most, dismantled and abandoned completely.

And this is the situation police find themselves in all day every day. They are called to deal with ever spiraling levels of materialism and jealousy caused by ever diminishing levels of awareness, education and empathy. There is an epic-scale cultural shift going on in the world right now whose effects are not always pleasant. No one is immune and no one will escape untouched, especially those called upon to deal with the worst elements of those cultures.

So, in addition to everything else, when police have to plan and execute around vastly artificial statutes like drug laws, when they have to contend with ever-looming threats of person-to-person violence for the contents of wallets and purses, it's no wonder that they get very overwhelmed very quickly. Police work has got to be among the most stressful work on this planet. Anyone would be expected to eventually crack under such pressure; if not in the mind, then in the body. (And most likely both...)

If there was ever a case where society truly was "to blame", it is in enacting such a plethora of ridiculously artificial laws and then saddling our police forces to attempt - and ultimately fail miserably - to enforce them. We've made police work impossible. Not "difficult", not "complex", but quite literally IMPOSSIBLE. As such, it's no wonder that the stress is taking its toll.

That is, however, no excuse for murder.

Every person has to be responsible to notice when their edge is near, especially those who have been trained - and sworn an oath - to do so. "I was stressed out" can never be a negotiable excuse when lives are on the line; not from me, not from you and definitely not from the police.

The next reason that police can't do their job is because of their culture. I suppose I just won't be able to save all of the cultural stuff for later, so here goes with this one:

It is just as I asked: What kind of person would actively want to be a police officer?

I really don't care that you may know police officers who you like and admire. They went out of their way to purposely obtain the second most dangerous regular occupation on this planet (the first being active military), and it wasn't for "altruistic" reasons. It was, for lack of a better word - and maybe there really is no better word - for pride.

Pride, as they say, comes before a fall. The only reason we haven't heard more about police abuses (of all sorts) in the past was because we didn't have an Internet and video cameras on every mobile phone. Police have always been - and always will be, until we re-create them in a more sustainable manner - operating right at the edge of complete corruption. Why is that? Because the old saying really is true: power corrupts. Police culture in this country is a little more than an officially sanctioned and well equipped mafia. And if it wasn't for the persistent activism of the average American citizen, we would already have a full police state.

And the last reason that police can't do their job is, quite frankly, because they have finally lost the very last vestiges of confidence that honest, well-meaning people once had in them. These days, everyone who gets stopped expects to get hassled, expects to have to kiss ass in order not to be tasered, wrestled to the ground and cuffed - or as so many have recently found out, shot in the back as they attempted to flee from the neighborhood's biggest syndicate of known bullies.

Frankly, I just don't think there's any rebounding that's possible. Even if, as you may well argue, the "majority" of them are still "hard-working, honest cops", the corrupt and incompetent ones have more than ruined it for the rest. No, the window of opportunity for the professional policeman has come to an end. It's time they were dismantled and replaced with something much more controllable and accountable. Which is where conscription comes in.

You are aware of the idea of "the draft" for purposes of pressing civilians into military service, are you not? It is rather a terrible thing to do (which is why we haven't actively done it for a good long while now), yet the principle behind it is a sound one: In times of great need, ordinary people may be called upon to forego their private interests for the sake of a public one.

This is a time of great need.

Do you disagree? I mean, I consider myself an extreme Individualist, but even I could not resist the very real safety and freedom demands of my fellow citizens. And would I be scared? You bet your ass I would! (Especially if I had to go out and try to enforce drug laws.) But I would do it nonetheless, because it is my duty, and especially under the terms I'm about to suggest.

Here's how it works: All standard police forces are phased out to be replaced with Public Safety Conscripts. The conscripts would spend a year training - preferably locally, so they can go home at night, or at least on weekends - and then the subsequent two years in active duty, also locally.

That's right, these "policemen" are not going to be strangers. They're going to live in the communities that they serve and return to normal life in those communities once their rotation is done. People are going to know them personally. More importantly, people are going to know if they did a "good job" or not while they were in service.

And most importantly, when they're done they will A) never need fear being drafted again and B) have no lingering illusion of "authority" from having held their never-meant-to-be-a-culture position.

As for the duties of a Public Safety Officer? They would patrol, never alone, equipped with a radio and a stun gun. That's it, no deadly weapons at all. They would look for problems to solve and people to assist. And if they ever encountered a situation where violence was underway or an imminent threat, they would immediately call for backup from Special Forces and/or the Army Reserve.

Yes there would still be an armed element of police available, but they would not be the police on the ground, and that's the point.

Of course, with changed statutes so as to decriminalize drugs and eliminate physical currency, it seems likely that the main sorts of crimes these cops would have to deal with would be traffic infractions and domestic disturbances. Big crime situations would probably be highly unusual. The job might even become significantly boring.

But even if that were true, it would still be a very dangerous job, with very real stresses. It would not be wise to force any one person to remain in such a role over long. They should train up, serve their community for one specific, short period of time and then retire back to their previous ambitions, better suited to a well-balanced life having become much more aware of the lives and situations of other real people.

But make no mistake, the real motivation behind the conscription strategy is to eliminate police culture. They have too much power and too little accountability, and we're now seeing, quite clearly in these well documented times, just how little respect for life - or law - they truly have. It won't do. It must be corrected.

This is my solution - and no, it isn't particularly pleasant - but it would work. You don't like it? Then let's hear yours. (And make sure that it actually addresses the goal...)

Sincerely,

--Geo

Punishment, Crime and Culture - Part 2: Crime

Just so you remember, in Part 1 we basically established two things: 1) punishment is a fraud, nothing more than a thinly veiled rationalization for revenge and 2) that I have a heart of stone. At least, I hope those were the ideas you took away from it. (You did read Part 1, didn't you?)

And the main reason it was important to know that punishment is really just revenge was (apart from helping you become the sort of person whose actions are dictated by goals rather than simple emotional re-activity) to positively identify that punishment neither creates desirable behavior nor deters misbehavior, in terms of crime or anything else.

At best - and with a long and consistent regimen of reinforcement - punishment can come to be emotionally associated with certain behaviors. Unfortunately, this sort of conditioning can work in either direction: negative or positive. And considering that all punishments are artificial, if it is ever perceived by the subject that punishment may no longer be forthcoming, the organic behaviors soon return.

But you already have more than enough to think about in regard to Punishment. Now it's time to add Crime to the mix and see how your paradigm shifts due to that.

So, what do you know about Crime? Did you know, for example, that in some parts of the world, even as we speak, my writing this and/or your reading it would be considered crimes? So... do you feel like a criminal? Because I sure don't. If there is anything that is even more artificial and arbitrary than punishment, it's crime.

Don't make me pull out a dictionary on you, people. Just go along with this highly abstract definition for the moment and no one will get hurt:

"Crime" is failing to satisfy another's wishes - stated, implied or neither.

OK, now do you feel like a criminal? Because I sure do. In fact, I don't think I've had a non-criminal moment in my entire life. Throw the book at me! Or at least, he-who-is-without-sin-and-who-also-has-a-book has that invitation. The rest of you? You may want to think about the rest of what I have to say first.

Seriously, the English language needs to be at least three times the size it is right now. We simply don't have enough words to describe all the things we commonly talk about, like "love" or "equality" or "self-esteem" or, yes, even "crime". It isn't just potato/patota semantic differences we're talking about here. It's fundamental interpersonal understanding - or more often: the lack thereof.

When most people think of "crime" they imagine bandits in masks or some close approximation. They imagine violent people who inflict fear and pain on others for no more apparent reason than "that's how they are". And I'm not here to tell you that such people don't exist, because that would just be stupid. They do exist... in minute numbers almost not worth mentioning. (Nevertheless, I will mention them quite a bit in the third and final part of this series "Culture", so watch out for that...)

But consider this, would those people still be "criminals" if there was no law against robbery or terrorism? no law against being "violent"? no law against inflicting fear or pain?

The legal answer is: no.

Without a law on the books (and books to have laws; i.e. government) you've no right to call upon society to intervene on your behalf for anything you find undesirable or injurious - or, indeed, anything else at all. In fact, depending on what other laws are also on the books, you may actually become a "criminal" simply by attempting to defend yourself or your property. Now how's that for a poke in the eye?

I just don't think most people stop to consider just how much of a double-edge sword "crime" and "legal systems" really are. Every one of our Founding Fathers was a bona fide criminal - and traitor - worthy of a short rope on a tall gallows. Yet, as things fortunately turned out, they found their way onto the fronts of our money and landmarks instead.

But knowing just how easy it is to abuse "legal systems" kind of takes the punch - and the pride - right out of the term "legal", now doesn't it? Well... it does only if you think about it... which frankly most people don't. (Which is why people like me have to write about it...)

So, if you notice nothing else, notice this:

There are actually three kinds of crimes - organic, inorganic and artificial.

So let's talk about organic crimes first. These are, after all, what most people truly think of as "crime", and for good reasons. Organic crimes always involve violence or the distinct threat of violence for purposes of domination and/or theft. These include acts of war at the largest extreme down to playground bullying at the smallest. They also include all sexual assaults, abuses and pressings of unwanted attention.

It's pretty easy to see why every conceivable society would eventually make laws regarding organic crimes. (Even if they do also make specific exceptions for their elites...) These are the sorts of things that directly, in a physical way, make life (and life goals) either impossible, painful, unnecessarily difficult or patently unfair. Organic crimes are easy to spot and hard to justify. There truly isn't much disagreement as to identifying who organic criminals are.

By contrast, inorganic crimes are those that involve dishonesty. The truth is, inorganic crimes cannot exists outside of relationships, even if that relationship is on the scale of a society or even between societies. Anything that is a lie - is specifically meant to mislead or deceive others - is an inorganic crime, whether it has material/proprietorial consequences or not.

This is why, among just about a billion other examples, adultery has been (and is) a punishable crime in many parts of the world. This is why all televangelists are active criminals. This is why insider trading is illegal. This is why property tax is legal. (Don't get it? Just think about it for a while...)

As you might have noticed, there is no inherent violence in inorganic crimes, but there definitely can be great property damage or loss, as well as - or more accurately: virtually always - a considerable amount of emotional distress and unnecessary grieving. They can - and do quite often - lead directly to organic crimes, even of the highest order (the Gulf Wars, for example), but in practice most of them are never officially deemed "illegal", never have an official "punishment" attached by any system of "justice". (Noticing how many ambiguous terms we're dealing with? That is not a coincidence...)

And lastly there are artificial crimes. As you might have guessed, these are "crimes" in name only, so designated by ruling classes not because they are inherently harmful or abusive, but because they offend their group's sense of morality. In these cases, changing the "morality" changes the criminality, thus they are crimes only in the most technical sense (as defined above).

Perfect examples of artificial crimes: drug use and prostitution.

Now... Why do I take the trouble to point out the different categories of crimes? Because, from a policy point of view, they need to be dealt with separately, and not, as we currently do, under one overarching umbrella. We're not comparing apples to apples, or even apples to oranges; we're comparing black licorice to cigarettes to hand grenades. Quite frankly it doesn't make any sense.

But... our policy makers have been lazy.

No, that's actually far too kind; our policy makers have been criminally negligent and, in fact, guilty of complicity in a conspiracy as big as all humanity - the conspiracy to magically create reality.

This country - and all countries, really - is corrupt, especially when it comes to aspects of power and control. We abuse each other, "legally", not in the name of any fundamental principle - or even a common goal - but strictly in the name of group ego. We have been - and are - bullies for the sake of pride and pride alone.

But, I really think I should save the rest of my thoughts on that subject for the "Culture" part of this series. Right now I want to offer three national policy suggestions that I believe would all but eliminate crime in this country. These suggestion are going to (mostly) sound obvious, I suspect. They're also, I should warn you now, going to sound completely evil. (Well, maybe not. That will depend on what your goals are...)

New Crime Policy #1: Legalize all substances. (AKA: End the War on Drugs.)

I really don't want to belabor this point more than it deserves because, frankly, smarter and more well informed minds than I have already established this point beyond all reasonable argument. Did you know that we have more than 2 million prisoners in this country (a solid half of which are of African descent) and that more than half of all of them are there on drug charges? Can you even imagine how many people that is? Can you even imagine how expensive it is to keep them?

And what do we get - what is our "return on investment" for locking up drug dealers for years and decades? When they get out (if they get out) they are ruined, broken people who will never even be able to support themselves. We have a permanent dependent who is also a known felon. What are the chances of them not returning, almost immediately, to crime for their support? Almost nil.

Yet before they were incarcerated, you could say they were virtually entrepreneurs. Sure they were also parasites, but they weren't directly costing taxpayer money. (I did warn you about the "amoral" aspect of my opinions, didn't I?)

Here's the bottom line for drug criminalization: it is an artificial crime. There are places in the world that have taken the courageous step to decriminalize and have found - not only measurable, but remarkable - improvement. We can - and must - do the same. Prohibition only creates (and makes enormously wealthy) drug cartels. It has been very conclusively proven not to work in terms of it stated goals, and more importantly (and causatively): it just isn't what people want. (It's not even a majority view...)

If drugs were legalized, the price of drugs would drop (and the quality rise) to make theft for the purpose of financing drugs a non-issue. And all the cost savings from both reduced local law enforcement as well as border security and international military interventions could be used to both create better (or indeed: effective) rehabilitation services as well as researching the creation of truly "safe" recreational drugs. We could be making money while at the same making the world a more survivable place.

Because let's face it: I do drugs and you do drugs.

No, don't deny it. You may not be doping on cocaine every night (or maybe you are), but you still consume/imbibe certain things to help you feel certain ways. Nicotine? Drug. Alcohol? Drug. Caffeine? Drug. Sugar? Drug. All very much addictive and very much legal, without much of a second thought by society as a whole.

But don't get me wrong; I'm not suggesting that we outlaw any of those things. Why? Because I understand, intimately, the desire/need to feel differently than I sometimes do. Sometimes I can't relax. Other times I can't get going. And why? That too is a result of chemistry. We use chemistry to fight chemistry because... well... because it works. (At least to an extent...)

Accuse me of the slippery slope and I will do the same back to you. Do you take ibuprofen for a headache or sore joints? Why doesn't that make you a doper? Surely it was a sequence of chemical events in your body that led to the headache? Why isn't it wrong to counteract them other chemicals? even if - and I bring this up deliberately - it is only to mask the problem and not ultimately cure it?

You and I and everyone else on the godforsaken world is, by definition, a drug addict. The other differentiating features between us and a pathetic meth fiend is our relative level of addiction (and ability to reasonably function in society).

Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy in our drug policies? Do you not see the preferential treatment of certain drug-pushing industries, despite their every-bit-as-lethal effect on society as a whole? Never mind answering. I know you do. Now the only thing to do is to admit "we were wrong" (or more accurately: "we were used") and get on with the decriminalization and all the eventualities that doing so will entail.

There is no logical, fact-based, goal-oriented argument to be made against decriminalization. If you still feel the urge to object, realize that it is the result of misguided loyalties that you hold to people and entities you regard as authorities. (Loyalty itself is a inorganic crime. Now think about that for while...) Legalize now. Release the prisoners now. Start saving money now. Put your squeamishness aside and start actually solving the problem you helped create. There is no down side, and it's the right thing to do.

New Crime Policy #2: Eliminate all physical currency.

OK, this one may not be quite as obvious as decriminalization, and it also might smack just a little bit of anti-Libertarian-ism, but hear me out.

In the past, before the Internet and electronic banking and payment services, there really was no choice but to have a system of physical currency. Barter is too unwieldy - and unstandardizable - to regulate effectively; coinage/money was the smartest and easiest alternative.

But physical currency has two distinct problems: 1) it is highly susceptible to inflation - in fact it's value goes down each and every time a new bill or coin is minted - and 2) it can be anonymously stolen via acts of organic crime. (i.e. Robbed at gunpoint, etc...)

Think of all the elaborate - and costly - schemes and methodologies that have been invented to both launder stolen money and detect the transaction and laundering of stolen money. How much of that would be completely avoidable simply by having no "cash" to launder?

But don't misunderstand me; I'm not suggesting the elimination of the monetary system. I'm simply saying that physical money isn't needed anymore and that nowadays it poses more risks than benefits. All dollars should be replaced by credits and all transactions that occur should be electronic. No more physical currency. Everything exists in account records within financial institutions and no where else.

And I know what you're thinking:

Wouldn't that make my money more easy to steal, not less?

No more easy that it already is, I'm afraid. But with the distinct benefit that all would-be muggers would soon understand that neither you nor anyone is physically carrying even one dime's worth of anonymous legal tender. (If they're going to accost you, it isn't going to be for drug money...)

Wouldn't that put all my money under the complete control of either my financial institution or the government?

Once again, no more so that it already is. I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but property is an (legal) illusion, and money doubly so. Research the laws as they already exist and you will find that no one but the government really owns anything. (Fail to pay your property taxes and find out for yourself...) Is this a "bad" thing? Only to greater or lesser extent that your government is run on principle rather than the cajoling manipulations of special interests. (BTW: Right now our government is run on the cajoling manipulations of special interests. But it doesn't have to stay that way...)

Wouldn't inorganic criminals still be able to steal and "launder" credits just as they do with physical currency?

Probably, but certainly without more advantage than they already have. If we went to a completely non-cash system, then every transaction made by anyone would be traceable. This would make things much more difficult for thieves, certainly. But the day they make an infallible security system is also the same day they no longer need any security system...

Wouldn't making every transaction traceable reduce personal freedom?

Why, yes it would, literally speaking. But I'm afraid I now have to turn the tables and ask: Why do you - especially now that drugs have been legalized - need to have "anonymous transactions"? You do realize that if we allow you to have them then we also have to allow everyone else to do the same as well, including the "ousted princes of Nigeria" who just drained your savings account?

Don't make me go "moral" on you, people. If the laws are adjusted to decriminalize all artificial crimes, then the only ones left are REAL crimes. And if you are a real criminal, understand this: you do not get - or deserve - any anonymity. Your "privacy" is someone else's loss or abuse and we, as a justice-oriented society cannot tolerate that. You will be identified and you will be... dealt with, as my third policy will illuminate.

New Crime Policy #3: Points, not sentences, for criminals.

OK, honestly I don't expect many people to automatically jump on the bandwagon with me for this one. This policy is really different - as well as highly experimental - and may simply be just too avant-garde (not to mention straight-up evil) for most people to accept. Once again, hear me out first and then decide.

The philosophy is simple and just: let the "punishments" fit the crimes. And as already noticed, since there are three types of crime, there needs to be three types of consequences.

But before I detail, let's do remember that punishment, in the way that society thinks of it, is nothing  more than revenge. We're not going to be about revenge here. We're going to be about goals and, where necessary, problem resolution.

Let's start with artificial crimes, shall we? Yes, I think that's best because, in fact, I do not intend to assign any points to "offenders" in this category. Artificial crimes, if they have a punishment at all, is the build-in effect of behaving in a way that annoys or offends the sensibilities of some. In  other words, the only meaningful retribution there should ever be for artificial crimes is natural prejudice from those they affect.

Did a just use the "P" word? Perhaps you're now starting to see why I need a "Culture" section to this series. All non-organic crimes originate in culture - ALL OF THEM. And as such, it is poetically justified that they end there as well. Besides which, if they don't end there, they won't end at all. But I digress... (for the moment...)

Suffice to say that, in a greater sense, artificial crimes are actually no more harmful to society than rampant body odor - which can be paralyzingly unpleasant, to be sure, but the resolution for which shouldn't involve someone ending up in jail. That would be a simple and obvious miscarriage of justice. (For which our country is already abundantly famous...)

No, there must never be any official, legalized sanctioning for artificial crimes. This is the litmus test for a true republic or any society that professes to value freedom or justice. Offenses must be recognized as just that: offenses. Not crimes, not misdemeanors, not unlawful in any way.

Now onto the idea of point-worthy crimes. What is a "point"? A point is a negative score of sorts, kind of like how you would get "points" against your driver's license for getting speeding tickets, except this time it's your criminal record.

And, as you might have guessed, there are two types of points: organic and inorganic points, one score card for each type of crime for which we are called upon to address for the greater protection of society. (Notice how I avoid the use of the word "punishment" here? That wasn't an accident...)

Here's how I would foresee it working: All real crimes would have a point score associated with them; the more heinous the crime, the more weighty the score. For example, littering in public might have a score of, say, 1, whereas lying to congress - and the people as a whole - and taking your entire country to war for the sole purpose of wagging the dog and getting re-elected would be say, 200.

On the organic crimes side, you could have, for example, 10 points for getting into fist fight at a football game as opposed to 95 points for the street-fight murder of a rival gang member. I think you see the general idea I'm going for anyway; the score assigned is proportional to the severity of the offense committed.

So, instead of going straight off to jail for years at a time, you get points. And then what happens?

Well, for inorganic crimes, should you manage to attain the lofty score of 100, then you go to jail. Solitary confinement I'm thinking. But not "the hole", mind you. I'm thinking more of a nicely appointed studio apartment with no phone, no television, no radio, no cell phone and no Internet. You could have, however, all the books you could read and all the non-entertainment software you could get the people you write to to send you.

Also, you would be subjected to daily nutrition, exercise and psychological counselling - if you wanted. Frankly, I wouldn't care whether such inmates ever opened a book or moved a step from their chair. They could go right ahead and think of their incarceration as "punishment" if they wanted to, but for my part, I would be trying to give them the undistracted opportunity to really think about themselves, removed from all advertising, all peer pressure, all external responsibilities. (I suspect that some people would rather die...)

And the beauty part is, their points go down proportional to the time they stay in solitary; 1 point per week, let's say. And even better than that, once their points are down to 50, they have the built-in option for immediate parole, provided they are willing to wear the "offender's vest" at all times until their points are back to zero.

The offender's vest is, of course, a highly visible symbol, to be worn at all public places, indicating exactly what crimes said convict had be incarcerated for. They would be both marked and traceable at all times, subjected to the judgment of any and all who observe them.

But for those who may have neglected the math as we went along, the term of wearing an offender's vest would last, at a maximum, of still less then one calendar year - assuming of course that the convict was never caught in public not wearing the vest, or committing any other crimes while wearing the vest, or both.

Did you see what I just did? I made a system where, even if you get "wrongly accused" of a crime, you still don't necessarily go straight to jail, messing up your career while you attempt to vindicate yourself. You get "points to spend", as it were, sewing your wild oats and making "learning mistakes" without it absolutely wrecking your life.

Of course, I couldn't predict - or prevent - the societal ramifications of your misdeeds. I could only guarantee you that you wouldn't spend a single night in jail if it wasn't entirely obvious that your point total would put you there for a solid year.

Now for organic crimes...

I won't lie to you, this is where things get ugly. It's not my fault really; organic crimes are themselves ugly. Organic crimes are what make the world awful and peoples' lives miserable. Even all the other crimes put together would still be ultimately forgivable. Organic crimes are not. The effects of organic crimes are permanent, thus the remedies are ultimately permanent as well.

As mentioned, every organic crime would also have a point score. Various scuffles and intimidations would score more toward the low end, whereas vicious assaults, rapes and murders would score near, or possibly even in excess of, the 100 point limit.

And what happens when someone meets or surpasses the 100 point limit? They are removed from society - permanently.

And you know, in some people's minds "permanently" means life in prison. I suppose if by that they meant "life in solitary confinement", then, yes, I agree that would be an effective removal from society. An expensive removal, mind you; but effective nonetheless.

The other two alternatives I can think of are banishment and execution. But then I would have to ask you: Where would you banish them to? In this day and age of communication, what guarantee would you have that they would be able to sneak back? Or indeed, join forces with terrorist groups or a rival country's military?

And besides all that, at the very least you'd be foisting your known problem onto another society to suffer/deal with. That doesn't seem very responsible to me; truly not very neighborly at all.

But hell, maybe you're willing to risk it. Don't ask me to defend you should the known murderer you banish return to create one last bought of mayhem before being terminated on sight. And considering that life in solitary confinement not only seems like a complete waste of resources (considering that "rehabilitation" is not the goal) but a terribly cruel and unusual thing to do to a "person", my vote is going to go for execution.

And yes, I know you don't-want-to-live-in-a-society-where-they-kill-people. Frankly, neither do I. But as a practical, goal-oriented - and amoral - person, I have to accept that I won't always get what I want. There are people who, for whatever reason - genetic inferiority, mental health issue or just plain bad luck - will meet and surpass the organic crime point limit within fairly short order, knowing full well what will happen and that they almost certainly will be caught. What are society's real choices in such circumstances? No seriously, solve this problem - actually solve it - another way, if you can.

You see, gentle folks, much as we hope for a better world, our power and resources are always limited, especially when it comes to influencing other people. There are wolves among us masquerading as people. When hunger strikes or blood is on the air, they don't think; they react. It is the ability to feel empathy and contain one's emotional reactivity that determines who is "human" and who is not. When someone has shown, in relation to a predetermined, objective standard, that they are not, there is no humanitarian issue remaining in determining how to deal with them. You simply solve the problem.

Harsh words, yes. But only in relation to harsh, intractable problems. Would there be a therapy or pharmaceutic that could turn a violent predator back into a human - or a dishonest person into a trustworthy one, or a lazy person into a productive one. But A) there isn't and B) even if there was, it would be a fundamental assault - a punishment - to inflict it on said person's freedom of expression and choice regardless.

No, we have to accept that some people cannot ever effectively - and harmlessly - interface with society and that, as it is our duty to safeguard society, they have to be removed, completely. If you prefer to punish such creatures with a long, lingering death via solitary confinement, then that's on you. I prefer mercy myself.

But either way, you'll never hear me refer to any of it as "justice". There is no such thing and there never will be. There is only goals, and strategies for accomplishing them. The best we can do is attempt to make our motives both pure and plain, and set our goals to be as achievable as possible.

So there you have it, my best-effort recommendations about how to really, actually - and based on solid principles - address and reduce crime in this country. It would increase both freedom and personal responsibility while simultaneously - and enormously - reducing costs.

Next coming up will be "Culture". Personally, I find that topic more interesting and compelling than either Punishment or Crime. But I suppose I'll let you judge that for yourself.

Sincerely,

--Geo

Punishment, Crime and Culture - Part 1: Punishment

I have a heart of stone.

I think I should just put that out there, here and now, no duplicity, no beating about the bush. It's part of that whole "amoral" aspect of my being... well... me. And besides, it's going to show through in this blog - a lot - so I may as well "own it" now as opposed to have you assign it to me later.

After all, this is a sticky subject. There really isn't any such thing as a "neutral party" for the topics of "punishment" and "crime". Directly or indirectly - and of course, of much more personal impact when it's directly - everyone is effected, everyone is impacted, everyone is damaged.

Except for me, of course, because I have a heart of stone.

And not to give away too much too soon, but maybe I should have instead titled this series "Order, Chaos and You" because, once all the rationalizations and excuses are stripped away, I think you'll see that the real problem is not a competition of people, but a competition of destinies.

Or maybe you won't...

After all, virtually no one sees farther ahead than revenge no matter what their other options are. Are you so different? I suppose we'll see. Let's begin...

So why, in the title, is "Punishment" first? Isn't the standard vernacular usually "Crime and Punishment"? (As made famous by some other author, um... a while ago.) Well, it's because as far as I can tell, crime and punishment do not actually come in that order, but rather the reverse. (But more on that in a minute...)

The primary reason that "punishment" is first is because... I do not believe in it - as in: at all, as in: ever.

The fact of the matter, dear friends, is that punishment doesn't exist, not in this life and not in the next.

Am I already stretching your suspension of disbelief? Good. Perhaps it will help you pay attention as we go. Because, as hollow and dismissive as what I just said must ring to people who know for a fact that that they have been "punished" - possibly severely, probably by people they loved - I still must insist that it is true, and not just "semantically so" either.

Punishment - what we're taught to think of as "punishment" - is in fact nothing at all like "paying your debt to society" or even "natural consequences".

Punishment is simply another word for revenge.

So, gentle readers, understand right now that each and every time you were "punished" by... your parents, your teachers, your friends, your bosses, your churches, your girlfriends (boyfriends don't punish), your dentist, your sports team, your stranger-who-failed-to-smile or your name-any-other-relationship-you-care-to-mention, that it was done NOT in any sort of effort to "teach you a life lesson" or "for your betterment" or "to make you tougher", etc, etc.

It was done for revenge, for offenses real or imaginary, committed by you or, indeed, even by somebody else and you merely the proxy.

Now let that thought percolate for a moment or two. It is rather an important one, and I find that most people don't get it on the first try. So take your time and understand the deep, nasty implications, the systematic and horrifying injustices that exists under the false name of "punishment".

And unfortunately, it gets worse...

All the emotional pain you've ever experienced - we're talking about you, your pain - has been a direct result of you "punishing" someone else.

Not true? You really do think: "It's not me, it's them"? Do you really think you're not just as much to blame as anyone for your own unhappy situation? I think you'd better save your denials and rationalizations for someone whose heart isn't made of stone. Frankly, I know better.

Let me state this categorically:

Punishment is a concept of pure evil which has no merit and no place in an enlightened society. Punishment has - and can have - no other objective than revenge.

And before you start, don't think that I haven't read the counter-material. Don't think that I'm unaware of the "studies". I know how dogs are trained and I know what it takes to keep them obedient. I'm not here to train dogs.

I'm telling you, there a difference between giving a child a smack on the butt at the very moment when he's pulling his sister's hair and making him wait-til-his-father-gets-home to get his "punishment". One is useful attention-focusing strategy and the other is revenge-tinged abuse. (Psychological abuse as well as physical, I should add...)

But therein lies the problem: specificity and intent. Little children actually need quite a bit of physical intervention just to keep them safe. It is nowhere near good enough just to tell them: "Don't touch that". In fact, it isn't even good enough to specifically tell them: "Don't touch that because it's hot and it will burn you and it will really hurt."

You don't seem to understand: they see you touching it.

Can you comprehend what I'm saying? I mean really: How many adults are going to actively consider themselves to be "hypocrites" for carefully handling a hot frying pan and spatula? Rebel against this idea if you must, but that is how the unreasoning mind of a child sees it:

If it really was "hot", if it really was "going to burn me", then adults would be afraid of it too. Ergo: It's "safe" to play with.

Life is a funny, perverse thing, is it not?

So, what is reasonable? What is a "good strategy" when it comes to teaching children about the realities of "hot" things?

Ideally... tell them about it, yes, but then arrange for them to "find" something less hot and burn themselves on that. That way they fully receive the true educational experience of a real-world process without having to bear a life-long scar for the exercise.

BTW: If you can successfully pull of this type of parenting, then you are a god.

Less ideally? Notice them reaching for the "hot" thing and spank their little ass - hard - and tell them: "No!"

At least then you'll have invoked the dog-training dynamic of negative reinforcement, which works because of attention focusing and idea-association with pain. (Technically, this is not punishment but "conditioning".)

Least ideally? Not being there/not paying attention when they do burn the shit out of themselves and later, when they're crying, say: "I told you so..." (You are no parent.)

And straight-up unforgivable? Never tell them anything at all about this "hot" thing and let them figure it out on their own the "hard way". (Now you're not even human...)

Am I being a bit too abstract for you? This is, after all, supposed to be a blog about punishment and crime, right? Well, let me tie it in for you then:

In order to gain proper perspective on civil justice, you have to become very clear on your goals. For an array of historic and religious reasons, most people seem to hold the belief that "punishment" is one of those goals. I'm here to tell you: it's not.

None of the teaching scenarios I described above involved punishment - none whatsoever - not even the one that involved spanking. The natural consequence of playing with hot things is NOT wait-til-your-father-gets-home and then be "punished".

The real consequence is getting burned, sometimes severely, sometimes beyond what any plastic surgeon can repair, sometimes... to death.

Your job as a teacher is to show "children" how to avoid natural consequences. I said "avoid", as in never have to suffer them. If you subvert that by attempting to overshadow or replace them with contrived "punishments", then not only are you not a teacher, but you're actually a dis-informer, a double-agent, a saboteur, a villain.

Do you like my flare for the dramatic? Me too!

But don't misunderstand me, people, I do NOT take the subject of punishment lightly - and NOT because of some pseudo-cultural taboo either.

I take the concept of punishment seriously because it has come to be used as a cultural scapegoat from reality - and sometimes, even as a form of currency. The false perception that it is any sort of tool for "correction" or "improvement" - or that it can be used as "payment" for misdeeds - has led to disasters of every sort on every level, emotionally and physically, socially and economically, environmentally and evolutionary.

But most importantly, it has led to cruelty, and tried to counter cruelty with cruelty.

The philosophy of punishment must end.

Unless of course, your goal is revenge. No, no. Think about it carefully and you may just come to understand how often you really do seek revenge.

Road rage? Revenge. Working slower than you need to? Revenge. "Forgetting" items at the grocery store? Revenge. And we haven't even started talking about the biggies yet.

You need to understand that the entire Cycle of Bullying is 100% about revenge; pay-it-forward revenge, true, but revenge nonetheless. You - yes: you - punish the innocent all the time in a multiplicity of ways because someone, somewhere, sometime did the same to you. It's all revenge.

But, hell, maybe you're totally good with that. Maybe your goal really is revenge - and you know it - and that really is how you intend to prosecute your life. If that is the case, then I would just say:

You seriously need to adjust your goals!

Because what you want is not only impossible, but the act of pursuing it will positively identify you as part of the problem and thus make you subject to the policies I'm about to lay out in coming installments of this series. Trust me when I say that current policies and attitudes toward "punishment" and "crime" are much more "caring" than what I'm about to propose. You do not want to find yourself on the "wrong" side of a truly goal-oriented system of Law and Order.

But that'll have to wait until next week (or so). Until then, watch your life and notice the "punishment" going on, notice what "good" it does and how it "enhances" your goals. In fact, notice if you have goals at all.

Until "Crime" time.

Sincerely,

--Geo

Public Health Care

I wonder what my opinion on this is going to be...

I shouldn't really admit this, but I actually don't always know in advance of writing these blogs. I mean. I think I know going in, but sometimes I surprise myself. Sometimes the process of writing and having to really think about what I'm going to say causes me to... alter my stance, even if just a little bit. I wonder if this is going to be one of those times. Let's find out.

Scratching my head here, but I can't think of one topic that has been more hotly debated these last several years than Public Health Care. It seems like there really is no middle ground on this debate; you're either mostly for it or entirely against it. Very polarizing. And very sad as well, for a number of reasons; most of which I'm going to talk about as we go.

But I can't just jump in all wimbly bimbly. Oh no! Because this is an issue that "everyone already understands". This is an issue where the "righteous camp" is completely obvious.

Bah! This is an issue where cooler heads never prevail and the only question people really care about is: "Where are your loyalties?"

So, we're going to need a rather specific introduction to this thing or risk simply joining the "highly principled" muck. And I don't like getting dirty...

So... here's a scenario:

Say you were helping a buddy do some landscaping - not really backbreaking labor, mind you, but some lifting, shoveling, hauling dirt around, etc. - a couple of hours worth of work maximum. Now say that not long after this your back started hurting - a lot. You decide to shrug it off as over-exertion because, after all, this is hardly your first-ever sore back.

But as the days go by it just gets worse and worse. By the end of the week you can't sit or stand or even lie down without excruciating pain. You can barely walk, you've hardly slept and you can't think straight anymore. It's time to get some help.

So off to your doctor you go. (Office visit: $100.) They do an x-ray (~$100 additional) but can't figure out what's wrong with you. So off you go to an Orthopedic specialist (office visit: $250) where they insist that they can't properly diagnose your problem without a full MRI of your spine. (MRI: ~$4000).

Now it's days later (of non-stop pain) and you're finally back for a second Orthopedic consultation. (Additional $250.) They review your MRI results and discover therein a herniated L5-S1 disc. Recommendation: immediate discectomy surgery. Estimated cost: $20,000, plus hospital costs, plus post-operative check ups, plus physical therapy, plus the distinct possibility that even after everything is said and done, you still won't be out of pain.

Pretty grim scenario so far, right? Unfortunately, it gets worse. On top of everything else, factor in the reality that you just came off nearly a year of unemployment; you have tons of debt, no savings and absolutely none of these medical costs are going to be covered by your new job's insurance due to "pre-existing conditions".

OK, okay. Pretty far-fetched, right? I mean, anybody can manufacture a sad-sounding story when they want to play for sympathy...

Except for that is exactly what happened to me in the Autumn of 2010. It turns out that a great many things are merely "interesting" or "problematic" until they happen to you. Then shit gets real.

But my story is hardly the worst I've ever heard, hardly the worst of people I actually know. This sort of thing happens all the time to all sorts of people - and it's always a big, expensive mess. A mess, I need hardly point out, that no one wants to own or clean up.

And I suppose I also hardly need to tell you that Public Health Care involves a whole lot more than just treatments for injuries and accidents. There are so many sick people needing so much care! The scope of it simply boggles the mind. What to do? What even can be done?

Hmm... maybe my opinion on this is starting to show through after all. I won't kid you; it was a tough situation for me sitting in that specialist's office being told that if I didn't have the disc surgery right away that I would probably end up with permanent nerve damage and partial paralysis of my left leg for the rest of my life. Now that... is intimidation.

And, as it turned out, also not true. But perhaps I'll save the idea of medical malpractice for another blog...

The first point I would like to go for from my little story is to ask you to consider the very serious question: What were my real options in the situation I just described? What would have happened had I decided to go ahead with the surgery recommendation?

Well, for me personally, it's a little hard to guess. Had I undergone the surgery it would have required weeks of time off work for the initial recovery. Weeks, I should add, that I didn't have any "vacation days" built up to cover. I very probably would have lost my job. (The brand new job, as you'll recall, that I had just barely started after a life-alteringly long bought of unemployment.) Obviously I didn't have the funds to pay cash for the services, so my only option - barring some anonymous gift or something - would have been to undergo the surgery anyway and then declare bankruptcy. (I.E. Lying and stealing...)

Do you understand what I'm saying? My options appeared to be "become a cripple" or "go bankrupt". How the hell do you choose between options like that?

But I won't leave you hanging. As closure to my little story, let me say that the $20,000 price tag scared me enough to seek out a second opinion, which was the SMARTEST THING I EVER DID. It turns out my first Orthopedist was a quack! The second one sent me instead for a fluoroscopic injection of steroids (cost: $1400) that got me out of pain - as well as no longer suffering paralysis - within less than 24 hours.

Can you freaking believe it? Less than 10% of the cost of the first guy's "recommendation" and it totally worked!

I was lucky, in several ways actually. Lucky to have avoided costs that I never could have re-payed under the circumstances and lucky to have the type of spine injury that was actually amenable to non-surgical treatments.

I spent the next several months in physical therapy, the next couple of years making $250 per month payments against my medical bills (remember, even without surgery I was already on the hook for over $6000) and the rest of my life strengthening my core and maintaining the flexibility of my spine. (It really never will end for me...)

But as I said: I was lucky. Not everybody in my situation gets off so easy. And a lot more people are faced with even harder choices than the one I had. They don't get to decide "pain" or "no pain". They have to face decisions like "Do I get this operation or do I die? Do I agree to pay for these procedures or do I let my child, spouse or parent die?"

And we're not talking about a few thousand dollars here anymore either. We're talking about hundreds of thousands, perhaps even more. We're talking about total-life-time-earnings levels of cost here.

Cost...

That's what these issues always come down to, isn't it? How much is it going to cost and who's is going to pay?

You know, back in the day these sorts of issues were much easier to deal with. Back in the day when you needed a treatment you... simply asked God for a miracle, because there were no treatments. When your fate - or the fate of your loved one - became obvious, you resigned yourself to it... and died, usually in some extent of agony, because there also wasn't anything like pain killers. ('Cept for whiskey, o'course...)

I'm not sure how many people truly pine for the "good old days". If they do, I'm pretty sure that the suffering-and-dying aspects of it are not exactly what they have in mind. (Unless they are truly disturbed individuals...)

But these days are complicated. These days we have the extreme inconvenience of "options". Although, I'm not completely sure it's accurate to call them "options" when the fine print of the matter is, should you be required to pay the whole cost of them out of your own resources, virtually no one - not even in this shiny, first-world country that we live in - will actually be able to do so. Makes for a fair few social problems, to say the least.

So let's talk about those problems a bit. And let's also talk about "goals". I like goals. Or I should say, I like the idea of goals - specifically the idea that, if you keep your attention on your goals, and not allow yourself to be distracted and diluted by... well... distractions and delusions, then you might just achieve a thing or two in this life.

So, I want to ask you a simple question: What is your goal for Public Health Care?

Does that seem like an odd question? Are you immediately inclined to answer with a rebuttal question? Something like: What're you asking me for? That's not my job. I don't have a Public Health Care goal.

You don't? Hmm... That is interesting...

I did mention that this was going to be an "amoral" blog, did I not? I want to point out that I don't play "devil's advocate". I actually don't care about most things of the sort that most people would call "moral". I assure you, there will be plenty of offenses given to your moral sensibilities here - just as many of your "moral sensibilities" offend me.

Personally, I believe that "moral" arguments have vastly and unjustifiably clouded this issue from its very inception. It shouldn't start there! (It might eventually go there, but it definitely shouldn't start there...) For any social problem there is always - ALWAYS - a natural basis to launch from. And here is the proper basis for this one:

Nature never intended the weak to survive or thrive.

Reality, friends, is a harsh thing. Do you know what happens to a wounded zebra on the plains of the Serengeti? In the morning they find small scraps of white and black. Why should we expect any different?

No, seriously, why? We take a lot of these ideas completely for granted without ever interrogating them or becoming completely clear with ourselves on why we believe what we believe, why we do what do. It's not good enough!

It doesn't tell us anything to recite from rote "because life is sacred", because it quite evidently isn't. Nor is it even close to influential to claim "because we were commanded to", because we weren't. We pretend to be principled when all we really are is well trained dogs. It's not good enough!

Of course... neither is the reverse idea. Who gives a shit what nature "intended"? Unlike wild animals, we have learning, tools, intelligence and will. It no longer has to matter what nature did or didn't "intend". We have the power to do otherwise, if we so choose. And with that power comes responsibility.

So I re-ask the question: What is your goal?

Notice that I didn't ask "What is the right thing to do?" or even "What is the most affordable?" Those points have been talked stupid already - and to no resolution. No, this needs to be a lot more basic than that. I want to know - or more precisely: I want you to know and then also tell me - what your real, honest, highest priority is.

Do I sense a little hesitation? Why is that, I wonder? Could it be that you don't know what your own highest priority is? Or is it that you simply don't want to tell me? possibly because of how your true goals might reflect upon you? Don't want to be exposed? Don't want to be judged? Don't want to be "punished"?

Bah! I'm going to go ahead and assume it's the first one; that you simply don't know.

Don't feel so bad. Most people don't actually know what their highest priority is - regardless of the subject matter - because, in the final analysis, their highest goal is always "personal comfort". And frankly, "personal comfort" really is an all-around nebulous concept.

It is a truly rare individual indeed who can specifically name their highest goal. And maybe that's why people shy away from trying at all. After all, continuing-to-breath-in-and-out is quite probably humanity's true highest goal. Not very laudable. But I digress...

So suppose instead of asking you "What are your goals?", which you can't answer, I instead give you these five agendas to prioritize from highest to lowest. Suddenly this just became a "political activity". As such, you should know that your choices will be advertised to all the world. They will know that it was you - yes you - who definitely decided: "This one is truly important." and "This one is not going to happen." Let's begin. What ordering will you choose?

• Restricting government.
• Keeping abortion legal.
• Winning the War on Terror.
• Eliminating religious messages in schools and other public places.
• Providing health care to anyone who needs it regardless of their ability to pay.

Do you find this to be a "loaded" list? (And if so, in what way do you find it skewed?) Do you feel like my little assignment is unfair? that it's some sort of set up to make you answer the way I want you to? Well... 

OF COURSE IT IS, STUPID!

The thing you don't seem to realize is that this is the same sort of tactic that your political/religious "leaders" use to manipulate you with ALL OF THE TIME. Ridiculous lists of "apples" and "oranges" when they know only too well that A) you don't like apples and B) "pears" is the actual right answer but, hell, there's just no money in pears.

So let's try again with a different list. I think you'll find this one, if anything, even less manageable than the first. But see for yourself. How will you sort these priorities?

• Providing health care to anyone who needs it regardless of their ability to pay.
• Avoiding supporting - i.e. paying money for - government programs that you don't believe in.

Not quite what you were expecting? Perhaps you object to my "over-simplification" of your options? Oh really? Well let's think about that for a bit, shall we?

Republicans hate Obama-Care (to be pronounced with a spit). It does actually have a proper name, you know? The Affordable Care Act? But honestly that just doesn't role off the tongue nearly as nicely, now does it? Nor does it have nearly the same ability to associate to-the-man acrimony. So, let's play along and just call it: Obama-Care.

And as I was saying, Republicans hate Obama-Care. But one does have to wonder... why?

Of course the obvious answer is: Because they're Republicans. And, sadly, that probably ultimately is the real reason, but let's continue to play along just a little bit longer and examine some of the "stated" reasons. (Highly paraphrased by me, of course...)

Reason 1: We can't afford it.

You know what? This is a damn good reason. Daydreaming and do-gooding aside, eventually someone has to feed the bulldog. (Or in my case: the Shih Tzu...) If you can't afford something then, by God, you can't afford it. You don't lie. You don't steal. You don't "borrow from the future". You say to yourself: "Self, I have some bad news: We can't afford this."

And I'll be the first to sympathize with your hurt feelings when that happens. So many fine things in this life are just... out of reach. What are you going to do, cry about it? (Actually, yes.) Being practical is never fun. In fact, it's pretty much the polar opposite of happiness most of the time. (That's why people avoid it...)

But there's just one problem with this particular objection...

We already do afford it.

I'm guessing you already know that it is quite illegal to turn anyone away from an emergency room in this country, regardless of the patient's citizenship status or ability to pay. They get seen, they get treated (at least to the extent that an emergency room can treat someone) and questions of "who's going to pay" are only ever settled after-the-fact. And where does the money to pay for those "free" services eventually come from: tax dollars.

And why is that? What travesty of economics allows this intolerable situation to continue? Because the bleeding-heart liberals refuse to turn anyone away.

You know, it is absolutely within the realm of possibility that all public funding for health care end - all of it.

And it doesn't have to be just-like-the-good-old-days either. We have advanced medicine now! If you - or anyone - gets hurt or sick you can simply go to an institution of healing, in much the same way that you might go out to a nice restaurant, peruse their menu of services, decide what looks "good" (as well as what you can afford) and then either order or walk away. Simple! No harm no foul.

Well...

There is one small difference, I suppose, between ordering food at a fancy restaurant and ordering emergency medical services, which is:

Should you not be able to afford the service at one restaurant, you can still feel reasonably confident that you will be able to find another that you can afford, that in the end, no matter where you eventually end up, you will be fed.

Medical care isn't like that.

Medical care could, if one were bloody-minded enough, be considered the biggest scam ever perpetrated in the history of humanity. Consider what you "get" when you go in to your doctor's office with a complaint.

For starters, you DON'T get any guarantee of relief. You may leave hurting just as much, feeling just as ill, as when you went in. The medical profession makes no promises of "improvement". You agree to pay for the attention given regardless of the outcome.

What other profession on this planet can get away with such a non-commital business model? Amazing fees (my doctor's office fees amount to almost $400 per hour) with no guarantee of any positive result whatsoever!

(Actually, I'll tell you who else can "get away" with it: lawyers, clerics and politicians. But accurately, even they can only get away with it for so long...)

But of course, I exaggerate. Of course there is a very good reason that doctors not only can, but must, operate from that business standpoint, which is:

Unlike restaurants, who know you're hungry and have several options to deal with that, doctors do NOT know in advance what's wrong with you or, in fact, if they will even be able to help.

(Lawyers, clerics and politicians? Now they're just fucking liars...)

So, it truly is quite impossible for a regular doctor to offer a "menu of services" that has anything more on it than basic diagnostic services. Yes, they can charge a blanket fee of $100 to walk in their door and be "looked at", but if it turns out that there's anything at all wrong with you, the expectation that the initial consultation fee would cover that too goes right out the window.

I hate being so pedantic with the obvious, but I just think that, in their mad quest for "blame" and "consequences", people sometimes forget about these pesky little realities. They forget that it might just be possible that they, themselves, had something to do with the creation of the problem. (Funny how that happens...)

The point is: You might walk into your doctor's office feeling "mildly off" and exit with the understanding that you have cancer, or a heart that's about to attack, or an aneurysm that might just kill you before you reach the end of the block.

You didn't know. You didn't expect it. You didn't plan for it. You didn't save for it.

And how could you have? You expected to drop a $20 co-pay and walk away with a prescription for Lortab. Now you have to look into your pocketbook/bank account/soul and decide: "Can I afford to keep on living?..."

You think I'm just manipulating you, don't you?

Asshole! I know a woman - a seemingly healthy, athletic young woman - who suddenly discovered that she had a brain tumor - a fucking brain tumor! And, no, she didn't have anything even similar to "insurance" at the time. She had to make this exact choice. She had to decide: Do I undergo brain surgery - a procedure that there is no way on God's green Earth that I can possibly pay for, a procedure that might not even work, a procedure that itself might kill me - or do I simply do nothing and allow myself to die?

How do you like that spin on "We can't afford it"?

NOBODY CAN AFFORD IT! THAT'S THE POINT!

And just so you don't have nightmares from worry and wondering: she did get the surgery. It worked. She recovered. And as you might have also guessed, she declared bankruptcy and passed all those costs on to us. She "screwed" all of us... so that she could live. You know what? I'm glad. I wanted her to live.

But that's not what would have happened under your health-care-a-la-carte model. She would have died. And do you know what else? In the same position, even you - with your fancy job and lifestyle - would also have died.

Well, maybe not...

I mean, what do I know? Maybe you really do have several hundred thousand dollars sitting idle in your checking account at any given moment. After all, exactly how many businesses do you know who are anxious to give "credit" to a dying man? Cash - in advance - or walk. (Or crawl, as the case may be, depending on whether your legs still work...)

And undoubtedly there are some who do have that kind of cash. But how many? Is it even greater than 1%? Is it truly only 1% of humanity who actually "deserves" to live?

No seriously: you tell me. These are your goals that we're talking about. We can totally pursue the policies of "survival of the fittest/luckiest" if that's what you really want to do.

But do NOT tell me that is how it "has to be" because we "can't afford it". We CAN afford it and we DO afford it. We just resent the hell out of having to because, after all, it's "somebody else's problem".

Reason 2: Public Health Care isn't government's purview. (AKA: No "big government".)

This one is actually my favorite... because it's such utter bullshit. Every time I hear someone official making this sort of argument I watch carefully to see if their poker face is going to twitch under the complete absurdity of it all.

But since the gullible will, quite evidently, believe just about anything, let's consider the point as if it really were serious for a moment.

Here's a question: What, in your philosophy, is the "proper role" of government? I ask because, to hear some of you talk, you seem to believe that we could-get-along-just-fine without any government at all. But is that true?

Let me ask you this: Do you drive a car?

Maybe you don't have a car. Fine. Do you ride anywhere in anyone else's car? or in a bus? or on a freaking bicycle? How do you suppose that the roads under your tires got there?

Another question: Do you think it would have be "fine" to do nothing at all after 9/11? Do you think it would have perfectly acceptable for the terrorists to slink back to their camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan with no response, unchallenged by us in any way, and allowed to plan their next attack on unarmed civilians with complete leisure? Why do you suppose that didn't happen?

In fact, how do you think that electricity, gas and water actually get into your house to run your lights, warm your feet and wash your dishes? Magic? Just another one of Jesus's wonders?

No. All those things were provided by an organized, functioning government. And in fact, that's the only way they could have been provided because - just like health care (clue) - they are FAR TOO EXPENSIVE for any one person or small community to afford on their own.

I don't mean to call you unobservant, but...

You already live under - and always have had within living memory - a "big" government. It's not only big, it's HUGE! It's far bigger than even the largest of corporations, by orders of magnitude, and it has to be because that is the size of the problems that it is called upon to address.

Military, infrastructure, education, these are all  perfect examples of public problems that are far too big for any "community" to handle. If "big government" didn't handle it, it wouldn't get handled. It just doesn't get any simpler than that.

Health care is just like education. It is a fundamental national problem which can only be solved at the national level. After all, who else could solve it? Private insurance companies? They're actually the ones who created this mess in the first place!

It seems really bizarre to me that conservative folks will become terrified to the point of treason by the trumped up threat of "big government" and yet have no compunction whatsoever about the actual threats of "big insurance" and "big pharmacology". Have you ever heard the term oligopoly? Look it up. Your new dictator isn't "Obama". It's the unelected, unaccountable elite executives of the multi-national corporations.

Of course, other conservative apologists will claim: "It belongs to the States to administer Public Health..."

The States? Really?

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! 

Oh gosh! That was a good one! I needed that...

Seriously, have you seen the States? Have you seen how "well" they typically do at managing education, or employment, or civil liberties, or separation of church and state, or keeping the freaking lights on?

I really must write a separate blog on this subject sometime, but to keep things brief: States are both passé and obstructionist. Their main "contribution" - if they have one at all - is little more than creating a tiny piece of regional identity. Their main downfall is inefficiency and the creation of yet another layer of bureaucracy to be abused and siphoned off from.

Yes, there are a few jewels out there but, as a rule: STATES SUCK at their job. States are just as much a part of the problem as the Pharmo-Insurance monopoly is. They do not deserve the trust this level accountability requires. They cannot do the job.

And just to round things out, I have also heard the unspeakably lame claim from certain parties that "religions" should be given the task of caring for the poor. It's hard not to simply gape open-mouthed at that level of audacity. I can't imagine any collection of self-referential egoists more un-suited to the task. Neither can I imagine funneling upwards of 20% (or more) of the national budget into the hands of any private organization, let alone one who aren't even accountable to shareholders. That is simply the worst idea I've ever heard.

But all of those observations aside, the real reason it has to be the national government - and nobody else - is because they're the only ones who can actually accomplish the goal.

You didn't forgot about the goal already, did you? You know? Providing health care to anyone who needs it regardless of their ability to pay? Remember that goal?

You forgot about the goal... again... Sigh!

It's not your fault, not really. A great many people have spent a great deal of time - and money - in the distinct and deliberate attempt to make you forget - or failing that, to make you so confused as to give up and just let them "deal with it".

If that is the case then, whether you realize it or not, your priority decision has already been made. You've already decided that "avoiding paying" is more important by simple virtue of the fact that you've left ultimate decision making power to people who have highly vested interests in maintaining the current state of business.

I guess I can't blame you. After all, avoiding paying is money in your pocket, right? (Or at least in somebody's pocket...) You can count money, measure it, use it to pay country club dues with. That's real. But "saving lives" and "alleviating suffering"? Why, that's hardly definable at all! How will you know if you're even succeeding? That sort of policy is a hole with no bottom...

There is, however, just one problem: You still wish to claim the identity of someone who "cares about the suffering of others."

Hmm... Well this is a problem...

Are you sure I can't just talk you into coming to grips with the label of "greedy, heartless bastard"? Come on, people! Help me help you! It would make my job sooooo much easier if you just would. We'd be done already!

No? Shit!...

Well, let me think...

Still thinking...

Hmm...

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but there simply is no win-win solution to this problem. There will be no having-the-cake-and-eating-it-too. So the only "smart" thing left to do is minimize losses; the idea of profit has simply gone right out of the picture.

The only way I can think of to actually offer people medical care AND ALSO minimize cost is...

National Socialized Medical and Pharmaceutical Care.

Did I just feel it grow colder?

Look... people... you've given me almost nothing to work with here! No matter how "smart" I may be, I still can't do magic. If you want people to "receive help" then somebody's going to have to pay for it. And as I've already beaten to death, that scope of "help" doesn't just grow on trees. Treatments for single cases of severe genetic diseases can reach into the millions. MILLIONS! Can you freaking afford that?! Well neither can anyone else!

I mean, why do you think that insurance companies were invented in the first place? Believe it or not, there actually once was a time when they sincerely cared about helping people cooperatively pay for bills that none of them alone ever could. This is not a "new" idea.

But of course, that seems like such a long time ago. These days insurance companies thrive on illnesses, the more the better, in fact... for their profits.

Sounds counter-intuitive, I know, but here's how it works: The more people get sick - or the more they hear about other people getting sick and how expensive it is - the more willing they become to pay ever increasing premiums for medical insurance. But it's a bait-and-switch. They spend more but insurance doesn't cover more. It's brilliant!

No, seriously: Why do you think that Obama-Care is so vehemently opposed? Because it's "so expensive"? No! It's because it removes major cash-flow devices from insurance companies, such as eliminating pre-existing condition qualifications or the denial of coverage to certain high-risk individuals.

FOLLOW THE MONEY, people! (And try not to be such corporate tools in the future...)

And while I'm on the subject: What, exactly, is the "conservative alternative" to Obama-Care? Exactly how does the Conservative Right intend to actively address the goal of "Providing health care to anyone who needs it regardless of their ability to pay"? I personally have never heard a single meaningful suggestion from them.

But you know... maybe I just "missed it". Maybe I got confused by all the rambling bullshit about "responsibility" and "merit" and it slipped right by me. Knowing me, it could have easily have happened. So tell me now: What is your alternative plan? What is your brilliant scheme that absolutely achieves all the same "goods" while completely avoiding all those nasty "bads"? I'm waiting to be amazed...

Um... Hello?

Are you ignoring my question? Pretending you "didn't hear" is a very childish ploy, you know?

No? Nothing?

I don't like to make too many blanket statements but, right now, at this juncture of human history...

THE CONSERVATIVE RIGHT IS COMPLETELY FUCKING USELESS!!!

And worse than useless, really, because you defend a status quo that is obviously, demonstratively, broken, and that by your own standards and values. You defend the Oligopoly! The abusers! What the bloody hell is wrong with you?!

Ahem...

Reason 3: Obama-Care is not the "right" answer.

You know what? When you're right, you're right. The sad fact of the matter is: Obama-Care is not a particularly good solution. Despite my rantings above, the truth is that Obama-Care does not, ultimately, remove control of American Health Care from the hands of insurance companies. If anything, it more firmly entrenches it, despite the additional limitations it inflicts against its profit margins. The Oligopoly continues in spite of all. The status quo remains.

But not only that, Obama-Care was written so poorly with enough loopholes for anyone - or rather: any company or even ENTIRE STATES - to "opt out" if they so desire. Thus Obama-Care is not truly a "national" policy. It has almost no ability to enforce itself. It's weak as water, and thus the goal remains ever distant, with no real hope of closing the gap.

We live in troubled times when the government of our land is willing to abdicate its obvious responsibilities to citizens in favor of corporations and their moodiness. But that is how it is. The real question is: Is that how it's going to stay?

You know, there was a third policy option that I deliberately omitted from your list of choices because I didn't want to "offend" you:

• Winning.

The sad fact, the utter human failing, is that both sides of this situation care far more about winning than either "providing care" or "avoiding paying" combined.

Do you see the level we're operating at here? Do you see the real obstacles that we have to contend with? We, as a nation, have more than enough money and resources to create the most impressive - completely free - national health care system that the world has ever seen. But it doesn't happen - and it won't happen - because doing so would be seen as "losing". And if there's one thing that Americans are not, it's "losers".

People suffer and die - and will continue to be allowed to suffer and die - because a handful of delusional elites cannot abide the perception - the perception - of having "lost" to the agenda of the people. I just don't think I can express the essence of the current situation any more succinctly than that.

But if nothing else, it's at least comforting to know that there really is "nothing new under the sun". Key individuals still can muck up the works for entire nations, and even for the world as a whole. It's inspiring in a way. It shows what really is possible when the "right person" is in the "right place" at the "right time". (And all of us? We're just jealous that we're not that "person"...)

So... people lose... And in fact, I lose too.

You see, my dirty little secret is that my spine will never truly heal. I'm living on borrowed time. Active and fit as I appear to be now, it will eventually deteriorate on me back to paralysis. I've got a wheelchair in my future.

But who knows? Maybe they'll invent a synthetic spine soon. That would be fantastic! Can you imagine how many people that could help?

But at the same time, they might as well not. Can you imagine how much it would cost to replace a spine? So much more than my life is worth. I would never be able to afford it. Neither am I willing to allow my kids get on-the-hook for it either. They'd never own another dime again. It would ruin their lives!

No, I'm afraid that neither nature - nor the values of conservative America - ever did intend for the weak survive or thrive. I cannot thwart either of their wishes. I accept my weakness. I am resigned to suffering.

I'm sorry, but that's the end of the story. I can't truly anticipate any additional closure for your curiosity.

I wonder what's going to happen now. We already have a system that doesn't work. And Obama-Care won't work. And none of these bastardized, watered-down partisan compromises will work. The only way forward that I can see is pure national health care...

Or we could just let go of the whole thing and stop pretending that it's one of our "values". It wouldn't accomplish the goal, true, but at least the honesty would be refreshing.

Sincerely,

--Geo