If we define “bias” as a biologically embedded inclination that influences our emotions and behavior we must acknowledge we all have them. Just like all other animals. But a uniquely human characteristic (we think) is our ability to be aware of this subliminal influencing and to do what is necessary to control them. That is… if and when we find the will to do so. What mostly impedes us from doing this is the subtlety of these visceral voices and that we often root them in customs and traditions to justify or rationalize them which leads us to acquiesce and accept them as OK.

Of course many biases are mostly harmless… such as food and sexual preferences. But when biases lead to self harm or the harming of others they potentially become toxic. Biases negatively impacting people due to their race of gender are good examples of the latter.

History has repeatedly shown that creativity, economic productivity, civility, and human welfare in general are all far more likely to flourish in an unbiased, performance based meritocratic system. Granting authority based on non-performance related aspects of a person’s character not only contradicts what we inherently believe to be fair but undermines the effectiveness of any institution or business. Thus biases feed social and economic dysfunction and the fires of corruption, discord and social friction.

Inclinations to abandon rational perspective and default to the subliminal voices of emotional whim have roots extending to tribalism and our evolutionary struggle. They added to tribal cohesion and thus the ability of a tribe to survive the difficult challenges confronting it. Strong leadership with divine kings and queens or religious and ethnic/ racial identity all served as glue holding tribes together enabling victory over the less strongly defined. Tribes with greater cohesion thrived and spread their genes more widely and thus the biological utility necessary to embed them. The struggle for survival also frequently necessitated sacrifices for group welfare and that often required the designation of enemies as a “them” with a lesser human value thus justifying killing or enslaving.

However, efforts to overcome biased judgments frequently lead us to inadvertently exacerbate the tensions and injustices we are trying to alleviate. For example, we identify outcome disparities in wealth or achievement and automatically attribute such to biases. But there will always be differences in the level of ability and interests of various groups that effect differences in outcomes. Before assuming bias we should assure outcome discrepancies are not just due to these natural differences. Doing otherwise can lead to misdirected social policies that result in creating more biases by inadvertently impacting other groups or classes.

Again, good examples are gender and race. Our search for outcome disparities has led us to a seemingly intractable and increasing tendency to “racialize” or “genderize” (or place in racial/ gender context) just about every social interaction. This exacerbates the general belief that it is important to classify or box people according to perceived racial or gender identity. We do this in spite of the knowledge that race and gender are a mixed lot… not digitally black or white and thus not scientifically valid distinctions. 

Boxing people this way is not only counter-productive but stupid. Using race as an example it is counter-productive because racializing inherently exacerbates the social ambiance feeding racism and exists as a hangover from the worst of our past. During slavery, a criterion used to classify people as “colored” and therefore warranting inferior treatment was the allegation their genealogy indicated greater than 1/32nd of a “blood line” traceable to African heritage. And we continue to apply forms of this absurdity today.

And it is stupid because these generalizations or boxes are inherently arbitrary since they conflict with what science tells us about humanity. DNA testing has shown there is greater genetic diversity among sub-Saharan African peoples than all other peoples of the world. This finding is used to support the widely held contention that homo sapiens evolved in Africa and then migrated out to seed the world. Thus lumping together all those with perceived “African” identity into one box makes less sense than doing the same with all those who are non-African… such as Asians, Europeans, and the many other groups of people scattered over our planet.

Further exacerbating the problem we often resort to patronizing those who are seen as under-represented in some category. Take college admissions. Many colleges still apply differing acceptance criteria between races with the declared goal of balancing the student body. This is done in spite of the seemingly obvious problem that it messages those who receive the unearned benefit they are inferior and unable to compete on a level playing field and stigmatizes their accomplishments as likely unwarranted. Of course many other factors warp the fair or meritocratic admissions process… such as legacy, sports ability, financial contributions and on.

To get out of a hole we must first stop digging. But biases pop up like whack-a-moles often subtly disguised and rationalized with unproven inferences. Racial and other preference programs exist at most large institutions and corporations and are “justified” as necessary to “balance” workplaces or simply as forms of reparations for past discrimination or whatever. But discriminating in favor of one class necessarily does the opposite to another class but the practice has permeated much of our institutions. Stopping the digging will be difficult.

Martin Luther King said it well decades ago with words to the effect he longed for the day when people would be judged by character rather than the color of their skin. Most accepted this as not only fair but common sense wisdom. Non-performance related discrimination is like throwing sand into the gears that make societies work. 

The “Golden Rule” with roots going back to the earliest moral or religious teachings should also help us reason ourselves out of the bias box. We have heard it over and over, but the gist is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Biblical Jesus states in the book of Matthew: “Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets.”  It would seem self evident that those striving for a greater semblance of civility would prefer to be treated in accordance with their expressed character or behavior… and not arbitrarily based on ethnicity or any other non-performance related bias or characteristic.

And then there is the 14th Amendment to our Constitution with its due process and equal protection clauses. It was passed in 1868, but it took 100 years to acknowledge that “equal protection” applied to all… even those of African heritage. It states all “classes” should be treated equally in the eyes of the law and in accordance with “due process”.

Changing deeply rooted behavior patterns is difficult but necessary for the benefit of future humanity and key to our survival as a species. In game theory it would be called a non-zero sum outcome or a win/ win for all (versus zero-sum outcomes where some lose at the expense of others). All societies function more efficiently and productively when people work together in a perceived atmosphere of fairness rather than fractionating and fighting over perceived injustices.

We should continue to push the noodle to prevent backsliding and caving to our visceral prejudices. Our biases will always haunt us thus we must constantly be prepared to whack the mole wherever it pops up. We must do this to save ourselves from the worst forms of human strife that could threaten not only our own welfare but the welfare of all forms of life… the other species that not only sustain us but make our life worth living. Obviously, we have made progress but we must realize it will be an ongoing struggle requiring constant attention and effort.  

Meritocracy is a way of organizing society by rewarding or delegating responsibility based on demonstrated competence. To understand its importance we need only consider how all life evolved. Accepting evolution by natural selection as the primary vector driving creation, all life forms are manifestations of meritocratic judgments based on the interaction of numerous factors. Species evolve via the invisible hand of natural selection based on applied objective and subjective (individual and group) selection of those most fit to succeed in their particular ecological niche. Most of us intuitively accept this and believe we live in a society generally embracing meritocracy. But reality is quite different.

Meritocracy matters because it is the most efficient and productive way to organize society to benefit the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens. And it is the most fair… based on merit rather than arbitrary factors as personal connections, wealth, gender, ethnic or racial biases and on.

However it is applied limitedly and this is unfortunate since it is almost by definition an inherent desire embedded in all species. It is the basis for our visceral “animal” sense of fairness. When it is undermined or compromised inter-group frictions arise along with corruption exacerbating social dysfunction and eventual deprivation (viz. Venezuela and numerous other failed states). Even experiments with dogs and other animals show when one believes it is being treated unfairly it resists exerting itself and its productivity declines. A dog trained to do a trick for a treat eventually slacks when it sees another dog receiving two treats for the same trick.

Social dysfunction or slacking leads to rising tensions which have been historical fertile grounds for the justification of coercive force by those in power. Thus in a non-zero sum (win/ win) world necessary for the greatest good for the greatest number, meritocratic social organization and selection would seem to be an essential part of our nature with biological utility being the greater good or greater chances for survival. We could not have evolved our main survival tool… our exceptional cognitive skills… by selecting those of lesser competence to procreate in greater numbers.

Thus several current trends should give us pause. Mathematical theories along with a more holistic view of humanity indicate we live in a world rapidly increasing in complexity while becoming more chaotic and thus vulnerable to catastrophic unforeseen disruption by the proverbial black swan event. Even though the rate of population growth seems to be slowing, people added to the biosphere each year are still at record highs. And these greater numbers will continue to want more of everything because they are made more aware of material wealth via increasing use of devices plugged into expanding communications networks. Also robotics and other forms of AI are making production of goods less expensive and more available.

The increasing entropy of more humans wanting more stuff coupled with expanding technology enabling greater production while consuming growing amounts of energy and resources is a primary feed to a more erratic and chaotic world. The inherent desire to consume buried in our nature drives a good part of our economy driven by the commercial mantra that more is never enough, newer is nicer and bigger is always better. 

Another trend that should trigger some concern is the expanding inter-dependencies of nations and societies which historically have had problems peacefully coexisting. This is coupled with growing vulnerability due to reliance on electronic communications within and between nations where disruption could bring catastrophe.

A world with more tenuous threads, greater interdependencies, and greater numbers consuming more stuff becomes increasingly vulnerable to the unforeseen… whether it be biological infection, acts of warfare, natural catastrophes and on. Becoming more complex and chaotically interwoven and interdependent allows less tolerance for human incompetence and error. It all would seem to indicate meritocracy matters more now than ever.

However meritocracy in Western societies is generally limited to partial application in businesses and maybe to an even lesser extent in governmental and other institutions. And much of what is presented as meritocratic selection is subtly influenced by social or political influences, biases relating to gender, wealth and fraud, ethnicity and other non-performance characteristics.

This leaves three major areas important to social welfare where meritocracy is mostly non-existent even though it would seem majorly contributive to our future sustainable well being:  immigration, how we elect our leadership, and programs affecting procreation.

First consider immigration. It will likely become even more controversial and challenging as climate change exacerbates the social and political stresses causing more to want to relocate. We are beginning to see what could be the tip of the iceberg as struggles over resource scarcity, access to land, governmental corruption, and a host of other structural problems force growing numbers to hit the road. So it behooves us to reconsider criteria we use to select those wishing to join us.

It would seem most reasonable to begin by holistically trying to determine the optimal level of population density that would safely lead to the long term ecologically sustainable welfare for all life. This would mean establishing a target density level we best believe could be accommodated culturally, economically and sustainably without disrupting the balance of nature and social trust that makes our lives worth living.

Next it would seem wise to select those most likely to be conducive to contributing to our greater social and economic welfare. Knowledge of our language, our values and how our society is organized and interfaces with government would seem obvious starters. And it would seem we would also look at other qualities such as skills, education, general health, and creative ability. All of this hardly enters the current immigration equation.

Then there is the quality of the electorate – likely an even more sensitive issue. In a democracy the competence of government to a significant extent is a reflection of the competence of the electorate. So if we desire more competent governance we should consider the competence of those electing it. We have been inculcated with the notion of “one man, one vote”… or all should not only be allowed to vote but all votes should carry equal weight regardless of one’s awareness of social, economic and technological forces affecting the world around them.

This appears not only unfair but far from meritocratic. We accept this “meme” despite it not being mentioned in our Constitution or organizing principles. In fact voting rights were initially limited to white, male landowners (these also seem unreasonable, unfair and certainly not meritocratic).    

So what might be done. Competence is difficult to measure but a start could be a test gauging awareness of governmental process and the ability to understand some of the more important problems facing us… and then prorating the weight of a vote according to scoring levels. For example, one scoring at the 90th percentile would cast a vote weighing three times one testing at the 30th percentile and so on. This is not perfect but would seem a reasonable first step allowing all to vote while improving the general awareness and independence of the electorate. And maybe it would even encourage some to better inform themselves to increase the weight of their vote. In the long run no one benefits from incompetent leadership… regardless of sex, race or political affiliation.

Implementing this type of change will be difficult but will become easier with continuing advances in information processing and security preventing identity fraud and cheating. A big quality assurance problem would be keeping testing free of biases regarding race, gender, ethnicity or any other non-performance related quirk. Although challenging, this would seem doable since we reasonably assure tests required to drive a car or practice law or engineering are essentially unbiased and free of prejudice.

The last of the three is probably the most sensitive… procreation. We now have programs subsidizing anyone giving birth and then providing medical care and provisions for the young. Many would argue existing programs are deficient in numerous ways, but even so they seem to provide enough benefits to incentivize people to game the system. Over half of all current births in the US and many other Western countries are to mothers on public assistance and the fertility rates of these mothers are about three times those of other women.

We enable this while knowing the vast majority of world poverty stems from people procreating when they lack the means to even reasonably provide for themselves let alone their offspring.

Progressive changes addressing procreation would be a win/ win for all… the mother, the child and the society. A first step would be creating numerous family planning centers providing not only the means for family planning but related educational information. And in the interest of fairness and equal opportunity family assistant programs should be upgraded to level the playing field for all youths assuring as many as possible have equal opportunity for success. Of course safeguards would needed to prevent abuse (s.a. requiring those receiving enhanced aid to use pregnancy preventing implants or undergo voluntary sterilization).

It would also seem sensible to reconsider our approach to the contentious issue of abortion. Few would consider abortion a desirable form of birth control. But when it is necessary few could reasonably argue that we should impede or prevent women from terminating unwanted pregnancies. The problem has long been that some are inclined by religiosity or other biases to consider a fetus from the time of conception as a person of value equal to that of all others.

However, if we look at how we generally attribute worth or reverence to sentient beings throughout the animal world (and yes we are part of the animal world) we most often proportion such assessments to the level of awareness of the organism. Most revere chimps and porpoises more than rats or goldfish. From this perspective the value of a fetus would not be in the same ballpark as a creature of much greater awareness and it seems unreasonable to assign such disproportionate reverence.

But maybe more importantly, preventing or encumbering a woman from having the right to choose whether to give birth is a lose/ lose for all… the mother, the child, and the society that will end up paying the bills for her maintenance and reasonable care for the child. Also an obvious fundamental freedom in any society aspiring civility would seem to allow a person as much control as possible over the health and welfare of their body.

Again, abortion is obviously an undesirable form of birth control (ethically for many and physically for the mother) and should be a last ditch resort in any family planning effort. With better education and access to family planning along with improvements in technology, abortion should likely become a rare necessity. But mistakes will always occur and forcing a woman to give birth against her will for whatever reason is irrational and runs counter to the welfare of all.

With progressive reform fewer children will be likely to have to endure the deprivations of poverty and neglect, and society would have lesser problems dealing with the burdens of providing care and managing the social problems that often accompany unwanted or unplanned births. 

It might even make sense for us to consider offering economic incentives to terminate unwanted pregnancies. This could be a further win/ win. A win for the mother because she would have access to resources she could hopefully apply to self advancement, and a win for society that would be saving financial resources in the long run. Of course provisions similar to those already mentioned must be included to prevent gaming the system. 

Implementing meritocracy has been and remains controversial. Some would contend it is elitist. But to repeat we did not evolve (or did any other organism) by choosing the lesser fit to advance the power ladder, join our tribes, participate equally in society or procreate in greater numbers. This was not the natural selection mechanism that resulted in the evolution of our seemingly exceptional cognitive survival skills.

In the last few millennia practices running counter to natural selection have become increasingly prevalent worldwide and our advancing technology has enabled us to generally enhance the overall welfare of greater numbers of people in spite of this. We have had room to irresponsibly ruminate in a swill of recklessness that would have likely sunk our boat in earlier days.

Even though we still see numerous displays of human misery in areas where the most blatant examples of incompetency continue to prevail, the overall welfare of humanity has advanced. But we should think about the suffering that could have been prevented if we had better implemented provisions enabling us to apply greater human wisdom and thus have avoided some of the more horrific blunders in our past.

So it behooves us to consider how we might better our societies for a future where our environment seems likely to be not so forgiving and likely to demand greater vision and wisdom to successfully navigate. We have the technological means and knowledge to do so and need only the will. Change is always a tough sell but all major struggles call for tough sells. And I can think of no struggle more worthy than seeking a more secure future with less misery for all the life that will follow us.

Ed Middleswart  

Pensacola, FL

Founder of CIRF, Center for Individual Responsibility and Freedom

Email: edmiddleswart@yahoo.com

Nine key policy changes promoting welfare and quality of life in terms of freedom, justice and prosperity.

While many live in safe and comfortable surroundings and have access to good food, labor saving conveniences and comfortable shelter, billions in the world still struggle just to stay alive amidst suffering and deprivation. And many forms of life face extinction as human impacts now threaten the health of the nature that sustains us and makes our lives worth living.

The main cause of the suffering for all life is human irresponsibility. We have the means to live more sensibly and most share the desire to do so. But we lack the will to use our full intelligence and overcome the inertia or resistance from the vested interests that serve a few at the expense of others.

The following are nine key areas where CIRF advocates change for the greatest good for the greatest number. An inherent challenge for any society has always been finding the optimal balance between freedom of creative expression and the responsibility that must accompany it.

The greatest gift the US could offer the world would seem to be to remake itself as a model society serving all well in terms of holistic quality of life.

1) Financial Responsibility
Responsible behavior at its essense includes living within means. This is as true for government as it is for individuals. Thus acquiring excessive debt and deficit spending should be considered foolish and strongly discouraged for all.

We have peddled the mantra that bigger is always better and more is never enough to rev up the economy while feeding our inherent desires to consume. We have caved to human greed enabling many individuals and institutions to leverage their equity to the point where risk levels almost assure collapse.

While governmental waste has become legend and should be a focal point for reducing deficits, the federal tax code consists of over 70,000 pages of loop holes and privileges for the few (with the resources to buy them) buried in almost incomprehensible bureaucratic legalese. The pig is too big and ugly for lipstick. The tax code should be fundamentally re-engineered to create simplicity and fairness.

Fairness would seem to mean that those who have been fortunate enough to profit greatly from our economic and social system should be taxed at levels proportionate to their financial standing. But it also should mean that since all have a stake in good government all should be expected to sacrifice to balance budgets and share some of the burden.

2) Responsible Procreation
No other issue is so fundamental to the future health and welfare of any society. Unlimited population growth is obviously non-sustainable� not only from the perspective of limited resources and threats of extinction for many species… but also in terms of our own comfort and quality of life. We cannot continue to irresponsibly increase our numbers without destroying the ecological balance that nourishes and sustains us while increasing the risk of social and political chaos.

Those who produce children without the means to provide reasonable care are essentially committing child abuse. Family planning should be subsidized to be affordable to those who need it most, made readily available to all, and strongly encouraged. Deciding to become parents should include at a minimum the willingness of both parents to responsibly commit to the welfare of a child until maturity. Procreating without the means to reasonably provide for the welfare of the child is the leading cause of poverty throughout the world. And it unfairly burdens responsible people with the failings of others… without encouraging those failing to change their behavior.

Currently over half of all births are to mothers on public assistance and these women have fertility rates three times the average for all others. The impacts of this failed policy on the future workforce and gene pool should be obvious. And it should give us pause.

Multiplying simply because it is possible to do so is the mentality of cancer.

3) Educational Reform
While we spend about twice per capita relative to other developed countries on K-12 education, test scores consistently show US students close to the bottom. The causes of failure are many but a leading contributor is our monolithic educational model designed around the premise that all children are ready to learn the same material at the same time in their lives in similar learning environments. This runs contrary to all that we know about human nature.

US students also spend about 20% less time in school than the students of Europe or Japan, and spend more of these fewer hours doing non-academic work. Most would agree good schools require good teachers and good students. Yet we have unions that stand in the way of evaluations goaled to remove the incompetent. And we have bureaucratic laws making it difficult to screen students lacking the cognitive ability to learn at grade level or have attitudes that not only undermine a constructive classroom environment, but interfere with the progress of those who do want to learn. Forcing children to attend school against their will assures a disruptive atmosphere for many and undermines practically all aspects of a good public educational system. It takes only one disruptive student in a class of 30 to destroy the learning process for all.

An obvious way to break the hamstringing bureaucracy of government and unions would be to open the system to the dynamism and creativity of a market economy while encouraging the implementation of communications technology. We should greatly expand programs such as using vouchers to allow parents to choose freely from a varied range of alternatives to select the educational environment most commensurate with student needs.

The diversity of schools should reflect the diversity in the types of interests, abilities and needs of students.

4) Immigration
Most importantly immigration should be framed holistically with respect to long term population impacts and the economic well being of all. Importing cheap labor to do work that could be more productively automated hampers technological growth and eventually burdens social institutions. And importing people without planning for the future with respect to long term sustainable growth including ecological sustainability of resources and preservation of open space is irresponsible and will inevitably further burden our progeny.

Thus, just as quality parenting and education are primary determinants for creating a successful future it is important to assure that immigrants possess qualities that enable them to be a part of that success. If it is considered desirable to increase our population in terms of the above considerations we should expect those who join us to have at least a good working knowledge of our language, culture, and government… and the basic training and professional skills to creatively and synergistically contribute positively to the overall quality of life.

5) Voting Competency
Allowing and encouraging all to vote regardless of awareness of issues makes about as much sense as allowing all to breed with abandon or all to immigrate without restriction. Leaders reflect the awareness and wisdom of those who elect them. If we desire wiser leadership we must make changes to create a wiser electorate.

Nowhere does the word democracy appear in the US Constitution. In fact the right to vote was initially offered only to white male owners of property. Obviously these are lousy measures of voter competency. But it certainly dispels the notion that absolute democracy is an inherent part of the founding philosophy of the country. We should of course continue the effort to increase the awareness of the electorate. But after 200 years of trying to do this we must face the reality the inherent limits of our nature.

In the current political atmosphere it would be very difficult to deny the right to vote to someone based on demonstrated incompetency. But a reasonable alternative might be to weigh votes in proportion to scores on an awareness test (i.e. voters scoring at the ninetieth percentile would cast votes weighing three times those scoring at thirtieth percentile, etc.). In the interest of fairness any test should be designed to gage only an understanding of the technical, economic, and political challenges facing political leadership.

Voting is a right, but like all rights it must be shouldered with the responsibility to exercise it with reasonable competency. Just as we do not encourage drunks to drive we should not encourage the incompetent to vote their ignorance and thus endanger all.

Adding to the risks of voter incompetence is an increasingly pervasive media vulnerable to manipulation and control by huge accumulations of wealth. Economic disparities have significantly increased over the last few decades in many societies leading to greater accumulations of wealth in the hands of fewer people. Coupled with pervasive ignorance voters become even more vulnerable to manipulation by subtle fabrications appealing to knee jerk emotions.

6) Equal Opportunity
“Affirmative Action” programs preferencing some at the expense of others do not “affirm” anything other than our ability to continue fabricating and rationalizing discrimination. These programs were initially implemented as outreach programs to those disenfranchised from participating in the educational and economic opportunities our country offers. This reasonable policy was conceived to further equal opportunity for all by leveling the playing field. But due to political pressures they morphed into discriminatory preference programs.

Preferences based on characteristics not relating to performance violate the equal protection guarantees of the 14th Amendment and wherever they are practiced they chip away at the glue that holds society together and the ability of society to function efficiently and effectively.

If a meritocracy or a performance based society is our goal, we should be blind to irrelevant factors and resist the political pressures that make our institutions vulnerable to the influences of wealth and social connection. Affirmative action must again be goaled to extending equal opportunity to all so that as many as possible can produce and create at levels commensurate with their ability. We will all benefit.

7) The Judicial System
We spend much more per capita on policing and prosecuting criminals and have more people in our prisons per capita than any other country. And yet we also rank near the bottom when comparing rates of criminality and violence. There are many factors contributing to this mess including demographics and even our biology or the nature of the people who have been attracted to our shores.

But a major contributor is the so-called “drug war”. Our policies arbitrarily stigmatize some drugs while subsidizing the production of others (aid to tobacco farmers, etc.) which have much worse health and social impacts. This makes a mockery of justice and human intelligence. And it leads to networks or cartels of criminal activity that threaten to undermine many societies.

Acts between consenting adults should be the concern of only the adults involved. Nanny state interference with such acts runs counter to the concept of free enterprise, results in colossal wastes of public resources, violates expectations of personal privacy, fuels the fires of corruption, and impedes the assumption of individual responsibility.

If we choose to regulate individual behavior it should be done reasonably and equitably, and in accordance with the equal protection and due process provisions of the 14th Amendment and the freedom of expression guarantees of the First Amendment. If private and public institutions were allowed to hire, fire, and promote based on demonstrated performance the issue of work place drug abuse would self correct to a level of insignificance.

8) Health Care
We spend twice per capita on health care relative to other developed nations and our health metrics rank our system effectiveness low relative to other developed nations. And costs are rapidly rising as new technology enables more technologically complex and costly interventions, our population ages, and personal health abuses (such as obesity) increase.

We keep people alive when pain from physical and mental impairment makes them wish death. People at the end of their lives are too often viewed by the medical industry as “cash cows”. Adding to the burdens and inefficiency, our tort law allows lawyers to sue whenever there seems to be the potential of financial gain. Some studies report over half of all procedures and prescribed drugs result from doctors over-reacting to fears of legal action.

Change would seem to most reasonably begin with voluntary universal health care and tort reform capping lawyer fees and reimbursements from medical grievance suits. Since it is not fair to ask that the public subsidize health care cost for those who undermine their own health (obesity and tobacco use for example) all those choosing a universal health care program should be required if necessary to commit to life style changes leading to better health outcomes.

In fact, we already essentially have a dysfunctional bureaucratic “universal health care” by default. When those without insurance need care they simply use emergency rooms where laws require hospitals to provide care for all leaving the hospital with the problem of seeking reimbursement for services. Costs are then passed on to those with insurance greatly increasing insurance costs. This is not only inefficient and cumbersome but unfair and a poor use of resources.

Although we would not keep our beloved pets alive in non-relenting pain and suffering, we force it on people. This is not only stupid but cruel.

9) Foreign Policy
Again, we spend far more per capita than other nations on military and national defense with little to show for it. We have bases in over 150 countries and have in many ways assumed the role of world cop. Our military expenditures are reported to be almost as great as that of all other nations combined. No one can explain why we have chosen to be saddled with this burden. And no one can explain why we should fear states in the Middle East or Africa more than say the Europeans or Asians should fear same.

Like in so many cases, change is blocked by deeply vested interests… the biggest in this case being our infamous “military industrial complex”. Production of military equipment can be a very lucrative business. Large profits are assured often with little competition from competitive bidding. Oversight is often minimal allowing huge overruns and large profit margins. And if the politicos commit the military to adventurism with speciously justified wars and other interventions, a limited life for much of the military hardware is assured. This is planned obsolescence at its best. Where else can a toilet seat be sold for $600 with few questions asked and the assurance the product will soon be destroyed driving the buyer back for more?

There are many impedances to any change in our military posture. Closing plants or bases will cost jobs and many congressmen will support job creation in their districts regardless of how wasteful and destructive it might be. And those with the vested interests will trumpet and over-hype threats� terrorism, Iraq, China, Mali, and on. Nothing like nationalism to stampede the public.

But if we continue our ill conceived adventurism incurring costs over and beyond our financial means it will eventually lead to our ruin. Throughout history a leading cause of national demise has been over-reaching military pursuits that invite corruption and inevitably drain resources. Deluded nations in search of empire eventually meet their fate. We should learn from this.

7.16.13.a