Not Caesar's

Pledge of Allegiance

2011-06-01T09:58:00.002-04:00

I love finding content my philosophical-minded and theological-minded readers can both enjoy:

Not Caesar's Recommends:

2010-07-09T11:00:00.004-04:00

Leo Tolstoy Against the State by Norman Horn

Mutual Aid Request

2010-05-17T13:48:00.008-04:00

First, Some Background

Recently, our family adopted a 2-year old dog, Siku, from some people who were no longer able to keep her. Wanting to make sure we were responsible neighbors and good pet owners, we decided to fence in our backyard, providing a place for her to go out, and a place for her to safely run.

We hired a contracting company to build a fence that was of sufficient height so that Siku, a Husky mix, would not be able to jump the fence and risk hurting herself or any neighbors pets, etc. This means the fence maintains approximately 6' height.

The Incident

Sunday, before church, we opened Saturday's mail to find an extortion letter from Unigov, requesting our "cooperation" in "correcting" an issue with our fence. According to the letter, we cannot have a fence of our height in a front yard lawn. We had 11 days to "abate" the problem, at which point they may issue a citation, start extorting $125 per visit to our property until abatement, and/or bring a lawsuit seeking up to $2500 plus legal fees.

Naturally, we were upset and confused. Upset to to be threatened in such a way, and confused that the letter was referencing municipal code that has to do with front lawns, when the fence in question is in our back lawn.

Trying to Understand

After church, I went home and viewed the municipal code, wondering if they had accidentally made a mistake due to the fact that we are on a corner, and thus made an assumption about what was our back and front. But, it looked like we are in compliance with the letter of the law. As the most obvious point, our address/mailbox is on the opposite side of the house as our backyard (and, therefore, the fence). Compliance with the code also seems to be reinforced by the fact that in our neighborhood area, the other corner houses along our horizontal street also have their addresses on the vertical streets and have treated the same interior sections as backyards, with at least 7 of them having backyard fencing (in similar placement) that would be higher than the requirement that is in contention. Then I began to wonder, "even if we are in violation of the letter of the law, (which it appears we are not), could we be in violation of the spirit of the law?"

So I started thinking about the point of such a requirement. It could be some of the following three things:

1) To allow Law Enforcement Officers/Firefighters/Emergency Medical/etc. visual sight and a path to front of the home and to an entrance
2) To make sure that fences are not an eyesore to the neighbor across the street, by not being in front of their front yard
3) To make sure that the fences do not obscure turns/corners/etc and endanger traffic

For case #1, there should be no issue, as only the back side of the house is fenced, leaving the other three sides unfenced. There is view of the house and a door is unobstructed.

For case #2, we already shared a fenceline with two south and west adjoining neighbors, who also treated similar areas as their backyard, but were re-doing that section of the fence (with their permission). In addition, for the new part, the neighbors north across the street also have their front yard facing the vertical street, and thus do not face the new part of our fence, which is across the street. In addition, all of those neighbors (and the one to the NE, as well) have already commented positively about the new fencing. So, it not an eyesore to any of the affected neighbors.

For case #3, this is not an issue, as the fencing is at the back of the house, it is away from the intersection, and blocks no visibility.

So, it looks like we are obeying the letter and spirit of the law. However, after calling the number listed on the extortion letter this morning, I found out there is more to it than that.

Apparently, Unigov considers corner lots to have two front lawns, whether they do or not. Thus, their demands persist. One option that is presented is to pursue a variance to the rule. This appears to be a multi-month process that may include petitioning, gathering evidence, providing notice, and having hearings.

What We Need

We are looking for anyone who has experience in successfully alleviating these kinds of threats. Specifically, if you have experience with or knowledge of navigating the variance process, your assistance may be very helpful.

We are not in a fiscal situation where we can afford to lose our home, so while I know some of you would advocate civil disobedience via non-compliance and non-payment against such extortion threats, that is not an option for us. As is, there is a potential that the legal fees could be crippling.

Conclusion

While we set out trying to be responsible neighbors and pet owners, we are being hindered in that. While we wait on the variance result, Siku will still not have a local place to run safely, and if the variance fails, it is possible the resultant space contained in the back yard may not sufficient for her. As for our neighbors, if we get the variance, we will have inconvenienced our neighbors through the petitioning and information gathering process, and if we do not get the variance, our back yard will have to get torn up again as a large part of the fencing is demolished and rebuilt, making a big mess.

If you know anything about how to navigate these issues, we would welcome your help.

Note: I have enabled comment moderation so that you may leave contact information in comments, if you wish. I will delete any comments with such information, but post any others.

...But What About Unethical Business Practices?

2010-01-07T21:31:00.003-05:00

When discussing voluntary market exchange, concerns inevitably arise about unethical business practices. Specifically, practices that may not necessarily constitute fraud, but are at the least unsavory, if not purposefully misleading, predatory, or the like. Examples include: confusing contract terms, taking advantage of buyer vulnerability, high interest rates, etc.

Naturally, many of us want a way to disincentivize these behaviors and offer protection to those who might be on the bad end of such deals.

Conventional wisdom acknowledges only one possible solution to this issue: a violent monopoly to review such behaviors, to prohibit and/or penalize some of them. The monopoly is financed by forced payment from potential buyers and is commonly known as "government." To put it another way: in order to try to prevent the chance of being duped into agreeing to give up a portion of our wealth or productivity, each of us must give up a significant portion of our wealth or productivity, whether we agree or not.

Why is a violent monopoly our only solution to helping buyers avoid unethical business practices?

Not only does this "solution" only partly deal with unethical practices, but, axiomatically, uses unethical and immoral practices to achieve the intended goal.

Do we lack imagination? Creativity? Cannot some manner of consumer protection be handled in an ethical and moral fashion? Couldn't people provide services in information, advocacy, certification, evaluation, arbitration, and the like, without relying on the force of government?

Despite the fact that a violent monopoly prohibits, restricts, or crowds out services in these consumer protection areas, a number of people and organizations successfully provide these types of services (Angie's List, for example).

If voluntary services weren't limited limited or crowded out by a violent monopoly, how much better and how much more prevalent might those moral alternatives be?

What is the Most Unfair Trade?

2009-03-03T23:13:00.004-05:00

The term "Fair Trade" continues to see frequent usage by my acquaintances, friends, church family, and in various media that I consume. It has even been repeatedly mentioned in various Lenten materials. Thus, I have found myself considering the concept--and the surrounding actions and (oft-unspoken) philosophies--with greater frequency and depth.

The term itself is often an attempt at neologistic rebellion against another term: "free trade." (Linguists may find evidence of other origins, as well, but I am not claiming to know the origin, but only a common understanding and usage context.) In that sense, it is meant as a foil to the commonly stated failures of what people (often mis-)understand to be "free trade."

Some of the areas of concern that are purported to be positively affected by fair trade include: affluence of either transacting party; impact upon shared natural resources; and seller, buyer, or end-customer ignorance. While these are all important areas of a transaction for involved parties to consider, they are not the only aspects of fairness regarding a trade, and--I argue--not even the most important aspects.

I assert that coercion--whether by fraud or threat of force--makes for the least fair trade. Coercion treats one party not like a person, but like a lesser animal, targeting that person's baser instincts through manipulation, rather than dealing with him or her as an ethical, reasoning, being. The coerced party's subjective evaluation of the worth of the goods or services being exchanged is hampered by incorrect information (with fraud) or by artificially heightened concerns for survival (with force).

The coerced party is unfairly, inhumanely influenced. How, then, can the trader properly weigh concerns such as those purported, even, to be solved by fair trade, let alone other concerns of person and property? Obviously a seller cannot seek affluence if the buyer is threatening bodily harm or death. Likewise, how can a buyer take shared resource concerns into consideration, if the associated details are being misrepresented? It is obvious that buyer, seller, and end-consumer education can be foiled by fraud, as well.

Consider a proposed transaction wherein the potential buyer is unfairly treated due to both fraud and threats of force: the buyer is deceived about how the profits from the transaction will be used, and is threatened with theft, bodily harm, imprisonment, and finally death, if (s)he will not participate in the transaction. Would you even remotely consider that a fair trade? No, it is the most unfair trade of all, if it can even be considered a trade!

Imagine this "seller" also does poorly in the areas of concern, or "improvement areas" that fair trade hopes to address. Shared resource concerns are violated, as this "seller" makes claims to most--if not all--natural resources, and is also the worst polluter of the environment! The "seller" focuses mainly on the affluence of friends, contacts, and employees, rather than the wealth of the buyers. The "seller" is not wholly interested in education of the end-consumer, nor of the buyer, because buyer and consumer ignorance aids in the "seller"'s ability to retain money and power.

In summary, this hypothetical "seller" uses force, fraud, and violates the tenets of both free and fair trade. Deception and threats are used to sell goods that the "seller" could normally not sell; and theft, harm, imprisonment, and, ultimately, killing are employed when buyers will not trade on the "seller"'s terms.

Much like a thief, raider, or con artist, it is hard to even consider this party a seller, or any type of true trader at all.

Have you guessed who this "seller" is? I will give you a hint: coerced transactions are not referred to as "sales," but "licenses," "tariffs," "fees," "tolls," and "taxes."

This unfair, unfree party, is, of course, the State.

So why, then, are so many staunch advocates of fair trade also promoters of the most unfair tradesman of all? Many of these advocates even support the State as an arbiter of fair trade. The irony is palpable and saddening.

If you care about fairness in trade, do not support one of its greatest transgressors!

Spooner and NOTA

2008-08-03T21:52:00.007-04:00

My wife and I were discussing the possibility of purchasing used copies of Lysander Spooner works, (such as the Reader) and I was expressing lament over the prohibitive costs of some of the ones in better condition. This (somewhat) inevitably led to a discussion of the the significance and substance of his writings, so as to explain to her what their value is to me, in order to make a better judgment on whether or not to purchase.

This conversation turned to the concept of non-voting (of which I am ever more convinced, with she being slightly less far along that path). She came up with the idea of a "None of the Above" t-shirt, and later, bumper sticker. I was going to make a plea for the blogosphere to design one, but it appears Cafe Press already has a large selection.

I have ordered one. My only complaint is that all the visually best designs limited the shirt by restricting color or by mentioning year, party, office, etc. Nevertheless, I chose an excellent 2008 design, and hope it will arrive soon.

As far as the Lysander decision goes, I found this bibliography on lysanderspooner.org, which has many of the texts for free.

Dark Knight

2008-07-19T13:04:00.003-04:00

I saw the Dark Knight late last night with two circles of friends. The movie was amazing for a multitude of reasons, including phenomenal performances, amazing picture & sound, and posing excellent questions.

I am going to need to see it at least several more times to detail all of the different situational ethics and various other questions that arise during the movie, but I am quite impressed.

Two of my friends were annoyed with what they thought was the only question presented during the movie: "Am I willing to hurt someone else to make things better for myself (or others)." They saw that as a recurring theme but little else. I wonder if this is because they are both strongly collectivist and socialist, and therefore used to thinking and advocating that it is OK to sacrifice a person for the benefit of other(s).

A Letter to My Pastor

2008-05-19T10:06:00.005-04:00

[Pastor],

I just wanted to drop a few comments and questions for you as you are preparing for your upcoming sermon on whether Christians can faithfully serve in the government. This is a follow-up to some of the comments [other member] had in church. (reader's note: the other member had been discussing this incident and another similar incident, and had mentioned that if Peace Churches continue become more involved in governments, they may lose their "exemptions" that allow them not to take oaths, allow them to be Conscientious Objectors, etc.)

This topic is something I have dealt with a number of times while considering my worldview. For a long time, I had a number of questions I pondered, generally along the lines of the following:

"What personal obligations would I have as an agent of the state that might conflict with my personal spirituality, ethics, and morality?"

Basically, what I was trying to determine was whether or not being an agent of the State meant that I would be assisting in committing violence against citizens, immigrants, or foreigners. This was especially worrisome for me if it meant I might be assisting in committing violence not just to stop or prevent other violence, but in order to protect one group's preferences over another's (such as laws regarding consensual adult sexuality, recreational drug use, etc.). I also pondered frequently the idea of how to incorporate the concepts of rehabilitation and reconciliation into a system that is focused on restitution and retribution.

So what of culpability then: might I be? I think different answers might be argued depending on the particulars of the specific employment. But, I started to believe that there was a presuppositional question that might make the above line of questioning moot, depending on the answer.

That question took the following general format:

"Can someone who is a pacifist accept a salary that is paid for via extortion, backed by theft and violence?"

What I had previously been wrestling with was whether or not I could "do good" as a government employee, but what I started to realize was if the mere act of being an employee itself was against my principles, it would not matter. If my position depended upon violence being done to those who did not comply with paying for my salary, could I ever claim to be truly "doing good?"

A larger possible implication of the answer applies to what funds the church will accept, as well. If a pacifist personally should not accept funds obtained through extortion, can a Christian community of pacifists accept "public money" for projects, either?

Perhaps these are questions that you have already been considering, but if not, I hope it will add more context to the topic.

Peace,
[me]

Customer Service from the State?

2008-04-23T20:48:00.011-04:00

My wife was recently listening to the audio version of The Five Languages of Apology.

The authors were comparing two examples of customer service wherein the level of professionalism, treatment of the customer, and apologetic behavior for poor service made a big difference for the customer. The two institutions noted were the United States Postal Service and a bank. Correctly, my wife realized that the reason the bank employee treated the customer better is that the bank's ability to make money and stay in business depends on satisfying its customers!

To add to her thoughts:

The United States Postal Service, however, has the built-in advantage of having allies that will steal from you, imprison you, or kill you if refuse to pay to keep them in business!

That's right, working for the state means never having to say "I'm sorry."

Electoral Politics

2008-04-06T18:53:00.012-04:00

I have been ruminating much lately regarding the topic of voting. For one, I have been trying to decide whether or not I should vote, even in primaries and the like. Many Anabaptists have historically refused to hold public office or vote, based on the Two Kingdoms theology represented in articles IV and VI of the Schleitheim Confession, though my experience indicates that perhaps such a stance is on the decline. Many libertarians and anarchists have also argued that voting is immoral, such as several Strike the Root columnists and Wendy McElroy.

One specific I have been pondering is the minimal-to-nonexistent intersection between the qualifications required to be elected and the qualifications required in order to perform effectively once in office. The only immediate commonality that comes to mind is the special ability to repeatedly convince people of something that is obviously untrue. That, of course, is not even an admirable skill, even though it may be a remarkable one.

With the current U.S. presidential election underway, I have been reminded of something that I started to recognize during previous elections: through all the media I have heard or seen, I have yet to witness someone voice their support for an "electable" candidate and back it up by agreeing with specific policy or platform items espoused by the candidate. In the very best cases that I have observed, a supporter will reference such vague things as "change," "helping working people," "better economy," or "better healthcare," and the like.

Combine this with the fact that the winner of the last U.S. election only took roughly 20% of the citizenship's vote, and I cannot help but wonder how many people actually agree with a candidate's stated platforms (not even considering the disparities between stated platform and actual intent). Could it be less than 1%?

And yet, out of these tiny percentages of the population that support the actual programs that politicians advocated, they often envision a "mandate from the masses," or sometimes, "a mandate from God."

It boggles the mind.

Background Information

2008-03-30T18:53:00.025-04:00

To help you better understand my arguments and beliefs, I present the following basic premises:

It is wrong to initiate violence or fraud against a person or that person's legitimate property.
At the minimum, a person ought to aid others when the cost and danger of doing so would be trivial.
There is a God, and Jesus is the most humanly-knowable revelation of Him.

My posts and comments should all fall under this basic moral, ethical, and spiritual framework. This should help make sure that we do not "argue past" one another through the course of discussion. I do, however, reserve the right to modify these statements for clarity.