Social Justice , Free Will, and the Connecticut Budget

Our creator gave humans the unique natural right of free will. From this and other genetic qualities we formed natural groups, (eg.family units), that adopted moral codes to achieve a structured society based upon social mores, traditions, and laws. Among commonly accepted moral codes is one that cites compassion and charity to others. This meant sharing goods and services with others in a free market capitalistic manner.This is an acceptable pattern to help each other, be responsible, achieve respect, and feel better about yourself; downstream qualities that we all admire.
Social justice is an amorphous term that characterizes the application of justice on a social scale. The justice term suggests an equal application of the laws of men and the laws of nature to a society that adopts such thinking across a scale that is predefined and meets the criteria of said society. Such a scale could include ethnicity, race, status, economic class, or other factors as practiced in that society.The Federalist Papers Article 7 take note of this concept in acknowledging contracts as authority:

"Laws in violation of private contracts, as they amount to aggressions on the rights of those States whose citizens are injured by them, may be considered as another probable source of hostility. We are not authorized to expect that a more liberal or more equitable spirit would preside over the legislations of the individual States hereafter, if unrestrained by any additional checks, than we have heretofore seen in too many instances disgracing their several codes. We have observed the disposition to retaliation excited in Connecticut in consequence of the enormities perpetrated by the Legislature of Rhode Island; and we reasonably infer that, in similar cases, under other circumstances, a war, not of PARCHMENT, but of the sword, would chastise such atrocious breaches of moral obligation and social justice."

On a larger scale, a socially just world could include human rights and equality for all. We can also recognize how our Judeo Christian society seeks to redress all ills of humanity under this thinking.The freedoms of the United States is a gift that we offer to all as a "shining city upon the hill as a beacon for freedom" which evolved from the first governor of pilgrim settled Massachusetts when he said thanks to God for "the city upon the hill". Our country's exceptionalism is a gift from the creator and serves to demonstrate the model that is sought by all human kind.

We now watch the Connecticut legislature continue to cope with the budget conflicts that arise over the interpretations of what social services should be provided at what cost. Under the umbrella of social justice we struggle with the definition of a "safety net" to be funded by government and selectively chosen by elected officials who "know best". Where voluntary charity was the source of such assistance we now allow elected officials to confiscate our wealth in the form of taxes and direct it to causes, special interests, and subsidies of their choosing. "Spreading the wealth around" becomes the overall agenda for those who would plunder our private property earnings to seek a world that they deem correct. Charity in their way of thinking is inadequate and they do not get to make their targeted choices. Government should not be practicing utopian social engineering and experimenting upon people. Taking my money and using it to benefit irresponsible behaviors and limiting my freedom of choice for a prejudiced "greater good" is not "justice that arose from the people" (John Rawls). Eminent Domain had worthy origins but now falls into this category of confiscation and suspicious insider application. We have a society in Connecticut where almost half the population is free from taxes while the other half pays. This is an imbalance of "social responsibility" and may soon create a ruling, free of tax, class that confiscates even more from those left who earn.Utopia has been a failure in all cases where applied.

BCS, American Idol, and Connecticut Referendum: Truth in Voting

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a system used by the College Bowl owners to determine which teams should play in which college bowl. Before BCS the Rose Bowl was considered at one time to be the final determination of which team is the national champion.Under old rules the sports writers, coaches , and others made this decision using real data and secretive subjectivity to categorize teams and make the matchups. BCS added a "computer algorithm" to add more logic (and mystery) to this process to legitimize the outcomes. With "sports junkie" activity now in Congress and preferences expressed by the President himself, it seems that a congesssional inquiry may reveal how much "truth" there is in all this and why a "bracketology based" extensive playoff season is needed.

While sports fans debate the merits of all this, one can only imagine how this may affect the grades of players in college who are supposed to be studying. With a prolonged season they may never go to class. It is also questionable if the existing system or any improvements would satisfy the most rabid fans, but nobody asked them. Sports elites make all the rules and apply their "black box" formula to choose the champion. No voice for fans who pay for all this and add to the enjoyment of watching the game.
American Idol is a very popular variety show and entertains millions of viewers worldwide. Ambitious, dreamy contestants come from all over and go through a series of selection filters in the audition process months before the airing of the live TV program.This practice eliminates many "artists" from the list before the shows multi night airings with procedures designed to bring the best short list to the TV program.Over a few weeks these finalists are weened weekly until the final show when the winner is selected.
The process, as depicted, allows viewers to vote with their cell phones by calling a unique number for each contestant to express their choice. The purist may question how each vote or cell call is treated when multiple calls from the same cell or phone number are made.It is also bewildering how the computer/phone handling system may track such a large volume and tabulate the results without losing a call (vote), to say nothing of suspicions regarding the audit trail of this complex. The true skeptic wonders where the fraud begins and ends. There are ways to block calls made from the same cell or phone number after the first call placing the the single allocated vote. THere are firms that can certify the accuracy and integrity of such a system to assure the most suspicious, like myself.
But , hey, this is show biz and entertainment. Not one man one vote.Not a democracy.
A Voter Referendum process for Connecticut would allow the voting public to "up or down" a proposed law or change to an existing law as is common practice in many states.Voter registration lists are used to authenticate only those allowed to vote. The process is clearly defined, accurate and can be tracked to insure integrity.One man, one vote, for all. We don't need to invent or purchase anything to make this happen.
There is no better way to get the input of all to determine the will of the people and their wishes to make Connecticut a better place to live. No elites, no filters, no questions of integrity, all data and information is transparent and is considered by all to make the decision.We don't need elites to decide what we need and dictate that through arrogant laws.
In the 2009 legislative session when a Voter Referendum bill was proposed, no public hearing was held and the bill died. This 2010 session has seen extensive discretionary debate over Sunday sales of liquor that could have been applied towards this important topic.
Hey, you could call your legislator and tell him what you want. Will he listen?

For additional comments on this topic please view my blog history;
1. April 1, 2009, Who Speaks for Connecticut?
2. March 21, 2009, Voice of Anonymity
3. March 24, 2009, Term is Up!