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.

Avatar, Legion, Book of Eli, and Connecticut State Budget

What exactly do these 3 current movies have in common with the Connecticut State budget you might ask. They are educational in the sense that they each describe events in a society where there is civil disruption because of the failure of the government in power to address the needs of its civilian members. Without thoughtful, fair, and respectful discourse the consequences of revolution, destruction, moral decay, and the deaths of innocents are realized. The salvation of natural man grounded in his moral values is reborn to take ownership and responsibility under the watchful creator. The planet is not destroyed, nature endures regardless of what men do. But man is given another chance to reconstitute the civil society that has collapsed under the weight of the tyrannical governing elite whose values condescend the common man. Inherent in the free will of man gifted by the creator and endowed to man alone is the ability to be a force of good or destruction. Free will is a natural state and a natural right of men. Freedom also is a natural self evident state and relies upon responsible self reliance and a peaceful, law abiding, co-existence among all men. Governing requires the acknowledgement of those natural states and operates to provision the capacity for men to exercise those natural gifts. Man is equipped to be moral, responsible, loving, and supportive of others. Government only needs to help channel these qualities and not substitute for them.
Respect and emphasis for freedom is essential to the well being of society. When there is a body or group that wishes for government to be the leader, provider, and solution to all problems, there is a natural breakdown. No man is fit to be master and no one deserves to be a slave as stated by Abraham Lincoln is relevant.When a ruling body mandates and assumes the power to impose a one size fits all solution, the natural social contract is broken. Irresponsible solutions, favoritism, and exceptions are likely to emerge that only serve to be divisive and disrespectful of the rights of others. Failure and revolution are bound to occur.
The 3 movies come to the fore front of our attention at an auspicious time. Perhaps Hollywood had a premonition that that in the dead of winter as we begin 2K10 we needed a reminder of what is required to keep a functioning society together.It has been stated in many ways that democracy is always on the edge, but it is the best way to channel the free will of man to a common good and serve the needs of all men , equally.
We can only hope that our legislature gets the message and produces a budget that we all can embrace. Some programs that do not foster freedom, self reliance, or rule of law should be limited or eliminated. So called "nanny laws" are not necessary and only serve to satisfy some favored agenda of its sponsors. They are not worth the loss of freedom. Social engineering and social justice laws that do not work or have a reasonable expectation of failing a statewide referendum, if it were allowed, should be avoided. Special interests are not the expectations of the majority of voters and would not likely meet a statewide threshold. Elected officials who vote their preferences are not doing their job.Listen to the voters.
In these times we can ill afford reprogramming without universal consent until we can be assured of a more stable economy. Getting people back to work is the most important item on the agenda. Our Calvinistic free market capitalism heritage fostered hard work, ethical and moral behavior, self reliance, and the performance of good deeds in helping others.Our heritage, our laws, and our societal values have proved their worth over our history and should be revisited, now.

Who speaks for the people of Connecticut?

In the 2009 January session of the Connecticut Legislature, 3 bills (SB071, SJ017, and SJ018) were introduced to allow the voters of Connecticut the ability to propose initiatives and referendums directly to the people. This granted authority by the legislature requires a constitutional amendment by way of the legislature.

In simple terms, Connecticut citizens would have the right to propose laws through direct initiative and the power to approve or reject a statute through a referendum to the people subject popular vote. Additionally:

1) A 5% threshold of those registered to vote in the preceding gubernatorial election must sign the petition. Other formulas may be considered.

2) The proposition must pass legal tests set forth. Individual rights or those of minority groups, for example, as codified in the Bill of Rights, must be protected.

3) This allows the public to directly vote on bills already passed or allowed by activist judiciary if enough people feel so inclined or outraged.

There is a volume of literature on this topic and other States, like Massachusetts and California , have used this technique to cap taxes, for example.

It is conspicuous in Connecticut that such a notion does not resonate with voters. The arrogance of our legislature does not seem to be enough to trigger enough activism on this issue to spur an outcry for justice.

The Constitutional Convention was embarrassingly defeated in the November 2008 election. Controversial laws have been passed despite attempts by legislators who encouraged direct voter involvement with a referendum; gay/same sex marriage for example was never really voted upon, the courts made us do it and we passively went along. Public opinion is not really sought and special interests groups support most legislation as directly benefitting their cause with testimony.

Without such a tool available to the voters at large we can only remain hostage to those in power who neither listen nor respect direct democracy where the voices and will of the people should be heard. We should be allowed a voice when controversy creates divides among the people that violate our fundamental moral codes and force/push us in the direction of selecting winners and losers with a moral compass that knows not which direction is true.

This is not multi-partisan reconciliation and as a result the divisiveness (attributed to diversity?) continues to grow as more causes provoke or promote their need for more recognition contrary to that of the majority. If we are to have more government involvement in social engineering, then the real elites are the elected government leaders making arbitrary choices based upon on their preferences, choices, and views on how the world should look, think or act.

Yes, tyrants can exist in a democracy, but only until the people realize a governmental crisis and that revolutionary tactics are necessary. Direct democracy is the best law abiding, civilized, peaceful, and respectful tool we have to work within the bounds of our society including its values.