2 PARAGRAPHS 4 LIBERTY: #217 "WE THINK IN WORDS"

 We all think in words.  Thus if people do not understand the shades of meaning between two (or among three or more) different words, those people do not understand the concepts.  For example, I heard that there are more dialects in languages around the world that do not draw a distinction between the word “enemy” and the word “stranger.”  As a result, if I were to stumble out of the wilderness into your remote village, and you didn’t understand this distinction, I would automatically be your enemy.  Imagine how much needless violence, or at least lost opportunities, have occurred just from this situation alone!  Similarly, when we are driving our cars in the countryside and see the sign “Slow Traffic Keep Right,” what often goes through our minds?  “Oh, I’m not slow traffic, so I’ll stay in the fast lane.”  But if, instead, the sign were to say: “Left Lane Only For Passing,” our thoughts would more likely be: “Oh, I’m not passing, so I’ll move back to the right lane.”  Same intent, but different result.

                Other common but neglected differences in words that I find to be interesting and even fun are:

·         May vs. Can: permission as opposed to ability.

·         Imply vs. Infer: Speakers imply and listeners infer.  So many problems occur when the implications are different than the inferences.

·         Solution vs. Resolution:  Most human problems have no solutions.  If you want a solution, become a mathematician.  Human problems almost always are limited to resolutions, but they allow people to put those problems behind them and move on with their lives.  (I use this illustration often in my mediations.)

·         You’re welcome vs. No problem:  The former implies that the doer was happy to help; the latter implies that if it had been a problem, the doer wouldn’t have done the good deed.

·         Need vs. Want:  We want to be alive, but don’t need to be.  But we do need oxygen to be alive.  (Or, in a political context, a “need” is just a “want” that you should give me.)

·         Love vs. Like:  We can Like many things, but Love is special, and should be thought of in that fashion.  

·         Education vs. Indoctrination:  Upon reflection, that difference should be apparent.

·         Risk vs. Gamble:  Almost all things we do have some risks to them, but they can be controlled – think going for a swim.  Gambles cannot be controlled – think roulette.

·         Rule of Law vs. Rule of Man: The former strives to provide Equal Justice for All; the latter is often used to rewards one’s friends and punishes one’s enemies.

There are many more, and I think they’re both fun and important.  I hope you agree.

Judge Jim Gray (Ret.)

2012 Libertarian candidate for Vice President, along with

Governor Gary Johnson as the candidate for President

  Quote for the week:  “We travel not to escape life, but for life not to escape us.”  (And speaking of traveling, I will be on vacation for the next two weeks, so there will be an interruption in our series.)  And, BTW, last week I recommended people boycott the movie “Long Shot,” but this week I recommend people see the movie “A Dog’s Purpose.”  It was wonderful, and much redeeming social value!

Please listen to our weekly radio show entitled “All Rise!  The Libertarian Way with Judge Jim Gray” as we discuss these and other timely issues, and show how they will be addressed more beneficially by employing Libertarian values and approaches.  You can hear it every Friday morning at 7 Pacific/10 Eastern by going to www.VoiceAmerica.com, clicking on the Variety Channel and then upon the word “live.”  You can also hear past shows as well.  And, by the way, these 2 Paragraph columns are now on Facebook and LinkedIn at judgejimgray, Twitter at judgejamesgray, and wordpress at judgejimgray.wordpress.com.  Please visit these sites for past editions, and do your part to spread the word about the importance of Liberty.

It always comes back to values - by Judge Jim Gray

After the recent election was over, one of my friends confided to me that in the final analysis that he was unable to vote in favor of Proposition 19, which would have treated marijuana like alcohol for adults. The reason was that marijuana is harmful, especially to children, and if the initiative passed it would be yet one more compromise and retreat away from our value system.

I really understand his concerns.

Almost everywhere we look today, we seem to be losing ground in what is healthy about our way of life. The examples are familiar to us all, such as the managers of the city of Bell and other cities ostensibly manipulating the finances so as to pay themselves unconscionable salaries and benefits, professional baseball players taking steroids, young people valuing their membership in juvenile gangs more than obtaining an education, and many more. So now we "legalize" marijuana, thus allowing additional moral backsliding and decay? For many people, this was simply too much, and they registered their protest at the polls.

My response is that we should follow the advice of Confucius, who said, "The first rule in being a wise leader is that you must first define the problem."

So in that regard, we must remember that marijuana itself is not the problem, nor is it city finances, steroids, or even gangs. Those are just the symptoms. The problems — and the resolutions — are presented by the way we deal with these matters, and promoting viable alternatives to those harmful choices.

That is where values come into play. We must change the direction of the political landscape to favor programs that work, regardless of what today's so-called political wisdom would have us believe.

So what works? Basically four things: education, treatment and prevention, positive financial incentives, and individual responsibility.

So how can each of us help to change the direction of our country? The first part of the question is answered by the old saying that "the world is run by those who show up." And the remainder of the question is answered by saying that all we have to do is again become Americans! Rekindle the "can do" spirit at every level of our society by rewarding success, stigmatizing laziness and "entitlements," be open and available for scrutiny in almost every public thing we do, and focus upon things that work.

We can start this change of direction by opening our minds to viable alternatives, and by getting away from being so "politically correct" and having an almost automatic unreceptively to any recommendations from people we generally do not politically agree with, whether it is President Obama on one side of the political spectrum, or Sarah Palin on the other. That change will allow us to expand our focus, explore new approaches and rejuvenate successful old ones.

For example, the "political wisdom" for the last several decades has resulted in the mindless incarceration of too many people. Thus for decades politicians have built prisons and cut "liberal do-gooding" programs for drug treatment and children's performing arts, support groups for recently-paroled felons, and things like "midnight basketball" leagues, which provide many young men and women with an opportunity to channel their energies into productive efforts instead of being involved in "midnight mischief." These preventive programs work and thereby reduce crime as well as lost productivity, money and lives. But there is no political muscle behind them, and you and I simply must change that.

We should also stop blindly impugning the motives of people with whom we don't always agree. For example, the overwhelming majority of people, including Tea Party enthusiasts, who believe we should regain control of our nation's borders, are not racist; those who disagree with some of the positions of the government of Israel are not anti-Semitic; and those who fear terrorists are not anti-Muslim.

In addition, we should be more sophisticated and follow the advice we learned from "Deep Throat" during the Watergate era, which is to "follow the money." So, for example, when discussing the deteriorated condition of our public school systems, we should look at who has a vested interest in the perpetuation of the status quo, which, yes, includes the teachers' unions. Then we should listen to and assess their stated positions with that fact clearly in mind.

The same approach should be followed as to those who desire to have a perpetuation of big government. These are often a lot of wealthy people who are making money from government, such as with lucrative contracts, tax breaks and even subsidies for not planting crops.

Thus, whenever I read an op-ed piece in a magazine or newspaper, I first skip down to the bottom of the column and see who the authors are, and where their "bread is being buttered." In other words, I ask myself the question, what's in it for them? Everyone's opinion should be assessed by asking that question, and that certainly includes me as well.

So who is speaking for the benefit of society as a whole? In my view, it is those people who argue for greater liberty. That means less governmental intrusion and interference. Understand that it is the economically and politically powerful people who almost always control government, so the less governmental intrusion and power, the greater the good for the greater number.

The bottom line is that liberty works! The soul of the United States, and what has made it great — and even exceptional — is not our government, it is our freedoms. So when we put our values back where they belong, which is to emphasize Freedom and Liberty, buttressed by the implementation of programs that emphasize education, prevention and treatment, positive financial incentives, and individual responsibility, we will once again be Americans. And then the other things will fall back into place.

James P. Gray is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the composer of the high school musical revue "Americans All" (Heuer Publishing), and can be contacted atJimPGray@sbcglobal.net or through his website at http://www.JudgeJimGray.com.

Classic liberal, conservative values - by Judge Jim Gray

While accompanying my wife shopping recently, I happened to see a friend of mine. This is a man who has been quite successful in his business career, and whom I met as one of the “powers that be” in the politically powerful Lincoln Club of Orange County. We began talking about the sorry state of our economy and several other matters when he made the comment: “I have harmed our formerly great system of public education.”

Many people have made the truthful comment that our system of public education is failing our children, but I had never heard anyone take personal responsibility for that failure. Even though he has no more control over this system than any other taxpayer or citizen, I told him that I agreed with him, and, of course, felt that I was equally to blame.

Why is that? Because almost literally it is our school system, and if it is not working well it is our responsibility to make it right. Of course, the same thing is true regarding government projects in general.

We both went on to say that this failure has occurred “on our watch.” In other words, it is our generation that has allowed our schools to become such an expensive failure. Similarly we have also allowed our government to borrow and spend itself into such enormous debt. But our generation will not be harmed particularly by what we have done. We will be fine. Instead it will be our children and grandchildren that will have to pay for our poor stewardship. In other words, shame on us!

So what should we do? My friend suggested that we should look back over our nation’s history and determine what has made us strong. What are the values that have helped us to achieve our greatness? What were the choices we made that have worked, and how can we refocus upon our strengths?

That started me to thinking — always a dangerous thing for me to do. In my opinion, two basic things have contributed materially to the rugged individualism and work ethic that have made us strong.

Those things are individual freedoms, and justly and fairly regulated competition in the marketplace, and a system that always encourages people to earn the extra dollar. And the way we can best promote them is to ensure public safety, enforce property rights, public and private contracts, and civil liberties, and hold all individuals, partnerships, corporations and governments accountable for their actions.

Of course, this does not mean that we should go back to the jungle concept of the “survival of the fittest.” But it does mean, all importantly, that we will provide for those who cannot provide for themselves because we want to, and not because we have to. We will still make appropriate provisions for the disabled, the uneducated, and the downtrodden, etc., because that is the type of people we are.

But in essence, we must get back to the fundamental concept that we are the ones that are responsible for our country, not the government. Governments at all levels are simply bureaucracies that will almost always attempt to get larger and more controlling. And in so doing they will increasingly become more expensive and inflexible. Furthermore, it is not an exaggeration to say that governments are driven by two rules. The first is that government is never wrong. The second is that if there is by chance an exception to the first rule, government was at least trying to do the right thing, so it is still right.

But we as adults do not need such overbearing and extremely protective parents. Let government provide for such things as police and a military to keep us safe, and a policy and means to deal and negotiate with other countries. Let it also set up a system of justice for all, and of a stable currency.

And let it also be a last resort to provide food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for those who are unable to provide for themselves.

But otherwise have government get out of the way for those who will provide goods, services and employment for the betterment of us all, just as it has in the past. Remember in this regard that countries are only as strong as their economies. Yes, the civilized world does in fact need government, but government does not create wealth. It only takes it and spends it. As such, it is a drain upon us all.

Similarly, we as adults do not need, or want, government to be in our bedrooms or otherwise to be interfering unnecessarily with our private lives. Our Founding Fathers took elaborate steps to create our Bill of Rights to protect us from intrusive government. But government has been hard at work ever since that time in trying to take our rights away from us. And the more it is successful in that effort, the more our country loses what has made it great. Why? Because the soul of our country is its freedoms. And those freedoms have historically made us the envy of most of the rest of the world.

Actually, when you stop to think about it, what we have discussed here are the classic conservative values of free enterprise, and the classic liberal values of rugged individualism and freedom from the intrusion of government. In other words, what we have described is a Libertarian.

So I propose these ideas to you as food for thought as we enter the New Year. Our country has in many regards lost its way by straying from the values, ideals and responsibilities that have made it great. But, once again, it is our government, and if it isn’t working well it is no one’s fault but our own. In other words, we should adapt our thinking and actions in all regards to the slogan: “If it’s to be, it’s up to me.”

And with that, I sincerely wish each of you a Happy New Year, along with the hope and expectation, with your personal involvement, of much more success in 2009 than we saw in 2008.



JAMES P. GRAY is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe - the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at his website at www.JudgeJimGray.com