I recently received a friendly letter from Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (non-voting, non-binding representative from the District of Columbia in the U.S. Congress). The letter was clearly constituent mail consisting of a quarter on local issues like employment, and then the rest of the letter dedicated to D.C. Voting Rights. Now, we should all know the story about D.C. Voting Rights, right? Essentially, residents of Washington D.C. do not have the right to classical “liberty” (participation in the legislative process). D.C. residents can vote for President, but they have no Senators, and the one representative allotted to D.C. residents (Norton) does not have power to vote. D.C. is more like Guam or the Virgin Islands, than it is a part of the United States. Moreover, the state of New York can dictate its own gun laws, but Washington D.C. have home rule over its city and its own gun laws. Solutions proposed have included statehood or at least voting rights for D.C.’s lone representative. As the Washington Times reported, “D.C. voting rights was a GOP platform up until the late 1974 when a GOP-led Congress and White House under President Nixon gave the city limited home rule after originally advocating for statehood.” Obviously the GOP has changed with its actions in 1994 rescinding a Gephardt bill aimed to give Congresswoman Norton one vote in the House of Representatives. Tell anybody in the U.S. and they will be shocked. Responses range from “How can D.C. not have any power in Congress when its population is greater than Wyoming?!” to “Taxation Without Representation- That’s a funny license plate.” Was Adam Smith completely right in saying that humans only act selfishly for their own self-interest? The young girl pauses, and then proceeds to cry about how the previous generation is selfish, caring only for their own consumption, passing on problems of exploited resources, increased fiscal debt, and poor environmental quality to the next generation. Dilbert, feeling guilty, signs the dotted line and buys seven boxes. The young Girl Scout thanks him for giving her the chance to go to Space Camp. I asked one of my co-workers about this feeling of guilt amongst the older generation, and he replied jokingly, “Well, I do feel guilty about passing on my problems to you kids, but when I drive around in my Hummer, I think ‘man, this feels good’ and ‘problems build character.’” Is it possible that human beings can act because doing so is righteous, even (Socrates, dare I say) virtuous? What would have happened if the Underground Railroad, the Civil Rights Movement, U.S. protection of Europe during the Cold War never occurred because people were too selfish? We should not forget that the world’s most selfless person gave his life hoping that humanity could understand the true meaning of selflessness. Even if giving D.C. voting rights, fixing up the election system, recycling, or caring about the poor of these generate any economically “positive externalities,” we should do things because they are right. Websites Check out my Amy’s blog- she’s smarter than me, so probably has better commentary.
On a Dilbert web clip, a 6-year old girl scout arrives at Dilbert’s doorstep and asks Dilbert to buy her cookies at the exorbitant price of $40/box. Dilbert, suddenly aware that the Girl Scouts have a monopoly on their trademarked cookies and exploit the free labour of young children declines the sale.
Who’s the movie star that will make it in 50 years? Quite shocking who the unlikely candidate may be…