The modern use of the term “virtue signalling” as a pejorative emerged in the years before 2010. Wikipedia characterizes virtue signalling as “public, empty gestures intended to convey socially approved attitudes without any associated risk or sacrifice” and also as communication “indicating that you are kind, decent and virtuous”. In the modern shaming oriented cultures of the far left and far right, virtue signalling may be used pre-emptively or reactively, but in either case, often defensively. No one wants to be mis-characterized, labeled, nor shunned.
It is extremely tedious to virtue signal in order to prevent being labeled or mis-characterized and many people don’t or won’t – because they assume that the default should be to assume they are virtuous until demonstrated otherwise. Also, oftentimes the virtual signalling is ignored or worse, assumed to mask some evil intent.
That all said, I shall enumerate where I currently stand on various issues. I reserve the right to learn, grow, and evolve my views. I view it as a continuous exercise to absorb new information, facts, logic, and reasoning towards the end of improving my understanding and outlook.
1) My use of the word America, below is using the scope of the U.S., and also capturing the original and evolving American and U.S. visions.
2) There is no order implied in the following lists or enumerations.
- Racism, Discrimination, Sexism, Harassment, Violence, Intimidation, Bullying, Oppression, Hate Speech, Narcissism. I am opposed to all of these in any group or individual towards any other group or individual. I prefer thoughtful engagement and conversation to work out approaches to differences.
- Postmodern NeoMarxism. I am strongly opposed. I am concerned by arguments that many a university liberal arts faculty member have taken up these ideas, and I think dialogue should occur to establish facts and develop solutions.
- Equal Opportunity. I am in favor of equal opportunity. I think equality of outcome is impossible because outcome has an infinite number of factors and dimensions. I am in favor of affirmative action when it comes to skills development in the education system. I believe the education system must encompass life-long learning enabled by modern online courses with certifications and degrees.
- Immigration and Residency. I support the idea of the U.S. as a melting pot.
- All citizens should be expected to adopt American laws.
- All citizens should be expected to blend in with American values.
- All citizens should be expected to contribute their values to the American values melting pot, in a positive way.
- All citizens should be expected to add value to America.
- Some entrants may receive visas or new citizenship for humanitarian purposes.
- I think we need a well designed and optimized guest worker program that allows for legal entry.
- I am opposed to illegal immigration. It’s illegal, after all! However, as we have not had a good guest worker program, I am ok with allowing formerly illegal immigrants to apply for the guest worker program and granting amnesty to those who were otherwise law abiding guest workers. Furthermore I would grant visa or amnesty to immediate family members of a guest worker.
- Gay and Non-Binary Rights. I support all citizens having equal rights, no matter what their sexual or gender identity or preference.
- Civil Partnership. I advocate that the government create the institution of a civil partnership. Each individual may opt into one reciprocal civil partnership, and each partnership would have multiple opt-in rights. That civil partnership could convey a variety of rights between two people, with some of those rights being negotiable. I would place no restrictions on those two people other than they both be adults. The list of civil partnership rights would include many of those formerly covered by marriage. Note that a civil partnership can encompass more partnership scenarios than a marriage.
- Marriage. Marriage would require a civil partnership as a prerequisite. A religious marriage, for example, would convey no more rights under the law than the civil partnership upon which it was based.
- Guns. My understanding is that the right to bear arms, as granted in the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is intended to guard or defend or fight against tyranny by the government. I am ok with that. I don’t see any need for rapid fire guns. I am for more and ongoing background checks, formal training on use and safety, biometric gun security, formal licensing, and periodic proficiency testing. I think technology is moving rapidly, and this issue may need to be re-examined. For example, if the government had armed robots or drones they could render guns so inferior as to make it impossible to achieve the goal of the 2nd amendment.
- Abortion. I don’t have a solution that would satisfy both sides of this issue and that is difficult because I would rather unite than divide. I find myself morally persuaded to some degree by arguments from both sides. It really is a conundrum. Clearly as technology progresses, fetus viability is earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. A fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, but I don’t think pain perception, nor viability, should be morally decisive factors. I am leaning towards consciousness as defining human life and legal status as an individual commencing with consciousness. Individuals have full legal rights. I think that pragmatically we would be wise, as a nation, to move such a contentious impasse-forming slowly-moving issue to the states. This would likely result in the abolition of abortion in many conservative states. The debate could then continue in all states. Social institutions could seek to aid those who either desire to carry the baby through to adoption or those who desire an abortion but do not have the funds to travel to a provider in a state where abortion is legal. However, thinking into the future, there will be a new factor to consider, and it could upend this issue, and that is artificial general intelligence and how we define individuality for AGI.
- Populism & Nationalism in Balance with Foreign Policy. I think we need balance in concern over U.S. citizens vs. the rest of the world, and that the U.S. should apply significantly more focus and priority to problems within our borders than it has in the last several decades. I recognize that the world is entering a new re-alignment of countries. I also recognize that by many objective standards that very good progress has been made in R.O.W. well-being and the trends are positive, in general. I am an advocate of the U.S. rethinking it’s approach for the next century.
- Trade. I believe in fair trade, not free trade – and I extend that fairness to the makers and service workers, their communities, and the local environment. Trade based on exploitation of individuals or environment is not fair trade.
- Death Penalty. I support where the possibility of false conviction is very low and the cost is reasonable. However, I am opposed when there is significant possibility of false convictions or high cost.
- Death with Dignity. I support legalization of giving people near end of quality of life the option to end their life. I’d like to see this implemented in a manner that requires significant planning and both medical and psychological evaluation and approval.
- Taxes. I would prefer a system that has an indexed tax rate for income and earnings based on wealth. That’s right wealth, not income. I would never take away an individuals existing wealth (double taxation). I would move all incentives and disincentive programs into separate programs that must be approved by Congress. I am against double taxation. I am opposed to inhitance/estate tax because it is double taxation.
- Congress. I could probably write an essay about things that need to be improved with both chambers of Congress. I don’t know how to fix it, but it bothers me tremendously that even in a bipartisan Congress, issues are bundled together into a bill so that everyone ends up tainted by voting for things that are against their principles or against things that are aligned with their principles. I don’t know if that means bills should be more aligned or more granular or etc.
- Drugs. I am for complete decriminalization. This issue should be dealt with from a health point of view. Focus on education and treatment for those who need it. Aside : This would relieve our law enforcement agencies of a large responsibility which I think might lead to some other positive consequences.
- Religion. I believe in the separation of church and state. I would like to see the interfaith leadership call for dialogue towards revision or addition of coexistence books/verses/chapters to the major religious texts. I could imagine a case where government licenses religions only if they support a required set of core principles, such as Reciprocally Honoring The Dignity of the Individual, eschewing hate, etc.
- Redistribution. I haven’t studied the subject enough to formulate views on fair net goals of redistribution. I’d like to see some kind of a win-win situation. I am opposed to redistribution by violence. Redistribution laws should be managed by the government. The ideas around means tested basic income are fascinating. I can see how basic income could reduce the need for other redistribution programs – such as welfare. I imagine the U.S. could be much more efficient with aide programs, not from any research, but simply because the U.S. government is so far behind on progressive use of technology. Empirical studies are necessary for any government plan. I really like what Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffet, and other wealthy individuals are doing in the private sector with the Giving Pledge. One thing I like about that is that some very smart individuals set up transparent organizations to manage the funds according to principles of science, accountability, and real benefits of these investments that help many individuals reduce suffering and improve well-being.
- Personal Responsibility. It is your job to make good and responsible decisions and not to blame others or the society around you for your failures.
- Gerrymandering Voting Districts. I am opposed to manipulating the vote with gerrymandering. You could say that in many areas people tend to tribalize or self-gerrymander as they choose neighborhoods according to their values whatever that may be, but often ethnicity, culture, affluence, education, politics, etc. I am opposed to drawing voting areas to exploit tribal patterns. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye. I am told there is quite a bit of research to explore. I think there should be geometrical requirements on voting district boundaries. Perhaps there could be a set of rules that allows natural boundaries like major rivers, state borders, and limited geometries so as to avoid the fractal monstrosities of zigzag jigsaw puzzle districts that are designed for manipulating democracy to political advantage.
- The Electoral College. The constitution specifies a requirement to balance individual and states voting powers as the driving idea behind the electoral college. What is the reasoning behind this requirement? I need to research that reason and analyze it’s duality in the current milieu. My bias tells me that there have been changes in our demographics and values that render the current electoral system unfair and risky. Perhaps the merging of many low population adjacent states would make sense. We probably ought to look at all state lines. California could definitely be split into multiple states.
- Reparations for Descendants of Enslaved Individuals. In principle I am ok with reparations due to the original and cumulative injustice. I would support a plan that guaranteed reparations would make a positive material difference in quality of life to the receiving and subsequent generations.
- Cultural Celebration and Appropriation. First I’d like see a lot more focus on positive and healthy celebration of other cultures and American history. Perhaps some cultures might prepare guides about positive ways to celebrate their culture as well as information on what is considered culturally appropriating. One problem with this issue is that a lot of people on social media are drawing the lines according to their biases rather than having a cultural commission or authority provide guidelines.
- Qualification for Elected Office. I thing that senior positions in government, i.e., state and federal representatives, senators, governors, cabinet secretaries, vice president, and president should have strict requirements in education and experience. A four year college degree should be the minimum education required. Service in a government role for two years should be required. Experience managing a business or enterprise should be required. In this age of social media it is too easy for influencers, whether medial influencers or sabotaging adversaries, to swing the vote to unqualified candidates.
- The U.S. Cabinet. Changes need to be made so that political appointees can not roil the U.S. departments and agencies to such a degree that they become hobbled, wasteful, and ineffective.
- The Powers of the President of the United States. As we have witnessed in U.S. history, a sufficiently malevolent POTUS can refuse to allow members of their administration to testify to Congress, can use the legal system against the government itself, and can essentially operate in a corrupt and lawless manner. The balance of powers needs to be revised such that such administrative branch malfeasance can be curtailed or eliminated.
- Citizens United. I support striking down this decision. A corporation should not be considered as an individual. It tilts the playing field too far. Furthermore, in the future, would AI individuals be allowed to bond together in a system without bounds to compete with individuals? Imagine that. Clearly it would not be good for the citizens.
- Supreme Court. I support term limits. Something on the order of twelve years seems reasonable to me. I don’t think it makes sense for each party in power to adjust the court size and add the justices they prefer, even as a response to court packing from prior parties with power. I think a twelve year term limit would avoid the issue of manipulating court composition after the death of a supreme court justice.
- Use of Technology in Government for Efficiency. The U.S. is woefully behind and as a result wasteful of government resources and citizen effort/time. We ought to be at the forefront.
Those are my current and always evolving views.
J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : 2018 – 2020