On Citizen Responsibility
September 3, 2003

California is in the midst of a recall election. The Governor, one Gray Davis, is at risk of losing his job. The State is facing record budget shortfalls. The electric power system is old and all too close to failure. The roads are clogged with large inefficient vehicles while other forms of transportation run nearly empty much of the time. The cost of fuel for these large inefficient vehicles goes up and down on an annual cycle, each succeeding peak higher than the next. Yet the People demand the right to keep these challenges. And the People have rights, it says so in the Constitution of the United States of America. Yet this document says nothing about what responsibilities a citizen has in order to secure these rights

Rights are paid for with responsible action. The right to drive a large inefficient vehicle requires the responsibility to keep it filled with every more expensive fuel. But one right can be in conflict with another. The rights to drive a large inefficient vehicle and to breathe clean air are often in conflict. Large inefficient vehicles burn fuel that puts poisons in the environment. Small efficient vehicles burn this same fuel. But they burn much less. But, the best way to have clean air is to quit poisoning it. There is a responsibility in there somewhere. What of the right to drive a large inefficient vehicle or breathe clean air? It looks like there is a choice to be made here, since, in this case, one right excludes the other.

If I, as a responsible citizen, choose clean air over a large inefficient vehicle, I have given away both rights. One less large inefficient vehicle will have no effect on the air. And now I have given up my right to drive one. And I still have to breathe dirty air. One responsible citizen in a Nation demanding the right to be irresponsible serves no useful purpose, except one. I have more money in my pocket not having to buy ever more expensive fuel to feed a large inefficient vehicle.

When rights collide, the responsible have no choice but to turn to the government for resolution of the conflict. To the extent that the government can be convinced that there is a conflict, the government will pass laws in an attempt to allow both rights to coexist. This usually takes a right away from someone else. For example, when emission controls were placed on vehicle manufactures, it took away from the manufactures' the right to build vehicles any way they choose. Once the regulations are imposed, the manufactures advertise then as though they were features they themselves had thought of. When asked why a manufacturer did not take a responsible path from the start, the answer is an appeal to added expense and the inability to compete when all else are acting irresponsibly. This need not be true

Some time back I saw a TV show about a dangerous company. This company is a steel mill. By its very nature making steel is dangerous work. But this company has a dismal safety record. Fatal accidents happen all too often. This company is regularly under sanction for polluting the environment. This company is the poster child for irresponsible behavior. In the same town is another steel mill. This other mill makes and sells the same product in the same market. They are in direct competition. Yet this mill takes a responsible approach to its employees and the environment. Its safety record is good. This responsible company has a waiting list of people wanting to work for it. The dangerous company has a hard time finding employees. This ends the argument that "I have to be irresponsible to compete with all the other irresponsible companies." The responsible company has little need for lawyers to defend itself from the victims of irresponsibility. This money is obviously spent by the responsibile company to ensure that there are no victims. And this responsible company still makes a profit. Could the ratio of lawyers to population be a measure of irresponsibility in a society?

The governing, those individuals elected by the people to serve the people, spend their time arraigning funds for their perpetual reelection. There appear, in some cases, to be unspoken promises attached to these funds. Now I am not trying to say that the elected politicians are selling the government to the highest bidder. But, the State employee bargaining units that gave the most to Mr. Davis's reelection got the largest raises for their people. The groups that got the rases are police agencies, prison guards and highway patrol officers. For the jobs they do, they are still not payed enough. They should not have to buy their raises.

Is Mr. Davis responsible for all the challenges facing California? Of course not. No one person could be responsible for all of this. The roots of some of these issues go back many generations. Mr. Davis just has the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and seems ill equipped to deal with it. The deregulation of one side of the electric power equation while leaving the other side free to float with the market was an invitation for disaster. There are corporations involved here. These are amoral economic machines. The only mission of a cooperation is to make money for the owners. Why would a California electrical generation corporation sell electricity in the State to alleviate rolling blackouts when the electricity can be sold to a wholesaler outside the State for a greater profit. The wholesaler can then sell it right back to California at a nice profit. All Mr. Davis did was sign contracts with wholesalers at a rate that made it advantageous for the generator to sell to the wholesaler rather than directly to the State.

Mr. Wilson, Mr. Davis's predecessor, left a surplus in the State treasury at a time when money was flowing in from an economic bubble built mostly on the long tern future potential of a new technology compressed into promises of instant wealth. Until the bubble burst, the money was coming into the State faster than it could be spent. How else could a government get a surplus. As for the traffic congestion. I have the right to drive a large inefficient vehicle. And more roads only make room for more large inefficient vehicles. And the air and traffic get worse. Mr. Davis could set a responsible example by driving a small electric vehicle.

In California politics Mr. Davis is "King of the Mountain" at a time when dissatisfaction with irresponsible behavior at all levels of the society is on the rise. Of the one hundred and thirty-five candidates vying to replace Mr. Davis, some are using this election to publicize carriers unrelated to politics. Others have a single issue at the core of their platforms. Of the legitimate full spectrum candidates, one deserved attention. She will be a force to be reckoned with in the future. Running on a platform that includes "Individual Freedom" and "Personal Responsibility," Brooke Adams is be a strong voice for her generation. I was so moved by what she stands for that I sat down and did something I've talked about for years. I wrote a Citizen's Bill of Responsibilities. I'm not the first to do this. I found another on the Internet. This other sounds too much like the government telling the people what their responsibilities are. This is why we need a Bill of Rights, governments telling their citizens what their "responsibilities" are. A Bill of Responsibilities is a statement that comes from the heart of each citizen. It is a citizen's statement of dedication to the Peace and Prosperity of an Honorable Nation