If you read newspapers or watch TV, you must have heard that Social Security is running out of money. The fund is being depleted, there are only four workers contributing for each recipient, current revenue does not cover current benefits, in a few years the whole system will go belly-up unless drastic reforms are instituted. At least, that's what I've heard and seen.
My question is, why, oh why, would the original stimulus program want to take funding out of this rickety system by cutting a third of the employee's payroll taxes that support the system? Why would Obama's new stimulus package want to more than double down and eliminate HALF of the employee's AND HALF of the employer's contributions?
Where will the money to pay the benefits come from? Are we going to borrow another gazillion dollars from China? Are we going to print more money and pump up inflation? Are our children and grandchildren going to pick up the tab for our foolish decisions? Or, are we just going to cut the benefits?
I get that the conventional political wisdom is, by decreasing the FICA tax, consumer spending will increase, and that will spur the economy. I get it, but I don't agree with it. It didn't work with the first stimulus, but, hey, it might work this time. The only sure thing is that we will have definitely jeopardized the funding and future of the social security system.
Where are the Republicans on this issue? Where is the Tea Party? Obama and the Democrats are pummeled for being the party that loves to tax, spend, borrow, and print money. Republicans pride themselves as being the party of balanced budgets, lower debt, and a strong dollar.
Why haven't I heard a single Republican speak out on this issue? Why have no Republican presidential candidates stepped up to protect the fiscal integrity of the social security system from further degradation?
The silence from both political parties can only lead one to believe that both are willing to risk the sure danger to the social security system, in order to accept the political cover of a risky gamble to improve the economy and "lower taxes". It makes politicians look like they are "doing something" about the economy and jobs, and, as long as no one questions the wisdom of what they are "doing", they get away with it.
Unfortunately, they are not lowering your income taxes, they are lowering the FICA contributions to your retirement fund; deciding, for you, that you should spend more now, and that you shouldn't trouble your mind about the missing contributions. Don't worry, the money will somehow, magically arrive at the perfect time when you need it.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
The Search for the Generic Derogatory
In the old days, there was an infinite number of insulting names and stereotypes for every racial, ethnic, religious, sexual orientation, or gender group. If someone bugged you, you insulted them with the appropriate generalization, and they retorted with an insulting barb to you, your background, and the horse you rode in on.
Spleens were vented, egos were inflated, dominance was asserted, respect was earned. This macho version of "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me" was a stylistic peacock dance designed to save face and provide both parties a chance to sound tough and avoid physical conflict.
Political correctness has re-educated this situation from an attempt to place a group stereotype on an individual to an attempt to legitimize the stereotype on the entire group. In other words, it makes the leap from using a word that demeans a group, to accusing you of actually believing that the group fits the stereotype.
Use the wrong word, and you're racist, or sexist, or homophobic. This takes all the fun out of the argument. It's not easy defending yourself from the accusation that you're attacking a group of innocent people, when all you wanted to do was insult the person you're arguing with.
So, I propose we designate a noun as the official "Generic Derogatory". A debator would immediately recognize the usefulness of a powerful word to denigrate your opponent without opening you up to charges that you stereotype race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender.
"Loser" is such a word, except that it kind of implies that winners can't be jerks, and we all know that can't be true. "Jerk" could be a good word, except it isn't a really strong enough word to provide the visceral high of the perfect epithet.
I propose "Asshole". We all know an Asshole when we see or hear one. Anyone can be an Asshole at any given time. If you accuse someone of being an Asshole, they would be tacitly admitting their guilt by accusing you of insulting all the other Assholes.
Plus, an infinite number of adjectives would apply. For example, a kinder, gentler, "a little bit of an A-hole". Then, there could be a "Perfect Asshole" (perhaps a perfectionist), or, a "Dangerous Asshole" (a terrorist or a political opponent), leading up to the "Colossal Asshole" (a politician, Wall Street banker, union boss, lawyer, professor, or ex-spouse, take your choice).
I'm sure if you give this much thought, you may come up with a "Generic Derogatory" of your own. It's a free country. Everyone has the right to their opinion. But only an Asshole would disagree with me.
Spleens were vented, egos were inflated, dominance was asserted, respect was earned. This macho version of "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me" was a stylistic peacock dance designed to save face and provide both parties a chance to sound tough and avoid physical conflict.
Political correctness has re-educated this situation from an attempt to place a group stereotype on an individual to an attempt to legitimize the stereotype on the entire group. In other words, it makes the leap from using a word that demeans a group, to accusing you of actually believing that the group fits the stereotype.
Use the wrong word, and you're racist, or sexist, or homophobic. This takes all the fun out of the argument. It's not easy defending yourself from the accusation that you're attacking a group of innocent people, when all you wanted to do was insult the person you're arguing with.
So, I propose we designate a noun as the official "Generic Derogatory". A debator would immediately recognize the usefulness of a powerful word to denigrate your opponent without opening you up to charges that you stereotype race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender.
"Loser" is such a word, except that it kind of implies that winners can't be jerks, and we all know that can't be true. "Jerk" could be a good word, except it isn't a really strong enough word to provide the visceral high of the perfect epithet.
I propose "Asshole". We all know an Asshole when we see or hear one. Anyone can be an Asshole at any given time. If you accuse someone of being an Asshole, they would be tacitly admitting their guilt by accusing you of insulting all the other Assholes.
Plus, an infinite number of adjectives would apply. For example, a kinder, gentler, "a little bit of an A-hole". Then, there could be a "Perfect Asshole" (perhaps a perfectionist), or, a "Dangerous Asshole" (a terrorist or a political opponent), leading up to the "Colossal Asshole" (a politician, Wall Street banker, union boss, lawyer, professor, or ex-spouse, take your choice).
I'm sure if you give this much thought, you may come up with a "Generic Derogatory" of your own. It's a free country. Everyone has the right to their opinion. But only an Asshole would disagree with me.
Friday, August 5, 2011
The Most Over-Rated Quality
An intelligence test measures how facile you are with words, mathematics, and, to some extent, concepts.
It probably is a good measure of how well you have done in school and is a good predictor of your capability to continue your education. It may be a good indicator of your capability to perform well in certain, highly technical careers.
But intelligence is no indicator of how well you will do in living your life. It is far from an indicator of the type of person you will become.
Every corrupt dictator has thousands of highly intelligent people working behind the scenes, facilitating the regime. Someone has to design the gas chambers. Someone has to use the language to obfuscate the true purpose of the plans.
Without the wisdom to choose a proper purpose and a proper course, intelligence is foolish and can be dangerous. To be wise is to understand when, where, and how to use intelligence. Intelligent people are common...wise people are rare.
Without the courage to stand up for a proper purpose, intelligence is wasted. Without compassion, persistence, and drive, intelligence alone will not often win others to your side.
Ego and arrogance often go with high intelligence. Everyone has seen instances of extremely intelligent people making amazingly foolish decisions. Business, banking, and political scandals constantly occur, in spite of the intelligence of the people involved.
They weren't stupid (well, at least not all of them). They were just arrogant enough to think that they could get away with it, or they were too weak to stand up for what was right, or they just didn't care how many people got hurt, as long as they got theirs. Intelligence does not trump character flaws.
Actually, intelligence can be dangerous when applied towards improper, short-sighted, or selfish goals.
Don't get me wrong. We should all do as well in school as we can. We should all strive to do well enough on tests to pursue our education and careers as far as our minds will take us.
I just want you to put intelligence in perspective. How smart you are is not as important as the character you have.
The smarter you are, the more you should listen to others and learn from their perspective.
The smarter you are, the more you should consider the uses to which you are putting your talents, and the causes for which you are working.
The smarter you are, the more you should realize that you don't (and can't) have all the answers.
Intelligence is not what life is about. Intelligence is a tool you can use to help you discover what life is about. Just as a hammer can be used to build a house, or to crack a skull, intelligence is no better than the purpose to which it is put to use.
Beware the intelligent mind being put to a nefarious purpose.
It probably is a good measure of how well you have done in school and is a good predictor of your capability to continue your education. It may be a good indicator of your capability to perform well in certain, highly technical careers.
But intelligence is no indicator of how well you will do in living your life. It is far from an indicator of the type of person you will become.
Every corrupt dictator has thousands of highly intelligent people working behind the scenes, facilitating the regime. Someone has to design the gas chambers. Someone has to use the language to obfuscate the true purpose of the plans.
Without the wisdom to choose a proper purpose and a proper course, intelligence is foolish and can be dangerous. To be wise is to understand when, where, and how to use intelligence. Intelligent people are common...wise people are rare.
Without the courage to stand up for a proper purpose, intelligence is wasted. Without compassion, persistence, and drive, intelligence alone will not often win others to your side.
Ego and arrogance often go with high intelligence. Everyone has seen instances of extremely intelligent people making amazingly foolish decisions. Business, banking, and political scandals constantly occur, in spite of the intelligence of the people involved.
They weren't stupid (well, at least not all of them). They were just arrogant enough to think that they could get away with it, or they were too weak to stand up for what was right, or they just didn't care how many people got hurt, as long as they got theirs. Intelligence does not trump character flaws.
Actually, intelligence can be dangerous when applied towards improper, short-sighted, or selfish goals.
Don't get me wrong. We should all do as well in school as we can. We should all strive to do well enough on tests to pursue our education and careers as far as our minds will take us.
I just want you to put intelligence in perspective. How smart you are is not as important as the character you have.
The smarter you are, the more you should listen to others and learn from their perspective.
The smarter you are, the more you should consider the uses to which you are putting your talents, and the causes for which you are working.
The smarter you are, the more you should realize that you don't (and can't) have all the answers.
Intelligence is not what life is about. Intelligence is a tool you can use to help you discover what life is about. Just as a hammer can be used to build a house, or to crack a skull, intelligence is no better than the purpose to which it is put to use.
Beware the intelligent mind being put to a nefarious purpose.
A Lesson From Larry
Many years ago, Larry and two women worked for a large corporation. They were all married to their respective spouses, but they remained workplace friends. Over the years, they changed employers and careers, and contact became infrequent.
One woman became divorced, and I was the lucky one who latched on to and married her.
The second woman also divorced, and Larry's wife passed on. Years later, Larry and the second woman reconnected, dated, and became engaged.
A few years ago, I met Larry for the first time at the first ever, semi-annual dinner and catch-up session arranged by the women, and we continued to meet throughout the years.
I liked Larry a lot. He was experienced, intelligent, and successful in the business world. He had run his own consulting service, and had been CEO of a small business. I found him serious and sometimes funny.
We all discussed business, a little politics, families, and any other issues that came up. He was the only CEO I've ever known that was more interested in the opinions of the others at the table than in his own. I know, it's hard to believe. The man was a saint.
And then he died, quickly and unexpectedly. At his funeral, there was no mention of his business success or that he was CEO of a profitable company.
Instead, his brother recounted their days together and how they never had a cross word for each other. His long-time friend recounted their pranks together and Larry's irreverent sense of humor.
The sister of his fiancee recounted a driving trip throughout New England, where Larry drove the two sisters and their mother. Never once did he complain or rush them as the three women stopped and shopped at every store along the road. That's when I realized that Larry was a way better man than I. I think I already told you the man was a saint.
And there were pictures of him dressed up silly with the kids, or at family occasions or ceremonies. The things that make a life memorable. The laughter, the kindnesses, the love.
I once went to a funeral where no one in the family had any good thing to say about the deceased. It was the saddest funeral I've ever attended.
I liked and respected Larry, but I really regret that I didn't get the chance to know him long enough and well enough to love and cherish him as his family and long-time friends did. To watch the celebration of Larry's life was to watch the reward for a good man's life, well lived.
We all miss you, Larry. You've set the mark for us all.
One woman became divorced, and I was the lucky one who latched on to and married her.
The second woman also divorced, and Larry's wife passed on. Years later, Larry and the second woman reconnected, dated, and became engaged.
A few years ago, I met Larry for the first time at the first ever, semi-annual dinner and catch-up session arranged by the women, and we continued to meet throughout the years.
I liked Larry a lot. He was experienced, intelligent, and successful in the business world. He had run his own consulting service, and had been CEO of a small business. I found him serious and sometimes funny.
We all discussed business, a little politics, families, and any other issues that came up. He was the only CEO I've ever known that was more interested in the opinions of the others at the table than in his own. I know, it's hard to believe. The man was a saint.
And then he died, quickly and unexpectedly. At his funeral, there was no mention of his business success or that he was CEO of a profitable company.
Instead, his brother recounted their days together and how they never had a cross word for each other. His long-time friend recounted their pranks together and Larry's irreverent sense of humor.
The sister of his fiancee recounted a driving trip throughout New England, where Larry drove the two sisters and their mother. Never once did he complain or rush them as the three women stopped and shopped at every store along the road. That's when I realized that Larry was a way better man than I. I think I already told you the man was a saint.
And there were pictures of him dressed up silly with the kids, or at family occasions or ceremonies. The things that make a life memorable. The laughter, the kindnesses, the love.
I once went to a funeral where no one in the family had any good thing to say about the deceased. It was the saddest funeral I've ever attended.
I liked and respected Larry, but I really regret that I didn't get the chance to know him long enough and well enough to love and cherish him as his family and long-time friends did. To watch the celebration of Larry's life was to watch the reward for a good man's life, well lived.
We all miss you, Larry. You've set the mark for us all.
Monday, August 1, 2011
I Am
Theologians, scholars, lawyers and politicians, armed with words, do battle with foes and dragons, like human gnats flitting about God's shoulders. In their wake, truth, justice, honor lie trampled beneath their vain, lofty dreams and schemes.
Descartes was wrong when he observed "I think, therefore I am". It should be "I am, and I have the ability to think".
I am. I exist. I have the right to choose my own path, as long as I don't force others to choose my path. I have the ability to think, to plan, to decide how I wish to live my life, as long as I accept the consequences of my decisions. The quality of my thinking determines the quality of my life.
I accept that as part of being human we are all capable of great heroism and honor and we are also all vulnerable to weakness, vanity, and greed. We are all flawed, and if we grant too much power to individuals, our flaws lead to corruption or worse.
Recently, in Norway, someone convinced himself that it was OK to bomb and shoot innocent Norwegians in order to convince them of the greater good of keeping Muslims out of Europe.
And then there are the radical Muslims who feel it's OK to kill innocent civilians (including Muslims) to reach the greater good of political power and a Caliphate.
Then there were the Crusades, aimed at killing Muslims for the greater good of promoting Christianity.
And there were Statists. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the National Socialists, the Communists, all for the greater good of the worker, and responsible for the deaths of millions.
How about kings and dictators? How many have died under the banner of divine right of kings or dictators?
Over the history of the world, how many times have these governments worked out well for Mankind? Why would anyone think they will get it right the next time? The only function they perform well is as a mechanism to transfer power to the very few to control the lives of the many.
Only once in the history of Man, has a government been designed to limit the power of government to abuse the individual. How can a thinking person not see the genius of the founders? How can a thinking person not see the track record of the other types of governments, regardless of good intentions they pay lip service to?
A government that promises to do everything for you WILL reach the point of taking everything from you, but will NEVER get to the point of doing everything for you. There is never enough to deliver what politicians will promise, in their search for power and control.
Kings, dictators, Theocracies, Socialism, Communism all fail eventually because there are no perfect people to staff their governments. If only the people living under these governments did not suffer so terribly, waiting for the government to fall would not be a problem...and, even when it falls, it may be replaced by an equally repugnant government.
Only a limited central government can curb the appetite of its despots and bureaucracies, and prevent them from feeding on its citizens.
Growing up in the United States has been a rare, rare privilege in a world that has historically been been a venue of repression, fear, violence and destruction on a scale that most Americans can not even imagine. Even today, the worst of our problems are far better than those that are faced by millions in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Never give up your freedom for a false security...the utopia promised by despots and "isms" is meaningless and empty, serving only to deliver you into dependance on them. What they give is far less than what they take.
Descartes was wrong when he observed "I think, therefore I am". It should be "I am, and I have the ability to think".
I am. I exist. I have the right to choose my own path, as long as I don't force others to choose my path. I have the ability to think, to plan, to decide how I wish to live my life, as long as I accept the consequences of my decisions. The quality of my thinking determines the quality of my life.
I accept that as part of being human we are all capable of great heroism and honor and we are also all vulnerable to weakness, vanity, and greed. We are all flawed, and if we grant too much power to individuals, our flaws lead to corruption or worse.
Recently, in Norway, someone convinced himself that it was OK to bomb and shoot innocent Norwegians in order to convince them of the greater good of keeping Muslims out of Europe.
And then there are the radical Muslims who feel it's OK to kill innocent civilians (including Muslims) to reach the greater good of political power and a Caliphate.
Then there were the Crusades, aimed at killing Muslims for the greater good of promoting Christianity.
And there were Statists. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the National Socialists, the Communists, all for the greater good of the worker, and responsible for the deaths of millions.
How about kings and dictators? How many have died under the banner of divine right of kings or dictators?
Over the history of the world, how many times have these governments worked out well for Mankind? Why would anyone think they will get it right the next time? The only function they perform well is as a mechanism to transfer power to the very few to control the lives of the many.
Only once in the history of Man, has a government been designed to limit the power of government to abuse the individual. How can a thinking person not see the genius of the founders? How can a thinking person not see the track record of the other types of governments, regardless of good intentions they pay lip service to?
A government that promises to do everything for you WILL reach the point of taking everything from you, but will NEVER get to the point of doing everything for you. There is never enough to deliver what politicians will promise, in their search for power and control.
Kings, dictators, Theocracies, Socialism, Communism all fail eventually because there are no perfect people to staff their governments. If only the people living under these governments did not suffer so terribly, waiting for the government to fall would not be a problem...and, even when it falls, it may be replaced by an equally repugnant government.
Only a limited central government can curb the appetite of its despots and bureaucracies, and prevent them from feeding on its citizens.
Growing up in the United States has been a rare, rare privilege in a world that has historically been been a venue of repression, fear, violence and destruction on a scale that most Americans can not even imagine. Even today, the worst of our problems are far better than those that are faced by millions in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Never give up your freedom for a false security...the utopia promised by despots and "isms" is meaningless and empty, serving only to deliver you into dependance on them. What they give is far less than what they take.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
A Case for the Draft
It's a simple case. If an individual receives benefits and protections provided by the society, the individual should be obliged to protect the society. The question is, how much of an obligation is there?
To staff our military only with volunteers provides us with a military composed of the brave, the patriotic, and the economically disadvantaged. It offers a complete pass to the cowardly, the greedy, the lazy, the indifferent, and the elitists.
While one could make a case that the military is better off without such a bunch of misfits, our country is not better off by allowing the majority of our citizens to ignore their responsibility to our society.
All citizens do not have to serve in the military. All citizens should face the equal chance of serving in the military. Volunteers should compose a maximum of 75% of the military. At least 25% of the military should be drafted randomly.
Both young men and women should be drafted, in proportion to their ratio in the voluntary military. For example, if the volunteer military is made up of 80% men, then the draft should go for 80% men and 20% women. Rich and poor should be drafted...a senator's child or a professor's child should face the same odds of being drafted as any other citizen.
At its heart, the issue of the draft is a moral issue. Those who may benefit most from the liberty provided by most open and free society in the history of the world must be willing to defend that society.
The vast majority of citizens would still not serve in the military. But it is important that all citizens accept the risks of protecting their country. They must be willing to serve if their number comes up.
Those who are called can forever be proud they were willing to risk all for their country.
The draft falls within the parameters of the 80/20 philosophy. Far less than 20% of the pool composed of those of draft age will ever be drafted, unless we become involved in a major war.
And, if the draft were for 2 years active duty and 2 years active reserve, even a draftee's commitment would be for around 5% of an average lifespan.
If one wished to compensate a draftee for this loss of time, veteran benefits for education and home purchase should be extended, as well as preferential treatment in employment after leaving the service.
To staff our military only with volunteers provides us with a military composed of the brave, the patriotic, and the economically disadvantaged. It offers a complete pass to the cowardly, the greedy, the lazy, the indifferent, and the elitists.
While one could make a case that the military is better off without such a bunch of misfits, our country is not better off by allowing the majority of our citizens to ignore their responsibility to our society.
All citizens do not have to serve in the military. All citizens should face the equal chance of serving in the military. Volunteers should compose a maximum of 75% of the military. At least 25% of the military should be drafted randomly.
Both young men and women should be drafted, in proportion to their ratio in the voluntary military. For example, if the volunteer military is made up of 80% men, then the draft should go for 80% men and 20% women. Rich and poor should be drafted...a senator's child or a professor's child should face the same odds of being drafted as any other citizen.
At its heart, the issue of the draft is a moral issue. Those who may benefit most from the liberty provided by most open and free society in the history of the world must be willing to defend that society.
The vast majority of citizens would still not serve in the military. But it is important that all citizens accept the risks of protecting their country. They must be willing to serve if their number comes up.
Those who are called can forever be proud they were willing to risk all for their country.
The draft falls within the parameters of the 80/20 philosophy. Far less than 20% of the pool composed of those of draft age will ever be drafted, unless we become involved in a major war.
And, if the draft were for 2 years active duty and 2 years active reserve, even a draftee's commitment would be for around 5% of an average lifespan.
If one wished to compensate a draftee for this loss of time, veteran benefits for education and home purchase should be extended, as well as preferential treatment in employment after leaving the service.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Gay Marriage?
Let's start the discussion by recognizing that religions were performing marriages long before the United States existed. Historically, the purpose of the ceremony was to sanctify the love and commitment between a man and a woman, before their God, their families, and their friends. It is the bedrock of the religious family.
In recent years, some few religious denominations have accepted gay marriage, but the vast majority still do not.
How, then, does the government get involved in the situation? The government requires a license to officially recognize a religious marriage. The license provides the right to governmental goodies and protections such as rights of inheritance, tax benefits, joint health coverage, divorce rights, etc.
The government is not required to recognize all religious marriages. While some religions accept polygamy, it is illegal in the United States, and is not protected under domestic law. Additionally, the state can perform a "marriage", even though no religious ceremony was performed.
The problem seems to be semantics. When the state started issuing "marriage" licenses, it used the common religious term for joining man and woman together before God...even though the purpose of the state should be to provide legal protections to individuals whom it deems legal to join together.
The Church and the State have two separate and distinct purposes, one religious and one legal, and should not conflict with each other. If the "marriage license" was "civil union license", it could be used for either a religious or a civil ceremony. A marriage would become the most common type of civil union, but would not be the definition of the union of two individuals.
A government should not attempt to perform a religious marriage. It should only license (and perform) a civil ceremony. The civil ceremony should issue a "Certificate of Civil Union" when the ceremony is completed. A Church could continue to issue their "Marriage Certificate" at the completion of their ceremony.
Civil unions would allow religions to perform marriage as they choose. The state could include gays, or any other arrangements they deem proper, as eligible for a civil union. Many atheists and other non-religious individuals would prefer a civil union to a church wedding.
Gays would have a number of choices. They could be joined as a civil union (that would be what the state should call everyone who is joined together, gay or straight).
Only a religion can "marry" individuals. If gays are in a church that does not accept gay marriage, their choice would be to (1) leave the church and find another church that accepts gay marriage, (2) stay in the church and try to work for acceptance of gay marriage, while living in, and being protected in, a civil union.
There has been much sound and fury over this issue, but, at heart, it seems to be an issue of individual freedom and religious freedom. This solution protects individual choices, and allows religions the freedom to debate gay marriage internally, without denying individual benefits for gays.
The federal government should immediately offer legal protections, benefits, and recognition to civil unions...the same benefits offered to marriages.
The states should substitute the "civil union license" for the "marriage license", and move to modify their laws to provide civil unions with all the same benefits they now offer to marriages.
No church should be required to perform a gay marriage. No gay individual should be denied civil benefits provided to heterosexual individuals.
In recent years, some few religious denominations have accepted gay marriage, but the vast majority still do not.
How, then, does the government get involved in the situation? The government requires a license to officially recognize a religious marriage. The license provides the right to governmental goodies and protections such as rights of inheritance, tax benefits, joint health coverage, divorce rights, etc.
The government is not required to recognize all religious marriages. While some religions accept polygamy, it is illegal in the United States, and is not protected under domestic law. Additionally, the state can perform a "marriage", even though no religious ceremony was performed.
The problem seems to be semantics. When the state started issuing "marriage" licenses, it used the common religious term for joining man and woman together before God...even though the purpose of the state should be to provide legal protections to individuals whom it deems legal to join together.
The Church and the State have two separate and distinct purposes, one religious and one legal, and should not conflict with each other. If the "marriage license" was "civil union license", it could be used for either a religious or a civil ceremony. A marriage would become the most common type of civil union, but would not be the definition of the union of two individuals.
A government should not attempt to perform a religious marriage. It should only license (and perform) a civil ceremony. The civil ceremony should issue a "Certificate of Civil Union" when the ceremony is completed. A Church could continue to issue their "Marriage Certificate" at the completion of their ceremony.
Civil unions would allow religions to perform marriage as they choose. The state could include gays, or any other arrangements they deem proper, as eligible for a civil union. Many atheists and other non-religious individuals would prefer a civil union to a church wedding.
Gays would have a number of choices. They could be joined as a civil union (that would be what the state should call everyone who is joined together, gay or straight).
Only a religion can "marry" individuals. If gays are in a church that does not accept gay marriage, their choice would be to (1) leave the church and find another church that accepts gay marriage, (2) stay in the church and try to work for acceptance of gay marriage, while living in, and being protected in, a civil union.
There has been much sound and fury over this issue, but, at heart, it seems to be an issue of individual freedom and religious freedom. This solution protects individual choices, and allows religions the freedom to debate gay marriage internally, without denying individual benefits for gays.
The federal government should immediately offer legal protections, benefits, and recognition to civil unions...the same benefits offered to marriages.
The states should substitute the "civil union license" for the "marriage license", and move to modify their laws to provide civil unions with all the same benefits they now offer to marriages.
No church should be required to perform a gay marriage. No gay individual should be denied civil benefits provided to heterosexual individuals.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Lands That Stand For Liberty
Am I the only one who wonders what advantage the United States gets out of the United Nations? To me, it seems comparable to a community of home owners inviting a community of thieves over to discuss the best way to secure a house. What purpose is there in discussing such an issue with a group of people who do not respect the principle of property ownership? Who stands to gain and who stands to lose?
Doesn't the thief gain in credibility by being given equal stature to the law-abiding citizen? Why would an organization be set up to do exactly that?
If most of the people of the world are suffering under governments that are totalitarian, governments that are theocracies, or governments that in other ways refuse to recognize the individual rights of their citizens, why should modern free nations give these governments the credibility of equal stature?
America gave birth to government based on the idea of individual freedom and limited central government control. This idea has inspired citizens of the world even to today. Why give credibility to despots?
Forget the United Nations. America should propose "Lands That Stand For Liberty", made up of nations that accept the notion of individual freedom and limited government. Nations that believe that human liberty shall survive in the world. Not all of these countries would have the exact same governments, but all must permit at least the following...
1. Freedom of speech
2. Freedom of assembly and movement
3. Freedom for all religions to worship in peace
4. Peaceful transition of governmental powers with consent of the governed
5. Property rights for individuals
6. Rule of Law and contracts
7. A free market mechanism
There may be more, but you get the idea. The purpose of "Lands That Stand" is to join liberty-loving nations together in order to ensure freedom's survival in the world, by protecting each other from forces determined to repress freedom. Could there be a more noble purpose?
"Lands That Stand" would not be a political or economic organization...it would be designed to protect member nations from being attacked, and backed by the military might of the entire group. One for all and all for one.
Members must accept the sovereignty of individual nations. Members would not be guaranteed the backing of the group if they attack another country...only if they are attacked by another country.
All countries that meet the standards of freedom must be allowed to join "Lands That Stand For Liberty". If a dictatorship is overturned in a revolution, the new government must show that it has enacted reforms to guarantee individual freedoms to gain temporary acceptance to (and the protection of) the League. To gain permanent acceptance, it must prove those reforms over a five to ten year probationary period.
There is no net gain for freedom if one dictator is replaced by another dictator. We should stay out of internal power struggles in other countries, unless the revolutionaries have succeeded instituting individual freedoms, and have protected those freedoms by limiting governmental power.
The true value of "Lands That Stand" is to provide a road map for reformers and give them a template to institute freedom in their countries, and then allow them the protection to implement their reforms.
"Lands That Stand" would not eliminate or preclude economic or strategic agreements between any and all countries. It would pertain only to the defense of member freedom-loving nations.
In a world where individual freedom is under attack, the birthplace of human freedom should lead the fight for liberty. America should engage in the battleground of ideas, and fight to win the hearts and minds of liberty-loving people throughout the world.
Doesn't the thief gain in credibility by being given equal stature to the law-abiding citizen? Why would an organization be set up to do exactly that?
If most of the people of the world are suffering under governments that are totalitarian, governments that are theocracies, or governments that in other ways refuse to recognize the individual rights of their citizens, why should modern free nations give these governments the credibility of equal stature?
America gave birth to government based on the idea of individual freedom and limited central government control. This idea has inspired citizens of the world even to today. Why give credibility to despots?
Forget the United Nations. America should propose "Lands That Stand For Liberty", made up of nations that accept the notion of individual freedom and limited government. Nations that believe that human liberty shall survive in the world. Not all of these countries would have the exact same governments, but all must permit at least the following...
1. Freedom of speech
2. Freedom of assembly and movement
3. Freedom for all religions to worship in peace
4. Peaceful transition of governmental powers with consent of the governed
5. Property rights for individuals
6. Rule of Law and contracts
7. A free market mechanism
There may be more, but you get the idea. The purpose of "Lands That Stand" is to join liberty-loving nations together in order to ensure freedom's survival in the world, by protecting each other from forces determined to repress freedom. Could there be a more noble purpose?
"Lands That Stand" would not be a political or economic organization...it would be designed to protect member nations from being attacked, and backed by the military might of the entire group. One for all and all for one.
Members must accept the sovereignty of individual nations. Members would not be guaranteed the backing of the group if they attack another country...only if they are attacked by another country.
All countries that meet the standards of freedom must be allowed to join "Lands That Stand For Liberty". If a dictatorship is overturned in a revolution, the new government must show that it has enacted reforms to guarantee individual freedoms to gain temporary acceptance to (and the protection of) the League. To gain permanent acceptance, it must prove those reforms over a five to ten year probationary period.
There is no net gain for freedom if one dictator is replaced by another dictator. We should stay out of internal power struggles in other countries, unless the revolutionaries have succeeded instituting individual freedoms, and have protected those freedoms by limiting governmental power.
The true value of "Lands That Stand" is to provide a road map for reformers and give them a template to institute freedom in their countries, and then allow them the protection to implement their reforms.
"Lands That Stand" would not eliminate or preclude economic or strategic agreements between any and all countries. It would pertain only to the defense of member freedom-loving nations.
In a world where individual freedom is under attack, the birthplace of human freedom should lead the fight for liberty. America should engage in the battleground of ideas, and fight to win the hearts and minds of liberty-loving people throughout the world.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
80/20 Land of Plenty
The common political discussion over domestic production versus international competition tends to circle around the question of tariffs (or not) on imported merchandise. The arguments against both sides tend to be true.
For example, suppose we placed a tariff of 25% on imported Chinese merchandise. Lets assume for now that they can make the product for 25% less than they are selling it now...if so, then China can still control the market, and the price to the consumer would remain the same, but the government would extort itself into taking 25% of the action.
Not one job would be created. Not one American company would receive an advantage. Not one American would gain anything.
Now let's assume that China cannot produce the products for less than their current selling prices. That would mean that the government would have succeeded in inflating the prices of all those Chinese products, so that the American consumer would have to pay 25% more for those products.
It may help some American companies and workers to be more competitive with foreign manufacturers, but at a huge cost to all consumers...and, there is no guarantee that American goods will remain competitive, unless the tariffs keep being raised higher and higher.
Plus, the government would almost certainly have succeeded in setting off a trade war, resulting in higher tariffs on American-built products being sold abroad, and making an already difficult situation even more so.
In short, placing tariffs on imported products hurts American citizens and American companies. But, if you allow completely free trade, then you are almost guaranteeing that American companies and workers will not be able to compete with the low labor costs and lack of regulations in other countries.
If the political argument is focused on tariffs, the American public loses, no matter who wins the argument.
Why not skip the argument on tariffs, and focus on the products that American companies can and should build?
Why not require the major institutions in America to use American owned and built products for at least 20% of what they build or sell? Why not require construction projects or department stores or automobile manufacturers to use American owned and built products?
Allow 80% of the market to be open to foreign competition, but require large American businesses to make 20% of their purchases from domestically owned and built sources.
I know this may strike you as an odd idea, but stop a minute and think about it. The number one advantage is that it would provide jobs. Numbers two and three, it would provide more jobs and yet more jobs. Number four, it could revive heavy industries such as steel, which not only provide high-wage jobs, but can have national security implications.
It's hard to believe that the nation that was once known as the arsenal of democracy no longer has the capacity to provide the material to build the tanks and planes. In addition to benefiting the steel industry, there would be tremendous opportunities in many fields; electronics, textiles, even such seemingly low-tech fields as souvenirs, to name a few. The opportunity for enterprise would be huge.
The first argument against such a program is that American companies cannot compete on price with the low price imports. That is probably true, so there will be some price increases. But, even if the American products cost twice as much as the imports, prices would not go up as much as that 25% tariff on imports would have imposed on the American people.
There may have to be an opt-out if American companies are so expensive that it isn't economically feasible to use them, but 20% of the American market is a large enough segment that there would be many American companies battling against each other and keeping their prices competitive, even if they are somewhat more expensive than the imports.
Another objection to this program might be that it could lead to a trade war. To counter that argument, we should be willing to accept the same 80% access limitation on our products in their markets. We accept the same terms that we offer them.
It may be difficult to administer such a program, but the benefits far outweigh the difficulties.
It's time that our government takes a stand to protect American workers and businesses. It is time that we are willing to pay a little more to protect our own. We can no longer afford to let our jobs and industries go overseas, leaving our people out of work and dependent.
It doesn't matter whether the job is union or non-union. It doesn't matter whether the industry is high-tech or low-tech. What matters is our people are working in honest jobs, proud they are taking care of their families, independent in their lives...and, oh yes, paying taxes instead of receiving benefits.
Think about it.
For example, suppose we placed a tariff of 25% on imported Chinese merchandise. Lets assume for now that they can make the product for 25% less than they are selling it now...if so, then China can still control the market, and the price to the consumer would remain the same, but the government would extort itself into taking 25% of the action.
Not one job would be created. Not one American company would receive an advantage. Not one American would gain anything.
Now let's assume that China cannot produce the products for less than their current selling prices. That would mean that the government would have succeeded in inflating the prices of all those Chinese products, so that the American consumer would have to pay 25% more for those products.
It may help some American companies and workers to be more competitive with foreign manufacturers, but at a huge cost to all consumers...and, there is no guarantee that American goods will remain competitive, unless the tariffs keep being raised higher and higher.
Plus, the government would almost certainly have succeeded in setting off a trade war, resulting in higher tariffs on American-built products being sold abroad, and making an already difficult situation even more so.
In short, placing tariffs on imported products hurts American citizens and American companies. But, if you allow completely free trade, then you are almost guaranteeing that American companies and workers will not be able to compete with the low labor costs and lack of regulations in other countries.
If the political argument is focused on tariffs, the American public loses, no matter who wins the argument.
Why not skip the argument on tariffs, and focus on the products that American companies can and should build?
Why not require the major institutions in America to use American owned and built products for at least 20% of what they build or sell? Why not require construction projects or department stores or automobile manufacturers to use American owned and built products?
Allow 80% of the market to be open to foreign competition, but require large American businesses to make 20% of their purchases from domestically owned and built sources.
I know this may strike you as an odd idea, but stop a minute and think about it. The number one advantage is that it would provide jobs. Numbers two and three, it would provide more jobs and yet more jobs. Number four, it could revive heavy industries such as steel, which not only provide high-wage jobs, but can have national security implications.
It's hard to believe that the nation that was once known as the arsenal of democracy no longer has the capacity to provide the material to build the tanks and planes. In addition to benefiting the steel industry, there would be tremendous opportunities in many fields; electronics, textiles, even such seemingly low-tech fields as souvenirs, to name a few. The opportunity for enterprise would be huge.
The first argument against such a program is that American companies cannot compete on price with the low price imports. That is probably true, so there will be some price increases. But, even if the American products cost twice as much as the imports, prices would not go up as much as that 25% tariff on imports would have imposed on the American people.
There may have to be an opt-out if American companies are so expensive that it isn't economically feasible to use them, but 20% of the American market is a large enough segment that there would be many American companies battling against each other and keeping their prices competitive, even if they are somewhat more expensive than the imports.
Another objection to this program might be that it could lead to a trade war. To counter that argument, we should be willing to accept the same 80% access limitation on our products in their markets. We accept the same terms that we offer them.
It may be difficult to administer such a program, but the benefits far outweigh the difficulties.
It's time that our government takes a stand to protect American workers and businesses. It is time that we are willing to pay a little more to protect our own. We can no longer afford to let our jobs and industries go overseas, leaving our people out of work and dependent.
It doesn't matter whether the job is union or non-union. It doesn't matter whether the industry is high-tech or low-tech. What matters is our people are working in honest jobs, proud they are taking care of their families, independent in their lives...and, oh yes, paying taxes instead of receiving benefits.
Think about it.
Libertarianist?
So where does the "Poor Man's Philosophy" lead? The heart of the philosophy enables the individual to deal with the inherent conflict between individual freedom and group control.
Can libertarians and statists co-exist within one federal government? Can they co-exist within one person? I think so, IF the individual is willing to afford others the freedoms he wishes for himself, and IF the government is dedicated to protecting freedoms equally for all individuals.
Call me a Libertarianist, because I believe that the individual is absolutely entitled to control his own life, but I also believe that the government is absolutely entitled to control individual behavior, in limited circumstances..
The "Universal Morality" provides the means to evaluate the behavior of the individual and of the government.
I'm never quite sure what politicians are talking about when they speak of American "exceptionalism ", but to me it means that America was the only country in the world that was set up to limit central government control and to grant individuals rights that government could not remove.
From that humble beginning, the greatest economic engine, and the freest land in the world, emerged. Since then, it seems to me those freedoms have been chipped away, little by little.
In the following posts, you will see a Libertarianist take on some of our current problems. Keep an open mind, because you won't find many others coming at the problems from this angle.
While a true statist might demand 100% federal government control, and a Libertarian might demand 98% individual freedom, I feel the correct balance should be more like 80% individual freedom and 20% government control. One could argue forever about the exact balance between government control and individual liberty, but I will argue the case for 80/20 in further posts.
One of the great advantages in not running for political office, in not representing any special interest or political party, and in coming into the discussion with an entirely different morality, is that I don't have to fear losing any constituencies. I don't have any constituencies.
My purpose is merely to follow the logic of "The Poor Man's Philosophy" and see how it could affect current political issues.
Can libertarians and statists co-exist within one federal government? Can they co-exist within one person? I think so, IF the individual is willing to afford others the freedoms he wishes for himself, and IF the government is dedicated to protecting freedoms equally for all individuals.
Call me a Libertarianist, because I believe that the individual is absolutely entitled to control his own life, but I also believe that the government is absolutely entitled to control individual behavior, in limited circumstances..
The "Universal Morality" provides the means to evaluate the behavior of the individual and of the government.
I'm never quite sure what politicians are talking about when they speak of American "exceptionalism ", but to me it means that America was the only country in the world that was set up to limit central government control and to grant individuals rights that government could not remove.
From that humble beginning, the greatest economic engine, and the freest land in the world, emerged. Since then, it seems to me those freedoms have been chipped away, little by little.
In the following posts, you will see a Libertarianist take on some of our current problems. Keep an open mind, because you won't find many others coming at the problems from this angle.
While a true statist might demand 100% federal government control, and a Libertarian might demand 98% individual freedom, I feel the correct balance should be more like 80% individual freedom and 20% government control. One could argue forever about the exact balance between government control and individual liberty, but I will argue the case for 80/20 in further posts.
One of the great advantages in not running for political office, in not representing any special interest or political party, and in coming into the discussion with an entirely different morality, is that I don't have to fear losing any constituencies. I don't have any constituencies.
My purpose is merely to follow the logic of "The Poor Man's Philosophy" and see how it could affect current political issues.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Post #15 The End of the Beginning
So far, the purpose of this journal has been to lay out the foundation of the "Poor Man's Philosophy".
The "Three Building Blocks" and "Universal Morality" won't be found in other philosophies...no other philosophy touches the themes upon which it is built.
Some may say the reason the themes haven't been touched is that they are too simple, or too foolish, or too easy to be true. I say it is simple, it is easy, and it makes sense.
The "Blocks" reconcile Nature, Man, and Mind. "Universal Morality" reconciles individuals, groups, religions, and governments.
Whether you agree with me or not is not important. The purpose of "the beginning" was to lay out what I believe, in the most honest and direct manner that I could.
From this point on, any further posts will be my opinions. You now know where those opinions are coming from.
The "Three Building Blocks" and "Universal Morality" won't be found in other philosophies...no other philosophy touches the themes upon which it is built.
Some may say the reason the themes haven't been touched is that they are too simple, or too foolish, or too easy to be true. I say it is simple, it is easy, and it makes sense.
The "Blocks" reconcile Nature, Man, and Mind. "Universal Morality" reconciles individuals, groups, religions, and governments.
Whether you agree with me or not is not important. The purpose of "the beginning" was to lay out what I believe, in the most honest and direct manner that I could.
From this point on, any further posts will be my opinions. You now know where those opinions are coming from.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Post #14 The Democratic Republic
The Constitution and Bill of Rights of our democratic republic were, and remain, the most original and revolutionary political and moral thought ever, in recognizing and protecting individual rights and limiting the power of the national government.
Many say our Constitution is based on Judeo-Christian ethics. I say it was based on Universal Morality, recognizing that purpose of the government should be to protect the rights of the individual.
Even though Judeo-Christian values and ethics are compatible with our Constitution, and even though most of the founders were Christian, the Constitution was never limited to Jews and Christians. It covered believers of all religions, as well as non-believers. The Constitution was never exclusionary, it was the most accepting political document in history.
All governments limit individuals. The best government leaves as many choices as possible to the individual, limits its own powers, and protects all individuals equally. We will never find perfection, but the closer we come, the better we will be, both as individuals and as a society.
The American Constitution and the Bill of Rights allows you to believe and act as you wish...as long as you play by the rules and allow others the same freedoms you have. If you attempt to force others to agree with you, then the government is sworn to use retaliatory force in defense of the others.
Freedom does not guarantee success or happiness. It allows the individual the right to choose the path he wishes to travel, and the price he is willing to pay for it. When an individual makes a mistake or fails, only he, and those close to him, pay the price. Very few individuals succeed at the highest level, but those that do can take many with them.
Within a powerful central government, the many that do not succeed at the highest level can take us all down with them.
Within a powerful central government, politicians can offer favors and tax benefits to their benefactors, at the expense of others.
Within a powerful central government, interest groups can buy influence and gain benefits at the expense of others.
The beauty of the founders is that they knew this would happen, if they didn't limit the power of the national government...and the sadness is that, over the years, we let it happen anyway.
Many say our Constitution is based on Judeo-Christian ethics. I say it was based on Universal Morality, recognizing that purpose of the government should be to protect the rights of the individual.
Even though Judeo-Christian values and ethics are compatible with our Constitution, and even though most of the founders were Christian, the Constitution was never limited to Jews and Christians. It covered believers of all religions, as well as non-believers. The Constitution was never exclusionary, it was the most accepting political document in history.
All governments limit individuals. The best government leaves as many choices as possible to the individual, limits its own powers, and protects all individuals equally. We will never find perfection, but the closer we come, the better we will be, both as individuals and as a society.
The American Constitution and the Bill of Rights allows you to believe and act as you wish...as long as you play by the rules and allow others the same freedoms you have. If you attempt to force others to agree with you, then the government is sworn to use retaliatory force in defense of the others.
Freedom does not guarantee success or happiness. It allows the individual the right to choose the path he wishes to travel, and the price he is willing to pay for it. When an individual makes a mistake or fails, only he, and those close to him, pay the price. Very few individuals succeed at the highest level, but those that do can take many with them.
Within a powerful central government, the many that do not succeed at the highest level can take us all down with them.
Within a powerful central government, politicians can offer favors and tax benefits to their benefactors, at the expense of others.
Within a powerful central government, interest groups can buy influence and gain benefits at the expense of others.
The beauty of the founders is that they knew this would happen, if they didn't limit the power of the national government...and the sadness is that, over the years, we let it happen anyway.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Post #13 Government and Individual Freedom
Throughout history, it seems to me that all governments have been founded on the premise that group rights overpower individual rights. Pure democracy, monarchies, theocracies, socialism, communism, and any other statist governments are based on the concept that the greater good of the group is unlimited in its power over the individual.
At their core, these governments believe that the state (or its representative) has the power to plan and decide what is best for the individual. Their decisions are based on the welfare of the state (or the welfare of the King, or of the dictator).
If only they (and all they appoint) were intelligent enough to make correct decisions for everyone.
If only they (and all they appoint) would never let their personal self interest (or their cronies self interest) overtake that of the interest of the public.
If only all those they appoint were brave enough to speak truth to power, when power isn't interested in hearing the truth.
As a Christian, I must admit that this would be a great system, if only we were all like Jesus. Unfortunately, most politicians I've seen seem a little more like Judas or Pontius Pilate...and we all know how well they worked out.
There are no perfect people to populate this version of a perfect world, just as there is no way to guarantee that the majority in a pure democracy will always vote to do the correct or just thing. If right-handers were out of work, and left-handers had jobs, would not the right-handers vote the left-handers out?
In the practical sense, what such systems have succeeded in doing is giving some few individuals the power to completely control the lives of all the others...and, if there is no commitment from the government to protect the individual rights of the others, there is no freedom.
The moral purpose of government should be to protect the individual from unwarranted invasion by the government itself, by other groups, or by other individuals. The government that is least invasive and provides the most individual freedom practically possible, governs best.
At their core, these governments believe that the state (or its representative) has the power to plan and decide what is best for the individual. Their decisions are based on the welfare of the state (or the welfare of the King, or of the dictator).
If only they (and all they appoint) were intelligent enough to make correct decisions for everyone.
If only they (and all they appoint) would never let their personal self interest (or their cronies self interest) overtake that of the interest of the public.
If only all those they appoint were brave enough to speak truth to power, when power isn't interested in hearing the truth.
As a Christian, I must admit that this would be a great system, if only we were all like Jesus. Unfortunately, most politicians I've seen seem a little more like Judas or Pontius Pilate...and we all know how well they worked out.
There are no perfect people to populate this version of a perfect world, just as there is no way to guarantee that the majority in a pure democracy will always vote to do the correct or just thing. If right-handers were out of work, and left-handers had jobs, would not the right-handers vote the left-handers out?
In the practical sense, what such systems have succeeded in doing is giving some few individuals the power to completely control the lives of all the others...and, if there is no commitment from the government to protect the individual rights of the others, there is no freedom.
The moral purpose of government should be to protect the individual from unwarranted invasion by the government itself, by other groups, or by other individuals. The government that is least invasive and provides the most individual freedom practically possible, governs best.
Post #12 On Government
There are various levels of government. National, regional, state, local, and municipal governments all provide services and require funding. In the United States, and in many (but not all, by a long shot) other nations, individuals are free to move from region to region or city to city, within the nation. The individual is accepted as a citizen where ever he moves.
The individual is not free to choose the nation-state where one wishes to live. One may be able to choose to leave the nation state, but there is no guarantee that any other nation state will choose to award the individual citizenship.
This discussion will be specifically on national government only. If one starts with the "Three Building Blocks" and the "Universal Morality", then one must accept that the purpose of the government is to protect individual freedom as much as possible. If not, why would an individual want to join?
Government is the group that we must join to protect us from other groups and individuals. There are many other groups, including religions, we may join for a specific purpose or goal that we choose, but only the government has the power to force our behavior.
If the purpose of the government is to protect the individual, where does the government cross the line between protection and oppression? If the individual wants freedom and the government wants control, how can these conflicting goals be reconciled?
A society is composed of individuals. Each individual, to fulfill himself, and live according to his nature, must have the freedom to act and feel as he pleases. The task of a moral government is to make and enforce rules that define fair play and ensure that all players play by the rules.
A moral government allows its citizens to follow their own dreams, set their own priorities, and decide how steep a price they are willing to pay for their dreams.
The individual is not free to choose the nation-state where one wishes to live. One may be able to choose to leave the nation state, but there is no guarantee that any other nation state will choose to award the individual citizenship.
This discussion will be specifically on national government only. If one starts with the "Three Building Blocks" and the "Universal Morality", then one must accept that the purpose of the government is to protect individual freedom as much as possible. If not, why would an individual want to join?
Government is the group that we must join to protect us from other groups and individuals. There are many other groups, including religions, we may join for a specific purpose or goal that we choose, but only the government has the power to force our behavior.
If the purpose of the government is to protect the individual, where does the government cross the line between protection and oppression? If the individual wants freedom and the government wants control, how can these conflicting goals be reconciled?
A society is composed of individuals. Each individual, to fulfill himself, and live according to his nature, must have the freedom to act and feel as he pleases. The task of a moral government is to make and enforce rules that define fair play and ensure that all players play by the rules.
A moral government allows its citizens to follow their own dreams, set their own priorities, and decide how steep a price they are willing to pay for their dreams.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Post #11 The Implicit "If"
Most of us who are religious believe that our core values and principles apply to all.
The first commandment of the ten commandments is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". The Jew or Christian believes this (and the other commandments) came directly from God.
So, lets examine this declarative further. First, it is based on a belief in God. Then, it is based on direct instructions from God. Then, implicitly, it says that if you believe in any other God, or do not believe in God at all, you are wrong.
From such an imperious starting point, good intentions would lead one to attempt to convert the heathens (for their own good, of course), and might even justify forcing obedience on others.
Most, if not all, religions start from this point, where a Supreme Being has revealed the light to the chosen few, and, over the centuries, millions have suffered and died at the hands of those whose religious zeal overwhelmed their humanity.
Religious proclamations should be read with an implicit "If". For example, the first commandment would be approached as IF you wish to be Jewish or Christian, THEN "Thou shalt have no other gods before me".
This may seem to be nothing more than semantics, but it leaves the choice to believe or not with the individual. It changes the situation from one where God commands obedience from all, to a situation where God commands obedience from His believers.
The implicit "If" could lead to a world where religions live in harmony. For centuries, true believers from various religions have battled to impose their beliefs on others. It is time for all religions to accept that the individual has the right to decide for himself.
If one starts from the concept that each individual has free choice to believe in religion, or God, or not, then one must reject the concept that any religion has the right to force its belief on others, or to force obedience to its precepts on others.
Religions are free to attempt to convince individuals that the individual's life would be enhanced by joining the religion. Religions should not be free to use the "God told me I can force you to do this" pretense.
View religion as a spiritual advisor. Never allow religion to become a spiritual oppressor.
The first commandment of the ten commandments is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". The Jew or Christian believes this (and the other commandments) came directly from God.
So, lets examine this declarative further. First, it is based on a belief in God. Then, it is based on direct instructions from God. Then, implicitly, it says that if you believe in any other God, or do not believe in God at all, you are wrong.
From such an imperious starting point, good intentions would lead one to attempt to convert the heathens (for their own good, of course), and might even justify forcing obedience on others.
Most, if not all, religions start from this point, where a Supreme Being has revealed the light to the chosen few, and, over the centuries, millions have suffered and died at the hands of those whose religious zeal overwhelmed their humanity.
Religious proclamations should be read with an implicit "If". For example, the first commandment would be approached as IF you wish to be Jewish or Christian, THEN "Thou shalt have no other gods before me".
This may seem to be nothing more than semantics, but it leaves the choice to believe or not with the individual. It changes the situation from one where God commands obedience from all, to a situation where God commands obedience from His believers.
The implicit "If" could lead to a world where religions live in harmony. For centuries, true believers from various religions have battled to impose their beliefs on others. It is time for all religions to accept that the individual has the right to decide for himself.
If one starts from the concept that each individual has free choice to believe in religion, or God, or not, then one must reject the concept that any religion has the right to force its belief on others, or to force obedience to its precepts on others.
Religions are free to attempt to convince individuals that the individual's life would be enhanced by joining the religion. Religions should not be free to use the "God told me I can force you to do this" pretense.
View religion as a spiritual advisor. Never allow religion to become a spiritual oppressor.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Post #10 On Religion
If one rationally accepts a Universal Morality, where does religion fit in? A religion is a voluntary group an individual may join in order to add meaning and direction to their life.
Almost everyone wants to feel there is a purpose, meaning, and value to their lives.
A religion answers the myriad questions asked by the arational mind. How did life begin? Is there a God? Why am I here? What is the purpose of life? Questions that cannot be answered rationally, and can only be answered by faith.
Believing in God does not prove God exists, but believing in God can be enough.
Religions attempt to provide meaning to life. They do not offer proof. They offer belief. They offer comfort.
They also provide guidance to more mundane questions, such as how to relate to others, what is moral behavior, should I worship God, and, if so, which God and what is the proper manner of worship?
Organized religions have been immensely important in providing meaning to the lives of millions over the centuries. There is great satisfaction in believing one is leading a useful and moral life.
But, there is a danger there as well. All religions are based on an unprovable, arational concept. However fervently a Christian, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or any other believer or atheist states his belief, it is still an opinion and not a provable fact.
And, while one may feel a religion comes from God, earthly men have been the ones who have preached and interpreted what God's words mean. While there may have been many holy men with good intentions, they are still just men with foibles such as hubris and arrogance, and appetites for power and vengeance. Men of God still remain men.
As long as the religion accepts that each individual has the right to believe or not...and accepts that religion does not have the power of the government to force belief or behavior, religion can be a powerful and righteous force in peoples lives.
The power of a religion is derived from within the individual who chooses to believe it. If one believes in the Universal Morality, then a religion that attempts to force its beliefs on others becomes immoral, corrupt, and nothing more than just another political power group.
Even though I am a Christian, I believe that what Christians did during the Crusades was wrong. I believe that Christians should never get in bed with government. I thought the Enlightenment was about getting beyond forced religion, but still a so-called Christian felt entitled to kill a doctor who performed abortions.
Whatever your religion, if your religious leaders are telling you you have the right to force others into compliance, if they are telling you your religious laws should be the laws for all, or even go so far as telling you you have the right to kill someone who disagrees with you, run for the exits. Your leader is manipulating you for earthly power, not for heavenly results.
The Universal Morality accepts and co-exists with all religions, as long as the religions accept and co-exist with each other. When a religion adopts force as an acceptable tool, the religion loses moral standing It becomes a threat to all other religions and individuals..
Almost everyone wants to feel there is a purpose, meaning, and value to their lives.
A religion answers the myriad questions asked by the arational mind. How did life begin? Is there a God? Why am I here? What is the purpose of life? Questions that cannot be answered rationally, and can only be answered by faith.
Believing in God does not prove God exists, but believing in God can be enough.
Religions attempt to provide meaning to life. They do not offer proof. They offer belief. They offer comfort.
They also provide guidance to more mundane questions, such as how to relate to others, what is moral behavior, should I worship God, and, if so, which God and what is the proper manner of worship?
Organized religions have been immensely important in providing meaning to the lives of millions over the centuries. There is great satisfaction in believing one is leading a useful and moral life.
But, there is a danger there as well. All religions are based on an unprovable, arational concept. However fervently a Christian, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or any other believer or atheist states his belief, it is still an opinion and not a provable fact.
And, while one may feel a religion comes from God, earthly men have been the ones who have preached and interpreted what God's words mean. While there may have been many holy men with good intentions, they are still just men with foibles such as hubris and arrogance, and appetites for power and vengeance. Men of God still remain men.
As long as the religion accepts that each individual has the right to believe or not...and accepts that religion does not have the power of the government to force belief or behavior, religion can be a powerful and righteous force in peoples lives.
The power of a religion is derived from within the individual who chooses to believe it. If one believes in the Universal Morality, then a religion that attempts to force its beliefs on others becomes immoral, corrupt, and nothing more than just another political power group.
Even though I am a Christian, I believe that what Christians did during the Crusades was wrong. I believe that Christians should never get in bed with government. I thought the Enlightenment was about getting beyond forced religion, but still a so-called Christian felt entitled to kill a doctor who performed abortions.
Whatever your religion, if your religious leaders are telling you you have the right to force others into compliance, if they are telling you your religious laws should be the laws for all, or even go so far as telling you you have the right to kill someone who disagrees with you, run for the exits. Your leader is manipulating you for earthly power, not for heavenly results.
The Universal Morality accepts and co-exists with all religions, as long as the religions accept and co-exist with each other. When a religion adopts force as an acceptable tool, the religion loses moral standing It becomes a threat to all other religions and individuals..
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Post #9 On Groups
Our individual lives are infused with groups. Groups based on ethnicity, geography, vocation or common interests. Groups based on family, religion, or any number of potential commonalities.
In a free country, most groups are free to choose the members they accept, and set the rules that govern their members. Most individuals are free to accept membership (or not). Once they become members, if they desire, they can attempt to change the rules, and are free to leave the group if they wish to depart.
In short, most groups are voluntary. Some are less voluntary that others, but even those that seem most difficult to leave (say, employment or location) are still choices that individuals have the power to make.
Some groups are not voluntary. Ethnicity is one example of an involuntary grouping. You cannot change your ethnic heritage, but neither does your ethnic heritage limit you. In a free society, you can make of yourself what you will...in a closed society, you will be limited by your ethnicity.
Another example of an involuntary group is the nation you were born into. If you were born in the United States, you can move from city to city or state to state at will. Within the United States, you will become a citizen of the city or state that you move to, but you cannot declare yourself a citizen of another country.
Each nation state reserves the right to offer or reject citizenship rights to those individuals who choose to move within its borders. The special situation of the national government will be discussed much more in future posts.
Modern life is a tapestry of conflicting, sometimes cooperating, sometimes competing, individuals and groups. It is difficult to understand what is happening in such a confusion of agendas and egos, if one does not know how to cut through the fog of vanity and polemics.
The purpose of the "Poor Man's Philosophy" is to offer an understanding why things are as they are, and to encourage a new way of thinking about how we can change things.
In a free country, most groups are free to choose the members they accept, and set the rules that govern their members. Most individuals are free to accept membership (or not). Once they become members, if they desire, they can attempt to change the rules, and are free to leave the group if they wish to depart.
In short, most groups are voluntary. Some are less voluntary that others, but even those that seem most difficult to leave (say, employment or location) are still choices that individuals have the power to make.
Some groups are not voluntary. Ethnicity is one example of an involuntary grouping. You cannot change your ethnic heritage, but neither does your ethnic heritage limit you. In a free society, you can make of yourself what you will...in a closed society, you will be limited by your ethnicity.
Another example of an involuntary group is the nation you were born into. If you were born in the United States, you can move from city to city or state to state at will. Within the United States, you will become a citizen of the city or state that you move to, but you cannot declare yourself a citizen of another country.
Each nation state reserves the right to offer or reject citizenship rights to those individuals who choose to move within its borders. The special situation of the national government will be discussed much more in future posts.
Modern life is a tapestry of conflicting, sometimes cooperating, sometimes competing, individuals and groups. It is difficult to understand what is happening in such a confusion of agendas and egos, if one does not know how to cut through the fog of vanity and polemics.
The purpose of the "Poor Man's Philosophy" is to offer an understanding why things are as they are, and to encourage a new way of thinking about how we can change things.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Post #8 "Universal Morality" #2
Unrestricted individual freedom leads toward anarchy. The group can control and limit individual freedom, but unrestricted group control leads the individual towards repression, servitude, and totalitarianism.
Left to their own devices, groups tend to use individuals as pawns, as means to the group ends. The group tends to concentrate the power of choice to a few leaders and remove the power of choice from the many.
The larger and more powerful the group, the fewer choices left for the individual.
Rule Two of the "Universal Morality". The more freedom of choice the group allows each individual, and the more the group protects all individuals equally from other individuals and groups who would unfairly limit personal choice, the more moral the behavior of the group becomes.
The Universal Morality is really based on the conflict between the individual and the group. It is based on finding that "sweet spot" where the individual is willing to give up some of his free choice in order to secure his right to other, more important choices. It is where the group is willing to cede some of its control in order to allow each individual the right to choose for themselves.
Finding the "sweet spot" is a never ending, constantly evolving, battle. Each generation must renew the fight to define the balance between group and individual.
But, if you believe in the Three Building Blocks and in the Universal Morality, they will lead you to the modern concepts of individual liberty and the rule of law...and I believe they will get you there whether you believe in a Creator or not.
Universal Morality is the benchmark by which all other moral codes can be evaluated. Its purpose is to evaluate the behavior of individuals and/or groups.
Are agreements between individuals and groups entered into willingly and knowingly, or are they done under duress? Are the agreements done in a fair, open, and honest manner, or are they based on cheating, lies, or force?
The relationship between Universal Morality and how it relates to religion, politics, and government, will be discussed more fully in future posts.
Left to their own devices, groups tend to use individuals as pawns, as means to the group ends. The group tends to concentrate the power of choice to a few leaders and remove the power of choice from the many.
The larger and more powerful the group, the fewer choices left for the individual.
Rule Two of the "Universal Morality". The more freedom of choice the group allows each individual, and the more the group protects all individuals equally from other individuals and groups who would unfairly limit personal choice, the more moral the behavior of the group becomes.
The Universal Morality is really based on the conflict between the individual and the group. It is based on finding that "sweet spot" where the individual is willing to give up some of his free choice in order to secure his right to other, more important choices. It is where the group is willing to cede some of its control in order to allow each individual the right to choose for themselves.
Finding the "sweet spot" is a never ending, constantly evolving, battle. Each generation must renew the fight to define the balance between group and individual.
But, if you believe in the Three Building Blocks and in the Universal Morality, they will lead you to the modern concepts of individual liberty and the rule of law...and I believe they will get you there whether you believe in a Creator or not.
Universal Morality is the benchmark by which all other moral codes can be evaluated. Its purpose is to evaluate the behavior of individuals and/or groups.
Are agreements between individuals and groups entered into willingly and knowingly, or are they done under duress? Are the agreements done in a fair, open, and honest manner, or are they based on cheating, lies, or force?
The relationship between Universal Morality and how it relates to religion, politics, and government, will be discussed more fully in future posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)