Tonight at our small group, we watched another segment in this Timothy Keller DVD series titled The Reason for God . It features Pastor Timothy Keller and 6 or so panelists, each either atheist or agnostic , discussing their difficulties with, or objections to, the notion of God. It has been one of the most thought provoking encounters I have witnessed in quite a long time.
Tonight's topic was the issue of why, if there is a God, does he allow suffering and evil. A common, understandable complaint of atheists and agnostics is the issue of a supposedly good and omnipotent God permitting evil and suffering to exist in the world of His own making. Keller uses the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus's riddle as a launching point for the session: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”
The question has merit, but its inherent assumptions change the context of the question, namely, how are the terms 'evil' and 'suffering' being defined? Definitions are needed to set some parameters by which we evaluate this dilemma. Looking first at evil, we ask, "What is evil, and is evil personal or impersonal"?
In the Judeo-Christian framework, evil and good are personal, and they are attributes of existent beings. God is the creator of the cosmos and all contained therein. God is also the source of every good and perfect thing. Lucifer transformed himself into Satan by executing the Free Will Option against the good and perfect decrees of God. Evil precipitates in the toxic environment of disregard for God's decrees, and a free will is the only environment in which evil can exist; i.e. it cannot exist in a cow or a rock or a sofa or a painting, but only in the heart of man.
Without the heart of man in which to dwell, evil would have no residence on earth. Humans tend to look at one or two major human ills as aberrant and evil, such as murder, child rape, and torture, and in so doing, we keep the degree of separation between us and God rather small. But when we examine what God has declared to be unacceptable, i.e. evil in His sight, it quickly becomes clear that the degree of separation between ourselves and the Holy God of the bible is vast indeed. Evil is a choice made by the human will in opposition to the decrees of God, which are inherently good (God is incapable of making evil decrees.) Without the heart of man in which to be conceived, evil would have no home on earth, and in order for God to rid the world of evil He would need to rid the world of mankind.
So be careful what you wish for.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Friday, December 24, 2010
Two Tracks, One Choice
The person who attempts to live life with one foot on the world's rail and the other on the rail of Christ eventually discovers how divergent these two tracks are, for there comes the moment when he must choose: life with Christ or death with the world.
Random Thoughts
Aspirations are the source of much success, but expectations are the source of much disappointment
Monday, November 22, 2010
profiling (ˈprəʊˌfaɪlɪŋ)
— n
the practice of categorizing people and predicting their behaviour according to particular characteristics such as race or age: racial profiling
OK, let me get this straight: Frail old pasty white people and young children must submit to being touched on every part of their body by complete strangers because terrorists from Islamic nations would like to kill us. But 'we' must pretend to be blind to any physical clues and instead do random searches rather than targeted ones, because to do otherwise is to commit the awful act of, say it with me, profiling.
So explain to me how in the hell affirmative action ever got passed?
— n
the practice of categorizing people and predicting their behaviour according to particular characteristics such as race or age: racial profiling
OK, let me get this straight: Frail old pasty white people and young children must submit to being touched on every part of their body by complete strangers because terrorists from Islamic nations would like to kill us. But 'we' must pretend to be blind to any physical clues and instead do random searches rather than targeted ones, because to do otherwise is to commit the awful act of, say it with me, profiling.
So explain to me how in the hell affirmative action ever got passed?
Thursday, November 11, 2010
What is Truth?
“What is truth?”. Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of Jerusalem in the first century AD, asked this question as he stared into the face of a prisoner brought before him on charges of sedition against the ruling religious leaders of his day. And while Pilate failed to grasp the truth, at the very least, he asked the question.
In today’s post-modern world the situation is much bleaker, particularly In the Western world, where we seem to make little inquiry as to what the truth of a matter is, any matter. Truth does not matter. Truth is relative and has become a commodity leveraged for its political or economic sway. Truth exists to whatever degree we manage to make it, market it and influence with it. Relativism has become so entrenched in the DNA of Western society that it is easy to believe that there is no such thing as truth in the absolute sense of the word; there's only 'your truth' and 'my truth' and 'their truth'.
But the ramifications of such reckless handling of so seeming a passive entity as truth are far reaching. Humans know that to craft a lie is to aim for deceiving someone, with a desired end result in view. Meanwhile, the truth, more often than not, sits mutely on the sidelines, awaiting discovery, always ready to be revealed, but rarely, if ever, the subject of the grandiose production that goes into the manufacture of the lie.
In 2007 the Kansas state school board was involved in a shooting match vis-à-vis the state’s science standards. During the debate Kansas became fruitful fodder for late night television hosts and scientific opinion journals alike. The world lined up courtside to denigrate or congratulate the wheat state, depending upon their personal worldview.
But the missing link in this debate would seem to be none other than Pilate's query, ‘What is the truth?’ Because in the end this debate was not about seeking and discovering the truth, but about promoting agendas and worldviews.
The science standards implemented in 2007 are a move away from broader inquiry and toward the narrower view of naturalism. Naturalism, commonly known as materialism, is a worldview in which everything can be explained in terms of natural causes. Physical matter, i.e. the atomic world, is presumed to be the only reality, so everything can in fact be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. By definition, Naturalism excludes any supernatural agent. It is not a stretch to say that naturalism is atheism, and the natural moral climate in the absence of God is moral relativism.
What is truth? The question is deep, and deserves much thought and reflection, and I will leave that part to you. But it is fair to state that those who genuinely seek The Truth have always fought uphill battles, have always encountered resistance. Because if someone is in the position of seeking the truth, than they are seeking something that is thought to be unknown at present, meaning they do not accept the prevailing wisdom or professional edict regarding the matter in question. Otherwise, why would they be seeking it? It would be plain as day and a known quantity. Galileo and Copernicus studied the heavens and arrived at a conclusion that rocked humanity’s belief about where the Earth sat relative to the sun and the remaining planets (hint: we are NOT the center of the universe), ending the 1000 year supremacy of the Ptolemaic premise that the Earth sits at the center of the solar system.
Newton pondered the fall of apples from a tree, and eventually uncovered the truth of one of the four fundamental forces of the universe, gravity. Yet today no one has seen gravity, held or smelled or heard gravity, let alone touched gravity, but no one denies it exists. Why? Because we see its effects all around us. Newtonian gravity is reliable and predictable… at least until we enter the world of quantum mechanics.
Van Leeuwenhoek refined the microscope of his day and discovered a world that had previously been invisible to humans. The twentieth century saw the invention of the electron microscope, enabling scientists to magnify objects otherwise invisible up to 2 million times, and alas, another previously unknown world was unveiled, a world where life's simplest manifestation, the single-celled microorganism, is found to be comprised of exceedingly complex molecular factories possessed of exquisite molecular-sized machinery.
The truth is always present, but it is not always detectable. And if the public education system teaches ‘truths’ that turn out not to be true at all, can such a belief system be undone spontaneously? Naturalism and evolutionary theory take on a worldview-shaping function, namely that there is no God; and worldviews shape values, and values shape people and their actions which in turn shape a society. What is reaped originates from what is sown.
If public policy is to be sculpted so as to forever eliminate anything that echoes even faintly of Judeo-Christian teachings, here are some further topics the school board may be forced to consider for removal: Love. Honesty. Honor. Kindness. Gentleness. Self control. Peace. Respect. Wisdom. Integrity. All of these concepts are taught extensively in the bible, from its beginning to its end. And all are taught as being traits of the God of the cosmos, traits which have been conveyed to humans as standards of behavior, rules for living, just as the atomic world is subjected to the laws of nature.
The bible instructs that murder is wrong, lying is wrong, abusive language is wrong, bigotry and prejudice are wrong, rape is wrong, battery is wrong, neglect is wrong. And yet, where there is a wrong, by definition must there not be a right, a quality that exists in opposition to these wrongs? But this quest is summarily absent from public discourse and education, precisely because it deviates from the underpinnings of scientific naturalism and its inherent atheism. Are we skewing the quest for knowledge away from the truth in our eagerness to presume against the existence of God? Why would anyone do that?
It is safe to say that as a society we covet the fruit of the bible, namely the decency and uprightness it prescribes, but we are loathe to attribute such traits to anything outside of the material world. Are we really so dull of mind that we never ponder what might lie beyond this veil of atoms which we have declared to be the sum of all reality? Who are the power brokers that have taken it upon themselves to dictate via the public education system that God is dead and the one who seeks Him is on a fool's errand? Who are you?
In today’s post-modern world the situation is much bleaker, particularly In the Western world, where we seem to make little inquiry as to what the truth of a matter is, any matter. Truth does not matter. Truth is relative and has become a commodity leveraged for its political or economic sway. Truth exists to whatever degree we manage to make it, market it and influence with it. Relativism has become so entrenched in the DNA of Western society that it is easy to believe that there is no such thing as truth in the absolute sense of the word; there's only 'your truth' and 'my truth' and 'their truth'.
But the ramifications of such reckless handling of so seeming a passive entity as truth are far reaching. Humans know that to craft a lie is to aim for deceiving someone, with a desired end result in view. Meanwhile, the truth, more often than not, sits mutely on the sidelines, awaiting discovery, always ready to be revealed, but rarely, if ever, the subject of the grandiose production that goes into the manufacture of the lie.
In 2007 the Kansas state school board was involved in a shooting match vis-à-vis the state’s science standards. During the debate Kansas became fruitful fodder for late night television hosts and scientific opinion journals alike. The world lined up courtside to denigrate or congratulate the wheat state, depending upon their personal worldview.
But the missing link in this debate would seem to be none other than Pilate's query, ‘What is the truth?’ Because in the end this debate was not about seeking and discovering the truth, but about promoting agendas and worldviews.
The science standards implemented in 2007 are a move away from broader inquiry and toward the narrower view of naturalism. Naturalism, commonly known as materialism, is a worldview in which everything can be explained in terms of natural causes. Physical matter, i.e. the atomic world, is presumed to be the only reality, so everything can in fact be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. By definition, Naturalism excludes any supernatural agent. It is not a stretch to say that naturalism is atheism, and the natural moral climate in the absence of God is moral relativism.
What is truth? The question is deep, and deserves much thought and reflection, and I will leave that part to you. But it is fair to state that those who genuinely seek The Truth have always fought uphill battles, have always encountered resistance. Because if someone is in the position of seeking the truth, than they are seeking something that is thought to be unknown at present, meaning they do not accept the prevailing wisdom or professional edict regarding the matter in question. Otherwise, why would they be seeking it? It would be plain as day and a known quantity. Galileo and Copernicus studied the heavens and arrived at a conclusion that rocked humanity’s belief about where the Earth sat relative to the sun and the remaining planets (hint: we are NOT the center of the universe), ending the 1000 year supremacy of the Ptolemaic premise that the Earth sits at the center of the solar system.
Newton pondered the fall of apples from a tree, and eventually uncovered the truth of one of the four fundamental forces of the universe, gravity. Yet today no one has seen gravity, held or smelled or heard gravity, let alone touched gravity, but no one denies it exists. Why? Because we see its effects all around us. Newtonian gravity is reliable and predictable… at least until we enter the world of quantum mechanics.
Van Leeuwenhoek refined the microscope of his day and discovered a world that had previously been invisible to humans. The twentieth century saw the invention of the electron microscope, enabling scientists to magnify objects otherwise invisible up to 2 million times, and alas, another previously unknown world was unveiled, a world where life's simplest manifestation, the single-celled microorganism, is found to be comprised of exceedingly complex molecular factories possessed of exquisite molecular-sized machinery.
The truth is always present, but it is not always detectable. And if the public education system teaches ‘truths’ that turn out not to be true at all, can such a belief system be undone spontaneously? Naturalism and evolutionary theory take on a worldview-shaping function, namely that there is no God; and worldviews shape values, and values shape people and their actions which in turn shape a society. What is reaped originates from what is sown.
If public policy is to be sculpted so as to forever eliminate anything that echoes even faintly of Judeo-Christian teachings, here are some further topics the school board may be forced to consider for removal: Love. Honesty. Honor. Kindness. Gentleness. Self control. Peace. Respect. Wisdom. Integrity. All of these concepts are taught extensively in the bible, from its beginning to its end. And all are taught as being traits of the God of the cosmos, traits which have been conveyed to humans as standards of behavior, rules for living, just as the atomic world is subjected to the laws of nature.
The bible instructs that murder is wrong, lying is wrong, abusive language is wrong, bigotry and prejudice are wrong, rape is wrong, battery is wrong, neglect is wrong. And yet, where there is a wrong, by definition must there not be a right, a quality that exists in opposition to these wrongs? But this quest is summarily absent from public discourse and education, precisely because it deviates from the underpinnings of scientific naturalism and its inherent atheism. Are we skewing the quest for knowledge away from the truth in our eagerness to presume against the existence of God? Why would anyone do that?
It is safe to say that as a society we covet the fruit of the bible, namely the decency and uprightness it prescribes, but we are loathe to attribute such traits to anything outside of the material world. Are we really so dull of mind that we never ponder what might lie beyond this veil of atoms which we have declared to be the sum of all reality? Who are the power brokers that have taken it upon themselves to dictate via the public education system that God is dead and the one who seeks Him is on a fool's errand? Who are you?
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Lords of Deception
"Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." Romans 1:28-32
I read this in my quiet time this morning. In a pretty unspiritual change of focus, my immediate thoughts went to politics, as in of the American variety, but also politics as a collective manifestation of the heart of man.
I dwell on politics too much. I don't deny it. My predilection, however, may be defensible, because politics in every nation on the planet is only minimally about taking up the torch of righteousness and justice for the governed, and is far more a malignant enterprise aimed at gobbling up power rightfully belonging to the people. Politics is just another manifestation of the lust for power inherent in the darker regions of the human heart. Check out J.R.R Tolkien;s Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and if you aren't up for slogging your way through the novels, the movies deliver stunning depiction of the complicated landscape that resides in the inner man.
America's political stage is overflowing with a cast of characters manifesting unashamedly the lust for power that Tolkien revealed. And make no mistake... power does not stand alone as a harmless choice that some make while others feign disinterest. Power does not exist in the absence of the powerless. To possess power in the sense we are discussing, the possessor must have an entity over which to lord this dominion. Without subjects, power cannot be precipitated. Power is very much like love, which exists only given the existence of a person or object to love, because that person or object precipitates the potential for love that resides in the human heart. Power is a verb, just as love is a verb. But whereas love seeks the good of the loved at the expense of self, power seeks the good of self at the expense of the other.
Power concentrated in the hands of a select few hundred people is not so very different from the power concentrated historically in the hands of the singular kings and dictators that have inhabited the world's stage over the centuries. It is still a concentration of power, and will lead to tyranny. Power must be distributed across the individuals making up the governed, or they will become the ruled.
And even knowing this, we in America speak soothingly to ourselves and say over and over, 'We live in a democracy (which isn't true at all). This is the will of the people at work.' And as we coo ourselves back into our disengaged stupor, the forces of darkness continue unabated, in fact, often to the applause and accolades of mindless television talk shows whose main duty seems to be to parrot back to the people a positive rationale for the theft of power being executed on the main stage. And well, golly shucks darn, if a Hollywood star or starlet embraces the power grab, its gotta be a good thing.... right?
So as a Christian, and to my Christian friends, I ask: what is expected of us, as Believers living in a fallen world destined for destruction? I know that God is the author of liberty, as he demonstrates by imparting and preserving free will in man. And again by His decree that Christ's sacrifice serve as atonement for our unrighteous state, thereby liberating us from the certainty of eternity in hell. And as the author of liberty, God surely does not wish to see his creation subjugated to the will of a handful of Utopian-eyed Statists whose only use for God is in the public square as a means to instituting Social Justice via a Social Gospel... does He? Such changes are not real if they do not flow from a changed heart, they are only symptomatic of a dogma turned policy turned coercive.
And why is it suddenly OK for politicians to coax through their agendas on the wings of 'What would Jesus do?', anyway? I thought we had to keep religion and politics segregated, lest the citizenry hear something that offends them unto the point of incomprehensible agony?
Like so many pawns are we, being drawn across a mammoth board following first this soothing promise and then that one, yielding up our inalienable rights to the seductive tune of the charmer who has neither the authority nor the capacity to deliver on these empty promises.
" 'Because they lead my people astray, saying, "Peace," when there is no peace, and because, when a flimsy wall is built, they cover it with whitewash, therefore tell those who cover it with whitewash that it is going to fall. Rain will come in torrents, and I will send hailstones hurtling down, and violent winds will burst forth. 12 When the wall collapses, will people not ask you, "Where is the whitewash you covered it with?" (Ezekiel 13:10-12)
"What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
Its your move.
I read this in my quiet time this morning. In a pretty unspiritual change of focus, my immediate thoughts went to politics, as in of the American variety, but also politics as a collective manifestation of the heart of man.
I dwell on politics too much. I don't deny it. My predilection, however, may be defensible, because politics in every nation on the planet is only minimally about taking up the torch of righteousness and justice for the governed, and is far more a malignant enterprise aimed at gobbling up power rightfully belonging to the people. Politics is just another manifestation of the lust for power inherent in the darker regions of the human heart. Check out J.R.R Tolkien;s Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and if you aren't up for slogging your way through the novels, the movies deliver stunning depiction of the complicated landscape that resides in the inner man.
America's political stage is overflowing with a cast of characters manifesting unashamedly the lust for power that Tolkien revealed. And make no mistake... power does not stand alone as a harmless choice that some make while others feign disinterest. Power does not exist in the absence of the powerless. To possess power in the sense we are discussing, the possessor must have an entity over which to lord this dominion. Without subjects, power cannot be precipitated. Power is very much like love, which exists only given the existence of a person or object to love, because that person or object precipitates the potential for love that resides in the human heart. Power is a verb, just as love is a verb. But whereas love seeks the good of the loved at the expense of self, power seeks the good of self at the expense of the other.
Power concentrated in the hands of a select few hundred people is not so very different from the power concentrated historically in the hands of the singular kings and dictators that have inhabited the world's stage over the centuries. It is still a concentration of power, and will lead to tyranny. Power must be distributed across the individuals making up the governed, or they will become the ruled.
And even knowing this, we in America speak soothingly to ourselves and say over and over, 'We live in a democracy (which isn't true at all). This is the will of the people at work.' And as we coo ourselves back into our disengaged stupor, the forces of darkness continue unabated, in fact, often to the applause and accolades of mindless television talk shows whose main duty seems to be to parrot back to the people a positive rationale for the theft of power being executed on the main stage. And well, golly shucks darn, if a Hollywood star or starlet embraces the power grab, its gotta be a good thing.... right?
So as a Christian, and to my Christian friends, I ask: what is expected of us, as Believers living in a fallen world destined for destruction? I know that God is the author of liberty, as he demonstrates by imparting and preserving free will in man. And again by His decree that Christ's sacrifice serve as atonement for our unrighteous state, thereby liberating us from the certainty of eternity in hell. And as the author of liberty, God surely does not wish to see his creation subjugated to the will of a handful of Utopian-eyed Statists whose only use for God is in the public square as a means to instituting Social Justice via a Social Gospel... does He? Such changes are not real if they do not flow from a changed heart, they are only symptomatic of a dogma turned policy turned coercive.
And why is it suddenly OK for politicians to coax through their agendas on the wings of 'What would Jesus do?', anyway? I thought we had to keep religion and politics segregated, lest the citizenry hear something that offends them unto the point of incomprehensible agony?
Like so many pawns are we, being drawn across a mammoth board following first this soothing promise and then that one, yielding up our inalienable rights to the seductive tune of the charmer who has neither the authority nor the capacity to deliver on these empty promises.
" 'Because they lead my people astray, saying, "Peace," when there is no peace, and because, when a flimsy wall is built, they cover it with whitewash, therefore tell those who cover it with whitewash that it is going to fall. Rain will come in torrents, and I will send hailstones hurtling down, and violent winds will burst forth. 12 When the wall collapses, will people not ask you, "Where is the whitewash you covered it with?" (Ezekiel 13:10-12)
"What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
Its your move.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Our Laughable Congress
Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert will testify at a Congressional hearing on immigration.
And still some people say there is no disconnect between Congress and the People? We are SO being herded by the media as to what message(s) we will hear. I wish the dome of the Capitol building could be inverted into a giant plunger and just purge every last representative from the congress and start over with farmers, plumbers, doctors, business people, but not one single lawyer or professor! Real life, and real life problems, requires real life experience, NOT the visions of intellectuals being imposed on the people via top=down policy making that ultimately disrupts the vital, natural interactions of we the people on the ground.
And still some people say there is no disconnect between Congress and the People? We are SO being herded by the media as to what message(s) we will hear. I wish the dome of the Capitol building could be inverted into a giant plunger and just purge every last representative from the congress and start over with farmers, plumbers, doctors, business people, but not one single lawyer or professor! Real life, and real life problems, requires real life experience, NOT the visions of intellectuals being imposed on the people via top=down policy making that ultimately disrupts the vital, natural interactions of we the people on the ground.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Constitution
The way I see it, the Founders constructed the Constitution of the United States as a means of putting a leash on government, and a hedge of protection around the individual liberties that are given to us by God. And I think I am not alone in this view. But a foundational element for the success of this arrangement was left unspoken, unwritten in any formal treatise regarding the fledgling government they were about to birth: just as the powers of government are tethered to a stake driven into the bedrock of the Constitution, so must the heart of the individual be tethered to God. If the people desire self-rule, they must endeavor to be the gate keepers of their own heart and to constrain the darkness that dwells therein. There is no action taken, no word spoken, that is not conceived first in the heart.
As Government has eliminated God from the public discourse, and dotingly shielded students from the dangers associated with even a cursory assent to the existence of God, it has cleverly created the need to expand its own powers. A government such as ours that develops a lust for power must necessarily push the citizenry toward an unfettered and equally lusty heart that cherishes and covets a selfish, unrestrained freedom over and above the nebulous energy force that maintains order in the human world: principle.
As Government has eliminated God from the public discourse, and dotingly shielded students from the dangers associated with even a cursory assent to the existence of God, it has cleverly created the need to expand its own powers. A government such as ours that develops a lust for power must necessarily push the citizenry toward an unfettered and equally lusty heart that cherishes and covets a selfish, unrestrained freedom over and above the nebulous energy force that maintains order in the human world: principle.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
The Judge and the Critic
While it is surely true that God is the ultimate judge, I think that human beings have donned the mantle of the ultimate critic.
With the pure and Holy God of the cosmos, it is possible to confess our failures and experience immediate restoration into relationship with Him. But humans are possessed of some strange need to publically scrutinize the shortcomings of others.
Is there some other Accounts Payable ledger of which they are arbiters?
Through Jesus, I can please God.
But man is never satisfied.
With the pure and Holy God of the cosmos, it is possible to confess our failures and experience immediate restoration into relationship with Him. But humans are possessed of some strange need to publically scrutinize the shortcomings of others.
Is there some other Accounts Payable ledger of which they are arbiters?
Through Jesus, I can please God.
But man is never satisfied.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Life's a Verb
If you live with the expectation that life owes you something, your disappointments will only be compounded.
If you live each day as if it is the greatest Gift ever handed to you, your joy will be boundless.
"Living" is definitely a verb, and Life surely has an Author.
If you live each day as if it is the greatest Gift ever handed to you, your joy will be boundless.
"Living" is definitely a verb, and Life surely has an Author.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
On Appeasement
Want to know how well disarmament and appeasement of one's adversaries works out?
Ask an American Indian.
Ask an American Indian.
Saturday, April 03, 2010
What is an Economy?
Ernst Haeckel coined the term Ecology drawing on the Greek root eco, “Oikos” - a home or place to live, and "logos", being logic or knowledge. Ecology is the 'study of the house', or of the environment in which a creature lives. Since all life is energy-driven, ecology essentially maps energy flow through an ecosystem.
"Economy" stems from the same Greek word oikos (home) , and nomy derived from nomos, a law or principle. In economics, the "management of the household" is under scrutiny. Household management encompasses a lot of things, but chief among them is providing for the household's residents the basic elements of survival, namely food and shelter, both derived from energy.
Interestingly enough, in both an ecosystem and an economic system, the plant is the foundational element upon which everything will be built, since it is the plant that converts raw energy into usable forms. In an ecosystem, members of the plant kingdom convert the sun's energy into the chemical energy that fosters the development of the food web. The plant is the producer, and in order for life to exist, an ecosystem must first have a population of producers (and a convertible energy source).
In an economy, the plant that forms the underpinnings of the system is the manufacturing plant. This plant converts raw , unusable materials, such as minerals, fibers and crops, into products usable by man, the primary participant in the economic system. The manufacturing plant, through its conversion of raw materials, becomes the producer element in an economy. These manufactured products are distributed not through the familiar hunter/gatherer method of the natural world, but through mutual agreements using an exchange unit known as currency. This currency circulates through the economy just as energy circulates through the ecosystem.
Among the many differences between the energy flow of an ecosystem and the currency flow in an economic system, one stands out: consciousness.
In an ecosystem, there is no conscious oversight of how and where the energy will flow. It is purely Darwinian, since by definition, the survival of the fittest distills down to 'a klutz and his energy are soon parted'.
In an economy, however, the whole process is very much a conscious endeavor, with forethought, sound judgment and knowledge being demanded of its participants; else 'a fool and his money are soon parted.'
Businesses in their natural state are built upon the natural flow of currency generated by the needs and abilities of the individuals with whom a business must interact, known as consumers (some of which also serve as lenders) and producers. This information is signaled to the business segment through product demand, savings rates, and unadulterated interest rates.
To centralize an economy is to direct artificially where the currency will flow. Using the ecosystem as a model, we understand that artificially directing the flow of energy will have disruptive consequences at various levels within that ecosystem. Segments that are suddenly cut off from the energy flow will unravel into ruin, while others that are flooded with energy will experience population booms and/or habitat destruction. (In an economic system we call these 'bubbles').
But what happens to an economy when its currency is suddenly rerouted for political reasons, specifically designed to benefit select elements within the economic system? We see the demise of certain affected economic engines and a cascade of economic contractions in certain related veins of the economy on the one hand, and conversely the formation of 'bubbles' in other segments. (I prefer to think of these as aneurysms... a catastrophic hemorrhage waiting to happen.) And when legislation becomes egregious to the point of making manufacturing an impossible task, the conversion of raw materials into usable products eventually ceases, (or goes overseas) and with it, the currency and the economy it nourished.
Put on your tin foil Sci=Fi hat for a moment, and imagine the consequences of an entity that masterminded a way to control the amount of the sun's energy reaching planet Earth. You don't even have to think very long to figure out two things: 1) This won't end well for the inhabitants, and 2) There will be an attempt made to 'improve' something, either the planet's inhabitants (ignorant benevolence) or the well-being of the controller and his cronies. The siren call of power is simply irresistible to conscious beings.
Socialism is the centralization of the means of both the production and distribution of an economy. It is not based on the realities dictated by the participants in the economic system. It is based on the utopian fantasies of those who believe they can consolidate and control this colossal power derived from the genius and work of hundreds of millions of living, breathing human beings.
And Socialism can only lead to Communism, because such access to power must be further constricted to an elite echelon subjugated to a single ruling authority, precisely because power is a two-edged sword, and its dangers multiply at every degree of concentration within the hands of a few as opposed to when it is dispersed across the hundreds of millions of autonomous, thinking individuals inhabiting a geopolitical confine. Communism has always resulted in economic failure, large scale human suffering, and worse, by vast numbers of the population, precisely because it is based on the dreams and visions of 'the visionaries' (aka intellectuals) and NOT on the real dynamics of people living at the community level.
True free market Capitalism is absolutely dependent upon unencumbered signaling between individual producers and individual consumers. But with the Federal Reserve manufacturing imaginary currency ('energy') for Congress to inject into the economic system to effect their own political agendas and play out their ideologies and fantasies, the U.S. economy has never been the house of cards that it is today.
But then I'm guessing you already knew that.
"Economy" stems from the same Greek word oikos (home) , and nomy derived from nomos, a law or principle. In economics, the "management of the household" is under scrutiny. Household management encompasses a lot of things, but chief among them is providing for the household's residents the basic elements of survival, namely food and shelter, both derived from energy.
Interestingly enough, in both an ecosystem and an economic system, the plant is the foundational element upon which everything will be built, since it is the plant that converts raw energy into usable forms. In an ecosystem, members of the plant kingdom convert the sun's energy into the chemical energy that fosters the development of the food web. The plant is the producer, and in order for life to exist, an ecosystem must first have a population of producers (and a convertible energy source).
In an economy, the plant that forms the underpinnings of the system is the manufacturing plant. This plant converts raw , unusable materials, such as minerals, fibers and crops, into products usable by man, the primary participant in the economic system. The manufacturing plant, through its conversion of raw materials, becomes the producer element in an economy. These manufactured products are distributed not through the familiar hunter/gatherer method of the natural world, but through mutual agreements using an exchange unit known as currency. This currency circulates through the economy just as energy circulates through the ecosystem.
Among the many differences between the energy flow of an ecosystem and the currency flow in an economic system, one stands out: consciousness.
In an ecosystem, there is no conscious oversight of how and where the energy will flow. It is purely Darwinian, since by definition, the survival of the fittest distills down to 'a klutz and his energy are soon parted'.
In an economy, however, the whole process is very much a conscious endeavor, with forethought, sound judgment and knowledge being demanded of its participants; else 'a fool and his money are soon parted.'
Businesses in their natural state are built upon the natural flow of currency generated by the needs and abilities of the individuals with whom a business must interact, known as consumers (some of which also serve as lenders) and producers. This information is signaled to the business segment through product demand, savings rates, and unadulterated interest rates.
To centralize an economy is to direct artificially where the currency will flow. Using the ecosystem as a model, we understand that artificially directing the flow of energy will have disruptive consequences at various levels within that ecosystem. Segments that are suddenly cut off from the energy flow will unravel into ruin, while others that are flooded with energy will experience population booms and/or habitat destruction. (In an economic system we call these 'bubbles').
But what happens to an economy when its currency is suddenly rerouted for political reasons, specifically designed to benefit select elements within the economic system? We see the demise of certain affected economic engines and a cascade of economic contractions in certain related veins of the economy on the one hand, and conversely the formation of 'bubbles' in other segments. (I prefer to think of these as aneurysms... a catastrophic hemorrhage waiting to happen.) And when legislation becomes egregious to the point of making manufacturing an impossible task, the conversion of raw materials into usable products eventually ceases, (or goes overseas) and with it, the currency and the economy it nourished.
Put on your tin foil Sci=Fi hat for a moment, and imagine the consequences of an entity that masterminded a way to control the amount of the sun's energy reaching planet Earth. You don't even have to think very long to figure out two things: 1) This won't end well for the inhabitants, and 2) There will be an attempt made to 'improve' something, either the planet's inhabitants (ignorant benevolence) or the well-being of the controller and his cronies. The siren call of power is simply irresistible to conscious beings.
Socialism is the centralization of the means of both the production and distribution of an economy. It is not based on the realities dictated by the participants in the economic system. It is based on the utopian fantasies of those who believe they can consolidate and control this colossal power derived from the genius and work of hundreds of millions of living, breathing human beings.
And Socialism can only lead to Communism, because such access to power must be further constricted to an elite echelon subjugated to a single ruling authority, precisely because power is a two-edged sword, and its dangers multiply at every degree of concentration within the hands of a few as opposed to when it is dispersed across the hundreds of millions of autonomous, thinking individuals inhabiting a geopolitical confine. Communism has always resulted in economic failure, large scale human suffering, and worse, by vast numbers of the population, precisely because it is based on the dreams and visions of 'the visionaries' (aka intellectuals) and NOT on the real dynamics of people living at the community level.
True free market Capitalism is absolutely dependent upon unencumbered signaling between individual producers and individual consumers. But with the Federal Reserve manufacturing imaginary currency ('energy') for Congress to inject into the economic system to effect their own political agendas and play out their ideologies and fantasies, the U.S. economy has never been the house of cards that it is today.
But then I'm guessing you already knew that.
Friday, April 02, 2010
What is Morality?
OK... here's something that has been bugging me for awhile, and some comments from an atheist have just prompted me to write this down. Question: What is morality? Merriam-Webster online defines it thus:
a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct
b: plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : virtue.
I don't know about you, but I hate definitions that rely on usage of the root of the word in question. So, here is the definition of moral:
a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment
e : capable of right and wrong action.
1 : RIGHTEOUS, UPRIGHT
2 : being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper
3 : conforming to facts or truth : CORRECT
4 : SUITABLE, APPROPRIATE
5 : STRAIGHT
6 : GENUINE, REAL
I note that the first word mentioned by way of defining 'right' is again a form of the word in question! So here we go with 'righteous':
Righteous: 1. acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin
2 a : morally right or justifiable b : arising from an outraged sense of justice or morality
So let me see how this might all work: morality is moral conduct, and what is moral can be determined according to an ethical or right standard, a righteous principle.
So in essence, acting in accordance with what is just, good or proper, also known as being righteous, or practicing right behavior, is to act in accordance with divine or moral law, according to Merriam-Webster.
That last phrase interests me. Which is it? Is our society's definition of morality based on divine law, or upon moral law? And can there be a moral law apart from a divine statute? Because if morality traces its existence back to divine law, how can the very same legislators, judges and other politicians who insist, loudly and at times passionately, on a separation of church and state, turn right around and insist heisting money and property from one group of people to give to another group of people is justifiable on moral grounds? I mean, aren't they sort of crucifying their own sacred cow?
(And if it helps, divine is defined as: a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a godb : being a deity)
a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct
b: plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : virtue.
I don't know about you, but I hate definitions that rely on usage of the root of the word in question. So, here is the definition of moral:
a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment
e : capable of right and wrong action.
1 : RIGHTEOUS, UPRIGHT
2 : being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper
3 : conforming to facts or truth : CORRECT
4 : SUITABLE, APPROPRIATE
5 : STRAIGHT
6 : GENUINE, REAL
I note that the first word mentioned by way of defining 'right' is again a form of the word in question! So here we go with 'righteous':
Righteous: 1. acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin
2 a : morally right or justifiable b : arising from an outraged sense of justice or morality
So let me see how this might all work: morality is moral conduct, and what is moral can be determined according to an ethical or right standard, a righteous principle.
So in essence, acting in accordance with what is just, good or proper, also known as being righteous, or practicing right behavior, is to act in accordance with divine or moral law, according to Merriam-Webster.
That last phrase interests me. Which is it? Is our society's definition of morality based on divine law, or upon moral law? And can there be a moral law apart from a divine statute? Because if morality traces its existence back to divine law, how can the very same legislators, judges and other politicians who insist, loudly and at times passionately, on a separation of church and state, turn right around and insist heisting money and property from one group of people to give to another group of people is justifiable on moral grounds? I mean, aren't they sort of crucifying their own sacred cow?
(And if it helps, divine is defined as: a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
A Minority of One
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." Alexis de Tocqueville
Want to catch a glimpse of the most endangered species on the planet? Easy enough: tonight while brushing your teeth, just lean in close to the mirror and gaze upon it. You are one of a kind, and the individual rights and liberties that are yours alone are being eclipsed and consumed by one of liberty's stealthiest, most insidious predators: Statism.
Statism is today's politically correct subspecies of collectivism. In statism the rights of the individual citizen are subordinated to the demands of the state, but always, of course, with the good of the group in view. So long as the matter in question can be argued from the standpoint of 'for the greater good', individual rights can and will be sacrificed. Ever ask yourself who gets to define 'greater' and 'good'?
Statism stands in direct opposition to the core principles which drove the Founders to write the Declaration of Independence and upon which they framed the Constitution. To understand why this is so, one question must be answered: Where do our rights come from? The Declaration of Independence leaves no room for equivocation on this subject. In the Founders' view there is a God, a supreme and transcendent God without whom we would not exist. The Founders held that the rights we as humans possess, as well as our individual liberty and value, are derived directly from God. One of the theological cornerstones illuminated in the Bible is that we are created by God in His image and for His pleasure. And while that image is quite tarnished in us, the implication is that we are endowed with the ability, like God, to love, to know the existence of right and wrong, to live life relationally, to love unconditionally, and to exercise our creative and intellectual inclinations in a manner that glorifies God and clarifies, rather than denigrates, the image of God as displayed through humanity.
Understanding the Founders' perspective, we arrive at the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, and it is not a complicated path. Clearly no ruler, foreign or domestic, has the authority to subdue or enslave us, not because we are citizens of the United States of America, but because we are human beings, beholden only to our Maker. Our value is not sourced from the ideologies we embrace or from our social standing, but comes solely from the One who created us. In this paradigm absolutes do exist and are upheld as such. Individual liberty is the only cornerstone upon which a Republic can stand.
On the other hand, when we dismiss the idea of God and ourselves as His workmanship, the perspective on 'rights' looks very different. Suddenly the rights we claim as our own are rendered into political commodities, subject to 'streamlining' by government in the best case scenario, or as has happened far too frequently in the history of human civilization, taken at gunpoint.
If the rights of the individual are not absolute, then they are presumed to be doled out by the state, and what the state giveth, the state can, and will, taketh away. Ultimately, absolutes are not recognized because the most basic unit of society is not recognized as having absolute rights. The cornerstone for government becomes a democracy, where the majority declares by consensus what is right and what is wrong. In this model, once the majority agrees that, say, stealing is OK, well then, stealing is OK, because the intent is no longer that the rights of the individual be protected, but that the will of the mob be executed.
Politicians empower themselves by acting as the gods of special interest groups, whose organizers are careful to couch their demands in the verbiage of 'rights', setting up the perfect opportunity for politicians to deprive some citizens of their individual liberties in order to 'make right' the perceived wrong. When the rights of the individual are recognized only in the context of a group affiliation, i.e. labor rights, race and gender rights, gay rights and so forth, the only outcome possible is the one we have achieved: Identity Politics, where a toxic body politic pits group against group like mud wrestling contestants vying for wee scraps of leverage while gloating politicians rake in their winnings measured in voting blocks.
Redistribution of wealth is merely the iconic tip of the iceberg, for what is really transpiring is a reallocation of rights: What one rightfully possesses as a result of his labors will be given to the one who has not earned it, yet this transaction is executed in the name of 'equality', and is based on the assumption that where inequalities in prosperity exist, liberty has been exploited by the one who has succeeded at the expense of the one who has not.
The thinking by the statist that his utopian dream can somehow be fulfilled by homogenizing living conditions through the redistribution of wealth completely disregards the nature of the inner man, wherein resides the wellspring of our humanness. It is in the heart where contentment and envy wrestle, love and hate square off, joy and despair are cultivated. And frankly, there is no political solution to the disposition of the human heart, but there are plenty who would tell you they have it. All they need is your vote and a little more cash.
Copyright 2009
Want to catch a glimpse of the most endangered species on the planet? Easy enough: tonight while brushing your teeth, just lean in close to the mirror and gaze upon it. You are one of a kind, and the individual rights and liberties that are yours alone are being eclipsed and consumed by one of liberty's stealthiest, most insidious predators: Statism.
Statism is today's politically correct subspecies of collectivism. In statism the rights of the individual citizen are subordinated to the demands of the state, but always, of course, with the good of the group in view. So long as the matter in question can be argued from the standpoint of 'for the greater good', individual rights can and will be sacrificed. Ever ask yourself who gets to define 'greater' and 'good'?
Statism stands in direct opposition to the core principles which drove the Founders to write the Declaration of Independence and upon which they framed the Constitution. To understand why this is so, one question must be answered: Where do our rights come from? The Declaration of Independence leaves no room for equivocation on this subject. In the Founders' view there is a God, a supreme and transcendent God without whom we would not exist. The Founders held that the rights we as humans possess, as well as our individual liberty and value, are derived directly from God. One of the theological cornerstones illuminated in the Bible is that we are created by God in His image and for His pleasure. And while that image is quite tarnished in us, the implication is that we are endowed with the ability, like God, to love, to know the existence of right and wrong, to live life relationally, to love unconditionally, and to exercise our creative and intellectual inclinations in a manner that glorifies God and clarifies, rather than denigrates, the image of God as displayed through humanity.
Understanding the Founders' perspective, we arrive at the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, and it is not a complicated path. Clearly no ruler, foreign or domestic, has the authority to subdue or enslave us, not because we are citizens of the United States of America, but because we are human beings, beholden only to our Maker. Our value is not sourced from the ideologies we embrace or from our social standing, but comes solely from the One who created us. In this paradigm absolutes do exist and are upheld as such. Individual liberty is the only cornerstone upon which a Republic can stand.
On the other hand, when we dismiss the idea of God and ourselves as His workmanship, the perspective on 'rights' looks very different. Suddenly the rights we claim as our own are rendered into political commodities, subject to 'streamlining' by government in the best case scenario, or as has happened far too frequently in the history of human civilization, taken at gunpoint.
If the rights of the individual are not absolute, then they are presumed to be doled out by the state, and what the state giveth, the state can, and will, taketh away. Ultimately, absolutes are not recognized because the most basic unit of society is not recognized as having absolute rights. The cornerstone for government becomes a democracy, where the majority declares by consensus what is right and what is wrong. In this model, once the majority agrees that, say, stealing is OK, well then, stealing is OK, because the intent is no longer that the rights of the individual be protected, but that the will of the mob be executed.
Politicians empower themselves by acting as the gods of special interest groups, whose organizers are careful to couch their demands in the verbiage of 'rights', setting up the perfect opportunity for politicians to deprive some citizens of their individual liberties in order to 'make right' the perceived wrong. When the rights of the individual are recognized only in the context of a group affiliation, i.e. labor rights, race and gender rights, gay rights and so forth, the only outcome possible is the one we have achieved: Identity Politics, where a toxic body politic pits group against group like mud wrestling contestants vying for wee scraps of leverage while gloating politicians rake in their winnings measured in voting blocks.
Redistribution of wealth is merely the iconic tip of the iceberg, for what is really transpiring is a reallocation of rights: What one rightfully possesses as a result of his labors will be given to the one who has not earned it, yet this transaction is executed in the name of 'equality', and is based on the assumption that where inequalities in prosperity exist, liberty has been exploited by the one who has succeeded at the expense of the one who has not.
The thinking by the statist that his utopian dream can somehow be fulfilled by homogenizing living conditions through the redistribution of wealth completely disregards the nature of the inner man, wherein resides the wellspring of our humanness. It is in the heart where contentment and envy wrestle, love and hate square off, joy and despair are cultivated. And frankly, there is no political solution to the disposition of the human heart, but there are plenty who would tell you they have it. All they need is your vote and a little more cash.
Copyright 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
The Reading List
OK...Myself and a friend have finally waded through Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg, and I can safely say it needs to be on your 'must read' list. Or if you happen to be staring down a long car ride of, say, about 15 hours, it is available in audio book format. The review on the simplyaudiobooks.com website reads:"In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics..." which is a pretty accurate and succinct synopsis. However, I would add that Liberal Fascism is an indepth look at the history of the Progressive Movement in America, what they stand for, and against. More importantly, the Progressive Movement is in full blown resurrection mode, and inquiring minds will want to know the truth about this movement in order to contrast it with the founding principles that created our great Republic.
And if you are a bit fuzzy on those founding principles, another Must Read is The 5,000 Year Leap, by Cleon Skousen. Just read it. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw_0_5?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=5+000+year+leap&sprefix=5%2C000
And if you are a bit fuzzy on those founding principles, another Must Read is The 5,000 Year Leap, by Cleon Skousen. Just read it. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw_0_5?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=5+000+year+leap&sprefix=5%2C000
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Seize the Moment
An ill wind of historic proportions has hit our shores. Americans are fretful and apprehensive. Our citadel of financial security has been shown to be corruptible, as are many things, by dishonesty. And while a dedicated cadre continue their public disavowal of the “In God We Trust” motto on our currency, these days God seems less and less the long shot.
But the real dilemma is this: What value will we now place on our Republic as it was handed down to us from our Founders? We were bequeathed a nation in which we are free to pursue our dreams and to harness our talents, to work as hard as we want - or as little as we want. And when that hard work manifests itself in financial reward, then that is our due. It is not a shameful thing. In fact it has blessed humanity.
Since its inception our nation has exploded the frontiers of human accomplishment. In the span of less than 200 years we moved mankind beyond his 2000 year history of oceanic travel by sailing ships and into the world of air travel, space travel and moon walks. Human beings, either individually or collaboratively, are the spark of creativity that ignite the bonfires of achievement and propel civilization to new heights. Being free to excel and to benefit from our endeavors is at the heart of capitalism, but more importantly, at the heart of progress. Capitalism dovetails with our constitutionally protected rights in that the principled pursuit of one’s passions, talents and work ethic commingle to reward the individual and consequently humanity. On the contrary, not a single invention or technological advancement can be credited to a government, because government is in the business of control; it is the antithesis of the creative and industrious processes which generate real product, real change.
Today, because of free enterprise, we live awash in a sea of extravagance that our ancestors could not have imagined. We are each the beneficiary of the products and services created by others. Even among those we label as ‘disadvantaged’, the fruits of capitalism are at work enriching life, making necessary goods and services available to all, regardless of means. Recently Michelle Obama served meals at a soup kitchen window, ostensibly for the poor, and found herself being photographed with cell phone cameras by the kitchen’s clientele. The life of poverty in America, according to our government’s own data, includes car ownership, air conditioning, most household appliances, cable or satellite television, DVD or VCR and stereo equipment, and better than adequate nutrition.
There is a very real difference between poverty and envy, and it is malfeasance by government to provoke the latter, let alone use it as leverage to insist upon equal reward for unequal effort. And as enigmatic as it is to government, much of life’s reward comes not from the accumulation of material goods, but from endeavoring to progress as individuals; and there exists no prescribed route for this, though many in government strain to create one. To fixate on materialism as the measurement of equality is a surefire way to instill envy and foment dissatisfaction…which is, of course, an excellent strategy by which to set up salvation by government.
As the winds of crisis pound away at our resolve, if not our very roots, we find ourselves facing the prospect of genuine hardship. We simply must step back and examine the bigger picture. We are nearing a precipice which may claim the engine of our nation’s great success. Onerous debt will preclude economic growth and prosperity. Too much Funny Money and we will be living under inflation’s smothering cloak. The ‘solutions’ coming out of Washington seem to have one thing going for them: they increase the scope and power of government.
Our president continuously warns of catastrophic results if we do not yield to his will, and that of the Pelosi-Reid congress. A monstrous spending bill has slithered through Congress and now bears the president’s seal. Similar bills are promised, leaving the citizens of this nation with a brutish choice. We can sit mutely on the sidelines and allow Congress to saddle future generations with a debt that guarantees crushing taxation and conscription to a lifetime of shoveling earnings into Washington’s fiery fiscal furnace. Or, we can play the hand we’ve been dealt, trusting in, and exercising, our combined grit, resourcefulness and compassion to deal with what now comes our way.
The demise of Liberty is never more than a crisis away. Will this crisis make us, or break us? The choice is ours… but only for a moment.
But the real dilemma is this: What value will we now place on our Republic as it was handed down to us from our Founders? We were bequeathed a nation in which we are free to pursue our dreams and to harness our talents, to work as hard as we want - or as little as we want. And when that hard work manifests itself in financial reward, then that is our due. It is not a shameful thing. In fact it has blessed humanity.
Since its inception our nation has exploded the frontiers of human accomplishment. In the span of less than 200 years we moved mankind beyond his 2000 year history of oceanic travel by sailing ships and into the world of air travel, space travel and moon walks. Human beings, either individually or collaboratively, are the spark of creativity that ignite the bonfires of achievement and propel civilization to new heights. Being free to excel and to benefit from our endeavors is at the heart of capitalism, but more importantly, at the heart of progress. Capitalism dovetails with our constitutionally protected rights in that the principled pursuit of one’s passions, talents and work ethic commingle to reward the individual and consequently humanity. On the contrary, not a single invention or technological advancement can be credited to a government, because government is in the business of control; it is the antithesis of the creative and industrious processes which generate real product, real change.
Today, because of free enterprise, we live awash in a sea of extravagance that our ancestors could not have imagined. We are each the beneficiary of the products and services created by others. Even among those we label as ‘disadvantaged’, the fruits of capitalism are at work enriching life, making necessary goods and services available to all, regardless of means. Recently Michelle Obama served meals at a soup kitchen window, ostensibly for the poor, and found herself being photographed with cell phone cameras by the kitchen’s clientele. The life of poverty in America, according to our government’s own data, includes car ownership, air conditioning, most household appliances, cable or satellite television, DVD or VCR and stereo equipment, and better than adequate nutrition.
There is a very real difference between poverty and envy, and it is malfeasance by government to provoke the latter, let alone use it as leverage to insist upon equal reward for unequal effort. And as enigmatic as it is to government, much of life’s reward comes not from the accumulation of material goods, but from endeavoring to progress as individuals; and there exists no prescribed route for this, though many in government strain to create one. To fixate on materialism as the measurement of equality is a surefire way to instill envy and foment dissatisfaction…which is, of course, an excellent strategy by which to set up salvation by government.
As the winds of crisis pound away at our resolve, if not our very roots, we find ourselves facing the prospect of genuine hardship. We simply must step back and examine the bigger picture. We are nearing a precipice which may claim the engine of our nation’s great success. Onerous debt will preclude economic growth and prosperity. Too much Funny Money and we will be living under inflation’s smothering cloak. The ‘solutions’ coming out of Washington seem to have one thing going for them: they increase the scope and power of government.
Our president continuously warns of catastrophic results if we do not yield to his will, and that of the Pelosi-Reid congress. A monstrous spending bill has slithered through Congress and now bears the president’s seal. Similar bills are promised, leaving the citizens of this nation with a brutish choice. We can sit mutely on the sidelines and allow Congress to saddle future generations with a debt that guarantees crushing taxation and conscription to a lifetime of shoveling earnings into Washington’s fiery fiscal furnace. Or, we can play the hand we’ve been dealt, trusting in, and exercising, our combined grit, resourcefulness and compassion to deal with what now comes our way.
The demise of Liberty is never more than a crisis away. Will this crisis make us, or break us? The choice is ours… but only for a moment.
Monday, November 03, 2008
What If I Don't Want You Improving My Life?
“Changing America.” “Improving the lives of Americans.” This would seem to be the flagship theme of this year’s Presidential election. Every candidate, Democrat or Republican, seems to have seized at least some splinter of this plank to fuel the fires at their respective campaign rallies. What’s frightening is that they actually seem to believe theirs is the right, power and ability to make improvements in your life and mine. What exactly did the Revolutionaries seek refuge from when they fought and died to expel the Crown from the Colonies? Did they do it simply to yield power to a new form of government that would likewise insert itself into their lives? I think not.
Getting inside the hearts and heads of our Founding Fathers is paramount to comprehending the essential nature of the Constitution they drafted, and what the Constitution is intended to do, and just as importantly, intended to avoid. Every U.S. citizen must have the understanding that the document the Founders labored over was not, and is not, a how-to manual for receiving and delegating power, nor is it a playbook for the disempowering of one’s political opposition. The Constitution of the United States, and the government it birthed, is the product of a group of people who knew first hand that a government must be intent on preserving the individual’s God-given rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, or become tyrannical. These men, and the citizenry and their posterity on whose behalf they labored, never again wanted to live under the yoke of monarchism or its offspring, tyranny. Prior to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, sorrowful amounts of the blood of Colonists had been poured out in the endeavor to subdue and evict the Crown’s militia, so desperately did the colonists desire to be free of autocratic rule.
Before you vote this November, investing a bit of time in some eye-opening reading could cast a whole new light on the slate of candidates, and whether their goals are indeed worthy of the Constitution they will swear to uphold if elected.
First suggestion: Washington’s Crossing, by David Hackett Fischer. Fischer, an historian, draws heavily from preserved letters and diaries of soldiers of the Continental Army, of the British Army, as well as diaries of the mercenary forces (the Hessians) contracted by the King to help subdue the rebellious colonists. In this intimate revelation of our Revolutionary history we hear firsthand the privation and suffering and despair that at times overwhelmed Washington’s army - his men - to near dissolution at arguably the most critical juncture of the war. Consider the fortitude of these Continental soldiers clothed in threadbare garments, many even barefoot, as they traversed the iced banks of the Delaware River in the winter of 1776-77. In their wake they recorded upon the snow their own extraordinary signature to Freedom’s cause, inscribed with the blood that seeped from their frozen feet as they resolutely pressed on, ultimately, and thankfully, proving to be possessed of an indomitable spirit. Read this book carefully and as you read, consider the question, “What were these men fighting so desperately, and so passionately, for…or against?”
Secondly, read The 5,000 Year Leap, by W. Cleon Skousen. Like Fischer’s book, this text utilizes countless documents and personal correspondences written by various Founding Fathers, until piece by piece, in quilt-like fashion, we see the genius of the Constitution of the United States of America revealed.
Today it is far too common for U.S. citizens to point to the Constitution and make selfish declarations about ‘our rights’, and far too rare for us to give consideration to our selfless duty to defend the integrity of that Constitution, even if means personal sacrifice. Indeed the latter is today best understood, if not coveted, by those who wear the uniform of this nation’s military.
Read and contemplate. Before you mark your ballots this November, consider who you would most like to go about the business of ‘improving the lives of Americans’, i.e., of improving your life. Do you want the freedom to improve your life by whatever honorable means are at your disposal? Or would you leave that task, and the definition of ‘improvement’, to an elected official who knows not a single thing about you?
Getting inside the hearts and heads of our Founding Fathers is paramount to comprehending the essential nature of the Constitution they drafted, and what the Constitution is intended to do, and just as importantly, intended to avoid. Every U.S. citizen must have the understanding that the document the Founders labored over was not, and is not, a how-to manual for receiving and delegating power, nor is it a playbook for the disempowering of one’s political opposition. The Constitution of the United States, and the government it birthed, is the product of a group of people who knew first hand that a government must be intent on preserving the individual’s God-given rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, or become tyrannical. These men, and the citizenry and their posterity on whose behalf they labored, never again wanted to live under the yoke of monarchism or its offspring, tyranny. Prior to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, sorrowful amounts of the blood of Colonists had been poured out in the endeavor to subdue and evict the Crown’s militia, so desperately did the colonists desire to be free of autocratic rule.
Before you vote this November, investing a bit of time in some eye-opening reading could cast a whole new light on the slate of candidates, and whether their goals are indeed worthy of the Constitution they will swear to uphold if elected.
First suggestion: Washington’s Crossing, by David Hackett Fischer. Fischer, an historian, draws heavily from preserved letters and diaries of soldiers of the Continental Army, of the British Army, as well as diaries of the mercenary forces (the Hessians) contracted by the King to help subdue the rebellious colonists. In this intimate revelation of our Revolutionary history we hear firsthand the privation and suffering and despair that at times overwhelmed Washington’s army - his men - to near dissolution at arguably the most critical juncture of the war. Consider the fortitude of these Continental soldiers clothed in threadbare garments, many even barefoot, as they traversed the iced banks of the Delaware River in the winter of 1776-77. In their wake they recorded upon the snow their own extraordinary signature to Freedom’s cause, inscribed with the blood that seeped from their frozen feet as they resolutely pressed on, ultimately, and thankfully, proving to be possessed of an indomitable spirit. Read this book carefully and as you read, consider the question, “What were these men fighting so desperately, and so passionately, for…or against?”
Secondly, read The 5,000 Year Leap, by W. Cleon Skousen. Like Fischer’s book, this text utilizes countless documents and personal correspondences written by various Founding Fathers, until piece by piece, in quilt-like fashion, we see the genius of the Constitution of the United States of America revealed.
Today it is far too common for U.S. citizens to point to the Constitution and make selfish declarations about ‘our rights’, and far too rare for us to give consideration to our selfless duty to defend the integrity of that Constitution, even if means personal sacrifice. Indeed the latter is today best understood, if not coveted, by those who wear the uniform of this nation’s military.
Read and contemplate. Before you mark your ballots this November, consider who you would most like to go about the business of ‘improving the lives of Americans’, i.e., of improving your life. Do you want the freedom to improve your life by whatever honorable means are at your disposal? Or would you leave that task, and the definition of ‘improvement’, to an elected official who knows not a single thing about you?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
On America
America is an incredible country. In the history of the planet there has never been such a place, such a convergence of human spirit and will set free to sail the winds of chance and discovery and fortune.
The human mind is unrelenting in its creativity and objectivity: it is inherently curious and conveniently endowed with the capacity to ferret out answers to the questions posed by itself. Individually, we each possess these attributes in different qualities and quantities, and when we commingle in the free market system known as Capitalism, we erupt in a synergy that expands our species’ very notion of possibility, if not in fact reality.
As a capitalist free nation, American citizens are free to endeavor in legal enterprises and then be rewarded as the marketplace sees fit. But financial reward, materialism, should never be viewed as the enduring blessing of freedom. Because my passions and gifts differ from the mechanic’s whose differ from the surgeon’s whose differ from the teacher’s, we are each variously compensated by the marketplace. When the joy of living and of being an American is reduced to how much stuff we can acquire (viz a viz money), we have prostituted our joy and freedom, exchanging that which has intrinsic value for that which possesses only fleeting worth.
America is a sacred trust. For everyday Colonial farmers and merchants to have been compelled to engage in a war of impossible odds against the military might of the Crown belies the desperate political environ that had grown up around them. These Colonists were stirred to action while at the same time drawn inexorably toward the destiny that would become self-government. Today, like every day since the Colonists declared war against Britain, we personally experience freedom to pursue our own happiness because of the courage and dedication to principle to which the Revolutionaries had committed themselves.
What are the principles that motivate Americans today? How might those who brought America into nationhood view our performance as keepers of the trust they handed to us?
America derives its blessings from her moral grounding, the fruits of human ingenuity, and from certain provisions of the government for the general public, namely a national defense and an infrastructure that benefits the masses. The role of government in the United States of America is not, and shall never be, the intentional redistribution of wealth from one individual to another. The position of most liberal and even some moderate politicians today would be viewed by our Colonial predecessors as heretical, a dereliction of duty, an extinguishing of the sacred trust that is the heart of America.
Today America is synonymous with Freedom. Freedom to try, freedom to fail, freedom to succeed. But not the freedom to demand money from others simply based on disparity. Consider this: In academia the student is given the opportunity to perform to the best of his or her ability and to be rewarded with an education and a GPA that will serve them for years to come. But since not all students are equally intellectually endowed and/or motivated to excel academically, should we instead redistribute the wealth of the overachievers to the underachievers, handing over points and grades from the first group to the latter? The successful students’ A grades become C’s, and the failing students’ become C’s. Hardly a worthy objective or means.
Certainly we have among our citizenry those who need extra help and attention. People with physical or mental disabilities may be limited in their ability to participate in capitalism. And that is why the human spirit is also dressed in compassion. We help those who truly need a hand.
But we should never think it courageous or honorable or even acceptable to demand from others their rightfully acquired possessions. If it is not right for me to approach my wealthier neighbor and demand money from him, it is no more right for the government to do so in our stead.
Thanks, but no thanks.
The human mind is unrelenting in its creativity and objectivity: it is inherently curious and conveniently endowed with the capacity to ferret out answers to the questions posed by itself. Individually, we each possess these attributes in different qualities and quantities, and when we commingle in the free market system known as Capitalism, we erupt in a synergy that expands our species’ very notion of possibility, if not in fact reality.
As a capitalist free nation, American citizens are free to endeavor in legal enterprises and then be rewarded as the marketplace sees fit. But financial reward, materialism, should never be viewed as the enduring blessing of freedom. Because my passions and gifts differ from the mechanic’s whose differ from the surgeon’s whose differ from the teacher’s, we are each variously compensated by the marketplace. When the joy of living and of being an American is reduced to how much stuff we can acquire (viz a viz money), we have prostituted our joy and freedom, exchanging that which has intrinsic value for that which possesses only fleeting worth.
America is a sacred trust. For everyday Colonial farmers and merchants to have been compelled to engage in a war of impossible odds against the military might of the Crown belies the desperate political environ that had grown up around them. These Colonists were stirred to action while at the same time drawn inexorably toward the destiny that would become self-government. Today, like every day since the Colonists declared war against Britain, we personally experience freedom to pursue our own happiness because of the courage and dedication to principle to which the Revolutionaries had committed themselves.
What are the principles that motivate Americans today? How might those who brought America into nationhood view our performance as keepers of the trust they handed to us?
America derives its blessings from her moral grounding, the fruits of human ingenuity, and from certain provisions of the government for the general public, namely a national defense and an infrastructure that benefits the masses. The role of government in the United States of America is not, and shall never be, the intentional redistribution of wealth from one individual to another. The position of most liberal and even some moderate politicians today would be viewed by our Colonial predecessors as heretical, a dereliction of duty, an extinguishing of the sacred trust that is the heart of America.
Today America is synonymous with Freedom. Freedom to try, freedom to fail, freedom to succeed. But not the freedom to demand money from others simply based on disparity. Consider this: In academia the student is given the opportunity to perform to the best of his or her ability and to be rewarded with an education and a GPA that will serve them for years to come. But since not all students are equally intellectually endowed and/or motivated to excel academically, should we instead redistribute the wealth of the overachievers to the underachievers, handing over points and grades from the first group to the latter? The successful students’ A grades become C’s, and the failing students’ become C’s. Hardly a worthy objective or means.
Certainly we have among our citizenry those who need extra help and attention. People with physical or mental disabilities may be limited in their ability to participate in capitalism. And that is why the human spirit is also dressed in compassion. We help those who truly need a hand.
But we should never think it courageous or honorable or even acceptable to demand from others their rightfully acquired possessions. If it is not right for me to approach my wealthier neighbor and demand money from him, it is no more right for the government to do so in our stead.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Global Warming: A Tip for Mother Nature
I suspect that when the human race indeed becomes too much of 'an inconvenient truth' for the planet, Mother Nature will take her cue from us and simply abort us.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)