Twenty-five years ago I was coming to the end of my Marine Corps enlistment. I could run a mile in six minutes, a 5K in less than twenty minutes, a 10K in forty-two minutes, a half marathon in an hour and forty minutes, and I was an expert rifleman. I could hit a body-size target from five hundred meters with an M16 rifle 9 out of 10 times. I was also trained and capable of setting up a mobile weather station, tracking rawinsonde balloons, and determining fallout from NBC (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical) warfare. In short, I was a very average Marine.
The government of the United States of America spent four years paying for my training. I spent four years earning my pay by preparing for a time when my service as a Marine or as a weather specialist would be needed in warfare. Training for warfare was as close as I ever got to being needed.
I can still jog several miles at a time, but my days of running against a stopwatch have long since passed. I haven’t shot a rifle since leaving the Corps, and I wonder if rawinsonde balloons are still used or needed to determine upper air weather measurements.
However, since I believe there is nothing more important than opposing tyranny, I sometimes regret my time in the military came and went without involvement in any meaningful military operations. I still want to do something important in my lifetime to advance freedom. I think I could still contribute to a limited military operation and I believe there are others like me who would like the opportunity to do what we were trained to do, but never got the opportunity to do.
Darfur could be our opportunity. A military action to stop the bloodshed of innocent lives in Darfur wouldn’t require the best Marines or even the latest and greatest military equipment. All Darfur needs is an opposing military to stop the murdering. I don’t have the resources to move to Sudan and stop the genocide on my own. However, I am willing to go to Sudan and carry a rifle for a short period of time and do what is necessary to stop the genocide if the United States government would organize and finance a military operation and allow a few almost over-the-hill Marines to participate. Does anyone care to join me? How do we get started?
Monday, October 23, 2006
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Moral Discretion
In a perfect world, Dairy Queen would be open for breakfast, Chivas Regal would be sold by the gallon at Wal-Mart, and the only dilemmas anyone would ever face would be the consequences resulting from their own decisions and actions. Unfortunately, the world is not perfect, nor will it ever be. People are constantly having to deal with the consequences of the decisions of others.
There are many individuals, groups, businesses, and governments who will abuse freedom to a point where other people are exploited, injured, or even murdered. When the decision and action of some removes the ability of others to freely decide for themselves, then good people need to step in and take action to restore the equilibrium where both side are equally free to decide. The action taken to restore equilibrium needs to be appropriate for the situation and can include both preventive and punitive measures.
The United States made a moral leap forward after Viet Nam when it discontinued the draft and instituted an all volunteer military. Allowing young men and women to choose membership in the armed forces has resulted in higher moral amongst the troops and a much more professional and successful military.
The United States could make additional moral leaps forward if the concept of free choice was extended to include the way military operations are financed and implemented. When available tax dollars are thrown into a big pot, just like tithe dollars in a Church, too much effort is spent fighting over how the dollars in the pot will be spent and too little effort is spent accomplishing worthwhile humanitarian goals.
An alternative to this big pot financing approach would be to allow tax payers more discretion over how their tax dollars are spent. Tax payers who earnestly believe the military action in Iraq was morally necessary could direct their tax dollars towards financing the military in Iraq while tax payers who believe a peace keeping force in Darfur is a moral obligation could direct their tax dollars to helping Darfur.
Since most people do tend to vote with their dollars and their efforts, government leaders would know with certainty how much support they have for a policy and how large or small a budget they have to work with. This type of financing would not eliminate all of the political hostility between parties and citizens completely, but it would reduce much of the rancor because no one would be forced to support government policies they oppose and everyone would be allowed to freely choose how to best use their resources and efforts for big and important humanitarian measures.
There are many individuals, groups, businesses, and governments who will abuse freedom to a point where other people are exploited, injured, or even murdered. When the decision and action of some removes the ability of others to freely decide for themselves, then good people need to step in and take action to restore the equilibrium where both side are equally free to decide. The action taken to restore equilibrium needs to be appropriate for the situation and can include both preventive and punitive measures.
The United States made a moral leap forward after Viet Nam when it discontinued the draft and instituted an all volunteer military. Allowing young men and women to choose membership in the armed forces has resulted in higher moral amongst the troops and a much more professional and successful military.
The United States could make additional moral leaps forward if the concept of free choice was extended to include the way military operations are financed and implemented. When available tax dollars are thrown into a big pot, just like tithe dollars in a Church, too much effort is spent fighting over how the dollars in the pot will be spent and too little effort is spent accomplishing worthwhile humanitarian goals.
An alternative to this big pot financing approach would be to allow tax payers more discretion over how their tax dollars are spent. Tax payers who earnestly believe the military action in Iraq was morally necessary could direct their tax dollars towards financing the military in Iraq while tax payers who believe a peace keeping force in Darfur is a moral obligation could direct their tax dollars to helping Darfur.
Since most people do tend to vote with their dollars and their efforts, government leaders would know with certainty how much support they have for a policy and how large or small a budget they have to work with. This type of financing would not eliminate all of the political hostility between parties and citizens completely, but it would reduce much of the rancor because no one would be forced to support government policies they oppose and everyone would be allowed to freely choose how to best use their resources and efforts for big and important humanitarian measures.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Forcing Freedom?
Many Americans have decided that it is better for them personally to play the government game than it is for them to oppose the government game. These individuals and companies figure that it is more advantageous for them to compete for a piece of the government pie than it is for them to oppose the way the pie if financed. By following their basic nature and acting in their own self interest, they inadvertently contribute to a society where freedom is increasingly restricted.
Forcing tax payers to finance and participate in forcing public policy on others isn’t a very good application of the principle of human freedom regardless of how well meaning the intentions of the policies are. Freedom is not advanced when a government taxes its citizens in order to aid the poor anymore than freedom is advanced when citizens are taxed to fund a military action they don’t support.
Most of what is done by government would still be done freely by some citizens even if it was not financed by tax revenue. Companies seeking to profit like Federal Express and UPS have replaced the United States Postal Service by delivering packages faster and at a lower cost. Charitable organizations like The Red Cross, The United Way, and The Salvation Army, have excelled in providing services to the less fortunate. If there is truly a need, the private sector in a free society will fill the need either for profit or for charity.
The most important step in advancing Red Christianity is for all of us to quit trying to control each other for our own benefit, and in many cases, quit trying to help some people by controlling other people. Government does have a responsibility to provide basic security, but freedom can’t be bought with tax revenue and freedom can’t be advanced through more regulations.
Forcing tax payers to finance and participate in forcing public policy on others isn’t a very good application of the principle of human freedom regardless of how well meaning the intentions of the policies are. Freedom is not advanced when a government taxes its citizens in order to aid the poor anymore than freedom is advanced when citizens are taxed to fund a military action they don’t support.
Most of what is done by government would still be done freely by some citizens even if it was not financed by tax revenue. Companies seeking to profit like Federal Express and UPS have replaced the United States Postal Service by delivering packages faster and at a lower cost. Charitable organizations like The Red Cross, The United Way, and The Salvation Army, have excelled in providing services to the less fortunate. If there is truly a need, the private sector in a free society will fill the need either for profit or for charity.
The most important step in advancing Red Christianity is for all of us to quit trying to control each other for our own benefit, and in many cases, quit trying to help some people by controlling other people. Government does have a responsibility to provide basic security, but freedom can’t be bought with tax revenue and freedom can’t be advanced through more regulations.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Hot Air
Right is better than wrong.
Humility is much better and always preferable to arrogance.
However, there is no virtue in being humbly wrong or wrong humbly.
The science and the facts of Global Warming are available to anyone who cares to spend a little time on research and a little time in thought. The factors that play a part in the periodic warming and cooling of our planet are plentiful. Some of the factors that play a part are understood by science and some are not. However, our planet seems to have a self correcting mechanism that always keeps temperatures within certain ranges.
Currently, we are at the warm end of the range, but well within historic ranges based on available temperature recordings and best guesses. However, our knowledge of historical ranges cannot be calculated with the precision necessary for complete accuracy. Also, this warm end of the range has been very beneficial to agriculture and farming in many parts of the world.
In the future, science may better understand the affects of increasing or decreasing green house gases on our planet, like it is understood in a laboratory. However, at this point in time, anyone who advocates the use of the coercive power of government to reduce green house gases, including scientists, politicians, or religious leaders, is just plain wrong. Advocating government intervention with humility doesn’t make the advocate any less wrong or more virtuous.
Humility is much better and always preferable to arrogance.
However, there is no virtue in being humbly wrong or wrong humbly.
The science and the facts of Global Warming are available to anyone who cares to spend a little time on research and a little time in thought. The factors that play a part in the periodic warming and cooling of our planet are plentiful. Some of the factors that play a part are understood by science and some are not. However, our planet seems to have a self correcting mechanism that always keeps temperatures within certain ranges.
Currently, we are at the warm end of the range, but well within historic ranges based on available temperature recordings and best guesses. However, our knowledge of historical ranges cannot be calculated with the precision necessary for complete accuracy. Also, this warm end of the range has been very beneficial to agriculture and farming in many parts of the world.
In the future, science may better understand the affects of increasing or decreasing green house gases on our planet, like it is understood in a laboratory. However, at this point in time, anyone who advocates the use of the coercive power of government to reduce green house gases, including scientists, politicians, or religious leaders, is just plain wrong. Advocating government intervention with humility doesn’t make the advocate any less wrong or more virtuous.
The Price of Freedom
The unexpected difficulties the Iraqis are experiencing in establishing a stable democracy in their country has led many to believe that American style freedom and democracy is not compatible with some other cultures. There certainly are differences between Americans and other cultures that will determine how freedom is expressed, but it is ridiculous to claim some cultures don’t want or deserve freedom.
There are two other desires in the hearts of humans that compete with the human hearts desire for freedom. One is the desire for safety and security. The other is the desire to control and restrict the freedom of others. This desire to control and restrict the freedom of others is quite normal, but it can be quite evil when it restricts the God-given freedom of others.
The desire to control others can be as simple and innocent as a Pastor using guilt to manipulate members of his Church, a husband using threats to manipulate his wife, a salesperson using deception to manipulate his prospect, or a child using a popular toy to gain and restrict friendships. It can also be as complex and calculating as a politician using tax and redistribution policy to gain power or a terrorist using bombs and beheadings to spread fear and submission.
Freedom is the desire of every human. However, the paradox of freedom is that it can only exist when those who want to be free also allow others to be free. For freedom to exist, humans need to battle their own controlling nature, battle the controlling nature of others, and sacrifice some of their desire for safety and security. Churches, marriages, business relationships, and friendships would all improve if people were more willing to let others live freely without manipulative tactics.
Iraq is not having problems because Iraqis don’t want freedom. Iraq is having problems because so many of the participants in Iraq, including the American military, want to restrict the freedom of the Iraqi people. This is not a problem that will ever be solved, but it is a problem that can be reduced if those in positions of leadership will relinquish some of their authority to control and manipulate others.
There are two other desires in the hearts of humans that compete with the human hearts desire for freedom. One is the desire for safety and security. The other is the desire to control and restrict the freedom of others. This desire to control and restrict the freedom of others is quite normal, but it can be quite evil when it restricts the God-given freedom of others.
The desire to control others can be as simple and innocent as a Pastor using guilt to manipulate members of his Church, a husband using threats to manipulate his wife, a salesperson using deception to manipulate his prospect, or a child using a popular toy to gain and restrict friendships. It can also be as complex and calculating as a politician using tax and redistribution policy to gain power or a terrorist using bombs and beheadings to spread fear and submission.
Freedom is the desire of every human. However, the paradox of freedom is that it can only exist when those who want to be free also allow others to be free. For freedom to exist, humans need to battle their own controlling nature, battle the controlling nature of others, and sacrifice some of their desire for safety and security. Churches, marriages, business relationships, and friendships would all improve if people were more willing to let others live freely without manipulative tactics.
Iraq is not having problems because Iraqis don’t want freedom. Iraq is having problems because so many of the participants in Iraq, including the American military, want to restrict the freedom of the Iraqi people. This is not a problem that will ever be solved, but it is a problem that can be reduced if those in positions of leadership will relinquish some of their authority to control and manipulate others.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Reflections on My Last Post
These are the things I hate about blogs:
These are the things I hate about my last piece:
I was going to edit my last piece, but I decided to leave it the way it is as a reminder to take breath after writing and before posting. My goal in writing is to think and write a little different than the crowd by presenting a reasonable alternative to the crowd. I’m not always contrarian, but I do have a tendency to consider zagging when everyone else is zigging.
Politics means different things to different people. Pastors have many reasons besides tax law to participate or not participate in the political process. Most Pastors probably just consider politics to be so divisive they would rather just avoid it all together.
I think freedom is essential to God’s plan for humanity. I am going to keep making the case for spreading freedom and participating in politics to promote and ensure freedom. However, I don’t want to leave the impression that I think I am smarter or that I understand Scripture better than those who disagree with me. I know my place. I’m just trying to use the brain God gave me and the circumstances I’ve experienced to understand God and Scripture and then write about what I believe.
- Writers who emote more than reason.
- Writers who think they know more than most everyone else.
- Arrogant writers who demand humility in everyone else.
These are the things I hate about my last piece:
- See previous list.
I was going to edit my last piece, but I decided to leave it the way it is as a reminder to take breath after writing and before posting. My goal in writing is to think and write a little different than the crowd by presenting a reasonable alternative to the crowd. I’m not always contrarian, but I do have a tendency to consider zagging when everyone else is zigging.
Politics means different things to different people. Pastors have many reasons besides tax law to participate or not participate in the political process. Most Pastors probably just consider politics to be so divisive they would rather just avoid it all together.
I think freedom is essential to God’s plan for humanity. I am going to keep making the case for spreading freedom and participating in politics to promote and ensure freedom. However, I don’t want to leave the impression that I think I am smarter or that I understand Scripture better than those who disagree with me. I know my place. I’m just trying to use the brain God gave me and the circumstances I’ve experienced to understand God and Scripture and then write about what I believe.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Political Involvement
In a comment last week to my piece on exporting red Christianity, Derek referenced the IRS action against All Saints in Pasadena in his question and then Buz reminded me that Jesus rebuffed his disciples for expecting HIM to lead a political revolution.
The number of Christians and their leaders who don’t seem to understand the role of citizens in government or the role of Christians as citizens is appalling to me. I don’t include Derek or Buz in this group, so I am thankful for their comments and the opportunity to address this issue.
Throughout my daily reading, there seems to be an overreaction to the overemphasis of politics by some Christian leaders during the last few decades. The current wind and the current consensus seems to be that Christian involvement in politics has been a failure and it is time to get back to preaching the Bible without any political overtones. I’ve been to plenty of Churches the last few years which could use a dose of good Bible teaching, but I don’t think the Bible can be taught effectively without contemporary and relevant applications. Without appropriate applications of Biblical principles, a sermon would just be a history lesson.
Removing politics from the list of appropriate applications of Biblical principles is a misunderstanding of the Bible and American politics. Citizens of American, especially those of us who area also citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, do not have the liberty to stick our head in the sand like an ostrich and hope for the best. A turtle can withdraw to its shell, a Buddhist can sit in the corner and meditate, but a Christian is obligated to salt the earth. Salting the earth means involvement with society and involvement in making, changing, and enforcing the rules and regulations of our society. Citizens of the Kingdom of heaven must provide the salt because those who aren’t citizens of the Kingdom of heaven will be adding all kinds of other ingredients, most of which will have the opposite affect of salt.
The amount of involvement of the Church and the amount of involvement of the individual Christian in politics should be proportionate to the amount of involvement of government in the lives of believers. Smaller government would mean less involvement while larger government means greater involvement. Once again, the relationship between faith in God and freedom is obvious to those with eyes to see. Blue States with a lower percentage of believers like California, New York, and Massachusetts have high tax burdens and regulations compared to Red states like Texas and Utah with a higher percentage of believers and lower tax burdens and regulations.
I don’t agree at all with the message that was preached at All Saints in Pasadena which led to the trouble with the IRS. In fact, I may have more in common with Martians than I do with the members of that Church, but I do think it is the obligation of Pastors to include politics in a sermon when appropriate. I have nothing but contempt for any Pastor who would place their tax exemption above salting the earth.
The number of Christians and their leaders who don’t seem to understand the role of citizens in government or the role of Christians as citizens is appalling to me. I don’t include Derek or Buz in this group, so I am thankful for their comments and the opportunity to address this issue.
Throughout my daily reading, there seems to be an overreaction to the overemphasis of politics by some Christian leaders during the last few decades. The current wind and the current consensus seems to be that Christian involvement in politics has been a failure and it is time to get back to preaching the Bible without any political overtones. I’ve been to plenty of Churches the last few years which could use a dose of good Bible teaching, but I don’t think the Bible can be taught effectively without contemporary and relevant applications. Without appropriate applications of Biblical principles, a sermon would just be a history lesson.
Removing politics from the list of appropriate applications of Biblical principles is a misunderstanding of the Bible and American politics. Citizens of American, especially those of us who area also citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, do not have the liberty to stick our head in the sand like an ostrich and hope for the best. A turtle can withdraw to its shell, a Buddhist can sit in the corner and meditate, but a Christian is obligated to salt the earth. Salting the earth means involvement with society and involvement in making, changing, and enforcing the rules and regulations of our society. Citizens of the Kingdom of heaven must provide the salt because those who aren’t citizens of the Kingdom of heaven will be adding all kinds of other ingredients, most of which will have the opposite affect of salt.
The amount of involvement of the Church and the amount of involvement of the individual Christian in politics should be proportionate to the amount of involvement of government in the lives of believers. Smaller government would mean less involvement while larger government means greater involvement. Once again, the relationship between faith in God and freedom is obvious to those with eyes to see. Blue States with a lower percentage of believers like California, New York, and Massachusetts have high tax burdens and regulations compared to Red states like Texas and Utah with a higher percentage of believers and lower tax burdens and regulations.
I don’t agree at all with the message that was preached at All Saints in Pasadena which led to the trouble with the IRS. In fact, I may have more in common with Martians than I do with the members of that Church, but I do think it is the obligation of Pastors to include politics in a sermon when appropriate. I have nothing but contempt for any Pastor who would place their tax exemption above salting the earth.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
One Without the Other
A person can become a Christian, be a Christian, and practice Christianity in any environment. However, some environments are better than others for becoming a Christian, being a Christian, and practicing Christianity. Christian leaders like to point out how times of trouble and persecution throughout history have been times when the Gospel message has been accepted by many. People do tend to look to God for answers and deliverance when they don’t have any answers of their own. However, people also tend to reject God when they don’t witness or experience the love of God.
If trouble and persecution are all that is necessary for the Gospel to advance, then Russia, Cuba, Cambodia, China, Iraq, Iran, many other countries, and almost all of Africa would be overrun with Christians. Communism may have been a complete failure at creating a prosperous and just society, but it has been very successful at destroying faith in God. Coincidence? I don’t think so. Freedom and faith are very related.
America has gone through some very tough times starting with the first settlers. But, unlike communist countries, Americans have had the freedom to choose and practice Christianity. Most American believers would claim America is great because of the early and on-going Christian influence. It works both ways. Christianity in America is also great [comparatively, not absolutely] because of American style freedom and American style private property rights.
Nowadays, Islam is equal to communism as a threat to freedom throughout the world. Islam wants to use government authority to impose Shariah law. It is important for non-believers to understand this difference between Islam and Christianity. Christianity thrives in an environment of freedom. Islam is a threat to freedom and will only appear to thrive in an environment of control.
The primary goal of the Christian Church is to explain how Christ died so that those who CHOOSE to believe in HIM will have eternal life. A significant part of achieving our goal as Christians is to defend and promote freedom along with private property rights throughout the world. One without the other is only doing part of the job of the Gospel.
If trouble and persecution are all that is necessary for the Gospel to advance, then Russia, Cuba, Cambodia, China, Iraq, Iran, many other countries, and almost all of Africa would be overrun with Christians. Communism may have been a complete failure at creating a prosperous and just society, but it has been very successful at destroying faith in God. Coincidence? I don’t think so. Freedom and faith are very related.
America has gone through some very tough times starting with the first settlers. But, unlike communist countries, Americans have had the freedom to choose and practice Christianity. Most American believers would claim America is great because of the early and on-going Christian influence. It works both ways. Christianity in America is also great [comparatively, not absolutely] because of American style freedom and American style private property rights.
Nowadays, Islam is equal to communism as a threat to freedom throughout the world. Islam wants to use government authority to impose Shariah law. It is important for non-believers to understand this difference between Islam and Christianity. Christianity thrives in an environment of freedom. Islam is a threat to freedom and will only appear to thrive in an environment of control.
The primary goal of the Christian Church is to explain how Christ died so that those who CHOOSE to believe in HIM will have eternal life. A significant part of achieving our goal as Christians is to defend and promote freedom along with private property rights throughout the world. One without the other is only doing part of the job of the Gospel.
Monday, October 02, 2006
God’s Economics
The notion that God is unconcerned about economic systems or economic transactions is absurd when the God being referenced is the God of the Christian Bible. Some economic systems conform to Scriptural order more than other systems and some economic systems and policies are completely anti-Biblical. For many years, Christian socialists have claimed that socialism is the economic system most consistent with Scripture. At the core of the Christian socialist argument is the belief that since sharing and charity are personal virtues prescribed in Scripture then these virtues should be mandated and enforced by government. Christian socialists believe that a government that honors God is a government that helps the poor by providing for the basic needs of the poor.
The Bible never mentions a time or records an event when God established private property rights. However, it is impossible to read through the Laws of the Bible without the understanding of the concept of private property. From very early in Leviticus, the Lord tells Mosses that it is wrong to steal or even to lie about finding lost property. The stolen or lost property must be returned along with a penalty. Later in Leviticus, God is even more clear: “Do not steal”; “Do not defraud your neighbor or rob him”; “Do not hold back the wages of a hired man overnight”. Additionally, “You shall not steal” is one of the ten commandments. The ten commandments have to be considered the highest priority of behavior for believers and the most important laws to God because Jesus made it clear that he did not come to abolish the law.
Christian socialists are flat out wrong about socialism and God. Government mandated sharing and charity is not a virtue, it is legalized theft enforced by the coercive power of government and therefore against God's commandment regarding stealing. The only economic transaction consistent with Scripture is an economic transaction where a seller freely exchanges something of value with a buyer. The seller is certainly free to give value without compensation in the form of a gift. However, any transaction where the seller is forced to sell at a price below what the seller would freely ask, or any transaction where a buyer is forced to buy at a price above what the buyer would freely pay violates the law of God because something a value is stolen; either by the buyer or the seller.
Government does not have the ability to determine the proper price of a good or service or the proper wage to pay for labor because the proper price is dynamic and constantly changing. The correct price for labor is the price someone is willing to pay for the compensation someone is willing to accept for the work being done. Similarly, the correct price of a good or service is the price a buyer is willing to pay and a seller is willing to accept.
The Bible never mentions a time or records an event when God established private property rights. However, it is impossible to read through the Laws of the Bible without the understanding of the concept of private property. From very early in Leviticus, the Lord tells Mosses that it is wrong to steal or even to lie about finding lost property. The stolen or lost property must be returned along with a penalty. Later in Leviticus, God is even more clear: “Do not steal”; “Do not defraud your neighbor or rob him”; “Do not hold back the wages of a hired man overnight”. Additionally, “You shall not steal” is one of the ten commandments. The ten commandments have to be considered the highest priority of behavior for believers and the most important laws to God because Jesus made it clear that he did not come to abolish the law.
Christian socialists are flat out wrong about socialism and God. Government mandated sharing and charity is not a virtue, it is legalized theft enforced by the coercive power of government and therefore against God's commandment regarding stealing. The only economic transaction consistent with Scripture is an economic transaction where a seller freely exchanges something of value with a buyer. The seller is certainly free to give value without compensation in the form of a gift. However, any transaction where the seller is forced to sell at a price below what the seller would freely ask, or any transaction where a buyer is forced to buy at a price above what the buyer would freely pay violates the law of God because something a value is stolen; either by the buyer or the seller.
Government does not have the ability to determine the proper price of a good or service or the proper wage to pay for labor because the proper price is dynamic and constantly changing. The correct price for labor is the price someone is willing to pay for the compensation someone is willing to accept for the work being done. Similarly, the correct price of a good or service is the price a buyer is willing to pay and a seller is willing to accept.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Reducing Government Corruption in America
Derek raised a whole bunch of issues in his comment to my last piece. I will try to eventually get to all of his points, but I want to start by addressing government corruption in the United States.
First of all, just as it is impossible to be human and not sin, it is also impossible to have any government without some corruption. I have to constantly fight and battle my own nature in an effort to minimize my sinfulness and I believe voters and participants in government also need to constantly fight and do battle with government institutions and legislators in order to minimize government corruption.
Americans are blessed with a Constitution that provides a built-in structure for minimizing corruption. The three branches of government and the distinction between federal and state responsibility automatically helps to minimize and control corruption. American government institutions, even with all our wealth and power, compares very well to all other forms of government throughout the world.
However, America has evolved away from a country founded on the principle of a relatively weak central government to a country with a strong central government. By returning to the original intent of the founders, more decisions and regulations would reside at the state, county, and city level and fewer at the national level. This would effectively bring the providers of government services closer to the consumers of government services and to the taxpayers who fund government services. Close proximity of the government to the governed would go a long way in minimizing corruption.
Another factor in government corruption is the size of government. Shrinking the cost and size of government, would reduce the incentive for unscrupulous power brokers to buy influence from unscrupulous politicians and less opportunity for unscrupulous politicians to be bought.
The size of government in a democracy is a function of the character of the governed. When the governed make demands on government, the size of government will increase. When the governed choose self reliance, the government will shrink. At this point in American history, the lack of character of the governed in choosing bigger government over self reliance is adding to the likelihood of corruption. In other words, we get what we deserve.
Finally, I think there is a difference between the two major parties in America. There are plenty of unscrupulous elected Republicans, but it is hard for me to name a single elected Democrat who exhibits personal and public integrity. Of course, most of us would have different definitions of integrity, but I would still like to have at least two major political parties in America where most elected members exhibited real integrity. The only way to get there from here is to always vote for integrity and refuse to vote for anyone without integrity regardless of party, regardless of promises, and regardless of how the important issues affect each of us individually.
First of all, just as it is impossible to be human and not sin, it is also impossible to have any government without some corruption. I have to constantly fight and battle my own nature in an effort to minimize my sinfulness and I believe voters and participants in government also need to constantly fight and do battle with government institutions and legislators in order to minimize government corruption.
Americans are blessed with a Constitution that provides a built-in structure for minimizing corruption. The three branches of government and the distinction between federal and state responsibility automatically helps to minimize and control corruption. American government institutions, even with all our wealth and power, compares very well to all other forms of government throughout the world.
However, America has evolved away from a country founded on the principle of a relatively weak central government to a country with a strong central government. By returning to the original intent of the founders, more decisions and regulations would reside at the state, county, and city level and fewer at the national level. This would effectively bring the providers of government services closer to the consumers of government services and to the taxpayers who fund government services. Close proximity of the government to the governed would go a long way in minimizing corruption.
Another factor in government corruption is the size of government. Shrinking the cost and size of government, would reduce the incentive for unscrupulous power brokers to buy influence from unscrupulous politicians and less opportunity for unscrupulous politicians to be bought.
The size of government in a democracy is a function of the character of the governed. When the governed make demands on government, the size of government will increase. When the governed choose self reliance, the government will shrink. At this point in American history, the lack of character of the governed in choosing bigger government over self reliance is adding to the likelihood of corruption. In other words, we get what we deserve.
Finally, I think there is a difference between the two major parties in America. There are plenty of unscrupulous elected Republicans, but it is hard for me to name a single elected Democrat who exhibits personal and public integrity. Of course, most of us would have different definitions of integrity, but I would still like to have at least two major political parties in America where most elected members exhibited real integrity. The only way to get there from here is to always vote for integrity and refuse to vote for anyone without integrity regardless of party, regardless of promises, and regardless of how the important issues affect each of us individually.
Let's Export Red Christianity
I believe Red Christians in America and throughout the free world are essential to spreading the Gospel and solving the problems associated with poverty in the under developed world. It’s not enough to tell unbelievers that Christ died for them if we aren’t also willing to demonstrate and prove Christ is alive in us and can live in them.
Red Christians don’t need to export American culture to every under developed country in the world in order to spread the Gospel, but we do need to confront corrupt governments throughout the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and South America. While we’re at it, we should also confront the corruption in our own government in the United States in both the Democratic and the Republican parties.
The Blue method is often the sowing of seed on hard soil. For most of my life, American Christians have been very charitable to the poor in India. However, our charity never did solve the problem of poverty in India and it never produced reproducing believers because it mostly produced dependence on more charity.
Poverty is the natural state of the world where freedom is restricted and private property rights are not enforced. The Blue method has never and will never solve the problems associated with poverty. It is not possible to solve the problem of poverty by taking from some and giving to others. However, our commerce associated with private property rights in the United States and in India is solving the problem of poverty there. We now have some fertile soil to do some work and create disciples.
Red Christians don’t need to export American culture to every under developed country in the world in order to spread the Gospel, but we do need to confront corrupt governments throughout the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and South America. While we’re at it, we should also confront the corruption in our own government in the United States in both the Democratic and the Republican parties.
The Blue method is often the sowing of seed on hard soil. For most of my life, American Christians have been very charitable to the poor in India. However, our charity never did solve the problem of poverty in India and it never produced reproducing believers because it mostly produced dependence on more charity.
Poverty is the natural state of the world where freedom is restricted and private property rights are not enforced. The Blue method has never and will never solve the problems associated with poverty. It is not possible to solve the problem of poverty by taking from some and giving to others. However, our commerce associated with private property rights in the United States and in India is solving the problem of poverty there. We now have some fertile soil to do some work and create disciples.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Girly Golfers?
In most PGA (Professional Golfers Association) tournaments, one or two players will withdraw before the third round due to injury or food poisoning [euphemism for staying up a little late the previous night]. However, in tournaments that include Michelle Wie, the number of withdrawals is significantly higher.
There are ten men [might be too strong of a word for these guys] who have withdrawn so far in the 84 Lumber Classic with half of the golfers not even starting their second round yet.
One of these guys is an outspoken Christian, another is an outspoken anti-Christian; pride got the best of both of them.
There are ten men [might be too strong of a word for these guys] who have withdrawn so far in the 84 Lumber Classic with half of the golfers not even starting their second round yet.
One of these guys is an outspoken Christian, another is an outspoken anti-Christian; pride got the best of both of them.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
60 Million Murdered is not Nitpicking
In a piece posted at RedBlueChristian, Rob Asghar writes that Fareed Zakaria is demonstrating clear thinking with the statement, “Washington has a long habit of painting its enemies 10 feet tall-and crazy. During the cold war, many hawks argued that the Soviet Union could not be deterred because the Kremlin was evil and irrational.”
Most people, especially passionate people, are prone to exaggeration. However, real clear thinking, along with a knowledge of a few facts, would indicate the Soviet Union was a real threat, not just a perceived threat. Most historians agree that at least 20 million people were murdered by the Soviets after World War II. Some, including R.J. Rummel, even believe the number is closer to 60 million. It is not unreasonable to assume a country with leaders that murdered 20 to 60 million people would also be a threat to America.
The military capability of the Soviets is also a documented fact. There is no way to know what would have happened if America didn’t fight the cold war, but there is absolutely no doubt, the Soviets could have wiped America off the face of the earth if Americans didn’t take the threat seriously and increase Defense spending and planning.
Rob is an impressive and professional writer, but he seems to be paving his path to glory with the same in-astute observations as the current crop of Washington pundits. I don’t know if this is a tactic or just a careless mistake on his part. I don’t think it will work. The Washington pundits of the future will not just be the writers who graduated from the right schools with a talent for writing and very little time for nitpicking. The Washington pundits of the future will be mostly bloggers who honed their skills by being challenged and nitpicked with facts and counter arguments.
Most people, especially passionate people, are prone to exaggeration. However, real clear thinking, along with a knowledge of a few facts, would indicate the Soviet Union was a real threat, not just a perceived threat. Most historians agree that at least 20 million people were murdered by the Soviets after World War II. Some, including R.J. Rummel, even believe the number is closer to 60 million. It is not unreasonable to assume a country with leaders that murdered 20 to 60 million people would also be a threat to America.
The military capability of the Soviets is also a documented fact. There is no way to know what would have happened if America didn’t fight the cold war, but there is absolutely no doubt, the Soviets could have wiped America off the face of the earth if Americans didn’t take the threat seriously and increase Defense spending and planning.
Rob is an impressive and professional writer, but he seems to be paving his path to glory with the same in-astute observations as the current crop of Washington pundits. I don’t know if this is a tactic or just a careless mistake on his part. I don’t think it will work. The Washington pundits of the future will not just be the writers who graduated from the right schools with a talent for writing and very little time for nitpicking. The Washington pundits of the future will be mostly bloggers who honed their skills by being challenged and nitpicked with facts and counter arguments.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Primitive Justice
Practically the only news we hear or read out of Iraq is the number of people killed and the way they were killed. These two facts alone do not convey any information of real importance. In order to learn anything meaningful, we need to know why someone or group was killed.
For example, wouldn’t most people feel differently hearing that O.J. Simpson had just died in car bomb than hearing that Billy Graham had just died in a car bomb? I’m sure there are some innocent people being murdered in Iraq. However, I’m just as sure, that many of the people being killed in Iraq are receiving the justice they deserve from previous acts of injustice. Sure it’s primitive justice, but until Iraq has the time necessary to establish a government with consistent credibility, primitive justice is better than no justice.
For example, wouldn’t most people feel differently hearing that O.J. Simpson had just died in car bomb than hearing that Billy Graham had just died in a car bomb? I’m sure there are some innocent people being murdered in Iraq. However, I’m just as sure, that many of the people being killed in Iraq are receiving the justice they deserve from previous acts of injustice. Sure it’s primitive justice, but until Iraq has the time necessary to establish a government with consistent credibility, primitive justice is better than no justice.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Two [mostly] Unrelated Thoughts
A couple of mostly unrelated thoughts:
There is a fine line between nuanced thinking and sloppy thinking. Nuanced thinkers often take moderate positions after considering all of the facts, but so do sloppy thinkers who want to appear nuanced. So far, RedBlueChristian seems more sloppy than nuanced to me.
Why are Senior Pastors the highest paid employees of any Christian Church? If Christian leadership is servant leadership, shouldn’t the Senior Pastor be the greatest servant in the Church? If not, why isn’t the greatest servant the Senior Pastor? If the Senior Pastor is the greatest servant, why does he require a larger salary than the associate pastors and other Church employees?
There is a fine line between nuanced thinking and sloppy thinking. Nuanced thinkers often take moderate positions after considering all of the facts, but so do sloppy thinkers who want to appear nuanced. So far, RedBlueChristian seems more sloppy than nuanced to me.
Why are Senior Pastors the highest paid employees of any Christian Church? If Christian leadership is servant leadership, shouldn’t the Senior Pastor be the greatest servant in the Church? If not, why isn’t the greatest servant the Senior Pastor? If the Senior Pastor is the greatest servant, why does he require a larger salary than the associate pastors and other Church employees?
Friday, September 01, 2006
Becoming Pro-Life
Fred Barnes has written a good piece on why 5 pro-lifers became pro-lifers.
Conclusion:
Conclusion:
One common thread is obvious. All of us, because of the circumstances we found ourselves in, were forced to think about the taking of a life and what that means in both practical and moral terms. Most people avoid thinking about troubling moral issues like abortion or euthanasia. We couldn't.
And the other common thread is that something happened to make us choose life and choose it firmly and reject death. I think it was our conscience that intervened or, if you prefer, the basic human instinct that favors life over death. Or it you are a Christian, as I am, it was God.
Now I'm sure there are many exceptions to our experience. Not everyone who contemplates abortion or euthanasia is bound to take the intellectual path that five of us--six, including my wife--did on the way to becoming pro-lifers. But I suspect there are many more than like us than not. And many more to come.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Motherly Policies
There are way too many politicians, economists, and religious leaders who believe the lives of ordinary people can only be improved through government mandates and forced structural changes to society. These scholars and leaders believe the best course of action for society is a course of action where everyone is forced to support laws, regulations, and rules that level the playing field for everyone. In the past, these busy bodies have mostly concentrated their efforts on their own country, but as the world flattens, they increasingly want to dictate their beliefs onto the citizens of countries which are not their own.
At the core, this desire to level the playing field is a motherly instinct to protect that has corrupted good economic policy and hurt the lives of many people in almost all parts of the world. This desire to mother is a sinful assumption that other people are not capable of making their own decisions about what is best for themselves.
Most people are not better off when they are protected by excessive regulation and laws because the price of protection comes at a high cost in freedom. It is quite simple nowadays to judge the results of a government policy by comparing outcomes to other countries and other societies in similar circumstances. Sadly, many influential leaders, including Christian leaders, refuse to acknowledge the fact that freedom has produced better results and improved many more lives than government regulation.
Brian Wesbury has made some very good points in regards to freedom and economics in his piece Policy and Economic Denial.
Selected Excerpts:
At the core, this desire to level the playing field is a motherly instinct to protect that has corrupted good economic policy and hurt the lives of many people in almost all parts of the world. This desire to mother is a sinful assumption that other people are not capable of making their own decisions about what is best for themselves.
Most people are not better off when they are protected by excessive regulation and laws because the price of protection comes at a high cost in freedom. It is quite simple nowadays to judge the results of a government policy by comparing outcomes to other countries and other societies in similar circumstances. Sadly, many influential leaders, including Christian leaders, refuse to acknowledge the fact that freedom has produced better results and improved many more lives than government regulation.
Brian Wesbury has made some very good points in regards to freedom and economics in his piece Policy and Economic Denial.
Selected Excerpts:
Nonetheless, there were continued signs that the world's intellectuals remain in serious denial about which policies create wealth and higher standards of living.
Mr. Collier's speech, according to Ip, "made a persuasive case that nowhere more than in Africa has geography undermined economic progress." Collier theorizes that small, landlocked and resource-poor countries can't keep up and lag behind. This is not a new theory, but it is still wrong-headed. Freedom, not geography, drives growth and wealth creation. Switzerland, Austria and the Czech Republic are all landlocked and relatively small, but are clearly not poor. On the other hand, many African nations have vast resources.
Now, South Korea's is twice that of Brazil's. By way of explanation, he noted that the average Korean has 13 years of school, while in Brazil the figure is six years."This idea that Asian economies owe their success to education is also wrong-headed. While education is important for individual success, if you happen to live in a country with high taxes, burdensome regulations, and unstable monetary policy, education and the entrepreneurial spirit are stifled.
But is it really true that, because of geography, African nations have no hope? And is it true that if government educates more people, wealth automatically follows? No. The Wealth of Nation's are not determined by geography or education, but freedom. While there are many who want to reject the teachings of Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Frederich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and others, denial does not negate the truth.
Brian Wesbury is the Chief Economist for First Trust Advisors in Chicago, IL.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Halftime
Throughout the opinion-sphere, Israel is being declared a loser in their military action against Hezbollah. Political pundits must be watching a different game than me. From my couch, Israel is clearly dominating a game that has now reached halftime. During the first half of play, Israel rarely even needed to make a third down conversion. Second half adjustments by both sides may change the nature and eventual outcome of the game, but there is no reason to believe a comeback by Hezbollah is possible based on first half statistics.
So far in the game, Hezbollah has been completely unable to defend against the Israeli air strikes. Some of the Israeli bombs may have missed the intended target. However, since Hezbollah has been hiding amongst women and children, the only way to hit the target is to also hit the family of the target. Big media may take away points for collateral damage, but my scorecard counts the number of future terrorists that won’t be reproducing and playing in the second half of the game.
Israeli ground forces played a conservative first half by only taking and then holding small pieces of territory. Since the Israelis appear to be able to advance wherever and whenever they want using tanks and mortars to drive out Hezbollah forces, pundits claim they should have pounded the ball down the throats of Hezbollah during the first half and tried to put the game out of reach. However, Coach Ohlmert seems more concerned with keeping his team healthy for the second half than piling up points before halftime.
Hezbollah has been unable to mount any type of offense since the start of the game when they captured two Israeli soldiers. Thousands of the missiles they have lobbed into Israel landed incomplete. They haven’t once taken a piece of Israeli land or even been able to retake any of their own land until it was abandoned by Israel.
Syria and Iran, the feckless owners of Hezbollah, don’t seem willing to make the investment necessary to field a team that can compete with Israel. Iran could easily pour many more resources into team Hezbollah. They just aren’t willing to dump anymore funds into a losing team.
From my couch, things are looking pretty good for the home team!
So far in the game, Hezbollah has been completely unable to defend against the Israeli air strikes. Some of the Israeli bombs may have missed the intended target. However, since Hezbollah has been hiding amongst women and children, the only way to hit the target is to also hit the family of the target. Big media may take away points for collateral damage, but my scorecard counts the number of future terrorists that won’t be reproducing and playing in the second half of the game.
Israeli ground forces played a conservative first half by only taking and then holding small pieces of territory. Since the Israelis appear to be able to advance wherever and whenever they want using tanks and mortars to drive out Hezbollah forces, pundits claim they should have pounded the ball down the throats of Hezbollah during the first half and tried to put the game out of reach. However, Coach Ohlmert seems more concerned with keeping his team healthy for the second half than piling up points before halftime.
Hezbollah has been unable to mount any type of offense since the start of the game when they captured two Israeli soldiers. Thousands of the missiles they have lobbed into Israel landed incomplete. They haven’t once taken a piece of Israeli land or even been able to retake any of their own land until it was abandoned by Israel.
Syria and Iran, the feckless owners of Hezbollah, don’t seem willing to make the investment necessary to field a team that can compete with Israel. Iran could easily pour many more resources into team Hezbollah. They just aren’t willing to dump anymore funds into a losing team.
From my couch, things are looking pretty good for the home team!
Monday, August 14, 2006
Robbing From Our Children
Most members of the Democratic Party, and some Republicans, during the presidency of George W. Bush have opposed the reduction of Income tax rates, the deficit spending by our federal government, and Social Security reform. Their argument is that we [Americans] are robbing from our children whenever the federal government has to borrow money. Democrats are right to make this claim. Borrowing which doesn’t produce a string of income to pay for the cost of borrowing is always paying later for what is consumed now.
However, increasing the tax obligation of citizens is also robbing from our children whenever government funds are used for purposes not mandated in the Constitution. For the most part, our federal government just needs to reduce spending in order to stop robbing. Americans are unnecessarily over-regulated. We don’t need a rule for every situation. We do need the freedom to be able to make our own choices as long as we are willing to pay the price of our choices while not infringing on the freedom of others. Additionally, government programs are so inefficient, most people would be better off without the interference of the government, anyway.
But if our only choice is between government borrowing and higher tax rates, the best choice for the future of our children is for the government to borrow the money it needs. Perhaps some Democrats could explain to me how our children are better off if their inheritance is confiscated by the federal government before they ever get to touch a dime of the estate, or in the case of my children, the penny jar, that is rightfully theirs.
While they’re at it, maybe these same Democrats could also explain to me how Social Security is anything but robbing from our children since all of the benefits of Social Security that we will receive will be paid by our children. I have to agree with the Democrats. It really is time to stop using government to rob from our children!
However, increasing the tax obligation of citizens is also robbing from our children whenever government funds are used for purposes not mandated in the Constitution. For the most part, our federal government just needs to reduce spending in order to stop robbing. Americans are unnecessarily over-regulated. We don’t need a rule for every situation. We do need the freedom to be able to make our own choices as long as we are willing to pay the price of our choices while not infringing on the freedom of others. Additionally, government programs are so inefficient, most people would be better off without the interference of the government, anyway.
But if our only choice is between government borrowing and higher tax rates, the best choice for the future of our children is for the government to borrow the money it needs. Perhaps some Democrats could explain to me how our children are better off if their inheritance is confiscated by the federal government before they ever get to touch a dime of the estate, or in the case of my children, the penny jar, that is rightfully theirs.
While they’re at it, maybe these same Democrats could also explain to me how Social Security is anything but robbing from our children since all of the benefits of Social Security that we will receive will be paid by our children. I have to agree with the Democrats. It really is time to stop using government to rob from our children!
Friday, August 11, 2006
Americans will die for liberty
Americans will die for liberty
By Andrew Gimson
Selected Exerpts:
By Andrew Gimson
Selected Exerpts:
We are inclined, in our snobbish way, to dismiss the Americans as a new and vulgar people, whose civilisation has hardly risen above the level of cowboys and Indians. Yet the United States of America is actually the oldest republic in the world, with a constitution that is one of the noblest works of man. When one strips away the distracting symbols of modernity - motor cars, skyscrapers, space rockets, microchips, junk food - one finds an essentially 18th-century country. While Europe has engaged in the headlong and frankly rather immature pursuit of novelty - how many constitutions have the nations of Europe been through in this time? - the Americans have held to the ideals enunciated more than 200 years ago by their founding fathers.
But lest these impressions of the United States seem unduly favourable, it should be added that the Americans have not remained in happy possession of their free constitution without cost. Thomas Jefferson warned that the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots. To the Americans, the idea that freedom and democracy exact a cost in blood is second nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
