(Another Belgrade News editorial from April 22, 2005)
Jim Elliot's editorial is followed by my response:
A couple of days ago the Senate debated a bill that would purportedly provide more health insurance coverage for working Montanans. Whether the bill will work or not, I can’t possibly tell you, because the economics of providing health insurance is not my field of expertise; but what I can tell you is that the arguments pro and con were predictable.
Those for the bill recognized that health insurance coverage and the lack thereof is a major problem in Montana, and that the resolution of the issue needs government interference because the private sector just isn’t making it happen.
Those against the bill admitted that health insurance coverage is a big problem, but one that government needs to stay out of. As I listened to their arguments against this particular bill, I quickly recognized a pattern of tried and true arguments designed to kill a bill emerging: “it needs more study; it’s being rushed through; it’s too complex and I don’t understand it; it might penalizes people who don’t comply, and if it does, then it penalizes them too severely; and it gives too much power to the bureaucracy.” Oh, yeah, I forgot, “it will have unintended consequences.”
Whew! It must be bad if you can say all that about it, one would think, but these arguments can be used against almost any major piece of legislation and are often successful, especially if you can get enough people to repeat them. But the fact is, plain and simple, that the opponents just plain didn’t like the idea in the bill. This sort of argument is an opinion in search of a rationale.
A lot of people, myself included, resort to this kind of argument. Hark back to the reasons you gave your folks for not wanting to do homework (it’s too hard, there’s too much of it, I don’t understand it, and the teacher’s mean and trying to punish me.) Really, all you needed to say is that you didn’t want to do it; but that really doesn’t seem like a very strong argument, does it?
Let me tell you one of the highly technical criteria legislators use when voting on a bill: a “no” vote is easier to explain than a “yes” vote. You can always dredge up some kind of rationale for a no vote that doesn’t take much explanation; but explaining a yes vote often takes work.
In order to get people to vote no, you merely have to create doubt in the legislator’s mind, and that’s done by confusing the issue as much as possible. In order to get a yes vote, you have to present a logical case and a coherent explanation, and that, believe me, can be work. Lobbyists know this and are far better than legislators at obfuscating an issue.
But let me digress and return to the issue that sparked this article—health insurance coverage. Is it a problem? You bet your boots, and everyone knows it is, but they differ in how to handle it. There’s the “free market” approach which states that if government would just get out of the way the problem would solve itself. If that’s true, it is solved already, because we in America have done a very good job at doing absolutely nothing.
One senator went so far as to say that socialized medicine—a fair and accurate name for it—doesn’t work in the long run, which is interesting because Germany has had universal health coverage since 1883. But I guess you could make the case that compared to the infinity of time 122 years is short term after all.
Providing affordable health care coverage for Americans is a major issue, and doing nothing about it isn’t doing something about it. I am on record as saying that I don’t much care how people get the health care they need as long as they get it. I have fielded too many cases of constituents with critical health problems to feel otherwise.
We legislators vote on lots of bills we don’t understand because we take it on faith that key legislators do understand it and support it. Frankly, we watch how they vote and follow their lead.
Temerity in the face of crisis is no virtue. We have done precious little to provide health care coverage for working Americans and a little experimentation is better than sitting on our kiesters and wringing our hands—all the opinions in search of a rationale notwithstanding.
--------------------------------
Sen. Jim Elliott (D-Trout Creek) wrote an opinion column about the problems of health care in a recent issue of Belgrade news (Opinion, April 19).
He wrote, “We have done precious little to provide health care coverage for working Americans.”
Aside from being factually incorrect, it is worth or time to read between the lines. By “we’” Senator Elliott means government. “Precious little” means that government is (or should be) the default solution to every problem in society. “Provide” means to extract as much money as possible from working Americans because the government knows how to spend your money better than you do.
Actually, our government has done way too much regarding health insurance and health care, exacerbating the very problems it attempts to solve. Yes, everyone agrees that health care is a big problem. But we must lay the blame squarely at the feet of government.
Massive government programs, legislation that greatly complicates the administration of health care, and continual intrusions into the free market have only made health care more expensive, curtailed access, and created a paperwork nightmare.
Government created HMOs in the mid 1970s, largely due to the efforts of Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy. Fast forward to today, where HMOs are regarded as the text book example of corporate greed and assembly line medicine. So who is the chief critic? Why, Senator Kennedy of course.
Government created Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP. Government sets the reserving and surplus levels by which insurance companies must operate. Government creates coverage within health insurance policies that didn’t exist until some activist judge “discovered” it.
State insurance commissioners compel insurance companies to provide free coverage in their policies and forbid them from charging for it. Hard to blame the “free market.” There hasn’t been the “free market” for quite some time in this country.
Senator Elliott tries to isolate the issue by referring to working Americans, but there is no way to compartmentalize the effects of government meddling. If government takes action in one area of health care it will affect other areas. If some citizens receive a subsidy, others pay for it through their taxes, and then they pay again in increased health care costs.
When government sets the maximum amount a doctor can charge a Medicare patient, every other patient pays more for their services via cost shifting.
If government mandates some new health insurance coverage, then insurance premiums must go up. If courts decide in favor of a damaged party and award punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages, the party that ends up being punished is not the doctor who made the mistake, but the insurance company that issued the doctor’s malpractice coverage.
Germany has socialized medicine, and it may even work for them. But they also have health care rationing, 11 percent unemployment and some of the highest taxes in the industrialized world. They trail us in every economic category.
Why should we look to them? We are a representative republic, not a socialist democracy. Or at least, our nation was conceived that way. We have tried to implement one socialist program after another, and every one of them has failed, cost more, and/or delivered less than promised.
Why in the world would we want even more of the same? At what point do we set aside good intentions as our justification for these programs and start to consider the results?
In some sense it is admirable that Senator Elliott wants to help. But it is time for some new thinking. Government has yet to solve a free market “problem.”
If Senator Elliott really wants to help, first he needs to assess the issues correctly. He says, “...we in America (meaning government) have done a very good job at doing absolutely nothing.”
He is wrong. Government in America has done a very poor job with the trillions of dollars working Americans have forked over to it for health care “solutions.”
“We gotta do something” is also a poor rationale for proceeding with and ill-conceived plan. Sometimes doing nothing, or perhaps, undoing some things, is the prudent way to proceed.
Senator Elliott, government health care is a failure. Stop spending our money.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Monday, August 20, 2012
California to bail out upside down mortgages
Fox News reports that California is going spend up to $100,000 of taxpayer money to everyone who has an upside down mortgage.
Richard Green, a professor of real estate at the University of Southern California, said, "At the end of the day, you have a choice, do you want to be sanctimonious or do you want to solve the problem. And I want to solve the problem. Is this unfair? Absolutely. A lot of things in life are unfair. But to clear out the inventory in certain parts of the country I think it is necessary to do something like principle reduction."
Presenting a false choice is a typical leftist rhetorical tactic. Your choice, he says, is between being sanctimonious and solving the problem. Supporting the bailout is apparently the only way to avoid being sanctimonious.
Then he adds insult to injury by saying that "a lot of things in life are unfair." What? government intervention into a private financial contract is one of those things in life that is unfair? THAT is his justification for this?
What Richard Green is doing is appropriating the language of the Right. The Right would say that people make their own choices and sometimes they make bad choices. Thusly, it isn't fair that people have to suffer, but life isn't fair.
However, the professor turns it upside down, and suggests that government helping irresponsible people is just fine because, well, life isn't fair.
This kind of stuff drives me up a wall.
Individual giving sounds like liberty to me - Editorial
(Another old Belgrade News editorial from Tuesday, August 24, 2004)
(With thanks to Walter E. Williams) One of the most important rights we possess as a free people is the right to own property. It is a major distinguishing feature of liberty, for if one cannot own property, one cannot possess the right to enjoy the fruits of one’s own labors.
Property ownership includes your land, your stuff, and your pay. But consider: Your paycheck is always considerably less than what you are supposed to be paid. The government takes money from your pay before you even cash your check. Government sets the terms for this transaction, with or without your consent. Therefore, your pay is not what you have earned, it is what the government has decided to allow you to keep.
Government takes money from some and gives it to others to whom it doesn’t belong. This takes many forms, like Social Security, food stamps, welfare, corporate welfare, farm subsidies and bailouts. If the definition of slavery is forcing one person to serve the purposes of another person, then workers are slaves to the government master. It also is theft, in that the money is taken without regard for the opinion of the individual.
There are some among us might respond that this all came about by the democratic process and is quite legal, even desirable. But legality is no guide to morality. An evil act does not become moral simply because there’s been a majority vote. There are many things that have been legal but nonetheless were immoral. Slavery was legal, but it was not moral. South Africa’s apartheid, the Stalinist and Maoist purges, and the Nazi extermination of Jews with the confiscation of their wealth were all quite legal, but were nevertheless immoral.
Some others would cite the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution. Doesn’t Congress have the authority to ensure the general welfare of the nation? Yes, but this much-abused clause does not give them a blank check.
James Madison explained, “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare’, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them ...”.
Thomas Jefferson said, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
In Federalist Paper No. 45, James Madison wrote, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.”
I’ve also spent some time reading the Bible, and I’m pretty sure that the commandment “Thou shalt not steal” does not mean “Thou shalt not steal unless there’s a majority vote.”
And I feel safe in saying that receiving stolen property (that is, the money taken by government from someone else and given to you) is equally wrong.
It would be easy to blame one political party for this, but unfortunately for us, both Republicans and Democrats support this activity. Many Republicans support taking the earnings of Americans and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Many Democrats support taking the earnings of Americans and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one person’s earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients.
However, I want do to be very clear: Charity, compassion, and mercy are noble human attributes. But theft and slavery, whether legalized or not, are evil. Or, to put another way, reaching into one’s own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person’s pocket to assist one’s fellow man is wrong and worthy of prosecution and jail time.
So what should we do? If the government did not help the poor and the sick, what would happen to them? Well, compassion belongs to individual humans, not government bureaucrats. And Americans have shown we are up to the task, for despite the government draining 45 percent of the earnings of workers every single year, Americans are still by far the most generous people on the planet.
So, each individual, moved in his heart to help his fellow man, and unchained from servitude to government priorities, will have the resources to give even more generously, in an amount, at the time, and in the manner they choose.
That sounds like liberty to me.
(With thanks to Walter E. Williams) One of the most important rights we possess as a free people is the right to own property. It is a major distinguishing feature of liberty, for if one cannot own property, one cannot possess the right to enjoy the fruits of one’s own labors.
Property ownership includes your land, your stuff, and your pay. But consider: Your paycheck is always considerably less than what you are supposed to be paid. The government takes money from your pay before you even cash your check. Government sets the terms for this transaction, with or without your consent. Therefore, your pay is not what you have earned, it is what the government has decided to allow you to keep.
Government takes money from some and gives it to others to whom it doesn’t belong. This takes many forms, like Social Security, food stamps, welfare, corporate welfare, farm subsidies and bailouts. If the definition of slavery is forcing one person to serve the purposes of another person, then workers are slaves to the government master. It also is theft, in that the money is taken without regard for the opinion of the individual.
There are some among us might respond that this all came about by the democratic process and is quite legal, even desirable. But legality is no guide to morality. An evil act does not become moral simply because there’s been a majority vote. There are many things that have been legal but nonetheless were immoral. Slavery was legal, but it was not moral. South Africa’s apartheid, the Stalinist and Maoist purges, and the Nazi extermination of Jews with the confiscation of their wealth were all quite legal, but were nevertheless immoral.
Some others would cite the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution. Doesn’t Congress have the authority to ensure the general welfare of the nation? Yes, but this much-abused clause does not give them a blank check.
James Madison explained, “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare’, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them ...”.
Thomas Jefferson said, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
In Federalist Paper No. 45, James Madison wrote, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.”
I’ve also spent some time reading the Bible, and I’m pretty sure that the commandment “Thou shalt not steal” does not mean “Thou shalt not steal unless there’s a majority vote.”
And I feel safe in saying that receiving stolen property (that is, the money taken by government from someone else and given to you) is equally wrong.
It would be easy to blame one political party for this, but unfortunately for us, both Republicans and Democrats support this activity. Many Republicans support taking the earnings of Americans and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Many Democrats support taking the earnings of Americans and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one person’s earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients.
However, I want do to be very clear: Charity, compassion, and mercy are noble human attributes. But theft and slavery, whether legalized or not, are evil. Or, to put another way, reaching into one’s own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person’s pocket to assist one’s fellow man is wrong and worthy of prosecution and jail time.
So what should we do? If the government did not help the poor and the sick, what would happen to them? Well, compassion belongs to individual humans, not government bureaucrats. And Americans have shown we are up to the task, for despite the government draining 45 percent of the earnings of workers every single year, Americans are still by far the most generous people on the planet.
So, each individual, moved in his heart to help his fellow man, and unchained from servitude to government priorities, will have the resources to give even more generously, in an amount, at the time, and in the manner they choose.
That sounds like liberty to me.
Friday, August 17, 2012
The perils of Democracy - Editorial
(Another old Belgrade News commentary from November 5, 2004)
I am convinced that a clear understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by each citizen ensures that liberty will always belong to us. That’s why I was disturbed to read that a local candidate was being accused of wanting to take away our right to vote.
This candidate belongs to the Constitution Party, which advocates the repeal of the 17th amendment. I’m not a member of the Constitution Party, so I am not necessarily trying to defend its positions. However, it is worth the time to examine some history and gain a bit of perspective, rather than simply throwing around uniformed accusations.
We should first attempt to understand the events surrounding the formation of the Constitution to discover the Founders’ intent. The Founders established the House of Representatives as the “peoples’ house.” In fact, this was one of the first provisions of the Constitution, right after the Preamble.
In Article 1, Section 2, we read, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states.”
The next section, Section 3, establishes the Senate: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years...”
From 1787 until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, the Senate was chosen by the states. The 17th Amendment reads, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years.”
As the Founders convened the first constitutional convention, their intent was to bring the “several states” together, yet preserve each state’s autonomy and ensure that the federal government would not usurp the power and authority of each state to regulate its own affairs. Rightly suspicious of concentrating political power, their overriding goal was to establish a severely limited federal government.
Part of the debate during the constitutional convention was centered around how to best give each state a voice in the federal government. Two plans were proposed, Edmund Randolph’s Virginia Plan and William Patterson’s New Jersey Plan.
Randolph wanted Congress to be apportioned according to the population of each state. However, this would give the more populous states greater representation and disproportionate control. Patterson’s plan gave all states equal representation regardless of population. This meant the small states could unify against the larger states to exercise control over them.
This debate ultimately led to what became known as the “Great Compromise,” where two houses of Congress were established. The states were given equal voice in the Senate, but the people were given voice in the House of Representatives according to population.
By the close of the 19th century, the concept of states’ rights had eroded. A movement to establish direct elections of the Senate by the people began to gain momentum. Interestingly, the civil war also contributed to the erosion of states‚ rights. Clearly the civil war was fought to correct the injustice of slavery. But it was the position of the South that the federal government had no constitutional authority to impose its will regarding slavery or any other issue. The South had the right concept, but a really wrong issue.
Happily, slavery died as a result of the civil war, but another casualty was, for all practical purposes, the 10th Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”). This developed into a larger trend to centralize power in the federal government to the point that today states are subject to it rather than vice versa.
That is also why there is a debate today about the electoral college. Direct election of the President by popular vote is a feature of a democracy, not the representative republic the Founders envisioned.
The Founders recognized the fatal flaws of raw democracy and wanted to avoid the inevitable tyranny that results from its excesses. So they struck a brilliant balance between the will of the people and the problems of majority rule.
The issue, then, is not about attempting to take away the peoples’ right to vote, nor is it really about the 17th amendment. It is about the proper constitutional role of government.
It’s about liberty and self-determination. It’s about returning to our roots and the genius of our Founding Fathers, who designed a government to prevent tyranny and ensure freedom.
This is what the Founders intended, and what we must preserve.
I am convinced that a clear understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by each citizen ensures that liberty will always belong to us. That’s why I was disturbed to read that a local candidate was being accused of wanting to take away our right to vote.
This candidate belongs to the Constitution Party, which advocates the repeal of the 17th amendment. I’m not a member of the Constitution Party, so I am not necessarily trying to defend its positions. However, it is worth the time to examine some history and gain a bit of perspective, rather than simply throwing around uniformed accusations.
We should first attempt to understand the events surrounding the formation of the Constitution to discover the Founders’ intent. The Founders established the House of Representatives as the “peoples’ house.” In fact, this was one of the first provisions of the Constitution, right after the Preamble.
In Article 1, Section 2, we read, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states.”
The next section, Section 3, establishes the Senate: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years...”
From 1787 until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, the Senate was chosen by the states. The 17th Amendment reads, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years.”
As the Founders convened the first constitutional convention, their intent was to bring the “several states” together, yet preserve each state’s autonomy and ensure that the federal government would not usurp the power and authority of each state to regulate its own affairs. Rightly suspicious of concentrating political power, their overriding goal was to establish a severely limited federal government.
Part of the debate during the constitutional convention was centered around how to best give each state a voice in the federal government. Two plans were proposed, Edmund Randolph’s Virginia Plan and William Patterson’s New Jersey Plan.
Randolph wanted Congress to be apportioned according to the population of each state. However, this would give the more populous states greater representation and disproportionate control. Patterson’s plan gave all states equal representation regardless of population. This meant the small states could unify against the larger states to exercise control over them.
This debate ultimately led to what became known as the “Great Compromise,” where two houses of Congress were established. The states were given equal voice in the Senate, but the people were given voice in the House of Representatives according to population.
By the close of the 19th century, the concept of states’ rights had eroded. A movement to establish direct elections of the Senate by the people began to gain momentum. Interestingly, the civil war also contributed to the erosion of states‚ rights. Clearly the civil war was fought to correct the injustice of slavery. But it was the position of the South that the federal government had no constitutional authority to impose its will regarding slavery or any other issue. The South had the right concept, but a really wrong issue.
Happily, slavery died as a result of the civil war, but another casualty was, for all practical purposes, the 10th Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”). This developed into a larger trend to centralize power in the federal government to the point that today states are subject to it rather than vice versa.
That is also why there is a debate today about the electoral college. Direct election of the President by popular vote is a feature of a democracy, not the representative republic the Founders envisioned.
The Founders recognized the fatal flaws of raw democracy and wanted to avoid the inevitable tyranny that results from its excesses. So they struck a brilliant balance between the will of the people and the problems of majority rule.
The issue, then, is not about attempting to take away the peoples’ right to vote, nor is it really about the 17th amendment. It is about the proper constitutional role of government.
It’s about liberty and self-determination. It’s about returning to our roots and the genius of our Founding Fathers, who designed a government to prevent tyranny and ensure freedom.
This is what the Founders intended, and what we must preserve.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Health ought to be an inalienable right - Linda Semones
I am posting the letter to the editor, but I need to ask: What can be said in response to this? How can one tender a rejoinder to something so far removed from historical understanding?
I suppose one could set about to systematically refute the various statements offered by the letter writer, but how does one undo the tangled web and then mount an effective case for the actual facts? I submit to you that it is barely possible, given the starting place of the letter writer's understanding. So why bother?
Nevertheless, I will briefly offer some commentary that should help to answer the writer's questions.
There is a fundamental, flawed premise. So once that is dealt with, the rest of the letter is irrelevant. An unalienable right is a feature of human existence that cannot be separated from you by government action. An unalienable right makes no requirement that someone to act on your behalf for its existence.
Therefore, healthcare cannot be an unalienable right. Healthcare is not a feature of existence, it is a something that might facilitate a different level of existence, an enhancement beyond mere life itself. It is a commodity. Something of value changes hands. Providing healthcare is transaction between parties for services, which means someone pays for the service, someone renders the service, and someone receives the service.
There are rights that are established by law from time to time. These are not the same as unalienable rights. A legal right places a burden on someone to perform for someone else. This diminishes the payor and enhances the payee by transferring things of value. And, since the right was established by law (i.e., the action of government), the right can be rescinded by a subsequent action of government.
Therefore, it is not unalienable. Healthcare is not an unalienable right.
---------------
I have a question about this.
How can a person exercise their inalienable right to life when they need a bone marrow transplant and cannot get it because they have no health insurance?
How can a person exercise their inalienable right to liberty when their need for a hip replacement dominates their life with tooth-grinding pain and inability to walk (or sleep or sit) because they do not have health insurance to pay for the surgery?
How can a person exercise their inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness when their children are suffering from a curable illness because they do not have health insurance?
Members of Congress understand this — they have provided themselves with great health insurance!
Hmmm. Maybe Jefferson just meant these rights are just for members of Congress. But that doesn’t explain the “all men are created equal” part, does it? Just wondering.
Linda Semones, Bozeman
Is Communist Manifesto a blueprint for our society? - Editorial
(Old editorial from Belgrade News, Tuesday, May 8, 2007)
Too often, when people warn about Communism or Marxism, they are dismissed as conspiracy theorists or kooks. But if we would take some time to study history, we might start to realize the great strides America has made toward becoming a Marxist country.
Since change is commonly incremental, the average person would hardly notice the gradual slide toward Communism we have been experiencing over the last few decades. Without a frame of reference, we might be pursuaded that we still live in a country of unfettered capitalism, protected personal rights, and limited government.
But this is hardly the case. Allow me to quote from the “Communist Manifesto.” Marx writes, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
This is an increasingly common perspective in our society, where the rich are the source of all our troubles, they are keeping us down, they prevent us from getting our fair share, they hoard their wealth at the expense of the poor and downtrodden.
This is the stuggle between classes, rich vs. poor, workers vs. business. How to alleviate this problem? Well, tax the wealthy. Our government, via the tax code, decides who deserves money and who doesn’t by redistributing wealth.
This practice requires the unstated assumption that a person’s property isn’t really theirs at all. Remember the Kelo decision, where the Supreme Court ruled that a local government can take a person’s home and give it to a private developer who will generate more tax revenue than the homeowner?
Indeed, see what happens if you fail to pay your property taxes for too long. The government will take “your” house and sell it to pay off your tax bill. Marx backs this up: “...the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”
We see evidence of this everywhere. Wetlands laws prevent a landowner from developing his property. Anti-smoking laws presume to tell private citizens what he can do in his business. Helmet laws force motorcycle riders to protect themselves. Building codes force businesses to install handicapped parking and ADA bathrooms. Minimum wage/living wage laws force private parties to pay their employees according to someone’s idea of adequate pay.
Marx likes the idea of a living wage. He writes, “The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e. ... the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer... We by no means intend to abolish this... All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation...”
Clearly a living wage law is a Marxist concept.
So what else would Marx want? This is summed up in ten points from the “Communist Manifesto” (edited for brevity).
• Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
• A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
• Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
• Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
• Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
• Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
• Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State...
• Equal liability of all to work.
• Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
• Free education for all children in public schools.
Interestingly, Marx makes his plea for communism on the basis of the common good, but like most political systems that advocate central governmental control, this can only lead to tyranny and despotism. Surprisingly, this is why some rich people want more government control, because it centralizes power. And power in government can be bought.
The Founders tried to limit the federal government and divide its powers, but they have failed. But Marx is getting his wish, isn’t he?
Too often, when people warn about Communism or Marxism, they are dismissed as conspiracy theorists or kooks. But if we would take some time to study history, we might start to realize the great strides America has made toward becoming a Marxist country.
Since change is commonly incremental, the average person would hardly notice the gradual slide toward Communism we have been experiencing over the last few decades. Without a frame of reference, we might be pursuaded that we still live in a country of unfettered capitalism, protected personal rights, and limited government.
But this is hardly the case. Allow me to quote from the “Communist Manifesto.” Marx writes, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
This is an increasingly common perspective in our society, where the rich are the source of all our troubles, they are keeping us down, they prevent us from getting our fair share, they hoard their wealth at the expense of the poor and downtrodden.
This is the stuggle between classes, rich vs. poor, workers vs. business. How to alleviate this problem? Well, tax the wealthy. Our government, via the tax code, decides who deserves money and who doesn’t by redistributing wealth.
This practice requires the unstated assumption that a person’s property isn’t really theirs at all. Remember the Kelo decision, where the Supreme Court ruled that a local government can take a person’s home and give it to a private developer who will generate more tax revenue than the homeowner?
Indeed, see what happens if you fail to pay your property taxes for too long. The government will take “your” house and sell it to pay off your tax bill. Marx backs this up: “...the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”
We see evidence of this everywhere. Wetlands laws prevent a landowner from developing his property. Anti-smoking laws presume to tell private citizens what he can do in his business. Helmet laws force motorcycle riders to protect themselves. Building codes force businesses to install handicapped parking and ADA bathrooms. Minimum wage/living wage laws force private parties to pay their employees according to someone’s idea of adequate pay.
Marx likes the idea of a living wage. He writes, “The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e. ... the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer... We by no means intend to abolish this... All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation...”
Clearly a living wage law is a Marxist concept.
So what else would Marx want? This is summed up in ten points from the “Communist Manifesto” (edited for brevity).
• Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
• A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
• Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
• Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
• Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
• Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
• Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State...
• Equal liability of all to work.
• Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
• Free education for all children in public schools.
Interestingly, Marx makes his plea for communism on the basis of the common good, but like most political systems that advocate central governmental control, this can only lead to tyranny and despotism. Surprisingly, this is why some rich people want more government control, because it centralizes power. And power in government can be bought.
The Founders tried to limit the federal government and divide its powers, but they have failed. But Marx is getting his wish, isn’t he?
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
The Ryan budget will fail - FB conversation
FB friend S.B. posted this:
Let's see 'em try to spin THESE facts away!
C.K.: When are you going to stop blaming Bush and the Republicans for the stuff they did?
D.C.: @Christopher - when they stop believing and pushing "trickle down" economics.
R.S.: He's absolutely no fiscal conservative. The deficit and the spending trajectory of this country are very serious problems that need to be dealt with. His plan will only contribute to the problem while doing harm to many people.
Me: Ironic given the increase in the national debt since the democrats took over in 2007. Not saying the republicans aren't complicit. However, the debt never seems to be a problem when your guys are doing it.
R.S.: I suspect deficits don't matter UNTIL THEY REALLY MATTER. Hope that doesn't happen.
P.H.: You guys? It's not a f*cking team! WE ALL OWN IT. And it's a SHARED problem. And its going to require a higher level of intelligence, common sense, and sacrifice to fix it. It's a national embarrassment to have one guy (representing an entire party) with a bachelor of arts degree that's 20 years old and never been applied to business come up with an national economic plan that most experts in the field and in economics are saying will absolutely fail (and they no longer being polite about it). I'm going to say it straight out--any misinformed person who thinks that where we are at today is due to the last 3 years has a fundamental lack of understanding about how we got there to begin with. This is just too God-damned important. And peppering the populace with nonsense about building 12 million private sector jobs in 4 years (which is absolutely impossible with the economy we have today using methods that haven't worked even under the Republicans) and implementing Ryan's plan is not the answer. And by the way, THIS opinion does not come from a democrat!
Me: My quandry is if I respond to Ms. Hughes' corrosive diatribe, I will be accused of incivility. Anyway. Ms. Hughes may not have noticed that I said the republicans were complicit. That seems to obviate her first three sentences and sentence #5. Oh, and it really doesn't take a higher level of intelligence to solve the problem. I agree, sacrifice is needed. Greedy government, which has never been denied, needs to be cut off. Just spend less.
And by the way, THIS opinion does not come from a republican.
R.S.: Thinking the deficit problem can be solved simply by spending less is *slightly* naive. The government spends something like 22% of GDP. It takes in something like 15%. Plus the baby boomers are arriving at the starting gates of social security and medicare eligibility.
P.H.: I read the complicit comment and your absolutely right. Bad economics including deregulation within the financial sector started with Reagan and continued a terrible trend by most of the administrations after him (both republican and democrat). I was reacting to the comment about the "irony given the increase in the national debt since the democrats took over in 2007..." and mostly the follow up comment about "you guys." Go check out the historical precedence and what's happens to deficits when the country is at war (that was under Bush). And then factor in 40 years of eroding the matrix of the economy as Wall Street and the Fed took us for the ride of our life. They are still doing it using every instrument they can muster with the latest being the misuse of LIBOR. And then, a country who's unwilling to try and understand the very nature of the problem expects a president (forget who it is) to fix that problem in 3 years is just incomprehensible. I understand strong language is offensive. It's intended to get people out of their stupor.
Me: Thinking that less spending will not work is *slightly* naive, considering that giving them more money has never solved a budget problem. Indeed, SS is already bankrupt and the trust fund is empty, and medicare is unsustainable today, let alone 10 or 20 years from now.
Me: Bad economics did not start with Reagan, it started with FDR. And, my comment was "your guys," which means whoever "your" guys happen to be.
R.S.: Rich, what is coming through loud and clear through your posts is that you think in terms of "us" vs. "them", and Pam and I are clearly one of "them". Equally clear from Pam's posts is that she considers all of us to be in the "us" category. FDR practiced some bad economics, Johnson thought that he could eliminate poverty by simply throwing money at it, and Reagan "unchained" the financial sector so that it can engage in ridiculous shenanigans and then come back to the government to be bailed out when everything comes tumbling down. We have common ground. The choice doesn't have to be between Karl Marx and Ayn Rand. Let's all try to remain in touch with reality. Let's not let our ideologies think that mathematics can be ignored. Let's quit trying to just win arguments by getting in the last word.
Me: Despite me mentioning complicit republicans, and that I am not a republcian, I am the one who is "us vs. them?" Ok, you have your template. Fine. But I note that you have not complained about anyone but me, as if the first two comments on this thread don't exist.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Does God Hate - FB side conversation
T.N.: Hi Rich, I've been very interested in the conversation with E.J.. These things have been very close to my heart, especially in the last year. I very much appreciate your comments in his thread. I feel very disillusioned with the whole charismatic movement, and we've moved in a more Reformed direction this past year. It's a long story. But, I rarely see anyone post anything like what you said. It's very unpopular in the more "emergent" circles, which means it's pretty lonely on this side of things. I LOVE what you said.... all of it. And I totally agree. :0)
Me: Hi! Thanks for your kind words, and for your insights during the conversation. It's a little surprising to see the kinds of opposition rise up for simply discussing a less-popular part of God's revelation. But if you think the God's hate gets peoples' hackles up, you should start talking about the fear of the Lord being real fear!
My journey is exactly opposite from yours. I came from conservative Baptist circles to the charismatic ones. I am looking for a move of God, and I believe in the manifest power of the Holy Spirit in these times.
I'd be interested to know what happened to you. I know I have a tendency to get discouraged at times, but I must hold fast to what I know God has said. Maybe something discouraged you?
Anyway, it's good to connect with you.
Me: Hi! Thanks for your kind words, and for your insights during the conversation. It's a little surprising to see the kinds of opposition rise up for simply discussing a less-popular part of God's revelation. But if you think the God's hate gets peoples' hackles up, you should start talking about the fear of the Lord being real fear!
My journey is exactly opposite from yours. I came from conservative Baptist circles to the charismatic ones. I am looking for a move of God, and I believe in the manifest power of the Holy Spirit in these times.
I'd be interested to know what happened to you. I know I have a tendency to get discouraged at times, but I must hold fast to what I know God has said. Maybe something discouraged you?
Anyway, it's good to connect with you.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Schools need makeovers - Parade magazine
This Sunday's Parade Magazine contained this article on schools falling apart. The obvious question to ask is, why is it tolerable to neglect valuable capital assets like buildings? Failure to maintain and repair school buildings is malfeasance. With the huge sums of money spent on public education, there is no excuse at all to allow school buildings to fall apart.
The only reason school boards allow this is because they know that they can tell a sob story, run a bond election, and pry even more money out of the pockets of taxpayers.
------
THE ABC’s OF SCHOOL MAKEOVERSThe average public school in this country is more than 40 years old—and showing its age. Roofs leak, walls are ridden with termites and lead paint, and rooms are chronically overcrowded. PARADE looks at two communities that remade their schools—and the lessons they can teach all of us.
Written by Barry Yeoman
JUST A FEW years ago, California’s Santa Ana High School looked like it had long outlived its art deco grandeur. The 1935 building was dilapidated, overcrowded, and scarred with graffi ti. Roofs leaked. Sewage backed up in pipes. Some buildings had no mechanical ventilation. The wiring was in “various levels of dysfunction,” says assistant superintendent Joe Dixon. “Computers would go down. Lighting would go down. In the few places where we had air- conditioning, that would go down.” In one building, makeshift classroom partitions forced teachers to shout over one another’s lessons. (What kind of leadership would allow this to happen? Isn't this irresponsible?)
Between the noise and the heat, “it was hard to focus on my work,” says Elvis Carranza, 16, an incoming senior at Santa Ana. “It made me not want to go to school at all.” What’s more, 34 portable buildings (i.e., trailers) had turned parts of the campus into a labyrinth— surrounded by chainlink fencing that, in Dixon’s words, “made it look like if you could get in, you were never going to get out.”
The sad truth is, Santa Ana High was like thousands of other schools across the United States. Talk of fixing American education tends to focus on teacher retention, test scores, and graduation rates—but we often overlook an equally serious problem: crumbling, antiquated facilities that are hostile to learning and depressing to to the the children and teachers who spend many of their waking hours there.
An estimated 40 percent of the nation’s 100,000 public schools are in “bad to poor condition,” according to Glen Earthman, Ed.D., a professor emeritus of educational administration at Virginia rg Tech in Blacksburg, Va. (Nothing short of criminal to run these facilities into the ground without taking proper care of them)
Today, the average U.S. public school is over 40 years old. The 21st Century School Fund, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., that advocates for healthy and safe learning environments , calculates that it would take $271 billion to bring all of those buildings up to a decent standard. (So tell us, what has happened to the many billions of dollars spent on public schools? What has the Department of Education been doing? Where is the money going?)
But some communities have taken matters into their own hands to fund the improvements their kids need. Here are two such success stories. FOR PEOPLE in Santa Ana, a city of more than 300,000 located 30 miles south of Los Angeles, the second-rate school facilities were unacceptable. Many residents are immigrants; they often work multiple jobs and share bedrooms in overcrowded apartments.Twenty-eight percent of the city’s children live in poverty. Yet Santa Ana’s parents have ambitious dreams for their kids.
“They want us to do better,” says Carranza, one of five children of a Mexican-born seamstress. His mother, who as a child often walked past the schoolhouse in her village near Santa María del Oro, Jalisco, but never set foot inside, vowed that her own children would have more opportunity. “My mama always told me that the reason she came here,” he says, “was so we could make something of ourselves.”
Raising taxes (Ah yes, the default solution. The first choice and only choice of Leftists. You will note this is the only remedy offered in the entire article. But there is no correlation whatsoever between expenditures and quality of education, test scores, or graduation rates)
would not be easy in a city that in 2004 was ranked No. 1 for “urban hardship” by the Rockefeller Institute of Government. But in 2008, Santa Ana residents voted two to one for a $200 million bond issue that would improve the city’s 56 public schools.The resulting property-tax increase—less than $100 per year for a modest house—meant collective belt tightening. (Does the Left ever get tired of its antiquated rhetoric? "Gee, it's only $100. Tighten your belt, it's for the children. What are you, cheap?")
“We saw parents picking up recyclables just to make ends meet,” says Maria Cante, the high school’s community and family outreach liaison. But relatively few complained, she says—they knew that better schools would give their children a surer shot at higher education. (Notice the only party that actually cuts back and makes sacrifices is the taxpayer. Despite hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year on public education, they still want more.
TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION IN THE U.S.1 (dollars in billions)
2012-2013 2013-2014
Source of Funds by Level Dollars Percent Dollars Percent
Federal ........................... $76.0 11.4% $78.0 11.4%
State ............................... 277.0 41.3 284.0 41.4
Local ................................ 257.0 38.4 264.0 38.5
All Other......................... 59.0 8.9 60.0 8.8
Total.............................. 669.0 100.0 686.0 100.0
Notice the total public school spending for the 2013-2014 fiscal year is expected to be $686 BILLION dollars. 49.8 million students will be enrolled in public schools. Let's do the math. That's an average of $13,775 per student per year! That's $344,000 for a single classroom! That money is going somewhere, and until where is discovered, no more tax increases!)
Friday, August 10, 2012
The Bible, Slavery, and America's Founders - By Stephen McDowell
07/23/2008
America's Founding Fathers are seen by some people today as unjust and hypocrites, for while they talked of liberty and equality, they at the same time were enslaving hundreds of thousands of Africans. Some allege that the Founders bear most of the blame for the evils of slavery. Consequently, many today have little respect for the Founders and turn their ear from listening to anything they may have to say. And, in their view, to speak of America as founded as a Christian nation is unthinkable (for how could a Christian nation tolerate slavery?).
It is certainly true that during most of America's history most blacks have not had the same opportunities and protections as whites. From the time of colonization until the Civil War most Africans in America (especially those living in the South) were enslaved, and the 100 years following emancipation were marked with segregation and racism. Only in the last 30 years has there been closer to equal opportunities, though we still need continued advancement in equality among the races and race relations. But is the charge against the Founders justified? Are they to bear most of the blame for the evils of slavery? Can we speak of America as founded as a Christian nation, while at it's founding it allowed slavery?
Understanding the answer to these questions is important for the future of liberty in America and advancement of racial equality. The secular view of history taught in government schools today does not provide an adequate answer. We must view these important concerns from a Biblical and providential perspective.
America's Founders were predominantly Christians and had a Biblical worldview. If that was so, some say, how could they allow slavery, for isn't slavery sin? As the Bible reveals to man what is sin, we need to examine what it has to say about slavery.
The Bible and Slavery
The Bible teaches that slavery, in one form or another (including spiritual, mental, and physical), is always the fruit of disobedience to God and His law/word. (This is not to say that the enslavement of any one person, or group of people, is due to their sin, for many have been enslaved unjustly, like Joseph and numerous Christians throughout history.) Personal and civil liberty is the result of applying the truth of the Scriptures. As a person or nation more fully applies the principles of Christianity, there will be increasing freedom in every realm of life. Sanctification for a person, or nation, is a gradual process. The fruit of changed thinking and action, which comes from rooting sin out of our lives, may take time to see. This certainly applies historically in removing slavery from the Christian world.
Slavery is a product of the fall of man and has existed in the world since that time. Slavery was not a part of God's original created order, and as God's created order has gradually been re-established since the time of Christ, slavery has gradually been eliminated. Christian nations (those based upon Biblical principles) have led the way in the abolition of slavery. America was at the forefront of this fight. After independence, great steps were taken down the path of ending slavery - probably more than had been done by any other nation up until that time in history (though certainly more could have been done). Many who had settled in America had already been moving toward these ends. Unfortunately, the generations following the Founders did not continue to move forward in a united fashion. A great conflict was the outcome of this failure.
When God gave the law to Moses, slavery was a part of the world, and so the law of God recognized slavery. But this does not mean that slavery was God's original intention. The law of Moses was given to fallen man. Some of the ordinances deal with things not intended for the original creation order, such as slavery and divorce. These will be eliminated completely only when sin is eliminated from the earth. God's laws concerning slavery provided parameters for treatment of slaves, which were for the benefit of all involved. God desires all men and nations to be liberated. This begins internally and will be manifested externally to the extent internal change occurs. The Biblical slave laws reflect God's redemptive desire, for men and nations.
America's Founding Fathers are seen by some people today as unjust and hypocrites, for while they talked of liberty and equality, they at the same time were enslaving hundreds of thousands of Africans. Some allege that the Founders bear most of the blame for the evils of slavery. Consequently, many today have little respect for the Founders and turn their ear from listening to anything they may have to say. And, in their view, to speak of America as founded as a Christian nation is unthinkable (for how could a Christian nation tolerate slavery?).
It is certainly true that during most of America's history most blacks have not had the same opportunities and protections as whites. From the time of colonization until the Civil War most Africans in America (especially those living in the South) were enslaved, and the 100 years following emancipation were marked with segregation and racism. Only in the last 30 years has there been closer to equal opportunities, though we still need continued advancement in equality among the races and race relations. But is the charge against the Founders justified? Are they to bear most of the blame for the evils of slavery? Can we speak of America as founded as a Christian nation, while at it's founding it allowed slavery?
Understanding the answer to these questions is important for the future of liberty in America and advancement of racial equality. The secular view of history taught in government schools today does not provide an adequate answer. We must view these important concerns from a Biblical and providential perspective.
America's Founders were predominantly Christians and had a Biblical worldview. If that was so, some say, how could they allow slavery, for isn't slavery sin? As the Bible reveals to man what is sin, we need to examine what it has to say about slavery.
The Bible and Slavery
The Bible teaches that slavery, in one form or another (including spiritual, mental, and physical), is always the fruit of disobedience to God and His law/word. (This is not to say that the enslavement of any one person, or group of people, is due to their sin, for many have been enslaved unjustly, like Joseph and numerous Christians throughout history.) Personal and civil liberty is the result of applying the truth of the Scriptures. As a person or nation more fully applies the principles of Christianity, there will be increasing freedom in every realm of life. Sanctification for a person, or nation, is a gradual process. The fruit of changed thinking and action, which comes from rooting sin out of our lives, may take time to see. This certainly applies historically in removing slavery from the Christian world.
Slavery is a product of the fall of man and has existed in the world since that time. Slavery was not a part of God's original created order, and as God's created order has gradually been re-established since the time of Christ, slavery has gradually been eliminated. Christian nations (those based upon Biblical principles) have led the way in the abolition of slavery. America was at the forefront of this fight. After independence, great steps were taken down the path of ending slavery - probably more than had been done by any other nation up until that time in history (though certainly more could have been done). Many who had settled in America had already been moving toward these ends. Unfortunately, the generations following the Founders did not continue to move forward in a united fashion. A great conflict was the outcome of this failure.
When God gave the law to Moses, slavery was a part of the world, and so the law of God recognized slavery. But this does not mean that slavery was God's original intention. The law of Moses was given to fallen man. Some of the ordinances deal with things not intended for the original creation order, such as slavery and divorce. These will be eliminated completely only when sin is eliminated from the earth. God's laws concerning slavery provided parameters for treatment of slaves, which were for the benefit of all involved. God desires all men and nations to be liberated. This begins internally and will be manifested externally to the extent internal change occurs. The Biblical slave laws reflect God's redemptive desire, for men and nations.
Oil prices a free market issue, not a government concern - editorial
(Old Belgrade News Editorial 9/23/05)
I’m not trying to defend the practices or business philosophy of oil companies. I don’t like the price I pay for gas, either. But let’s see the issue more clearly: It is government that causes most of the problem.
Government places huge burdens on oil producers, all of which show up at the pump price and are paid by the consumer, you and me.
There hasn’t been a new refinery built in the last couple decades because of environmental restrictions, thereby limiting supply.
Truckers pay huge amounts of highway taxes to deliver to retailers.
Every company along the distribution chain pays payroll taxes, income taxes, business property taxes, and accountants to figure out these taxes.
Not to mention a full complement of lawyers to needed to fend off lawsuits and interpret a maze of regulations and laws, environmentalists chaining themselves to equipment, and the high cost and uncertainty of developing new sources of fossil fuels.
Myself, I wouldn’t want to be in the oil business.
The problem is the Left places the needs of government front and center every time. They fret over possible lost government revenue, but seem to care little about the pocketbooks of citizens who pay all these taxes.
The Left thinks that because something can be taxed, it ought to be. They seem to be opposed to every initiative that even hints at lowering the financial fingerprint of government in peoples’ lives.
The Left is against lowering gas taxes at the pump because oil companies apparently receive too many tax breaks. You know, the eeeeevil Exxon-Mobil posted record profits, as if the current and possibly temporary success of this company is a bad thing that must be stopped.
Thing is, the legally obtained profit of any company is no one's business. Yes, oil companies might be good at looking out for themselves, but that’s what they’re supposed to do.
They are not formed to serve the interests of government, for charity, or to embrace the current politically correct pop culture fad. Their purpose is to sell a product that people will buy at as high of a profit as possible. If they do not do this, they will fail, and some other company will supply the demand.
This is called capitalism.
The last time I checked, government at all levels received 46 cents in taxes for every gallon of gas sold, in addition to all the costs passed down to the consumer caused by government meddling.
No oil company, distributor, or retailer comes even close to the government’s take. It seems to me that it isn’t the oil companies who are greedy, it’s government.
I don’t need the government to rescue me from businesses. I need it to get out of the way and let the market forces determine what we pay.
We consumers have all the power, as determined by our purchasing choices. That’s the way it should be.
I’m not trying to defend the practices or business philosophy of oil companies. I don’t like the price I pay for gas, either. But let’s see the issue more clearly: It is government that causes most of the problem.
Government places huge burdens on oil producers, all of which show up at the pump price and are paid by the consumer, you and me.
There hasn’t been a new refinery built in the last couple decades because of environmental restrictions, thereby limiting supply.
Truckers pay huge amounts of highway taxes to deliver to retailers.
Every company along the distribution chain pays payroll taxes, income taxes, business property taxes, and accountants to figure out these taxes.
Not to mention a full complement of lawyers to needed to fend off lawsuits and interpret a maze of regulations and laws, environmentalists chaining themselves to equipment, and the high cost and uncertainty of developing new sources of fossil fuels.
Myself, I wouldn’t want to be in the oil business.
The problem is the Left places the needs of government front and center every time. They fret over possible lost government revenue, but seem to care little about the pocketbooks of citizens who pay all these taxes.
The Left thinks that because something can be taxed, it ought to be. They seem to be opposed to every initiative that even hints at lowering the financial fingerprint of government in peoples’ lives.
The Left is against lowering gas taxes at the pump because oil companies apparently receive too many tax breaks. You know, the eeeeevil Exxon-Mobil posted record profits, as if the current and possibly temporary success of this company is a bad thing that must be stopped.
Thing is, the legally obtained profit of any company is no one's business. Yes, oil companies might be good at looking out for themselves, but that’s what they’re supposed to do.
They are not formed to serve the interests of government, for charity, or to embrace the current politically correct pop culture fad. Their purpose is to sell a product that people will buy at as high of a profit as possible. If they do not do this, they will fail, and some other company will supply the demand.
This is called capitalism.
The last time I checked, government at all levels received 46 cents in taxes for every gallon of gas sold, in addition to all the costs passed down to the consumer caused by government meddling.
No oil company, distributor, or retailer comes even close to the government’s take. It seems to me that it isn’t the oil companies who are greedy, it’s government.
I don’t need the government to rescue me from businesses. I need it to get out of the way and let the market forces determine what we pay.
We consumers have all the power, as determined by our purchasing choices. That’s the way it should be.
Does God Hate - revisited, FB conversation
A FB friend posted this:
E.J.: Do you think Jesus put stipulations on loving? Cause sometimes it feels like most people have a hard time loving with the same love Jesus had and has if He hasn't. We paint Jesus with that same brush and think we are being acurate. I really need to learn more about love from the Master. Praying for all those areas that need love in your life, even the hidden unsaid places and needs. May you feel a real, tangiable touch from your heavenly Father and friend this week. Love you! Or at least doing my best...;-)
Me: He certainly did put stipulations on loving. God does not love everyone.
M.S.: @Rich: God does not love everyone??? Who are you saying is excluded??
Me: Tell me what you think of Psalms 5:5, Psalms 11:5, Prov 6:16-19, Hosea 9:15, and Mal 1:2-3.
M.S.: By referencing those verses, it sounds like you're trying to prove that God doesn't love people who sin. We obviously know that that's not true, because if it were, Jesus would never have come, and no one on earth would be saved. "But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were STILL sinners." Romans 5:8
In the Malachi verse, when it says God "hated Esau," it's referring to God choosing Jacob over Esau. It doesn't mean He had no love for Esau, it means Jacob had more favor.
Likewise, in Luke 14:26, when Jesus tells people that in order to follow Him they must "hate their father and mother," etc., he is certainly not telling people to HATE their families, he's telling them to "love their families LESS" than they love God.
The bottom line is the translation. In English they've used "hate," but in the original language and context, it meant other things like, "non-election," "love less," or "rejected."
Me: Just so you know my motives, my intent is not to create a dispute, nor to suggest that you are wrong. I want to discuss issues of faith and belief and in so doing develop a more informed understanding. Especially for me!
I am not trying to prove God doesn't love people who sin. Clearly He does. But he also hates. That is what the Word says, right? Looking up Strong's, it's the same word (8804, to hate, be hateful) used in all cases. The original reference to Esau, which is Gen 27:41 (8799, to hate, oppose oneself to, bear a grudge, retain animosity against, cherish animosity against) is a different word.
Me: In Romans 9:13, Paul quotes the verse about Esau (3404, to hate, pursue with hatred, detest).
It is interesting what Paul goes on to say: "What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.'” Clearly he is writing this to refute someone's errant idea about the nature of God.
Me: So, I'm not so sure I understand God's nature all that well. You might have some better ideas, which is exactly why I posted here.
M.S.: I don't doubt that God hates, I'm just saying that He hates sin.... and not people. Which, if I understand E.J. correctly, is what he was referring to: Jesus not putting stipulations on loving 'people'.... right?
Me: It's an open question for me. I risk trying to force God into a preconception, and one thing I have discovered is that some of the things I believe about God are faulty, something believed because it's what's taught.
1) God loves the world.
2) God hates sin.
3) Is God's love and hate like human love and hate?
4) Do the Scriptures identify people whom He hates, and if so, does that automatically contradict #1?
5) Do the Scriptures ever express a thought like "love the person, hate the sin" or something similar?
6) Is this an "either/or," or can God both love someone and hate them?
These are questions I am considering. I just don't accept the traditional explanations as easily as I used to.
Me: My responsibility, of course, is a different issue. I must love. No exceptions.
E.J.: Do you think Jesus put stipulations on loving? Cause sometimes it feels like most people have a hard time loving with the same love Jesus had and has if He hasn't. We paint Jesus with that same brush and think we are being acurate. I really need to learn more about love from the Master. Praying for all those areas that need love in your life, even the hidden unsaid places and needs. May you feel a real, tangiable touch from your heavenly Father and friend this week. Love you! Or at least doing my best...;-)
Me: He certainly did put stipulations on loving. God does not love everyone.
M.S.: @Rich: God does not love everyone??? Who are you saying is excluded??
Me: Tell me what you think of Psalms 5:5, Psalms 11:5, Prov 6:16-19, Hosea 9:15, and Mal 1:2-3.
M.S.: By referencing those verses, it sounds like you're trying to prove that God doesn't love people who sin. We obviously know that that's not true, because if it were, Jesus would never have come, and no one on earth would be saved. "But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were STILL sinners." Romans 5:8
In the Malachi verse, when it says God "hated Esau," it's referring to God choosing Jacob over Esau. It doesn't mean He had no love for Esau, it means Jacob had more favor.
Likewise, in Luke 14:26, when Jesus tells people that in order to follow Him they must "hate their father and mother," etc., he is certainly not telling people to HATE their families, he's telling them to "love their families LESS" than they love God.
The bottom line is the translation. In English they've used "hate," but in the original language and context, it meant other things like, "non-election," "love less," or "rejected."
Me: Just so you know my motives, my intent is not to create a dispute, nor to suggest that you are wrong. I want to discuss issues of faith and belief and in so doing develop a more informed understanding. Especially for me!
I am not trying to prove God doesn't love people who sin. Clearly He does. But he also hates. That is what the Word says, right? Looking up Strong's, it's the same word (8804, to hate, be hateful) used in all cases. The original reference to Esau, which is Gen 27:41 (8799, to hate, oppose oneself to, bear a grudge, retain animosity against, cherish animosity against) is a different word.
Me: In Romans 9:13, Paul quotes the verse about Esau (3404, to hate, pursue with hatred, detest).
It is interesting what Paul goes on to say: "What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.'” Clearly he is writing this to refute someone's errant idea about the nature of God.
Me: So, I'm not so sure I understand God's nature all that well. You might have some better ideas, which is exactly why I posted here.
M.S.: I don't doubt that God hates, I'm just saying that He hates sin.... and not people. Which, if I understand E.J. correctly, is what he was referring to: Jesus not putting stipulations on loving 'people'.... right?
Me: It's an open question for me. I risk trying to force God into a preconception, and one thing I have discovered is that some of the things I believe about God are faulty, something believed because it's what's taught.
1) God loves the world.
2) God hates sin.
3) Is God's love and hate like human love and hate?
4) Do the Scriptures identify people whom He hates, and if so, does that automatically contradict #1?
5) Do the Scriptures ever express a thought like "love the person, hate the sin" or something similar?
6) Is this an "either/or," or can God both love someone and hate them?
These are questions I am considering. I just don't accept the traditional explanations as easily as I used to.
Me: My responsibility, of course, is a different issue. I must love. No exceptions.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Did God Die On The Cross? R.C. Sproul
I found this article here.
-------
The famous hymn of the church “And Can it Be?” contains a line that asks a very poignant question : “How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?” Is it accurate to say that God died on the cross?
This kind of expression is popular in hymnody and in grassroots conversation. So although I have this scruple about the hymn and it bothers me that the expression is there, I think I understand it, and there’s a way to give an indulgence for it.
We believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnate. We also believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross. If we say that God died on the cross, and if by that we mean that the divine nature perished, we have stepped over the edge into serious heresy. In fact, two such heresies related to this problem arose in the early centuries of the church: theopassianism and patripassianism. The first of these, theopassianism, teaches that God Himself suffered death on the cross. Patripassianism indicates that the Father suffered vicariously through the suffering of His Son. Both of these heresies were roundly rejected by the church for the very reason that they categorically deny the very character and nature of God, including His immutability. There is no change in the substantive nature or character of God at any time.
God not only created the universe, He sustains it by the very power of His being. As Paul said, “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). If the being of God ceased for one second, the universe would disappear. It would pass out of existence, because nothing can exist apart from the sustaining power of God. If God dies, everything dies with Him. Obviously, then, God could not have perished on the cross.
Some say, “It was the second person of the Trinity Who died.” That would be a mutation within the very being of God, because when we look at the Trinity we say that the three are one in essence, and that though there are personal distinctions among the persons of the Godhead, those distinctions are not essential in the sense that they are differences in being. Death is something that would involve a change in one’s being.
We should shrink in horror from the idea that God actually died on the cross. The atonement was made by the human nature of Christ. Somehow people tend to think that this lessens the dignity or the value of the substitutionary act, as if we were somehow implicitly denying the deity of Christ. God forbid. It’s the God-man Who dies, but death is something that is experienced only by the human nature, because the divine nature isn’t capable of experiencing death.
-------
The famous hymn of the church “And Can it Be?” contains a line that asks a very poignant question : “How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?” Is it accurate to say that God died on the cross?
This kind of expression is popular in hymnody and in grassroots conversation. So although I have this scruple about the hymn and it bothers me that the expression is there, I think I understand it, and there’s a way to give an indulgence for it.
We believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnate. We also believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross. If we say that God died on the cross, and if by that we mean that the divine nature perished, we have stepped over the edge into serious heresy. In fact, two such heresies related to this problem arose in the early centuries of the church: theopassianism and patripassianism. The first of these, theopassianism, teaches that God Himself suffered death on the cross. Patripassianism indicates that the Father suffered vicariously through the suffering of His Son. Both of these heresies were roundly rejected by the church for the very reason that they categorically deny the very character and nature of God, including His immutability. There is no change in the substantive nature or character of God at any time.
God not only created the universe, He sustains it by the very power of His being. As Paul said, “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). If the being of God ceased for one second, the universe would disappear. It would pass out of existence, because nothing can exist apart from the sustaining power of God. If God dies, everything dies with Him. Obviously, then, God could not have perished on the cross.
Some say, “It was the second person of the Trinity Who died.” That would be a mutation within the very being of God, because when we look at the Trinity we say that the three are one in essence, and that though there are personal distinctions among the persons of the Godhead, those distinctions are not essential in the sense that they are differences in being. Death is something that would involve a change in one’s being.
We should shrink in horror from the idea that God actually died on the cross. The atonement was made by the human nature of Christ. Somehow people tend to think that this lessens the dignity or the value of the substitutionary act, as if we were somehow implicitly denying the deity of Christ. God forbid. It’s the God-man Who dies, but death is something that is experienced only by the human nature, because the divine nature isn’t capable of experiencing death.
Universal Morality: A Proposition - by Stefan Molyneux
January 26, 2007
Sometimes the greatest plans can be derailed by a single word. One of my earliest articles was entitled "Proving Libertarian Morality," which was my attempt to provide a rational and universal justification for a theory of ethics, and which has proved thoroughly confusing for some people, all because of one single word.
I wrote this article in the first place because it always struck me as odd that we libertarians are fascinated by right and wrong, and pour prodigious effort into arguing that society or people should do this or that, and yet our opinions rarely rest on a universal foundation of ethical reasoning. If pressed, we appeal to "the greatest good for the greatest number," or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or state that economic inefficiencies are bad, taxation is evil, violence is wrong, government power corrupts and so on.
Without strict ethical reasoning, however, these statements remain fundamentally as baseless as "government is good," "social programs help the poor," and "unicorns are pretty." To really change the world, we must present more than just opinions, more than mere assertions. The great challenge in ethical debating is possessing the leverage to radically extend people’s opinions about core moral issues. This is easier than it sounds, since a good philosopher does not change people’s minds, but rather just logically expands the principles they already accept. Newton didn’t change people’s minds about their everyday experiences of the tangible world – he just extended those everyday principles to the universal. The force that drops the apple also moves the moon.
The same is true when debating morality. Have you ever met anyone who argued that murder is the highest moral good, or that rape is a man's best course of action, or that the Golden Rule is: steal everything you can get your hands on, all the time? Of course not. Most people already consider violence and theft to be morally wrong. However, as morality gets more abstract, it gets harder and harder for people to maintain their consistency. I can’t even count the number of times people have agreed with me that "theft is wrong," but who then instantly become baffled when I reply "therefore taxation is wrong." It’s the same with the military. No one has any trouble with the equation: Man + murder = evil. Throw in one little inconsequential variable, however, and most people get very confused. Man + murder + green costume = ?zzttz¿¡[short circuit]um,national hero?
Newton’s challenge was not to convince people that apples fall down, but that the same force that moves apples also moves everything else. Extending the principle of gravity from immediate experience to interplanetary motion is quite a mental feat – and even more is demanded from libertarians! Our real challenge is to extend the moral principles everyone already accepts – thus if we lack a solid argument for the universality of those moral principles, we are unlikely to gain much ground. I believe that our lack of a compelling argument for universal principles is one reason we have made so little progress over the last century or so. If moral rules are accepted (i.e. murder = evil), but universal consistency is optional, we have no real leverage to change people’s thinking. Everyone thinks that apples and planets move according to separate – and probably opposing – principles.
For quite some time, I sweated my brain dry working on this problem. The argument that I came up with was, in essence:
Sometimes the greatest plans can be derailed by a single word. One of my earliest articles was entitled "Proving Libertarian Morality," which was my attempt to provide a rational and universal justification for a theory of ethics, and which has proved thoroughly confusing for some people, all because of one single word.
I wrote this article in the first place because it always struck me as odd that we libertarians are fascinated by right and wrong, and pour prodigious effort into arguing that society or people should do this or that, and yet our opinions rarely rest on a universal foundation of ethical reasoning. If pressed, we appeal to "the greatest good for the greatest number," or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or state that economic inefficiencies are bad, taxation is evil, violence is wrong, government power corrupts and so on.
Without strict ethical reasoning, however, these statements remain fundamentally as baseless as "government is good," "social programs help the poor," and "unicorns are pretty." To really change the world, we must present more than just opinions, more than mere assertions. The great challenge in ethical debating is possessing the leverage to radically extend people’s opinions about core moral issues. This is easier than it sounds, since a good philosopher does not change people’s minds, but rather just logically expands the principles they already accept. Newton didn’t change people’s minds about their everyday experiences of the tangible world – he just extended those everyday principles to the universal. The force that drops the apple also moves the moon.
The same is true when debating morality. Have you ever met anyone who argued that murder is the highest moral good, or that rape is a man's best course of action, or that the Golden Rule is: steal everything you can get your hands on, all the time? Of course not. Most people already consider violence and theft to be morally wrong. However, as morality gets more abstract, it gets harder and harder for people to maintain their consistency. I can’t even count the number of times people have agreed with me that "theft is wrong," but who then instantly become baffled when I reply "therefore taxation is wrong." It’s the same with the military. No one has any trouble with the equation: Man + murder = evil. Throw in one little inconsequential variable, however, and most people get very confused. Man + murder + green costume = ?zzttz¿¡[short circuit]um,national hero?
Newton’s challenge was not to convince people that apples fall down, but that the same force that moves apples also moves everything else. Extending the principle of gravity from immediate experience to interplanetary motion is quite a mental feat – and even more is demanded from libertarians! Our real challenge is to extend the moral principles everyone already accepts – thus if we lack a solid argument for the universality of those moral principles, we are unlikely to gain much ground. I believe that our lack of a compelling argument for universal principles is one reason we have made so little progress over the last century or so. If moral rules are accepted (i.e. murder = evil), but universal consistency is optional, we have no real leverage to change people’s thinking. Everyone thinks that apples and planets move according to separate – and probably opposing – principles.
For quite some time, I sweated my brain dry working on this problem. The argument that I came up with was, in essence:
Is Wal-Mart Good for America? - editorial
(Old Belgrade News editorial, June 11, 2004)
That was the headline on a recent New York Times story. Government officials and others continue to wring their hands regarding the impact of Wal-Mart and other box stores have on our community.
And they think government should do something about it.
However, to suggest that government should evaluate the legal activities of a business and implement policy designed to impact the free market against some businesses and in favor of others is not only incredibly arrogant, it violates the very foundation of our culture and society.
It is those who shop at Wal-Mart who will decide if it’s good for them or not. But those who would legislate peoples’ choice are worried about Wal-Mart’s power. Wal-Mart sells a lot of product, at a price that people are willing to pay.
Apparently, this makes Wal-Mart too powerful.
But what power does market share represent? I am sure that not one of the people who bought their disposable diapers at Wal-Mart was forced to do so. I’ve shopped at Wal-Mart myself, and without exception, everything in my shopping cart was put there by me.
Therefore, Wal-Mart has no power at all.
Consumers, exercising their power and right to choose, make choices that some people don’t like.
I have also shopped at another box store, Home Depot, and they have a lot of good products. But Home Depot does not have everything I want, so I went to Kenyon Noble, Zig’s, and other local building supply stores. All of these businesses offered me something I needed, and I entered into a voluntary exchange with each one.
I valued the products they offered more than my fist full of dollars. They valued my dollars more than the stuff on their shelves. So we entered into an informal contract known as a “purchase,” and exchanged the things we valued less for the things we valued more.
This transaction is not the business of government. It is no concern of mine that some government official doesn’t like my choice.
Another complaint with the box stores is that their prices supposedly put competing stores out of business.
Granting that this is true for a moment, is it any surprise that people shop price?
People also value convenience, selection, service, and their long-standing relationships with the places where they shop. They make choices based on what they value.
A clever business owner knows that he must offer something that people want. A clever business owner also knows that he is not entitled to his customers.
But those who know more than the rest of us regard this as a problem they must solve. The free market is not a problem to be solved, it is the solution to problems.
History is replete with government “solutions” increasing the problems they set out to fix. But the forces of the free market are invariably self-correcting and fluid.
And there are always winners and losers.
This is the way it should be, because no one is guaranteed success.
That was the headline on a recent New York Times story. Government officials and others continue to wring their hands regarding the impact of Wal-Mart and other box stores have on our community.
And they think government should do something about it.
However, to suggest that government should evaluate the legal activities of a business and implement policy designed to impact the free market against some businesses and in favor of others is not only incredibly arrogant, it violates the very foundation of our culture and society.
It is those who shop at Wal-Mart who will decide if it’s good for them or not. But those who would legislate peoples’ choice are worried about Wal-Mart’s power. Wal-Mart sells a lot of product, at a price that people are willing to pay.
Apparently, this makes Wal-Mart too powerful.
But what power does market share represent? I am sure that not one of the people who bought their disposable diapers at Wal-Mart was forced to do so. I’ve shopped at Wal-Mart myself, and without exception, everything in my shopping cart was put there by me.
Therefore, Wal-Mart has no power at all.
Consumers, exercising their power and right to choose, make choices that some people don’t like.
I have also shopped at another box store, Home Depot, and they have a lot of good products. But Home Depot does not have everything I want, so I went to Kenyon Noble, Zig’s, and other local building supply stores. All of these businesses offered me something I needed, and I entered into a voluntary exchange with each one.
I valued the products they offered more than my fist full of dollars. They valued my dollars more than the stuff on their shelves. So we entered into an informal contract known as a “purchase,” and exchanged the things we valued less for the things we valued more.
This transaction is not the business of government. It is no concern of mine that some government official doesn’t like my choice.
Another complaint with the box stores is that their prices supposedly put competing stores out of business.
Granting that this is true for a moment, is it any surprise that people shop price?
People also value convenience, selection, service, and their long-standing relationships with the places where they shop. They make choices based on what they value.
A clever business owner knows that he must offer something that people want. A clever business owner also knows that he is not entitled to his customers.
But those who know more than the rest of us regard this as a problem they must solve. The free market is not a problem to be solved, it is the solution to problems.
History is replete with government “solutions” increasing the problems they set out to fix. But the forces of the free market are invariably self-correcting and fluid.
And there are always winners and losers.
This is the way it should be, because no one is guaranteed success.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
How many apostles were there?
This may surprise some of you, but there were more than 12 apostles in the Bible. Yes of course, there were the original 12:
Why would Peter use the phrase "your apostles," rather than "the apostles?" We would like to suggest that there were apostles in every church, ministering to the local body as builders and encouragers. They might not even have been identified as such, but that was the role they played.
"These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him." Mt. 10:2-4
Then Judas committed suicide and was replaced by Mathias (#13). Then according to the below verses, there were others:
Acts 14:14 “But when the apostles Barnabas (#14) and Paul (#15) heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: `Men, why are you doing this?"'
Romans 16:7 "Greet Andranicus #16) and Junias (#17), my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was."But there's more!
Ph. 2:25 But I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus (#18), my brother, fellow-worker and fellow-soldier, who is also your messenger (apostolos), whom you sent to take care of my needs.
Ga. 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles — only James (#19), the Lord’s brother.
In addition, due to their prominent mention, we might suppose that others, unnamed, might have been apostles.
2Co. 8:23 As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow-worker among you; as for our brothers, they are representatives (apostolos) of the churches and an honor to Christ.
2Pe. 3:2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles (apostolos).
And Jesus Himself is identified as an Apostle:
"Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess." Heb 3:1
It seems that there is evidence that apostleship was (and is} a broader category than we might think. The foundational Twelve, mentioned (though not by name) in Revelation as the pillars of the faith, are unique in stature, chosen by Jesus Himself.
But clearly other men were also apostles, and they were leaders and builders within the church. Though not specifically identified as apostles, we could assume by their prominent mention that these might have been apostles. Notably,
But clearly other men were also apostles, and they were leaders and builders within the church. Though not specifically identified as apostles, we could assume by their prominent mention that these might have been apostles. Notably,
Apollos (1Co. 1:12);In addition, we might add
Priscilla and Aquila (Ro. 16:3);
Titus (Tit. 1:4);
Epaphras (Phile. 23);
Silas (1Pe. 5:12); and
Demetrius (3Jn. 12).
many, if not all, the people listed in Romans 16;So, it it is not unreasonable to conclude that there might have been many more apostles, named and unnamed, with various levels of authority, which means that we don’t necessarily have to conclude that there are no apostles today. In fact, we would assert that there are apostles today:
Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus (1Co. 16:17);
Tychicus (Col. 4:7) as well as many of the others listed in Galatians 4; and
Artemas (Tit. 3:12), as well as the others listed in Titus 3.
1 Cor 12:28-29 "And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues."
Eph 4:11-13 "It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."
The Prophetic Power Of Music - by Rick Joyner
Music is accurately called "the universal language." It is a communication media that can cross almost any geographical, ideological or racial barrier. Music has a unique ability to touch the heart, not just the mind. It is therefore a language of the spirit. Those who know this language and can use it effectively have been entrusted with a potent weapon in the battle for the hearts of men. Anointed music will be one of the church's biggest guns in the battle of the last days.
It is important that we comprehend just how powerful music is as a spiritual force. However, like "the force" in the Star Wars movies, it can be used for both good and evil. As witnessed during the 1960's and 70's, music can prophesy and sustain major sociological shifts. It can also fuel revivals and spiritual awakenings such as it did for the great Salvation Army movement, and the Welsh Revival. The Lord is raising up a host of warriors who are now fighting to seize this music battleground from the enemy and use it for the kingdom. These prophetic minstrels will arrest the world's attention, and communicate powerful truths through song that will help set the course for the last day ministry.
Artists and musicians usually foresee and foretell the social direction of civilization. Likewise, Christian artists and musicians often have the prophetic insight to be in touch with the trends and forces that are impacting the course of the world. Many Christian musicians are finding the courage to press beyond the present limits of their time to help prepare the way for a great spiritual advance.
Music has a significant place in both heaven and in hell. Music has been one of the great spiritual battlegrounds of this century and the battle is increasing in intensity. Many men and women in this ministry are now being given a divine strategy and wisdom for the battle. These are also being used to mobilize those who are willing to fight this battle, and it will be one of the most important spiritual battlefields over the next few years.
The Lord is now placing chosen vessels in strategic positions of visibility from which they will be able to prophesy and help steer this generation toward its ultimate destiny. The ultimate position of the prophetic minstrels is not to just copy the world's style of music and try to do it better while adding Christian lyrics, but to capture the music that the Father loves, which is played in heaven, and transfer it to the earth. This music will be loved by the young and the old alike. It will be so compelling that those of every other musical persuasion will be drawn to it, and every other style of music, from country to the classics, will be impacted by it.
Music was created as a media for expressing our worship to God. Worship can be motivated by either adoration or fear, but all worship is basically a focus of our attention upon the object of worship. It is this power to focus men that has made music such a force in directing even basic cultural changes. If we do not learn to utilize music properly; the enemy will continue to fill the vacuum and use it against us.
The Power Of Worship
Along with capturing the attention and arresting the hearts of men, the coming anointing on music will propel the church to higher realms of worship, which will cause the entire church to more fully abide in the Lord. When the church enters into the higher realms of worship, the result will be a focus and a power that releases extraordinary spiritual advances. The Lord is going to use music to help take all of the light we have been given and focus it like a laser. The more focused it is the more power it will have to cut through any barrier or darkness.
The vision and strategies that the Lord is now giving His church will be put into songs that will help to seal the hearts of the people with those visions. This will not be accomplished just with catchy tunes or lyrics, but with a powerful anointing that will come from the heart of the Lord to grip the innermost being of His people. The sound is important because the harmony of musical sound is meant to be concordant with the tone of the message the Holy Spirit is seeking to convey; but the true power is not in the sound, but the anointing.
This music that the Lord is about to release to His people will be of such power that it cannot be trusted to those who are stilt in the snare of idol, or self, worship. To receive the highest anointing, minstrels must he healed of the spiritual wounds and insecurities that cause them to fall into the idolatry of self-centeredness. This great power can be perverted, which would only result in a greater depravity and corruption of soul. For our own safety, major changes must be made in the way the church is now stewarding her music ministries before the Lord can give this greater anointing-for our own safety.
As a part of the preparation for this great battle, the Christian music ministry will come under a severe discipline from the Lord. We are now in a period of time that the Lord has given to allow all of those who are presently committed to Christian music to repent for allowing the ways of the world to take dominion over their ministries. Those who refuse to repent, or correct their course, will pay a terrible price. The most terrible discipline of all will be to miss being a part of the great thing that the Lord is about to do.
What Propels Us?
Isaiah 33:21 reads, "But there the Lord in His glory will be to us a place of broad rivers and streams, upon which no boat with oars, nor large ships shall pass." "Boats with oars" represent ministries that are propelled by human power. "Large ships" represent what we might call "mega ministries." Neither of these will be allowed when the River of Life begins to flow in these last days.
During the time in which Isaiah wrote, the only other form of propulsion except for oars was the wind. Wind often represents the Spirit in Scripture (see John 3:8). Oars were put on ships and boats because when the wind did not blow, or did not blow from the desired direction, they did not want to wait for it. That may be fine for commerce or warships, but for those who serve the Lord, when the Spirit is not moving, we must not move.
When we do move, we only want to move in the direction that the Spirit is moving. This requires great faith and patience. If we want to inherit the promises. of God; and not just waste our lives on what may be good works, but not His works, we must learn to sail with the wind and be completely dependent upon the Spirit to move us.
If our goal is to be big, or to have great influence, we can achieve that goal and completely miss the will of the Lord. "Large ships" can be useful on the ocean, but the River of Life is a river, not an ocean. In the day of the Lord's glory He will be a broad river, but not one on which "large ships" will be allowed. Even on the broadest rivers, large ships endanger all of the other vessels, and/or block their free movement.
We have been through a period in Western Christianity when we have perceived that the blessings of God upon a ministry were evidenced by size and fast growth. The Lord has blessed many of these, and blessed the church and the world through them as much as He could. However, the day is now upon us when being too large can disqualify us from being able to continue moving with the Lord in His present purposes.
Because the Lord truly desires for all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, He does love numbers. However, there is a limit to the size where churches and ministries can maintain the maneuverability that will be required for following the Lord in the coming times. To have a hundred churches of a thousand people will be better than having a single church of a hundred thousand. We must learn to grow in ways that enable us to maintain our flexibility, or we will grow right out of the will of the Lord. Small “ships” and "boats" that are reproducing others are much to be preferred over large.
Anytime we use such general terms as "large" and "small" we must understand that this definition can change with times and places. What might be considered an excessively large church or ministry in one nation may be small in another. The key words here are "flexible" and "maneuverable." Can we navigate the course we have been given easily, and without endangering others?
What Is Success?
Ministries must maintain the prophetic sensitivity to perceive even the smallest change of direction by the Holy Spirit. The business aspects of being in a "successful" ministry and other such trappings can be such a consuming distraction that we lose the sensitivity that we must have to Holy Spirit. Now is the time to get rid of excess baggage, trim down, and learn not to measure success by how many records or books are being sold, but by how much closer our fellowship is with the Lord.
There is a temporary success available to those who try to build according to the ways of the world. The enemy continues to offer every anointed vessel the world if they will just bow to his ways. This is the way that many do gain the whole world, or the attention of the world, but it will always be short lived, and it will ultimately end in destruction.
This is not at all to imply that all large and visible ministries have grown this way. John the Baptist did not have all Israel coming out to him because of his promotions, neither did Jesus. Neither did the apostle Paul become known throughout the world by self-promotion. Some do gain such visibility in the world because they are anointed, but we do want to be sure that this is how we are doing it. As the Lord stated it, "Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted" (Matthew 23:12). Those who promote themselves, seeking quick success, God will not promote; but those who humble themselves and walk the way of patience will be anointed. "Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper. time" (I Peter 5:6).
The music and the anointing that the Lord is about to share with those who can receive can have unprecedented commercial value, but He will not allow it to be prostituted. Therefore He is not going to trust us with it until we get the process right. The first step toward a repentance that will result in the Lord's endorsement is to return to our first love-worshiping Him. Because all music promotes worship in some form, if our hearts are not right we will pervert the power of this anointing. Our music must promote the worship of the Father, obedience to the Spirit, and the witness of Jesus.
The Church's Responsibility To Minstrels
The church has a responsibility to steward the anointing, and to protect the anointed. Christian musicians must be recognized as true ministers and be spiritually equipped and supported as such. When they go out to minister they should be sent out with prayer and sustained with continual intercession just as any other missionary would be sent out. There is a mighty army of music ministers who are about to given the prophetic power to capture the attention of a generation. A great opportunity is about to present itself to those who have the foresight and courage to recognize it, and steward it faithfully.
It is important that we comprehend just how powerful music is as a spiritual force. However, like "the force" in the Star Wars movies, it can be used for both good and evil. As witnessed during the 1960's and 70's, music can prophesy and sustain major sociological shifts. It can also fuel revivals and spiritual awakenings such as it did for the great Salvation Army movement, and the Welsh Revival. The Lord is raising up a host of warriors who are now fighting to seize this music battleground from the enemy and use it for the kingdom. These prophetic minstrels will arrest the world's attention, and communicate powerful truths through song that will help set the course for the last day ministry.
Artists and musicians usually foresee and foretell the social direction of civilization. Likewise, Christian artists and musicians often have the prophetic insight to be in touch with the trends and forces that are impacting the course of the world. Many Christian musicians are finding the courage to press beyond the present limits of their time to help prepare the way for a great spiritual advance.
Music has a significant place in both heaven and in hell. Music has been one of the great spiritual battlegrounds of this century and the battle is increasing in intensity. Many men and women in this ministry are now being given a divine strategy and wisdom for the battle. These are also being used to mobilize those who are willing to fight this battle, and it will be one of the most important spiritual battlefields over the next few years.
The Lord is now placing chosen vessels in strategic positions of visibility from which they will be able to prophesy and help steer this generation toward its ultimate destiny. The ultimate position of the prophetic minstrels is not to just copy the world's style of music and try to do it better while adding Christian lyrics, but to capture the music that the Father loves, which is played in heaven, and transfer it to the earth. This music will be loved by the young and the old alike. It will be so compelling that those of every other musical persuasion will be drawn to it, and every other style of music, from country to the classics, will be impacted by it.
Music was created as a media for expressing our worship to God. Worship can be motivated by either adoration or fear, but all worship is basically a focus of our attention upon the object of worship. It is this power to focus men that has made music such a force in directing even basic cultural changes. If we do not learn to utilize music properly; the enemy will continue to fill the vacuum and use it against us.
The Power Of Worship
Along with capturing the attention and arresting the hearts of men, the coming anointing on music will propel the church to higher realms of worship, which will cause the entire church to more fully abide in the Lord. When the church enters into the higher realms of worship, the result will be a focus and a power that releases extraordinary spiritual advances. The Lord is going to use music to help take all of the light we have been given and focus it like a laser. The more focused it is the more power it will have to cut through any barrier or darkness.
The vision and strategies that the Lord is now giving His church will be put into songs that will help to seal the hearts of the people with those visions. This will not be accomplished just with catchy tunes or lyrics, but with a powerful anointing that will come from the heart of the Lord to grip the innermost being of His people. The sound is important because the harmony of musical sound is meant to be concordant with the tone of the message the Holy Spirit is seeking to convey; but the true power is not in the sound, but the anointing.
This music that the Lord is about to release to His people will be of such power that it cannot be trusted to those who are stilt in the snare of idol, or self, worship. To receive the highest anointing, minstrels must he healed of the spiritual wounds and insecurities that cause them to fall into the idolatry of self-centeredness. This great power can be perverted, which would only result in a greater depravity and corruption of soul. For our own safety, major changes must be made in the way the church is now stewarding her music ministries before the Lord can give this greater anointing-for our own safety.
As a part of the preparation for this great battle, the Christian music ministry will come under a severe discipline from the Lord. We are now in a period of time that the Lord has given to allow all of those who are presently committed to Christian music to repent for allowing the ways of the world to take dominion over their ministries. Those who refuse to repent, or correct their course, will pay a terrible price. The most terrible discipline of all will be to miss being a part of the great thing that the Lord is about to do.
What Propels Us?
Isaiah 33:21 reads, "But there the Lord in His glory will be to us a place of broad rivers and streams, upon which no boat with oars, nor large ships shall pass." "Boats with oars" represent ministries that are propelled by human power. "Large ships" represent what we might call "mega ministries." Neither of these will be allowed when the River of Life begins to flow in these last days.
During the time in which Isaiah wrote, the only other form of propulsion except for oars was the wind. Wind often represents the Spirit in Scripture (see John 3:8). Oars were put on ships and boats because when the wind did not blow, or did not blow from the desired direction, they did not want to wait for it. That may be fine for commerce or warships, but for those who serve the Lord, when the Spirit is not moving, we must not move.
When we do move, we only want to move in the direction that the Spirit is moving. This requires great faith and patience. If we want to inherit the promises. of God; and not just waste our lives on what may be good works, but not His works, we must learn to sail with the wind and be completely dependent upon the Spirit to move us.
If our goal is to be big, or to have great influence, we can achieve that goal and completely miss the will of the Lord. "Large ships" can be useful on the ocean, but the River of Life is a river, not an ocean. In the day of the Lord's glory He will be a broad river, but not one on which "large ships" will be allowed. Even on the broadest rivers, large ships endanger all of the other vessels, and/or block their free movement.
We have been through a period in Western Christianity when we have perceived that the blessings of God upon a ministry were evidenced by size and fast growth. The Lord has blessed many of these, and blessed the church and the world through them as much as He could. However, the day is now upon us when being too large can disqualify us from being able to continue moving with the Lord in His present purposes.
Because the Lord truly desires for all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, He does love numbers. However, there is a limit to the size where churches and ministries can maintain the maneuverability that will be required for following the Lord in the coming times. To have a hundred churches of a thousand people will be better than having a single church of a hundred thousand. We must learn to grow in ways that enable us to maintain our flexibility, or we will grow right out of the will of the Lord. Small “ships” and "boats" that are reproducing others are much to be preferred over large.
Anytime we use such general terms as "large" and "small" we must understand that this definition can change with times and places. What might be considered an excessively large church or ministry in one nation may be small in another. The key words here are "flexible" and "maneuverable." Can we navigate the course we have been given easily, and without endangering others?
What Is Success?
Ministries must maintain the prophetic sensitivity to perceive even the smallest change of direction by the Holy Spirit. The business aspects of being in a "successful" ministry and other such trappings can be such a consuming distraction that we lose the sensitivity that we must have to Holy Spirit. Now is the time to get rid of excess baggage, trim down, and learn not to measure success by how many records or books are being sold, but by how much closer our fellowship is with the Lord.
There is a temporary success available to those who try to build according to the ways of the world. The enemy continues to offer every anointed vessel the world if they will just bow to his ways. This is the way that many do gain the whole world, or the attention of the world, but it will always be short lived, and it will ultimately end in destruction.
This is not at all to imply that all large and visible ministries have grown this way. John the Baptist did not have all Israel coming out to him because of his promotions, neither did Jesus. Neither did the apostle Paul become known throughout the world by self-promotion. Some do gain such visibility in the world because they are anointed, but we do want to be sure that this is how we are doing it. As the Lord stated it, "Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted" (Matthew 23:12). Those who promote themselves, seeking quick success, God will not promote; but those who humble themselves and walk the way of patience will be anointed. "Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper. time" (I Peter 5:6).
The music and the anointing that the Lord is about to share with those who can receive can have unprecedented commercial value, but He will not allow it to be prostituted. Therefore He is not going to trust us with it until we get the process right. The first step toward a repentance that will result in the Lord's endorsement is to return to our first love-worshiping Him. Because all music promotes worship in some form, if our hearts are not right we will pervert the power of this anointing. Our music must promote the worship of the Father, obedience to the Spirit, and the witness of Jesus.
The Church's Responsibility To Minstrels
The church has a responsibility to steward the anointing, and to protect the anointed. Christian musicians must be recognized as true ministers and be spiritually equipped and supported as such. When they go out to minister they should be sent out with prayer and sustained with continual intercession just as any other missionary would be sent out. There is a mighty army of music ministers who are about to given the prophetic power to capture the attention of a generation. A great opportunity is about to present itself to those who have the foresight and courage to recognize it, and steward it faithfully.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
The Sad Road to Socialism - John Loeffler
Posted: 07/18/2008
The Sad
Road to Socialism
What
happens When Private Property is No Longer a Right
“But if the government undertakes to control and to raise
wages, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to care for all who may
be in want, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to support all
unemployed workers, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to lend
interest-free money to all borrowers, and cannot do it; if .... ‘The state
considers that its purpose is to enlighten, to develop, to enlarge, to
strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people’ -- and if
the government cannot do all of these things, what then? Is it not certain that
after every government failure -- which, alas! is more than probable -- there
will be an equally inevitable revolution?”- Frederic Bastiat, “The Law,” June, 1850
It’s been more than 150 years since Frederic Bastiat wrote
his treatise, The Law, a small work, challenging the ravages of failing
socialism thrust upon France
In that unique pamphlet, Bastiat points out that when the
law of any country supports the moral belief systems of a people, defends the
rights of said people and their property, the law is perceived as being moral;
a defense against evil and those who flaunt it as being immoral. Payment of
taxes and civic obligations are perceived as a virtue and those who flout this
as criminals.
However, when the law becomes a source of plunder or pits
itself in opposition to the morals of the people, the people perceive the law
to be immoral and widely despise it. Indeed, in those times, flouting the law
is extolled as virtue.
Another book by contemporary author Hernando Desoto, The
Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere
Else, points out much the same thing, that the security of ownership of private
property guaranteed by law for the lower and middle classes has been the
essential ingredient resulting in the prosperity enjoyed by many western
countries. Without this security, where the state becomes an impediment to
commerce or property ownership, the people are forced to operate their
economies outside of law, which is once again perceived as evil, rather than a
force for good.
In essence, when a government goes from being a protector of
private property to a plunderer of it, it places itself on a course of chaos,
economic ruin and its own ultimate self-destruction.
The Three
Steps of Socialism
Socialism is the mechanism which transforms government from
its noble role as a protector into a predator and, since the citizens of our
fine country seem determined to plow through socialism to its bitter end, we
should examine the territory through which these three sad steps lead. The core
result of socialism is the destruction of private property and wealth.
The events described in this piece are a composite of the
ravages of socialism experienced in other countries. While each country does
experience all the events portrayed, all socialist countries follow the same
miserable path. The U.S.
We’re Off
to See the Wizard
One of the
great dangers of any government by the people is that sooner or later their
politicians discover they can vote largess from the public trust. Their first
experiment at this bold new adventure invariably revolves around social
programs enacted in the name of morality and the public good or even solving
some current crisis. Who could oppose that? “After all,” it will be argued,
“don’t you care about people, or the welfare of the country, or the
environment?”
The lure of this argument has been absolutely irresistible
from the Roman Empire to the French and Bolshevik
revolutions to Socialist Parties (D) and (R) in the USA
Step One -
The Moral Argument: A Promise of Something for Nothing
The moral argument that we can finally solve poverty, pain,
sickness, and hunger with “free” money seems just to good to be true. It
usually is but it sells to the public. To fund these allegedly moral programs,
the assets of the gentle citizens must be quietly taxed in the name of the
public good.
Only a few wise and isolated voices warn that this baby
dragon they have just hatched will grow up to be a fire-breathing monster. But
not to fear, the wise voices are generally shouted down by the gentle
politicians, who fiercely demonize protestors as selfish “whabbledygots”
blocking the road to the perfect society. After all, how could something so
noble do anything bad to the country?
At first the rich are the only ones asked to pay more of
their “fair share.” In the U.S.
Ah but time rumbles onward, and the number of people
dependent upon these programs swells along with the number of “free” government
programs. Free things do sell, and that’s what politicians want to do: sell
their programs.
As the programs swell, they become unwieldy, requiring large
bloated bureaucracies to administer them to ward off the inevitable fraud and
corruption, consuming an ever greater part of the tax booty and servicing less
to the originally intended recipients. In order to control the chaos of a large
group of people cueing up to get something for nothing, large volumes of laws
and regulations have to be written to control who gets what and where and when
and who the givers and who the takers are. Now, the bureaucrats who administer
these programs are also dependent on them for their livelihoods. This
entrenches the program and assures its progression to Stage Two.
The Magic
Dragon Isn’t Cute Anymore
Somewhere
along the line, the gentle legislators discover that their baby dragon has
grown and it’s snarling at them a lot. It wants much food. They’re not
controlling it; it’s controlling them. However, in order to retain their
prestigious position, ever-increasing sources must be found to feed their
growing rapacious raptor.
The food source (tax burden) shifts rapidly downward into
the middle class, as the gentle politicians coo that only the rich are being
soaked. Concomitant with the increase of taxation, the miracle of hidden
taxation through monetary inflation is discovered as central banks print more
and more money to allow the good times to continue over and above what direct
taxation will allow.
This process of monetary inflation results in debasement of
the currency, causing the citizens to work harder and harder and run faster and
faster to keep up with the loss of their currency’s value and the concomitant
rise of prices. It’s slow at first but accelerates along an insidious exponential
path. Ultimately it destroys everything the middle class works for.
Additional reptilian food sources called “revenue streams”
are created. More fees, fines, “mitigation payments” and permits are required
to do almost anything, driving the cost of doing everything upwards. Coupled
with this is a bewildering array of regulation and laws making the business of
life more and more difficult to accomplish. Big businesses can absorb this but
the middle class ultimately buckles under the strain. The dragon is never
satisfied.
Stage 2:
Silent War Between Government and Its Citizens
At some point, the unwashed masses suspect their politicians
aren’t really gentle any more much less benevolent. This is where a silent war
between government and people erupts. It’s a blurry transition through
never-never land when the politicians still claim to be gentle but the people
sense that they have gone from being protectors of the public good and private
property to a plunderers of it; from morality to immorality.
The “Bastiat” transition doesn’t take place all at once but,
one by one, members of the working class realize they’re toiling like mad and
getting no where. What they do make is confiscated in taxes or destroyed in
inflation. They have little left over and their life’s savings are being
destroyed while the politicians tell them all is just fine, creating cognitive
dissonance between the hardship workers experience and the good times the
politicians promise.
But those friends of the dragon on the dole still insist the
dragon’s intentions are moral, even if its methods are not. As tax rates push
ever higher into confiscatory ranges, self-preservation kicks in and the people
take defensive action against what they no longer perceive as moral duty but
legally-sanctioned plunder. They do this at the same time they pretend the
gentle politicians are correct even though they know better.
The rich catch on and move their assets offshore and
sometimes themselves out of the reach of the dragon; they expatriate. They have
the means to structure their finances in such as way as preserve wealth.
Besides, the politicians are frequently among this class so they aren’t about
to let the dragon loose on themselves.
Unfortunately, the middle class doesn’t have this option, so
it fights the dragon by engaging in evasive maneuvers. Citizens cheat on taxes,
and seek to conceal taxable assets. Whenever possible transactions are shielded
from the ever-prying eyes of the hungry dragon.
As the ravages of taxation and inflation eat out the middle
class’s substance, a vibrant underground economy springs up, utilizing barter,
cash, foreign currencies, precious metals or other means to conceal taxable
activity. Regulatory laws are flouted as people try to “see what they can get
away with.” Often times this underground economy has an organized crime
component vis a vis the former Soviet Union .
The second half of Stage Two of the war kicks into gear as
the dragon responds to the rising opposition and imposes a growing panoply of
laws and regulations with increasing fines, penalties and prison sentences. To
block the rampant flouting of law, the dragon wants to monitor everything the
citizens do in order to assure that plunder shall be paid, all in the name of
the rule of law, public order and morality. Civil rights break down, all in the
name of morality and public security.
Every once in a while the beleaguered middle class pleads
with the gentle politicians to fix the problem, unaware that it was the gentle
politicians, who created it all in the first place. But politicians are more
than happy to be seen as dragon slayers, and create a series of scapegoats for
the problem, transferring blame for the mess and enacting a new series of
programs to supposedly fix the problem. In reality, they just delay the pain,
put the dragon on steroids and making the problem far worse.
The war is not without casualties. As it becomes ever more
difficult for small businesses to function in the poisoned atmosphere of taxes,
fees, fines, regulations and prosecutions, more of the middle class throws up
its hands and goes elsewhere or becomes part of the the dependent poor. Small
business goes out of business or operates illegally. As inflation devours life
savings, people are wiped out. Retirees have a difficult time getting on as
their lifetime achievements are destroyed. Most of the middle class slides
inexorably down the slope into poverty.
There is a moral consequence as scandals erupt in the
politico and monied classes. Disrespect of law is common. In the free-for-all,
everyone is in it for himself and no one can afford to obey the law. Jails
swell with those unfortunate enough to get caught. As more complex laws are
steadily passed, finally all citizens become law-breakers.
This enables the dragon to seek pretexts for seizing the
assets of citizens. Businesses are nationalized. Wage and price controls are
instituted. Property ownership is forcibly transferred from those who oppose
the dragon to those who support it. Retirement plans are brought under the
“protection” of government and their owners left with government-issued IOUs.
Assets are seized on the mere allegation of criminal activity. Indeed, law
enforcement agencies encourage their members to plunder. They even make
arrangements with organized crime at times. The list of plunder-and-defend
possibilities is astounding.
In an effort to stem the hemorrhage, the middle class starts
throwing out the rascal politicians, only to elect another group of rascals.
This has little effect, since the dragon is now a self-existing monster that
doesn’t require gentle politicians. By this stage it’s clear: Small and middle
class businesses, ranchers and farmers all know who the enemy is: the dragon.
There is no illusion that the politicians are gentle or acting in their best interests.
As the security of property ownership declines, investments
flee and the economic environment becomes unstable, no one wants to invest
where earnings will be heavily taxed, or even the possibility of direct
confiscation on the allegation of having violated a plethora of unknowable,
unobservable laws. Doing business is just too dangerous.
As doing business becomes dangerous, investments die, jobs
go out of existence, increasing the pain of the working lower and middle
classes. Small business is always the primary creator of employment and it is
the most abused. In the end, the rich are never soaked, the middle class is
destroyed and the poor discover that there is no free lunch.
Stage
Three: Dies Irae: A Day of Wrath and Mourning
Ultimately the dragon cannot keep its promises. This last
stage is where events turn nasty and chaotic. It is a dangerous time. It is a
time no country should ever wish to reach.
Politicians are perceived as ravenous wolves. Blame and
finger-pointing frenzies among politicians erupt to deflect responsibility for
the chaos they have caused as they attempt to hold onto their privileged
status.
Faith in government dissolves along with faith in the
currency. Widespread flouting of law is common and tax payments quit. If it
gets bad enough, crime flourishes, both organized and random. The domestic
economy collapses into a depression and the currency just collapses.
By this time there are several violently outraged groups of
people: the first group consists of those who have been dependent on the dragon
for their free programs, and once the dragon reneges on its promises to provide
these, they are outraged at the violation of their imagined rights to a free
lunch. This group can include pensioners who paid the dragon money but discover
the dragon spent it all before they retired.
The second group is the middle class, who have been beaten
to death to feed the dragon and his cronies. They have lost all their
livelihood and property. This is the point where many revolutions occur.
Sometimes the revolutions are non-bloody and occur only at the voting booths;
sometimes they are bloody and violent. It is a dangerous time because the chaos
caused by the breakdown of economic and political order coupled with the
collapse of morality often requires brute force to restore order, and brute
force is the fertile ground for dictators and the destruction of rights.
One of the great ironies of history is that those who
started the mess and benefitted greatly from it are rarely ever called to pay
for the crimes and carnage they caused.
Finally the dragon dies.
Conclusion
No country trapped in socialism goes through all the events
described above, which is a composite of past histories. It can turn itself at
any time providing it is prepared to discipline itself the undergo the pain
required to get off the public dole, much like coming off an addiction. Few
societies ever want to face that, so they condemn themselves to all three
stages. And the longer they wait to enact the necessary changes, the worse the
pain becomes.
From currency, to energy to property rights, issues today
are clouded with so much static and partisan bickering that the average person
has little real comprehension of what is happening. Frequently Democrats and
Republicans blame each other when often they’re both responsible and fiddle
while Rome
Thus it is up to what actions are moral, legal and necessary
to see us, our families and friends safely through the tempest. But as a ray of
hope, it is here where Americans in times past have always shown themselves
most noble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)