Great quote on conservatives and liberals

From David Boaz's article on Hillary Clinton:

Many conservatives want to be your daddy, telling you what to do and what not to do, and many liberals want to be your mommy, feeding you, tucking you in, and setting your curfew. But the proper role for the government of a free society is to treat adults as adults, responsible for making their own decisions and accepting the consequences.

The article also talks about how Hillary, and many others, want the government to push parents out of the way when it comes to raising children.

An attempt at a balanced view of the Bible and economics

Dan has a post about Jesus on Economics and Religion, which has many good verses on not being obsessed with wealth or material things. To be sure, verses like this motivates his and other liberals' views on the government and our economy. Let's say that we want the government to be involved in helping the poor (I am more about private efforts but I am speaking as a moderate here). Let's look at a few other verses.


"6 Go to the ant, you sluggard;
consider its ways and be wise!
7 It has no commander,
no overseer or ruler,
8 yet it stores its provisions in summer
and gathers its food at harvest.
9 How long will you lie there, you sluggard?
When will you get up from your sleep?
10 A little sleep, a little slumber,
a little folding of the hands to rest-
11 and poverty will come on you like a bandit
and scarcity like an armed man. " Proverbs 6:6-11

" 6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

11We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. 13And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.

14If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother." 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15.

Now, what is my point? Am I saying that poor people are lazy? No, not at all. What I am saying is this. If we are trying to develop a government that follows God's commands about helping the poor, we should also take into account other verses that warn about idleness and laziness. In my view, we don't want a government that can discourage people from making a living and encourage them to depend on the goodness of the government.

Some people believe that it is better to be safe than sorry, to do a little more than needed than do to little, and maybe they are right. At the same time, it can be detrimental to do too much. People need food and clothing, but they also need a life of dignity, to work and be useful to people, and to provide for their family.

I think the call of Christian living in relation to wealth is two-fold: give of yourself, but at the same time, earn your own bread.

Can analogies between God and sex be taken too far?

In Sunday School we are currently studying Song of Solomon through the Tommy Nelson series. I like the book of Song of Solomon because it plainly illustrates that love between a man and woman, including sexual love, is from God. When one properly understands the analogies, the book is quite erotic.

I like the Tommy Nelson series because it calls the book what it is. It doesn't try to say how "breasts" really refers to Moses and Aaron or the Law and Grace or any stuff like that.

No doubt, the passion between a man and a woman can also be a symbol or metaphor for the passion between God and the church. Nevertheless, maybe I am just immature, I need to grow up, whatever, but I get uncomfortable when they draw the analogies too closely. In another study we did, the Abiding Life, Michael Wells states that in the same way a man plants his seed in a woman, the Holy Spirit plants a seed of truth in us.

Again, maybe I just need to grow up, but can't sex just be sex? I don't want to think of my relationship with Christ in quite the same terms as my relationship with my wife.

My final four picks

Just in case I happen to be right in my picks, I want to prove how brilliant I truly am.

Final Four:

Oregon
Pittsburg
Georgetown
Ohio State

Oregon will beat Ohio State.

There it is.

Shouldn't Progressives Love Billionaires?

In my last post Michael commented"If what it takes to get such a society is that no one earns a billion dollars, fine. We don't need billionaires, but we do need basic life and human flourishing for all."

Here is my question. If you have a progressive tax system, isn't having a few billionaires a good thing?

I know that capitalism (or an economic system tilted towards capitalism) has many criticisms from liberals, such as destruction of the environment, worker conditions, substandard wages, etc... And maybe I am going after a strawman here, but it seems that liberals fear the massive accumulation of wealth, or they see it as unfair. However, if we have an economic system in which wealth accumulation is possible, yet it is taxed and given to government programs, isn't that better than a regulated economy in which less overall wealth is possible?

It seems that for something to be given away, whether through the government or private means, money must be earned. So isn't the existence of wealth a good thing in a progressive society?

Thoughts on capitalism

Many people detest capitalism because they claim greed is inherent in the system. After all, the motivation of each person is their own self-interest. However, do people not do the same in socialism? Yes, capitalism does allow for greed. People can accumulate large amounts of wealth and pursue the almighty dollar.

However, in a socialist/progressive society, people try to attain things, only through other means. Instead of attaining material goods through commerce, however, they do so through the arm of government. They vote for people who promise them more things. They vote to raise taxes on other people's earnings.

Greed can work in both systems. However, a greedy person in a capitalist society will fight to earn and keep more money. In a socialist system, a greedy person will fight to make more money, but they will try to do so through other people.

One may say that the goal of a progressive/socialist society is to only give people their basic needs, not unnecessary material goods that a capitalist society promises. But, I think the goodness of people is given way too much credit. People are not satisfied with the "basic needs" in any type of economy. I don't think 3 years paid maternity leave is a basic need. I don't think having a job where it is almost impossible to get fired is a basic need either.

I am personally not a fan of Adam Smith's, Milton Friedman's, or Ayn Rand's justification for capitalism. Their view is that everyone's self interest makes the world run smoothly. I don't see capitalism as a success because it is propelled on people's self-interests, I see it as so because it mitigates the harmful effects of people's self-interests. In a lawful capitalist society, people accumulate wealth through mutual transactions with other people. In a socialist/progressive society, people accumulate wealth through taxing other people and making others do things for them.

Because I haven't talked enough about this topic

I was taking part in a discussion on another blog and someone said essentially that people are entitled to a life with purpose because they are made in God's image.

Here's my question.

In what image is man (or woman) created when they are in the womb? Are they created in the image of something else before they are born? Do they have the image of God only after they leave the mother's womb?

Can Christianity be more than safe?

Originally posted at my friend Josh's site, Gabbatha.

There's a local Christian radio station in town that has the slogan "Safe for the Whole Family." I suppose the slogan is apt, because many songs on secular radio nowadays is not suitable for children, and really, for that matter, adults. At the same time, I don't know if I like the slogan, because of the word "safe." This is not to knock the radio station or its advertising, even though I like my Christian music with a little more kick than you typically find on the radio. At the same time, however, Christian music is more about being "safe", it's about glorifying God. I see the same with the perception of Christianity in general. It's more about being "safe", don't do this, don't do that, eat your green vegetables, etc... Christianity is supposed to be an adventure. Look at Paul or Isaiah or most of all, look at Jesus. These people were slain for their beliefs or for who they were. I don't think Jesus had a permanent address and often said things to get Himself into trouble. These people lived lives that were hardly called "safe." I believe that many people today who truly live their faith can often live lives that are uncomfortable. The fact that I do not receive many challenges because of my faith is something that convicts me.

I love the part in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, in which Lucy, a hero of the story asks Mr. Beaver if Aslan (the lion and an image of Jesus) if Aslan is safe.
Is Aslan wild? "‘He’s wild, you know. Not like a tame lion’" Is Aslan safe? "‘Safe?’ said Mr. Beaver; ‘don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you’"

Jesus said in John 10:10 "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly." Now, when I hear abundant life, I don't imagine a safe life, but a life lived to the full in Christ.

The book Wild at Heart by John Eldredge focuses on the idea that being a Christian man is not about being "safe", but about longing "for a battle to fight, an adventure to live..." Eldredge has a similar book called Captivating designed for the Christian female.

And again, I know I am reading much more into the radio slogan "Safe for the Whole Family" than is warranted, I just think "safe" is a word that is used too often in describing Christianity.

Not that my Christian walk is really "adventurous." If anyone needs to take these words to heart, it's me, and I have to figure out what it means to live a life that is not "safe." These are just some thoughts I had. What are your thoughts?

More on the alliance of pro-lifers and anti-contraceptionists

In my last post I touched a little bit on the alliance of pro-lifers and people who are opposed to the use of contraceptives, and Michael had a few helpful inputs as well that led to this post.

I have no beef with people who think contraceptives are morally wrong and/or that natural family planning is the best way to go. I think there are many people helpful to the pro-life movement that are also against contraceptives. However, I do worry about people who align their reasons for being against abortion with their reasons for being against birth control.

In my mind, there are two approaches to the pro-life issue. One of these I call the "conservative" argument, which may be a misnomer as many conservatives use what I call the "libertarian" argument, which I will touch on next. The "conservative" argument says that abortion should be outlawed simply because it is bad. Abortion should be outlawed for the same reason that many people think tattoos are outlawed, or any other thing that is morally wrong. And many people using this "conservative" argument truly believe abortion is equal to murder, but I don't think they frame their argument effectively.

The other argument is what I call the "libertarian" argument, and it is one that I frequently like to use. They try to tackle the women's rights, or the "my body, my choice" approach by addressing the "rights" arguments head on. Many libertarians state that a woman does in fact have the right to do what she wants with her body, but that she does not have the same right over another body, the fetus. But many conservatives can use this argument also, even if they don't necessarily believe in libertarian politics. They can use the argument that libertarian policies don't even apply, as another body is involved. Those employing this argument look at the abortion issue not as an issue of enforcing morality upon others, but a prevention of women enforcing their morality on the fetus. In fact, Neil Simpson's blog and the Christian site Stand To Reason are not exactly libertarian sites, but they are sites that add fuel to the "libertarian" argument in that they address the rights of the fetus.

In my view, the "conservative" argument simply takes the loss when it comes to the argument of women's rights. They may focus on abortion as a grave evil that should not be allowed, rights be damned. The "libertarian" argument recognizes the issue of rights, but simply believes that the fetus's right to exist negates or overcomes the right of the woman to expel the fetus. The "conservative" argument simply states that abortion is wrong, but the "libertarian" argument focuses on why.

Back to the anti-contraceptive movement (I am not trying to use a negative term, if someone has a more positive term, like pro-NFP (natural family planning) I can use that term). I feel that the NFP argument represents the least effective aspects of the pro-life movement, such as outlawing abortion simply because we are not supposed to do it and/or because the Bible says so. The NFP movement has nothing to do with the life of the fetus, but has much to do with someone's opinion of what is right and wrong and whether or not someone is "playing God" with science. In my view, the least effective side of the pro-life movement doesn't deal very much with whether the fetus is human or not, simply that abortion is evil, and that someone should not "play God" with science. The NFP argument states that children are a blessing and that one should not use science to plan families, as many pro-lifers argue.

However, I think the "libertarian" arguments are more effective when it comes to pro-life persuasion. These arguments do not rely on the Bible to convince people that abortion is wrong, and they don't throw in things such as how children are a blessing and how someone shouldn't use science to plan a family. They don't use notions of morality primarily owned by conservatives to make a point. What they rely on is scientific and philosophical reasons that are more common to everyone. They tackle the "rights" issue head on and address how the abortion issue is simply not one affecting the person choosing to have it, but one affecting another being of equal worth. In short, these arguments address the personhood of the fetus.

The most powerful arguments in favor of the pro-life movement focus on this personhood and that abortion ends a life. NFP doesn't have those same arguments. When pro-life and pro-NFP arguments are coupled, in the view of pro-choicers it looks as though (not saying this is true) pro-lifers aren't so focused on the life of the fetus but that they are simply moral busybodies telling others what to do.

I think if someone believe contraceptives are evil they should say so, and to my knowledge there is not a big drive by NFP people to outlaw contraceptives, like pro-lifers try to do with abortion. Nevertheless, the alliance of the arguments can undermine the effective of the pro-life one. The focus of the pro-life movement needs to be the personhood of the fetus and any additional arguments that keep this from being the forefront need to be kept separate.

Update: I'm not sure I liked the way I categorized the pro-life arguments. Probably a better way would be arguments focusing on the personhood of the fetus and arguments focusing on everything else. I tend to think of the former in a libertarian context because I first found the argument on Libertarians for Life.

This post is not focused on abortion, I promise

I think I've said enough about that topic for a while, but I wanted to touch on bioethics in general. I've done a little bit of surfing on prolifeblogs.com and I've noticed that many of the contributors are anti-contraception, and that a significant number of pro-lifers are anti-contraception. Now, if they want to make it illegal, that is not clear, but many regard it as immoral.

I myself have no moral issues with artificial contraception, but I have entertained some of the arguments against it. One of the arguments is that one is "playing God" by using birth control. But that's where things get confusing. Is using birth control worse than simply using natural family planning (planning times of intercourse throughout the month)? What about sex that doesn't involve intercourse? Doesn't that produce the same affect?

This "playing God" argument is indeed fascinating, and it is taking on more weight as science advances in the area of cloning, and especially as gender selection becomes more possible ( I did a Google News search and no articles seemed to stand out, although I thought I recalled seeing a commercial where they say this is now possible). We are gaining new ability to control human life.

Here is my theory. I don't want to say I believe it is a law of nature, as one may be able to point out exceptions, but here goes. I believe that God will prevent or discourage us from doing things one of two ways, and this application is most notable in the area of biotechnology. 1) He will make it scientifically impossible, or 2) Tell us not to do it through His Word. In other words, God provides scientific laws and moral laws. We cannot travel through time because of scientific laws, and we should not, for instance, use science to torture or kill people because of God's moral law.

With this theory, we can cut through a lot of confusion. At what point do we "play God"? Look to the Bible. (I am talking about the morality of science, not the legality ) If the philosophical argument against a certain area of technology has a foundation in the Bible, then it is legitimate. I believe the Word can provide clear boundaries of where we should and shouldn't go in science. If one cannot find a scriptural admonition, then I believe we can go as far as God will physically allow us in the realm of science.

That is why I have the opinions on birth control and abortion that I do. I believe abortion is immoral because it ends a life. I am okay with birth control because it does not end a life, and I don't think people have a moral obligation to take a chance at creating life every time they have sex. People have used the Bible to produce credible and reasonable arguments against birth control, but they are not sufficient in my view.

What about issues such as cloning and gender selection? The idea that we can create another being seems to undermine the role of our Supreme Creator. I think this is an instance where we will actually be limited by science. I believe God intended for life to only be produced by the union of man and woman (even if it is reduced to groups of cells as in the case of sperm-donors), and I am not sure it will be possible for humans to create another human being on their own. What about gender selection? It is something that personally bothers me, and my personal moral sense is opposed. However, I don't see anything in the Bible giving us limitations. This is an instance of where the principle may take us on paths we may not like. I can't oppose something simply because of my own personal feelings.

So, in short, when it comes to science, I believe God provides either scientific or moral boundaries on where we should go.

Just when you thought technology could not get more advanced...

I just got the five-blade Gillette Fusion for free in the mail. I thought the 3-blade razor was something. Then I was totally astounded when they came up with 4-blades. On one razor! Let me tell you, it is at least 5/3 as good as my Mach 3! If you use 4 blades or less for your shaving, you are obviously a dinosaur and belong in a museum.

Why do we blog?

I topic I often talk about is economics, primarily, to what level the government should get involved. I also debate economic issues with other people on this blog or on others' blogs.

Questions of economic philosophy are the hardest to debate. Not only are these issues extremely complex, but they quite often are tied to the core of who we are. Debating economic issues can be fruitless. I was talking to a guy on another blog who thought that people in communist Russia really were not that bad off and that Chavez isn't doing such a bad job in Venezuala. Now, I am not making fun of this person, I am just pointing out that he is on the totally opposite extreme of where I am. Any debate is pointless.

And that got me thinking, what is the purpose of blogging in the first place? For many, it is an outlet, just an expression of personal thoughts. What about those who post on political topics (such as myself), or heated theological ones? Are we posting on these issues to persuade others? To provide understanding? To simply put down our ideas on paper?

I have written on many political topics, and many times I am not sure why. Am I trying to convince others of my point of view? Or is it just a way of putting down thoughts in my head?

I think this question is important because it can determine our satisfaction with the blogging experience. If I focus too much on persuasion, well, if I don't persuade anyone, then it can lead to frustration. I can put an emotional investment on making others see my point of view, and when they don't, it can lead me to be aggravated at the experience and/or them. Debating can simply becomes arguing.

However, I think I can still try to write persuasively, because, well, it comes with writing on controversial topics. But persuasion cannot be my ultimate goal. I have to be satisfied with simply providing understanding of my viewpoints. And I think that is where blogs and similar forums are effective. If we don't agree, we can at least understand why others believe the way they do, whether it be politics, theology, or the NFL Draft. Understanding others' viewpoints is vital because it can show that they can basically have a good heart or pure motives, they just see a different way to achieve a common goal, or they simply prioritize their goals differently. This is what I was trying to touch on in my post about if we all want the same things in politics.

5 things I haven't mentioned before, that are not necessarily true

The previous post lists 5 things about me that are true.

1. My skullet is now shoulder length.

2. I survived the mean streets of Oklahoma through my mad rapping skills and my ability to solve non-homogeneous differential equations using infinite polynomials.

3. I think more people need to listen to L. Ron Hubbard.

4. I made Chuck Norris cry.

5. My favorite group is not U2, but the Zack Attack.

I tag Josh, and anyone else who wants to participate.

5 things I haven't mentioned before

I was tagged by Josh. Some of his entries inspire my own.

1. Similar to Josh, a friend and I randomly drove from Stillwater, Oklahoma to Kansas simply because we were bored. I don't remember what town it was. (Perhaps the seed of libertarian thought was planted. I saw a tattoo parlor over the state line and wondered why Oklahoma didn't (at the time) allow tattoos)

2. Similar to Josh, I have slightly obsessive compulsive tendencies. Whenever I saw a number, I used to add up the digits to see if it was divisible by 3. I don't do that anymore.

3. Whenever I talk about music on my blog posts, I mostly talk about U2. They are my favorite group, but I'm also quite fond of The Beatles. At least the music. I'm not into their new age philosophies and such. I think the White Album and Sgt. Peppers are brilliant (I tried looking for another word, as I didn't want to sound like a pretentious person throwing around adjectives commonly used by Brits to describe things they like, but oh well).

4. I'm mentioned it on Josh's blog, but not here, but I've known Josh since Kindergarten, and went to school with him 9.5 out of 13 years (and 3 different schools at that).

5. Most people know I'm a Christian, but specifically, I am non-denominational. Theologically, I am closest to Baptist, but I also believe in certain things emphasized by charismatic branches, such as the ability to speak in tongues, spiritual warfare, etc...

I tag, I suppose anyone who reads this and wants to participate.

Parents vs. the government

Thanks for the comments on my last post. Josh posted the following comment.

Chance, I think you know my stance on this, so I'm not even going to go there. An incredible inconsistency was shown last week in the Texas Legislature.

If you have time, read this article.

How come when it comes to this new vaccine, the conservative parents think that they have the right to say whether or not their daughter gets vaccinated? Isn't this a stem of "my body, my choice"? The opposite is also true of liberals who are completely for the government stepping in and mandating the vaccine. Shouldn't they also be for the government ban on abortion?

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm taking sides in the above paragraphs, but I think that the inconsistencies should be pointed out.

I'm curious as to Jefferson's definition of the word "created" in his opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Considering his spiritual stance and the culture of that time I have my guesses, but I'm really not sure.

I hope you don't mind me taking the podium on your blog, but I have a question:

Where does it stop with the government saying what we should or shouldn't do as parents or possible parents? Abortion... Vaccination... should these be viewed as separate matters or lumped into the same category.

I'm sure many are going to say that I'm comparing apples to oranges, and to be honest, it does somewhat sound like I am. What I'm arguing is the principle of the matter.

Any post that gets me opening my fat yap is a good one. This may be one of your best.

I can't wait for your response.

The central question is "Where does it stop with the government saying what we should or shouldn't do as parents or possible parents? Abortion... Vaccination... should these be viewed as separate matters or lumped into the same category."

I do disagree with Perry's decision. I think it is up to the parents to decide on medical treatment. I think I would allow for an exception if there was a highly dangerous and contagious disease going around at the time, but I think that is an emergency situation warranting special circumstances.

Concerning your question as our rights as parents, it may be one of the most important of our time. I typically support a high degree of parental sovereignty. That is, I think a parent should raise them with pretty much any philosophy or religion they want to. After all, because of the First Amendment, we cannot enforce any type of religion, which means that we have to leave it up to the parents to teach whatever religion they want to their children. If we are willing to entrust the single most important matter to parents, why not trust other areas of life as well?

One issue fueling my libertarian viewpoints is the erosion of parental rights, as the government becomes more involved in raising our children. I think it is (ultimately) up to the parents to teach their kids about sex and life in general. That's why I support methods of school choice because I think schools should be an extension of the parents in raising kids, not in contradiction. I also see it as the parents' responsibility as far as medical care, therefore I disagree with Perry here.

Where I draw the line is when it comes to abuse, or as I state in no uncertain terms, abortion. I think spanking should be allowed as I do not consider that abuse.

The line is not always clear, I admit. What if a girl did have cancer, but the parents chose not to treat her? What if the treatment was almost guaranteed to help, or what if the treatment was miserable and most likely useless, and the parents just wanted to enjoy the last days with their daughter? What if the parents can't afford to feed their kids. So, where the line belongs is not clear. But that does not mean there is not a line. In my view, parents should not be allowed to beat or kill their kids. Also, kids need to be fed, so I do support the state stepping in on certain cases there.

A conversation on abortion

With the diversity of political beliefs on this blog, I am always hesitant to post on abortion. It is an issue I am passionate about, but I know it is a very heated subject, and I don't want to make the atmosphere of this blog too serious. However, as with any topic, it is helpful that both sides understand each other.

I was visited Neil Simpson's blog, and he had a post regarding Barack Obama's position on abortion. A pro-choice commenter posted a comment here . (Note, no offense against the commenter, but I know many pro-choicers can be more considerate and diplomatic in their comments, this is not the typical commenter, but just one slightly overcome by emotions, as I can be).

Here is Neil's response, along with mine.

The gist is this. Pro-lifers such as myself believe that the fetus is a person. Therefore, any talk of personal freedom or "my body, my choice" in reference to abortion falls on deaf ears. Because we believe the fetus is a person, we do not believe other people, whether it be a person shooting a pregnant woman, or the mother herself, has the right to harm the fetus. We do not believe there are any significant scientific factors that separate a fetus from a born person. If pro-choicers want to convince me that abortion should be legal, they need to quit the "libertarian" arguments, especially since I have libertarian viewpoints on many things. The crux of the argument is whether or not the fetus is a person. If the fetus is not, then the libertarian argument would follow that abortion should be legal. If the fetus is a person, then the libertarian argument would demand that abortion be outlawed.

Again, the purpose of this point is not pro-life proselytizing, but to simply point out the central issue of the debate. And no, I don't think there are two classes of humans, as people who opposed women's right to vote and abolition of slavery often argued.

I am Dr. Doom

Your results:
You are Dr. Doom

Dr. Doom 40% Green Goblin 36% Lex Luthor 32% Mr. Freeze 32% Riddler 29% Kingpin 27% The Joker 26% Venom 24% Apocalypse 22% Magneto 20% Mystique 16% Dark Phoenix 15% Catwoman 15% Juggernaut 12% Poison Ivy 11% Two-Face 0%

Blessed with smarts and power but burdened by vanity.

Click here to take the Supervillain Personality Quiz

I found this quiz at AndrewOlmsted.com

In politics, do we all want the same things?

I was in a blog discussion one time when someone asked if we all want the same things. That's an interesting question, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, etc all have their own ideal version of society. Is it that we all want the same things, but we just have different ideas how to get there?

Well, yes and no.

To illustrate my point, let us talk about the war on terrorism. Now, no one wants terrorist attacks, and we all want a safe society. In fact, ideally, we would have a completely safe society. However, where we differ is what trade-offs we want for a safe society, and how we prioritize this safety. Conservatives are typically more aggressive on the War on Terror, typically willing to sacrifice some civil liberties on the matter, as long as it keeps people safe. Liberals and civil libertarians, however, have been more cautionary the past 5 or so years and have emphasized the civil liberties aspect of the war on terror. It's not that they do not want a safe society, no one wants another attack, but they do not think our safety is worth a complete erosion of the freedoms we had in the first place.

I tend to depart somewhat from my conservative brethren. I am not saying I agree completely with the liberals and civil libertarians in all instances, but I do think it worth heeding caution and balancing our freedoms vs. our protection. It is not so much an issue of what policies I agree or disagree with, I see it more as an issue of attitude.In my view, conservatives can often put too much emphasis on protection without considering the costs in basic freedoms.

Again, it's not that conservatives want to prevent terrorist attacks and others don't, it is just that other groups tend to view protection measures in light of the issue of civil liberties.

So let's look at the issue of government programs and commerce. Liberals favor the regulation of commerce and the abundance of government programs to ensure that people have their basic needs. In a sense, they want a measure of safety for people when it comes to their groceries, health care, etc... And these are noble goals for the liberals.

Let's look at conservatives and, and their more extreme counterpart in the economic arena, the libertarians. Conservatives don't want people to starve. They don't want people to be poor. In fact, many conservatives want some government programs to avoid leaving people in the gutter. There are a few parts to the conservative/libertarian approach.

First of all, they believe that voluntary programs are generally more effective, and that too many government programs can do more harm than good. It's not that they don't want help for the poor, but that the government is not actually "helping" people in many cases. They believe helping the poor should be primarily (or completely in the case of some libertarians) the role of private charities. And Christian conservatives at least, back that up on a personal level.

Thirdly, as with the terrorism issue, they believe that the existence of programs should be measured in light of the loss of economic freedom. Now, many liberals may roll their eyes at the phrase "economic freedom", because it can often mean, simply having more money, less taxes, etc... I don't quite mean that in this case. What I mean is an allowance of opportunity. I was always raised with the idea that one of the reasons the U.S. is great is because it is a land of opportunity. People can start with nothing and make a name for themselves, whether it is being a scientist, a sports star, a businessman, etc... That notion always captivated me, and I grew up with the idea that literally, I could do anything, that there was no limit to my success. And I do not speak about success in monetary terms, but just in terms of having a goal and being able to go about it.

I believe that too much government in the area of commerce can limit this opportunity. By attempting to go for safety, we lose not only freedom, but our safety as well. We've seen societies that try to attempt a completely secure environment as far as people having enough to eat, having a guaranteed job, etc.. and it was disastrous. If someone wants to set up a hot dog stand, or become a plumber, or do someone's nails, they should do so with as little interference as possible. I am not saying there should be no regulations, I just don't think people should have to jump through bureaucratic hoops to make a living for themselves. People often complain that the poor have to take a low-wage job for some rich corporation and a jerk boss, well, to help with that problem, let us make it easy for people to start on their own. And let us also make it easier for people to be hired that do work for someone else.

Concerning the existence of government programs, I don't think people should have guaranteed groceries. People need to grow up with the idea that what they have costs something. It is not their entitlement, someone had to work to produce that food. I am not saying eliminate food stamps, but there is a wide line between a) having a few food stamps or free school lunch programs (like my wife received for a while) and b) having guaranteed groceries for everyone. It is not that I don't want people to have food on the table, it is just that I think such a program is an actual detriment to society. By fighting for so much safety when it comes to people's needs, I believe we make it worse for everyone.

So, in short, no, we don't want the same things. We want what is best for our country, but we disagree on exactly what that is. Again, we can respect the goals of other sides. Wanting a society safe from terrorism is noble. Wanting a society where people have their basic needs is noble. However, fighting terrorism can lose sight of its purpose if we no longer have any freedom to defend. Fighting poverty can lose its purpose when we make it harder for people to get out from under poverty.

How many kids should we have?

Last October I had a post about environmentalism and how there are two major views, one being that we should be cautious on using up the earth's resources, and one that the world was designed by God to have enough resources till the end of the present age. I mentioned in the post that

1) Humans are not parasites. Some of the more extreme environmentalists - not the norm - would be happy if most of the population was wiped out, due to consumption of natural resources. I will say that I do not believe overpopulation is a problem. Granted, one should not have more kids than they can feed, but God says "be fruitful and multiply" and He does so without qualification. Yes, the "subdue the earth" is without qualification as well, but we subdue the earth for resources, and one can argue that these resources are limited, so we do not subdue it as much. The point is, "subdue the earth" is open to more interpretation; "be fruitful and multiply" is less so. Anyway, humans should never, ever be seen as a liability, and I believe that any measure to discourage population growth encourages this viewpoint.

I don't simply want to nag on a point, but this is something that has been on my mind, and there was an interesting discussion primarily between Dan and I on the population issue. I had mentioned that people who have many kids tend to be less materialistic, but I just wanted to reiterate that I don't think the converse statement is necessarily true: that people who have fewer kids are more materialistic. I'm saying that previous sentence is not necessarily true.

I still stand by my belief that as long as we can afford to feed our kids, it is okay to have as many as we want. Dan argued that this should apply to a global scale as well, because globally we are supposed to be running out of resources, and that we should consider the amount of children in light of those issues. I don't know how to answer that, as I have little knowledge of sustainability issues. However, I still don't believe people who choose to have 5 or 6 kids are doing anything wrong. As I said previously, God said to "be fruitful and multiply", and He was addressing humanity in general. If God came to me directly and said "Hey Chance, be fruitful and multiply", I would have at least 3 kids. (I am not saying everyone should have more than 2 kids, because I think God's command in Genesis was to humanity in general, and I don't think people are sinning for not having children.) Psalms says that

4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are sons born in one's youth.

5 Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them.
They will not be put to shame
when they contend with their enemies in the gate.

Anyway, as I said, I don't have any logical argument against the overpopulation issue, I just don't think that people are doing anything wrong than having X number of kids. I have a coworker who has 5 children; I don't think he is sinning. Also, he has to continually make material sacrifices because of his 5 kids. He's not the type of person environmentalists have to worry about. Care for the environment and our resources is noble, but I'm afraid it can cause us to look at human beings as nothing more than consumers of natural resources.

I suppose this hits home for me because I have my first child on the way. To me, she is more than just a consumer of natural resources. If I want 7 more (which I don't) then I'm going to have them.

I am a wretch, and you are too

I frequent the Cato Blog, and this post by David Boaz, the president of Cato, got my attention. It describes how the song came about, which I think I had heard before but forgot. The opening paragraph grabbed my attention.

Amazing Grace is a beautiful song, but I’ve never been entirely comfortable with it. I didn’t like that line “saved a wretch like me.” I don’t think I’m a wretch. Nor are most of my friends.

It is the discomfort caused by that line that makes the song so powerful. Many times, the biggest obstacle to understanding why we need Jesus Christ is the failure to recognize our own sinful nature. Sure, many of us are not child molesters or murderers, but we still fall short of God's standard. David said

All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.

Strangely enough, I was thinking about that post and the song while driving to work, and the song "Grace like Rain", by Todd Agnew, came on my iPod. It's a great remake of the original "Amazing Grace."