A Biblical View of Economics

A Biblical View of Economics by Kerby Anderson, Director of Probe Ministries International.

As the website states, "Probe Ministries
Probe's mission is to present the Gospel to communities, nationally and internationally, by providing life-long opportunities to integrate faith and learning through balanced, biblically based scholarship, training people to love God by renewing their minds and equipping the Church to engage the world for Christ. "

A pretty good site from what I've seen. It's a Christian site; it has some political articles, as the one I linked to here, but it has a wide variety of articles, and is hardly devoted to just politics.

This article deals with the moral issues surrounding economic systems. It takes the fallen nature of man as a given, and it focuses on the system that minimizes the sinful effects of man. As the article states

Since the Bible teaches about the effects of sinful behavior on the world, we should be concerned about any system that would concentrate economic power and thereby unleash the ravages of sinful behavior on the society. Christians, therefore, should reject state-controlled or centrally controlled economies, which would concentrate power in the hands of a few sinful individuals. Instead, we should support an economic system that would disperse that power and protect us from greed and exploitation.

I agree (no surprise), but not just with their conclusions, but with their approach. No economic system can ascribe value to mankind. We should assume that man is sinful and greedy, and look at the system that minimizes the affects. While I do not support greed, in a more socialist system, people of greed attain more money typically through government actions, such as transfer payments. In a capitalist system, people who are greedy have to attain their money by providing services to others.

The article also focuses on pure economic criticisms, which include the question of monopolies and the issue of pollution. In Anderson's view, monopolies are the result of "too little government and too much government", with the latter being primarily responsible of late. He believes government should take action to break up monopolies. I don't know what to think of this currently, because I have also heard arguments that the free market naturally regulates against monopolies, but I have not done enough research in this area.

Concerning pollution, the author sums up my believes exactly.

The second criticism of capitalism is that it leads to pollution. In a capitalistic system, pollutants are considered externalities. The producer will incur costs that are external to the firm so often there is no incentive to clean up the pollution. Instead, it is dumped into areas held in common such as the air or water.

The solution in this case is governmental intervention. But I don't believe that this should be a justification for building a massive bureaucracy. We need to find creative ways to direct self-interest so that people work towards the common good.

I agree with this view. I believe that the free market is not sufficient to regulate the environment, but the environment should be regulated within reason.

The moral critique Anderson focuses on is that of greed, which is really the kicker for many people, and the primary Christian concern regarding capitalism.

Anderson states

Because people are sinful and selfish, some are going to use the capitalist system to feed their greed. But that is not so much a criticism of capitalism as it is a realization of the human condition. The goal of capitalism is not to change people but to protect us from human sinfulness.

Capitalism is a system in which bad people can do the least harm, and good people have the freedom to do good works. Capitalism works well if you have completely moral individuals. But it also functions adequately when you have selfish and greedy people.

Anderson also differentiates between selfishness and self-interest and states "It is in our self-interest to accept Jesus Christ as our savior so that our eternal destiny will be assured." Now, such a heavy statement takes further examination, but I'll just through that in for now. Concerning socialism, he states

By contrast, other economic systems like socialism ignore the biblical definitions of human nature. Thus, they allow economic power to be centralized and concentrate power in the hands of a few greedy people. Those who complain of the influence major corporations have on our lives should consider the socialist alternative of how a few governmental bureaucrats control every aspect of their lives.

Anderson states very affectively what I have been trying to say. There are selfish people in a capitalist society and a socialist society, but in a capitalist society, these selfish people have the power to do less harm. In theory, I honestly like the idea of socialism, where people are provided with the basic needs, such as food, shelter, and these days, oil. But history, in my view, as shown that this does not work out as planned. Socialism assumes that all the bureaucrats in charge are moral people. Capitalism allows for greedy people in charge of major corporations, but our interactions with them are more optional.

This is a huge issue, and Anderson cannot possibly address every concern, and I certainly cannot. I think the relationship of Christianity with the proper economic system is an interesting and important topic that should continually be discussed among Christians.

Reggie Bush not the number one pick!!!

Well, the news is out. NC State Defensive End Mario Williams will be the number one draft pick, chosen by Houston.

I'm totally surprised that Houston is passing on Bush, and I wonder if the fans will be angry. I know many fans wanted Houston native Vince Young, but were probably not terribly dissapointed when the person in his place was expected to be Heisman trophy winner Reggie Bush. Is Williams a good choice? I'll leave that up to the analysts to decide. I respect Houston for not going for the popular decision.

It's surprising with all the offensive talent, one super-hyped running back and three hyped quarterbacks, that a defensive end is going first. I'll be interested to see if Leinart actually falls out of the top 10, some experts say they don't expect it, but it's a possibility.

Now, I'm not actually going to watch this thing. For one, I don't have cable, and for another, I can simply look online.

More on gas prices

I know I have been talking a lot about gas prices lately, but its on the news so much, I felt like talking about it some more. Also, there was an interesting discussion on another blog I visit about the morality of oil companies being able to set their prices. I think this is a good discussion, and if that person happens to see this post, I'm not hammering on your opinions, I think its a good discussion that I want to talk about on my blog. This discussion has seemed to take a slightly different direction than on the other blog, however.

Sure, with capitalism there is a concern about a company being able to set their own price. This is where competition comes in. Competition is what regulates unmitigated greed. It is a sort of checks and balances. The more a company charges higher prices and tries to own the entire market, the easier it is for another company to come in.

Now, there is concern that with mergers and such, that there is not sufficient competition, and this is a legitimate concern. Right now it is very difficult for a company to simply start up their own oil company. This can be made easier by decreasing regulations and taxation on refineries built. This is not to say that environmental regulations concerning pollution should not be respected, however, but there is a lot of red tape before anyone even considers the environment.

However, even with fewer regulations, starting up oil companies is still a costly venture, and I'm not going to say straight-faced that the only thing preventing more oil companies from popping up is governmental regulations. Maybe it is, but I don't know enough about it to make such a claim.

As gas prices go up, however, I believe there will be a push for alternative fuels. I personally do not support government measures to push towards alternative fuels (tax breaks, subsidies to car/oil companies, etc...), because I think that people's motivations to save is a sufficient impetus for the market. For example, I don't need a tax break to buy a hybrid car; I will already be motivated based on the money it saves me, if that is the case. If I decide the costs and benefits of a hybrid car is not worth it, it soon will be if the cost of gas climbs. Same with gov't standards for fuel efficiency. Companies are already motivated to build fuel efficient cars for customers who want to save on gas money. Sure, right now people are still buying SUVs, but there will be a breaking point eventually where people decide it is just not worth it.

So, maybe the oil company competition is not satisfactory, but there will be, I believe, increasing competition from outside the oil industry as mentioned above, and decreased demand through conservation methods.

Many complain about how much a CEO makes with such huge spikes in gas prices. The CEO's salary for Exxon last year was $38 million, out of 36.1 billion made, so his salary was about .1% of the total profit. Assume that gas is $3.00, $2.50 before taxes, with a 10% profit around $0.25. If the CEO worked for free, it would reduce that profit of $0.25 by 1%. So, the price of gas would be reduced from $3.00 to $2.9975.


Of course, there is still the other 36.062 million in profits. Now, nevermind the fact that anyone with a few extra bucks can invest in the oil companies themselves. People invest in the oil company to make money; with no promise of profit, oil companies cannot obtain the capital needed to operate. As the Cato Institute article in my previous post states: "Who would want to park their money in an industry like that? [with windfall profit taxes] If investors were discouraged from putting their money into the oil sector, where would the capital come from to put more oil and gas into a resource-starved market? "

Now, if one wants to claim that the oil companies are charging too much, that's a fair judgment, but one must consider that oil companies are competing with any other publicly owned companies in the promise of returning a profit. Also, this goes back to my statement that how much an oil company can charge is limited by competition. But, as I mentioned earlier, there is concern about sufficient competition in the oil industry, and this is a fair concern. Currently though, oil companies profit margins are not outrageous (around 10.7%), and the fact that gas prices have gone up more than this amount leads me to believe that much of the price surge has been other factors, other than shareholders wanting to make more profits.

Perhaps the toughest point to debate is the fact that oil is not really a luxury, and therefore should be less subject to market forces. While oil companies make less in profit margin than say Apple Computer, Citibank, Yahoo (again, referred to at Cato), oil is a necessity, whereas an internet search engines, a computer, or a credit card are more as a luxury.

This concern really lies at the heart of capitalism vs. socialism, that is, should basic necessities be guaranteed, or at least, be handled some way by the gov't so that people have easier access to it. This is not an either/or situation, where one has to go one way or the other. Many will claim that there is a balance in between. But the question of what to do with basic necessities is fundamental, not because someone must choose the side of Socialist or Capitalist (as I sometimes forget), but because how they feel about the question can often be indicative of how they feel about the free market and the government's role in the economy as a whole.

People who lean to the far right economically, such as myself, ultimately believe the free market can produce the goods better than a more government-controlled economy. The possibility of making oil a more socialized commodity may have the initial promise of being more accessible and maybe even guaranteed to everyone, but economic conservatives and libertarians believe that ultimately this is not the case, that a free market ultimately makes a good more accessible to everyone. This belief is based upon empirical evidence in comparing everyday market goods and services to those provided by the government, and through the belief that people's drive to make money will motivate them to do a better job in providing services (this second argument is more of a slippery slope because I do not believe that greed makes the world go round, as some objectivists believe).

Dow was highest since January 2000 this past Thursday

According to USA Today's Thursday, April 27 issue, The Dow was the highest since January 2000. I'm curious what type of news coverage this gets. I've been watching a lot of CNN lately (its all I get where I'm at currently), and I haven't seen anything about it.

The thing with the immigration debate is...

...How do you decide who to let in and who to boot out? Obviously, we should not let people in who are a threat to this country. So, as unfair as it sounds, we should not let a huge influx of people in from Afghanistan or Iraq, Iran, etc...

But what about the others? Do you base it upon numbers, letting in so many people per month/year? How do you differentiate between those let in and those who are not?

For right now, I support open borders to peaceful immigrants, perhaps giving them a certain amount of time to find a job.

I would be curious though what ideas other people have, that is the best I have for right now.

Concerning the language issue, there is the issue with kids in schools, and with people out and about in the outside world. I would not say that adult immigrants necessarily have to learn the language, they just need to understand that not everyone is going to be able to accomodate them. They need to understand that their inability to speak language will affect them in getting a job or ordering a hamburger. I have a "door-swings-both-ways" philosophy. I don't care if you speak your own native tongue, just do not expect me to speak it as well.

The school issue is a trickier one. I suppose public schools should have teachers and classes for Spanish-speaking students, with the ultimate goal of having them learn English. Perhaps this is how its done now, but I would not be surprised if some schools handle Spanish-speaking students with no expections of teaching them English.

Concerning those currently in our borders illegally, perhaps Bush has the right idea. Many conservatives think he is being way too soft, but I think simply hauling back a ton of illegal aliens is unenforceable. And, let's be honest, having a softer approach to immigration will help the Republicans with Hispanics in the long run. That may sound tacky, but I say that so fellow conservatives won't give Bush such a hard time, and part of politics is fostering relationships.

The Minimum Wage

Walter Williams explains why the minimum wage is not a good idea.

Let 'em play

I usually don't find libertarian-minded, or even political, articles on a sports website, but here goes. I think Dan Wetzel makes a lot of sense.

With the moving truck's brake lights still freshly glowing, questions abound whether Reggie Bush's family received use of a house – a house! – from a would-be middle man/marketing guy.

If true, it does beg another question: If Michael Michaels – who owned the $757,000 home, as Yahoo! Sports Charles Robinson first reported – didn't sign Bush, then what did agent Joel Segal and marketer Michael Ornstein do to get him?

Nothing? Anything? Everything?

At this point in the long history of dealings between sports agents and potentially high draft picks, nothing should come as a surprise. Perhaps everything is on the up and up. Or perhaps this is just another case of the vibrant underground economy of college athletics.

We do know Ornstein, according to the Sports Business Journal, employed Bush last summer as a "paid intern." Ornstein is a Reebok "consultant" frequently spotted on the USC sideline during games who, in November, admitted he was "assisting" Bush in the selection of his agent and in the end also advised Bush that his best choice for a marketing guy would be – surprise, surprise – Michael Ornstein.

All of this nonsense is possible because of the peculiar way America treats its young football and basketball players. The NFL and NBA employ unfair age restrictions for their entry draft with arbitrary numbers that have nothing to do with preparedness. Meanwhile, the NCAA's outdated amateur rules continue to put kids in near impossible positions.

The fact is, Reggie Bush should have been able to buy his parents that suburban San Diego home a year ago, had he so chosen. He should have been allowed to turn pro after his spectacular sophomore season, where scouts say he would have been a likely first-round pick.

Instead, he returned to the Trojans and won the Heisman Trophy. That's fine, if that had been his choice all along. But he should have had the choice.

Instead, Bush was also placed in a bizarro world where he was worth millions but forced to stay a pauper – not because he wasn't physically or mentally ready for the NFL, but because, we believe, someone else may not have been.

Meanwhile, everyone around him cashed in. Big time.

The USC athletic department earned revenues of $60.7 million last year, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Almost all of that came from football or from football-related revenue (i.e., merchandise and donations).

Bush's coach, Pete Carroll, is reportedly paid nearly $3 million per year. His athletic director, Mike Garrett, makes hundreds of thousands.

The Trojans, with Bush carrying the ball, became a team for the ages, scoring huge television ratings, selling newspapers and magazines, not to mention tickets, T-shirts and assorted trinkets. USC was Los Angeles' pro team, except the players weren't getting paid. At least officially.

To be Reggie Bush last year would be a most confusing existence. You live in one of the richest, most materialistic cities on earth – a place where everyone is on the take and gain as much fame as Hollywood actors – but you can't afford the designer clothes they wear, the tricked-out cars or the jewelry.

You are more talented at your craft than most of Young Hollywood is at theirs. Bush is certainly a better football player than Nick Lachey is a, well, whatever Nick Lachey purports to be, but Bush can't get paid and Lachey can because, well, just because.

Perhaps Reggie Bush never took a single dime or a single freebie. If so, he is one incredibly ethical person. We're talking Mother Theresa level. They ought to give him a trophy just for that.

USC was a powder keg waiting to happen for this kind of stuff. It is essentially impossible to control agents and boosters in one of those college towns surrounded by vast farmland. In L.A.? Forget it. With Snoop Dogg (let alone Michael Ornstein) on the sidelines, what message does a player get?

This is why young athletes should be able to turn pro when they want. After any year in college. After any year in high school. Yeah, it's radical, but not as radically ridiculous as our current system.

LeBron James could have been a multi-millionaire and a top-five NBA draft pick after his sophomore year of high school, but he had to wait solely because he hits free throws and not forehands and because he slam-dunked rather than sang and danced.

By the time Britney Spears would have graduated from Kentwood (La.) High School, she sold 19 million albums for Jive Records. No one suggested she should have been singing in the school choir, let alone forced to attend Louisiana State for three years before she was "ready" to embark on a career. (Well, maybe some of the frat boys at LSU would have argued that was a good idea, but otherwise, no one.)

Society's argument is that this is designed to "protect" kids from making bad decisions, which is patronizing, un-American and depends completely on your perspective (mostly college fans being selfish). For most athletes, cashing in while they can is the best decision. If someone wanted to legally make Bush a millionaire and train him in his career, how was preventing him that option a good thing?

In too many cases, young athletes are exploited most when they are handcuffed by NCAA restrictions, stuck with netherworld guys, store-front unaccredited high schools and college coaches who are flat-out liars.

Phoenix Suns star Amare Stoudemire went to six high schools, was nearly conned by his own convicted felon minister and was used by at least two dozen people as an "amateur." As a high school senior, he told me, "My life is part nightmare." Once he was able to turn pro and just play ball, all the bad pub and scandal went away. He's living a dream life now. His quaint view of amateur athletics might be a bit different than yours.

While the idea of protecting kids who think they are better than they are is, perhaps, an admirable goal, it is an uncomfortable double standard, especially since the vast majority of said athletes are poor and black.

No one seems to care about the gymnasts, the figure skaters, the singers and actors. No one cares about baseball or hockey players.

No one worried about the Olsen Twins missing out on the "experience" of starring in humble school plays.

In America, people have the freedom to chase their dreams and do nearly anything they choose, no matter how foolish. Adults make dumb decisions all the time. They start businesses that are doomed to fail. They buy real estate that is sure to bottom out. They marry Charlie Sheen.

If a kid mistakenly turns pro too early, it's his loss. If a team mistakenly drafts too young of a prospect, that should be its loss – pro teams make dreadful decisions on college seniors, too.

As long as we force young football and basketball players to make everyone but themselves money so the NCAA and the professional leagues can benefit from the marketing, the extra scouting exposure and all those millions in revenue, these stories of possible corruption will go on and on and on.

This isn't about Reggie Bush and a house. This is about the system that virtually assures such a thing will keep on happening.

Now, the NBA and NFL have every right to pass age restriction limits, as they are private organizations, tt's not like government stepping in and setting the age limits for them. However, Wetzel makes a good case why they (NFL, NBA) shouldn't pass the restrictions.

No windfall profit taxes!

From the Cato Institute

Exxon's Earnings: No Apology Necessary
by Peter Van Doren and Jerry Taylor

Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren are both senior fellows.

Exxon Mobil announced this week that it earned $10.3 billion in the fourth quarter of 2005, up 23% from the same quarter in 2004. The company's earnings for the year totaled $36.1 billion, the most profitable year (in nominal terms, anyway) for any company in U.S. history.

Tar was gathered, feathers distributed, and the political mob undertook its predictable march.

Perspective, however, is everything. If we simply divide Exxon Mobil's net income by sales, we discover that the company reported a 10.7% profit margin in the quarter. That's probably a bit above the U.S. industrial average, but it is hardly remarkable.

For instance, the nation's moist prominent critic of "oil profiteering" - Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly — works for a company (News Corp.) that reported a 10.2% profit in the fourth quarter.

If you're after big earners, check out Yahoo (a 45.5% profit margin), Citigroup (33.4%), Intel (24%) or Apple (22.7%).

Returns on invested capital over a longer time frame are even more telling. Analysts at Goldman Sachs found that returns on investment capital in the oil and gas sector from 1970-2003 were less than the U.S. industrial average over that same period. The oil industry would have to earn record profits for some time before it would produce above-average returns for its long-term investors.

Political threats to impose windfall profit taxes are counterproductive for two reasons. First, they threaten to institutionalize a form of one-way capitalism in which investors are allowed meager profits, but more robust earnings are punished.

Who would want to park their money in an industry like that? If investors were discouraged from putting their money into the oil sector, where would the capital come from to put more oil and gas into a resource-starved market?

Second, the U.S. already has a corporate income tax in place to harvest a share of those windfall profits regardless of which sector produces them. Any policy that subjects income from particular industrial sectors to more onerous taxation because they are the villain de jure is bad public policy. In essence, it gets the government in the business of allocating capital to different sectors of the economy and sets up incentives for rent-seeking be- Whether Exxon Mobil is making good or bad decisions with its operating capital is not the government's business. Behavior on the part of corporations and their political patrons.

How Exxon Mobil's profit was earned and how that money will be used is also at issue. Some critics allege that the company's market power—augmented by mergers and acquisitions within the oil sector — gives Exxon Mobil (or some shadowy group of corporate conspirators led by Exxon Mobil) the power to set whatever price it wishes.

Nonsense.

World crude oil prices - and thus retail gasoline prices — are established in commodity spot markets. Exxon Mobil executives do not plot in back rooms to decide what to charge at the pump. Instead, Exxon Mobil's contracts with its own stations tie wholesale fuel prices to prices in the nearest spot market plus transportation costs.

Others attack the company's decisions about how best to employ this surge of revenue.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert and many House Republicans complain that the industry is not investing enough in domestic oil refining capacity.

Consumer activists complain that too little is going into oil exploration and development.

Others complain that not enough is being "given back" to the poor in the form of free or low-cost energy assistance programs.

The entire conversation is misguided. Whether Exxon Mobil is making good or bad decisions with its operating capital is not the government's business.

Even if it were, politicians are not in a position to intelligently discuss the matter.

In a free-market economy, capital is best allocated by market actors disciplined by profit and loss, not by vote-maximizing politicians who are unlikely to know what they are doing.

Exxon Mobil has nothing to apologize for regarding recent earnings statements.

If consumers were better served by lower corporate earnings, we'd all be visiting Zimbabwe for economic advice.

This article appeared in Investor's Business Daily, February 2, 2006.

I've been tagged

I've been tagged by my friend Josh.

Four jobs you have had in your life:

1. Worker at Arby’s
2. Telemarketer
3. Math tutor
4. Software engineer

Four movies you would watch over and over:
1. Zoolander
2. Matrix
3. Return of the King
4. Austin Powers


Four places you have lived:
1. Claremore, OK
2. Tulsa, OK
3. Austin, TX
4. Colorado Springs, CO

Four TV shows you love to watch:
1. Simpsons
2. Scrubs
3. CSI
4. Joey


Four places you have been on vacation:
1. Kauai, Hawaii
2. San Diego, CA
3. Riviera Maya, Mexico
4. Eureka Springs, Arkansas

Four websites you visit often.
1. Glen Dean
2. Gabbatha University
3. Cato Institute
4. NewsOK

Four of your favorite foods
1. Steak medium rare
2. Pizza
3. Mexican food (preferably made by people with immediate Mexican ancestry, but On the Border will do)
4. Quizno’s


Four places you would rather be right now:
1. At home with my wife and cat
2. Eating at Quizno’s
3. Playing Halo
4. Culver's Ice Cream

The Reggie Bush scandal

Yahoo Sports reports

SPRING VALLEY, Calif. – In this sprawling hilltop community with a breathtaking view of Sweetwater Lake, it was no secret who lived in the 3,000-square-foot house at the corner of Apple Street and Luther Avenue.

That home, residents would tell you, was where Reggie Bush's family lived.

That is, until this weekend, when the family abruptly packed up and vacated the residence – less than 24 hours after Yahoo! Sports approached Bush's mother about information linking the property to Michael Michaels, a man who is alleged to have tried to play a role in steering Bush toward an agent and who also has ties to a sports marketing company.

Okay, let's look at the real issue here. The sports agent's name referred to in this article was Michael Michaels. I mean, c'mon, how ridiculous is that! Michael is a great name, but could his parents do no better than to look beyond their own last name to come up with a name for their son? Were the parents simply too tired after the birthing process to spend any amount of time going through a list of names. There are books for that you know! Or maybe they liked the name of Michael so much they wanted it twice. I wonder what his middle name is?

Absolutely Disappointed with Republican Leadership

Obviously, the Republicans do not believe in a free market.

I admit high prices for gas suck, but as a link points out "Oil company profits have increased over the past two years but are still not particularly impressive," Taylor and Van Doren say. Warning that denying investors profits, but allowing them to book losses, amounts to one-way capitalism, the scholars argue: "Denying the industry the opportunity to make substantial profits when supplies are tight is both unfair (unless their losses are likewise alleviated during low-price periods) and counterproductive in that it will discourage investment in the oil business."

It could be that I am not compassionate, but with price controls and windfall taxes, there will be gas shortages. When neither the rich or poor will even have gas to buy, then there will be a reason to have compassion.

Also, in my copy of USA today at the hotel, one of the headlines reads "Drivers switch to public transit". This makes perfect sense. I'll say the same thing I always say, As gas prices climb higher, people will take measures to conserve gas. The higher the prices, the more measures will be taken. People will start to carpool, take mass transit, etc... People do not need the government to dictate how energy supplies are used, I believe individuals are smart enough to do so.

Neal Boortz Commencement Speech

From Neal Boortz site. I don't agree with every single word spoken here, but I do with most of it.

Excerpt

The Neal Boortz Commencement Speech
No, this speech has never been delivered at a college or a university. It was written to protest the fact that such an invitation has never been offered! It has only been delivered on my radio show, printed in my book "The Terrible Truth About Liberals" and produced on a limited edition CD. The irony is that this commencement speech has been more widely distributed, and has been the subject of more comment than any commencement speech that actually has been delivered at any college or university in the past 50 years. ©Copyright 2001, 2002, 2003 by Neal Boortz.
http://www.boortz.com

I am honored by the invitation to address you on this august occasion. It's about time. Be warned, however, that I am not here to impress you; you'll have enough smoke blown your way today. And you can bet your tassels I'm not here to impress the faculty and administration.

You may not like much of what I have to say, and that's fine. You will remember it though. Especially after about 10 years out there in the real world. This, it goes without saying, does not apply to those of you who will seek your careers and your fortunes as government employees.

This gowned gaggle behind me is your faculty. You've heard the old saying that those who can - do. Those who can't - teach. That sounds deliciously insensitive. But there is often raw truth in insensitivity, just as you often find feel-good falsehoods and lies in compassion. Say good-bye to your faculty because now you are getting ready to go out there and do. These folks behind me are going to stay right here and teach.

By the way, just because you are leaving this place with a diploma doesn't mean the learning is over. When an FAA flight examiner handed me my private pilot's license many years ago, he said, 'Here, this is your ticket to learn.' The same can be said for your diploma. Believe me, the learning has just begun.

Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you're a compassionate and caring person, aren't you now? Well, isn't that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a Liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in. Over the next few years, as you begin to feel the cold breath of reality down your neck, things are going to start changing pretty fast .. including your own assessment of just how much you really know.

So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives. From the Left you will hear "I feel." From the Right you will hear "I think." From the Liberals you will hear references to groups --The Blacks, The Poor, The Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights.

More here.

My favorite albums

Okay, I'm bored, so I'm going to list 5 of my favorite albums, not necessarily in any type of order. I am far from a music journalist, please forgive my lack of descriptive words aside from great, neato, and cool.

1. U2 - The Joshua Tree - Classic U2, not a bad song on the album. Most of the best of 80's U2 is in this album. I loved this album the first time I heard it. Despite having all the 4 most popular radio-played songs at the beginning, the 7 songs that follow are just about as good.

2. U2 - Achtung Baby - Joshua Tree may be the most "perfect" album U2 has done, but this may be the best. Where Joshua Tree is more easy listening, Achtung Baby is more abrasive - not quite as polished as JT, but more adventurous. It makes the album more amazing hearing the energy of "Zoo Station" and "Even Better than the Real Thing" when you know the turmoil the band faced while making it.

3. U2 - How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb - Just an album full of great songs. If "Love and Peace or Else" was produced a little bit better, this album may be perfect.

4. The Innocence Mission - Glow - Every song is great on this album; I recommend checking this band out. I wish I had the musical vocabulary to do this album and this group justice. The lead singer's voice, a female, is extraordinary, and the guitar styling, somewhat reminding me of the Edge, is fantastic.

5. Belle and Sebastian - Dear Catastrophe Waitress - Not a complete album, about 9,10 out of 12 songs are great, but they are good enough to move it into my top 10. I don't really know how to describe this band; the closest thing I can think of is 70s pop. This band has 6 or 7 people, and the songs are driven by acoustic guitar, brass, and woodwind instruments.

6. Goo Goo Dolls - A Boy Named Goo - Fun energetic rock

7. Bleach - Again for the First Time - A Christian punkish rock band. My favorite Christian band, bar none.

8. Foo Fighters - There is Nothing Left to Lose - Great rock songs focused on search for meaning, contains the popular hit "Learn to Fly"

9. U2 - All That You Can't Leave Behind. Another great U2 album, slightly uneven, but U2 have managed to come up with a hit ranking along with their earlier works in "Beautiful Day." Even the songs that did not make it to mainstream radio are some of the best songs I have ever heard from any band, such as "Kite" and "In a Little While."

10. Fiona Apple - When the Pawn... - Rock and Roll music in Jazz format. Great instrumentation.

Vince Young gets no respect from sportswriters

Ever since Vince Young almost single-handedly won the Rose Bowl (from an offensive standpoint, the Texas defense was awesome as well), its almost as if various sportswriters have lined up to take shots at him, pointing out any possible weakness, real or imagined, in order to convince us that he will be a bust. Arm strength is a legitimate point of concern, but other than that, the best I've heard is that Vince Young is used to playing in the shotgun, therefore, logically, him playing in an under-center formation will be an absolute disaster. Like I said, its not even a real weakness, but something that is imagined if he plays in a different formation.

Now, granted, collegiate success does not automatically mean NFL success, but so many characteristics of Vince Young indicate a high likelihood for NFL success. Despite his raw athleticism and his high efficiency numbers from last season, Vince Young wins huge games under pressure. He rallied to beat Big-10 powerhouses Michigan and Ohio State. He led his team from a 28 point deficit against Oklahoma State in 2004, and accomplished an equally impressive feat in another come from behind victory against Ok. State in 2005. And that was all before the national championship game. With the exception of the OU game in 2004, I have not seen Young choke under pressure.

The thing is, the critics never learn. As recent as 2004, sportswriters were calling for Young to move to another position (which, granted, his athleticism at the time outshined his quarterback ability). He has been criticized throughout his collegiate career and proven his critics wrong, so you think the critics would finally learn before opening their mouths again as he enters the NFL draft.

Now, Young is not immune to criticism, but one has to do better than say "he hasn't played under center."

Mark my words though, Young will be one of the better athletes to play the game, even on the NFL level. Sportscentury or some similar show will highlight the career of Vince Young, and they will mention how Young was constantly criticized even after proving himself over and over again. They will talk about how people doubted him because he didn't fit the typical quarterback mold, how he didn't fit into the typical NFL offense, and how this was looked at in 2006 as a bad thing.

According to the Political Brew, I am...

According to the Political Brew test I am a moderate non-fiscal conservative (59 out of 100) and a strong fiscal conservative (94 out of 100). I couldn't figure out how to save the picture that shows my results, which is really unfortunate, because I could really use pictures on this blog. Even I get bored looking at it.

Probably what steered me to the middle (as opposed to the right) of the non-fiscal issues was the fact that I think the Patriot Act should be reevaluated while considering civil liberties, and I don't believe in government funding of faith-based initiatives for reasons I have mentioned previously.

Sometimes Capitalism does seem a bit troubling.

I admit sometimes that some of the philosophy behind capitalism is troubling. Adam Smith and Ayn Rand (who I'm hardly a disciple of, but a chief proponent of capitalism) both assert that we will all ultimately benefit if we each pursue our own self-interests, so capitalism, following from that, is the best economic system.

Now, Christianity in many cases teaches the opposite, in which we must all die to ourselves, and the Bible teaches selflessness, especially through the ultimate sacrifice of Christ. The idea that we must always pursue our own self-interests and only our self-interests is contradictory to the teachings of the Bible.

What does this mean concerning our economic systems? I do not think socialism is the answer. I think what many Christian proponents of socialism miss is that fact that it is virtuous to give to another person, but it is not virtuous to expect something from another person.

Now, not everyone who is a economic libertarian is a socialist, there are plenty of people in between, and everyone has their own ideal balance of government economic control against capitalism. Sometimes I may call all Democrats socialists, but I don't think that is true. Many, at least here in the states, do believe in capitalism to some degree. I am not addressing anyone who is to the economic left of me, I am just addressing the foundations of capitalism and socialism themselves.

Greed can exist in this system, but I do not think many realize that greed exists in a socialist society, just in a different form, many times in the form of envy. You either covet and obtain through working more hours and neglecting your family, or you can covet and gain through government assistance. Capitalism can encourage too much self-reliance, but socialism encourages too much reliance on other people, and on a government (which is supposed to be separated from the church, by the way). Neither one, at least in theory, encourages reliance on God.

So it seems that both systems have their flaws. But for right now, I'll go for more freedom. Capitalism, for the most part, is composed of mutual, free exchanges. Furthermore, I'll go for what appears to work. America has been very prosperous, and this has been chiefly through God's blessing, but I believe He has blessed us by helping us find a system that works. People risk their lives fleeing Cuba, or other countries to come here. We must be doing something right.

Republicans aren't perfect.

Congress shall make no law...

Some links to cool political surveys

The Political Brew Gauge - pretty neat quiz, each question has five possibile answers detailing how gov't should deal with certain situations.

Politopia - another quiz with five possible answers. The results are in a neat format, where it shows a map with names of various politicians and celebrities. The people you live by depend on how you answer the quiz. I lived somewhere by Drew Carey.

Political Compass - Pretty comprehensive survey, and answers are based on a spectrum of "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree"

World's Smallest Political Quiz A very popular quiz put out by the libertarian group The Advocates. There are 10 questions, 5 in social, 5 in economics. A little simplistic, but fun to take nonetheless. I answered alot of maybe's in the social section, and many yes's in the economics, so that rated me a libertarian.

I like all of these quizzes because they look at politics on a 2-D map, one dimension for social issues and one dimension for economic issues. They all recognize that politics is not just a line spectrum of left-right, even though there are many that fall along this line (either liberal in both economics and social issues, or conservative in both of these areas).

Dear President Bush

A funny, yet thought-provoking post from my friend Josh.

Private Education is Good for the Poor

I found this article today on the Cato Institute website, and it has to do with some of the concerns I expressed yesterday concerning private school and the poor.

Original Article Here
If you follow the link, at the bottom of the page is a link to the actual policy study, which is 64 pages. I haven't read it all and don't expect anyone else to, I just wanted to post the executive summary to show that studies have been done concerning private schools and poor areas. I am not saying everything is all nice and rosy for the poor people, but I just wanted to point out that the issue of the poor affording private school, and the issue of private schools providing what poor students need, apart from state regulation, have at least been addressed by some people, even if not necessarily answered. I hate to say that if private schools were implemented without the presence of public schools, everything would be A-OK, but this is what the study addresses.

Private Education is Good for the Poor: A Study of Private Schools Serving the Poor in Low-Income Countries

by James Tooley and Pauline Dixon

James Tooley is professor of education policy at the University of Newcastle and director of the E.G. West Centre. Pauline Dixon is international research coordinator of the E. G. West Centre in the School of Education at the University of Newcastle.

Executive Summary

Many observers believe that the private sector has very little to offer in terms of reaching the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of "education for all" by 2015. Private education is often assumed to be concerned only with serving the elite or middle classes, not the poor. And unregistered or unrecognized private schools are thought to be of the lowest quality and hence demanding of detailed regulation, or even closure, by governmental authorities.

Our findings from a two-year in-depth study in India, Ghana, Nigeria, and Kenya suggest that these conclusions are unwarranted. Private schools, we argue, can play—indeed, already are playing—an important, if unsung, role in reaching the poor and satisfying their educational needs.

The first component of our research consisted of a systematic census and survey of all primary and secondary schools, government and private, in selected low-income areas. The second component examined a stratified random sample of between 2,000 and 4,000 children from each of those areas. Tests in mathematics, English, and (in Africa) one other subject were administered. Children and teachers were also tested for their IQ, and questionnaires were administered to students, parents, teachers, and school managers or headteachers.

In each area, we found the majority of schoolchildren attending private schools. In the areas officially designated as "slums" of three zones of Hyderabad’s Old City, we found 918 schools, of which only 35 percent were government schools, fewer than the 37 percent of unrecognized private schools. In total, 65 percent of schoolchildren in those low-income areas attended private unaided school. In the Ga District of Ghana (the lowincome suburban and rural area surrounding the capital city of Accra) we investigated 779 schools in the same way, finding that only 25 percent were government schools and that 64 percent of schoolchildren attended private school.

In the "poor" areas of three local government districts (one rural, two urban) of Lagos State, Nigeria, we found 540 schools, of which 34 percent were government, and the largest proportion, 43 percent, were private unregistered. An estimated 75 percent of schoolchildren were enrolled in private schools.

We also conducted research in the small shanty town of Makoko, in Mainland, Lagos State, and in the slum of Kibera, Nairobi, Kenya (reportedly the largest slum in sub-Saharan Africa). In both cases, the large majority of poor children attended private, not public, school. Moreover, in Kenya we were able to observe the impact of free primary education on enrollment. Despite the fact that huge increases in enrollment have been noted in government schools by commentators, our research suggests that, at best, children appear to have transferred from private to government schools. Given the advantages of private schools and problems found in government schools, that may not be to their advantage.

In each location, the private schools are run largely by proprietors, with very few receiving outside philanthropic support and none receiving state funding. Roughly equal numbers of boys and girls attend private unaided schools, which have better pupil-teacher ratios, higher teacher commitment, and sometimes better facilities than government schools. A significant number of places in private unaided schools are provided free or at reduced rates to serve the poorest of the poor.

The raw scores from our student achievement tests show considerably higher achievement in the private than in government schools. In Hyderabad, for instance, mean scores in mathematics were about 22 percentage points and 23 percentage points higher in private unrecognized and recognized schools, respectively, than in government schools. The advantage was even more pronounced for English. In all cases, this achievement advantage was obtained at between half and a quarter of the teacher salary costs.

Our research indicates that a great success story is taking place, usually beneath the government’s radar. The mushrooming private schools, if noticed at all by the authorities and development experts, are assumed to be educationally inadequate. Our research shows that this assumption is false. Moreover, because so many children are in unrecognized private schools that do not appear in government statistics, achieving universal basic education — the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of "education for all" — may be much easier to reach than is currently believed. In Lagos State, for instance, including enrollment in private unregistered schools would reduce the percentage of out-of-school children from 50 to 26 percent.

Certainly, the private schools for lowincome families could be improved even further by creating revolving loan programs to help infrastructural investment or, following the private schools’ own example, creating targeted voucher programs to enable the poorest of the poor to attend private schools. But above all, the existence and the contribution of private schools to "education for all" is a cause for celebration.

Link to 64-page Policy Report

Should we separate school and state?

Perhaps my most radical political beliefs involve public schooling. I think a society in which school and state is separate is preferable. I am a little hesitant to have such a position, because I like the idea of the poor having guaranteed schooling. Yes, despite being a limited welfare, free market kind of guy, I still hate the idea of having government schooling taken away. Maybe it is because it has been the status quo for decades. However, there are some reasons I think the benefits of separating school and state may outweigh the disadvantages (many scholars argue that even in the economic arena, the poor are better off). At the very least, I believe we should have a voucher system, where, even though government funds support schooling, the parents at least have a choice where they send their kids.

The secularization of society.
Somehow, we have gotten the idea that there is a way to be taught that is totally value free. We have this idea that we can and should separate moral values from the rest of schooling. But I do not think this is possible. Sure, things like mathematics and grammar are easy to teach without attaching moral values. But what about history, political science, or sex education. So many courses make subjective judgments about our society, including our history, and moral values. I believe that whether it is religious belief or outright secularlism, some values are going to be attached to what we are taught.

Even if the public school tries to be value free, certain values are going to be taught. Sex ed, for instance. Even the decision whether or not it should be taught in schools is a value judgment. If it is taught, do you discuss contraceptives, STD preventative measures, abstinence?

There is also the debate about intelligent design vs. evolution. Either way, the school has to make a judgment call. Should a school consider the possibility of outside forces of what is directly observable in considering the causing forces of the universe? Science is science, but it seems that it is getting to the point where you have to open your mind to the possibility of outside forces, or you have to close your mind to them. Instead of a state government or federal court making a decision for all the schools within the reach, I think it would be preferable for parents to send their kids to the school of their choice.

For Christians, who says that you have to separate religion from schools? Who says that at home you can be taught spiritual values, but when you go to school you have to be taught in an institution that pretends religion does not exist? Why does there have to be taught in two different spheres, where the moral and spiritual values have to be separate from the sphere in which you learn math, history, and spelling. Any way you go, children are going to be taught certain values, whether it is the Baptist school in town, or the secular philosophy that public schools bring.

Government Bureaucracy and Efficiency
I believe the problem with public schools is not simply an issue of not enough money. Public schools are managed by huge bureacracies that are inefficient. Furthermore, as I touched on earlier, with government controlled schools, legislatures and judges make decisions affecting what is taught for schools across several districts, or the entire state.

Competition ensures quality, efficiency, parents wishes With a free market, schools would have the motivation to operate efficiently, to keep costs down. They would also operate more effectively. They would be directly accountable to parents, who can move their children to a different school if they choose. Parents have more say in disciplinary policy, what is taught, the manner of teaching, the educational philosophy, etc...

Some advantages for the poor.
Right now, the rich have school choice, by choosing the neighborhood they live in which they live. The poor do not have this luxury. Sure, in the free market, they will still be the distinctions between the schools the poor attend, and those of the rich. However, the difference between rich housing and poor housing is in the tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands. I do not believe this will be the difference between rich schools and poor schools.

I know this is a radical idea. I am sure I did not do this justice as a persuasive piece, I am just summarizing my thoughts on the subject. Half of me hates the thought of not having public schools, because I think of the poor not having guaranteed schooling and many look to public schools as someone evening out class distinctions in society. The other half thinks that public school is leading to the secularization of society, in which spiritual values and education are viewed to be in different spheres, and the way to eliminate this is through having schools that reinforce the parents' values. The idea of a secular state educating our children bothers me. It also bothers some other Christians as well, Marshall Fritz, founder of The Alliance for the Separation of School and State. It also bothered C. S. Lewis. C.S. Lewis, in his last chapter of the Screwtape Letters, paints a scene in which demons in hell are meeting, discussing their strategy against the humans.

In a word, we may reasonably hope for the virtual abolition of education when I’m as good as you has fully had its way. All incentives to learn and all penalties for not learning will be prevented; who are they to overtop their fellows? And anyway the teachers – or should I say, nurses? – will be far too busy reassuring the dunces and patting them on the back to waste any time on real teaching. We shall no longer have to plan and toil to spread imperturbable conceit and incurable ignorance among men. The little vermin themselves will do it for us.

Of course, this would not follow unless all education became state education. But it will. That is part of the same movement. Penal taxes, designed for that purpose, are liquidating the Middle Class, the class who were prepared to save and spend and make sacrifices in order to have their children privately educated. The removal of this class, besides linking up with the abolition of education, is, fortunately, an inevitable effect of the spirit that says I’m as good as you. This was, after all, the social group which gave to the humans the overwhelming majority of their scientists, physicians, philosophers, theologians, poets, artists, composers, architects, jurists, and administrators. If ever there were a bunch of stalks that needed their tops knocked off, it was surely they. As an English politician remarked not long ago, “A democracy does not want great men.”

Now, I just read this the other day and have not had time to absorb this all. I am not saying everyone who supports public schools are supporting the devil's plan, or anything like that. It is just something I read the other day, and wanted to bring in his perspective. C. S. Lewis was a classical liberal who feared the attempts of government to produce an egalitarian society, and he saw public school as a means to do that.

Radio seems to play more "adult" stuff now

Maybe it is just a function of where I live now, rather than the change in radio stations in general... I've been listening to mainstream pop radio, and it sounds so much better than it did 5 years ago. Now, I don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with corporately produced boy bands or synth-pop female singers (except the usage of sex to sell music), it is just something I do not personally like, and this style of music dominated the stations at the turn of the century.

These days though, pop music seems to have gotten back where it was before the boy-band revolution (I do like Backstreet Boys though, I think they have real talent) and teen-girl revolution. We have actual adults singing songs with a mature sound. Examples are Coldplay, Train, Daniel Powder, Rob Thomas, some British guy with the "You're Beautiful" song. Even the younger artists sound more mature than what was offered in Britney, Jessica, and early Christina (who, even though I do not like because of her freakiness and sluttiness, at least has matured I think in her songwriting). I like artists like Michelle Branch, Avril Lavigne, among others. Many of these artists have been around for some time, but radioplay has shifted in their favor, it seems of late.

I like the change, and radio is definitely more enjoyable. Again, I don't want to be a snob and look down on teeny-bop music, I just prefer more natural sounding music.

No one has been talking about it recently...so I will...Immigration.

Of course the title name is sarcastic. The immigration issue has been pretty hot recently. Josh left a comment on my last post asking about immigration. To be honest, I never thought about the immigration issue a whole lot, and not in the context Josh had asked, but it is a good way to think about it.

Mostly, I had focused on the law aspect of it. There are certain laws, they should be enforced, and we should prevent illegal immigrants from coming over. While I still believe, of course, we should follow the rule of law, I started focusing on the issue of "how many people should we let over in the first place?" and "how hard should it be for someone to come over here to work, or to become a citizen?" Much of the free marke t and limited government/libertarian stuff I read support open borders. In a Cato Article from December 2004, Daniel T. Griswold asserts

The reason for the failure is simple. Our existing immigration system is out of step with the realities of American life. Our economy continues to produce opportunities for low-skilled workers in important sectors of our economy such as retail, services, construction, and tourism. Meanwhile, the pool of Americans willing and happy to fill those jobs continues to shrink as the average American worker grows older and becomes better educated. Yet our immigration system has no legal channel for workers from Mexico and other countries to come to the United States even temporarily to fill those jobs. The result is widespread illegal immigration.

This makes sense, and other scholars argue that it is not just the low-skilled jobs, but some of the high-skilled occupations as well, that immigrants tend to fill.

I was thinking from it from a national security and free-market perspective, but Josh implied that it could be a Christian issue as well, and I think he is right. While I do not believe government should be overbearing when enforcing certain "Christian policies", (i.e. no beer on Sundays, no tattoos, which aren't necessarily "Christian" anyway) I still believe Christian philosophy should be a factor in facets of government, such as structure, interaction with other countries, etc...

Josh asked"

With the whole Mexican immigration policies, I've been hearing the "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to Me" quote.

Personally, I've been challenged by this debate recently. I mean I do want to show hospitality to the least of these, and most who cross our borders are the least of these, but at what price?

A good question. America is far from perfect, and is far from the ideal "Christian nation." However, by handling the immigration policies the right way, America can aspire to be "the shining city on the hill", as the late great Ronald Reagan would say. I don't know the statistics on immigrants. I would not be surprised if many of them just want the free government services offered by the border states, but I think even more honestly want to work, to make things better for their families, to search for better opportunities. I have no problem with the U.S. allowing them those opportunities.

I am admittedly ignorant about the process of citizenship, and also about what it takes to come here and work. I am not asking that the citizenship process necessarily be easier, but at least the process where someone comes to work. If someone comes into this country, and is willing to work, then, for the most part, I have no problems with them coming here.

The main issues I see with immigration is overpopulation, national security, and the rule of law.

Concerning overpopulation, maybe it is not a fear I should have, and it may not be relevant. After all, people are going to come here, illegal or not.

Concerning border security, it is definitely a relevant issue. I think by making it easier to come here to work, it is easier to focus on those who sneak in with evil intentions. I believe in open borders, but not completely open. Be wary of those from hostile countries. I know this is easier said than done, and I don't know all the details concerning the registration and such of people who live here, but national security should still remain a priority.

Concerning the rule of law, I don't think such laws should just be ignored. However, I think once decisions have been made concerning what it takes to come to this country and work, I would be willing to let the current illegals stay here, if they are willing to go through the decided process.

Back to what Josh asked, I think that by allowing in those who want to come here, we are allowing them a chance to have a better life. While the U.S. is far from a perfect nation concerning Christianity, it can still minister to these people through example and opportunity as a nation, and it gives the church opportunity to minister to those who come here.

However, saying that last statement makes me wonder if I am looking through this through rose-colored glasses, or however the saying goes. That last paragraph sounded entirely too optimistic. Part of me wonders if "letting anyone in as long as they mean no harm" is too easy. However, perhaps we should have a compassionate stance because they are "the least of these."

Those are my thoughts for now on the subject.

Christianity and Politics

Okay, kind of a vague title, I admit. Especially since that is what so many of my posts are about. Last Sunday, the young adult preacher discussed Palm Sunday, where Jesus rode on the donkey. He pointed at something I had never noticed. In Psalm 118:26 the Psalmist says "Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the LORD." Many of the gospels mention that the people of Jerusalem quote this verse as Jesus is riding on the donkey the Sunday before his crucifixion. In Luke 19:38, however, there is a slightly different phrase "Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!" Now, we all think of Jesus as the king, this is not unusual, but Israel thought of Jesus as an earthly king, as someone who would help the Jews break free from the Romans. As the people awaited the Messiah, their expections of what he would be overshadowed who he actually was.

The pastor pointed out that many times we can do this as well. It can happen with our political beliefs. That hit home with me. I know many times I tend to believe what I want to believe, then use the Bible to support it. My goal should be to study the Bible, understand what God wants and commands, and derive political beliefs from that. Doing so is very difficult, however. There are many Christians who believe the Bible, yet have widely varying political beliefs. Also, the Bible seems so silent concerning the role of government. The New Testament mainly focuses on submitting to the authorities, but it does not focus on what type of authority should be established. There is the theocracy established in Israel for much of the Old Testament, but this is a situation where a nation almost directly communicates to God.

Anyway, no matter what political belief system we have, we should ensure that we do not manipulate our understanding or image of Jesus to fit along with our political convictions, and that is not meant for anyone reading this, this is meant really for myself. But how does one totally separate themselves from what they believe? How do we derive political philosophy from the Bible, without somehow doing the opposite? Sometimes our political beliefs are imbedded in us, as well as our religious beliefs, so its hard sometimes not to read the Bible without our political lense. No matter what we come up with, we should always be careful to attach Jesus' name to our cause.

What Jesus wants, and what the Bible commands, is clear. Flee from sexual immorality, do not be drunk, abstain from profane speech, feed the poor and hungry, love your wife, etc... While we may all have different opinions on where government gets involved, I believe that the Bible is pretty clear on morality for our own lives.

Is it ever okay to discriminate? A look at Affirmative Action

We are all familiar with the positions that the two parties have on affirmative action.

The liberal view: It is the role of the government to take an active role in improving the positions of minorities in the workplace and academia. There appears to be 3 primary reasons
1) to ensure diversity as an end in itself
2) balance out and/or prevent racism against minorities in making hiring decisions, or admissions/scholarships in the case of learning institutions
3) correct past wrongs suffered by minorities.

It seems that reason 1 has become more popular lately, perhaps in response to the meritocracy argument (the best should get the job/college acceptance).

The conservative view: Discrimination is wrong, no matter what. Although discrimination has taken place in the past, two wrongs don't make a right. Affirmative action is just reverse discrimination. In terms of academia and the workplace, people should be selected on the basis of merit. Conservatives typically rally against mandatory affirmative action in academia and government posts, and I assume that they support anti-discrimination legislation that still ensures minorities are not rejected for the fact that they are a minority.

There is a lesser known, third view, that most libertarians have. They focus not so much on the virtues and vices of various discriminations (old fashioned or affirmative action), they look at it in terms of the Constitution, and through the freedom of association.

First of all, they argue that affirmative action in the public arena (that is, public colleges or government jobs) cannot discriminate, based on the Civil Rights Act and/or similar legislation.

In private arenas, however, they argue that private companies or private colleges can implement their own affirmative action policy, based on what is called "freedom of expressive association", which is essentially the freedom to associate with who we want. While this belief leads to voluntary affirmative action, it also opens the door to discrimination against minorities as well. While libertarians view discrimination as immoral, they believe that the government should not force any type of relationship, business or personal. They also argue that a free market is color blind, and although some discrimination may initially take place, ultimately, the color green overrides any other color. They commonly point to the fact that most past segragation was implemented by government, not by businesses.

I have held the conservative view for some time, but I wonder about the libertarian viewpoint. The idea that businesses are allowed to discriminate against who they hire based on their age/sex etc... is a little bit troubling. However, the idea of freedom of association makes a little bit of sense, just because I don't think the government can effectively force people to join into relationships they do not want. For instance, if there is a white boss who does not want to hire a black man for a certain job, it may be actually better if that black man is not hired for the job, based on discrimination he could receive from the white boss, such as bad treatment, or him hitting a "glass ceiling." Things could be worse for him if the boss is forced to hire him. At the same time though, I imagine that discrimination is still bad in many parts of the country, and I could imagine it being terrible around the time that equal rights were being established. Also, extensive anti-discrimination laws could be very intrusive into businesses.

Either way though, I am against mandatory affirmative action.

What about voluntary affirmative action? Is discriminating every okay, even if it is to help disadvantages minorities. Here are some thoughts I wrote the other day. They were kind of stream of consciousness, so sorry for any poor grammer, ramblings, etc...

"Is discriminating against whites ever okay?
a) Is hiring a minority for the sake of them being a minority okay?
The conservatives use a meritocracy argument against AA, but there is no law in the Bible that says you have to hire the absolute best person for your company. The owner of a company needs to understand though, that their company depends on the people they hire. They have to take into account any risk by not hiring the very best person. But still, is AA morally okay? Would it be okay, if I, as a businessman, to hire a black person that is a little less qualified, because perhaps he had a tougher background? That’s a tough call. It is troubling if I hire people based on their need for a job, rather than what they can provide me. That may be selfish, but businesses must operate on what will keep it running effectively. Hiring someone because they had a harder background could become a troubling pattern. Is it okay to do it once in a while? Perhaps if its in an area where blacks are discriminated against regularly, I would want to give that person a chance. Perhaps there is a situation where hiring a minority for the sake of them being a minority is okay. I’m sure many minority groups have banded together to help each other out through hiring decisions.

b) Hiring a minority for other reasons. However, I believe there is some cases in which hiring a minority is okay, for the sake of what they can contribute. Diversity can help a business. At the risk of sounding like an anti-WASP liberal, hiring a bunch of white males could harm a business. But hiring many people from any single demographic could be harmful. People from different walks of life can contribute many different viewpoints. It is no secret to any person not bound by political correctness that men and women are different, and even white, black, and Asian people can be different. Various racial and ethnic groups have their own subcultures, and there is no reason why these subcultures cannot contribute different things to the workplace. One has to be careful with this philosophy though. Don’t assume that hiring a woman will automatically contribute a warm and nurturing personality to the workplace. Don’t assume that some Native American will treat co-workers to tails of Pow-Wows and underwater basket-weaving.
c) other cases of special treatment. Back to the argument of meritocracy. This is a conservative argument that someone should hire the best person for the job, regardless of ethnicity, sex, fetishes, etc… However, there are many cases where people will argue that this isn’t the case. How many family owned businesses have hired a son or daughter to inherit the company, even though there is a distinct possibility they are not the very best person? In many foreign cultures, family hiring is done more often, and is done so because the father trusts the son more than anyone else, for example. If its okay to hire a family member, or even a friend, then it weakens the meritocracy argument somewhat. Don’t get me wrong, businesses should hire the best people, but if its okay to hire a friend or family member, why not a minority, because you care about helping him or her? "