Sometimes I just love a good argument

Which is really strange. I consider myself fairly easy to get along with. I'm an easy-going type of guy. However, I love to get involved in discussions with people who disagree with me. I've been over at Jesus Politics arguing up a storm. If you are a Christian liberal, you'll find good company, if you are a Christian conservative/libertarian, you will have a good time as well.

As a side note: not to knock anyone, but I think the term "Jesus Politics" is bold. We all try to apply Christianity to some extent to our politics, no matter what the persuasion, but saying that Jesus and your own politics are one and the same is dangerous, dangerous business.

Edit to add: sometimes I can get a bit snarky on when I comment on blogs like these, so feel free to call me out if I go too far.

Oil Company Watch

It's time to check out what Exxon Mobil is doing with their money. Neal Boortz says

The Associated Press is reporting that Exxon Mobil's second quarter profits totaled $10.36 billion. That's the second largest quarterly profit ever recorded by any publicly traded U.S. company.

OK .. get ready for the screams. It's just a matter of hours before some demagogues in Congress start yelling again for a windfall profits tax. Across the country we're going to hear screams of anguish from economic ignoramuses who couldn't tell you the difference from a profit and a profit margin.

Nowhere in the article can you find Exxon Mobil's profit margin for the quarter. You can, though, find the numbers you can crunch to reach that figure. Total revenues for Exxon Mobil during the quarter were $99.03 billion. Run a little division problem and you come up with a 10.46% profit margin. Not bad at all, but not the best out there either. Most pharmaceutical and banking companies earned a higher profit margin.

The amount of profit earned is directly tied to the price of the product you are selling, and the market for that profit. All these higher profits mean is that the cost of Exxon Mobil's products (primarily petroleum-based products) has gone up along with demand.

By the way ,,, during the quarter Exxon spent nearly $5 billion of this profit on capital projects and exploration for new sources of oil, and another $7,9 billion was sent to shareholders in the form of dividends and share repurchases. Belinda is one of those shareholders, so perhaps you can blame here for your high gas prices. Besides Belinda, we have some of teacher's union pension funds out there who invest heavily in Exxon Mobil. These dividends, which came from the Exxon profits, will be spent to cover pension checks to retired teachers. Now that's pretty nasty, isn't it! How DARE these teachers receive pension checks funded by investments in a successful corporation like Exxon Mobil when the government could be getting that money thorough a windfall profits tax?

Capitalism does not just benefit the rich. Yes, white-haired old men are getting millions of dollars in salary and stocks, but they get paid to make the company money. When the company makes money, the average Joe or Jane makes money too.

Are Democrats actually Socialists?

Dan has noted on his blog that Progessives are not necessarily Socialists, and I've heard other liberals mention that they are tired of being called Socialists. I don't really blame them, and I think Dan is right in that the two groups, Progressives and Socialists, are not necessarily the same. Even though I believe that Progressives can have socialist ideas.

Wikipedia defines Socialism as

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. [1] As an economic system, socialism is usually associated with state or collective ownership of the means of production. This control, according to socialists, may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

and Economic Progressivism includes

...things as support for a mixed economy and progressive taxes in order to compensate for the perceived disadvantage to increase their income and sources of revenue to the poor when compared to the wealthy, in order to fix issues with society which are perceived to violate social justice. Economic progressivism draws advocates from all segments of the moderate left-wing, including social democrats and some liberals.

Their opposition includes proponents of laissez-faire.

So, it seems that Progressives can believe in socialist things, such as a more controlled economy, but not necessarily. I would say that progressive taxation is not really a socialist measure, though I believe excessive taxation can limit the free market.

Also, business regulations may not necessarily be a socialist measure, but it depends on the extent, and the type of regulation. Concerning extent, the more laws that are passed regulating an industry, the more control the government has. However, I would not say anyone lobbying or legislating regulatory measures is a socialist; I think it is a spectrum, and being a complete laissez-faire capitalist may not even be a good thing (I am still working out those issues as to how far gov't should be involved in regulating health and safety in industry). So when I say someone is not a true 100% capitalist, that's not even a bad thing.

The type of regulation is a bit more abstract. I tried to cover this in a previous post,Foundations of a Free Market, but I don't even know if I explained it that well. The idea is, it depends on why the regulation is in effect. Socialism typically refers to controlling the means of production, so regulations that attempt to do this, for the very reason of "controlling the means of production", are typically more socialist. However, regulations that come about for other reasons, such as health and safety, are not necessarily socialist. For instance, labeling laws, or occupational safety laws, are not necessarily socialist, or at least not to a great extent. They do control businesses to some effect, but it is not done so to interfere with the distribution of goods, but done for reasons somewhat external to the production process, namely, the health and safety of the customers and workers. In other words, if one was taking a quiz that placed someone as 100 (pure capitalist) and 0, pure socialist, health and safety regulations would score a -1, whereas laws that control production would be a -10.

In the Foundations of a Free Market post, I listed four main things, which are by no means exhaustive, that separate a Free Market from a Socialist Economy.

1) The right of people to sell a product for whatever price they want. i.e. no gas price caps

2) The right of people to negotiate wages. - i.e. no gov't caps on CEO pay, at the complete capitalist end, this would mean abolition of the minimum wage.

3) Freedom in choosing what products to sell (not counting moral legislation, which is more of a social issue, not economic). - i.e. an insurance company being able to sell coverage they choose, not in packages determined by a state government, a restaurant owner opening a smoking restaurant (although this is more of a property rights issue), and iTunes selling music in any format they wish.

4) People having the freedom to start their own business - i.e. city governments not making decisions on what or how many businesses are allowed in their towns. For instance, a local government should not be able to say, "we already have enough taxi businesses, you cannot start your own", or someone starting a business should not have to do a presentation demonstrating why their business should be profitable to a city council.

People may not agree to all of these, or not to a full extent. Again, incomplete agreement does not make someone a Socialist, again, it is really a spectrum. Most people are not either-or. Most Americans support the minimum wage, that just means they aren't complete laissez-faire capitalists, and whether that is a good or bad thing is not even the point. I am nowhere near an expert on what makes a true capitalist economy, and am by no means the standard-bearer for this issue; I just realize there is some confusion at times on what makes someone a socialist vs. just being a Progressive (i.e. American Democrat). While Democrats are more likely to support socialist ideas, they hardly have a monopoly on them; many of the loudest voices concerning the gas price caps have been Republicans.

The main point is this: socialism primarily tends to mess directly with the means of production, typically through controls of wages and prices, or through determining who can sell what. Other measures may produce less economic freedom, but socialism messes with the market directly.

Is government the friend of the Christian?

Focus on the Family's Guiding Principles are:

We believe that God has ordained three basic institutions — the church, the family and the government — for the benefit of all humankind. The family exists to propagate the human race and to provide a safe haven in which to nurture, teach and love the younger generation. The church exists to minister to individuals and families by sharing the love of God and the message of repentance and salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ. The government exists to maintain cultural equilibrium and to provide a framework for social order.

I think these are good guiding principles, and I like the work Focus does. They have an Institute that college students can take for credit, they do pro-life work, and they have good books on marriage, family, and development. I understand many people don't like Dobson, and many do like him, right now for his work concerning the Federal Marriage Amendment, or whatever it's called.

The Guiding Principles mention the government. I agree that the government is established by God, because it does provide some order. At the same time though, I think Christians can be too trustful of government.

Now, there are some areas where government has to be involved. Should abortion be outlawed? should gay marriage be allowed? etc... At the same time, however, I believe many of the problems we have in the first place is simply too much government. One of my favorite articles in the blogosphere is by Glen Dean. One key paragraph that I've quoted before states

Most people do not realize why the framers sought to separate government from religion. It wasn't because they feared that religion would harm government, as most modern liberals seem to think. The founders actually wanted to protect religion from government. Government is not the friend of religion.

Glen mentions two examples that I bring up often, even in my last post. Education and Charity are two areas in which the church, in the past, has been heavily involved. Through the history of the U.S. however, government has become more involved in these areas, pushing the church out. For instance, Christians often complain about anti-Christian values being taught in schools. I don't think the way to fight this is simply try to modify what is being taught in schools, but to reform the entire school system itself, so that people are not forced to learn the values of others.

In my view, going through the channels of government is often not the way to fight the culture wars. Now, there are areas where government should get involved. I am pro-life because I believe the chief function of government is to protect innocent human life. Concerning gay marriage, I don't believe in laws outlawing homosexuality, but I don't want a government stamp of approval on it either. And this is not an endorsement for libertarianism, and I am not a full-blown libertarian saying the government should abolish all welfare and any laws that don't directly protect people. But I think people from all political persuasions can appreciate the idea that government should only be grown when necessary (it's just that we all disagree on when its necessary). I am just saying that we should be weary of government power, and that it should not be our first resort. Government power is a double-edged sword. It may swing in our favor today, but maybe not tomorrow. The government schools that were teaching our kids Christian values a few years ago are teaching opposite things now. Freedom can be a double-edged sword as well, but I believe virtue best flourishes in an atmosphere of freedom.

How should be go about school choice?

There are basically three ways that people discuss concerning the reform of our public school system. One way is to keep the existing public school system, but work on reform, either through increased funding, or other ideas. There are two more radical ways that involve school choice. One school choice method is to continue public funding of education, but allow school choice through vouchers or charter schools. The much more radical one involves the complete privatization of schools.

I like the idea of complete privatization, but I think it is a little radical for right now, and I don't think it has much support, primarily because it would cut off universal guaranteed funding. So, the school voucher/charter school method seems like a reasonable compromise, or a major first step. But the question is, would this, in fact, be an improvement, or could it potentially make things worse. Andrew Coulson deals with this question:

Will charter schools enlarge the existing government monopoly in the long run?

We know this is a delicate question, but our own history demands that it be asked. A close historical analogue to a modern charter school is a conventional U.S. public school of the mid-to-late 1800s. In fact, early public schools had greater local control and autonomy than most charters do today.

Look what has become of them.

The natural pattern for public schools has been relentlessly increasing centralization and regulation. Is there any reason to think that charter schools, or any public school choice variation, will escape that fate?

Many private schools are opting to convert to charter schools as a way of alleviating financial pressures, so the eventual result could be a nearly universal government monopoly that is as heavily regulated as are public schools today. Is that a tolerable risk?

The late Harry Browne echoed a similar concern, stating that school vouchers are not really "school choice" and would actually make things worse. Private schools would begin to accept public funds, through the form of vouchers, but with this money, strings would probably be attached. As a consequence, private schools would be molded to fit the public school model, and then private schools would have the same flaws as the public school system of today.

So, the middle road of school choice raises concerns about the fate of private schools. From a religious establishment issue, I still have no problems with private schools receiving money that follows the student, because it is done so by the student's choice, not through any coercion. However, I have to consider the concerns raised by Browne and Coulson. In an earlier post I stated by opposition to government funding of faith based initiatives, because it would change the nature of the initiative, and I wonder if the same would happen to private schools. At the same time, I like the idea of the money following the student; we are funding the student anyway, why not let him choose where to go? If we could get the funding without the regulation, that would be great, but that is unlikely to happen.

Perhaps a good solution would be to allow school choice, but only in the public arena. This would mimic the situation in higher education. The student would still be stuck in a public school system, but they would have their choice of schools. This seems to work well in the college arena. Where a child lives would not determine what school they had to attend, it would basically be an issue of how the parents are willing to drive. I am not sure how this would work exactly, because it would not be a free market, so I would have to spend time thinking about the ramifications of such a system. The good schools would attract all the students, but what motivation would the school have to grow? Maybe increased funding that eventually means higher teacher and administrator pay. That would provide motivation for schools to do better jobs. But, even then, the school system is still somewhat closed, so I am not sure how good it would do. Just some things to think about.

Having spiritual beliefs do not make you intolerant

I was visiting another blog and people were discussing the definition of being a "Christian." The person who blogged at the site stated that a Christian was someone who had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. That sounds accurate, and the person was simply giving a definition to their best guess. Someone else jumped on that person, calling them "judgmental" and "self-righteous" and speaking for God for assuming who Christians were.

Now, first of all, the definition provided above is not unreasonable, since the term "Christian" can mean "little Christ", and implies anyone who follows Christ. Most of the definition is in the term itself. Now, to go from "follower of Christ" to one who "has a personal relationship with Christ", while most Christians would agree these are the same, to a non-Christian these dots may not connect so easily, but the idea is not that far-fetched, nor self-righteous, in my view.

Secondly, for any religious belief, there has to be some way to define who belongs to that religion or not, such as Buddhists believe in the teachings of Buddha, Muslims follow the teachings of the Koran, etc... There is bound to be debate about who exactly belongs to a certain group, and there is some disagreement among Christians about who exactly is a Christian, for instance, must one be baptized, do good works, or simply have a personal relationship with Jesus as stated by the previously mentioned blogger (which is a view I share)? However, one must understand that people will disagree on this key point, but that does not make them judgmental or self-righteous.

To be honest, I do not know what the other blogger's problem was with the definition given of Christianity, whether it was too narrow, or simply because they had a definition at all. If the definition was too narrow, well, that's part of a religious belief. You believe what you believe is the truth; who is to say what is too broad or too narrow? Someone does not have to believe in universal or widespread salvation in order to be tolerant. Concerning the existence of a definition in the first place, that would be highly impractical. I would never be able to become a Christian, because no one would know, or would tell me, what a Christian actually is.

I'm back (kind of)

I'm back from vacation. However, it may be a little while longer before I make another post, simply because work is so busy. Now, I know it's hard, and my blog gives you one more reason to wake up in the morning but it may be another day before I post. Maybe not. Depends how work goes.

Off to Gabbatha University

I'll be a guest blogger for a few days at my friend Josh's site, Gabbatha University. I'll be on vacation for a few days after that. It will probably be a week and a half before I post again on this site. Stop by Gabbatha sometime, it's a great site.

Random self-indulgent musings

I have no topic to write about, so I will subject you to my random musings. Explore the deepness and depthity that is the soul of Chance!!! Sit back as I inject you with my wit!!!

A lady was holding a pro-life sign on an intersection on the way to work today. I gave her a thumbs up, but I now wonder if it looked sarcastic.

I often wonder when they will let blood-letting back in as a legitimate medical practice.

I sometimes wonder if my desire for freedom is really just a desire for control.

I wonder if 7th order terms of a Taylor Series polynomial ever have their feelings hurt because they are neglected so often.

Sometimes writing about spiritual things scares the crap out of me. After all, I can BS all I want about political stuff and be completely wrong. Being wrong about spiritual issues is a whole other matter.

I've been trying, on various occasions, to insert the term "Hollaback girl" into my conversations.

I wish capes were still a popular fashion accessory.

Taxes, Taxes, Taxes Pt. 1

Dan Trabune has started visiting the site and has brought up many good questions concerning taxes and what they are used for. He asked this question in response to a previous post

It's a totally unworkable solution, but don't you ever wonder what would happen if our US Budget were written by The People? That is, if our tax system allowed us to say, "I'd like 10% to go to defense, 10% to helping the poor, 20% towards the environment, 5% to foreign aid..." etc.

Pretending that it were somehow workable, what do you reckon the results of that approach would be (besides a big mess)?

I think there are good and bad things to such an approach. The good thing is that it would provide immediate accountability to where our tax dollars go. If you asked any random person how their tax money is distributed, they would probably have no idea, and I do not either. Government accountability of how our money is spent is something that needs to be addressed.

Another issue though, is that I believe our founding fathers wanted it more like the current situation, in which decisions concerning money are one step removed from the people. Whether this is right or wrong, or best for the people is a whole issue within itself. I think Congress was designed to make legislative and budget decisions for the people, instead of the people doing it themselves. This is what makes our nation a republic, as opposed to a direct democracy. A political scientist could probably tell you more about the differences, and why one is better than the other. I believe it has something to do with legislators being less subject to shifting political whims, as opposed to the everyday person.

It would be interesting, however, to see what would happen in such a situation. Would the distribution be more just? Would it still be subject to simply redistributing money to special interests?

I suppose the biggest issue I have with our tax system is the way it redistributes money from one person to another. As I have said before, I have no problem with a basic welfare system. However, when the objective of the welfare system is to simply redistribute money from the rich to the poor for egalitarian purposes, or simply because "the rich can afford it", that I have issues with. I am afraid that a direct system would cause this to happen to an even greater extent.

While democracy is a great form of rule, the greatest I can think of, other than a direct rule by Christ, a democratic form of government is not perfect, especially if it is not constrained. As the saying goes, the minority can still suffer from the tyranny of the majority. That's why we have the Bill of Rights, so that the majority cannot silence speech they disagree with, or jail someone they dislike for no reason at all. I also believe in the enumerated powers doctrine, which says that the Constitution spells out the powers that the government has. A problem with democracy that has so much power over our money is that it can simply transfer money from the minority to the majority. While this is great for when the money is really needed, it could get to the point where democracy is no longer a tool to keep the peace and keep government accountable, it becomes a tool for material gain.

Dan's question could also point to a greater issue: which is better, a more direct rule by the people, or a more representative republic?

Update 3:52 PM MDT: Made some edits to the last couple of sentences for clarity.

Christianity and the Arts

I just finished reading The Stand by Stephen King. Great book. I love epic battles between good and evil. 99% of the population gets wiped out by a disease, and the remaining people flock to the side of good or the side of evil.

The story is overtly religious. The protaganist is this 108 year old black lady who is a conduit for God reaching out to the remaining survivors. The antagonist is a henchmen of Satan, who you find out more as the story progresses. The heroes of the story have to depend on God and recite parts of Psalm 23 when confronted with evil.

Here is the interesting thing...if you took out the sex scenes and the profanity, you would have one killer Christian novel, dare I say one of the best. It has almost everything the Left Behind series does. It is a battle of God vs. the devil in an apocalyptic setting.

Which leads me to these thoughts and questions. It seems that in the arts, whether it be music, movies, books, or whatever, that the Christian products seem to be lagging behind their secular counterparts. Now, there are many talented Christian artists out there, but it seems that the actual quality of the product for secular artists seems to be better.

Let's take Christian music for instance. There are many great Christian artists out there, but there are many that seem to be more cookie-cutter, uninspired. It seems like there is never a Beatles, or U2, or Radiohead in the Christian genre. And I am not just referring to how good a band is, but how daring they are. There are talented bands, but there are very few daring or innovative bands in the Christian genre.

Christian movies are getting better, and I think it is just another issue of Hollywood having such a head start. I was disappointed in the first Left Behind movie, I will discuss why later, I have not seen the other ones. I would say Christian fiction is comparable, probably because Christian books have been around longer.

I have to admit, this trend (primarily in movies and music) bothers me, because I believe that a relationship with Christ would naturally inspire the best art. And I think it can, look at The Last Supper or other classic works. So what's going on with the Christian arts industry today?

I think that part of the issue is that Christians may focus on the message of the art and tend to neglect the art itself, perhaps. The message is the vital part, but I think God can be glorified through beautiful art as well. In the Psalms David mentions several times that the beauty of the natural creation points to the glory and wisdom of God. I think human creativity can as well, as it is a reflection of the creativity of God Himself.

A few things make me think this. I have noticed that many of my favorite bands are either Christian or have some familiarity with Christianity, but are not part of the Christian genre itself. U2 and the Innocence Mission are a couple bands that are Christian. Belle and Sebastian has one or more Christian members. I believe Collective Soul may have Christian members. Rzeznik from the Goo Goo Dolls was raised Catholic, and his latest album shows some spiritual influence. What sets these apart from artists in the Christian music industry? They are just playing music; they are not trying to get a particular message across. Now, again, the message is important, but I think one can have the message of a Christian rock band, but have the art of a secular rock band. In fact, I think great art can help the message get across.

Another example is the first Left Behind movie. It got the message across, but there were so many things not captured from the book. The story takes place around the rapture of God's people, in which millions or billions disappear. The movie focused on the message, but it missed out on focusing on the global drama and pure chaos that one could imagine happening should millions disappear. Now, this could just be a single instance of moviemaking that just happens to support my theory, but it does illustrate what I'm talking about. The drama and environment of the story gets neglected, with most of the focus on the message.

But here's another question. As an artist who is a Christian, is it important to focus on producing some Christian message through the art, or having the art point in some way to Christ? For instance, is a musician who is a Christian obligated to produce Christian songs? Is a writer who is a Christian obligated to produce books that have a Christian message? And if so, should this be the case all of the time or just some of the time? I am glad that some do, because it gets the gospel across in the format of entertainment. Some artists, like Switchfoot or POD, are groups that started in CCM (Christian Contemporary Music), but eventually moved towards the mainstream. The good thing is that the artists reach more people, but some critics argue that the message has been watered down.

I don't know the answer to these questions. All I can say for now is that it is just between the person and God. If they do desire to produce a message that points to God, I believe it is also important to focus on the quality of the art as well, as that helps with the message.

I know some readers have some actual artistic talent, unlike myself, so I'm interested in anything they have to say.

The Burden of Proof

Doris Gordon, from Libertarians For Life discusses Roe vs. Wade.

How should courts act when undecided on pivotal questions affecting two parties and when they cannot avoid making a decision? Tossing a coin will not do in such cases. Their only reasonable course is to weigh the possible injuries that they would impose by a wrongful decision either way and then choose to avoid the worst possibility. When a human being's life is on the block, a proper legal system gives the benefit of the doubt to life. This is why even advocates of capital punishment call for stringent proof. If individuals accused of felonies get the benefit of such doubt, why not the beings in the womb?

What possible wrongful injuries should the Roe Court have considered? The pregnant woman allegedly faces a partial and temporary loss of liberty; her fetus, however, allegedly faces the total and permanent loss of life and therefore liberty as well. The answer is obvious. The Court should have decided for life. Instead, the Court wrote that "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."

In other words, the issue of whether or not life begins in the womb, and whether or not abortion should be legal is up for debate for many people. Gordon argues that the burden of proof should be on the shoulders of the pro-choicers.

So much for not "enforcing my morality on others"

I don't like to make posts concerning left/right issues very often, but I have to get this off my chest.

Those in the pro-choice arena argue that abortion should not be outlawed because "who am I to enforce my morality on others?" Okay...that's all well and good, but many of them don't really mean it.

If they did, then why am I obligated to pay for the abortion through my tax dollars? Is that not enforcing their morality upon myself?

Lee refers to a post in which Joe Lieberman was attacked by fellow Democrats by stating that doctors should not be forced to provide abortions if it goes against their beliefs. So, in other words, it is wrong for me to tell them they cannot have an abortion, but it is perfectly fine for them to tell me I have to do the abortion, should I have a medical license.

Another issue is stem cell research. Many people think that stem cell research is actually banned, but that is not the case. As Spinsanity notes in August 2004

The reality is that the President has actually allowed federal funding for research into embryonic stem cell lines that had already been created before August 9, 2001 (22 are currently available according to the National Institutes of Health Embryonic Stem Cell Registry). Furthermore, privately-funded research can be conducted without restrictions in the United States. The only "ban" is on federal funding for new stem cell lines that were not included in Bush's original group - hardly the meaning that Kerry suggested in his address. [Emphasis mine]

So, anyone can do stem-cell research privately funded, or even state funded. If this was not the case, the issue of state funding for stem-cell research in California would not even be on the ballot. Many columnists and newspaper letter writes have stated that Bush let his religious opinions override the necessities of science, but that simply isn't the case. This is something that many do not understand: When the government does not fund something, it is not the same as banning it. Many could consider Bush's approach somewhat reasonable (I do not know enough about the issue, but research on aborted fetuses is troubling), Bush has not banned stem-cell research, but he is not federally funding much of it either. But that is not good enough...people cannot respect the fact that some may disagree with it and may not want to fund the research.

Now, concerning the funding of things we disagree with, someone may say "I have to pay my tax dollars towards a war I disagree with." "What about soldiers forced to engage in a war they disagree with?" Fine...for that, there is no easy answer. For one, medical procedures and research do not have to be funded by the government. However, that leads to other issues altogether. Secondly, I don't use the argument about "not enforcing morality on others" when defending the war. Those who argue for the war do not use supposed "libertarian" arguments when defending it. It is just when someone defends the permission of an action through the supposed "let me live according to my own moral code", it sounds hollow and empty when you do not let others do the same.

A kinder, gentler libertarianism

Now, I am not a full-blown libertarian, but I often take a libertarian approach when it comes to government programs and the economy. As mentioned in a previous post I echoed agreement with Arnold Kling from Cato that "If I had to give up a little bit of freedom in order to see a meaningful reduction in poverty, I would do so. My problem with government is that I see it doing harm on both counts", so I would say I do not believe in the abolition of welfare.

But the point of this post is not to discuss politics themselves, but the arguments that libertarians often use when arguing their point of view when it comes to welfare and the free market, especially when their target of persuasion is political liberals. I support most of these ideas that libertarians argue when it comes to the market and welfare, although maybe not to the same extent.

Libertarians often use the argument that it is wrong for the government to use force to redistribute money from some people to the other. Some even argue that all taxation is theft. They typically focus on the morality of one person being "robbed" so that the money goes towards someone else. Libertarians often use Randian terms such as "the barrel of a gun" to describe how government redistributes money.

Whether this viewpoint is right or wrong is not the point. I simply don't believe this is an effective argument against the welfare state. Liberals, for instance, are well aware that government uses force, but sees helping the poor as a justification for doing so. Also, when making any argument, I don't think the most effective means is talking about my rights, or that I shouldn't have to do this or that. Some may even see this argument as selfish argument, which some libertarians may even agree, unapologetically. Liberals (or even conservatives or centrists for that matter), simply believe that the good caused by a government involved in economic affairs is better than the libertarian ideal of self-ownership.

These are what I think are better arguments in favor of a more libertarian ideal when it comes to welfare and economics. I won't go too in depth of each argument, my purpose here is not to persuade, simply point out what I think are effective arguments.

1. An extensive welfare state hurts the poor more than it helps them.
Some libertarians argue that welfare produces a state of perpetual dependence on the government. Government welfare can produce perverse incentives, in which people are better off not working. Many claim that this dependence passes on through several generations. Good Source: Dr. Mary Ruwart

2. Private charity does the job better than government welfare.
The Acton Institute is a good source for these types of arguments. Acton and other similar institutions argue that voluntary help is much more powerful than welfare. Organizations such as Red Cross and the Salvation Army can help someone face to face and help with needs beyond money, rather than simply writing a check. The church is an institution that can minister to people's spiritual needs while helping their physical ones. Voluntary charity is better for the recipient and the giver. On the recipients side, they are less likely to see the help as an entitlement. On the givers side, they give out of willingness and compassion, rather than something they have to do.

Now, here is the thing. I think most would agree that private charity is better than welfare, but they see a need for much of both. I think there are valid arguments that the more welfare there is, the more harm to private charity. For one, welfare is less efficient when it comes to actual dollars sent to those who need it. So, when one has to spend more money on welfare, it leaves less money to charity, which would be more productive.

3. America as the land of opportunity.
I think many Americans admire their country because it is a land of opportunity. There exists the idea here that one can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make a good living for themselves. An extensive welfare state can harm this, in which one exchanges economic freedom for supposed economic security.

Again, I am not against all welfare as many libertarians are, just a large welfare state. However, I think the same arguments can work for either.

Conflict and Commonality

Lee has a couple of posts about how the Republicans and how the Democrats are mean (being an understatement) to each other within the same party when there is disagreement among them.

I think it is always interesting looking at conflict among members that share some commonality. It seems like no matter how much members of a group have in common with each other, they can always find stuff to disagree on, breaking the group down into smaller groups. This happens in the real world, but I have noticed it a lot on online forums, which are always ripe with debate.

Say that you have a general forum. You always find discussions/debates between non-Christian groups and Christians. You see civil discussion, but you also see a little bit of flaming and name-calling. It's like the two groups are united. But say you have a forum that is composed of mostly or all Christian members, like christianforums.com or crosswalk.com. One sees a further breakdown of groups, in which the once-saved-always-saved debate with those of the opposite opinion, or the Methodists debate against the Baptists. But let's say you even have an all-Baptist forum. Then you have a debate between the reformed Baptists vs. the southern Baptists, etc. The same goes with any category. Take a U2 forum, in which you think a love of U2 would unite all fans, but then you have a debate between 80s U2 and 90s to now U2.

I have noticed the same concerning rival colleges. Driving or hanging around any random place in Oklahoma, I feel like I have a common bond with people with an OSU (my alma mater) sticker, and those with OU stickers are like "the others". I may even forgive an OSU person for cutting me off, whereas I would be less likely to do so for an OU person. However, if I'm actually in Stillwater, OK, where OSU is located, this bond is not so strong. I am less forgiving of people who drive stupidly, even with OSU stuff all over their car. It would take something else for me to feel something in common with that person, maybe an "OSU Engineering sticker".

I suppose these are not really novel observations; I am just fascinated with how we feel bonds with other people, and these bonds weaken as we move from a more diverse environment to a more homogeneous one. It seems like a comparative process. It is not so much someone has in common with us, it is how much commonality there is relative to everyone else.

Additions to the blogroll

I added some new blogs to the site:
preacherman
Andrew Olmsted
Astrocoz
Payne Hollow
Deep Calls to Deep

The last two blogs are written from Christians who have liberal viewpoints. Astrocoz appears to be liberal as well, but writes less about political issues. She has some good posts, one in which I discussed here.

I included all the blogs because I thought they were good, but my main motivation for the last two were to provide different viewpoints. Not to make a checkmark on Things to do to Respect Diversity and Tolerate Others, but just so I would inform myself of different viewpoints. So much of my online reading is reading viewpoints similar to my own, but I can only do so much of that. I simply don't want to read similar stuff to further affirm my own opinions, I want to check out other stuff as well.

Deep Calls to Deep is from the UK I think and talks about certain politics that don't really apply here, but also has some observations of our own political climate.

Payne Hollow is done by Dan Trabune. I had little debates in the comments section of Glen Dean, and although we disagree on many things, he always states his opinions in respectful ways, better than me.

Thoughts on Freedom

Jesus said "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. " This verse obviously has applications in the spiritual realm. Those who hold on to their earthly life will end up losing it, and those who give it up for the sake of Christ will find abundant and eternal life.

I think this verse has applications in the physical realm as well, as a counselor I had seen in the past pointed this out to me. Our goal in life cannot simply be the avoidance of death or pain. God wants us to live life more abundantly, most definitely in the spiritual sense, but I believe also in the physical sense as well. And I think many times these two realms overlap.

My counselor also pointed out the idea that much of sin comes from the avoidance of pain. Now, I am no expert hamartiologist (someone who studies sin, I just looked that up), and many things can attribute to someone choosing to sin, but I think in many cases, this is correct. Matthew 13:22 says "The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful." We spend our lives worrying about the bills, grades, our car, etc... Many of these are valid concerns, but they soon become our focus. I spend so much of my time worrying about the physical world, that it takes my focus off the spiritual.

So where does the idea of freedom come in? This world is full of pain and misery, but that is a result of God giving us free will. Yes, this world is in terrible shape, but the alternative would be a world in which we are zombies. A world in which we cannot love. Some may say God took a big chance when God gave us free will; some of the angels may have thought "what are you doing, God?" He gave us the ability to turn our back on Him, but it was the only way we could gladly turn to Him out of love.

Many philosophies and world religions try to deal with the problem of pain. For instance, Buddhism tries to eliminate pain by eliminating desire. But again, this is no way to approach life. Our goal should not be to avoid pain; God wants us to live life to the fullest. Should I avoid love because I am afraid of getting hurt? Should I avoid having children because they may turn their back on me? What about the man who has been married for 35 years waiting by the bedside of his wife dying of cancer? Do you think for a second that, despite all his pain and sorrow, he would take back those 35 years with his wife?

God never promises an easy life, nor does He want one for us. He does not want us to live our lives in a way that avoids inconvenience or hurt. Sometimes He has some painful things in store for us, but He promises that He will be there with us. Part of living a life of freedom, is experiencing hurts and pains. Such a life allows us to depend completely on God, not on our circumstances.

Our founding fathers believed in freedom. On many occasions, they exchanged absolute safety for a free society. They could have had a society in which the police randomly searched people's houses for no reason. Such a society may be ultimately safer, but it would have been less free. The founding fathers realized that a free life was ultimately better than a completely safe life. The founding fathers did not attempt some utopic society where everyone was guaranteed wealth and prosperity, they simply wanted a land of opportunity. They established freedom of speech and of the press, even though it meant people say vicious things about the government. They established freedom of religion, taking a chance that people may worship the living God in some unfamiliar way or even rejecting the living God, but I believe they did so because they thought that someone can only choose God if they did so freely.

Many of these early Americans (well, not as early as the native Americans) staked their life to build this free society. They could have had it easy, living back in England where some of them had established lives. Instead, they braved the harsh winters and fought an empire to establish the free society we have today. Many of them paid with their lives.

Many Americans make the same sacrifice today, giving their lives for our freedom. As we celebrate this Independence Day, we should be thankful for their sacrifice, not only for our security, but also because of our freedom. I think we can honor them by remembering the sacrifice they make and by remembering the ideals of freedom for which they fight.