On Occupation

Katherine Coble has a post which touches on how people value others based on their occupation. She writes

What you do for a living isn't who you are. Making more money than another person doesn't make you automatically better than the other person. If you live in a big house, good for you. If you drive a big car, good for you. I'm glad for your success. But the fact that something isn't large or expensive or flashy doesn't mean that it isn't important.

Good point. I'm going to bypass the topic of if someone can have too much material possessions, but I wanted to focus on the occupational aspect.

Many are well aware of the perception that occupations that make more money are always better than low-paying occupations. I do think there is virtue in gaining skills for the workforce, so that one is more valuable to the employer, but some people go to the workforce immediately after high school, and I know each person is different. I, for one, do not have good manual labor skills, so I could not go the Vo-Tech route, nor am I a genius like Bill Gates, who didn't have to go to college.

Anyway, back to my main point, I have seen this bias. But I have seen another scale, almost a reverse of the financial prestige scale. I saw this some when I was in college, and I will call it a scale of "nobility." The idea is that some occupations are more noble than others. Typically, majors in the liberal arts were considered "nobel", but majors such as engineering or business were less noble. The idea was that people who just cared about making money would go into business or engineering. People who cared about higher, transcendent things would go into the liberal arts. The deep, caring people would be a teacher or English professor; the greedy would be an accountant.

Now, this was hardly typical, and this is not an indictment of liberal arts majors. And I know that there was plenty in reverse, where business/engineering did not think you contributed something unless it was to the Gross Domestic Product.

Now, is there truth to either of these viewpoints? I think ultimately, a person has to do what they want to do, and what they believe God has called them to do. I think in many instances, these things are one and the same. Now, don't get me wrong; many times God will call upon us to do things that make us uncomfortable, things we do not want to do. At the same time, I believe God gives us a passion for certain things, which is usually related to our occupation and/or something else that composes a significant part of our life.

My wife switched from a chemical engineering major to zoology, eventually getting her degree in the latter. Zoology is not nearly as high-demand as chemical engineering, but she felt miserable in engineering, and she had a passion for animals and nature. She made the switch and she was much happier, and I am glad she did.

As for me, I was at a crossroads my sophomore year in deciding what to do. I was a math tutor at the time, so the idea of being a math teacher appealed to me. At the same time, I had a passion for the physical sciences, so mechanical engineering appealed to me. This was troubling, however. I liked the idea of being a math teacher because it meant I was in an occupation where I helped people. I felt at the time that simply being an engineer meant I would not do anything for anyone, other than help someone make money.

Ultimately, I had to go with engineering. I just felt like being a math teacher was not for me. It's hard to explain, but I just did not feel like it was my calling, at least not then. I would have gladly pursued that occupation, had it felt right. So here I am, as an engineer. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I feel like God gave me a passion for such a job, and even though I may not understand his plans, he wants me to be where I am.

I do not really feel this way now, where some jobs are better than others because of its altruistic implications. Part of my thought process then had to do with outside influences. I realize that ultimately, people have to pursue a career choice that makes them happy. I am not saying life's ultimate goal is self-actualization, but one should pursue a field where they are happy if it is possible. Some jobs appear to be more altruistic, or more noble than others. And others seem to be more important because they make more money. But God has different callings for each of us. Some will make a decent amount of money, some not. God can use us no matter what we do for a living.

When it comes to rock critics, nothing new under the sun

I used to read music magazines; I don't anymore. This was about from 2000 to 2004 or so. One recurring theme I noticed is that critics complained about how there was no good rock music anymore. They talked about how groups needed to come and save rock. When garage rock was popular, Spin or Rolling Stone would talk about how the Strokes or the Hives were the new saviors of rock (actually, it was new saviors of rock with a '?', I suppose to keep us in suspense.) They went on and on about how true rock was dead, and how certain groups were going to come along and revive rock 'n' roll.

I thought, man, music must really suck for this time period.

But then I bought an NME (a popular rock mag in Europe I suppose), which had a collection of all the articles about U2 that magazine had written since about 1979 or 1980 up to the All That You Can't Leave Behind album and tour, around 2001/2002. It was interesting to see them talk about U2, especially in their early days, not knowing how big they were going to be.

In this magazine, I got a sense of the same stuff I was reading in modern magazines. "Rock was Dead." "Was U2 the new savior of rock?" Same old stuff throughout the entire period of U2 (1980 - now). If there was actually a rock music crisis, I could understand. But when the same rhetoric about rock needing a revival is carried on throughout decades, their complaints seem less genuine.

So is rock music going through a crisis today? It is really hard to tell. It may be that I am getting older and am not with the latest fashions, watching MTV or the local radio station or whatever, but it seems that there is no coherent music scene. Or whatever music scene there is, it is centered around hip-hop, or pop heavily influenced by hip-hop. I could be wrong, but it seems that the most common groups I hear about are hip-hop groups, who I will not even try to name, because I will probably list groups no longer around.

There is good music around though. In a previous post, I expressed a satisfaction with the adult contemporary stuff they were playing on the radio. I did not realize though that it was mostly one station playing that stuff, until it went away. Now the radio stations where I live are total crap.

Many blame media conglomerates for decreasing radio quality. I think they are right. Part of this problem is due to more relaxed FCC regulations. However, I don't think the answer is to tighten these regulations again (after all, if an owner of a private station wants to make a lot of money and send his kids to college, more power to him, he should have that choice). But I think the downward spiraling quality of AM/FM radio has led to satellite radio. Yes, satellite radio costs, but who said someone is entitled to free music? Despite this, increasing satellite radio programming quality will provide competition for AM/FM radio stations, causing them to up their quality again. Or, one could start listening to country. There seems to be no shortage of those stations.

Why is an Opinion More Offensive than Drunk Driving?

Yes I know, Mel Gibson is old news. But I found this article at Crosswalk titled "Alcohol and the Mel Gibson Saga".

The article states:

James B. Butler, executive director for the California Council on Alcohol Problems, has said: "Mel Gibson was arrested for drunk driving, and during the arrests made a number of anti-Semitic remarks. It now appears that his Hollywood career may be in jeopardy -- not because he was drunk, not because he was driving and putting people's lives at risk, but because of his remarks. Interestingly enough, alcohol is not identified as a significant contributing factor..."

Interesting point. Now, don't get me wrong, anti-Semitic remarks are indeed harmful. But so is driving drunk, something that gets so little attention. I think that driving drunk is worse, since it actually kills people. Hateful remarks can ultimately lead to violence at times, but drunk driving is more of a direct aggression against people. The tragedy of Mel drunk-driving has been overshadowed.

The article goes on about the evils of alcohol. It has a quote from Billy Graham:

Years ago, the famous evangelist Billy Sunday described the destructive nature of alcoholic beverages when he said:

"If all the combined forces of hell should assemble in conclave and with them all the men on earth who hate and despise God, purity and virtue -- if all the scum of the earth could mingle with the denizens of hell to try to think of the deadliest institution to home, church, and state, I tell you, the combined forces of hell could not conceive of or bring into being an institution that could touch the hem of the garment of the tavern to damn the home, mankind, womanhood, business, and everything good on earth."

Hmm, convicting stuff. I do agree that alcohol has done so much damage in the lives of families and to our country.

So what should be done? Prohibition didn't work. Or did it? The article quotes William J. Bennet, who was "former director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under former President George H.W. Bush." He states:

One of the clear lessons of prohibition is that when we had laws against alcohol there was less consumption, less alcohol-related disease, fewer drunken brawls, and a lot less drunkenness. Contrary to myth, there is no evidence that prohibition caused any big increases in crime .... The real facts are these: As a result of prohibition, 180,000 saloons were shut down, and 1,800 breweries went out of business. In ten years of prohibition, the death rate due to alcohol decreased 42%, the death rate due to cirrhosis of the liver decreased by 70%, crime decreased by 54%, and insanity decreased by 66%.

I'm not sure I agree. But I have to consider the source of both arguments. Most people concerning this issue believe that prohibition was a mistake. Libertarians often point to the rise of organized crime when alcohol was prohibited and extrapolate that argument toward drug legalization. I have never actuallly looked at the numbers for this time period, but knowing human nature, I doubt prohibition had the desired effect.

Why doesn't every American speak English?

I thought I would go for an attention-grabbing title.

Actually, as a limited-government conservative, I do not believe the government should attempt to force anyone to speak a certain language, at least in the private sphere. People should be free to speak whatever language they want. If someone wants to open a convenience store or clothing store with signs in Spanish, that is their perogative.

At the same time however, freedom to speak a certain language should come without feelings of entitlement. Sure, you can speak Spanish, but don't expect the worker at the McDonald's to accomodate you. There is no national language - yet, but at the same time, understand that the large majority of the nation speak English. That may seem offensive, but if I moved to China or Japan, a country with little English, I would not expect to be accomodated by everyone.

However, typically, this problem of different languages seems to resolve itself. When I lived in Austin, many businesses were bilingual, simply because first generation Americans (well, some not in the legal sense) worked at these businesses. Or, businesses would understand that they needed to hire someone bilingual. Same thing I have seen in Southern California. The larger the Hispanic population, the more accomodations were made. Sure, it is annoying sometimes when people speak two different languages, but it is in the immigrants vested interest to learn English (or at least their children), and some English-speaking people will have a vested interest to learn Spanish.

Now, in the public sphere, it gets more complicated. As a limited government guy, there would be fewer public services, or at least smaller versions of them, in the first place. But the reality is, public services, whether it be schools or the Social Security Administration, will have a need to interact with new Americans. And yes, I do not believe illegal immigrants are entitled to the services that legal citizens can obtain. Bilingual schools will need to be a reality. Most of the time however, if there is a large Hispanic population, there will be a pool to draw from for bilingual workers.

So should schools teach children with the ultimate goal of teaching them English? Yes, I believe so. After all, the purposes of schools are to prepare kids to succeed in the real world, and the ability to speak English is vital.

So, in summary, we should have freedom to speak the languages we want, but with that should come a sense of non-entitlement.

Distinguishing the Different Types of Occupational Licensing and Regulation

A pure, completely laissez-faire libertarian will probably say there is no type of occupational licensing needed; that the free market will regulate quality of product in every sense.

I don't know how I feel about that statement, but I think at the very least, we can sort occupational licensing into, say, three different categories: environmental, health and safety, and economic reasons (or the public good).

Environmental: I think regulations that protect the environment are reasonable. For instance, one wants to make sure that a business does not do unreasonable harm to the environment, or, if it does, that they pay some type of tax to remedy harm caused.

Health and Safety: Things in this category involve for instance, regulation of construction materials to ensure that they are safe, fire inspections, health inspections, to name a few.

Economic reasons: An example situation in one in which a person must demonstrate to the city council that their business will be profitable, or "needed." It also involves limiting the numbers of competitors in a certain area.

There are also moral reasons, I should add, such as outlawing prostitution and the drug trade.

An article at the Institute of Justice gives an example that highlights the differences between "health and safety" regulation vs. "the public good" regulations.

Erroll Tyler, an African-American entrepreneur from Melrose, Mass., who is battling for economic liberty, seeks to show that you can fight City Hall.

After two years and two applications, Tyler still does not have the license he needs to start his amphibious vehicle tour service because City officials from Cambridge, Mass., decided that the City does not "need" him. In a sharp break from the American tradition of fair play, Cambridge is using the power of government simply to protect other tour operators from honest competition, hardly a proper use of government power.
[...]
Even though the only legitimate purpose of government licensing is to protect public health and safety in carefully tailored ways—such as requiring buses, for example, to be insured, well-maintained and operated by a qualified driver, in the transportation industry, an entrepreneur has to do more than satisfy objective criteria like these. To receive a "jitney" license, which is required to pick up and drop off passengers along a fixed route, State law and City ordinances require an entrepreneur to prove that his or her new venture also serves "public convenience and necessity." Unfortunately for entrepreneurs, a proposed transportation business is only "convenient and necessary" if the entrepreneur can prove to bureaucrats that there is a market for the new business that existing companies cannot satisfy. It is not enough, in other words, for an entrepreneur to show that he or she will provide consumers better service at a better price. He or she has to further show that existing companies cannot meet the demand. Typically, existing companies oppose the issuance of any new jitney license.

"This approach turns the ordinary principles of entrepreneurship upside down," Rowes said. "Instead of consumers and businesspeople deciding whether a new service is needed in a free market, bureaucrats, in close consultation with a start-up business's would-be competitors, make that decision. In practice, the public convenience and necessity standard is so arbitrary and so hostile to honest entrepreneurship that enterprising citizens are routinely prevented from pursuing their dreams."

In another quote from the same article,

Consumers, not city bureaucrats, should decide whether a business is "needed", said Jeff Rowes, an Institute for Justice staff attorney. Governments, like Cambridge, need to recognize that economic liberty is as much a part of our Constitution as the right to free speech. The constitutional right to earn an honest living is the basis of our independence as free and responsible members of society. This right is more important than protecting other tour operators from competition."

I completely agree. I don't think it is unreasonable to have the government make some steps in the interest of public safety, at least, that is an issue I am dealing with right now. Regardless, if government regulation was limited to safety and health issues, that would be a vast improvement to our current situation.

I never support economic regulations in the third category, or at least, I cannot think of an example right now. The idea that a city council can limit a business simply because it is not "needed" is not only anathema to free market ideals, but also the ideal of America being a land of opportunity, and the ideal of the poor and middle classes being able to make a name for themselves. It is also contrary to the right to "the pursuit of happiness". There are many words that describe the actions this city council, but my favorite one is tyrannical.

College football predictions

Big 12:North Champ: Nebraska will improve, but Iowa State will be on top. Iowa State did decent last year, and they have 10 of 11 starts returning to offense. Colorado will do just as well with their new coach Dawkins, in his first year, than they will with their DB former coach Barnett. (What does DB stand for? Think of Summer's Eve.)

South Champ: Texas, but only because OU loses to OSU.

Big 12 Champ: Texas, but I do picture them losing 1 or 2 games.

What will happen to Oklahoma State: OSU, and I say this as objectively as possible, will exceed expectations. People will be surprised by how much the quarterback, Bobby Reid has developed (he has been hampered by injuries the past couple of years). OSU will win at least 3 games non-conference, probably all 4. I could easily see them beating at least 3 teams in their conference.

I see a 7-5 record overall, with either a 3-5 or 4-4 conference record.

Other conferences:

Big 10: Ohio State will not meet expections; they are just losing too many starters on defense, and analysts seem to ignore that. They will have a great offense, no doubt, but other teams will simply outscore them. They will lose 3 games, but win their bowl game.

Big 10 Champ: I think Michigan will redeem themselves this year.

ACC: I would go for Miami due to the skill, but I think too many new members on the coaching staff will be a problem. I see Florida State winning this conference. Florida State fans will rejoice, except for when they lose to Florida.

Big East: I think there's little doubt West Virginia will repeat. I could also see them going to the championship game, but their schedule may hurt them with the BCS.

SEC:

SEC West Champ: LSU

SEC East Champ: Sorry Michael, but I think this will be Florida's year. Urban Meyer has a record of doing awesome his second year at schools. Their offense will take off.

SEC Champ: Florida

Other SEC news: Kentucky fans will be crying themselves to sleep this year, on many occasions. But I do see them doing better than winning 3 games.

PAC-10: I'll go out on a limb and say U-Cal will be the champ. USC and U-Cal will both lose one game, but USC will have lost to U-Cal, so the tiebreaker goes to U-Cal.

BCS Championship: Notre Dame vs. West Viriginia. West Viriginia will be the only undefeated team. Notre Dame will have lost one game. Notre Dame will be in the championship game, despite some unresolved defensive issues, but no other team is that strong this year. I see West Virginia pulling the upset. Nevertheless, people will continue to talk about how Weis and Notre Dame are God's gift to football, deservedly or not. Whether West Viriginia is the best team or not is another issue. But I see them being undefeated as a real possibility, and that alone will propel them to the championship game. I think they are better than people give them credit for, and their offense runs like smooth machinery, which will outscore Notre Dame.

So there it is folks. Hopefully you will not remember to look back at this post when the season is over and realize I have no idea what I am talking about. Then again, there is the edit button. "What are you talking about? I never said WV would win it all!"

Update: I realize Lee may not actually be a Kentucky fan simply because he is from that state. I will keep the description of him crying himself to sleep in this post nonetheless.

Free Competition Threatens the Rich

Libertarianism and economic conservatism have often been criticized because many of their proponents tend to be more rich and successful, and that they use that political philosophy just to keep themselves on top. That is probably true in many cases. Neal Boortzeven claims that seeing the amount of money deducted from his paycheck motivated him towards conservatism, then ultimately, libertarianism.

However, many times those who are successful claim to support free markets, but will actually use the avenue of government to work in their favor. There are numerous stories of executives lobbying for subsidies for their business, in the interest of the "common good." FM radio companies, using the FCC, tried to block the Satellite Radio stations from coming in and competing.

Another avenue in which businesses work is through the avenue of occupational licensing. To the extent that we should regulate business is another topic within itself, but the point is, many companies will convince legislatures to more stringently regulate businesses, in order to make it more difficult for competitors to enter the marketplace. Such legislation can make it easier for a business to maintain a monopoly. Since that business may have been around awhile, it has the capital accumulated to follow whatever new regulations take place, while the cost burdens the little guy coming in. I believe such regulations can cause the scenario that liberals fear most, in which "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer."

So, many of the rich will act to constrain markets in order to hurt the poor.

But could some of these people be trying to act for the common good? Maybe. But many of those in power are the ones trying to push the new legislation through. I'm just not that trusting. Also, the fact that some of these regulations hurt the poor somewhat must also be weighed against the necessity of such regulations. Again, that leads to the debate about how much regulation is needed. But does one really need a license to be an auctioneer, a hair-braider, or a horse-teeth filer? How about a psychic? I would like to see what their certification test looks like. (Sorry, I'm not going to do a google search for psychic licensing, but I have heard it somewhere).

Again, even if some regulations are necessary, in excess, they can hinder opportunities for the poor. This seems to be anathema for the American ideal of any political stripe. Conservatives and liberals alike believe that America is supposed to be the land of opportunity.

A couple of the links above point to the Institute for Justice, an organization that sues on behalf of citizens, usually those pursuing an occupation that is laden with licensing laws. IJ is fighting for a free market, but not just for the wealthy, but for the poor as well.

I know there are many things to consider when dealing with the market and regulation, and one of those considerations should be how easy it is for the lower and middle class to make a living for themselves. A land of opportunity is advantageous for the poor, and is something that many of the rich do not want.

Football Season Approaches

Well, sports fans... The season is nearly upon us, both college football and pro. I am primarily a college football fan, but I have gotten more interested in the NFL when I moved to Bronco Country and when I started playing fantasy football. Speaking of fantasy football, by some miraculous twist of fate, I have both Shaun Alexander and Larry Johnson on my team (For those who don't know - I didn't a year ago - they are both really good running backs).

My main two college football teams are also schools I have attended, the Oklahoma State Cowboys and the Texas Longhorns. It is convenient that a team I like also won the national championship last year (Texas of course). Unfortunately, OSU has quite a way to go.

It is nice to be passionate about something that isn't so meshed with politics (with the exception of public funding of stadiums). For the longest time I really never understood how someone could be so passionate about sports, how they would always have to see their team play on Saturday or Sunday. I wouldn't say I am as crazy as some other fans, but I have developed a stronger passion for the sport of football.

I guess it first started while attending OSU, my alma mater. Before then, I felt like I never really had a team for which to root. As I attended the games, I became more involved and more passionate about the outcome. I began to make an emotional investment in the game. The bigger the opponent, and the higher the stakes, the larger the investment.

Sometimes, this emotional investment can take an ugly turn. When OSU had a string of three good years, I got to the point of expecting my team to win. Instead of being in the situation where I was "happy if they win, sad if they lose", I got to the point where I was "mad if they lose, relieved if they win." That is no way to be emotionally involved in a team. I think I have gotten better recently. I was a little bit grumpy when I thought Texas was going to lose the national championship game (when where was about 4 minutes left and they were 12 points behind), but I don't think I would have been as upset as I would have been previously had they actually lost.

Some may think being so emotionally involved in a sport is a little bit ridiculous. I think one should still have sports in perspective to other things, but for me, I enjoy being passionate about something that is, a little bit frivolous. There is something emotionally uplifting about team spirit and rooting for your team, provided it does not get ugly as I mentioned earlier.

For me, it is great to have the memories with my wife (then my girlfriend) when Oklahoma State beat Oklahoma U. twice during our shared college years. The first time I was not with her, but we were both watching the game on TV. I called her on the phone as soon as the game was over, expressing our shock that one of the worst college teams beat their rival, OU. The second time we were both actually at the game together watching the upset happen again. Those are memories we will have together for the rest of our lives.

College football, and really any college sport, is especially uplifting, because of the inequality among the teams, and that there are so many teams (there are no political connotations here, I promise). As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, it is exhilarating to see your team, who no one thought had a chance, pull a major upset of a national power. The suspense is overwhelming knowing that your team is reaching the Final Four, knowing that this is their chance, maybe their only chance in a hundred years, or ever, to reach the top.

Rooting for a team can also unite fans. It doesn't matter if you are Republican, Democrat, whatever... You can be on the same team when it comes to rooting for a common goal.

Again, being passionate about your team, as long as it is kept in perspective, can be a positive experience.

(Some) Celebrities are the New White People

Katherine Coble shared a story about her husband's experience with Samuel L. Jackson, in which Jackson stole her husband's cab.

Back when I used to watch MTV, I remember watching a special on celebrities and how they lived. It spoke about how when celebrities showed up at clubs, they simply told people sitting at a table to get up. I believe it was my wife who said, "Isn't that what white people used to do to black people."

Same with the cab story. I could just imagine back in the 1960s, or even today, some white person shoving a black person out of the cab because they had to make their tee time.

Now, I know this really is not an issue of race, but I believe there is an underlying commonality with how some white people treated black people (some still do) and how celebrities treat the peasant folk. As Katherine said in response to my comment about this commonality on her blog,
"Interesting point. I think it has something to do with the perception of priviledge translating to worth.

Some white people used to be treated better solely because of their whiteness. They thought that meant they were actually worth it, and others worth less.

Replace "white" with "celebrity" and you have the same thing."

So, what is my point? I really don't know. It just bothers me when I hear of celebrities treating other people like trash, because, in many ways, it is the same type of behavior seen in race relations.

But it is easy to bash on celebrities and point out the flaws in other people. So, I have to examine myself and see if there is any of that in me. Do I think of certain groups of others as "less" than me? Do I ever think I am hot stuff? Do I ever look at my occupation and compare it to the occupation of others? Do I think I am superior just because I am really, really, ridiculously good looking?

I've been tagged by Josh

1. One book that changed your life: The Book of Matthew

2. A book you read more than once: The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis

3. A book you would want on a desert island: Probably the entire Chronicles of Narnia (I haven't read it yet, but I am about to, and I figure I would want a long book) by C.S. Lewis

4. A book that made you cry: Hmmm, I don't know if I've ever cried while reading. I suppose if there was a book called the Death of Cute Kittens, that would make me cry.

5. A book that made you laugh: SeinLanguage by Jerry Seinfeld

6. A book you wish had been written: Chance, Pinnacle of Masculinity and the Coolest Guy who ever Lived

7. A book you wish had never been written: I would agree with Josh and say the Koran.

8. Book I am currently reading: Keeping Your Wife Your Best Friend by Clarence Schuler.

9. Book I am planning on reading: Becoming One: Emotionally, Spiritually, and Sexually by Joe Beam. At least I think that is the one my friend is reading.

10. Person to tag: I think Michael has done it before, so I'll tag Dan and Lee.

Live, at an undisclosed location

Well, I traveled for the first time since the whole terrorism apprehension issue in the UK. A few observations.

1) Security lines are definitely slower, but I am not sure why. Inspection didn't seem more thorough than usual. Oh wait, I know why. There was only 1 line open.

2) Standing as close as you can to the person in front of you, invading their personal space, while standing in the security line will not make the line go any faster.

3) In my short time of traveling, I have found that what works best when exiting the airplane is that the front row goes first, followed by the second, and so on... Come on people, it's not rocket science.

What arrives in my junk mail folder

Why do I feel like I am getting emails from a schizophrenic? This text was below an ad for some "rising stocks."

His eyes were open; he was glaring up atme. What it was you knew to be truth by the threesigns they gave you. The little woman came running out of the fern brake.
Also, in a fight I use my left hand better than I do my right.
The little man smiled at me, and trilled.
Nor whatelse there might be of living things.
They looked at Jim with curiosity and interest and with no trace ofunfriendliness.
Her hands werefull of thick, heavily veined leaves. Instantly thepost-hypnotic command to the subconscious operated. When I summon you, then see that you obey! Others, curiosity not yet quenched, tooktheir places. A milky sap streamed through her fingers and dropped uponthe black, corroded spot. Several times he had to repeat this before she caught it.
Although at that, we know so damned little Iwouldnt rule it out. I watched suspicion grow, and thereturn of bitter hate.
Jim said, laughingly:Its the food of the Yunwi Tsundsi youre eating. I looked at Evalie, and at the wine and amber beauty of her. I went on to something else that had been puzzlingme. They made me feel asGulliver must have felt among the Liliputians. The pygmies watched us wriggle into them with frankamazement.
Its rim was thick and fleshy, like a round white mouth. I studied the plain for the hundredth time. I couldsee no path, but the golden pygmies knew their way.
None was tallerthan the one I had saved from the white flowers. There was agony in them, and there wasbitter hatred. I looked back, up the face of the black cliff.
There was no fear nor hatred in her eyes.
Theycarried long, slender spears and small round targes.
Around her hips wasthe white loin-cloth of the Little People.
The Wolf-womans eyes were like sapphirestars, her free hand was raised in summons. She would have passed in sleep, in peace,without pain .
They were earth-folk,worshippers of life; and as such at times outrageously Rabelaisian. The little woman came running out of the fern brake.
Jim with the tentacle of that Dark Powercreeping, creeping toward him . The littlepeople had only watched, and laughed, and urged the women to bring memore.
Since it is plain he still thinks me that . Although at that, we know so damned little Iwouldnt rule it out. Jim was staring down upon the golden pygmy like a man in a dream.
He leaped backinto the brake, motioning us to follow. His gaze wandered to my hair, and I saw amazement banishthe hatred.

Looking at it, another way...

Here's a situation. What if a business was coming to town that would provide jobs for many middle class workers? Say about a thousand or two thousand? In addition, it would make products much cheaper for the middle class. Let's say the cost of living for the middle class, including groceries, yardwork supplies, and even a movie for the family to watch, decreases?

But wait, there's a catch. If this store comes in, many of the rich shopowners will lose their jobs. People will support the new store, providing jobs for the middle class, because it helps their middle class cost of living. But, 20 rich people will lose their jobs, and 1000-2000 jobs will be provided for the middle class.

Would you support the existence of this new business?

But let's change it around a little bit. Let's knock the classes down one notch. Instead of the store providing jobs for the middle class, it provides for the lower class. And many of the customers are members of the lower class, not the middle. And the people losing their jobs are not rich shopowners, but middle class ones.

Does this change anything, and why?

The Marketplace of Churches

There was a special on Dateline a couple of weeks ago on Carlton Pearson, a preacher in Tulsa, Oklahoma who teaches the idea of universal salvation. Josh from Gabbatha also mentions the piece and talks about hell in general at his blog.

Pearson was a very successful preacher, but when he had his supposed "revelation" and started teaching on it, the congregation left, and he received letters from his mentors and peers in the ministry urging him to change course.

Of course, Dateline painted it as a picture of a man being persecuted for his beliefs. But Ted Haggard, pastor of the enormous New Life Church in Colorado Springs said, to paraphrase "if people don't like what you are saying, they leave. It's the marketplace."

Now, saying the church is like a marketplace may cheapen what church is to some. In fact, I don't really like using the term, but it made a catchy title. After all, church should not be portrayed as a business where people simply come to on Sundays and get what they need. The church should not be selling a "product" that we can just snatch up. But I don't think Haggard really meant that. I think what he meant is that if a preacher espouses a doctrine that people do not like, they have every right to leave. Pearson was not being persecuted, his congregation has every right to seek spiritual guidance in other places. This is for better (people change churches to avoid what they feel is false doctrine), or for worse (people feel too challenged by biblical truth so they go somewhere to "feel good.").

While it is unfortunate that the body of Christ can be so divided, with so many different denominations, I wonder if it can be a good thing as well. The problem with a more uniform religious body is that it is more susceptible to false doctrine, whether intentional or not. With multiple churches and denominations, if one preacher or conference leader gets something wrong, it does not trickle down to the whole body.

Ideally, we would all have a perfect understanding of the Bible, and none of us would get it wrong. However, some of us do. Because man is imperfect and makes mistakes when interpreting God's word, I find it a good thing that someone has a choice when choosing churches. A "marketplace" is better than a monopoly.

What Real Power does Wal-Mart have?

Wal-Mart has been getting many jabs from politicians. I was watching the news the other day and some Democratic legislator was criticizing Wal-Mart because it "had too much power in the hands of a few people."

Now, I have posted on Wal-Mart before. I have defended Wal-Mart. I do admit though, I didn't give some criticisms that much credit. The concern that Wal-Mart closes down mom-and-pop stores is a legitimate one. However, Wal-Mart is successful because it gives customers what they want. A free market will not guarantee jobs for everyone, but I do believe it provides customers with products in the most efficient manner possible. Small businesses may not be able to compete according to price, but they will have to be create and compete in other ways.

But back to the claim about Wal-Marts "power." My claim is that Wal-Mart has no real power over us. No one has to go to Wal-Mart. Does my electric and gas company have some power over me? Sure. I don't have that much flexibility in choosing my methods of power delivery. If I was a progressive criticizing companies, I would go after them. But, I never have to go to Wal-Mart. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever. Wal-Mart has no power over me whatsoever. None. At no point do I have to go to Wal-Mart. I can go to Target to get similar things. I have the choice of several grocery stores to buy what I need. I can go to Home Depot or Lowe's for stuff around the house. I can go to Radio Shack or Best Buy for electronics.

To be honest, I rarely go to Wal-Mart. I typically avoid it because it is so friggin' busy. I am willing to pay a little bit extra to avoid the nightmare that is Wal-Mart. Obviously, because it is so busy, other people make different choices, saving the amount of money they do is important enough to them. I was in their position when I was a poor college student, where saving money was more important than avoiding a busy store. So do many on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

There is also the issue of Wal-Marts employement policies. This is really part of a bigger issue concerning the free market and workers wages. Again, concerning Wal-Mart's "power", workers are free to work at other places.

But say that Wal-Mart did pay their workers more. Then, either Wal-Mart would have to raise prices, or Wal-Mart would make less profit. If Wal-Mart makes less profit, then shareholders are less likely to invest in the store. If Wal-Mart raised prices, then it would defeat what is good about Wal-Mart. As I mentioned earlier, Wal-Mart helps the poor simply by offering products at lower prices. So where is the tradeoff. We can't have low prices and have high wages. One affects the other. So who decides if higher wages or lower prices are better? I say, let the free market decide.

I realize that many of these issues have to do with one's overall belief in the free market in general. Personally, I think Wal-Mart is a testament to capitalism's greatest strengths, providing products as cheaply as possible. But there is the part of Wal-Mart that involves low wages for workers. I personally do not think that is a bad thing, because it provides a workplace for those with little to no job skills. If one feels that people are entitled to a certain wage and health care, then they will not care for Wal-Mart. Personally, I believe the pay at Wal-Mart provides a good reflection of what the employees have to offer.

Again, the success of Wal-Mart is due to the customers. People say Wal-Mart should be held accountable to the people. I believe they are, to the people who shop there. When war is declared on Wal-Mart, war is declared on the shoppers.

I don't know how much I will be posting within the next week or so. Right now my mental and emotional energies are directed elsewhere. My sister-in-law (my wife's sister) and her boyfriend were involved in a car accident a couple of weeks ago. The boyfriend is not too bad off, but the sister-in-law is currently in rehabilitation. It could have been worse, and I thank God it wasn't. Anyway, that is what is going on. That is where my heart is right now.

Update: My sister-in-law is done with rehab and is home with her parents right now.

OT Economics

I keep saying that I will post more on economics, but I have not yet, due to lack of time. I've had some long posts recently, but I wanted to examine the system of welfare in the Old Testament and try to apply it to today. However, that involves rereading certain parts of the Old Testament that I just have not had a chance to do.

From what I know right now, it sounds like the Jubilee Law was a way of returning land back to original owners and forgiving debts, and that the Israelites were told to loan to each other at 0 interest. Also, some offerings were taken for the poor.

If we were to model that welfare system today (whether we should or the extent that we should is another issue, I am saying If), the immediate applications I see involve loans and bankruptcy laws. This makes sense. I think out of the welfare that exists, the best kind are loans, simply because someone will spend their money more efficiently if they know they have to pay it back. Also, a loan is less of a handout, as opposed to simply giving money. Loans have a bigger tendency to help people help themselves, and the most obvious application is that of student loans.

I suppose bankruptcy laws that are not too harsh would be another application. However, I don't think the creditor should have to suffer the consequences due to circumstances surrounding the debtor. So I suppose any costs associated with bankruptcy would be transferred to the taxpayer.

I have not read the part about the offering for the poor yet.

Again, I'm not advocating anything, I am just saying that if we did try model the Mosaic form of welfare, those may be some ways. Since we see such a radical change with how one relates to God from the OT to the NT, some may argue that the Mosaic model may not apply. Michael in a previous post said that we can look at their priorities and base our government off that. I believe we would both agree we should model those priorities on a personal level, but if we should do so on a governmental level is the issue with which I am dealing.

I do want to add that I do believe that giving to others is an essential part of the Christian relationship, and one that is not emphasized enough. The message last Sunday at church was the story of when the sheep are separated from the goats. The sheep are the ones who feed the hungry and clothe the naked, and by doing so to "the least of these" they do so to Jesus. The goats...well, not so much. I know the message convicted me, because I can always do more.

ID vs. Evolution, and the Real Issue

Should schools teach Intelligent Design or Evolution?

First some remarks on ID. Is ID science? I can see why some critics would say it is "religion disguised as science" or "creationism lite". However, I believe one should consider the claims that it makes without automatically dismissing it. ID does seem different from other sciences in that it makes extrapolations based on patterns in nature. If ID lacks the solid science, fine. I don't see issues with considering the ideas of what has not been proven. Who says God has to be the intelligent designer? Maybe some guy created a society in his test tube, which is us? The idea may seem a little ridiculous, but who is to say that some advanced society beyond our comprehension did not cook us up? I believe God created us, I am just demonstrating that "ID" does not equal "God did it."

As far as evolution, from a science perspective, if the science and data are there to support the idea, great. I'm not a biologist, I'm more of a physical science type. But science should not become dogma. If there are holes in evolutionary theory, present them. If there are questions to be asked, ask them. The reason I say this is because even criticizing aspects of the theory of evolution must go through a legislature in many states. This should not be. Science should be about asking questions. For the Law of the Conservation of Energy and The Second Law of Thermodynamics, the textbook will say quite plainly, "this has never been proven. It is based on empirical data."

But really, when it comes to schools, these issues are of secondary importance. The issues of primary importance are, "how do we decide what is taught to our children." Who says that a state or district court has to decide for everyone? In my view, parents should be able to choose if they want to send their children to a school that teaches evolution, or ID. We would not be fighting endless cultural wars over how to educate our kids. Parents would be able to decide for themselves.

Such a claim brings criticisms. First of all, for those who believe ID is not science, they would criticize the notion that parents would prevent their children from learning "real science." But to those I would say, how do you know that the government knows what real science is? The government may be viewed by some as an objective force that upholds reason that would not be influenced by religious matters, but I would disagree. Even if this was the case, what do your own children have to lose? Worry about raising your own kids, not others.

Perhaps the issue is trust for the parents vs. trust for the government. In some cases, I would put my trust in the government. For example, we allow parents some autonomy in raising their own children and choosing how to discipline them, but we don't allow abuse. I support seat belt laws and car safety laws for children.. But I believe the parents should have authority on how their children are educated.

How do we know they would make the right choice? We don't. But how do we know the government will make the right choice? I prefer decentralizing such decisions. Also, parents can learn from each other. Which method of teaching math is best? Does abstinence-only education work, or safe-sex education? Studies will be done, and parents can do what is shown to work best. Parents can send their children to a school that is an extension of their own values, rather than parents' values battling it out in a one-size-fits-all school system.


On a totally unrelated note, does anyone besides me find it amusing that the word "blog" fails on the spell-check.

A question for those who tend left on economics

At the end of my previous post, I stated

Finally, as a compromise, I believe we can have a free market and still have a basic welfare system. If someone cannot afford a loaf of bread, I think it is better to have a welfare system that provides the money for the loaf of bread, rather than regulate the price of bread.

What do you think? The free market is a place of mutual transactions. I imagine the biggest argument against the free market is in the case where someone does not have money for their daily sustenance. What if they cannot afford a piece of bread? Some may say that for that very reason, the free market should be regulated, so that people's lives are not at the mercy of the free market.

However, how do you determine when to regulate the market, and when to just have additional benefits concerning welfare? For the above quote, do you think it is preferable for government to provide the money for the bread, or to direct the market so that bread is not so expensive? If an adequate welfare system is in place, why is there a need to regulate the market (concerning prices and wages)?

I'm not trying to imply an answer within my questions, I was just curious.

Capitalism, Hooray!!! Materialism, Boo!!!

On a previous post, Michael stated this about the tyranny of the market.

Here is some of what I have in mind about the tyranny of the market: 1)How often do successful businesspeople have to uproot families and move in order to get ahead in a company? This is probably less thanks to telecommuting, but it is still huge. 2) The role of advertising, something not forseen by Adam Smith. (I insist that all supposed free market folk actually READ the Wealth of Nations. Why is it that, I, a democratic socialist, seem to know the foundational text of modern capitalism better than most capitalists?) Advertising creates "needs" for things that no one needs. In fact, people who use propaganda for political or war purposes, study advertising. 3)Unfettered market forces can never appreciate anything for itself, just for its market value--thus any virgin forest is a potential tree farm. Any mountain valued only for whatever minerals can be mined from its depths--even at the cost of the mountain itself. Any work of art is only valued for its sales value. 4) Unfettered market forces are acidic to relationships. After teaching us all day every day that humans are no more than "rational self-interested consumers" (Friedman), we come even to view spouse and children this way. (E.g., the trophy wife) When they are no longer useful to our individual advancement, we leave for other market-driven relationships. Even supporters of capitalism often admit that it is the biggest macro cause of family disintegration. (Although about more than just laissez fair capitalism, Marshall Berman's _All That is Solid Melts Into Air_ speaks strongly to this.)

Then there is the way the market replaces wisdom with mere technical knowledge, so that if something CAN be built, it suddenly must be built, mass produced, and sold--no matter how unwise this would be. Conservatives rail against things like in vitro fertilzation (with some justification), but its rationale comes from the free market ideology's affect on science: Conception, pregnancy, and birth are now marketable items. Surrogate motherhood is the same thing.

I could keep multiplying examples. We have to have markets. They are efficient distributors of necessary goods and services. Command economies such as in the old USSR don't work and take great tyranny to even come close. But market forces by themselves are equally tyrannical. We must govern markets rather than let them govern us.

That may take individual wisdom, counter-consumerist education and values in churches, etc.--individual morality, as you say. But it will also collective curbs on the power of the markets.

The alliance of social conservatives, including most conservative Christians, with free market fundamentalists, is ironic--because NOTHING destroys the values that social conservatives love faster than unfettered market forces.

Wow, very concise and thoughtful statement on negative aspects of the market. His comment led me to make the post. Now, by doing this, I am not saying "You're wrong and here's why!" It is just that comments inspire posts, and by addressing them, my purpose is not to point out what's wrong with their comments, but it is thoughts inspired by their comments.

Michael is right on many things here. Our society is individualistic (my words, not necessarily his). The idea of mutual exchanges and benefits are great when it comes to the markets. It is a bad way to approach life. The whole goal of Christianity is not to get tit for tat, but to give of ourselves unselfishly. We can start to see everything in selfish terms; what value is it to us? Whether it be our wife, children, friends...

Furthermore, capitalism can destroy relationships. How many men (and some women) work so hard to provide for their families, and in the process, neglect their families? How many people neglect their relationship with God to pursue the almighty dollar?

The comment about destroying mountains or forests for its economical value is a valid point as well. Some people believe that capitalism, while exploiting nature for resources, still favors the preservation of some nature. Whether or not that is true is the topic for another day. If this is not the case, then I think government has a valid role in preserving land, such as mountains or certain forests.

Michael did rightly call me on not reading the The Wealth of Nations, even though I don't think he was addressing me directly. I have not read it, but I will put it on my list. I typically don't use him as a source, since I don't like the way he phrases things ("each pursuing our own rational self-interests"), for reasons beyond the scope here.

Advertising does produce an atmosphere of commercialism. Heck, it taints one of the most important holiday of the year (I would say Easter is on par with Christmas in terms of significance). Yes, we would probably be inclined to buy less stuff if people weren't showing us shiny new things on TV. While some early capitalists may have not foreseen advertising, I think they would have seen it as an extension of salesmanship.

In a previous post, I expressed my concerns about capitalism, for some of the reasons mentioned above, and what Michael mentioned. After all, the idea behind capitalism is that if everyone pursues their own self-interests, the world will run smoothly.

I like to look at it a different way. To me, capitalism is essentially economic liberty. In a sense, a free market allows us to be greedy or to be charitable. Michael refers to the market as tyrannical, but I see it as people being tyrannical under a freer system. Under our economic system, we have seen much greed. At the same time though, our economic system produces a large amount of wealth. This wealth allows those who happen to be generous and wealthy to do a large amount of good. During the tsunami around the 2003/2004 crossover, the individual giving from the U.S. outweighed the U.S. government giving.

It is a similar situation with any other freedoms. I could go on countless hours talking about the things permissible under freedom of speech. There are things produced that directly blaspheme God, and blaspheme his creation. The beauty that is a Woman is being prostituted everyday, for one. I could go into countless other things.

Also, I believe that other economic systems have problems as well. I realize that critics of "unfettered market forces" do not believe in an outright rejection of capitalism, but I am just showing how different systems each have their own problems.

Capitalism can lead to reliance on self, other than God. Socialism can lead to reliance on government, rather than God. Abuse of capitalism leads to disintegration of the family structure. So does the European way. Dr. Morse of the Acton Institute notes

In addition to the high tax rates necessary to fund the social benefits, the labor regulations impose heavy costs on the young. Most European countries regulate wages and hours, requiring relatively high wages and mandating relatively low working hours. The European social model also requires employers to provide generous benefits such as health care, paid vacations, paid parental leave and the like.

These regulations and mandates have a negative impact on young workers by increasing the employers’ cost of hiring workers. The productivity of a skilled, experienced worker can justify this generous compensation package. But a young person, just starting out, may not produce enough to pay for the minimum required wage, much less the entire compensation package including health care, and paid time off. The result is that the young and the unskilled are less employable.

The high unemployment rate contributes to the delaying of marriage and child-bearing.
[...]
The system excludes those who are not skilled enough to be economically productive. But everyone begins their lives being not very economically productive. In practice, this means that the young are kept out of the labor market precisely at the time they are most biologically suited to begin forming families. It also means that those who are intrinsically poor, due to disability or low intelligence, are also excluded from participation in the labor market.

The welfare state has also contributed to the marginalization of marriage. Living with parents is not conducive to starting a family.
[...]

But this is not the only impact of the social assistance state on fertility and marriage. The life-time assistance of the state displaces the economic function of the family. The elderly don’t need adult children to support them in their old age. Women don’t need a husband to support them if they do have a child. Husbands become a nuisance, because the government will provide financial benefits without the inevitable difficulties of dealing with a flawed human being as a partner. In this environment, children become consumption goods, an optional life-style appendage to acquire only if one happens to enjoys children.

These economic subsidies to child-bearing have failed because they are attempting to replace the father. But economic security offered by taxpayers cannot replace the deeper support that a lifelong marriage can provide a woman and her children.

[...]
The social model has failed even in the cultural and social arena. For marriage is now considered optional for childbearing. Couples have a child first, see whether their relationship works, and then, perhaps, get married after the birth of their second child. High levels of social assistance make this casual attitude toward marriage possible.
[...]
Needless to say, a genuinely Christian social model would not have allowed itself to become so muddled about the meaning of something so basic as marriage. The combination of secularism, which discourages people from seeking meanings deeper than the material, and socialism, which attempts to satisfy the merely material needs, has led to this wide-spread social confusion.

This piece is not intended to convince anyone of anything, it is just primarily for myself. I'm sure anyone could blow holes on things that I say. I do not believe in materialism or commercialism, and I do not thing that idea of a "mutual exchange" is something that should be carried into other areas of life. Essentially, I believe in freedom, and I believe that capitalism is economic freedom. At the foundation of the free market are free exchanges. Is this post the best defense of such a system? I doubt it. For right now, I believe in freedom. I may come to find out that I am placing much to emphasis on freedom, that there should be more of a balance between security and freedom. Who said freedom is the highest goal? Right now, I do not know any better.

Now, that is not to say that capitalism should be completely laissez-faire. But I do believe in the idea of a mutual agreement between two parties to exchange goods or services. Should this be regulated somewhat to avoid potential abuses? Yes, to some extent. Just like freedom of speech is regulated to some extent. After all, you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded building.

Finally, as a compromise, I believe we can have a free market and still have a basic welfare system. If someone cannot afford a loaf of bread, I think it is better to have a welfare system that provides the money for the loaf of bread, rather than regulate the price of bread.

What Lamont's victory says about Campaign Finance Reform

I am not much in favor of Campaign Finance Reform.

1) It blatantly violates freedom of speech. Television and radio are limited in what they can say during an election year. While I am in no way a fan of Michael Moore, the idea that his movie Farenheit 911 would violate campaign finance laws is very troubling. I suppose the motivation behind CFR is that it limits how money directs politics. I understand this concern, but free speech is free speech, even if that speech comes in the form of money. If we do not have freedom of speech, it really doesn't matter who gets elected. Not to be so dramatic and cliche, but the freedoms we have are typically worth more than who represents us.

2) It prevents change in the political arena. Edward Crane from the Cato blog posts the following based on the Lamont victory over Lieberman.

There is not a line in McCain-Feingold that isn’t designed to protect incumbents. The so-called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act makes it a crime to even mention the name of a candidate for federal office in a radio or television ad within 60 days of a general election. No criticizing incumbents! But the worst part of these laws came with the 1974 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act, which instituted a $1000 contribution limit to candidates running for federal office (now slightly more than $2000, but less in real terms than the ’74 limits). Incumbents have earmarks to pass around and large mailing lists. Challengers do not. Advantage, incumbents.

Ned Lamont’s remarkable victory over three-term incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman yesterday exposes the true nature of contribution limits. They aren’t about the “appearance of corruption.” They’re about preventing a challenger from having a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. The one “loophole” the Supremes created with their incoherent 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo was that candidates have rights the rest of us don’t have. Apparently, they can’t be corrupted by their own money, so there are no limits on what they can spend on their own campaigns.

More than 60 percent of Ned’s campaign expenditures came from Ned. Without Ned, Ned loses. In fact, no political observer thought any candidate dependent on a $2000 contribution limit had any kind of chance of ousting Lieberman. Ned was a very poor candidate. Inarticulate with zero charisma. But by spending his own money he enfranchised the Democrats of Connecticut who otherwise, given the contribution limits, were disenfranchised. The Democrats in Connecticut hate the war in Iraq, Lieberman has rather energetically endorsed it. Yet the federal election laws would have assured Lieberman reelection were it not for the “loophole.”

This anti-war election is directly analogous to my late friend Gene McCarthy’s race for the presidency in 1968. Gene used six-figure contributions from wealthy liberals like Stewart Mott who opposed the war in Vietnam to fund a campaign that ousted a sitting president from his own party. Gene often said that had the ’74 amendments to the FECA been in place in ’68, he would not have run. Campaign finance laws should not have the power to change American history. But they do. Give everyone the “loophole” of being able to spend as much of their own money to promote their political beliefs and we’ll throw a remarkable number of incumbents out of office. And with good candidates instead of bumbling millionaires.

Everyone complains about the two-party system. In my view, and others, CFR contributes to this.

What I was trying to say...

My last post was probably not well structured, I didn't write it all at once. This is basically what I am trying to say. There are two views of gov't I am pondering.

1) View 1. The Mosaic government can provide a good model of our government today concerning morality and economic matters.

2) View 2. The government is no longer led by God, but by deeply flawed humans. Because man is inherently evil and power corrupts, we should strive to limit government as much as possible. The goal is maximum freedom. Also, the New Testament seems to focus on the relationship between a person and God as an individual matter, not a government matter. Issues of morality and helping the poor should be priimarily issues of Christian obedience and love, not government issues.

No one has to belong to one view or the other, and it may be somewhat of a spectrum.

I would like to address the issue of the economy and welfare. There are some, like myself, who tend towards View 2, and believe in limited government, but do not believe in the abolition of welfare altogether. For such a situation, I believe one can still look to how economic matters were handled in the Mosaic Law. I will discuss those later.

What about the Mosaic government?

In my discussions with some commenters on this site, on this blog and theirs, we have often discussed the OT law in relation to economic matters, and how this applies today. I would like to discuss this a little bit further at a later time, probably the next post.

Here is my questions. Should we attempt to model the Mosaic government to some extent, and if so, to what extent? In the OT and the NT, we see what God expects of us, in terms of individual morality (typically, the "do not" commands) and of, what I call, collective morality, such as helping the poor. I realize that "collective" is a loaded term, but I do not mean it in any negative context, I just use the term to address interactions with others, mostly in an economic sense.

For the OT, the governmental law, and the law of God, were one and the same. Israel was under theocratic rule. In the NT, the situation was totally different. Government was hardly a godly form of rule. It was not an avenue for God to reach people; it was typically opposed to God, even when the religious authorities were involved! The morality of the NT was more on the individual level (for individual and collective morality), whereas in the OT, God addressed an entire nation as a collective. (Okay, now the terms may get a bit confusing.)

The NT does seem to be more about freedom, and a one-on-one relationship with God. Food matters are left up to the conscience of the Christian, to some extent. Matters of giving are also between the person and God. To be honest, I don't know if the tithe (literally, the 10%) is even a solid guideline. (I do recommend a predetermined, consistent amount to give, however). Christians of a libertarian persuasion often point to the "law of freedom" pointed out in the NT.

So where does that leave us? Should Christian morality be a matter of government? Should we attempt to model the features of the Mosaic law? In my view, if economic morality is enforced, so should individual morality. Why look at one side and not the other? If we look at one side, then we are looking at things through a liberal or conservative lens. We are taking biblical laws and passing them through a filter of our own political persuasions.

Part of me thinks that is the way to go, simply model a form of government based on the Mosaic one.

However, another part of me believes in limited government. I look at the situation of Israel, and that was a time when God led the people in a direct manner. They had a theocratic form of rule directly established by God. Today, we have a secular form of government with flawed humans establishing the laws. All humans are sinful; therefore, it is desirable to give them as little power as necessary. (Of course, we all disagree on how much power is necessary).

Furthermore, in the NT, we see Christian morality take place on a more individual level. Yes, God has his commands, but in the NT, we see the relationship with God on a person-to-God basis, rather than God interacting with the masses through a government. The New Testament does not focus so much on rules and regulations, but simply loving the Lord God with all your heart, and loving your neighbor as yourself. I've heard the saying that "Love is the Law."

What does that have to do with government. Love can really only flourish in an atmosphere of freedom. I could be wrong about that, I may have said it because it was a statement that sounds good. But let's examine it. Why doesn't God just make us live in a perfect world? In order to do that we would be zombies, people with no free will, at least, that's the explanation I have heard. If we have no free will, we cannot choose God. Christianity is centered so much around free will and choice. Satan had the free will to rebel against God. Adam and Eve had free will. We have free will when choosing to accept Christ. We can spit on God's face in the context of free will, but it is the only way we can truly love God.

To truly obey God, we must love Him. We treat our bodies as a temple out of love for God. We help the poor and needy because of our love for God.

But again, where does government get involved? I had my thoughts all composed, but this is getting to be a bit stream-of-consciousness. This is turning out not to be so much a statement for limited government, but simply not using government as a primary means of enforcing the Christian ideal. I have no problem with a basic welfare system, but I do have disagreements with using government as a means for Christian social action. Christian social action must be done out of love and free will, not coercion. This is not a statement on the "morality" of coercion, but to simply say that giving out of love and free will is of a higher "morality." This is not a statement against using the government as a means of social order, but when we rely on government as a means of moral order, we put too much faith in government.

More on this later...

Help me!!!

Now, all the time I hear about how evil Bush is. Much of this criticism has been how he cares only for the rich, and that he doesn't give a crap about the poor.

Now, I want to understand where those on the other side are coming from. I realize that many liberals hate Bush because of the Iraq war. I can understand this viewpoint, because I would never really like Clinton or Carter as president because of their views on abortion. My "abortion" is their "Iraq War." That's fine.

However, I also hear about how Bush, and really, Republicans, only care about the rich. I don't buy that. I would think Bush's domestic record would garner a little praise from liberals. In a Cato article, On Spending Bush Is No Reagan, (pdf file), Cato investigates how much spending has increased, by department.



Oh my!!! Defense has grown 27.6%. That's quite a bit. But, Health and Human Services has grown 21.4%. That's hardly devoted to rich people. Oh, wait. Education has grown 56.0%. That means, take half of what was being spent on education, and add it back to the education money. In my view, that kind of assistance is the best. It is the ideal "hand up" assistance, not "hand out".

Now, this kind of assistance is not free from criticism. Liberals have charged that Bush is a "borrow and spend" kind of guy, not "tax and spend." However, I am not fighting the criticism about how Bush handles money, I am fighting the criticism that Bush only cares about the rich.

But wait, Bush has committed the unpardonable sin. He cut taxes for the rich. Whether or not the rich should have been paying 38% is never discussed. Despite my smart alec remarks, I can understand liberals having problems with this. However, tax receipts have grown with Bush's tax cuts, as they have with Reagan's, according to Wall Street Journal. Of course, the Wall Street Journal is hardly an unbiased source, and there may have been other factors involved in the economy. However, I ask this. Can someone perhaps provide the benefit of the doubt that maybe, just maybe, more is not always better when it comes to taxing the rich, from a philosophical and economical standpoint? That maybe there is a distinct possibility that cutting taxes sometimes spurs the economy? That maybe, 40% for the top bracket is just a little too high and too taxing on the economy? And that, even if you disagree, and think higher taxes are better, that maybe Bush is not cutting taxes because of some disregard for the poor, that he thinks cutting taxes may actually help the economy?

I titled this "Help me!!!" Help me believe that it is not a matter of liberals just hating Bush. Help me believe that Democrats actually have legitimate reasons for saying Bush loves the rich and hates the poor. I understand that liberals hate Bush because of the Iraq War, and his gay marriage amendment, and that he cut taxes for the rich, but I would think how he spends government money would at least give the hint of a smile on the face of a liberal. When someone says Bush has no concern for the poor, that leaves me utterly confused. Show me where I am going wrong.

More on taxes, later...

I would like to discuss more on taxes from a small-government, Christian perspective. Dan and Michael both present some good arguments for a liberal ideal of taxation, using Christian ethics and empirical arguments.

Right now though, I don't immediately have time, as I have an anniversary weekend coming up for my wife and I (Hooray!!!), and of course, working for the man. After all, those trees in the rainforest won't cut themselves down! Just kidding, Dan and Michael. I don't actually chop trees down. I capture baby seals for their fur. Okay, I don't do that either. Maybe I'll give a prize to whoever can guess what I do*.



* Any guarantees for prizes by Chance are null and void.

On taxes

Before I go into progressive taxation, I want to state that I really do not know the ideal form of taxation. Each one has their own problems. The income tax and sales tax are intrusive, because it requires paperwork on every financial transaction made. The income tax has become very complicated, in which vast amounts of money and time are spent just trying to figure it out. The sales tax, I admit, is somewhat regressive, because it does hit the poor the hardest. Now, that statement may make me sound like a Democrat, but I think there is a difference between choosing a type of tax that does not provide extra burden on the lower classes, and engineering a tax system specifically to provide extra burden on the rich. The property tax has issues because it can still tax people who make little to no income. Some old lady that has vast amounts of land can still be taxed on it, even if she is living only on Social Security. Unless it is a couple decades in the future, then she won't have any Social Security.

So, the income tax is probably the fairest form of taxation, simply because those who make little, pay little, those who make much, pay much. I do believe the income tax should be simplified. Despite being somewhat conservative in many things, I do not believe in social engineering through taxes. I do not believe I should have gotten a tax credit (which I still accepted) for moving to a different state to get a job. It is not the government's role to spur individuals (or corporations) to make economic decisions. I should make a decision on a job based on what is best for me and my family, not because I get some tax credit. Corporations spend countless man power deciding on things such as profit-sharing plans, which are made extremely complicated by tax codes.

I also do not believe I should get a tax credit for getting a more efficient water heater. Shouldn't the fact that I spend less in energy bills be proper motivation? That's like me asking my next door neighbor "Hey Bill, I got a more efficient water heater, now give me some cash because of my good efforts in saving money." Of course, I know there are differing opinions on this, by those who believe government should take an active role in conserving resources, and their opinion is understandable.

The overall point is, Congress keeps saying they want to simplify the tax codes. Then, they pass some new legislation giving exemptions or credits to individuals or corporations for doing certain things. The income tax should be simple. Instead of passing a 25% tax on a certain group with exemptions, simply pass a 20% tax without exemptions, except for charity.

Now, concerning the tax rate. Sometimes, I think the high tax rates are a symptom of big government. At the same time, however, I believe that government does get extra money at times, and simply just finds ways to spend it.

There is a view that tax rates should be no more than 10%. After all, 10% is good enough for God, why not the government? Granted, God does expect and sometimes ask more than what a person gives in tithe to their church, but the idea common in modern day Christianity is that there is a 10% tithe to the church that is expected, and anything beyond that is between them and God. What if the same idea was mirrored with giving in general? Ten percent, at the most, expected in taxes, and anything else that a person wants to give, whether to their church or some other charity, is voluntary.

What about progressive tax rates? That is, tax rates that increase, based on how much income one makes. The common argument is that the rich can afford to pay more in taxes, the poor cannot. Of course, I would just say, "Find the rate that the poor can afford, then have everyone pay it. " I like that idea, but people's ideal governments are bigger than my own.

I had this discussion with Michael the Leveller concerning his post on Economic Justice. For a liberal perspective on taxes, give his blog a visit. His post kind of inspired mine, which is really probably the opposite of his. I guess you could call me Bizarro Michael.

I could probably go to the Cato website and find data showing that progressive taxes don't work, but I feel like that has less meaning if I have an idea, then look up a random site to support my thoughts. I typically like to read an article, and if it makes sense to me, post on that. Anyway, my empirical argument against progressive taxation is this. The rich are typically the most productive concerning the economy. Their investments and personal spending spur job creation. In addition, the rich have more room to give to charitable work, Bill Gates being the example. High tax rates diminish this. Part of the argument concerns the size of government in general. I, being limited government, do not believe that this money is productive in the first place.

From a philosophical standpoint, I do not have much ammunition, other than "it just does not feel right." Or actually, it seems too easy. Taxing the rich more because they can afford it just seems like a solution that is too simple. Schools need more money? The rich have some money to spare! Health care too expensive? Need preschool for the kids? Notice that I use examples that are really good things. I feel that the philosophy behind progressive taxation is that the many benefits so much, with so little cost to the few. To the economically liberal, I feel that it's like "the rich don't need that money anyway", or "it costs so little to them." And I apologize if I am putting words in the liberals' mouths. This is just the devil's advocate viewpoint I come up with when trying to view things from another perspective. Here's the thing though. For one, there are no easy, intuitive solutions. I believe freedom is a easy solution in the sense that it is a simple concept, but it is not always the immediately easy solution. It is not intuitive, but actually counter-intuitive on many occasions. Progressive taxation seems too easy.

Also, the laws of nature typically state that something that benefits a lotwill cost a lot. Nothing is for free. Energy is conserved. However you want to look at it. The thing with progressive taxation is that people believe they have a situation in which so much is gained for so little. The "so much" being the billions of dollars that mean so much to the poor. The "so little" meaning the thousands or millions of dollars of one individual, who has a lot of money anyway. The idea I have here is that something that seems to come so cheaply will end up biting people back. Yeah, Bill Gates has so much money, so he can afford to be taxed millions of dollars. Right? Like I said, nothing is for free. How does that bite people back? I believe in the examples that I gave. Less money given to effective charity, and less job creation.

Another situation with progressive taxation is that it can set up a system of envy. With flat taxation, everyone pours into the pot and get something out. With progressive taxation, it sets up an "us" vs. "them" situation. If something is needed, like a new government program, we do not chip in and all make the sacrifice. We ask others (the rich) to make the sacrifice. Democracy can become a tool for personal gain. Instead of working harder for college money or health insurance, one can simply legislate money from the rich. I am not saying all Democrats are looters, but it sets up a system in which looting becomes possible.

In summary, income tax is probably the way to go, concerning the forms of taxation. However, I believe this tax should be simplified. I am not necessarily advocating one tax bracket for all people, but I do not believe that we should set up a system in which there is such a large discrepancy between the tax brackets. Such a solution may seem easy, but I do not believe there are any easy answers.

Here we go again...

Well, Mel made a complete fool of himself as you all have probably heard by now. One of the sad things about this is that it affects the perspective of Passion of the Christ. Critics of the movie are now saying "Ah hah! I knew it! Passion of the Christ was anti-Semitic!

This is an old issue, but one that is being raised again, thanks to Mel's brush with the law.

A few points.

1) The fact that the bad guys in a movie belong to a certain ethnic group is, by no means, necessarily intended to target an ethnic group in a certain way. The fact is, the people who participated in the murder of Jesus were Jewish and the Roman. That's a matter of history, not just of the Bible. You cannot edit a movie and ignore historical fact. Is Schindler's List anti-Germanic because the bad guys did heinous things to the Jews? That was a separation of 50 years, not 2000. What about Roots? Is that anti-whitey? Should that movie have not been made because it could result in bad feelings towards white people?

2) The people who killed Jesus just happened to be Jews. The people who killed Jesus were simply greedy for power. It wasn't an issue of Judaism vs. this new way Christ was introducing. Otherwise, the Pharisees and Sadducees would have dismissed him as a wacko and let him be. However, they knew He was a threat to their position. The land of Israel just happened to be where God chose to send His Son.

3) Jesus died for our sins. The Jews and the Romans happened to be His instruments, but it was our sins that put Him there in the first place.

4) True Christianity in no way harbors hatred towards the Jews. There may be some supposed, even actual, Christians, who claimed that the Jews killed Christ and harbor resentment because of their collective rejection as Christianity as Messiah. However, this is not applying true Christianity. If someone hates the Jews because of the crucifixion, that is because they are ignoring the tenets of Christianity, not applying them. Growing up as a Christian, I don't believe I, for one, gathered hatred from the Jews through the Bible or my Christian teachers/leaders. It's just not a natural response to the whole story. Growing up, I never thought, "Oh, it was the Jews that killed Him." As I said earlier, they just happened to be the ones, instead of the Grecians, or Swiss.

Why is retelling the story of the crucifixion anti-Semitic? That, and the resurrection, are central pieces to Christianity, yet I believe an overwhelming number of Christians have a love for the Jews, or at worst, an indifference. The few wackos who uses the crucifixion for hatred of the Jews are hardly the norm.

The motivation behind limited government

I believe that politics and public policy has a certain duality to it. I like to call this a philosophical/empirical duality. That is, the validity of a philosophy of a certain political action will determine how effective that policy is. In other words, policies that are philosophically good, or sound, or whatever word you want to use, will also be very effective. Policies based on bad philosophies will end up being a disaster.

This could work two different ways. Look for programs, or lack thereof, that have worked in the past, and base other programs on them. At the same time, make sure that policies are ethical, that have moral means as well as ends. The morality of certain policies has been questionable, but they have been implemented anyway because they have been seen as a quick fix to a problem, but end up being disastrous later.

In an earlier post, I stated that libertarians and small gov't conservatives should focus not on the morality of redistributing money, but on whether doing so is even effective. One thing that I believe the Cato Institute does effectively is argue small government ideals from a practical perspective, arguing that more government programs do more harm than good.

When I first delved into limited government ideals, I was, at the same time, reading the book Atlas Shrugged. This book is in a way, a thesis for the philosophy of objectivism, which argues that each man should work for their own highest good. Man should not harm other man, but at the same time, they should feel no obligation to help their fellow man. Of course, being a Christian, part of this philosophy is appalling, but I did agree with some of the ramifications in the political sphere, in that it led to a freer economy and elimination of huge entitlement programs, and it still influences some of my beliefs in supply-side economics (I never heard a formal definition of that term, but I think it means that the supplier of the goods sets the terms of production). It also, at the time, made me abhor the philosophy of redistribution. Although I didn't reject the welfare state altogether, I did focus on the morality of people demanding money from other people through force.

However, this way of looking at things left me unsatisfied. I didn't want to look at it as an issue of "my rights" or "you have no right to my money." Not to say that there is anything wrong with that, but at the same time, I think a central point of Christianity is not to focus on our rights, or what is really "ours", but to freely give what we have. Not that we shouldn't stand up for the rights we believe in, but focusing on this as my main driving philosophy, as I said, left me unsatisfied. Then I approached it from a different angle. What form of government does, in fact, generally help people? What system is most advantageous for the underprivileged? Strangely enough, this took me back to limited government ideals. I had backed off my libertarian ideals for a while, but then I ran into sites such as the Christian Acton Institute and the far-libertarian Dr. Mary Ruwart (who is a bit extreme, but I like the way she presents her ideas on libertarianism and poverty) who argues limited government ideals from a different perspective. Their view is that a strong central government often gets in the way and makes things worse for the poor. Acton, especially, argues for the increased role of private charity in addressing problems facing the lower classes.

This is where I began to believe that a reduced government allows more room for an institution that can truly minister to people's needs, the church. Really, any voluntary association, but the church especially, can minister to someone's needs. I do not believe we should look to a secular government to solve society's ills, and a huge government can get in the way of instititutions such as the church.

So, I began to look again to libertarian/limited government ideals, but this time, from a different angle. Not that I am the standard of altrustism or that that I have purely unselfish motives for a limited government, but I have ideals to which I can aspire. I believe in limited government simply because I do not think large-scale programs actually work in addressing problems of poverty, but that they make things worse. I believe the best way to address the problems of charity and welfare are through a free society, in which voluntary, and more powerful, institutions have more room to work, and in which it is easier for someone to make a living for himself or herself.

Edited about one hour after original post, I didn't like direction last paragraph was originally taking, and wanted to bring the point home more.