I know I have written on this before, but the quote following brought it back to mind. It also offered a possible explanation.
WHY WE LOVE GOVERNMENT: "We love government because it enables us to accomplish things that if done privately would lead to arrest and imprisonment. For example, if I saw a person in need, and I took your money to help him, I'd be arrested and convicted of theft. If I get Congress to do the same thing, I am seen as compassionate. "This vision ought to bother the Christians among us, for when God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless you got a majority vote in Congress."
-- syndicated columnist Walter Williams.
What should clearly be understood as theft becomes an honorable example of charity when you fall for the big government paradigm. After growing up in this nation, with its government run schooling and its media that dares not criticize the government, it is easy to fall into that trap. Now that you have read this, you are under a moral obligation to rethink the issue.
You give honorable charity when you give your own property. You are a thief when you advocate or cooperate in the giving of someone else's property, assuming the owner has not consented. There is no honor to be had in that situation.
The dishonor is not just upon the congressional representatives that vote for the "charity at gunpoint". It extends to citizens who pressure for it, to the government clerks who collect the taxes and pay out the goodies and even to the newspaper editors who assist in the propaganda that got it passed.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Conservative-What does it mean?
When I first became politically aware as a teenager, Barry Goldwater was running for president. He called his philosophy conservative. He believed in small and obedient government, obedient to the constitution. That notion attracted me and the majority of the 1960s Republican Party and he was the 1964 candidate for president.
Lyndon Johnson (widely known as landslide Lyndon for his 48 vote victory in a Texas Senatorial election where several ballot boxes went missing) did a very good job of convincing the public that if they voted for Goldwater, he would blow up the world and certainly escalate the Viet Nam war. He did such a good job that even Kansas went Democratic that year.
Johnson left office in disgrace for his Viet Nam war mistakes and Republican Richard Nixon won a squeaker in 1968. This was the year of my first vote and I voted for Nixon. He was from the same party as Goldwater and I expected the same philosophy. Boy was I disappointed!
Many people of my generation became disenchanted with the Republicans as a source of conservative thought and action and the Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 as a reaction to Nixon's treachery. Other conservatives stayed with the Republicans out of some misplaced loyalty, true hate for the Democrats or just an example of the power of faith over experience. They are still conservative in the original meaning of wanting a small, obedient government.
Come we now to the present and a small group of war mongers wanted to make a splash on US foreign policy. They adopt the name of neo-conservative for themselves and manage to convince the large number of conservatives in the Republican Party that to be conservative means to do what they say. To be conservative today is to espouse a large and unruly government. Their style of government gets into wars at the drop of hat. It finds reasons to terminate long held civil liberties on lame excuses. It finds no problem in ignoring long held moral values of this nation and engages in massive torture, the disappearing of unwanted folks and all the other trappings of a police state.
Well all you small government conservatives, I ask you, has the Republican Party served you well? Have they kept the government small, kept spending down to a minimum and been obedient to the constitution? Of course not!
Since the Democratic Party is certainly not the party for small, obedient government, what will you do?
The only national party today that advocates what you say you want is the Libertarian Party. When we say we want a small government that will be obedient to the constitution, we mean it.
You should have joined us in the 1970's after the Nixon debacle but you must do it now. There is no other hope for the nation. If you want freedom for yourself and your posterity, join and support the Libertarians. It is the only reasonable alternative.
Lyndon Johnson (widely known as landslide Lyndon for his 48 vote victory in a Texas Senatorial election where several ballot boxes went missing) did a very good job of convincing the public that if they voted for Goldwater, he would blow up the world and certainly escalate the Viet Nam war. He did such a good job that even Kansas went Democratic that year.
Johnson left office in disgrace for his Viet Nam war mistakes and Republican Richard Nixon won a squeaker in 1968. This was the year of my first vote and I voted for Nixon. He was from the same party as Goldwater and I expected the same philosophy. Boy was I disappointed!
Many people of my generation became disenchanted with the Republicans as a source of conservative thought and action and the Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 as a reaction to Nixon's treachery. Other conservatives stayed with the Republicans out of some misplaced loyalty, true hate for the Democrats or just an example of the power of faith over experience. They are still conservative in the original meaning of wanting a small, obedient government.
Come we now to the present and a small group of war mongers wanted to make a splash on US foreign policy. They adopt the name of neo-conservative for themselves and manage to convince the large number of conservatives in the Republican Party that to be conservative means to do what they say. To be conservative today is to espouse a large and unruly government. Their style of government gets into wars at the drop of hat. It finds reasons to terminate long held civil liberties on lame excuses. It finds no problem in ignoring long held moral values of this nation and engages in massive torture, the disappearing of unwanted folks and all the other trappings of a police state.
Well all you small government conservatives, I ask you, has the Republican Party served you well? Have they kept the government small, kept spending down to a minimum and been obedient to the constitution? Of course not!
Since the Democratic Party is certainly not the party for small, obedient government, what will you do?
The only national party today that advocates what you say you want is the Libertarian Party. When we say we want a small government that will be obedient to the constitution, we mean it.
You should have joined us in the 1970's after the Nixon debacle but you must do it now. There is no other hope for the nation. If you want freedom for yourself and your posterity, join and support the Libertarians. It is the only reasonable alternative.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
The Mainstream Coalition
Sunday, I sat in on a panel discussion sponsored by the Mainstream Coalition. The topics ranged from the separation of church and state to our relationship to Israel. Apparently the main focus of the Coalition is support of public education including increased finding and careful separation of religion and government.
How do we make them see that their goals are contradictory?
A substantial number of parents want their kids to be bible believers and to hear no contradictory facts and that is their right. This is the reason for the vehement battle over teaching evolution vs. Creation. What this battle really teaches us is that public education and religious freedom are simply not compatible.
The constitution says that there shall be no establishment of religion but it also says that there should be no laws interfering with the free exercise of religion. How do you protect the free exercise of religion for a fundamentalist Christian at the same time that you do not provide support for a religion with tax funds? As long as you run a tax supported government school system you simply cannot meet both goals.
The way to satisfy both requirements is to develop a program of choice in education. Then each parent can send his kid and the tax money that supports the school to the school that teaches what he wants his kid to learn. So tell my why the Mainstream Coalition is opposed to school choice?
Of course there will be many more benefits than just support of religious freedom.
Education, like any other service or commodity, gets better and cheaper when it is supplied by a competitive market. On the other hand, the Coalition believes, in a demonstration of the power of faith over experience, that all we need to make education better is more money.
Why would one expect that school board managers would use the extra money in the most efficient way? If anything, they have incentive to do poorly since they can use poor test results to ask for still more money. This is a classic example of adverse incentives. A private school manager, on the other hand, has every incentive to do the best job possible. He has to worry about dissatisfied parents removing their kids AND their money to some other school that does better.
Choice in education will cut the cost of education, probably in half. We just might be able to get government out of education all together which will mean a huge reduction in state taxes.
How do we make them see that their goals are contradictory?
A substantial number of parents want their kids to be bible believers and to hear no contradictory facts and that is their right. This is the reason for the vehement battle over teaching evolution vs. Creation. What this battle really teaches us is that public education and religious freedom are simply not compatible.
The constitution says that there shall be no establishment of religion but it also says that there should be no laws interfering with the free exercise of religion. How do you protect the free exercise of religion for a fundamentalist Christian at the same time that you do not provide support for a religion with tax funds? As long as you run a tax supported government school system you simply cannot meet both goals.
The way to satisfy both requirements is to develop a program of choice in education. Then each parent can send his kid and the tax money that supports the school to the school that teaches what he wants his kid to learn. So tell my why the Mainstream Coalition is opposed to school choice?
Of course there will be many more benefits than just support of religious freedom.
Education, like any other service or commodity, gets better and cheaper when it is supplied by a competitive market. On the other hand, the Coalition believes, in a demonstration of the power of faith over experience, that all we need to make education better is more money.
Why would one expect that school board managers would use the extra money in the most efficient way? If anything, they have incentive to do poorly since they can use poor test results to ask for still more money. This is a classic example of adverse incentives. A private school manager, on the other hand, has every incentive to do the best job possible. He has to worry about dissatisfied parents removing their kids AND their money to some other school that does better.
Choice in education will cut the cost of education, probably in half. We just might be able to get government out of education all together which will mean a huge reduction in state taxes.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Rights of the first and second kind
People use the word 'rights' in a sloppy manner. They talk about one kind of right such as the right to free speech, or right to remain silent but then they confuse themselves by talking about another, very different type of right, such as the right to health care or the right to a living wage. When you use the same word you place these quite different concepts in apparent equality. They are not equal.
The first type of right is known as negative rights. Negative rights are the rights that allow you to be left alone, to make your own decisions, to be free from interference in living your life. The key is-No other person has to give up any of their rights for you to have yours. They just have to mind their own business. Examples: freedom of speech , press, religion, property, due process, bear arms, etc.
Positive rights are quite a different animal. When someone asserts a right to medical care, he asserts a right to make a doctor into a slave (or to make a taxpayer into a slave to pay the doctor). When you talk about the right to a living wage, you assert the right to force an employer, at the point of a government gun, to pay some particular wage rate that you arbitrarily determined. These are not rights, they are assertions of arbitrary power similar to the assertion of power made by an armed robber. "Your money or your life". They are moral obscenities. They do not deserve any consideration in a nation that claims its primary principle is freedom.
The concept stems from the old socialist saying-From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. The evil content of this saying has been written on for generations. I recommend Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand for a detailed exposition.
The first type of right is known as negative rights. Negative rights are the rights that allow you to be left alone, to make your own decisions, to be free from interference in living your life. The key is-No other person has to give up any of their rights for you to have yours. They just have to mind their own business. Examples: freedom of speech , press, religion, property, due process, bear arms, etc.
Positive rights are quite a different animal. When someone asserts a right to medical care, he asserts a right to make a doctor into a slave (or to make a taxpayer into a slave to pay the doctor). When you talk about the right to a living wage, you assert the right to force an employer, at the point of a government gun, to pay some particular wage rate that you arbitrarily determined. These are not rights, they are assertions of arbitrary power similar to the assertion of power made by an armed robber. "Your money or your life". They are moral obscenities. They do not deserve any consideration in a nation that claims its primary principle is freedom.
The concept stems from the old socialist saying-From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. The evil content of this saying has been written on for generations. I recommend Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand for a detailed exposition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)