A Guideline For The United Methodist Church's General Conference On The Subject Of Human Sexuality

The following is what I as a United Methodist trained and studied in Methodist Theology, Human Psychology and logic believe would be a good path for the church's committee on the subject of human sexuality to follow.  I attempt to make no conclusion as to what the committee's end result should be.  I just point out a logical path to follow as they consider the questions involved.

The quadrilateral of reason, experience, tradition and scripture is not, as far too many published scholars and seminary professors suggest, like a supreme court where some members can be argued down or out-voted.  It is rather like a gear box where each gear must be made to work together.  Setting one part aside or just letting the whole sit idle is unacceptable.  So here I lay out a path to follow dictated by all of these four parts.  It is step by step, with what to do for each possible outcome at each decision point.

(1)  Is fornication a sin?  i.e. Is sex before marriage a sin?
If not then I think we're done.
If we agree that it is a sin then we move on to the next question.
If we can't agree on this answer then we're done with more than this subject.  It's time to think of the new names for our churches.

(2)  Since fornication is a sin (we've agreed on that in order to get here) then one of two things must be true about homosexual activity.  Either it's a sin in all cases or there is such a thing as same sex marriage.  So which is true?
If there is no such thing as same sex marriage then the issue is settled.  Homosexual activity is a sin in all cases.
        It would be prudent to go on to explain why we believe there is no such thing as same sex marriage.  Whether or not homosexual activity, a subset of fornication, is a sin would logically have no place in such an explanation, as it would be relevant in the same way that fornication is relevant to traditional marriage.  There must be a reason for it not existing stemming from things like definition and function of marriage.
        I realize I am imposing my own conclusion that homosexual activity is a sin because it is fornication in this case.  I recognize that certain specific acts within the larger set of all homosexual activity are identified in scripture as perversions, and thus sinful for that reason, but those specific acts need not be practiced for there to be a same sex marriage.  Thus the perversion argument doesn't apply to the question, the question as to whether there is a context in which some homosexual activity would not be a sin.
        For same sex marriage to just simply not exist, the reasons must depend largely on tradition and reason.  While one can determine through study of scripture what is meant by marriage when it mentions it, there is no proclamation within the scriptures to be found that says marriage between people of the same sex is wrong.  It's not a matter of if it's right or wrong, just one of whether such a marriage exists and whether we could rightly take it upon ourselves to make it exist.
        This of course leads to another couple questions.  Who defines the marriage that the Bible refers to?  And if the marriage referred to in the Bible is not the marriage referred to popularly and within secular law, how does that effect same sex couples who are Christians?
        I will interject my own conclusions here.  This is very much the same as a heterosexual couple who live together without getting married.  Both may have good reasons to believe they're not living in sin, including not having sex for example.  But in both cases, whatever conclusions they have drawn for themselves, it is best in both cases not to mention the controversial aspects of their relationship publicly.  The unmarried heterosexual couple would be wise not to mention they are not married, or if they do they should make it a point to insist they don't sleep together.  Likewise the same sex couple would be wise not to suggest they are anything other than just a couple of good friends living together.  These are not lies and they are Biblically sound ways of dealing with "meat sacrificed to idles" type subjects.
If on the other hand we conclude there is such a thing as same sex marriage then we need to carefully, consistently, and rationally define what marriage is.  We need to figure out where the defining line is around marriage that distinguishes it from other parts of the larger set of all committed and loving relationships.  To do less than this in this case is to make no meaningful statement at all, and to fail to live up to the Methodist tradition coordinating ourselves with reason, experience, tradition and scripture.  We will have most especially have fallen down on the reason and experience sides, as we will have failed to offer any real guidance on the subject.  The church would in such a failure make itself irrelevant and the opposite of constructive.

(3)  However this issue is decided, we must not be superficial.  The word "love" in any such decision runs a major risk of being clumsy and misleading.  Whether two people love each other is meaningless because it tells us nothing clearly.  This is especially true when we are talking about human sexuality.  If a couple stop having or never have sex, do they love each-other less?  What of a couple completely devoid of affection but still willing to die for each-other?  Can their be a greater love?  Need I write, "of course not"?  So I implore my fellow Methodists not to abuse the word "love" in the statement of your conclusion.  Please don't use it like a hammer largely devoid of rationale.
Your conclusion must be clear and include definitions.  Is it in reference to sexual activity or sexual inclination?  Of course we shouldn't reject people for their inclinations or any activities they ask God to forgive them for.  This shouldn't need said in such a statement, and if said would be an insult to our members.
        And where the statement is in reference to activity we will need to clearly define the marriage referred to in scripture, and if we conclude it can be generalized to include current local civil definitions, we need to explain why.  Being relevant wont be enough there.  We would need to explain why we believe our conclusions fall within the original intent of the scriptures.
        If we conclude that there is no such thing as same sex marriage we should include why we believe that people have inclinations towards sinful activity and how that includes all of us.  Such a conclusion should probably include a strong statement about how we as Christians should deal with our own sinful inclinations and that of our fellow Christians.
        In that last context the word "love" should be fairly clear and would not be a hammer.

Thou Shall Not Lie To Oneself

I haven't posted for quite a while, and that's because my use for this blog as an outlet for for my thoughts on temporal controversies has largely passed.  I can thank a growing self-discipline for that.

But in light of recent discussions arising within my chosen Christian denomination, the United Methodist Church, I have felt a need to express some more, but only a little.  This will be a short read.

The subject is the recent ruling of the supreme court on something they've decided to call "marriage".  I put that in quotes because definitions of the term varies significantly from person to person, and what a word means makes all the difference in the world as to how one should treat any policy regarding something called by that word.

e.g. If I were the owner and operator of a ski resort and I had some slopes singled out for use by snow-boarders, the understood definition of the word "snow-board" would be critical.  If the intent was to pick out places ideally suited for snow-boarding and to keep skiers and snow-boarders from interfering with each other, it would be important that skiers not think that their skis are snow-boards.  Otherwise the posted signs would be ineffective at guiding them to the slopes best suited for their enjoyment.

So if due to reaching some point in the evolution of the language, a large number of people started to call skis snow-boards, I would have to make some changes at my resort.  If after myself and other winter sports people unsuccessfully tried to stop the drift in the language, we would all have to do something else.  We would have to find a new word for "snow-board".

We'd have to do this because all of our guide signs, pamphlets, and instructional materials that refer to snow-boarding refer to something critically different than the popular definition of that word refers to.

Getting back to "marriage" in the church, a careful search of biblical references to marriage will show that they simply and obviously do not refer to the popular contemporary definition of that term.  The fight to preserve the traditional definition has been lost, but no big deal.  When a word's meaning changes we simply start to use it differently.  There is no sound reason to change policies because of it.

Our missionaries have come across cultures and languages where words don't translate well for our purposes.  Some African language's words for things like kill, eat, and have sex are too similar for us to translate some passages in the Bible as literally into their language as the NASV does into English.  So we don't do it so literally.  Nor do we start to teach that the Lord's supper is a time to kill or have an orgy.  So it boggles my mind that anyone could look at the recent Supreme Court ruling as if it should in some way change how the church deals with "marriage".

It also bothers me that many confuse the definition of marriage that is relevant to the Bible's references with a moral statement or judgement.  The Bible refers to the union of a man and a woman because it refers to the union of a man and woman, no other reason.  In the same way that Jesus sometimes addressed Peter, not because He was thinking less of anyone else at the moment, but because He was addressing who he was addressing.

Thus to suggest that the "traditional definition of marriage" is some how out of step with our times is nonsense.  Not nonsense for any actual Biblical reason, but nonsense for purely logical and rational reasons.  We perform wedding ceremonies in the church because the Bible speaks of the union between a man and woman as having a positive role in a Christian community, and that's it.  If the Bible made as much of a fuss about intimate friendships, we'd have ceremonies for that as well, but it doesn't and we don't.

If some church decides it wants to do such a thing, that would be another issue, which I wont discuss here, but if the church should ever consider performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples (i.e. one possible example of intimate friends) we would need to change the words we use so as not to confuse people about the church's teachings on "marriage".

In conclusion on that point, we need a new word now.

Now for the moral question.

The moral question is logically independent from the marriage question.  If someone was hoping that homosexuality would become not a sin just by changing the definition of a word, that's not a very rational hope.

The real issue of all sexual sins is context.  All sexual activity between two people who are not married to each other is sin.  It's an area of sin almost all people at some point in their lives struggle with.  So we cannot disregard Biblical references to homosexual behavior as sinful as if it's some relic of the past.  For if we did we would have to logically condone all sex outside of marriage.  And this is no slippery slope argument.  If homosexual activity is okay outside of marriage, then what would make it special as opposed to others?  Does the absence of risk of pregnancy some how make all the difference?  Then what about birth control?  There is no need to complicate this.  Sex outside of marriage is sin and we're not moving from that position.

Now the question as to whether same-sex couples could escape a life of potential sin in this area by becoming married, that's another question, but not one that can be settled by fiddling with the definition of words.  "Marriage" in the Bible is not the "marriage" the supreme court just ruled on.  Their actions don't call upon us to change policies, just for us to find a new word.

BTW

The point of my title for this.  Perhaps if we're actually going to consider re-composing the Bible, we should add an 11th commandment, "Thou shalt not lie to oneself", or perhaps in a more modern translation, "do not deny reason". 

State Of The Union In Two Words -- It Stinks

92,898,000 Americans of working age are not working.  That's the highest that number has ever been in our nation's history and even accounting for our general population being higher than its ever been, the proportion is at levels not seen since the great stagflation of the 70's or the great depression of the 30's.  

Unemployment numbers which look good currently are completely unrepresentative of reality since a huge number of unemployed are not counted as unemployed because it's assumed they no longer wish to work. This is based on how long they've been unemployed and how many job applications are being submitted. This is like assuming many of the victims of a famine have stopped wanting to eat since they no longer go out looking for food.

Many stock analysts believe that stocks are generally over-valued thanks largely to the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing.

Real-estate is said to have an optimistic outlook, but the reason frequently given for this should be disconcerting.  Most of the foreclosure related bargains have been bought up.  That's the reason given.  The thinking is that those bargain properties wont be competing with and bringing down the prices anymore.  But the question as to who is going to buy property at higher rates remains largely unanswered, and that should hamper optimism more than it is amongst real-estate industry people.

One must remember that people who's careers and lives are invested in a given market can only remain pessimistic about it for so long before they're changing professions.

The taunting insensitive bow on this wretched economy is the average household income which has dropped considerably since the crash of 08, and the new jobs are predominantly much lower paying than the ones they're trying to replace.  The word "trying" is appropriate since job growth is still not running ahead of growth in the potential workforce.

So any politician who boasts about the economy at this point is at best cruel and it's probably best not to use the words that would describe them at worst.

Yes America, the state of the union, it stinks.

Reactionary Liberalism

Why Modern Liberals Are Counter-revolutionaries

I almost hate using the word “enemies” to describe fellow citizens, especially considering many of which would be willing to lay their lives on the line for our country. Many of them are patriots, but I am not saying they are the enemies of the United States. What I'm about to lay out rather suggests they are enemies of the cause that gave birth to the country. Many of them love this country as much as I do but they also believe her founders and their ideas are losing relevance to today.

Are those ideas still just as relevant today as then? Are they still worth our efforts, our passion, our commitment even unto death? Or, have realities of the present day forced us into a context where this nation's purpose can no longer be the same as it was at its founding?

 

Does the revolution still matter?

This is an important logical point. Before I demonstrate that the modern liberal is a counter-revolutionary, I must first establish that the revolution hasn't lost relevance to our current times and the context of these times. Being a counter-revolutionary to a past and irrelevant revolution wouldn't matter much, but if that revolution is still relevant and even ongoing, then it matters a great deal.

That first point is easily enough satisfied subjectively. It can be safely said that millions of people here in the United States and around the world believe the cause of individual liberty still needs fought for and continues to be fought for to this day. The American Revolution did not end with the Treaty of Paris in 1783, it did not culminate with the establishment of the United States government in 1789, and it did not achieve total victory even within the sovereign borders of the United States. As many of the founders acknowledged, they only started the struggle, the struggle to maximize individual liberty within the minimum confines of government necessary to protect us from major threats both within and without.

I could just simply have said that as in the case with any cause, that we believe it is relevant makes it so, but instead I thought it important to more fully express that sentiment. Suffice it to say, whether modern liberalism is a counter-revolutionary movement does matter.

Now to the business of making the case that it is. In order for me to demonstrate this I must first show what the founders sought to achieve, and then show that modern liberalism is set against it.

 

The founders intent.

It is argued that the founders were not of one mind and thus there is no such thing as any deep common cause or original intent to be drawn from what they wrote. This argument is clever but depends on getting a logical fallacy past us. Just because a group of people, by necessity of the legacy of the Tower of Babel, can never have exactly the same understanding of even the things they came together to agree on, doesn't mean the meaning of their agreement is nebulous or elusive. If that attempted logical fallacy were valid then we could freely disregard all laws and contracts, or at the very least be able to “reinterpret” them to mean whatever was convenient to us and our causes. I know that equally fallacious cousins of this argument are used by certain schools of history in order to bang all the square pegs historical evidence gives them into the round holes of their pet theories, but a crowd jumping off a bridge doesn't make it right, or lend it credibility for that matter. There is some degree of common cause and original intent to be credibly drawn from what the founders wrote. Unless they were a bunch of irrational blitherers there would have to be. So lets see what some of that was.

Now even most of those who buy into the above sort of kluging, designed to facilitate peg pounding, will at least accept this much about what the founders were after. They highly valued what they considered to be three fundamental rights, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. They'd even be likely to grant that, “the pursuit of happiness” largely involves the right to own and control property. Further still these three fundamental rights are all inseparable from each other. Not that the modern liberal believes that, but that their scholars would likely grant the framers of the constitution believed this for the most part. To do otherwise would be to take a departure from the facts of history even too radical for peg pounders.

Now to take these pieces of my case they'll grant me and put them together with some stuff I definitely need to source. The right to property and the inseparable nature of this with individual liberty caused James Madison, often called the father of the constitution, to worry.  He pondered a point we seem to be approaching today where all possible private land will become owned and most citizens will be unable to buy any in their lifetime (emphasis added by me).

"These (people without property) will either combine under the influence of their common situation; in which case, the rights of property & the public liberty, will not be secure in their hands: or which is more probable, they will become the tools of opulence & ambition, in which case there will be equal danger on the other side,"

Have-nots being banded together to threaten rights of property or otherwise being used by the very rich to serve their greedy ambitions? Does this not sound like the world described by modern liberals today? But what seems to be their solution to the crisis? They propose a powerful central government mandated by a majority to redistribute the wealth of a few to the many. In Madison's words, “ the rights of property & the public liberty, will not be secure in their hands”. Modern liberalism seems to see it as a choice between two evils, tyranny by government or tyranny by wealthy private interests.

[modern liberalism is not a solution at all but a surrender to collective rule, the sure enemy of individual liberty]

They don't see another way, other than the possibility that with the right sort of indoctrination a collective could actually rule with respect for individual dignity. Here they ignore some of the most sound advice of the founders. That being that a government ruled by a majority or any collective's interests will by its very nature, inevitably attack life, liberty, and property.

Madison wrote to Jefferson in 1788,

"Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents."

Madison takes it a step further in this quote, describing a completely unrestrained democracy in Federalist No. 10 (emphasis again added by me), "A pure democracy ... can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party... Hence it is that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Thus from the point of view of at least the founder described as the father of the constitution, the one who by his own telling, never missed a meeting in the process of the constitution being worked out, the solution offered by modern liberalism is not a solution at all but a surrender to collective rule, the sure enemy of individual liberty.

Now they're water carriers in the towers of academia insist that the reduction of individual liberty, greater and greater government intervention in property ownership and wealth distribution, and even life is the inevitable direction of things in a world ever more crowded and still possessed of finite resources. The founders definition of individual liberty can't be relevant in a world where only a few can own land and thus ones liberty must only exist to the extent that governments can manage to allow it while still assuring subsistence for all.One could say, using their reasoning, Europe is the way it is because it had to face the reality of finite resources centuries before the United States did, and the United States really doesn't have a choice but to become more like Europe. In essence, via the demographics of population growth, it already has.

Thus I can understand their feeling justified in doing what they're doing to this nation, but then I never thought modern liberal collectivists realized that much of what they do is evil. Like almost all other collectives that have practiced evil in history, they believe they're actions to be both good and rational. I dare not list actual examples since all of the collectives ever proven to be evil have since come to be seen as wittingly so, their members all the willing participants in evil. It seems an unfortunate sociological defense mechanism that we look at any large group of evil-doers and refuse to consider that given the right context of despair, peer pressure, and/or bad information we ourselves could become involved in such things.

Now that I've explained what some of the despair, peer pressure, and bad information was that led to the existence of modern liberalism, that being perceived lack of opportunity for property, academic peg pounders, and lots of mutual enabling, allow me to show the way forward with the American Revolution they don't see and James Madison apparently failed to anticipate.

It's simple really, at least from our modern perspective. Wealth is property, not just land, and a well restrained government can do relatively little to abridge individual liberty. The mechanism is already in place for us to look after and modify as necessary the restraints on our government. It's the amendment process of the constitution. Whenever the government disregards the intent of it being minimal in power and scope, or powerful private institutions claim power over the unwilling, and normal political and legal processes fail to remedy these threats to individual liberty, it demands we attempt to amend the constitution. That is our last resort before revolution. If we pass on both of these, amending or revolution, we will by default have selected another option, surrender. And whether it is government or corporations that oppress us, it is essentially the same enemy that defeats us, collectivism.

You see the American Revolution, the one still ongoing, is about individual liberty and dignity, and our enemy is collectivism for it inevitably sets out to minimize the individual.Modern liberalism is just the collectivism of the day, little different from liberty's perspective than absolute monarchies, fascism, communism, and despotism. Modern liberalism sounds nicer and more enlightened to us, and certainly seems that way to its subscribers, but where it counts to the current subscribers of the American Revolution it is still the revolution's enemy, perhaps the greatest counter-revolution in human history. It is a matter of course that it must not just be beaten in elections from time to time, it must be destroyed. This is done by revealing its inconsistencies with our nation's foundations and goals, marginalizing it, and adding sufficient amendments to the constitution as to remove any tools it could use to advance its agenda should it or any other collectivist movement ever gain sway in all branches of government again.

I for one grow impatient with fellow travelers who are satisfied with hitting one of these fronts at a time. The political pendulum is swinging our way from a recent liberal apex. We are gaining the momentum. In the years to come we need to put as many restrictions on governmental power in place as is both possible and within reason. We also need to start challenging the peg pounding status quo in academia. We will be fools if we mistake our current momentum for a constant trend. Like our founders, we must recognize that the forces of counter-revolution will inevitably be back and as the founders did in 1791 with the Bill of Rights, we should place into the constitution restraints to keep counter-revolutionaries from undoing the republic. The iron will soon be hot and then for liberty's sake we must strike, for all we are worth.

My New Years Resolution Right Up To 2017

Here is my new years wish right up until 2017.  I said as much when I entitled it last year around this time.  And yes, it is still my new years wish.  May we find the humility that brings true strength.

2013 seems to be a year I shouldn't miss.  Though life's experience thus far has taught me there always seems to be some memories to cherish even in hard times.

I met a 1st cousin of my mother's who has an amazingly sharp mind in spite of frequently forgetting what was said just a minute or two ago.  The contrast between her short term and long term memories was amazing and I felt just as amazingly fortunate to have met her.  I know, how many times could I use the word 'amazing' there, but it seems quite fitting in spite of whatever literary critique it may attract.

I saw lightning bugs which I hadn't seen since my childhood, and for the first time I saw the attic bedrooms that my father and his siblings used when they were growing up.  I've decided I want an attic like that myself some day.  Nothing like having three or four bedrooms right there in case company comes over.

And oh yes, the public's perception of the president has finally begun to come down.  We in the United States in general seem to have an entirely unjustified reverence for whoever we elect president.  It's as if somehow by electing a president the nation bestows the dignity and honor of the collective populace upon that person.  

It's collectivist nonsense at its finest.  By essentially worshiping a president we worship ourselves, and even worse than worshiping ourselves as individuals, we worship ourselves as a collective we call the "American people".  As fine a country as the United States may be and as unusually common is nobility amongst its people, worship is inappropriate.  Especially when it is of any collective.

Too many of us read way to much meaning into the fact that the president is the only nationally elected public office.  Instead of seeing democracy as a lesser of evils that only represents at best a momentary glimmer of a generally vague public sentiment, too many of us see the president as the people's avatar.

This I suspect explains why approval polls consistently put any congress below the same ratings of their contemporary president.  It's because many people see the president as the human embodiment of the nation as a whole and to assign the president blame for things would be like accepting the blame themselves.  And it is human nature to want to blame others first.

Though I would hope the current president's drop in the polls would actually translate into Americans accepting responsibility for our problems, I suspect that rather they are finding ways to transform Barack Obama from their avatar into their scapegoat.

In other words I look on this good news from 2013 with a scant eye.  If he continues to slide in the polls right onto 2016 I fear the same group of foolish avatar-makers will just find themselves a new one.

What we really need is someone like George Washington who will step in and announce to the American people that no one person can or should be as important as we keep trying to make our presidents.  And that it is not that an individual can ever be so important, but that the individual always is even more so.

Can we hope for that much wisdom in such a high office?  That is my new years wish.

I wish you a happy new year.

Merry Christmas 2014

Merry Christmas to all my readers, and here's a link to a video of a great combination of time and place.

A Helen Christmas

Anything I can do to help my friends and family in this wonderful place.

Merry Christmas from Eddie Fontaigne

A Day The World Was Wrong : Except Honduras Was Right

On December 1st, 2009 the people of Honduras scored a victory for themselves by showing
with their votes they did not want former president Manuel Zelaya to be able to run over
their constitution.  More importantly they struck a huge blow to ugly-elitism world-wide.

 Politicians around the world have thought too much of themselves for centuries and in
2009 we saw a humble but proud little nation defy them and win.  They did this by
electing Porfino Lobo president with 55% of the vote.

Even as the United States state department was backing away from its previous
anti-Honduran-constitution stance, elements of the world press were still referring to
Zalaya's ouster as a military coup 

(http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/1/hondurans_divided_after_coup_backer_wins ).  This in spite of his ouster being ordered by both the Supreme Court and congress. 

The world's politicians and their sycophants in the press were still feeling the sting. 
A politician with apparent good intentions defied his nation's legislature, courts, and
constitution and ended up standing in his pajamas on the tarmac of a Costa Rican
airfield, his country moving on without him.  

The inevitable evolution of society towards a socialist collectivism had not just been defied by the tiny nation of Honduras, it's proponents had been humiliated.  Zalaya in ankle chains in his pajamas had become the new symbol to replace the tared and feathered tax collectors in pre-revolution Massachusetts.  

International socialism was potently portrayed as very possibly being on the wrong side of 
history just as absolute monarchy had been a few centuries earlier.

So let those who share our values, who respect individual dignity and see the value of the rule of law, never forget that day.

Long live liberty!

And On This Day Some Good Quotes To Understand

This blog is full of my informed opinions and analysis from week to week, but today I've decided to let some of my sources do all of the point-making for me.  This is, if no other reason, to demonstrate I don't just pull my ideas out of thin air and hope, by use of big words, people will take them seriously.  My ideas are the product of a lot of education and wise deference to wise individuals.  Below I will quote just a few and explain what each tells me.  You are are free to decide if I'm missing something or seeing anything that isn't there.  If you do see fault in any of it, please feel free to share in the comments sections at the end.

[This is by the way a re-post of an entry from about two years ago]

Here we go.

"Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression.  In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents." -- James Madison, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1788

That first sentence should speak volumes as I see it.  Power should always be distrusted, even if it seems to be your own.  The rest, after sorting out the semi-antiquated language, says something equally as important.  Government acts that infringe upon individual liberty should not just be stopped when it goes against the will and judgment of the people.  Much rather, they should be especially stopped precisely when they are the will of the people.  Madison is arguing clearly for minimal government as the only answer to the threat of tyranny.

"A pure democracy ... can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction.  A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party...  Hence it is that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." --  James Madison, Federalist No. 10

Democracy cannot be the only check on governmental power if we wish to protect the rights of life and property.  The "mischiefs of faction" that Madison refers to here are things like religious intolerance and class envy.  If majorities rule then minorities, which include the wealthy, the enlightened to such things as the wrongness of some common social practice such as slavery once was a common social practice, as well as people with harmless but different ways and ideas, these people will not be safe from oppression.  Life and property in a pure democracy are not safe.

Once again, Madison argues for minimal government.  Democracy can be a way to keep other power sources in check but it can't be allowed to simply replace those sources.  People who speak of democratically elected governments as if the democratic nature of their selection gives them all the authority they need are speaking very dangerously.  The limits on a government speak far more in favor of its legitimacy by modern liberal (i.e. classical liberal) standards than do the number of people who voted for it.  To suggest being democratically elected alone grants great authority is to suggest rights to life and property are trivial, rather than critically important as they are.

“Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria.  The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” -- Robert A Heinlein

I believe Heinlein's point here is that we make the mistake of defining people by their causes, when we should define them by the means they're willing to use to advance them.  Many modern American conservatives fall very clearly into that second group "who have no such desire" to see people "controlled".  I in fact aggressively oppose trying to control people.  My experience as a teacher tells me that attempting to control people is counterproductive.  And my convictions about individual rights tells me it's wrong.  Never the less I am socially conservative in terms of what I believe is right and wrong.  I support laws that prevent government from advancing causes that offend my morals, but I don't generally support laws that attempt to impose my morals on others.  Not only is there no point in forcing someone to do what I think is the right, but  doing so is itself morally wrong.

"Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us."
-- John Dickinson during the convention of Philadelphia

This is not a slap at reason.  If it were I wouldn't quote it as something that guides me.  The context was that of setting up a government, and in that context it is one more piece of many pieces of evidence that the founders of the United States wanted a minimal and limited government.  Let me explain.

It is not just fine but wise to reason out what one believes and what decisions we will make, but we are faulty vessels so to speak.  We can easily think ourselves out of good conclusions and into bad ones.  It isn't really reason itself that fails us, but us as vessels of reason.  Yet even with our faultiness it is still wise that we lean on reason in making our decisions.  If we make a mistake, we endure the consequences and move on and more often than not our command of reason will serve us well with enough practice, but the use of reason in governing is a very different thing.

Bad reasoning by government doesn't just effect those who made the decision, and often may not effect the decision maker at all.  Individuals can more easily limit the bad effects of their own decisions than they can those of government.  Getting even the most responsive of governments to end a bad policy is nowhere near as quick and easy as an individual ending their own bad policies.  One must first prove to the government that the policy is bad and if those in charge don't share in the bad consequences, well then it becomes all the more difficult.

What Dickinson was saying, I believe, is that government should base its policies and rules only on what we know works, not on theories or ideals, no matter how wonderful they may be.  Following this demands a minimal and limited government, since a government that only does what it knows will work cannot be one that tries to control others.  No government has ever successfully controlled its people's behavior, so at least until some evil experiment actually works, Dickinson's advice precludes trying.

Ending Note

Once again, if anyone thinks I'm missing the point of any of these quotes, please let me know, and please include some explanation.  Just because I have a lot of confidently stated opinions does not mean I lack an open mind.  It is by being open to the thoughts and ideas of others that I have arrived where I am.

Ferguson? Just More Reification To Me

Two years ago around this time I did a series of posts about logical fallacies.  One of those posts was one of my most read blog posts of all time.  It was about the regression fallacy.  You can find it listed to the left of this post near the top of the list of my most popular.  It was very relevant when it was written and continues to be.  I'd recommend a read of it to anyone who hasn't already. 

Today I've decided to re-post a discussion of another logical fallacy.  This time it will be on what is called reification or what is also called hypostatization.

Wikipedia defines it as follows;

"Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea."

Now where do I see good examples of equating abstractions with things that are concrete or real?  Consider that I describe myself as an individualist and I'll give you three guesses.  The first two wont count.

Between individuals and groups, which is concrete and which is abstract?  Is it possible to find out a group you thought you were in doesn't actually exist?  Of course.  It's probably happened to most of the people who are reading this right now.  e.g. You were put on a committee that was cancelled before it ever met.  It never really existed.  Now is it possible that you don't exist?  I don't write to fictional abstract people so no.

Take that Descartes!  You read my blog therefore you are.  But seriously, the individual is as fundamental to the concrete as it gets.  Groups such as economic classes, racial groups, ethnic groups, religious groups, groups defined by gender or sexual preferences, nations, and communities, these are abstractions by comparison to individuals.

Of course I would be guilty of another logical fallacy if I were to tell you groups are just abstract beliefs or hypothetical constructs.  They are collections of concrete things, most specifically individuals so they are in that sense concrete too.  It's possible to gather a group together in a room with us and point them out without any need of imagination.

But there is still something there that is an abstract belief or hypothetical construct.  And that's the definition we used to determine that what we have before is a group.  Change that definition and we no longer have a group, or maybe we have more than one group, or one that extends beyond the room we're in.  That part is abstract and without both the abstract part and all the concrete parts that were essentially defined into it we don't have a group.

So when someone attempts to apply moral instructions intended for individuals to groups, such as in social justice, that someone becomes guilty of reification or hypostatization.  The same is true of people who pit economic classes or ethnic groups against each other by making it seem that the acts of one person against another is the same as actions of one group against another group, and thus the group they hope to get votes from should "stick it to" some other group.

And it's the fact that groups are half abstract and half concrete that makes this commonly practiced logical fallacy so easy to get away with.  The fact that only the individual is purely concrete becomes clouded in people's minds.  Many people who attempt to argue with the collectivists are accused of not caring about the individuals that make up the collectives when quite the opposite is true.

To understand today's world is to understand logical fallacies.  Here's a big one, reification.  The fallacy is that groups matter as much as individuals.  The truth is that only individuals are real and groups are just abstract groupings.  We must never forget who we should serve. 

A Day My Life Changed : A Re-Posting

[Thanksgiving in the United States can be a time of being busy with truly important things, family, friends, God, and checking ones own humility, as hard as that last part can be to grasp for even the most humble amongst us.  And I am very happy and thankful to say that I am able to concentrate on just those very things this week.  So I leave my readers with this re-post about an event that helped me to see more clearly one of the most important things we will ever be given responsibility for, that is to respect the individual dignity of others.  So enjoy the read if you haven't already done so, and if you have, I hope you get something of value out of it still.]

Some times I look back at my late and short teaching career and wonder if I ever should have done it. Perhaps, I consider, the time could have been better spent, say, getting my computer science degree sooner, or I could even have started to write sooner, but no. Without that experience there are certain very important things I never would have learned.

As a teacher I was driven to take an interest in the character and destiny of each of my students. I know it sounds a little corny, but what exactly is the universal job description teachers have? Are we not there to help our students by encouraging high character in them, and then to train them in what they need to know and master in order to achieve the personal goals that derives from that high character? These are the sorts of things only a teacher or parent is likely to ever commit to, and having never been a parent, teaching was the reason for me. So in spite of my normal tendency to simply allow fools to be fools, I was driven by a job description to try and save them.

I remember in particular one middle-school student of mine that was a free spirit. He was smart, got good grades on his assignments, and was generally respectful toward his teachers, but from the point of view of my lead teacher and the school's principal he was sorely lacking in two very important areas. He was terribly disorganized to the point that the contents of his desk often overflowed into other students' spaces. That really annoyed them, but the second area of lacking was what really worried them. He tended to be a loner. He seldom associated with other students and when he did, the other students would become annoyed with something he'd say or do. Nothing serious. They were little things I don't remember exactly, but like say playing four square and not seeming to try, or starting to do his imitation of a flying saucer sound. The only thing I do remember is that there was little to no consistency or pattern in these things. He might frustrate students not trying one day and then compete in earnest the next, or just not play on another. In a nut shell, he was not just a loner, but a very creative one.

The moment of my enlightenment came as I was grading papers after school and he and his parents were meeting in the next room with the principal and my lead teacher. I heard bits and pieces of what was being said at first. It was an old story. For years he had attended this K-8 school, and for years the faculty had worked with him on his two shortfalls. The parents said things I could tell they realized they had said several times before, but the teacher and the principal sounded more determined to make progress. They noted it seemed that none had been made.

The principal, a woman I had great respect for, was talking when suddenly this young 7^th grade fellow shouted “shut up!”. I was horrified, both because he was being so extremely disrespectful and because I was worried for him and his future at the school. I was tempted to charge into the room, but wasn't sure what I could or would do, calm him down or scold him. I decided to stay at my grading work, but couldn't avoid hearing what was going on in the next room. He went on to tell them how it made him feel to be continually picked at, and asked them, still yelling and angry, to “just leave me alone!”. I heard adult voices, occasionally his parents but mostly my co-workers, attempting to reason with him, but he wasn't having any of it. He only continued to tell them off.

It was then that it happened, the thing that really mattered to me and my future, the proverbial lights came on.  The words came out of me like an involuntary sneeze, “you tell them”. I caught them enough that I couldn't be heard through the walls. It scared me for a split second, but then I felt something quite different than fear. I felt free and enlightened.

This young man had spent the last several years of his life under constant attack for in essence just being an individual. Sure, organization is important, but not enough to justify years and years of nit-picking and threats.  And sure, it's wise to worry a little when a child is left out of social circles, but not when it's his choice and when he has no ill will or feelings toward anyone. His stand in that meeting, taken out of context is just a student being extremely disrespectful and insubordinate, but in context it was the Boston Tea Party, Lexington-Concord, Rosa Parks in the front of the bus, and Robert the Bruce at the Battle of Bannockburn. He was expelled that day, and I called the parents shortly after to offer any and all help I could give them. My help was minor, but I was there to see him go on with his life, free of those who had sought to take away his individuality. To the best of my knowledge he's been very successful at being himself, and more than that.

One of the most significant measures of success in a person's life is who they've effected in positive ways, and just how positive. In this young man's case, he effected me. His moment of taking that stand that day showed me just how important the individual is. Without his stand, I probably wouldn't be writing right now. As a matter of fact I hate to think of what I might be doing, something meaningless, something depressing, something wrong.

I'd be so bold as to thank him by name, but I don't want to draw in the people I worked for and with at that time. That moment was also the moment I realized I was working with the wrong people, at least for someone like myself who cherishes the individual. So I'll leave it at this until I manage to contact him again more directly and less publicly, thank you, and sorry I was unable to see things before that day, but that wasn't going to happen without you doing it. The individual is bigger than all of us.

Naked Thoughts Revisited

What's it like to be indebted to someone who is set against you fulfilling your responsibilities and duties: the divine calling we all receive to be ourselves and whatever that may entail?

Is that what it's like to be almost a person without a country: the nation state you live in is bound and determined to undermine you being you?

Is that what it's like?

What do you do?

What can you do?

You do your duty and live on as God intends.

If the nation state you live in seems to be at odds with itself: providing you a safe place to live full of opportunities on the one hand while on the other working to try and corral your individual initiative, restrain your liberty, make decisions for you; then you take the good with the bad, but don't give the bad any unearned respect.

And what do you say to someone who suggests you're a hypocrite because of this: suggesting that you should forgo all benefits of the state you disagree with?

Tell them that by benefiting you through such policies, the state is clearly at odds with itself.  It is not you who are the hypocrite, but the state in its policies.

The state is only legitimate when it helps the individual or does nothing, and is illegitimate when it hinders the individual.

There is no true law that works against the individual.

There are a lot of laws that are in reality, not.

The test of this is not if the law serves you, but if it serves any individual who is true to their divine calling.

***

I'm sure there will be those who misunderstand what's being said here.  Context is the key.  I am saying nothing new for me here, just putting it in different words.  The individual is not some selfish sociopath or even necessarily you or me.  The individual here is that eternal occupant of the space we reserve for the third person.  Thus I said, "The test of this is not if the law serves you, but if it serves any individual who is true their divine calling."

Regarding Liberty

October 24, 2009

By Jean Lewis 

There are probably no two words which stir the emotions of Americans more than the words FREEDOM and LIBERTY. We cherish our freedom and the prosperity that it has allowed us to enjoy. Yet we have lost much of our freedom and liberty suffers.

I suggest that there are two primary reasons for the loss of so much of our liberty. First, is a failure of the people to fully understand the issues underlying freedom itself or the requirements and responsibilities of the individual if we are to remain a free society.

The second reason has been the willingness to give up a degree of freedom for safety, security, or some form of safety net against failure. In some cases this was done consciously but in the case of many Americans it was, perhaps, done without the realization of the price, in liberty, to be paid.

There are many enemies to liberty and we the people must be conscious of them and remain vigilant if we are to succeed as the stewards of freedom. America has been the lone lighthouse of freedom to the world for centuries and I fear that if we let this beacon be destroyed that the hope of mankind to be free is dead throughout the world. I do not propose that we force our ideas upon the world, but that we must live as an example to all; that we may show them the joys and rewards of being free and keep alive in their hearts the dream that some day all men may be free.

If we are to lead by example we must now show the world how a free people can restore freedom that begins to slip away.

Human nature is such that we often feel a need which is perceived to be urgent in the heat of the moment and it blurs our perspective as to our proper priorities. In the heat of the moment we forget that which is most important to us. Freedom and liberty are at the heart of all successful endeavors of man and without it there is no safety, no security, nor any safety net. The opportunity to succeed must always be accompanied by the equal right to fail.

Our actions and our decisions have consequences. Things we desire in life have a price. Only when man is willing to accept the consequences of his actions; only when man is willing to pay the price, only then... can man be free.

All peoples must realize that there is no compromise between liberty and tyranny. It is not possible to allow a single encroachment upon freedom and still preserve liberty. For once the door of the vault is but cracked open, the flood of force and tyranny floods in. We allowed the door to be cracked and it is now being thrown open wide to tyranny.

Our founding fathers had a strong distrust of central government and consequently they were ever mindful of protecting both the constitution and the liberty of man. One of the biggest underlying reasons we find our current loss of freedoms, and the mess of government, is that we completely reversed their view and began to look to the government as the cure all, the healer of all, and the source of all answers. We stopped looking at the government with an eye of suspicion and accepted their "know it all" attitude as truth.

There is danger in lying to another, but no danger as great as lying to yourself.

The government does not know what is best. The answers lay not in the halls of government. The government offers no protection. The government is not and never has been the answer to the problems of man. Those who seek the answer in a central government end up with the worst of both worlds....no protection and no freedom. It is time for Americans to realize the truth. Answers ultimately rest with the individual. Responsibility rests not on the government, but on the self.

No thinking American could study the thinking of our founders, or the documents they created to protect us from intrusive government, and question the wisdom of their thinking, yet we do so by our actions. To consider government the answer to our problems is to deny the thinking of our founders and to ignore the documents they created to preserve our freedom. Our actions claim they knew nothing about which they so eloquently spoke.

At the time our constitution was being considered many thousands of Americans believed that the question of independence hung precariously on the single thread of whether or not the people were sufficiently virtuous and moral to govern themselves. It was generally acknowledged that a corrupt and selfish people could never make the principles of republicanism work successfully.

Benjamin Franklin said, " Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

If one looks upon our current government we see massive corruption, self serving politicians, greedy special interests and failure of government on all levels. I propose to you that the public has demanded more regulation and more protection from the government for many years...to the demise of our liberty.

There have been demands to protect from all sorts of harm. The government created all sorts of bureaucracies in response. We have the FDA, the SEC, OSHA, EPA, Social Security, Medicare, the list goes on.

I submit to you that we have enormous government and no more protection than we ever had. Arguably less. We have indeed ended up with the worst of both worlds as we have less freedom and no protection either. Did the SEC stop Madoff? Has the FDA stopped dangerous drugs from getting on the market? I could go one, but the answer is absolutely not. Rather we allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security. We are shocked to find that in the end there really was never any way around the need for accepting responsibility for our own well being.

We are disappointed because we had unrealistic expectations. The truth is that we cannot expect the government to provide for us, protect us, nor care for us. It was, after all, never the intent of the founders that it should do so. Indeed, I would suggest to you that such a concept has always, in the history of the world, proven to be a false hope and a failed concept.

Perhaps one of the best examples in recent history is the Patriot Act under which we gave away untold numbers of rights as American citizens in the name of protection from terrorists. I submit that we are no more protected now than we were prior to the Patriot Act, but we certainly gave up our freedoms. Again the worst of both worlds. I submit to you that the terrorists won. The freedoms lost have done more to destroy our freedoms, and hence our country, than anything else the terrorists have done. As George Bush might have said, we must destroy liberty to protect liberty. (reference to his remark that to protect the free market we must destroy the free market.)

Yet, the terrorists didn't really do it. Our government passed the Patriot Act, and we let them.

Now, let us consider the idea of Liberty.

"Under English common law a unique significance was attached to the unalienable right of possessing, developing, and disposing of property. Land and the products of the earth were considered a gift of God which were to be cultivated, beautified, and brought under dominion."

John Locke was widely read by our founders. He stated that the human family received the planet earth as a common gift and that mankind was given the capacity and responsibility to improve it. He wrote that "God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience."

Locke pointed out that all property is an extension of a person's life, energy, and ingenuity. Therefore to destroy or confiscate such property is, in reality, an attack upon the essence of life itself.

Locke outlined the principle of "property" as follows; " every man has a "property" in his own "person". This, nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.

It is perhaps worth considering the words of Justice George Sutherland of the U.S. Supreme Court who once told the New York State Bar:

"It is not the right OF property which is protected, but the right TO property. Property, per se, has no rights; but the individual....the man.... has three great rights, equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to his LIFE, the right to his LIBERTY, the right to his PROPERTY.....The three rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes life worth living. To give him his liberty but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to leave him a slave."

Abraham Lincoln once said that: "Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable, is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is homeless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence...I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good.

I hold THIS truth to be self evident; that whatever property a person has acquired through the fruits of labor, whether land, patent, copyright, money, or other worldly good acquired through legal honest effort and labor is the sole property of that individual. There is no natural law that permits another to rob one of property so obtained.

It is the sole purpose of government to protect property. If property rights are not protected then we are slaves and there is neither liberty nor life worth living; they are so entwined.

Our founders recognized that we could not delegate any power to the government that we, the people, did not have the legal right to do.

Now. Think about that. We cannot take property from our neighbor at gunpoint nor by force. (IRS) We cannot counterfeit money. (Federal Reserve) We cannot play Robin Hood and steal from our neighbor on the left to give it to our neighbor on the right.
(income re-distribution)

To understand liberty, one must understand property. Consider the above paragraph. If there is no protection of property, where is the liberty? Where then is the life? Wherein would you find happiness? So without property rights we find we can have no life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

Our founders realized that the proper role for the government was to provide equal rights of opportunity and not to provide equal "things". Samuel Adams said the idea of a welfare state was unconstitutional. Obviously, you cannot protect property rights by theft of property.

I have said for many years that we have a great fallacy of government. It is no great secret that an entity may be controlled through the control of the money. It is through the control of federal dollars to the states that they have circumvented the rights of the states. The ability to tax removes the idea of a government responsive to the people. It is a theft of property and not a protection of it.

I submit to you that the money you work for is your property. That it has always been your property, and that no man has a right to take your property by force or at the point of a gun. The purpose of government was to have been to protect our rights. But when government is in fact the criminal who confiscates our property then I suggest to you that something is very wrong. They take the fruits of labor at the point of a gun and, if you do not believe that, try refusing to give it to them.

If it is taken by force it is theft; whether it is done by an individual or a government makes no difference. We were to be a nation of laws. If it is theft for you to steal the earnings of another by force, it is unlawful. If it is unlawful for you to forcefully take the earnings of another it is unlawful for government to take the earnings of anyone by force.

When you work and they take the fruits of your labor you are nothing more than a slave. The government was supposed to be working for the people. They were supposed to answer to the people. But when they take your property and fail to listen, then I ask you who is WORKING for whom. We have taxation but we have no representation.

They no longer appreciate your tax money as a contribution to the state, rather they consider what they allow you to keep as their benevolence. They are no longer representatives but rather the ruling elite.

A couple of years ago I decided we needed to eliminate the income tax. If we control the money then they have to respond to our wishes. If they control they money then we are forced to comply with theirs....and obviously they are not motivated to listen to us.

I finally realized that was not sufficient. We are now being taxed in so many ways that they would merely increase other taxes to offset the loss of the income tax. Nothing would change. No, the time has come to stop all their ability to tax. It is a theft of private property. It was a power granted which never should have been granted; for to take the property of another is not a right we have and therefore could never have granted to another. We had no right to do so to begin with.

Not until the people control their own purse strings and those of the government will we have a government which is responsive to the will of the people.

I realize that there are people who will consider such a suggestion radical, but I assure you that it is not unrealistic or unworkable. In Ron Paul's book Revolution, he has stated that the elimination of the income tax would take the federal government all the way back to the level it was at in....1997. Wow.

I am not going to get into the intricacies of how this can be achieved at this point. I save that for another day. For the moment I prefer my reader focus on the rightness and wrongness of the concept of the government taking your property and observe the results it has achieved.

As long as they control your money you work for them. As long as you work for them they control your life. We have been forced into slavery whether we care to acknowledge it or not. But I believe the truth sets you free and it is time for a healthy dose of truth in this country.

Remember, when the people fear the government you have tyranny. When the government fears the people you have democracy. (though we technically we have a republic..not a democracy...they are a little different.)

Now, it is perhaps time to explain another great lie and great theft. There have been entire books written on the subject and I wish to merely summarize the subject of the Federal Reserve and the effects upon both government and the people.

The Federal Reserve was sold to the people with a lie which was basically that it gave the banks a back up to prevent a run on a bank and prevent the collapse of the banking system. It was explained as a protection of the people and insurance for your money on deposit.

As with many things, our government deceived the public into accepting the idea while their real reasons for their wanting to create a central bank were far more sinister. The idea was conceived by the big bankers, the government, and the special interests.

It allowed the bankers to lend far more money and hence increase their profits. It allowed the government to increase the money supply at will and thereby finance projects they could not immediately pass on to the people in the form of taxes. It gave them the ability to print money as needed and to inflate and thereby devalue the currency.

The use of a central bank and the power to create money out of thin air goes a long way to funding the expansion of government and is at odds with the concept of liberty and property rights. The printing of money and the subsequent inflation and devaluation of the currency has the effect of lowering wages and transferring wealth from the poor and middle classes to the bureaucrats and special interests.

This has been going on for decades and the wealth of Americans has been steadily and quietly stolen. In the meantime the federal government has manipulated the money, the world markets, the economy, and expanded government with their counterfeiting of the money.

As I stated in the article entitled "State of the Union"; Lenin is said to have declared that: " the best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."

Marx's Fifth Plank of the Communist Manifesto mandates a strong central bank monopoly. This was seen as necessary to maintain power over the entire economy and to protect against the encroachment of capitalism.

For the government it is cheaper in the short run to inflate than to borrow and much more palatable than immediate taxation to bay the bills. If a government cannot borrow or inflate the currency it would be much smaller and the country much more prosperous and safer.

This corrupt method of paying bills and avoiding direct taxation only serves to institutionalize a system that breeds contempt for liberty and self-reliance while feeding the growth of big government. Any institution that can do this is by nature tyrannical and is specifically what the constitution was trying to prevent. Authority to create money gives credibility to legalized counterfeiting.

The principle here is that we are expected to accept without question that we should welcome government action that destroys liberty in order to save it. It is precisely this idea that suggests we destroy the dollar in order to save it.

When a society such as ours is relatively free it is through the use of deficits, taxes, fear, and fiat money that power is solidified. The authoritarians need the central bank for this takeover.

In every government subsidized program including banking, medicine, education, agriculture fiat money looks like a panacea. The results however are always tragic. Poverty and chaos ultimately ensue and powerful special interests demand a bailout from the very victims of the fraud.

Witness the bailouts and the taxpayers who are on the hook to pay the expense of bailing out the special interests and all the while it has been the working man who has been robbed at every step of the process, the working family who has little left, must bail out the ones who were the beneficiaries all along.

We were sold the idea that this central bank was to protect us. HOW HAS THAT WORKED OUT FOR US? We sought protection and in return our wealth has been stolen, our freedoms sacrificed, and instead of protection we get debt.

We have gained the worst of both worlds. No safety and lost liberty; though in this case we were robbed all along the way as well.

The crash was caused by several factors but almost all of which were a result of the Federal Reserve and government meddling. None of this collapse was due to functions of a free market nor the fact there were not enough "regulations" in place. The crisis will, however, be used as an excuse to further curtail liberty, the functioning of the free market, and the passing of more regulations.

If we are to ever be truly free again, it must begin with the recognition by each individual that we were not born merely with God given rights, but God given reason and intelligence. These were gifts to provide us with the ability to think for ourselves rather than expect others to do our thinking for us, and the good sense to realize that no one is capable of looking out for us as well as we can do it for ourselves.

Americans used to take responsibility for themselves, their families, and their actions. They willingly paid the price for freedom. They accepted the consequences of their decisions and their actions. They asked nothing of their fellow man beyond being left free to pursue their dreams and their own idea of happiness.

Life is not a free ride. Government cannot provide for the individual. In the end, after you have given of all your property, and all your freedom, perhaps even your life, government will fail to provide...... as history has so frequently shown.

If we are to have Liberty, we must assume the responsibilities of the rule of self. In the end, the price of freedom is cheap by any measure and is the ONLY hope of prosperity for anyone.

At the time the Constitution was being submitted to the states for ratification Thomas Jefferson said; "May you and your contemporaries preserve inviolate the Constitution, which, cherished in all its chastity and purity, will prove in the end a blessing to all the nations of the earth."

Madison said " The happy union of these states is a wonder; their Constitution is a miracle; their example the hope of liberty throughout the world. Woe to the ambition that would meditate the destruction of either."

In conclusion I suggest to you that there will be no freedom, no restoration of liberty, no form of responsive government, until we restore the protection of our property.

There will be no protection of our property until the right to tax by the federal government is brought squarely under the control of the people, the Federal Reserve is abolished, and the currency restored to a commodity based system. Perhaps the return of the gold standard, but regardless, the central bank must go.

There are other changes which need to be achieved, but none so fundamental as restoration of property rights. For in our property rights we realize the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

for my readers who would like to understand more completely the operations of the Federal Reserve, may I recommend the book by Congressman Ron Paul, MD. entitled "End the Fed." It is a good explanation of the workings of the fed and it provides a view as seen from inside our congress as well.

Portions of the above are from the upcoming book entitled "Cold Hard Truth" soon to be released.

Copyright 2009. Jean Lewis. All rights reserved.

[http://www.americanvote.info]

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jean_Lewis

What Do The Lost See In Us?

[This is a re-editing of a previous post.  I can only hope that like the sermon "Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God", this message becomes more powerful and relevant in its second run.] 

There's a popular story about some folks who took a copy of the Bible and cut out every part that spoke of social justice.  The claim is that there wasn't much after that.

I have a hard time believing the story though.  You see, they actually sell Bible's like that, ones where everything that supports social justice has been removed.  You can go to almost any bookstore in the western world and find one for sale.  In fact I own not only one but several.  One's even a parallel version with four different translations side by side.  I actually like all of these versions of the Bible a lot.

Is it because I like editing out the stuff I don't like in the Bible?  No, it's because every translation of the Bible I know of is like that.  There is no support for social justice in the Bible.  I can say all of the support for social justice has been removed because that support is nothing, and nothing has been removed.

As those who read me find out pretty quickly I'm an individualist and so it should come as no surprise that I might direct you to the story of Zacchaeus.  This is one of the clearest individualist moments in the Gospels.

Luke 19:1-10
New International Version (NIV)

"Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through.  A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus;" . 

Note that "he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy" i.e. Zacchaeus was the worst sort of rich man who made his money by cheating and through the abuse of government.  Does this sound like a familiar story to what happens far too often today?

"He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd.  So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way."

This is a big moment within the moment.  "He wanted to see who Jesus was".  In spite of all that the local people could justly see as bad about Zacchaeus he wanted to know "who Jesus was".  That's the beginning of wisdom cubed.  Not only did he admit there was something he didn't know worth knowing, but that something that he didn't know was Jesus Christ.

"When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, 'Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.'  So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly."

Jesus addresses Zacchaeus individually and demands something of him, a place to stay the day.  It's interesting that it was a demand and not a request.  Jesus clearly knew something about this situation the rest didn't or still to this day don't.  But the huge thing from Zacchaeus's point of view is that he welcomed Jesus gladly.  I suspect at this point he was saved, though of course this could just be Zacchaeus being hospitable to a guest and not the more momentous acceptance of Jesus Christ as his lord and savior.  So let's read on. 

"All the people saw this and began to mutter, 'He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.'"

The people are of course shocked at what they just saw happen between Jesus and this man.  Not only has Jesus "gone to be the guest of a sinner" but one of the very worst in their eyes.  I would add, in my eyes as well.  He abused government power to enrich himself and the oppression of government is bad enough without people exploiting it.  So unfortunately I could easily see myself in this crowd.

"But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, 'Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.'"

Here Zacchaeus seems to be painfully aware of what the crowd is thinking and doesn't want them to think his bad past has somehow been justified, so he offers a penance.

"Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham.  For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.'"

Jesus's words here are where a huge lesson manages to hide from many of us.

"Today salvation has come to this house".  Why?  Because of Zacchaeus's offer to do penance?  No of course not, not if we truly understand how Christ's gift of salvation works. 

Jesus goes onto say, "because this man, too, is a son of Abraham."  So is Jesus saying Zacchaeus is saved because he's a Jew?  Is he saying he stopped being a Jew but became one again due to his penance?  Once again not according to the nature of Christ's gift of salvation or what the Bible says about being a Jew for that matter. 

Especially considering Jesus then follows the sentence with, "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."  And who are the lost?  Jesus told a few parables about "lost" things, sheep, coins, and each of them had two important things in common.  One was that having the nine out of ten whatever they were was never good enough reason not to make finding the one that was missing a priority.  And the second key thing was that whatever was lost, there was just one of them.  It was never the lost group but always the lost one.  So when Jesus said, "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost", I'm pretty sure He meant the individual.  That is the lost message for many of us in the story of Zacchaeus.

What Jesus said about him being a son of Abraham was contextual, though not without great meaning itself.  He was saying Zacchaeus was just as important to Him as any of them.  But what the story of Zacchaeus should tell us is that Jesus came to save the individual and so much so that He risked the ire of groups of people in order to do it.

Jesus didn't die for your group.  He died for you.  His ministry, His mercy, His loving compassion is for individuals.  Anyone who attempts to help groups at the expense of individuals is clearly not being as they may claim, "Jesus in the world".

Christ's love is not compatible with social justice.  He calls me, He calls you, He calls individuals to reach out to individuals in need.  And it should go without saying but it doesn't, if we attempt to reach out as a collective to groups we do something wrong.  And what that wrong thing is, separating ourselves from His ministry.  For His ministry is Him reaching individuals.  The greatest individual of all reaching out to save the individual.

Each of us must try to see the individuals like Zacchaeus as He does.  Not in terms of socio-econonics like wealth distribution or in terms of one group of people being more or less worthy than others.  No group is getting saved.  If that was His goal He would only have come once and we'd all live in the Kingdom of Israel.  Individuals are who the son of man came for.  He came to save the lost, the ones.

If you're not certain I know what I'm talking about, read those parables, read the prophets for that matter.  Even in the prophets where Israel was being condemned God had a message to the individual that was faithful. He was going to save them.  Read about the times when God would warn someone of imminent destruction for some nation or city and that person would attempt to negotiate with God.  Always it would come down to saving the one, sparing the one.

Jesus Christ came to save Zacchaeus and He did.  The city of Jericho where Zacchaeus lived on the other hand, we don't know how many were saved that day, just that one individual was.

As long as the perversion of the gospel that is social justice continues to infect Christianity I cannot seem to say this enough.  Social justice must go.  The individual today climbs a tree to see who Jesus is and instead of seeing Jesus in us, the individual gets knocked to the ground and condemned for his greed.

On judgement day will some of us need to answer why we failed to help "the least of these" and then say that we "thought some were getting what they deserved, that it was social justice."?  I speak so that they can repent before it comes to that.