Thursday, January 12, 2017

Debunking Liberal Christianity - Theophany Chapter 3

I seem to get myself in quite a few theological debates recently, and I do think it's important to approach most of them from a complete biblical perspective. The one exception I have to that is market economics. Not because the bible doesn't affirm capitalism and meritocracy, (it does) but because we can look at the various economies of history and today and truly see what has worked, what has granted mankind the ultimate liberty and freedom of movement and what has lifted people out of poverty.

(TL;DR - it's capitalism)

1) Debunking the "trickle down/casino" lies.

1.A) It's simple. Compare Las Vegas to Washington DC. (Government.) Compare Wall Street to Washington DC. Where are losers really rewarded? in Government. Where do bad ideas live on forever? in Government.

Where does trickle down really take place? In Government. Government proclaims to be the great arbiter of justice, (Which is a total misapplication of the term. Justice cannot judge someone by their worth. Further more, the trickle comes from Government keeping 99% of what they steal (and yes taxation is theft), then setting in place policies that keep the poor, poor.

Exodus 23:1 “You shall not circulate a false report. Do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. 2You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice. 3You shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute.

2) We need regulations to protect the little guy! The only "little guy" protected by regulations, is the little guy lobbying in DC to protect his industry. Time and time again, regulations have _HURT_ the truly needy and poor. They make it harder to work, harder to find work, and harder to make ends meet.

Throughout history, in America and elsewhere regulations have done two things.

A) Stagnated the economy.
B) Empowered the wealthy tycooons.

3) We need to pay less for Defense then we'll have enough left over for welfare.

How'd that work out for countries that no longer exist?

4) We should have universal Healthcare like every other country.

If every other country was jumping off the London Bridge would you follow them? Universal Healthcare is TERRIBLE, in implentation and reality. it's essentially slavery for the Doctors, (it's why there is a shortage of them in EVERY country that has implemented this satanic system) in every third world healthcare nation Patients die waiting in line and in the hospital from dehydration.

There is no good argument for the Government to steal more wealth to pay for Healthcare. Especially if you believe in point 3. What happens when a war monger takes over and has access to all that money?

5) We need to ban guns to protect the innocent.

Again this is an unbiblical view, and the real world data refutes it. Areas that limit the lethal right of self defense have higher violent crime rates. Areas with higher personal gun ownership have lower crime rates.

Exodus 22:2If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. 3If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. 

Now some more counter arguments.

1) taxation is theft and slavery above 20%.

Exodus 20:15 “You shall not steal.

Genesis 47:25 So they said, “You have saved our lives; let us find favor in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh’s servants.” 26And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt to this day, that Pharaoh should have one-fifth, except for the land of the priests only, which did not become Pharaoh’s.

2) Tax collectors are wicked.
Jesus in his parable of the Pharisees used two of the wickedest men in Israel at that day. The Pharisee and the tax collector. Tax collection is a wicked act as it steals one person's prosperity for the mirage of economic justice.

3) All economic and social justice is an idea straight from the pit of hell. It started with Karl Marx, an avowed atheist that saw religion as an "opiate for the masses". The Progressive income tax is a plank of the communist manifesto. IMO, supporting big government is no different than going into you back yard and standing in the center of a pentagram to talk to Satan.
4) Related to that, we should care for the poor as INDIVIDUALS. Nowhere in the bible does Christ or lord God, tell us to use Government to steal money from others to pretend to help the poor. NOWHERE. We can also see the results of this. It enriches government and the cronies of Government. Washington DC has five of the ten richest counties in America. That's STOLEN PROPERTY.

5) Most people in dire need, NEED to go hungry so they are motivated to work. Even in our corrupt and twisted marxist experiment, if you are needy it's because you aren't working hard. Milton Friedman was asked this and you know what his response was?

"I worked two jobs so I could afford my needs."

Today though, we have people living on someone else's labor with cell phones, Mercedes Benz's and 56" TV's. Those are the people you want to help, by stealing from the one's that have spent their live's laboring to provide for themselves and their families.

6) Wealthy people in America are extraordinarily generous. Even atheists like Bill Gates and Paul Allen. Allen funded several sports teams, about six museums and several schools.

"Who will build museums without Government."

Lot's of people who will have more money with smaller Government. Look at what guys like Rockefeller built for their communities. Even to this day, he did far more for New York than any Government.

7) it's futile to try and eliminate poverty. The last sixty years should've proven what Christ said as an absolute truth. "The poor will always be among you." Human beings are reward driven, it's why Capitalism / Meritocracy works better than the Utopian statism you believe in. When you reward mediocrity, you will get more of it. Government rewards losers and taxes winners.

Monday, January 9, 2017

Theophany Chapter 2

Chapter 2 - Being's Out Of Context

Last week I left you off with a general feeling of just giving up on battling a war of context with those who take the Bible out of context. I think that's still generally the best choice, as someone who believe's, "God told me so." isn't ever going to change their mind to anything you say. You're just a puny human, their God told them so.

Rife With Strife

Much can be said about the bad interpretation of every religion I mentioned last week. Let's take this week to focus on how we can each become better human beings. The Bible is the best plan we have in this regard. the problem is we always let our massive selfish ego's get in the way of productively learning from it. Take a favorite passage from Mormonism, backing up their belief that we should baptize for the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:29 ( - ASV)
Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

 Should we take the Calvinist approach to this problem and agree with the Mormon's that the context of this verse is self-contained and within this two sentence stanza? Or should we do what I suggested last week and read the whole letter to understand better the context that Paul is talking about?

My take from reading this and other letters from Paul is that he's talking about the living, being dead in sin and being baptized to made whole and alive in Christ. The Mormon interpretation is not only wildly out of context, it has no context. The Jews didn't baptize for the dead, and neither did early Christians. The bible outside of this ONE verse, says nothing about people baptizing in proxy for their dead relatives.

Much Ado About Works

I find it intriguing that there is so much strife between the various sects of Christianity based on the Works paradigm. (beyond the totally false gospels of Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists. They deny the Godhead.) You can see that this battle raged even in the early days of the Church. While James did believe we are saved by faith, he also did feel it was meaningless if it didn't produce good works.

What are works, what were the writers talking about?

This is where context of TIME, is crucial. The early church was made up of Jews and Gentiles. The "works" they spoke of was the belief among Jewish Christians that you had to follow the law, the Mitzvot, to be saved. Paul, a former Jew argued against that as it impeded God's grace spreading to Gentiles. it's what God wanted.

However, the Law, our works to complete them, are still crucial. As I said last week, your faith and God's grace should change you. It should compel you to do God's will, follow God's law and complete "good works." Real saving grace, without works, is dead. I'll end this chapter with quotes from Christ showing that he had no intent of destroying the law. If you want to see that, read the context. He always made the law stricter than it is in the Torah.

Matthew 5:17-20
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I  tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
“But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!"

Matthew 19:17

“Why ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. But to answer your question—if you want to receive eternal life, keep the commandments.”
Mathew 22:36- 40
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Sunday, January 1, 2017

Theophany Chapter 1

I questioned whether or not to post this before Christmas, I decided to delay the actual publish date until after the New Year. This is going to be a challenging post for those of you that have a different biblical interpretation than I do.

Saying that, it's not my goal to say whether or not someone is saved. Only God knows whether you've accepted Christ into your heart. Only God knows whether or not your intentions are in his will, and not your own.

Chapter 1 - know your no's

What prompted this post, and particularly chapter of this series was a debate with a Calvinist.

As you can see from my simple graphic above, there is a simple line of faith and works, between Roman Catholicism and Mainline Protestantism. (Evangelicals) Where things get interesting is when you get off the rails to the Faith side or off the rails to the works side, your biblical interpretation depends more and more out of quoting single passages to support the structure of your theology.

In this particular case, the Calvinist belief is that having faith in God is in itself a work, and there is absolutely NOTHING you can do to be saved. The ecumenical problem with this, is everyone who's not a Calvinist instantly becomes a Heretic. (In fact the deeper you dive into these fringe religions the more similar in structure and behavior they become.) All of this false gospel relies on a faulty and incomplete view of the New and Old testament. In the case of the over achievers, the Mormons, for example, they take the book of James literally to mean you have to work your way to heaven. This of course, isn't based upon the entire letter of James, if they read the entire letter they would see that James was talking about our faith and God's gift of grace, changing our behavior and producing good works. (thus, faith without works is dead.)

For the Calvinist they take ONE verse to hold up their entire ideology. Ephesians 2:8;

for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; (ASV - Courtesy

Their interpretation of this one verse is that faith and works are the same, that even believing is a bridge too far. One has to ask, does the rest of the chapter, let alone the bible back this up?

Not at all. Look at the next verse;

not of works, that no man should glory.
The next verse completes the sentence fragment started in the first verse. It is clear Paul was talking to Jews who felt, "works" were necessary to be saved, and Paul was stating that OUR faith in God was all that was necessary to receive the gift of grace. Notice there are three concepts that are repeated throughout the new testament.

Faith, Grace, and Works.

Two of those things are things we have control over. One of those we have no control over. One would have to ask a Calvinist, "If Paul felt faith and works were the same, why would he mention both and instead not just state works?" or ask James why he clearly delineated the two. "Faith without works is dead."

The other serious problem here is one that crosses all denominations. The works the apostles spoke of weren't good deeds, it was our ability, (and inability) to meet the standards of the Jewish law given to man by God, through Moses. a reading of the letters makes it crystal clear that is what every author and every letter was talking about when it was discussing those three topics.

When Paul was talking about our inability to do "good works" in the book of Ephesians, he was speaking of our inability to keep the law. When he was talking about our total inability to be saved by our works, he wasn't including our faith, our gift of love back toward God. Faith isn't works, not even Christ believed that. He also didn't preach a false gospel of limited atonement.

John 3:16 (which the Calvinists inform me has been mistranslated. it's too bad their wrong. Every translation agrees on three key concepts, as do the oldest manuscripts.)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. 17For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him.
Mormon's should pay attention here as well. they also get this one wrong. What are the concepts?

1) God loved the world. Not the limited atonement, not the "elect", the WORLD. Notice in the next verse it talks about God saving the world through the Son, that ALL who believe in him shall be saved THROUGH him.
2) Jesus was God's only begotten son. There is no pre-existence or spirit children Mormon's.
3) Whosoever also disproves election. It's not limiting the grace of God. it's also placing the onus of belief ON YOU, not on God granting you faith, so he can then grant you grace.

Where does all this contextual madness leave us? Sometimes it's better to walk away from a debate. If someone isn't bringing out the grace of God within you, just say no and walk away.

Sunday, March 20, 2016

The Destructive Tendencies of Liberal Policies

If there's one common thread among liberal policy it's that they care more about the poor and downtrodden. Do the results of their actions bear that idiom out?

Government has two tools in it's tool belt, and every policy falls under one of these two tools.

1) Taxation. All taxation is theft, and forces the citizen to hand over a portion of their property to the government in exchange for doing something. The federal government has a punitive income tax. The harder you work, the less you earn. I've talked with many blue collar workers that refuse to work too much overtime as it effectively doubles their tax burden at a certain point. Does that "help" the poor? If someone wants to get out of poverty the best way to do it, is to work more, and to work harder. The Progressive Income tax short circuits this feedback loop.

Talk to any liberals about the "sin tax", on Alcohol, Tobacco or Firearms. Why did Seattle raise taxes on ammo sales within the city? They proclaimed it was to raise money for victims of firearms. They also admitted that it would reduce the sales of ammo within the city. This dual goal of taxation is pretzel logic. What happens when that taxation doesn't amount to what they forecast? They pay for more tax enforcement. Taxation IS FORCE. If you find a loophole, legal or not, the state DEMANDS their money. If you're voting for more state run programs, you're voting for the Government's ability to kill people who evade taxation. Yes, I am saying taxation killed Eric Garner.

2) Spending. No matter how often their programs fail, and how spectacularly, the utopian statist always proclaims it's because they didn't spend ENOUGH of someone else's money. (of course they don't say it EXACTLY like that. They will never admit their works are done off of someone else's labor.) There are many reasons for this. Some have been discussed by the great Milton Friedman. When Donahue asked him about greedy capitalists, needing to be checked by Government, Milton brilliantly replied that there "are no angels in Government." The reason I believe Government programs, will ALWAYS fail is morality. What do I mean?

Every liberal spending program starts from the heart. They see homeless in the street and decide, "We
should do something about that." Thusly a government program is born to help the poor, which takes more money from those working in the city. Their program will inevitably fail, and will cause an increase in crime and property damage. Why? It's immoral to steal. It's written in the bible, in the ten commandments. Every Government spending program starts with theft. It's immoral to covet. How do they know these people are worse off? They make covetous value judgments between the rich and the poor. The same fallacious arguments have been used to raise the minimum wage. The end result of that force is fewer lower skilled people in the work force. That vacuum created the need for illegal workers that are willing to take the work that American's won't do because they can get free food and shelter from the government.

The liberal answer of course was that they didn't go far enough. They have to reform their programs, and increase taxation and spending! So they do. The end result is visible in several places around the country. Detroit didn't happen overnight. It was a steady trickle of liberalism, from unions in the work force that displaced workers for their own power. It was a steady trickle of taxation and spending to deal with failure after failure of liberal programs.

Today many metropolitan cities are headed for destruction. Seattle for example. The fine liberal mayor, Ed Murray has decided that we should ignore crime done by the homeless. They set up and illegally park RV's in your neighborhood, then you call the police when you see illegal drug trade going on and after the fourth time of calling them and having the police hang up on you, you confront the miscreants yourself.

They bash your skull in, cause brain hemorrhaging and the hospital tells you that you can't even blow your nose anymore.

THAT is what liberalism will ALWAYS do to a society. When I hear conservatives tell me that we have to compromise with THAT? It causes enormous anger inside of me. But, I don't let that anger control my reasoning portion of my decision center and get behind Donald Trump.

It's EMOTIONAL decision making that drives liberalism. The answer to that, and the anger, (which I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND!) is not to make a decision from an emotional center. We can do SO MUCH better than Donald Trump with Ted Cruz.

If we are to reverse the decades of liberalism and Republican compromise, we have to be aggressive with our pruning. We have over 130 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. There is no liberal compromise that will reduce our debt and deficit. There is no liberal compromise that will massively reduce our taxation and spending programs.

The age of compromise has to be over. That doesn't mean we let our emotions control us. We must present evidence as to why our ideas work and their ideas fail.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Essay on "Oration on the Dignity of Man"

I'm posting my essay on this wonderful essay by Pico Della Mirandola. It was an assignment for my class at WGU.

Essay on “Oration On The Dignity Of Man”

Morris Buel


Requirement A:
1) Describe your initial thoughts and/or feelings about the work.
The author is trying to describe man’s place in the universe with the newly found rational thinking of the Renaissance era. In the first paragraph, Pico Della Mirandola sets up the framework of our creation, and mankind's intermediary place between the lower creatures and gods. His second paragraph details God’s work prior to the creation of man. It also gives the reader the first inkling as to the reason God created man. Only man can appreciate God’s creation, and praise God. The third paragraph describes our dominion over the lower order- other animals. It details our ability to degrade ourselves into a lower form (living like beasts or plants) or to use our intellect and judgment to be reborn in a higher form (the divine). The fourth through the sixth paragraph get to the heart of the author’s intent in this piece: that to distance ourselves from intellectualism and the praising of God is akin to being a plant or an animal. According to Mirandola the correct state of man is to be intellectual. We must disdain our Earthly desires that drag us down to lower states, and despise those things of heave that pull us out of the world. The greatest glory to God is using our mind for his glory.

2) Describe in Detail at least one aspect of the work that most interests you
One aspect of this work that interests me is how Mirandola weaves together faith and intellectualism. It’s clear to me that many of his ideas helped build the themes we see in the next era, the Enlightenment. He weaves a subtle hint of deism in his work while still tantalizing the reader with the more spiritual themes of the Renaissance.

B. Analyze the work
1) Describe the Historical Context of the period in which the work was written:
The Renaissance was the rise of intellectualism and the rebirth of purely intellectual pursuits. It was the era that allowed men to question theocracy, and rewarded Mirandola’s intellectual curiosity.

Pico Della Mirandola is thought of as a key figure in the Italian Renaissance:
Pico’s Oration attempted to remap the human landscape to center all attention on human capacity and human perspective. Arriving in a place near Florence, this famous Renaissance philosopher taught the amazing capacity of human achievement. "Pico himself had a massive intellect and studied everything there was to be studied in the university curriculum of the Renaissance; the Oration in part is meant to be a preface to a massive compendium of all the intellectual achievements of humanity, a compendium that never appeared because of Pico's early death."  (

2) Describe insights into the work can be gained from the author’s biography?
Mirandola believed the pursuit of intellectual philosopy was more noble than toil of common man. This idea that the philosopher is of higher importance in society is not one that Pico invented himself. Plato himself believed in the nobility of the philosopher to such a degree that he thought that they should rule over society. Unlike Plato though, Pico was also clearly influenced by the era of the Renaissance. Pico intertwined his Christian faith with philosophy of the classical world, and other theologies. According to the New World Encyclopedia (2015), “Pico became the first Christian scholar to use the theory of Kabbala in support of Christian thought.”

Mirandola was a thinker ahead of his time. His ideas would have been less radical during the Enlightenment, and therefore led to strife with the Catholic Church. He was challenged by the Church to recant several of his theses. Mirandola’s goal wasn’t to challenge the authority of the church but rather aspire to alter idea’s of spirituality. His intent was to try and prove that intellectual pursuits didn’t have to be at odds with Christianity- in fact they could enhance one’s faith. His ideas most likely influenced thinkers of later eras, who didn’t have to deal with a church hell bent on crushing intellect.

3) Analyze how this work explores a particular theme and/or stylistic characteristic from its period
One of the major themes of the Renaissance was the rebirth of Classicism. A primary classical theme was one of balance. In Mirandola’s work, you can see the idea of balance in the outcome of his worldview. One shouldn’t be too focused on Earthly things, as it will degrade you into a plant or an animal. Likewise, one shouldn’t be too focused on the spiritual things as you’ll be unable to relate to your fellow man. Like many other Christian philosophers of the day, Mirandola embraced classical and secular knowledge. He believed we could learn the truth from many theological and cultural origins.

There is also a deep sense of intellectualism in the piece. In order to achieve the balance he speaks of, you have to refine your intellect. At the heart of intellectualism in the “oration” is the balance one must achieve between free will and moral restraint. As Pico says in his essay; “Above all, we should not make that freedom of choice God gave us into something harmful, for it was intended to be our advantage.” (Oration On the Dignity Of Man, Pico Della Mirandola) This sense of balance was clearly from a deeply studied Christian as well. “As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.” (1 Peter 2:16, KJV New Testament)
4) Explain the relevance of this work for today’s audiences

I feel this piece is extremely relevant in today’s age as many people have abandoned the ideals of sacred spirituality and intellectual enlightenment. It’s clear many of our founders were also influenced by these eternal ideas of balance. The intellectuals that abandoned the ideals of sacred spirituality, abandoned ideals of human dignity as well. Margaret Sanger, was a great intellect, but because of her gross abandonment of that which is sacred, she promoted that some people were of better “stock” and worthy of propagating the species. (quote below)

In a 1921 article in the Birth Control Review, Sanger wrote, "The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective." Reviewers of one of her 1919 articles interpreted her objectives as "More children from the fit, less from the unfit." Again, the question of who decides fitness is important, and it was an issue that Sanger only partly addressed. "The undeniably feebleminded should indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind," she wrote.
(, quoting from an article in Citizen Magazine January 20th, 1992 edition)
Unfortunately, following our hearts desire to be purely spiritual is also frought with peril. Such people, are more likely to be led astray by cults of personality. Jim Jones, the Mooney cult and others have all preyed upon our spiritual nature to control people. Without using our intellectual capacity, we easily fall prey to those who would enslave us with our spiritual nature. The idea of balance is still extremely important and relevant in today’s world.  In the words of Thomas Jefferson who was clearly influenced by Pico, ”Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, 1787 -

C. Reflect on how the analysis affected your perception of the work
1) Discuss how the deeper knowledge you gained through your analysis has informed or altered your thoughts and/or feelings

It’s interesting that my initial observations and feelings about this work, were pretty close to what other philosophers and intellectuals have determined his work to represent. Reading about his struggles after writing this piece, helped me appreciate the age in which we live where someone is not imprisoned (in America) for speaking their mind. As Isaac Newton, “I stand on the shoulders of giants”. Likewise there is a clear influence of the great enlightenment thinkers, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, Thomas Paine and Alexis De Tocqueville that were all clearly influenced by Pico De Mirandola’s ideals of intellectual and spiritual balance. Likewise Pico was influenced by giants. From Aristotle to Moses and from Abraham to Plato, Pico was a greatly read intellectual and understood the importance of understanding human history to achieve greater reason and faith.

Reference Page

Online Study guide from WSU - Summary from book authors describes Pico’s key history in the renaissance. The web page doesn’t make it clear which author makes this assertion.

Online New World Encyclopedia - Article on Pico Della Mirandola discusses his use of extra Christian sources to expand his Christian Philosophy into something new.

Oration on the Dignity of Man, Pico Della Mirandola - Quoted relevant part of oration

1 Peter from KJV New Testament - Quoted one verse to show Mirandola’s Christian roots in his philosophy.

Quoted article from Citizen Magazine posted on, no author name posted - This block quote was to show the relevance of Pico’s classical ideas of balance.

Quoted Thomas Jefferson’s letter - Shows that Thomas Jefferson felt intellectualism was better than blind faith.

Saturday, January 24, 2015

Utopian Central Planning Always Leads to Misery

Utopian Central Planning Always Fails.

Here we are once again with two or three stories merging together at the same time to reveal the inner workings of utopian statism.  In one corner we have a doctor in the UK admitting that they are going bankrupt and are going to have to privatize Health Care.  In the other corner we have a new study from the Danes showing that they aren't in fact all that happy, and their utopian statist experiment is going down faster than the Hindenburg.  In a third corner we have the UK admitting they use a "death test".  This is basically a kind way of saying, you aren't worth serving health care too.

The left is of course either ignoring these stories, or in the case of the latter using their typical tourette syndrome tactics.  The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch who own Faux News!  This study is bunk, just because they drink excessively all the time doesn't mean they are unhappy!

Both of these stories share some common points

Liberals are immoral

The state cannot make you happy when it has to steal from another person's life force to provide you
the goods and services you refuse to supply for yourself.  The whole point of liberty is that two actions lead to drastically different results.  The person who makes bad choices then becomes unhappy and chooses to change their lives to seek out the right choices to find their happiness.  That's the whole, pursuit of happiness.  Free will to find what makes you happy, that doesn't involve stealing or hurting from someone else.  That's the whole moral problem with utopian statism.  In order to "help" one person you have to steal from someone else.  You are costing one person's happiness in order to help another.  Statism is inherently immoral.  Our founders recognized this and thusly called their newly formed constitutional republic a necessary evil.  Too little government is just as dangerous as too much government.  Prosperity requires a stable civil society that respects natural law and private property.  All too often anarchic societies degrade into micro tyranny.  Might makes right, as nature abhors a vacuum of power.

Liberals have too much hubris

The state will never have enough information to successfully plan our lives from the top down.  Utopian statism believes that the state through smart enough planning can short circuit natural law.  It's never happened and never will.  The central planners will never have enough information.  This is a symptom of too much hubris in the liberal mind.  They truly believe they can run your life better than you can run your own life.  It doesn't matter that their countless attempts at tinkering with society have led to misery.  From the minimum wage causing 25% unemployment amongst the youth, to toilet paper shortages in Venezuela.  It doesn't matter what is being planned and where it's being planned, central planning will fail and collapse on itself.  It's also happened here in America in other ways.  Nixon set a price cap on gasoline.  The result?  Gas lines.  FDR decided he knew better than the market, as to what the farmer should make.  The result?  Food lines.  The central planner will always make life worse.

How do we reverse course from socialism?

In order to get back to the center, it's going to take enormous moral fortitude.  Many people will not willingly abandon the failed ideas of utopian statism (aka socialism, marxism, communist, etc). Even though they are standing in line for that "free" product or service, they see it as a RIGHT.  That's the other moral problem of socialism.  The statist steals from one man (the first moral wrong), to give to the other person (the second moral wrong). People become twisted versions of humanity that demand other people labor in exchange, we the working few who remain get Government's boot against our head.  Without a moral base, it's impossible to ever really abandon the failed ideas of socialism.  It's why I believe we will continue along the Tytler cycle, and the ultimate downfall of America.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Atlas Is Shrugging