or "The Government is Supposed to Protect You, Not Provide For You"

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

The following is a series of rambling thoughts based on ideas discussed in my Social and Political Philosophy class.

For those of you familiar with the Declaration of Independence, you are probably aware of the Lockean influences on the formation of our great nation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".

These are perhaps some of the most famous words in the American consciousness. Here, Thomas Jefferson clearly echoes John Locke, who instead names life, liberty, and property.  Locke was most definitely in the minds of our Founding Fathers when they were forming our great nation.

Further investigation into Locke reveals what he believes the purpose of government to be, and I do believe that our Founding Fathers shared that same belief.

From Chapter Nine of Locke's Second Treatise of Government, entitled "Of the Ends of Political Society and Government", Locke states that

"The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property".

This requires further understanding of what Locke's definition of property is.  While Locke often describes property as distinct from life and liberty, at the same time property also encompasses the both of them.  Above and before all else, the first thing that is your property is yourself, your life, and by extension, your labor.  It is by mixing your labor with things that you come to own them.  This is also known as the "labor theory of property".

This leads to the necessity of liberty.  Liberty is defined as "freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, and hampering conditions". Every American is familiar with the idea of liberty.  It is, of course, one of the core values upon which American was founded.  It is the idea of the American individual, free from the constrains of government, able to do what he wishes and create his own life.

Liberty is what we will call "negative rights", or "rights of non-interference".  When the idea of natural rights is discussed, I believe that it is these negative rights that are being spoken of.

In contrast, we have "positive rights", or "rights of being provided with something".  As an example, in modern American society, the right to a public education is a positive right.  In contrast, the right to not be stopped from acquiring a private education is a negative right.

It is my view that the business of government is, for the most part, to deal with negative, not positive, rights.

In the view of Locke, there are three necessary aspects for a government to exist.  These are not subject to a majority opinion, for to infringe upon them would be the remove the ability of a government to achieve its chief end.  These three items are an independent and impartial judiciary, a police force to deal with domestic threats to liberty, and a military to deal with foreign threats to the same.

Through these three institutions, a government is able to achieve its chief end, the preservation of the property of its citizens, or, upholding the negative rights of its citizens.

If you will look at the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, you will find that by and large these amendments concern statements of negative rights.

In the early days of our country, or even fifty years ago, these negative rights used to be enough for Americans.  We were free to go about and make lives for ourselves, to mix our labor with objects and accumulate our property, and the government was there to make sure these actions were free and protected.

However, not it seems as if these liberties are not enough.  These days, it seems that Americans are interested not in being protected, but in being provided for.  There are those crying that Americans have a right to health care, a right to housing, and rights to all sorts of things. 

And by a right to health care or housing, they do not mean that they have a right not to be interfered with in their pursuit of ownership of these goods.  They mean that they have a right to be provided with these things.

Now, should the majority of Americans (or I suppose, the majority of American legislators) decide that the government should provide such a thing to its citizens, then of course the government would be obliged to do so.  But such a thing would never be a right in the sense that it is inalienable, like our liberties are.

Our liberties exist to allow us us to follow whatever actions we chose (excepting, of course, when these actions infringe upon the rights of others), and are not given to us at the leisure of the government.  They have always been ours, and they always will be.

However, such a "right" as health care is something that is bestowed by the government, and only at the whim of the majority.  Should there come such a time when the majority no longer believes it is within the government's responsibility to provide such a benefit, then such a "right" would cease to exist.

Is a right that exists only at the whim of the voting public (or legislators) truly a right?  Or is it merely a fleeting benefit, one that can drift away to sea with changing political tides?

Those that stand upon liberties, those inalienable rights with which we are endowed by our Creator, build their house on the solid ground.

Those that stand upon these "rights" to benefits, those that are given as gifts by the government, build their house on sand.

And when the storm comes, which will still stand?

Sunday, January 18, 2009

This past week I had the wonderful opportunity to be on a national radio show.  The show was Nextwave Live, a weekly radio show on EWTN for Catholic young adults.  The topic of the show this past week was pro-life outreach on college campuses.  Overall, I thought it was a wonderful experience and think the show went quite well.

In addition to the radio show on Thursday night, I spent my Saturday driving to Columbia for the South Carolina Rally for Life.  The rally was an inspirational event and I enjoyed it immensely.

With these two big events in the past couple days, I have been thinking a lot about the pro-life movement (even more so than usual).  A number of small moments in these two big events inspired me to write on this topic.

The abortion debate is framed in many ways. 

On one side, you have those who like to call themselves pro-choice.  They see themselves as the advocates of women and the defenders of the rights of these women.  They see those on the opposing side as wanting to oppress these women, to take this right of abortion away.  If you aren't pro-choice, you are against women, they say.

On the other side, there are those who are called pro-life.  Though they see themselves as the advocates of the unborn children, those who have no voice. They see those on the opposing side as killers. You aren't pro-choice, you are either pro-life or pro-abortion, they say.

So there the debate is framed.  Pro-woman vs. Pro-tyranny.  Pro-life vs. Pro-abortion.  Those on different sides will see each other differently.

I am here to argue that in order to truly be pro-woman, you must also be pro-life.

At the rally on Saturday, we were blessed to have a speaker from Silent No More, an awareness campaign for women who have had abortions.  The speaker was a French immigrant who had two abortions.  The first came when she was 18 years old and new to college.  She ended up pregnant, and everyone around her told her she should abort the child.  "You won't be able to finish college if you have a baby", they told her.  And so she listened to the only advice she had, and chemically aborted the child.  Well, aborting the child didn't help her finish college.  After the abortion she was overcome with such feelings of loss, guilt, and severe depression that she was unable to finish her degree.  Over the years she ended up becoming pregnant again, and still thinking it her only option, she once again had the child aborted, this time surgically.  She said, as she awoke from the procedure with blood on her legs, that once again the horrible depression set upon her, as did thoughts of suicide.  Thankfully, she soon found a husband who led her to Christ and showed her that she could live on, and even bring life into this world.  She now has a son.  Yet she cries daily for the siblings that her son could have had, her children that she never knew.

Many women at the rally carried signs reading simply, "I regret my abortion." 

Many pro-choice advocates bring up the issue of rape.  "How can you make a woman who suffered rape carry that child?  Make them live with a constant reminder of that horrible event in their life?"

To them I reply, "How can you make a woman who suffered rape undergo an abortion?  One of the most invasive procedures a woman can undergo, one of the most dangerous...how can you have them go through that?".  While abortion can be a damaging physical procedure, its dangers are even more severe when it comes to the emotional trauma which results from abortion.  I won't even try to go into the spiritual damage. 

To be truly pro-life is to be pro-woman.  Not to shun and censure, but to love and educate.  Being pro-life is not about shouting down those who are pro-choice, or damning them to hell.  We need to ask ourselves not how many women we made feel terrible about themselves, we need to ask what are we doing for these women, and what are we doing for the women still to come?

What are we doing to educate them, to let them know that there are other choices besides killing their child?  What are we doing to make adoption a more loving option, to enable women who may not want or be able to support a child to still bring that precious life into this world?

This doesn't mean we need to weaken our resolve.  While loving these women, we still need to show them the error of their ways.  You cant sugarcoat abortion.  The baby didn't just go away, to come back later when the woman decides she is ready to finally welcome him or her.  And the baby didn't just simply die.  That baby was murdered.

So, while still holding in our hearts the seriousness of abortion, we need to open these same hearts to these women.  They need to know that though they may have made dark choices in the past, we are here to shine a light for them to follow.  We love these women.  It's a tough love, but it's a love that is much more real than the the culture of death offers them. 

The culture of death offers them comfort, ease, and can enable irresponsibility.  It offers them a false choice, and a tempting one at that.  The culture of death tells them that what they have is a mistake, and it is a simple matter to relieve themselves of that mistake.  It is not until the aftermath that the culture of death deals its damage to the woman.  While a physical death is dealt to the child, it is an emotional and spiritual death dealt to the woman.

The culture of life offers women comfort, but not ease.  It offers a chance to take up responsibility.  It offers women a true choice, but it is surely a tough one to make.  Accepting the responsibility of life is a difficult one, even for those prepared for such a task.  But this responsibility is itself a gift.

When women come to realize that the culture of life, offers them true happiness, then our world will find itself in a much better state.  Each and every life is a gift from God, and life is a gift that keeps on giving.

I am pro-woman, and I am pro-life.  I hope the world will one come to see the truth, and the necessity, of these words.
 

As the election looms in the not-so-distant future, I see a new wave of attacks coming at those of us who hold conservative viewpoints. Whether the issue is abortion, gay marriage, redistribution of wealth, or any other number of issues, our morals and ideals are under attack.

There is a sickness in America, a dangerous infection that threatens to eat us from the inside-out. We are starting to see symptoms of it now, but many will not realize the true danger until it is much too late.

This disease is known as moral relativism.

Moral relativism argues that “moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.” Such a proposition is extremely dangerous for a society, especially when this moral relativism is disguised as “compassion” or “multiculturalism”. Believing that there is no ultimate and objective moral truth will lead to the downfall of society. Under such a belief, any action can be justified.

It is ALREADY being used to justify the atrocity of abortion. Those who call themselves “pro-choice” say “Don’t like abortions? Don’t have one!” This statement is absolutely ridiculous. Can you imagine someone driving around with a bumper sticker that said “Don’t like slavery? Don’t own one!” Abortion is not something that is wrong for people who hold a certain religious view, abortion is wrong for ALL PEOPLE, in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.

Many fear the influence of a politician’s religion on their policies. The most frequent objection of those who fear the presence of believers in government is, “What right do you have to impose your morals on us?” Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council tells them, “The same right you have to impose your lack of morals on us.”

It is our duty to stand up for our morals in public life. As Archbishop Charles Chaput says,

“People who take God seriously will not remain silent about their faith. They will often disagree about doctrine or policy, but they won’t be quiet. They can’t be. They’ll act on what they believe, sometimes at the cost of their reputations and careers. Obviously the common good demands a respect for other people with different beliefs and a willingness to compromise whenever possible. But for Catholics, the common good can never mean muting themselves in public debate on foundational issues of human dignity. Christian faith is always personal but never private. This is why any notion of tolerance that tries to reduce faith to private idiosyncrasy, or a set of opinions that we can indulge at home but need to be quiet about in public, will always fail.”

All law involves a moral decision and imposes some sort of value onto those affected. Whether this value comes from religion or from secularism, it is still imposing on the governed. The question is this; do we want the morals of our leaders to be firm and rooted in the idea that there is a Law above our laws and a Truth our own reason. Or do we want a leader whose morals are as shifting as the sands, who “understands” that people come from different circumstances, and we should therefore try to accommodate everyone.

I know which one I would choose. Sadly, it seems that many others do not.

"Spread the Wealth". That sounds something like I would say to a friend of mine who just opened up a box of Cheez-its.  "Hey man, spread the wealth and pass me some cheez-its". 

However, this phrase also appears to be Barack Obama's tax policy.

Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around'
Audio and Video

I for one am glad Barack Obama has finally come out and said in plain English what we've known all along; he wants to turn America into a socialist country.

The alarm should have gone off for most Americans when Barack Obama started stating he would "cut taxes for 95% of workers and their families". 

Pray tell, Barack Obama, how you will cut taxes for 95% of American workers when anywhere from 33-40% of Americans don't pay ANY income tax.

Barack Obama's "tax cuts" for lower class families are really handouts. Handouts taken forcefully from higher income earners. 

Please explain to me how this form of welfare is good for our country.  The problems with taxing people to "spread the wealth around" are numerous. These problems include causing people to think that they are entitled to a certain living standard whether they work or not and removing motivation to be generous in one's charity. 

Joe Biden calls paying high taxes "patriotic".  He sees it like giving to charity.  That makes sense of his charitable giving then. Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

But it's ok, because he paid his taxes, right? Wrong. Someone who makes as much money as Joe Biden giving about one eighth of one percent of his income to charity is absolutely terrible. What's the average? The average American gives about 3.1% of their income (before taxes) to charity.  The people that give the most actually make the least. Households earning under $10,000 a year -- far below the poverty line -- gave 5.2% of their income to charity.

There are many people who don't see a problem with Barack Obama's proposed socialism.  They say that "it's time for the rich to do their share."

Oh really?

Looking just at the percentage of total taxes paid:

Taxes paid by highest incomes

• The top 1% pay 22.7% of taxes.
• The top 10% pay 50% of taxes.
• The top 20% pay 65.3% of taxes.
• The top 40% pay 84.3% of taxes.

Taxes paid by lowest incomes

• The bottom 20% pay 1.1% of taxes.
• The bottom 40% pay 6.1% of taxes.

And if we look at taxes paid as a percentage of income:

"Recent calculations by the Congressional Budget Office of U.S. tax rates show a highly progressive system. (The numbers are based on 2004 data, but the tax code has not changed much since then.) The poorest fifth of the population, with average annual income of $15,400, pays only 4.5 percent of its income in federal taxes. The middle fifth, with income of $56,200, pays 13.9 percent. And the top fifth, with income of $207,200, pays 25.1 percent.

At the very top of the income distribution, the CBO reports even higher tax rates. The richest 1 percent has average income of $1,259,700 and forks over 31.1 percent of its income to the federal government."

For those who still don't get it, I'll conclude with a nice little story I heard on the first day of my first economics class:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. ‘Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’ declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10! ”Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man.
‘I only saved a dollar, too.. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I! ”That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man.
‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?
The wealthy get all the breaks!
”Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!
‘The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man ( the richest) didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those of you who have not seen this video, I suggest you check it out to witness some of the horribly depraved people in support of Barack Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtGrp5MbzAI

I can't believe that someone would do this their children.  These poor kids have no idea what they are singing for.  To them it's just another little "school play".

This is the worst kind of indoctrination.  Children are extremely impressionable at those young ages, and to have their parents molding them into little Obama robots is despicable. 

One of my teachers in high school, Mr. Thomas, did always tell me that history repeats itself.
http://www.youtube.com/v/DGRtAobbbuw&hl=en&fs=1

This is like the Hitler Youth, the children forced to salute and sing praises for totalitarian leaders like Stalin, like Mao, like Kim Jong Ill.

Now, I have no problem with parents sharing their beliefs with their children and helping to shape their views.  The family is the first and most influential way children pick up their political beliefs.  All other things being equal, you can very reasonably predict someone's political affiliation based on their parents'.

But this is just too much.

Come on people. He is just a man.  He isn't going to heal the planet or turn back the tides. 

You know that if a video were to surface of kids singing the praises of John McCain, the press would be on it like rabid attack dogs.  Every news headline would read "Right-Wing Wackos Indoctrinate Children, Force Them to Worship McCain".

Tuesday, September 30, 2008:

The election is in 34 days, and will be the first I have had the opportunity to participate in. In addition to the usual voting for president and congressional candidates, as a native Californian, I will be voting on Proposition 8 on November 4th.

More specifically, I will be voting YES on Proposition 8 on November 4th. For those who aren’t sure what a YES vote on this proposition means, I will be voting to ensure that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

There are numerous reasons for my position on homosexual “marriage”. A good number of them stem from my religious faith and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Others are rather secular reasons that do not have their basis in religion.

Now, let me tell you, being a college student opposed to homosexual “marriage” (let alone other pillars of liberal faith like abortion), is quite an experience. This is true even in a university that is located in a very conservative area, such as Clemson University.

I have run up against probably every basic argument in favor of allowing homosexual “marriage” during the past year. The one I have found to be most favored by liberals is this, “Why shouldn’t two people who love each other be allowed to get married”.

For reasons unknown to me, this argument is supposed to be persuasive. While love is obviously a very important aspect of a successful marriage, the purpose of the institution of marriage is not to give benefits to two lovers. The primary purpose for legal benefits to married couples is because the married couple is both the traditional and ideal way in which a child is raised.

I have found that the favored argument of liberals is also quite easy to turn around and turn them into bumbling idiots.

“Well, if the only requirement for marriage is for people to love each other, then why can’t a man who loves two different women be allowed to marry them both? What about a man and his sister? Or his mother or daughter?”

While it is very easy for a liberal to come out in support of the homosexual community, most will find the idea of polygamy and incest repulsive. (Of course, you will always have those crazed folk who will listen to your point and say, “You know what? That doesn’t sound like such a bad idea now that I think of it.”)

The fear of homosexual “marriage” leading to polygamy and incest is not unreasonable. This is because of what this redefined view of marriage really means.

Liberals start by stating that it is not a mother and father that are important for a child. Instead, they believe that all a child needs is two parents. Well then, if the only important thing is the number of parents, why not three parents? Four? The man loves all of his wives, why shouldn’t he be able to marry them all?

If you remove the aspect of procreation from marriage, then why not allow relatives to marry? The secular argument against incest is that the child is more likely to be born with birth defects. Well, if the couple is able to prevent from having a child (through artificial birth control or abortion), then what’s the problem? I could argue that a father loves his daughter as much if not more than non-related individuals love each other. So why not allow them to marry?

Marriage is a vital institution. It is the basic building block that holds up our society. By redefining this sacred tradition to allow for homosexuals we open the door to many other attacks, until marriage means nothing more than legal benefits.