Independence Day

This was written in my journal and posted in my Facebook notes.

Today is Independence Day, when we celebrate a state grown much larger than the one from which the Founders seceded. This is one of the reasons why I don’t really care about Independence Day. Are we really that much better than England or Canada? Another issue is the fact that a declaration is pretty useless at the beginning of a war. What happens if things don’t turn around in ’77 and ’78 or the British regain control in’80? The decisive battle of Yorktown wasn’t fought until fall 1781 and the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783. The principles in the Declaration weren’t followed at the beginning and aren’t followed now. The inalienable rights obviously didn’t apply to blacks or the indigenous Americans. Also, the Founders rebelled over minimal taxation, while today, people can easily lose half their income in taxes. Besides the loss of property (through taxation and corrupt eminent domain policies), this is a government that will easily turn on its own citizens (i.e, Waco and Ruby Ridge) and sees fit to dispose of habeas corpus (Military Commissions Act) and hold citizens in a brig for a few years without trial (Joseph Padilla). If the Founders were here today, there would possibly be burning effigies, tar and feathers (I don’t advocate violence), in general raising hell. Not that these were perfect men. In fact, many of them were giant hypocrites. How do you own another man? However, they had some good ideas.
So as you kick it at your barbecues today, if you actually claim to be celebrating Independence Day, what exactly are you celebrating your independence from? You may or may not be able to use firecrackers on your own property, and you certainly may not decide what to put into your own body. Your money, willingly or not, is taken to kill foreigners in another land who have done you no wrong and are themselves seeking independence from foreign occupation. Does that sound familiar? At least the British could claim some sort of right, since these states were their colonies.
However, I am certainly not opposed to the idea of barbecuing and drinking beer, especially on such a fine Friday as this. But let’s just be honest about what it is. Put down that damn Kool-Aid! Please don’t drink the Kool-Aid. I saw a man putting something in it, and he was wearing a red, white, and blue top hat with stars. He also had a white goatee. Stick with the bottled beer for your own safety. I recommend Samuel Adams.

Insurance

Insurance seems like a racket. It is a lose-lose situation for all who purchase it. You pay a certain amount of money, and hopefully you have good luck and never have to collect on your policy. In that case, you are getting ripped off and paying for someone else's health or driving problems. But maybe we're helping our neighbors and being charitable this way. In the case that you collect on whatever policy you have, something worse than a monthly premium has happened. You can't win. And insurance companies turn a profit off of our dilemma; otherwise, they wouldn't exist. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better alternative to this socialized (at least it's voluntary) system. You could try to pay "premiums" to your own insurance fund, but in the event that something does happen to you, especially in the early days of the fund, your problems won't be paid for by others; you will be financially responsible for your own problems. These costs could equal or exceed your fund. We can see that there is an serious risk to such a strategy, although it decreases somewhat later on, as your fund grows. If nothing happens to you, you will still have your money instead of an insurance company down the road. But if something happens early on, uh oh. This is a risk that many people would not be willing to take even if their employers did not provide insurance, and the fact that they do makes it convenient. I understand now why insurance is a huge business.

Justice Part 1

I saw an article in the Pitt News about anti-death penalty activists. I used to wholeheartedly support the death penalty. It is called for in Genesis 9 and is in fact part of the agreement God makes with Noah not to flood the entire earth again. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed. Indeed, it seems theoretically morally justified, especially in light of this well-known thought experiment. If a murderer destroys the life of a victim and there is a life-transfer machine, we can agree it would be fair for the life of the murderer to be transferred to the victim so he could live again. I will later touch on why exactly this is fair.
When talking about justice for a crime, we first have to agree on the nature of what crime is. I probably defined it in an earlier blog entry, but again a real crime has a victim who suffers harm to his body or property. True justice for a crime is in the restitution of what rightfully belonged to the victim. That is why the previous thought experiment is morally justified. Practically, though, that is not how the death penalty works. Even if it were applied perfectly, there could be no restitution to the victim and therefore no true justice. Even worse is the fact that in real life, there are wrongful convictions and racism and such that result in the death of innocents. When an innocent man dies for a crime he did not commit, not only has justice not been attained, but now another injustice has been committed.
This same consequence of wrongful conviction could be applied to other crimes, with of course not nearly as devastating a loss. With property crimes, there can always be restitution to replace things that have a monetary value. However, in crimes of violence, how can true justice be attained? Pure monetary restitution as a punishment for this crime is not sufficient, as I will explain in another entry, because irreparable damage may occur. I will also explain why our current "justice" system does not attain justice and explore some ideas about what can be done.

So it's been quite a while since I posted anything on this blog...over 15 months. However, today seems like a good time to continue. Maybe entries will even be posted with some regularity, even though there's loads of stuff for me to do, such as study for a kinesiology lab exam, a neuroscience exam, conduct two interviews about how the disabled were treated back in the day, a presentation on Guillain-Barre, and a couple things for bio lab. On top of that, my parents and my brother are visiting for a couple of days in a week and a half. However, I've often felt the need to say something, given the state of society these days. Who is honest and in their right mind these days? Who can you trust?
Case in point: Thanks to Michael Tennant, I've now discovered that Walter E. Williams, a free-market economist, is unfortunately a blood thirsty warmonger. Hopefully he does not consider himself a Christian, since he says "Thank God" to the fact that the deaths of innocent people "were not considered" in the US's war on Japan and Germany. How is this acceptable? Let us remember the wisdom found in Proverbs: There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers. If God hates hands that shed innocent blood, how is it acceptable to thank Him for the slaughter of innocents? Did Christ say or did He not say "Blessed are the peacemakers." These Bible verses are very clear. They cannot be taken the wrong way by anyone with the intelligence to be functionally literate (Disclaimer: I do realize that there are very intelligent people with reading difficulties.) Although Laurence Vance has already done an excellent job covering Christianity and war, I may add some of my own thoughts to the mixture.

I'm Back in the Saddle Again

Well, that's an Aerosmith song most of us have heard before... a decent song. Anyways, I haven't posted anything in three weeks. My excuse is that after Thanksgiving, things would up and got pretty busy. I could have mentioned something about how in addition to giving God thanks for how he has richly blessed us, Thanksgiving is also about the virtues, the benefits, and the triumph of capitalism or free enterprise. Not that I would write that myself, though, as the late libertarian giant Murray Rothbard has already done that for us. After Thanksgiving, though, things really wind up here at school, with two weeks of classes remaining before finals week. And so I've been too busy to blog, especially with the difficulty of my academic load this semester. I'm glad I had that break, though, because it was a good time for mental and physical rest, as well as acquiring a great novel called The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand, as I visited my uncle in Alexandria. One of the things that was so refreshing about the break was spending time with a great guy like my uncle, who is one of the nicest people I've met (probably the nicest lieutenant colonel you'll ever meet) and has a great positive attitude and outlook on life. Spending a few days with him made me more positive, hopeful, and motivated. This was a good thing, because while my classes weren't so bad earlier in the semester, by Thanksgiving, I felt as though academically, I had gone from swimming to frantically treading water. I feel as though I've been able to recover a bit in the past two weeks, though, swimming with a shaky stroke, but swimming, and the ship has seen me, my rescue imminent. I almost certainly won't match last semester's Dean's List qualifying 3.5, and I may not even match may 3.34 cumulative GPA. I'll just have to study hard and be clutch like Josh Brown, Matt Bryant, Ralph Bironas, and Adam Vinatieri on the exams and eschew Lawrence Tynes(to his credit, the winner against the Chargers this season), Mike Vanderjagt, and Jay Feely. I'm not going to earn below the 3.0 required to keep my scholarship, but while knowing that I can still improve things and even have done better, I don't want to get my hopes up. I haven't been clutch on exams so far, especially in chemistry and physics, where I seem to know the material on the exam, but fail to properly execute. Some examples of this included not reading problems correctly, not transferring multiple choice answers, forgetting to answer parts of a question, not noticing changed story problem parameters. But what's done is done, and what I must do now is move on and not repeat such mistakes, which could be difficult at an 8:00 chem final. Fortunately, the answers will be all multiple choice and there will now be enough time to check my work. Anyways, there doesn't seem to have been that much to post about, and most of what I have seen interesting is on another blog, which is why I will direct you to Will Grigg's Pro Libertate, an excellent blog for real patriots who love liberty. There are some things I'd like to write about soon, but I don't know when I'll be able to get to them. Take care and God bless the college student during this finals week.

Read This

There is an incredible article at LewRockwell.com by Stefan Molyneaux. You must read it. Molyneaux is a market anarchist, but this article doesn't promote anarchy. Anybody who thinks they understand government or liberty needs to read it, "The Gun in the Room."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux29.html

Hold On

There is indeed another post in the works. I felt rather uninspired for a few days, and then tonight, I started a new post, which should be up within a couple days. The topic is important but a surprise. It's important, though, so it requires plenty of time, as does my 17 credit course load.

Christianity and Government

I feel thoroughly unqualified as a 19-year old college student to even begin to do this topic justice. But I'm not a professional writer. My job is to stimulate discussion. And this discussion will focus on what a Christian should do about politics.
First of all, what is required of us as Christians in this area? Well, for starters, there is always the controversial Romans 13. We are told to be subject unto the higher powers because there is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God. Verse 2 states that whoever resists the power receives damnation. But what did Paul actually mean? We know that he was obviously disobedient to the authorities, leading to persecution and eventual martyrdom, taking Peter's advice that we ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). Romans 13 didn't save the German concentration camp guards from being hanged. Another quandary we have observed is that some rulers are a terror to good works, the rejection of donations by Walmart during Hurricane Katrina being just one example, and they are not always a terror to the evil, but often protect them or employ them. Do all rulers minister good for God and deserve honour? Verse 6 tells us to be subject for conscience's sake. But what happens when the conscience God gave us tells us not to obey our rulers? In that case, we should look to Acts 5:29 and also Romans 13:8-9. We are told to owe no man anything except to love one another, which fulfills the law. Paul names off some basic commandments such as not stealing, killing, bearing false witness, or coveting, which he also summarizes by reminding us that these commandments are commandments to love our neighbor as ourself. These of course, are the things that respect the life, liberty, and property of others. Given that this is what is truly what is required of us, as confirmed by the Lord (Matthew 22:37-40), I would argue then that our obedience to rulers is conditional upon whether or not their commands respect the life, liberty, and property of others, since God is no respecter of persons and the ruler must also respect the rights of others. Remember also that when we bid an evildoer Godspeed, we are a partaker in his evil deeds
(1 John 1:11). I would also argue then, that the answer to evil rulers is peaceful resistance after the example of our Lord and Savior. And although it is our responsibility not to aid evil rulers, Jesus showed that it's OK to pay them taxes. He understands our situation and the reality that you cannot completely escape the system. At some point, the responsibility falls on the evildoers themselves, because the One who searches the heart and mind (Romans 8:27) will know what is truly in our hearts. So follow your conscience. You have no duty to participate in government or the selection thereof; if your conscience feels contaminated by doing so, then feel free to abstain. The Quakers or Amish live admirable and respectable lives, and feel no guilt over the crimes of government.
What is important for us is to love our neighbor as ourself, which is to respect their life, liberty, and property, and to possibly be charitable and merciful. Now there is no reason why an innocent Iraqi is not our neighbor. The blood of tens of thousands of Iraqis is on the heads of our leaders who voted to invade their country and impose "freedom" on them. It also lies with those who bid the killers Godspeed. Jesus wasn't kidding when he said "blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God." It is unconscionable for a Christian to condone or support death and destruction of innocent people, whose only crime is resisting foreign invaders. The tens of thousands dead are tens of thousands who can never be reached for Jesus. The other Muslims see this and become hostile to Christianity and persecute their Christian countrymen. But the overwhelming support of Christians for war, which destroys the life, liberty, and property of the victims, and thus hating their neighbor, is a sign of a much larger problem. That problem is an allegiance to the State that is stronger than the allegiance to God and his word.
This reminds me of the recent fight over the pledge of allegiance. Why should we even bother to pledge allegiance to a State, which is run by fallible and often sinful men? The pledge was invented by socialist Francis Bellamy, probably for that very purpose, to secure primary allegiance to the State and not God or His laws. So I completely agree with anyone who feels they should not pledge allegiance to the State. After a couple years of thinking about this issue, I have decided that I will no longer pledge allegiance to the flag, a piece of cloth. I will not give my approval to murder and destruction or anything else that God's word and my conscience tell me are wrong. I pledge to respect the life, liberty, and property of my fellow man. And what about this flag-burning amendment that Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ and other Christians support? Don't they understand property rights? Don't they understand that this life and this earth and this nation are temporary? One day, this empire will crumble as the Roman Empire did, but God is eternal. Who is their God? The State or El-Shaddai?
This probably isn't the last thing I'll say on this issue. My conscience bothers me and I do not like taking the heat that statist, warmongering Christians bring upon the rest of us. For much more, and better articles on this issue, I urge you to read Laurence Vance's articles at LewRockwell.com. Until next time, may God open our eyes to see and our ears to hear.

Elections, Part 7

Well, it's over now and the Democrats have won. While I wasn't really rooting for them, I was glad the Republicans lost, because they deserved it, just as the Democrats deserved it in 1994. Actually, as I said before, all the incumbents except Ron Paul deserved to lose. The Democrats are not the solution to our problems and this election did not change the direction of this country at all. When government is the problem, sort of like a disease, replacing its agents is like deciding whether to acquire pneumonia or tuberculosis. Maybe you shouldn't pick a disease. I feel great about not voting yesterday. A girl asked me, "Are you planning to vote tonight?" "No." "Are you registered to vote?" "No." I didn't feel bad , either. Why become part of the problem? A crappy government is not my fault, but rather the fault of those who voted for it. Why become part of the struggle to control the liberty and property of others? One of the problems with our elections is that Americans are incredibly selfish. They respect nobody's property. The politicians that get the most federal tax dollars (taken from other people of course) get re-elected. I read about Pittsburgh mayor Luke Ravenstahl saying how Bob Casey would be good for Pittsburgh because he would bring in more federal tax dollars (stolen from others at gunpoint) for Pittsburgh. What a jerk! That's part of why we have so many fiscal problems. Everybody wants the tax money stolen from other people for their area and for their entitlements, without any regard as to how this affects their children or any other taxpayers or the economy or the value of our currency. This is what we call "pork," a euphemism for booty plundered by certain privateers who are more powerful than others. But enough with this. Elections are done, and now I no longer feel the need to write about them.
Life, liberty,and property for all!