So, this is an idea I've been kicking around for a bit and I thought I would take a stab at a multi-part blog piece.
As a student of Political Science I've been required to read various authors and their hypothetical writings about how the world could be or might be or will be. So this is my own hypothetical. What if everyone embraced true Christian values? I don't really care if you're a Christian or not, only whether or not your beliefs a similar to Christian ideals. This multi-part blog will be my own hypothetical about how the world would be under various governments when all of the people are practicing virtue. I considered starting with a Republic or a Democracy or a Democratic Republic but I think that in order to get the point across I'll start with Anarchy and move through each of the phases of Western Development.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Who's in Hell?
This article written in response to: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/24/whos-hell-michigan-pastors-book-sparks-debate-eternal-torment/
A good question. I have two answers to this one and they're not Hitler and Stalin.
The first one is the good old gospel standby: Don't judge. Or Don't judge with an unrighteous judgement (depending on your Bible's translation). This is referring specifically to people's place in the eternities. I would like to take a moment to note some of the logical fallacies I saw when reading comments on this article. The one the struck me the most was that people where posting scriptures about condemnation and saying that those scriptures gave them license to judge that some were going to Hell. Again, don't judge with an unrighteous judgement, and the big one: Condemnation is not necessarily Hell. If it didn't say Damnation it's not necessarily true that people are going to hell. This is what I was taught is a shifting meaning logical fallacy. The words seem similar so we assume that they have the same meaning; we forget that this is a legal book to God. Each word is defined and has a specific meaning. Condemned does not have to mean condemned to hell.
If we look at Paul's talk about the man who was taken up to the third heaven (yes, THIRD heaven) that may give us some insight into not many people making it to hell. What if there is a heaven that almost all people can get into, and another Heaven for people who were a bit better, and yet another for the most righteous of people. Well that would explain Paul's third heaven as well as reconcile the idea that few people make it to hell.
Continuing with Paul, he talks about the glory of the stars, the moon, and the sun. Three distinct places; three distinct glories. What if these are all heaven and some place of darkness (without Light which is Christ) is what hell actually is.
From a purely Christian values sense this Pastor (Chad Holtz) is spot on. It is more difficult to be kind to people if we already believe they are condemned (or condemn them ourselves), and losing this view of hell, losing this belief that many people are going to hell limits our ability to be kind; the show mercy; to serve the sinner; to not pass judgement. What Chad Holtz is trying to do is the embodiment of Christian charity and love.
A good question. I have two answers to this one and they're not Hitler and Stalin.
The first one is the good old gospel standby: Don't judge. Or Don't judge with an unrighteous judgement (depending on your Bible's translation). This is referring specifically to people's place in the eternities. I would like to take a moment to note some of the logical fallacies I saw when reading comments on this article. The one the struck me the most was that people where posting scriptures about condemnation and saying that those scriptures gave them license to judge that some were going to Hell. Again, don't judge with an unrighteous judgement, and the big one: Condemnation is not necessarily Hell. If it didn't say Damnation it's not necessarily true that people are going to hell. This is what I was taught is a shifting meaning logical fallacy. The words seem similar so we assume that they have the same meaning; we forget that this is a legal book to God. Each word is defined and has a specific meaning. Condemned does not have to mean condemned to hell.
If we look at Paul's talk about the man who was taken up to the third heaven (yes, THIRD heaven) that may give us some insight into not many people making it to hell. What if there is a heaven that almost all people can get into, and another Heaven for people who were a bit better, and yet another for the most righteous of people. Well that would explain Paul's third heaven as well as reconcile the idea that few people make it to hell.
Continuing with Paul, he talks about the glory of the stars, the moon, and the sun. Three distinct places; three distinct glories. What if these are all heaven and some place of darkness (without Light which is Christ) is what hell actually is.
From a purely Christian values sense this Pastor (Chad Holtz) is spot on. It is more difficult to be kind to people if we already believe they are condemned (or condemn them ourselves), and losing this view of hell, losing this belief that many people are going to hell limits our ability to be kind; the show mercy; to serve the sinner; to not pass judgement. What Chad Holtz is trying to do is the embodiment of Christian charity and love.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Immigration
Here's how to fix the immigration problem in the United States. The first step is for Americans to return to virtue; to honest, integrity, and love. True love, not what television teaches. After we have corrected our own selves or taken the beam from our eye so to speak, then can we worry about immigration. Our new policy should be to instill in illegal immigrants the same virtues that we have ourselves rekindled. We should teach them to be honest, to have integrity, and in this way we can not only teach love but express it as well. When honesty and integrity are taught and learned then there will be no reason to enforce immigration; an honest person, a person of integrity has no need of walls of fences to keep them from crossing a line.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
commondreams.org
Alright, lets break this down. I didn't find many correct statements from this man after the first intro paragraph several paragraphs so let me explain what conservatives actually believe.
"The central issue in our political life is not being discussed. At stake is the moral basis of American democracy." - Correct
"The individual issues are all too real: assaults on unions, public employees, women's rights, immigrants, the environment, health care, voting rights, food safety, pensions, prenatal care, science, public broadcasting, and on and on."
- Sort of correct. Assaults on Unions, public employees. Sure, they're paid better than the private sector anyway (do the benefit math). It can't all just come from taxes.
Women's rights = code for abortion or else its just wrong. Conservatives find it wrong to kill children. Ooh how terrible. Most have no problem with other women's rights.
Immigrants - What rights do they have in America beside free speech, the right not to be killed, detained unlawfully or tortured. NONE. If you want to argue more than that you have to argue natural rights and that leads you back to the Lochner era and liberty of contract. (Read Justice Sutherland)
The environment - Too many conflict opinions if you want to talk about global warming. No complaints about recycling and other basics. Wish we had a better program where I live.
Healthcare - Show me where anyone has a right to healthcare in the constitution. You'll read many references to that document in this explanation. There is no positive liberty to health care but there are rights to avoid compulsion from the government.
Voting rights - Only conservative complaint in my state is all the dead people voting and the unions intimidating people into voting a certain way
Prenatal care - Again, back to code for abortion. Still don't agree with it. Most conservatives don't have a problem with prenatal care aside from the stipulated aside.
Pensions - Yes, we believe that you shouldn't get a pension for working in government and that you should save for your retirement yourself. Scary thought, self-reliance.
Science - No problem there except when people try to force feed unproven or discredited theories.
Public Broadcasting - Don't have a problem with the broadcasting, just with the liberal slant. My kids don't need to know about homosexual behavior when they're three. I don't hate the people and anyone who kills or hurts someone for homosexual behavior deserves to be punished. I still think the act itself is wrong. Deal with it, I have a right to free speech and you can't prove that it's right. You can only prove that you believe it should be socially acceptable.
"Budget deficits are a ruse, as we've seen in Wisconsin, where the governor turned a surplus into a deficit by providing corporate tax breaks, and then used the deficit as a ploy to break the unions, not just in Wisconsin, but seeking to be the first domino in a nationwide conservative movement."
- Yes, conservatives don't like the unions. Not because of what they do for people but because of what they force people to do against themselves. Unions force membership and then use the money of people who disagree with the Union to lobby for something contrary to their beliefs. It's just a form of slavery and yes, we're against that.
Deficits can be addressed by raising revenue, plugging tax loopholes, putting people to work, and developing the economy long-term in all the ways the president has discussed. But deficits are not what really matters to conservatives. - Tax, Tax, Tax and a misguided belief in Keynesian economics. It doesn't work on the long term, just the short term and we're in way over our heads right now.
Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life. - Sort of correct. Would we like it if people agreed with us, absolutely, but we still believe in personal liberty. The same could be said for liberals. Liberals want everyone to conform to their worldview as well, which is the whole point of writing an article like the one I'm correcting.
"In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens." - Just going to skip to the "No one can be free without these" part. If no one can be free without these then no one can be free because forcing people into something, even if that thing is good for them, is still taking away freedom. The loss of personal liberty is paramount to a conservative.
"The conservative worldview rejects all of that." - Incorrect
"Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility." - Incorrect. Conservatives believe in social responsibility through individual responsibility. Not the forced distribution of their goods in a manner of which they might not approve. Planned Parenthood is a great example. I'm willing to feed someone, I'm willing to help them buy clothes, but I'm not willing to pay for them to kill a child.
"They don't think government should help its citizens." - Incorrect. Conservatives believe that the government shouldn't help more than is necessary. Welfare programs tend to cross that line, again because of the lack of control over how those welfare dollars are spent. Conservatives would much rather help on a one to one basis than as a part of a collective.
"That is, they don't think citizens should help each other." - Incorrect. Conservatives don't believe in compelling people to help each other but DO believe in helping others.
"The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview." -Not really correct. Some conservatives don't want to cut military, others like Ron Paul want to cut it very badly. Conservatives are fine with cutting subsidies of any kind (or should be). I never met a government subsidy that I didn't want to cut.
"They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility." - Sort of correct. Cut the part that helps people yes and help people in a way that is not a part of the government, again where there is control over their own resources and they're not funding things that are contrary to their values.
"But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?" - Skipping this because there's nothing to say.
"The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family." - Possibly correct but not really. Yes, the father leads the home but it is based upon counsel within the family itself.
"His authority must not be challenged." - Sort of Incorrect. It's fine to challenge that authority. To challenge the ideals held. But yes, once father decides something there is an expectation of Unity within the family. Note the subtle difference here. Liberals complain about the loss of personal liberty within the family but are more than willing to take away the individual liberty of head of the family either in his/her role as the head of the family or as an individual.
"His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace)," - Correct
"and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong." - Incorrect. It's about being effective, not about just physical discipline.
"The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings." - INCORRECT. Oh my goodness. We don't go around hitting our kids for the fun of it. It's not always necessary and it's definitely not required. It's another tool in a parents bag and should be a last resort, but still an option.
"And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper." - Incorrect as phrased. Only with disciple will anyone be able to prosper, but discipline can take on many forms. Jazz can be an essentially formless discipline but it is still an accepted profession, if you can make it.
"And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty." - Wrong again. Conservatives don't believe that they deserve their poverty, only that poverty is what they have earned, which indeed they have. Again it's back to the "poverty should be cured as an individual level instead of as a part of the collective" thing I was talking about earlier.
"The good people are hence the prosperous people." - Incorrect. People aren't judged on how good they are in business, they are judged on their character. Back to the old school yard motto, it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.
"Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally." - No, charity is an important ideal to conservatives, but again done on individual terms.
"The market itself is seen in this way. The slogan, "Let the market decide" assumes the market itself is The Decider." - This is actually a logical fallacy. It's generally referred to as the shifting definition fallacy. The whole argument behind "The Decider" was an attempted indictment of the patriarchal order that assume the father governs. A market is not a person, it does not decide anything. It doesn't have the capacity, especially with the idea that people are judged based on their earnings gone.
"The market is seen as both natural (since it is assumed that people naturally seek their self-interest)" - Yes
"and moral (if everyone seeks their own profit, the profit of all will be maximized by the invisible hand)." - No, there is no judgement of morality placed upon the market. The market is a tool not a god. It does not dictate right and wrong. It is an expression of individual collective action.
"As the ultimate moral authority, there should be no power higher than the market that might go against market values. Thus the government can spend money to protect the market and promote market values, but should not rule over it either through (1) regulation, (2) taxation, (3) unions and worker rights, (4) environmental protection or food safety laws, and (5) tort cases." - Completely wrong. It is not a moral authority, nor is it a higher power. Conservatives don't want to protect the market, they want it left alone. Just let the market be. I'll go through the list one more time (1)Regulation is generally bad, but we're not anarchists. Minimal regulation is preferred. (2) Taxation is not bad. Extensive taxation is bad. Many conservatives would like tax reform, not tax annihilation (I admit there are some wackos out there but they're not the majority). (3) Unions should not be able to de facto enslave people. Still back to that one. In general, we have no problem with unions as long as they are voluntary. (4) Nothing wrong with environmental protection or food laws. That's just made up. (5) Torts are fine, though we could use some reform.
"Moreover, government should not do public service." - Incorrect. There's nothing wrong with essential services.
"The market has service industries for that." - Correct but I don't really want to trust a business with police work. That's just scary.
"Thus, it would be wrong for the government to provide health care, education, public broadcasting, public parks, and so on." - Again, incorrect.
"The very idea of these things is at odds with the conservative moral system." - Incorrect.
"No one should be paying for anyone else." - Incorrect. It should be stated that no one should be involuntarily paying for someone else or for a service with which they disagree.
"It is individual responsibility in all arenas." - Do I even need to say Incorrect this time around? It's individual social responsibility.
"Taxation is thus seen as taking money away from those who have earned it and giving it to people who don't deserve it." - Not to people that don't deserve it, but people who haven't earned it. And again, it's back to the individual social responsibility to make sure that things are taken care of. "
"the Taxation cannot be seen as providing the necessities of life, a civilized society, and as necessary for business to prosper." - Again, in moderation taxes are fine.
"In conservative family life, the strict father rules. Fathers and husbands should have control over reproduction; hence, parental and spousal notification laws and opposition to abortion." - Incorrect. It's a collaborative effort, but a decision made by one side cannot be made to terminate a life that two sides created. The abortion thing is back again and no, we still don't like to kill children.
"In conservative religion, God is seen as the strict father, the Lord, who rewards and punishes according to individual responsibility in following his Biblical word." - Incorrect. God doesn't want to tell everyone exactly what to do. How tedious. He's there as a loving and supportive parent who counsels with us and sometimes punishes us when we do something egregious.
"Above all, the authority of conservatism itself must be maintained. The country should be ruled by conservative values, and progressive values are seen as evil." - Yes and no. Not the authority of conservatism but the right to be left alone and the right to decide as an individual and not merely as another voice in a collective. See the bill of rights for further explanation.
"Science should have authority over the market, and so the science of global warming and evolution must be denied." - Incorrect. There's nothing wrong with evolution and global warming has been discredited in many scientific circles.
"Facts that are inconsistent with the authority of conservatism must be ignored or denied or explained away." - Incorrect. If science has something to say, let science be heard. Lets start with the brain not being developed until 25 years old and changing the voting age.
"To protect and extend conservative values themselves, the devil's own means can be used again conservatism's immoral enemies, whether lies, intimidation, torture, or even death, say, for women's doctors." - Completely incorrect. Still back to the doctored up baby killing argument for points. Sorry, still don't want to kill kids and we're fine with punishing those who do. Conservatives are accused of both moral strictness and moral ambiguity in this article. An odd combination. Pick one. Again, this is conservatives in general. It's no more fair to accuse the main body of some of this stuff than it is to accuse liberals of wanting legalized abortion because it cuts down on the black population. The facts are consistent with the assertion but that doesn't make it true.
"Freedom is defined as being your own strict father -- with individual not social responsibility, and without any government authority telling you what you can and cannot do." - Do I even need to say anything at this point? Social responsibility through individual actions. Government is okay as long as it's limited. Again, not anarchists, we just believe in moderation.
"To defend that freedom as an individual, you will of course need a gun." - Poorly timed indictment of the right to bear arms. Again, see the bill of rights.
"This is the America that conservatives really want. Budget deficits are convenient ruses for destroying American democracy and replacing it with conservative rule in all areas of life.
What is saddest of all is to see Democrats helping them.
Democrats help radical conservatives by accepting the deficit frame and arguing about what to cut. Even arguing against specific "cuts" is working within the conservative frame. What is the alternative? Pointing out what conservatives really want. Point out that there is plenty of money in America, and in Wisconsin. It is at the top. The disparity in financial assets is un-American -- the top one percent has more financial assets than the bottom 95 percent. Middle class wages have been flat for 30 years, while the wealth has floated to the top. This fits the conservative way of life, but not the American way of life.
Democrats help conservatives by not shouting out loud over and over that it was conservative values that caused the global economic collapse: lack of regulation and a greed-is-good ethic.
Democrats also help conservatives by what a friend has called Democratic Communication Disorder. Republican conservatives have constructed a vast and effective communication system, with think tanks, framing experts, training institutes, a system of trained speakers, vast holdings of media, and booking agents. Eighty percent of the talking heads on TV are conservatives. Talk matters because language heard over and over changes brains. Democrats have not built the communication system they need, and many are relatively clueless about how to frame their deepest values and complex truths." - Going to chime in right here. Studies (science) actually indicates that liberals are more prone to get their news from television and have a larger representation in that media. It's actually a fairly clever word game to refer to talking heads in this sense but it's actually inaccurate to say that there is a more conservative representation than liberal.
"And Democrats help conservatives when they function as policy wonks -- talking policy without communicating the moral values behind the policies. They help conservatives when they neglect to remind us that pensions are deferred payments for work done. "Benefits" are pay for work, not a handout. Pensions and benefits are arranged by contract. If there is not enough money for them, it is because the contracted funds have been taken by conservative officials and given to wealthy people and corporations instead of to the people who have earned them.
Democrats help conservatives when they use conservative words like "entitlements" instead of "earnings" and speak of government as providing "services" instead of "necessities."
Is there hope?
Well, if the conservatives act in the way I describe and the liberals decide that killing children isn't the only right worth fighting for or talking about then perhaps there's some hope. Not all liberal ideals are bad. Free speech is great and one we can agree on. Freedom of the press seems to be one that liberals are in favor of as long as the press doesn't include fox news. Religion is great as long as conservative religions are excluded from that protection (and not the ridiculous one that was described here).
It's late so I'm not going to bother proof reading tonight, it's late. If there are mistakes I leave it to your mercy and understanding.
"The central issue in our political life is not being discussed. At stake is the moral basis of American democracy." - Correct
"The individual issues are all too real: assaults on unions, public employees, women's rights, immigrants, the environment, health care, voting rights, food safety, pensions, prenatal care, science, public broadcasting, and on and on."
- Sort of correct. Assaults on Unions, public employees. Sure, they're paid better than the private sector anyway (do the benefit math). It can't all just come from taxes.
Women's rights = code for abortion or else its just wrong. Conservatives find it wrong to kill children. Ooh how terrible. Most have no problem with other women's rights.
Immigrants - What rights do they have in America beside free speech, the right not to be killed, detained unlawfully or tortured. NONE. If you want to argue more than that you have to argue natural rights and that leads you back to the Lochner era and liberty of contract. (Read Justice Sutherland)
The environment - Too many conflict opinions if you want to talk about global warming. No complaints about recycling and other basics. Wish we had a better program where I live.
Healthcare - Show me where anyone has a right to healthcare in the constitution. You'll read many references to that document in this explanation. There is no positive liberty to health care but there are rights to avoid compulsion from the government.
Voting rights - Only conservative complaint in my state is all the dead people voting and the unions intimidating people into voting a certain way
Prenatal care - Again, back to code for abortion. Still don't agree with it. Most conservatives don't have a problem with prenatal care aside from the stipulated aside.
Pensions - Yes, we believe that you shouldn't get a pension for working in government and that you should save for your retirement yourself. Scary thought, self-reliance.
Science - No problem there except when people try to force feed unproven or discredited theories.
Public Broadcasting - Don't have a problem with the broadcasting, just with the liberal slant. My kids don't need to know about homosexual behavior when they're three. I don't hate the people and anyone who kills or hurts someone for homosexual behavior deserves to be punished. I still think the act itself is wrong. Deal with it, I have a right to free speech and you can't prove that it's right. You can only prove that you believe it should be socially acceptable.
"Budget deficits are a ruse, as we've seen in Wisconsin, where the governor turned a surplus into a deficit by providing corporate tax breaks, and then used the deficit as a ploy to break the unions, not just in Wisconsin, but seeking to be the first domino in a nationwide conservative movement."
- Yes, conservatives don't like the unions. Not because of what they do for people but because of what they force people to do against themselves. Unions force membership and then use the money of people who disagree with the Union to lobby for something contrary to their beliefs. It's just a form of slavery and yes, we're against that.
Deficits can be addressed by raising revenue, plugging tax loopholes, putting people to work, and developing the economy long-term in all the ways the president has discussed. But deficits are not what really matters to conservatives. - Tax, Tax, Tax and a misguided belief in Keynesian economics. It doesn't work on the long term, just the short term and we're in way over our heads right now.
Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life. - Sort of correct. Would we like it if people agreed with us, absolutely, but we still believe in personal liberty. The same could be said for liberals. Liberals want everyone to conform to their worldview as well, which is the whole point of writing an article like the one I'm correcting.
"In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens." - Just going to skip to the "No one can be free without these" part. If no one can be free without these then no one can be free because forcing people into something, even if that thing is good for them, is still taking away freedom. The loss of personal liberty is paramount to a conservative.
"The conservative worldview rejects all of that." - Incorrect
"Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility." - Incorrect. Conservatives believe in social responsibility through individual responsibility. Not the forced distribution of their goods in a manner of which they might not approve. Planned Parenthood is a great example. I'm willing to feed someone, I'm willing to help them buy clothes, but I'm not willing to pay for them to kill a child.
"They don't think government should help its citizens." - Incorrect. Conservatives believe that the government shouldn't help more than is necessary. Welfare programs tend to cross that line, again because of the lack of control over how those welfare dollars are spent. Conservatives would much rather help on a one to one basis than as a part of a collective.
"That is, they don't think citizens should help each other." - Incorrect. Conservatives don't believe in compelling people to help each other but DO believe in helping others.
"The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview." -Not really correct. Some conservatives don't want to cut military, others like Ron Paul want to cut it very badly. Conservatives are fine with cutting subsidies of any kind (or should be). I never met a government subsidy that I didn't want to cut.
"They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility." - Sort of correct. Cut the part that helps people yes and help people in a way that is not a part of the government, again where there is control over their own resources and they're not funding things that are contrary to their values.
"But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?" - Skipping this because there's nothing to say.
"The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family." - Possibly correct but not really. Yes, the father leads the home but it is based upon counsel within the family itself.
"His authority must not be challenged." - Sort of Incorrect. It's fine to challenge that authority. To challenge the ideals held. But yes, once father decides something there is an expectation of Unity within the family. Note the subtle difference here. Liberals complain about the loss of personal liberty within the family but are more than willing to take away the individual liberty of head of the family either in his/her role as the head of the family or as an individual.
"His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace)," - Correct
"and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong." - Incorrect. It's about being effective, not about just physical discipline.
"The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings." - INCORRECT. Oh my goodness. We don't go around hitting our kids for the fun of it. It's not always necessary and it's definitely not required. It's another tool in a parents bag and should be a last resort, but still an option.
"And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper." - Incorrect as phrased. Only with disciple will anyone be able to prosper, but discipline can take on many forms. Jazz can be an essentially formless discipline but it is still an accepted profession, if you can make it.
"And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty." - Wrong again. Conservatives don't believe that they deserve their poverty, only that poverty is what they have earned, which indeed they have. Again it's back to the "poverty should be cured as an individual level instead of as a part of the collective" thing I was talking about earlier.
"The good people are hence the prosperous people." - Incorrect. People aren't judged on how good they are in business, they are judged on their character. Back to the old school yard motto, it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.
"Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally." - No, charity is an important ideal to conservatives, but again done on individual terms.
"The market itself is seen in this way. The slogan, "Let the market decide" assumes the market itself is The Decider." - This is actually a logical fallacy. It's generally referred to as the shifting definition fallacy. The whole argument behind "The Decider" was an attempted indictment of the patriarchal order that assume the father governs. A market is not a person, it does not decide anything. It doesn't have the capacity, especially with the idea that people are judged based on their earnings gone.
"The market is seen as both natural (since it is assumed that people naturally seek their self-interest)" - Yes
"and moral (if everyone seeks their own profit, the profit of all will be maximized by the invisible hand)." - No, there is no judgement of morality placed upon the market. The market is a tool not a god. It does not dictate right and wrong. It is an expression of individual collective action.
"As the ultimate moral authority, there should be no power higher than the market that might go against market values. Thus the government can spend money to protect the market and promote market values, but should not rule over it either through (1) regulation, (2) taxation, (3) unions and worker rights, (4) environmental protection or food safety laws, and (5) tort cases." - Completely wrong. It is not a moral authority, nor is it a higher power. Conservatives don't want to protect the market, they want it left alone. Just let the market be. I'll go through the list one more time (1)Regulation is generally bad, but we're not anarchists. Minimal regulation is preferred. (2) Taxation is not bad. Extensive taxation is bad. Many conservatives would like tax reform, not tax annihilation (I admit there are some wackos out there but they're not the majority). (3) Unions should not be able to de facto enslave people. Still back to that one. In general, we have no problem with unions as long as they are voluntary. (4) Nothing wrong with environmental protection or food laws. That's just made up. (5) Torts are fine, though we could use some reform.
"Moreover, government should not do public service." - Incorrect. There's nothing wrong with essential services.
"The market has service industries for that." - Correct but I don't really want to trust a business with police work. That's just scary.
"Thus, it would be wrong for the government to provide health care, education, public broadcasting, public parks, and so on." - Again, incorrect.
"The very idea of these things is at odds with the conservative moral system." - Incorrect.
"No one should be paying for anyone else." - Incorrect. It should be stated that no one should be involuntarily paying for someone else or for a service with which they disagree.
"It is individual responsibility in all arenas." - Do I even need to say Incorrect this time around? It's individual social responsibility.
"Taxation is thus seen as taking money away from those who have earned it and giving it to people who don't deserve it." - Not to people that don't deserve it, but people who haven't earned it. And again, it's back to the individual social responsibility to make sure that things are taken care of. "
"the Taxation cannot be seen as providing the necessities of life, a civilized society, and as necessary for business to prosper." - Again, in moderation taxes are fine.
"In conservative family life, the strict father rules. Fathers and husbands should have control over reproduction; hence, parental and spousal notification laws and opposition to abortion." - Incorrect. It's a collaborative effort, but a decision made by one side cannot be made to terminate a life that two sides created. The abortion thing is back again and no, we still don't like to kill children.
"In conservative religion, God is seen as the strict father, the Lord, who rewards and punishes according to individual responsibility in following his Biblical word." - Incorrect. God doesn't want to tell everyone exactly what to do. How tedious. He's there as a loving and supportive parent who counsels with us and sometimes punishes us when we do something egregious.
"Above all, the authority of conservatism itself must be maintained. The country should be ruled by conservative values, and progressive values are seen as evil." - Yes and no. Not the authority of conservatism but the right to be left alone and the right to decide as an individual and not merely as another voice in a collective. See the bill of rights for further explanation.
"Science should have authority over the market, and so the science of global warming and evolution must be denied." - Incorrect. There's nothing wrong with evolution and global warming has been discredited in many scientific circles.
"Facts that are inconsistent with the authority of conservatism must be ignored or denied or explained away." - Incorrect. If science has something to say, let science be heard. Lets start with the brain not being developed until 25 years old and changing the voting age.
"To protect and extend conservative values themselves, the devil's own means can be used again conservatism's immoral enemies, whether lies, intimidation, torture, or even death, say, for women's doctors." - Completely incorrect. Still back to the doctored up baby killing argument for points. Sorry, still don't want to kill kids and we're fine with punishing those who do. Conservatives are accused of both moral strictness and moral ambiguity in this article. An odd combination. Pick one. Again, this is conservatives in general. It's no more fair to accuse the main body of some of this stuff than it is to accuse liberals of wanting legalized abortion because it cuts down on the black population. The facts are consistent with the assertion but that doesn't make it true.
"Freedom is defined as being your own strict father -- with individual not social responsibility, and without any government authority telling you what you can and cannot do." - Do I even need to say anything at this point? Social responsibility through individual actions. Government is okay as long as it's limited. Again, not anarchists, we just believe in moderation.
"To defend that freedom as an individual, you will of course need a gun." - Poorly timed indictment of the right to bear arms. Again, see the bill of rights.
"This is the America that conservatives really want. Budget deficits are convenient ruses for destroying American democracy and replacing it with conservative rule in all areas of life.
What is saddest of all is to see Democrats helping them.
Democrats help radical conservatives by accepting the deficit frame and arguing about what to cut. Even arguing against specific "cuts" is working within the conservative frame. What is the alternative? Pointing out what conservatives really want. Point out that there is plenty of money in America, and in Wisconsin. It is at the top. The disparity in financial assets is un-American -- the top one percent has more financial assets than the bottom 95 percent. Middle class wages have been flat for 30 years, while the wealth has floated to the top. This fits the conservative way of life, but not the American way of life.
Democrats help conservatives by not shouting out loud over and over that it was conservative values that caused the global economic collapse: lack of regulation and a greed-is-good ethic.
Democrats also help conservatives by what a friend has called Democratic Communication Disorder. Republican conservatives have constructed a vast and effective communication system, with think tanks, framing experts, training institutes, a system of trained speakers, vast holdings of media, and booking agents. Eighty percent of the talking heads on TV are conservatives. Talk matters because language heard over and over changes brains. Democrats have not built the communication system they need, and many are relatively clueless about how to frame their deepest values and complex truths." - Going to chime in right here. Studies (science) actually indicates that liberals are more prone to get their news from television and have a larger representation in that media. It's actually a fairly clever word game to refer to talking heads in this sense but it's actually inaccurate to say that there is a more conservative representation than liberal.
"And Democrats help conservatives when they function as policy wonks -- talking policy without communicating the moral values behind the policies. They help conservatives when they neglect to remind us that pensions are deferred payments for work done. "Benefits" are pay for work, not a handout. Pensions and benefits are arranged by contract. If there is not enough money for them, it is because the contracted funds have been taken by conservative officials and given to wealthy people and corporations instead of to the people who have earned them.
Democrats help conservatives when they use conservative words like "entitlements" instead of "earnings" and speak of government as providing "services" instead of "necessities."
Is there hope?
Well, if the conservatives act in the way I describe and the liberals decide that killing children isn't the only right worth fighting for or talking about then perhaps there's some hope. Not all liberal ideals are bad. Free speech is great and one we can agree on. Freedom of the press seems to be one that liberals are in favor of as long as the press doesn't include fox news. Religion is great as long as conservative religions are excluded from that protection (and not the ridiculous one that was described here).
It's late so I'm not going to bother proof reading tonight, it's late. If there are mistakes I leave it to your mercy and understanding.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Freedom of Speech and the Internet
Every once in a while I like to log on to facebook and check out some of the discussion on various political pages, which has lead to this explanation of freedom of speech.
The first thing, and perhaps the only thing, I want to explain is that the right to freedom of speech does not affect anything on facebook, myspace, blogs, etc. The first amendment is a right that in the beginning prevented only the federal government from censoring people and their ideas. This right was later expanded to include a requirement of the various states to abstain from interfering with freedom of speech under the 14th amendment. (It took a while after the 14th amendment was passed to apply that right).
The point of explaining this is to show that freedom of speech is a "negative liberty" or in other words it keeps certain entities from removing your right to free speech. It does not however entitle anyone to a platform from which to project their message. That would be a "positive liberty". So when you complain about facebook censoring your words, posts, groups or other activities, it is completely within their right. The command to forbear from interfering in your free speech does not apply to them. You are essentially on private property, perhaps the last private property to have any rights in the U.S.
Imagine, if you will, a large tract of land where a person, we'll call him Mark just for kicks, invites you to come and live in a home. Mark does not give you any land, but gives you a basic home and allows you to dress it up the way you want. The land is Mark's, the house is Mark's and because of the agreement you signed when you moved onto Mark's land everything inside the house is Mark's as well.
So after you are happily settled into this house that Mark has given you, lets say he comes by one day and asks you to take down a mural of shakira you painted on the outside of your home. Lets also say that you disagree with Mark and you decide to leave up the mural. One day you come home and your mural has been white-washed clean off of your house. What are you going to do?
The land belongs to Mark, the house belongs to Mark. What right do you have to complain about him taking down something that he doesn't want on his land and building?
It is exactly the same way with facebook (Whose founder happens to be Mark Zuckerburg). Mark owns the website, mark owns the code that you use on a daily basis. If Mark wants to take something down it is purely at his discretion.
So please, before you complain about freedom of speech on facebook, remember that you don't have a right to be there, you are there as a guest. And please, understand that just because you think you have rights doesn't mean that you understand how those are applied. Your freedom of speech is only existent when you own the "land" and the "house".
The first thing, and perhaps the only thing, I want to explain is that the right to freedom of speech does not affect anything on facebook, myspace, blogs, etc. The first amendment is a right that in the beginning prevented only the federal government from censoring people and their ideas. This right was later expanded to include a requirement of the various states to abstain from interfering with freedom of speech under the 14th amendment. (It took a while after the 14th amendment was passed to apply that right).
The point of explaining this is to show that freedom of speech is a "negative liberty" or in other words it keeps certain entities from removing your right to free speech. It does not however entitle anyone to a platform from which to project their message. That would be a "positive liberty". So when you complain about facebook censoring your words, posts, groups or other activities, it is completely within their right. The command to forbear from interfering in your free speech does not apply to them. You are essentially on private property, perhaps the last private property to have any rights in the U.S.
Imagine, if you will, a large tract of land where a person, we'll call him Mark just for kicks, invites you to come and live in a home. Mark does not give you any land, but gives you a basic home and allows you to dress it up the way you want. The land is Mark's, the house is Mark's and because of the agreement you signed when you moved onto Mark's land everything inside the house is Mark's as well.
So after you are happily settled into this house that Mark has given you, lets say he comes by one day and asks you to take down a mural of shakira you painted on the outside of your home. Lets also say that you disagree with Mark and you decide to leave up the mural. One day you come home and your mural has been white-washed clean off of your house. What are you going to do?
The land belongs to Mark, the house belongs to Mark. What right do you have to complain about him taking down something that he doesn't want on his land and building?
It is exactly the same way with facebook (Whose founder happens to be Mark Zuckerburg). Mark owns the website, mark owns the code that you use on a daily basis. If Mark wants to take something down it is purely at his discretion.
So please, before you complain about freedom of speech on facebook, remember that you don't have a right to be there, you are there as a guest. And please, understand that just because you think you have rights doesn't mean that you understand how those are applied. Your freedom of speech is only existent when you own the "land" and the "house".
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1
Over all I would have to say that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 was a great movie. It had action, it actually followed the book quite closely and the special effects were great. I do however, have two major complaints about the film. The acting was spotty in places and sometimes the action was just a little bit too fast paced.
The acting of the support cast was magnificent, as usual, so the focus will mostly be on our heroic trio.
Rupert Grint gave a great performance as our lovable goof-ball Ron Weasley. His acting was solid the whole way though and we got to see some new emotional reactions from him that we hadn't seen before. I would probably watch Rupert in anything after his performance in the Deathly Hallows (assuming its not rated R).
Emma Watson, what to say about Emma? It really seemed that she was trying to take on a grown up role in this movie but she wasn't quite ready for it. Not that she was terrible, far from it, but there were parts in the movie where she didn't quite portray the scene intelligibly to the audience. Occasionally I had to reference the book itself (mentally) to understand what she was trying to portray in the scene. It felt, very much, that reference to the book was an expectation of her performance. Like in filming the director just let small things go because it's assumed that everyone watching the movie has read the books.
Daniel Radcliff suffered somewhat the same, but to a lesser extent, from the same maladies that effected Watsons' performance. Still fun to see Harry though.
The movie itself was darker than I expected, even having read the book a couple of times, and I'm actually surprised that it got away with a PG-13 rating. In places it felt very light-less as opposed to just dark.
The acting of the support cast was magnificent, as usual, so the focus will mostly be on our heroic trio.
Rupert Grint gave a great performance as our lovable goof-ball Ron Weasley. His acting was solid the whole way though and we got to see some new emotional reactions from him that we hadn't seen before. I would probably watch Rupert in anything after his performance in the Deathly Hallows (assuming its not rated R).
Emma Watson, what to say about Emma? It really seemed that she was trying to take on a grown up role in this movie but she wasn't quite ready for it. Not that she was terrible, far from it, but there were parts in the movie where she didn't quite portray the scene intelligibly to the audience. Occasionally I had to reference the book itself (mentally) to understand what she was trying to portray in the scene. It felt, very much, that reference to the book was an expectation of her performance. Like in filming the director just let small things go because it's assumed that everyone watching the movie has read the books.
Daniel Radcliff suffered somewhat the same, but to a lesser extent, from the same maladies that effected Watsons' performance. Still fun to see Harry though.
The movie itself was darker than I expected, even having read the book a couple of times, and I'm actually surprised that it got away with a PG-13 rating. In places it felt very light-less as opposed to just dark.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
The Beginning
So, I'm tired of just sitting around in this political climate so I'm attempting to start something to inform people about what's going on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)