Many people don't notice this, but liberals always speak of
people by the group they belong to - African Americans, gays, whites,
Hispanics, women, poor people, etc. They talk about the rights of people as a function of
belonging to a group - gay rights, women's rights, etc. They don't speak of
people as just people in general. The liberals are not color blind. Far from
it. They are keenly aware of race and gender and other group statuses because they
are the ones promoting separate factions and pitting groups against each other
for their own ends. If you don't believe me, just listen to them sometime. They can hardly talk about anything without making it all about special groups. And in the irony of ironies, they have somehow managed to
convince a lot of people that it's the conservatives who are racist and sexist.
Liberals don't really care about gays or women or
children or poor people. They just want votes and to be thought inclusive and
tolerant. It's all part of their image. But they don't actually want to help
anyone or stop hatred. In fact, they're very good at promoting hatred
(especially against Christianity and conservatism) and drumming it up where it
doesn't exist. They survive on the hatred and misunderstanding between groups.
They want the country splintered into different groups that all have grudges
against each other. That way, they can pretend to commiserate with all the
separate groups and promise them help in exchange for votes and money. They
need people to be riled up and upset so that they can swoop down with their
promises of change and trade people a "government solution" in
exchange for their freedom.
How do we know liberals don’t really want to help? Because they don’t actually
help. Liberal policies don’t produce good results. They don’t cure poverty or
stop racism or protect rights. Their policies are carefully crafted to look
good on the surface, but not stop the evils of society, because it is the
existence of those evils that keeps everyone coming back to liberals for “solutions.”
To cover this failure of their policies, liberals are very good at turning the conversation away from the actual results
of their policies and talking instead about all their good motives.
On the other hand, the conservative emphasis on freedom and personal
responsibility and equal rights for all does help reduce poverty and racism and
treats people as equals, but without taking freedom or money away from one
group to give it to another. Conservatives don’t have to whine and pander to
special interest groups and tell them all how terrible they have it to get
votes. So we have no interest in keeping people down or making them hate one
another. We want people prosperous and free, not dependent on us. A healthy,
free, and productive society is better for everyone. A society of separate
factions that hate each other is bad for everyone – except liberal politicians.
Conservatives, unlike liberals, see people as just people. We realize
they belong to different groups, but conservatives see the humanity of other
people first. We recognize our similarities as being more important than our
differences. And so the idea of special gay rights or women's rights or
minority rights are a foreign concept to us. All human beings have the same
rights by virtue of being human. Rights don't come from group membership. There
are no special rights that some groups have and others don't. We conservatives
aren't for gay rights or women's rights or any other special rights based on
group status, but not because we're against gays or women or blacks or any
group (as liberals like to claim). We're against these special rights precisely because we see all people as
being inherently equal. There are only human rights, and all humans have them.
Showing posts with label Conservatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatism. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Monday, August 25, 2014
Need-Based vs. Value-Based Wages
I hear a lot of people advocating for a raise in the minimum wage (usually to $10 or $15 per hour) so that people can "make a living wage." Here is my response to that.
If you think we need a higher minimum wage to ensure that we take care of everyone's needs, you are advocating for wages to be paid based on need, not the value of their work. That sounds nice, but there are some serious problems with that view. For one, it's unfair. (Yes, I just used the code word of the liberals in favor of my conservative viewpoint. I love turning the tables like that.) Paying wages based on need is inherently and unavoidably unfair.
Let's use an example of two men doing exactly the same job at the same company. One is a married man with 3 children. The other is single with no children. Should the company pay the married man more than the single man, even though they do exactly the same work?
If you believe that people should be paid based on their need rather than the value of their work, then you must say that the married man should receive more pay for his work because his need is greater. Yet very few would agree that a married man should be paid more for the same work. We instinctively realize that it is unfair and unjust to pay two people differently for the same work.
Let’s go a bit further. If people should be paid based on their needs, then why not do away with a set wage altogether? Instead, employers should simply meet all the needs of all their employees in exchange for work. So, if an employee’s car breaks down, rather than pay for the repairs himself, he would turn in the bill to his employer. Likewise, all food bills, rent statements, utility bills, hospital bills, and all receipts for any need are paid or reimbursed by the employer in exchange for working at the company. That way, we can ensure that everyone can live on what they make. Of course, that also means that many employees will make much more than other people doing similar work. It also means that employees become, not masters of their own destiny, but more akin to slaves – being fed, housed, and clothed in exchange for working for the master. Is this what we want? It is if we think that wages should be based on need.
Instead of basing wages on need, a much better way is to base wages on the value of the work being done. In this view, a person who provides more value to the company should receive more pay while someone whose skills are less valuable receives less pay. This seems heartless on first glance, but actually has several advantages to both the company AND the worker.
The advantage to the company is obvious. Basing wages on the value of the work produces incentive for employees to do better quality work in order to receive better compensation. Plus, the burden of deciding what constitutes actual needs (as opposed to wants) is removed and the overhead involved in doling out welfare to all employees is gone. No one debates that paying for the value of the work is better for companies.
What many don’t realize is that a system where wages are based on the value of the work is actually better for employees.
For one thing, when compensation is based on need, it is nearly impossible to have anything more than the most basic needs met. No matter how hard you work in such a need-based system, you can’t get any more. The employer is only obligated to provide for your needs. If you want nicer things, you’re out of luck. No amount of harder work, increased skill, or better efficiency will get you more than the basics you need to survive.
What’s more, you can work your hardest and still get less than someone who doesn’t put in much effort, but has more need. This is tremendously disincentivizing and demoralizing. How can anyone have pride in their work when it doesn’t matter how hard they work? They will still get the same compensation as if they had barely done the minimum. And how depressing would it be to work very hard and have the guy at the next desk, who does practically nothing, getting the same or better than you. It’s simply not fair or right to pay different amounts for the same work or give the same pay for different amounts of work.
In a system where wages are based on the value of the work, a person can get ahead by working harder, developing new skills, or becoming more efficient. Their future is in their own hands. That is empowering. That gives people hope. It gives them reason to produce something of value that is useful to society because it is also useful to themselves personally.
Paying for the value of work rather than need gives people the opportunity to better themselves. It gives them incentive to do better and to have hope because they are masters of their own destiny, not slaves to a system.
A value-based system of wages is not only better for businesses and workers, but it is better for society as a whole. A society where everyone works to better themselves in order to provide more value, and thus earn a better wage, is a prosperous and thriving society. New inventions are made, new services offered, new businesses opened, new technology developed – all for the purpose of allowing individuals to better their lot in life. There is no incentive for developing these things in a need-based system. There is far more total production when everyone is working to provide more value in order to get more for themselves.
A system where people are paid based on need has no hope or future. A system where people are paid based on the value of their work is empowering to individuals and allows them to better themselves, provide for themselves and their families, and make their society more productive.
So, should we pay wages based on need or on the value of a person’s work? We can't have both.
If wages should be value-based, then we shouldn’t raise the minimum wage. We should allow individuals to be paid based on the value of their work. Those wishing to earn more must either work more hours or increase their skills. But they have that opportunity to decide for themselves and control their own destiny.
On the other hand, raising the minimum wage to a “living wage” simply means that those not providing enough value to be worth that minimum wage will have no jobs. It means cutting off hope for those of low skills who cannot make it into the job market. It means keeping a permanent underclass who have been priced out of jobs. It might sound compassionate to want to pay everyone enough to live on, but the results actually hurt those with poor job skills. And that isn’t good for anyone.
If you think we need a higher minimum wage to ensure that we take care of everyone's needs, you are advocating for wages to be paid based on need, not the value of their work. That sounds nice, but there are some serious problems with that view. For one, it's unfair. (Yes, I just used the code word of the liberals in favor of my conservative viewpoint. I love turning the tables like that.) Paying wages based on need is inherently and unavoidably unfair.
Let's use an example of two men doing exactly the same job at the same company. One is a married man with 3 children. The other is single with no children. Should the company pay the married man more than the single man, even though they do exactly the same work?
If you believe that people should be paid based on their need rather than the value of their work, then you must say that the married man should receive more pay for his work because his need is greater. Yet very few would agree that a married man should be paid more for the same work. We instinctively realize that it is unfair and unjust to pay two people differently for the same work.
Let’s go a bit further. If people should be paid based on their needs, then why not do away with a set wage altogether? Instead, employers should simply meet all the needs of all their employees in exchange for work. So, if an employee’s car breaks down, rather than pay for the repairs himself, he would turn in the bill to his employer. Likewise, all food bills, rent statements, utility bills, hospital bills, and all receipts for any need are paid or reimbursed by the employer in exchange for working at the company. That way, we can ensure that everyone can live on what they make. Of course, that also means that many employees will make much more than other people doing similar work. It also means that employees become, not masters of their own destiny, but more akin to slaves – being fed, housed, and clothed in exchange for working for the master. Is this what we want? It is if we think that wages should be based on need.
Instead of basing wages on need, a much better way is to base wages on the value of the work being done. In this view, a person who provides more value to the company should receive more pay while someone whose skills are less valuable receives less pay. This seems heartless on first glance, but actually has several advantages to both the company AND the worker.
The advantage to the company is obvious. Basing wages on the value of the work produces incentive for employees to do better quality work in order to receive better compensation. Plus, the burden of deciding what constitutes actual needs (as opposed to wants) is removed and the overhead involved in doling out welfare to all employees is gone. No one debates that paying for the value of the work is better for companies.
What many don’t realize is that a system where wages are based on the value of the work is actually better for employees.
For one thing, when compensation is based on need, it is nearly impossible to have anything more than the most basic needs met. No matter how hard you work in such a need-based system, you can’t get any more. The employer is only obligated to provide for your needs. If you want nicer things, you’re out of luck. No amount of harder work, increased skill, or better efficiency will get you more than the basics you need to survive.
What’s more, you can work your hardest and still get less than someone who doesn’t put in much effort, but has more need. This is tremendously disincentivizing and demoralizing. How can anyone have pride in their work when it doesn’t matter how hard they work? They will still get the same compensation as if they had barely done the minimum. And how depressing would it be to work very hard and have the guy at the next desk, who does practically nothing, getting the same or better than you. It’s simply not fair or right to pay different amounts for the same work or give the same pay for different amounts of work.
In a system where wages are based on the value of the work, a person can get ahead by working harder, developing new skills, or becoming more efficient. Their future is in their own hands. That is empowering. That gives people hope. It gives them reason to produce something of value that is useful to society because it is also useful to themselves personally.
Paying for the value of work rather than need gives people the opportunity to better themselves. It gives them incentive to do better and to have hope because they are masters of their own destiny, not slaves to a system.
A value-based system of wages is not only better for businesses and workers, but it is better for society as a whole. A society where everyone works to better themselves in order to provide more value, and thus earn a better wage, is a prosperous and thriving society. New inventions are made, new services offered, new businesses opened, new technology developed – all for the purpose of allowing individuals to better their lot in life. There is no incentive for developing these things in a need-based system. There is far more total production when everyone is working to provide more value in order to get more for themselves.
A system where people are paid based on need has no hope or future. A system where people are paid based on the value of their work is empowering to individuals and allows them to better themselves, provide for themselves and their families, and make their society more productive.
So, should we pay wages based on need or on the value of a person’s work? We can't have both.
If wages should be value-based, then we shouldn’t raise the minimum wage. We should allow individuals to be paid based on the value of their work. Those wishing to earn more must either work more hours or increase their skills. But they have that opportunity to decide for themselves and control their own destiny.
On the other hand, raising the minimum wage to a “living wage” simply means that those not providing enough value to be worth that minimum wage will have no jobs. It means cutting off hope for those of low skills who cannot make it into the job market. It means keeping a permanent underclass who have been priced out of jobs. It might sound compassionate to want to pay everyone enough to live on, but the results actually hurt those with poor job skills. And that isn’t good for anyone.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Legislating Morality: Should All Wrong Things be Illegal?
Murder ought to be illegal. Theft ought to be illegal. Rape ought to be illegal. Few people question these. Most would agree that these things (among others) should be illegal. But the important question is WHY? Why should some things be illegal and some should not? The reason matters. Without a reason for our laws, they become totally arbitrary. How can we advocate for making anything illegal unless we have a good reason for it? How can we expect anyone to agree with us, that some behaviors should be illegal, if we can’t give them a good reason for our views?
One potential reason that is often given in such cases is morality, often based on the Bible. The idea here is that wrong things should be illegal. However, this explanation is insufficient. There are many things that are wrong that should not be illegal. Some wrong things can’t be legislated because we humans cannot detect when they are occurring. Lust and coveting, for example, are wrong, but how could you tell if someone is doing those things?
But even beyond that, some wrong things are none of government's business. Government has authority over some areas of life, but not all areas. So some things, which might be wrong, simply do not fall under government’s jurisdiction, and thus, government has no authority to punish those who do them. For example, if a child disobeys his parents – perhaps he ate candy he was told not to eat – that is wrong. But the government has no jurisdiction to punish the child for the wrong he did. The punishment should be decided and administered by the child’s parents. Government simply has no authority to step in and haul the child off to juvenile hall for eating the forbidden candy. Similarly, if two adults engage in premarital sex, it is wrong. But it is not government’s responsibility to punish them for what they do in the privacy of their homes. A third example would be someone who swears. It might be wrong, but saying an expletive ought not to send you to jail or even cause you to pay a fine.
Because government has limited authority, there must be principles that explain the limits of that authority and explain what falls under government’s jurisdiction and what does not. It is very important to know WHEN it is government's business to get involved and WHY government should be involved in those cases if we are to make law properly.
The principles that show us when government should be involved in regulating or punishing behaviors are known as inalienable rights. Government's primary purpose is to protect inalienable rights and, thus, things that violate inalienable rights should be illegal.
If you don’t know what inalienable rights are, check out my 5-part series:
The Inalienable Rights Series
Part 1: What are Inalienable Rights?
Part 2: The Source of Inalienable Rights
Part 3: Liberty in Society and Government
Part 4: Government by Consent of the Governed
Part 5: Some Common Misconceptions
It should be noted here that no one can create inalienable rights just by dreaming them up. Like the principles of mathematics, they are discovered, not invented. They all logically follow from basic principles and apply to everyone. Thus, they form a solid basis for differentiating the things that fall under government’s jurisdiction from those that do not. In short, any behavior that violates the inalienable rights of anyone should be illegal. Government has a duty to make such behaviors illegal and to provide punishment for the violation of rights in order to protect those rights.
So, with that in mind, murder, which is a violation of the right to live, should be illegal. Rape and slavery, which are violations of the right to liberty, should be illegal. Theft, which is a violation of the right to own property, should be illegal.
On the other hand, premarital sex, though wrong, is not a violation of anyone's rights as long as it is consensual. Thus, it is none of government's business. The same goes for homosexual acts. They may be wrong, but punishing them does not fall under government's jurisdiction. Disobedient children, assuming they have not violated the inalienable rights of anyone, should not be punished by government. Taking God’s name in vain, though serious enough to be forbidden in the Ten Commandments, does not fall under government’s jurisdiction because it violates no one’s rights.
At this point, many conservative Christians tend to object. They don’t like idea that not all wrong things should be illegal. They point out that God’s laws are the ultimate foundation for all morality and truth. They question the principles of inalienable rights. They point out that inalienable rights can only exist if there is a God. I’m not unaware of these arguments. However, those who claim that laws should be based simply on morality or the Bible are making some very serious mistakes.
For one, when you conflate “wrong” with “illegal,” you are allowing government to become the arbiter of truth rather than leaving that role to God. God decides what is right or wrong and it is God’s job to punish wrongdoing. In some cases, God delegates the authority to punish evil to government. But in other cases, He doesn't. If it was true that everything that is wrong should be illegal, that means government is doing God’s job. If you think government is the punisher of all evil, then you are displacing God and elevating government to an improper role.
Not only that, but when you conflate “wrong” and “illegal,” people tend to think that if something is legal, it must be okay. Thus, there are lots of people, for example, who think abortion is okay because it's legal. They are looking to government as the arbiter of right and wrong because they think “wrong” and “illegal” are the same thing. People also get the opposite idea too. If something is illegal (like sharing your faith in some countries), people think it's wrong. Again, the problem is a lack of understanding of the proper role of government and its limitations.
Another problem that occurs when people don't understand the proper role of government is government overreach. If you think all wrong things should be illegal, you tend to advocate for government to step in whenever there is something you don't think is right. This grows government to a huge size and gives it far too much power.
It has been said that a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take everything away from you. It is similarly true that a government big enough to disallow every wrong thing is big enough to disallow (or allow) whatever it wants and to try to elevate itself to the place of God in the lives of the people.
So, I’ve explained why it is important to understand which things actually do fall under government's jurisdiction and which do not. It is so important to make the right argument about how we should make law. You can't say, or even imply, that being wrong is the sole reason a behavior should be illegal without assigning government the wrong role and usurping God's place as arbiter of right and wrong. Instead of simply saying that something is wrong, we need a rationale for why a particular sin falls under government's jurisdiction, not just God's. In other words, we need to show how a behavior violates inalienable rights in order to justify making it illegal.
One potential reason that is often given in such cases is morality, often based on the Bible. The idea here is that wrong things should be illegal. However, this explanation is insufficient. There are many things that are wrong that should not be illegal. Some wrong things can’t be legislated because we humans cannot detect when they are occurring. Lust and coveting, for example, are wrong, but how could you tell if someone is doing those things?
But even beyond that, some wrong things are none of government's business. Government has authority over some areas of life, but not all areas. So some things, which might be wrong, simply do not fall under government’s jurisdiction, and thus, government has no authority to punish those who do them. For example, if a child disobeys his parents – perhaps he ate candy he was told not to eat – that is wrong. But the government has no jurisdiction to punish the child for the wrong he did. The punishment should be decided and administered by the child’s parents. Government simply has no authority to step in and haul the child off to juvenile hall for eating the forbidden candy. Similarly, if two adults engage in premarital sex, it is wrong. But it is not government’s responsibility to punish them for what they do in the privacy of their homes. A third example would be someone who swears. It might be wrong, but saying an expletive ought not to send you to jail or even cause you to pay a fine.
Because government has limited authority, there must be principles that explain the limits of that authority and explain what falls under government’s jurisdiction and what does not. It is very important to know WHEN it is government's business to get involved and WHY government should be involved in those cases if we are to make law properly.
The principles that show us when government should be involved in regulating or punishing behaviors are known as inalienable rights. Government's primary purpose is to protect inalienable rights and, thus, things that violate inalienable rights should be illegal.
If you don’t know what inalienable rights are, check out my 5-part series:
The Inalienable Rights Series
Part 1: What are Inalienable Rights?
Part 2: The Source of Inalienable Rights
Part 3: Liberty in Society and Government
Part 4: Government by Consent of the Governed
Part 5: Some Common Misconceptions
It should be noted here that no one can create inalienable rights just by dreaming them up. Like the principles of mathematics, they are discovered, not invented. They all logically follow from basic principles and apply to everyone. Thus, they form a solid basis for differentiating the things that fall under government’s jurisdiction from those that do not. In short, any behavior that violates the inalienable rights of anyone should be illegal. Government has a duty to make such behaviors illegal and to provide punishment for the violation of rights in order to protect those rights.
So, with that in mind, murder, which is a violation of the right to live, should be illegal. Rape and slavery, which are violations of the right to liberty, should be illegal. Theft, which is a violation of the right to own property, should be illegal.
On the other hand, premarital sex, though wrong, is not a violation of anyone's rights as long as it is consensual. Thus, it is none of government's business. The same goes for homosexual acts. They may be wrong, but punishing them does not fall under government's jurisdiction. Disobedient children, assuming they have not violated the inalienable rights of anyone, should not be punished by government. Taking God’s name in vain, though serious enough to be forbidden in the Ten Commandments, does not fall under government’s jurisdiction because it violates no one’s rights.
At this point, many conservative Christians tend to object. They don’t like idea that not all wrong things should be illegal. They point out that God’s laws are the ultimate foundation for all morality and truth. They question the principles of inalienable rights. They point out that inalienable rights can only exist if there is a God. I’m not unaware of these arguments. However, those who claim that laws should be based simply on morality or the Bible are making some very serious mistakes.
For one, when you conflate “wrong” with “illegal,” you are allowing government to become the arbiter of truth rather than leaving that role to God. God decides what is right or wrong and it is God’s job to punish wrongdoing. In some cases, God delegates the authority to punish evil to government. But in other cases, He doesn't. If it was true that everything that is wrong should be illegal, that means government is doing God’s job. If you think government is the punisher of all evil, then you are displacing God and elevating government to an improper role.
Not only that, but when you conflate “wrong” and “illegal,” people tend to think that if something is legal, it must be okay. Thus, there are lots of people, for example, who think abortion is okay because it's legal. They are looking to government as the arbiter of right and wrong because they think “wrong” and “illegal” are the same thing. People also get the opposite idea too. If something is illegal (like sharing your faith in some countries), people think it's wrong. Again, the problem is a lack of understanding of the proper role of government and its limitations.
Another problem that occurs when people don't understand the proper role of government is government overreach. If you think all wrong things should be illegal, you tend to advocate for government to step in whenever there is something you don't think is right. This grows government to a huge size and gives it far too much power.
It has been said that a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take everything away from you. It is similarly true that a government big enough to disallow every wrong thing is big enough to disallow (or allow) whatever it wants and to try to elevate itself to the place of God in the lives of the people.
So, I’ve explained why it is important to understand which things actually do fall under government's jurisdiction and which do not. It is so important to make the right argument about how we should make law. You can't say, or even imply, that being wrong is the sole reason a behavior should be illegal without assigning government the wrong role and usurping God's place as arbiter of right and wrong. Instead of simply saying that something is wrong, we need a rationale for why a particular sin falls under government's jurisdiction, not just God's. In other words, we need to show how a behavior violates inalienable rights in order to justify making it illegal.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
A More Accurate Political Spectrum
People often have
a mistaken view that fascism and communism are opposites, with modern
conservatives and liberals somewhere in between.
This political spectrum has communism as being to the far left and fascism as being to the far right. The argument is that while liberals are more like communists, conservatives are more like fascists. Part of the confusion on this issue stems from the fact that this political spectrum is actually taught in colleges. However, it is completely false (and I'm certainly not the first to point this out).
The truth is, communism and fascism have more similarities than differences. Both communism and fascism are forms of government that involve little or no freedom of the people. Both forms of government trample on the innate inalienable rights of the people. They also have many other similarities such as unlimited patriotism/nationalism (the country matters more than individuals or their rights), government-controlled media, government control of industry and trade, and lots of pro-government propaganda. Are you seeing a trend here? Fascism and communism are just different forms of overbearing and bloated government. They aren’t opposites at all.
A better understanding of the political spectrum is to rank forms of government by the amount of freedom the people have (or, inversely, how big and powerful government is). So, on this scale we have anarchy on one side and totalitarian regimes (such as communism and fascism) on the other.
Obviously, while anarchy offers complete freedom and no government oversight at all, the people have no one to protect their rights except themselves. It is difficult to protect one's life and property all alone against the rest of the world. One must be constantly ready to fight (think of the Wild West where there was little or no government) and the weak are easily taken advantage of. Thus, people form governments in order to protect their own rights. Anarchy simply isn’t a viable way to live for long.
However, on the opposite extreme we have governments that trample on the rights of the people. In this scenario, the greatest threat to one's life and property is not a solitary criminal but one's own government run rampant and unchecked. A government with unlimited power is even more to be feared than no government at all. At least in the case of anarchy one might have a chance of staving off an attack from lone predators that wish to do harm. But an organized and powerful government is something that no one person can stop.
The question is, what form of government and what level of governmental power is the best balance? The goal is to protect the people's inalienable rights (that is why they need government, after all) in order to promote freedom, not infringe upon it. One must have enough government power to punish and deter evildoers (those that infringe upon the rights of others). However, one must have a small enough government that the government itself does not infringe upon the rights of the people. In other words, you want the balance where people's rights are best protected. Since government out of control is more greatly to be feared than anarchy, the best balance is to have the smallest possible government that can protect the rights of the people adequately. This is also the most efficient use of resources because the smaller the government, the smaller the number of government middlemen that must be paid.
As for modern conservatives and liberals, liberals tend to move toward greater government power and conservatives tend to move toward lesser government power. The only thing we need to determine is which side of that ideal balance of governmental power we are currently on in order to determine which political view is best. Should we move toward greater or lesser government power in order to reach that balance point?
In order to answer that question, we need to first ask, do we have enough government power to provide for the punishment and deterrence of crime and other forcible infringement of rights? In other words, is our government's power sufficient for its most basic and necessary tasks? I believe so. Of course, crime still exists (as it always will), but we do have a government that is capable of investigating and punishing it. And we have a government that is capable of defending from outside invasion by those who would take away the freedoms of the citizens. So while this aspect might need some adjustment in details, government definitely has enough power to fulfill its mission to protect the people's rights. If it is failing to do so effectively enough, it is not from lack of power, but from lack of efficiency.
So, next we need to ask, is our government getting too powerful, infringing upon the people's rights and liberties itself? Yes, we are beginning to see some signs of government abuse of power and infringement of the people's rights and liberties. Therefore, we need to move back toward a smaller and more limited government where the people's rights are more secure and there is greater freedom.
 |
| Picture reference |
This political spectrum has communism as being to the far left and fascism as being to the far right. The argument is that while liberals are more like communists, conservatives are more like fascists. Part of the confusion on this issue stems from the fact that this political spectrum is actually taught in colleges. However, it is completely false (and I'm certainly not the first to point this out).
The truth is, communism and fascism have more similarities than differences. Both communism and fascism are forms of government that involve little or no freedom of the people. Both forms of government trample on the innate inalienable rights of the people. They also have many other similarities such as unlimited patriotism/nationalism (the country matters more than individuals or their rights), government-controlled media, government control of industry and trade, and lots of pro-government propaganda. Are you seeing a trend here? Fascism and communism are just different forms of overbearing and bloated government. They aren’t opposites at all.
A better understanding of the political spectrum is to rank forms of government by the amount of freedom the people have (or, inversely, how big and powerful government is). So, on this scale we have anarchy on one side and totalitarian regimes (such as communism and fascism) on the other.
 |
| Picture reference |
Obviously, while anarchy offers complete freedom and no government oversight at all, the people have no one to protect their rights except themselves. It is difficult to protect one's life and property all alone against the rest of the world. One must be constantly ready to fight (think of the Wild West where there was little or no government) and the weak are easily taken advantage of. Thus, people form governments in order to protect their own rights. Anarchy simply isn’t a viable way to live for long.
However, on the opposite extreme we have governments that trample on the rights of the people. In this scenario, the greatest threat to one's life and property is not a solitary criminal but one's own government run rampant and unchecked. A government with unlimited power is even more to be feared than no government at all. At least in the case of anarchy one might have a chance of staving off an attack from lone predators that wish to do harm. But an organized and powerful government is something that no one person can stop.
The question is, what form of government and what level of governmental power is the best balance? The goal is to protect the people's inalienable rights (that is why they need government, after all) in order to promote freedom, not infringe upon it. One must have enough government power to punish and deter evildoers (those that infringe upon the rights of others). However, one must have a small enough government that the government itself does not infringe upon the rights of the people. In other words, you want the balance where people's rights are best protected. Since government out of control is more greatly to be feared than anarchy, the best balance is to have the smallest possible government that can protect the rights of the people adequately. This is also the most efficient use of resources because the smaller the government, the smaller the number of government middlemen that must be paid.
As for modern conservatives and liberals, liberals tend to move toward greater government power and conservatives tend to move toward lesser government power. The only thing we need to determine is which side of that ideal balance of governmental power we are currently on in order to determine which political view is best. Should we move toward greater or lesser government power in order to reach that balance point?
In order to answer that question, we need to first ask, do we have enough government power to provide for the punishment and deterrence of crime and other forcible infringement of rights? In other words, is our government's power sufficient for its most basic and necessary tasks? I believe so. Of course, crime still exists (as it always will), but we do have a government that is capable of investigating and punishing it. And we have a government that is capable of defending from outside invasion by those who would take away the freedoms of the citizens. So while this aspect might need some adjustment in details, government definitely has enough power to fulfill its mission to protect the people's rights. If it is failing to do so effectively enough, it is not from lack of power, but from lack of efficiency.
So, next we need to ask, is our government getting too powerful, infringing upon the people's rights and liberties itself? Yes, we are beginning to see some signs of government abuse of power and infringement of the people's rights and liberties. Therefore, we need to move back toward a smaller and more limited government where the people's rights are more secure and there is greater freedom.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Do Christians Force Their Beliefs on Others?
Whenever
Christians take a stand on moral and political issues in public, you are likely
to hear liberals counter with “You can’t force your beliefs on other people.” I
totally agree that no one should force their beliefs on another person.
However, I disagree with the way the liberals use that phrase.
The way liberals use the phrase, they talk of Christians "forcing religion" on people when they are simply voting according to what they believe is right or practicing their faith in public. But forcing your beliefs on someone is when you use force (whether your own or the force of the government) to make them observe your religion or to try to coerce them into believing as you do. I don't see Christians doing that. I haven't heard anyone saying that government should force people to become Christians, to tithe to the church, to say prayers, or do any other religious observance. If anyone knows of such things happening, let me know. I’ll be first in line to say that it should not be happening.
The fact of the matter is that it is not, and should not be, illegal to practice your faith in public as long as you are not infringing on anyone's rights. In fact, the Bill of Rights specifically states that Congress may not "prohibit the free exercise" of religion. Allowing people to act and vote according to their religious beliefs is precisely what the First Amendment was designed to ensure.
One thing that confuses a lot of people is that a lot of Christians do vote (and otherwise participate in government) in ways that are consistent with their faith. For example, Christians believe that abortion is wrong, according to the Bible, and thus want it to be illegal. However, that is not forcing religion on anyone. They are not forcing anyone to agree with them, but are simply using their voice in government according to their own beliefs just like everyone does (including liberals). Everyone votes according to their own beliefs. The political views of Christians are informed by their religion, but that does not make any and all stances that they take a forcing of religion on others. If Christians were trying to force people to go to church on Sunday, that would be forcing religion on others. Having your faith influence the way you vote is simply exercising your religion in the public square, which is a Constitutionally-protected activity.
So there is nothing wrong with someone citing the Bible as reason for the way they vote and the laws they advocate. Christians have every right to do that, just as people of other belief systems have every right to use their beliefs to inform their political stances.
I will say, however, that we Christians should have independent reasons for the laws we advocate for. "The Bible says it is wrong" is not sufficient reason to make something illegal. After all, coveting and lust are wrong according to the Bible, but shouldn't be illegal (and how could you tell if someone is lusting or coveting, anyway?). Not all wrong things should be illegal. Not all good things should be required by law. We should keep this in mind whenever we take any political stance. When Christians give only religious reasons for making an activity illegal, we open ourselves up to the charge of forcing religion on people (even if it is not the case). Instead, we should also be giving informed and independent reasons why things like abortion should not be allowed by government. (Click here for my secular argument against abortion.) In other words, Christians need to be able to give reasons, not only that an activity is morally wrong or against our beliefs, but that a secular government should disallow it for all of its citizens.
The way liberals use the phrase, they talk of Christians "forcing religion" on people when they are simply voting according to what they believe is right or practicing their faith in public. But forcing your beliefs on someone is when you use force (whether your own or the force of the government) to make them observe your religion or to try to coerce them into believing as you do. I don't see Christians doing that. I haven't heard anyone saying that government should force people to become Christians, to tithe to the church, to say prayers, or do any other religious observance. If anyone knows of such things happening, let me know. I’ll be first in line to say that it should not be happening.
The fact of the matter is that it is not, and should not be, illegal to practice your faith in public as long as you are not infringing on anyone's rights. In fact, the Bill of Rights specifically states that Congress may not "prohibit the free exercise" of religion. Allowing people to act and vote according to their religious beliefs is precisely what the First Amendment was designed to ensure.
One thing that confuses a lot of people is that a lot of Christians do vote (and otherwise participate in government) in ways that are consistent with their faith. For example, Christians believe that abortion is wrong, according to the Bible, and thus want it to be illegal. However, that is not forcing religion on anyone. They are not forcing anyone to agree with them, but are simply using their voice in government according to their own beliefs just like everyone does (including liberals). Everyone votes according to their own beliefs. The political views of Christians are informed by their religion, but that does not make any and all stances that they take a forcing of religion on others. If Christians were trying to force people to go to church on Sunday, that would be forcing religion on others. Having your faith influence the way you vote is simply exercising your religion in the public square, which is a Constitutionally-protected activity.
So there is nothing wrong with someone citing the Bible as reason for the way they vote and the laws they advocate. Christians have every right to do that, just as people of other belief systems have every right to use their beliefs to inform their political stances.
I will say, however, that we Christians should have independent reasons for the laws we advocate for. "The Bible says it is wrong" is not sufficient reason to make something illegal. After all, coveting and lust are wrong according to the Bible, but shouldn't be illegal (and how could you tell if someone is lusting or coveting, anyway?). Not all wrong things should be illegal. Not all good things should be required by law. We should keep this in mind whenever we take any political stance. When Christians give only religious reasons for making an activity illegal, we open ourselves up to the charge of forcing religion on people (even if it is not the case). Instead, we should also be giving informed and independent reasons why things like abortion should not be allowed by government. (Click here for my secular argument against abortion.) In other words, Christians need to be able to give reasons, not only that an activity is morally wrong or against our beliefs, but that a secular government should disallow it for all of its citizens.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
The Difference Between Liberalism and Conservatism
I think the real difference between conservatives and
liberals is that conservatives believe in an objective and constant truth and
morality. Society can be in line with it or not, but it exists, regardless of
whether or not anyone believes it. One example of this objective truth is the
concept of inalienable rights. These are rights that all humans have by virtue
of being human. Government does not grant them and government cannot take them
away. They apply to all people, everywhere, at all times throughout history. It
is inherently wrong for anyone to violate these rights, regardless of what the
law says. Good law is in keeping with these inherent rights while bad law
violates these rights.
In the US, our government was founded on the principle that all humans have these inalienable rights and that good government exists to protect these rights. Many of these rights were spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and in the Bill of Rights. However, not all the inalienable rights were listed there (nor were these documents meant to be a comprehensive listing).
All of these inalienable rights can be worked out logically from basic principles. For example, if anyone has any rights, they must first have a right to life. Without a right to live, there can be no rights. The right to self-defense comes directly from the right to life (i.e. you have a right to protect your right to life). The right to liberty is also derived from the right to life. If someone has power over you to enslave you, they also have the power to take your life, thus you have a right to fight against being enslaved in order to protect your life. The right to liberty also entails that you have the right to choose how to live your own life and make your own choices. It also means that you have a right to the fruits of your labor (a slave works for the benefit of someone else, but a free person works for his own profit as he chooses). If you have a right to the fruits of your labor, you also have a right to own property. If you can’t own anything, then you end up working for nothing, which makes you a slave. So you see how all these principles are worked out logically from beginning principles.
The idea of inalienable rights also holds within it an innate limitation on behavior because of the rights of others. If I have a right to own property, then it must be wrong for someone else to steal my property. If they can steal it rightfully, then I have worked as a slave for them. But if it is wrong for someone to steal my property, then it must also be wrong for me to steal their property. My behavior must be limited by the rights of others around me. Thus, my liberty to do as I choose is inherently limited to those actions which do not violate the rights of others.
It is on these principles that all our laws about crime are based. Murder is wrong because it is a violation of the inalienable right to life. Theft is wrong because it is a violation of the inalienable right to own property. Of course, we have laws in this country that make murder and theft illegal, but that’s not what makes them wrong. They would be wrong even if the law allowed these behaviors. And it would be inherently wrong for the law to allow such violations of human rights. The law doesn’t decide right and wrong. Right and wrong are based on objective principles. It is our duty, as citizens, to discern what inalienable rights exist and to protect them with good laws.
In the US, our government was founded on the principle that all humans have these inalienable rights and that good government exists to protect these rights. Many of these rights were spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and in the Bill of Rights. However, not all the inalienable rights were listed there (nor were these documents meant to be a comprehensive listing).
All of these inalienable rights can be worked out logically from basic principles. For example, if anyone has any rights, they must first have a right to life. Without a right to live, there can be no rights. The right to self-defense comes directly from the right to life (i.e. you have a right to protect your right to life). The right to liberty is also derived from the right to life. If someone has power over you to enslave you, they also have the power to take your life, thus you have a right to fight against being enslaved in order to protect your life. The right to liberty also entails that you have the right to choose how to live your own life and make your own choices. It also means that you have a right to the fruits of your labor (a slave works for the benefit of someone else, but a free person works for his own profit as he chooses). If you have a right to the fruits of your labor, you also have a right to own property. If you can’t own anything, then you end up working for nothing, which makes you a slave. So you see how all these principles are worked out logically from beginning principles.
The idea of inalienable rights also holds within it an innate limitation on behavior because of the rights of others. If I have a right to own property, then it must be wrong for someone else to steal my property. If they can steal it rightfully, then I have worked as a slave for them. But if it is wrong for someone to steal my property, then it must also be wrong for me to steal their property. My behavior must be limited by the rights of others around me. Thus, my liberty to do as I choose is inherently limited to those actions which do not violate the rights of others.
It is on these principles that all our laws about crime are based. Murder is wrong because it is a violation of the inalienable right to life. Theft is wrong because it is a violation of the inalienable right to own property. Of course, we have laws in this country that make murder and theft illegal, but that’s not what makes them wrong. They would be wrong even if the law allowed these behaviors. And it would be inherently wrong for the law to allow such violations of human rights. The law doesn’t decide right and wrong. Right and wrong are based on objective principles. It is our duty, as citizens, to discern what inalienable rights exist and to protect them with good laws.
Liberals tend to see things differently. They tend to see
morality as changing and based on what society agrees is right or wrong. Since,
in our country, society sets the laws, they see the law as determining right
and wrong (or determining what is and isn’t a right). So if the society votes
that it’s a right to have healthcare, then it becomes a right. Or if society
votes that the unborn aren’t humans, then they aren’t. It’s a totally different
view of reality and morality. And it’s totally opposed to the view that there
is an objective truth and morality. One side must be right and the other side
must be wrong.
Conservative positions are all worked out logically from the viewpoint of objective morality and these basic principles we believe in. For example, while the idea of government mandated universal healthcare sounds good and fair on the surface, it isn’t really. You see, no one has a right to any commodity (i.e. anything that costs money). If you look at the list of rights in the Bill of Rights, none of them costs money. You have a right to life, liberty, a fair trial, free speech, etc. But none of those require anyone to give you something that costs them money. If people have a right to healthcare (or housing or food or any other commodity), then someone is required to provide it to them (whether they can pay or not). This means that someone must work for it, but then be forced to give it to someone else for free. That makes that person a slave. People have a right to work in order to provide themselves with food or housing or healthcare. But they don’t have a right to force others to provide those things to them for free (thus enslaving those people). Oh, and by the way, having government pay for it just means you have a middle man that extorts the money from the people (the taxpayers, anyway) and then gives it to others. It’s still a case of enslaving people by forcing them to provide things to others for free.
The rest of our conservative principles are worked out in much the same way. You have to be able to think logically to understand conservatism. In contrast, liberal views are based primarily on emotion and on telling the people what they want to hear. They sound good on the surface, but either aren’t practical or are really a violation of human rights when you get right down to it.
So, on the one hand you have a group that bases its views on absolute morality and basic principles that are then applied logically while the other side is based on emotion and what feels and sounds good. That’s the primary difference between conservatives and liberals.
Conservative positions are all worked out logically from the viewpoint of objective morality and these basic principles we believe in. For example, while the idea of government mandated universal healthcare sounds good and fair on the surface, it isn’t really. You see, no one has a right to any commodity (i.e. anything that costs money). If you look at the list of rights in the Bill of Rights, none of them costs money. You have a right to life, liberty, a fair trial, free speech, etc. But none of those require anyone to give you something that costs them money. If people have a right to healthcare (or housing or food or any other commodity), then someone is required to provide it to them (whether they can pay or not). This means that someone must work for it, but then be forced to give it to someone else for free. That makes that person a slave. People have a right to work in order to provide themselves with food or housing or healthcare. But they don’t have a right to force others to provide those things to them for free (thus enslaving those people). Oh, and by the way, having government pay for it just means you have a middle man that extorts the money from the people (the taxpayers, anyway) and then gives it to others. It’s still a case of enslaving people by forcing them to provide things to others for free.
The rest of our conservative principles are worked out in much the same way. You have to be able to think logically to understand conservatism. In contrast, liberal views are based primarily on emotion and on telling the people what they want to hear. They sound good on the surface, but either aren’t practical or are really a violation of human rights when you get right down to it.
So, on the one hand you have a group that bases its views on absolute morality and basic principles that are then applied logically while the other side is based on emotion and what feels and sounds good. That’s the primary difference between conservatives and liberals.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
What it Means to Be Conservative - Part 7: American Exceptionalism
To wrap up my series on what conservatism means, I'll mention one of the most common themes that conservatives share. We all see the United States of America as an exceptional nation in history, a unique and radical experiment in human governance that has brought about unrivaled prosperity and freedom for the people.
Here are the other parts of this series:
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
Part 5: The Right to Bear Arms
Here are the other parts of this series:
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
Part 5: The Right to Bear Arms
Part 6: Legal Immigration
Each of these topics gives a piece of the puzzle - a partial explanation of why the United States is so unique. You see, what we now know as conservatism is really just about sticking to the tried and true principles and policies that made this country great.
The self-labelled "progressives" advocate changing these principles - replacing them with "new" and "modern" ones. However, we conservatives realize that the "new" ideas of the progressives have been tried over and over throughout history and have never worked. They put a new name on them, dress them up in fancy words or catchy slogans, but they're the same old ideas that have led to the poverty, disenfranchisement, enslavement, tyranny, and oppression that have plagued human civilizations for thousands of years. The real new and progressive idea is that might does not make right, that all people have rights that others (including government) should not violate, that all people should be free to pursue their own dreams and aspirations without fear that someone will take the fruits of their labor or bring them harm. No other country has been founded upon such an idea.
The United States is great precisely because we have a government that is not all powerful, but is limited in its ability to control the citizens and therefore leaves the people free to pursue their own aims and to produce, trade, and invest freely. We are different because we recognize and protect the inalienable rights of the people and because we apply these protections to all people, not just an elite few.
However, these ideals upon which our country was founded are being undermined and attacked by those who are convinced that they have a better way. Science, logic, and history are apparently irrelevant to them and they appeal primarily to the emotions. Unfortunately, few have really learned conservative principles or how to explain them to a country that is increasingly interested only in what government can do for them. The need for education on this issue is great, so spread the word about what conservatism really means.
And so here is the last of the videos from Bill Whittle on American Exceptionalism. In it he gives evidence that the United States is exceptional in all the major ways that a country can be exceptional and tells us why. It's well worth watching.
Each of these topics gives a piece of the puzzle - a partial explanation of why the United States is so unique. You see, what we now know as conservatism is really just about sticking to the tried and true principles and policies that made this country great.
The self-labelled "progressives" advocate changing these principles - replacing them with "new" and "modern" ones. However, we conservatives realize that the "new" ideas of the progressives have been tried over and over throughout history and have never worked. They put a new name on them, dress them up in fancy words or catchy slogans, but they're the same old ideas that have led to the poverty, disenfranchisement, enslavement, tyranny, and oppression that have plagued human civilizations for thousands of years. The real new and progressive idea is that might does not make right, that all people have rights that others (including government) should not violate, that all people should be free to pursue their own dreams and aspirations without fear that someone will take the fruits of their labor or bring them harm. No other country has been founded upon such an idea.
The United States is great precisely because we have a government that is not all powerful, but is limited in its ability to control the citizens and therefore leaves the people free to pursue their own aims and to produce, trade, and invest freely. We are different because we recognize and protect the inalienable rights of the people and because we apply these protections to all people, not just an elite few.
However, these ideals upon which our country was founded are being undermined and attacked by those who are convinced that they have a better way. Science, logic, and history are apparently irrelevant to them and they appeal primarily to the emotions. Unfortunately, few have really learned conservative principles or how to explain them to a country that is increasingly interested only in what government can do for them. The need for education on this issue is great, so spread the word about what conservatism really means.
And so here is the last of the videos from Bill Whittle on American Exceptionalism. In it he gives evidence that the United States is exceptional in all the major ways that a country can be exceptional and tells us why. It's well worth watching.
-----
Here are all the parts of this series on What it Means to Be Conservative:
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
Part 5: The Right to Bear Arms
Part 6: Legal Immigration
Part 7: American Exeptionalism
Here are all the parts of this series on What it Means to Be Conservative:
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
Part 5: The Right to Bear Arms
Part 6: Legal Immigration
Part 7: American Exeptionalism
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
What it Means to Be Conservative - Part 6: Legal Immigration
Here's the next installment of the series on what it means to be conservative. If you missed the earlier posts, check them out.
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
Part 5: The Right to Bear Arms
I started the series, in part, to help inform people in advance of the 2012 election. Seeing that the conservatives lost, it is perhaps even more important that we explain to our culture what we believe and why. Apparently, the conservative position is not being heard in our culture, and even many who call themselves conservatives don't know what they believe and why. So here we go with Part 6.
In this video clip, Bill Whittle explains the conservative view of immigration. It is often said that we are against immigrants, but that is just not true. We are in favor of immigration - as long as it's legal. In fact, most of us would like to make it easier for people to come to our great country legally. But we are against illegal immigration because...well, it's illegal. And because illegal immigrants are putting themselves ahead of all the people who waited in line and went through the proper procedure to come here. That's not fair or right.
Not only do we conservatives want to stop illegal immigration, but we realize that having a border that is not secure, over which people can come and go at will, is not safe for our citizens. Thus, protecting our borders is important to protecting the citizens and their property.
We realize that some people crossing the border are simply wanting to come to the United States to get a better life for themselves and their families. But fleeing lawlessness and oppression only to break the law as their first act in their new country is not the proper way to accomplish their goal. They need to go back and get in line like everyone else.
Of course, many of those crossing the border illegally are not doing it with the intent of becoming Americans, but with the intent of harming us and taking from us. We must control our borders in order to stop these people from bringing harm to our citizens. To ignore the problem is to refuse to do the proper job of government, which is to protect the rights of its citizens.
So that's my two cents. Here's the video so you can hear the full argument for yourselves.
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
Part 5: The Right to Bear Arms
I started the series, in part, to help inform people in advance of the 2012 election. Seeing that the conservatives lost, it is perhaps even more important that we explain to our culture what we believe and why. Apparently, the conservative position is not being heard in our culture, and even many who call themselves conservatives don't know what they believe and why. So here we go with Part 6.
In this video clip, Bill Whittle explains the conservative view of immigration. It is often said that we are against immigrants, but that is just not true. We are in favor of immigration - as long as it's legal. In fact, most of us would like to make it easier for people to come to our great country legally. But we are against illegal immigration because...well, it's illegal. And because illegal immigrants are putting themselves ahead of all the people who waited in line and went through the proper procedure to come here. That's not fair or right.
Not only do we conservatives want to stop illegal immigration, but we realize that having a border that is not secure, over which people can come and go at will, is not safe for our citizens. Thus, protecting our borders is important to protecting the citizens and their property.
We realize that some people crossing the border are simply wanting to come to the United States to get a better life for themselves and their families. But fleeing lawlessness and oppression only to break the law as their first act in their new country is not the proper way to accomplish their goal. They need to go back and get in line like everyone else.
Of course, many of those crossing the border illegally are not doing it with the intent of becoming Americans, but with the intent of harming us and taking from us. We must control our borders in order to stop these people from bringing harm to our citizens. To ignore the problem is to refuse to do the proper job of government, which is to protect the rights of its citizens.
So that's my two cents. Here's the video so you can hear the full argument for yourselves.
As a side note, I will say that I disgree with one minor point in this video - namely the timeline given of 11,000 years of human history. But that's a topic for another day.
-----
Here are all the parts of this series on What it Means to Be Conservative:
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
Part 5: The Right to Bear Arms
Part 6: Legal Immigration
Part 7: American Exeptionalism
-----
Here are all the parts of this series on What it Means to Be Conservative:
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
Part 5: The Right to Bear Arms
Part 6: Legal Immigration
Part 7: American Exeptionalism
Friday, October 12, 2012
What it Means to Be Conservative - Part 5: The Right to Bear Arms
Here we go. The long awaited fifth part of the What it Means to Be Conservative Series is finally here. If you've missed the others, check out the earlier installments.
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
In Part 5, I'll be talking about a very important part of the conservative viewpoint: the right to bear arms.
Now, when we conservatives refer to the right to bear arms, we mean an inalienable right - a right that all people have by virtue of their existence and that cannot be rightfully taken away or given up. This right to bear arms is right up there with the rights to life and liberty. In fact, the right to bear arms is derived from the rights to life and liberty.
How so, you ask? Think of it this way. If you have rights to life and liberty, you must also have a right to protect your life and liberty from those who would threaten to kill or enslave you or else your rights mean nothing. If you have no way of protecting yourself, your rights to life and to liberty may be trampled on with impunity. Thus, there must be a right to defend yourself. Even our laws recognize this right. If someone threatens your life and you kill them while defending yourself, you go free. You can't be punished for murder when you act in self-defense.
The right to bear arms is an extension of the right to self-defense. You aren't required to use only your bare hands to defend yourself against those who are attacking you. You may use various implements in protecting your life and liberty - whether knives, guns, baseball bats, or whatever. And if you desire to own a particular object that makes defending yourself easier, you have the right to obtain and keep such an object. This is the right to bear arms.
However, while guns are very useful for protecting oneself, this is only one aspect of the right to bear arms. This argument alone is sufficient to show that we have such an inalienable right, but it doesn't show the full reason that this right exists or that our Founding Fathers specifically included this right in the Bill of Rights.
Plenty of people (on both sides of the gun-rights issue) speak of the right to bear arms as if it's all about the right to go hunting or the right to defend yourself against muggers. While hunting and defense against criminals are valid and very important uses of guns, this is not the reason that this particular right is one of the first rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights. You see, if the right to own guns is merely about having a rifle to go hunting with, then those who don't hunt...well, they don't need guns and maybe the government should keep them from having guns (or so some would argue). Similarly, some try to argue that cops may need guns, but private citizens do not since they can rely on law enforcement. There are flaws in both arguments, but even pointing out that people sometimes need to protect themselves because law enforcement is not present doesn't get at the real issue.
The real issue is that we the people must have the right to bear arms because without this right, we will not remain free. An unarmed people is not only at the mercy of violent criminals, but of their own government as well.
Remember that the Founding Fathers, when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, had just thrown off the oppressive government of England by force and instituted their own government. They knew that without arms - without guns in the hands of the colonists - they would never have been able to stand up to the tyrannical government that was violating their inalienable rights. The colonists were able to not only fight against the well-trained and well-equipped British military, but win - precisely because they had the arms to do so. With that in mind, they wrote the Second Amendment in order to ensure that future generations of Americans would not have to live in fear of their government.
Notice the language of the Second Amendment:
And, of course, history bears this out. Every government that has disarmed its citizens has soon become tyrannical - taking absolute power and killing large numbers of its own people. The history of disarmament is a bloody and gruesome one. The Founding Fathers knew that the same horrible attrocities could happen here as well and thus they gave us the Second Amendment to ensure that the people always hold the power.
So, on that note, here is 5th part of the video series with Bill Whittle, which points out many of the same points I just made. He makes some other good arguments as well. For example, he makes a very good point that if you take away the Second Amendment, you will also destroy the First Amendment because if someone decides that "real people can't be trusted with dangerous guns, it's just a matter of time until they decide that they can't be trusted with dangerous ideas either." He also makes the same point I have elsewhere, that guns are equalizers that enable the weak to protect themselves from the physically strong. Watch the video and comment below.
-----
Here are all the parts of this series on What it Means to Be Conservative:
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
Part 5: The Right to Bear Arms
Part 6: Legal Immigration
Part 7: American Exeptionalism
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
In Part 5, I'll be talking about a very important part of the conservative viewpoint: the right to bear arms.
Now, when we conservatives refer to the right to bear arms, we mean an inalienable right - a right that all people have by virtue of their existence and that cannot be rightfully taken away or given up. This right to bear arms is right up there with the rights to life and liberty. In fact, the right to bear arms is derived from the rights to life and liberty.
How so, you ask? Think of it this way. If you have rights to life and liberty, you must also have a right to protect your life and liberty from those who would threaten to kill or enslave you or else your rights mean nothing. If you have no way of protecting yourself, your rights to life and to liberty may be trampled on with impunity. Thus, there must be a right to defend yourself. Even our laws recognize this right. If someone threatens your life and you kill them while defending yourself, you go free. You can't be punished for murder when you act in self-defense.
The right to bear arms is an extension of the right to self-defense. You aren't required to use only your bare hands to defend yourself against those who are attacking you. You may use various implements in protecting your life and liberty - whether knives, guns, baseball bats, or whatever. And if you desire to own a particular object that makes defending yourself easier, you have the right to obtain and keep such an object. This is the right to bear arms.
However, while guns are very useful for protecting oneself, this is only one aspect of the right to bear arms. This argument alone is sufficient to show that we have such an inalienable right, but it doesn't show the full reason that this right exists or that our Founding Fathers specifically included this right in the Bill of Rights.
Plenty of people (on both sides of the gun-rights issue) speak of the right to bear arms as if it's all about the right to go hunting or the right to defend yourself against muggers. While hunting and defense against criminals are valid and very important uses of guns, this is not the reason that this particular right is one of the first rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights. You see, if the right to own guns is merely about having a rifle to go hunting with, then those who don't hunt...well, they don't need guns and maybe the government should keep them from having guns (or so some would argue). Similarly, some try to argue that cops may need guns, but private citizens do not since they can rely on law enforcement. There are flaws in both arguments, but even pointing out that people sometimes need to protect themselves because law enforcement is not present doesn't get at the real issue.
The real issue is that we the people must have the right to bear arms because without this right, we will not remain free. An unarmed people is not only at the mercy of violent criminals, but of their own government as well.
Remember that the Founding Fathers, when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, had just thrown off the oppressive government of England by force and instituted their own government. They knew that without arms - without guns in the hands of the colonists - they would never have been able to stand up to the tyrannical government that was violating their inalienable rights. The colonists were able to not only fight against the well-trained and well-equipped British military, but win - precisely because they had the arms to do so. With that in mind, they wrote the Second Amendment in order to ensure that future generations of Americans would not have to live in fear of their government.
Notice the language of the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."Notice that it doesn't say "The need for a person to be able to kill deer..." or "The need to protect onself from criminals..." is the reason for this right. It says that having arms in the hands of the people is necessary in order for the people to remain free. They knew that the people must hold the threat of forcible removal of their government in order to prevent government from taking their freedoms. Without actual firepower in the hands of the people, the political power will not remain with the people either.
And, of course, history bears this out. Every government that has disarmed its citizens has soon become tyrannical - taking absolute power and killing large numbers of its own people. The history of disarmament is a bloody and gruesome one. The Founding Fathers knew that the same horrible attrocities could happen here as well and thus they gave us the Second Amendment to ensure that the people always hold the power.
So, on that note, here is 5th part of the video series with Bill Whittle, which points out many of the same points I just made. He makes some other good arguments as well. For example, he makes a very good point that if you take away the Second Amendment, you will also destroy the First Amendment because if someone decides that "real people can't be trusted with dangerous guns, it's just a matter of time until they decide that they can't be trusted with dangerous ideas either." He also makes the same point I have elsewhere, that guns are equalizers that enable the weak to protect themselves from the physically strong. Watch the video and comment below.
-----
Here are all the parts of this series on What it Means to Be Conservative:
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
Part 5: The Right to Bear Arms
Part 6: Legal Immigration
Part 7: American Exeptionalism
Friday, September 21, 2012
What it Means to Be Conservative - Part 4: Natural Law
So far in this series, we have looked at several aspects of conservative views. I discussed why conservatives believe in limited government and free enterprise, why we abhor elitism, and how we know that wealth can be created through human creativity and work. In this fourth part of the series, we will look at a topic I have already written about: Natural Law.
I have written a 5 part series on inalienable rights so I won't repeat all of that here, but you can read those posts to learn more about inalienable rights:
-----
Here are all the parts of this series on What it Means to Be Conservative:
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
Part 5: The Right to Bear Arms
Part 6: Legal Immigration
Part 7: American Exeptionalism
Natural law is law that is higher and more basic than government. Unlike political law, which is arbitrary and made by humans, natural law proceeds from the nature of things and is thus older than government and cannot rightfully be overturned or violated by any political laws.
One of the major concepts of natural law is the concept of inalienable rights - rights that people have by virtue of their existence that cannot be given up or taken away by anyone (even government). These inalienable rights are granted by God, the Creator. However, even those who do not believe in God can agree that humans have these basic rights.
I have written a 5 part series on inalienable rights so I won't repeat all of that here, but you can read those posts to learn more about inalienable rights:
- What are Inalienable Rights?
- The Source of Inalienable Rights
- Liberty in Society and Government
- Government by Consent of the Governed
- Some Common Misconceptions
This concept of natural law explains why conservatives consider some political laws good while others are considered bad. Liberals like to pretend that we conservatives are inconsistent, liking government involvement in some areas and hating it in others without any rhyme or reason (other than our religious beliefs, perhaps). However, there is a consistent and logical basis for the positions we hold (although not all who hold these positions know the logical basis, unfortunately). Political laws that are consistent with natural law and that protect the inalienable rights of the people are good laws. Political laws that are inconsistent with natural law, whether by violating inalienable rights or placing undue restrictions on the liberty of the people, are bad laws. It's really as simple as that.
So, here is the 4th part of the video series. In it, Bill Whittle explains natural law and how it forms the basis for our American laws. He also explains how bad laws (i.e. those inconsistent with natural law) have led to the current economic problems. The one area on which I would disagree with this video (and it's probably more a disagreement with his wording than his actual viewpoint) is where he says that the Bill of Rights "protects freedoms given to us at birth." The truth is, those freedoms and rights are bestowed on us by our Creator, which means they begin at our creation - the very beginning of our existence. Since each human being begins to exist at fertilization, these rights are ours even before birth. Other than that issue, I find this video very informative and useful.
So, here is the 4th part of the video series. In it, Bill Whittle explains natural law and how it forms the basis for our American laws. He also explains how bad laws (i.e. those inconsistent with natural law) have led to the current economic problems. The one area on which I would disagree with this video (and it's probably more a disagreement with his wording than his actual viewpoint) is where he says that the Bill of Rights "protects freedoms given to us at birth." The truth is, those freedoms and rights are bestowed on us by our Creator, which means they begin at our creation - the very beginning of our existence. Since each human being begins to exist at fertilization, these rights are ours even before birth. Other than that issue, I find this video very informative and useful.
Here are all the parts of this series on What it Means to Be Conservative:
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
Part 5: The Right to Bear Arms
Part 6: Legal Immigration
Part 7: American Exeptionalism
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
What it Means to Be Conservative - Part 3: Wealth Creation
So far, I've talked about how conservatives believe in limited government and free trade and how we are against the concept of elitism. The next fundamental difference between conservatism and liberalism is our view of how wealth is created.
Liberals behave as if wealth is limited and cannot increase. Thus, liberals see those with wealth as having taken precious resources from the poor. If there is only so much wealth to go around, those who have a lot must have accumulated their possessions at the expense of someone else.
However, we know that this is not the case. While at any one point in time there is a finite amount of wealth, the total amount of wealth on earth is not a constant. Wealth can be created out of thin air simply through human creativity, hard work, and free trade. A brief look at history will confirm that wealth has increased enormously over time (and often in great leaps as new technologies are developed). Thus, wealth is not constant and those who have a lot of wealth have not necessarily taken it from others.
So, while liberals view the rich as villains, stealing the bread from the mouths of the poverty-stricken, conservatives know that the wealthy (in most cases) are really heroes (from an economics standpoint, anyway). Those who have created wealth through their creativity and hard work have not only increased their own wealth, but the wealth of many others who have benefited from their actions. These individuals create businesses that not only make a profit for their owners, but employ many workers, who then have their needs met and have money in their pockets (making them wealthier). These people then spend money (giving it to other businesses) to obtain the things they want and need. That money is then used by those other businesses to pay their workers and develop new technologies that increase wealth. Thus, an increase in wealth by one business owner is not only helping that person and their employees, but business owners and employees of thousands of other businesses as well.
So here we see one of the biggest differences in views on how to grow an economy. Liberals see wealth as limited and thus want to punish the evil rich by taking more of their money to give to the poor. This seems, at first glance, to be a perfect solution. The poor need money and the rich have more than they need. Why not take a little from the wealthy to give to the poor? Problem solved, right?
However, there are two major economic problems with this redistribution of wealth (to say nothing of the ethical problems). First of all, taking money from the wealthy (business owners and investors) leaves less money for them to pay their workers, and less money is injected into the economy to help it grow. Thus you have less wealth created and everyone is worse off than they could have been.
The second problem with wealth redistribution is that, human nature being what it is (as I mentioned in Part 1 of this series), when you give people money for nothing, you discourage creativity and hard work. If a person can get money without working for it, why work? We humans are a naturally lazy bunch. Not only do those receiving this "help" have little inclination to work to create wealth themselves, but those who do work hard to create wealth, seeing the return on their hard work stripped away, often feel far less motivated to continue their efforts. In the end, everyone loses as the economy stagnates and less and less wealth is created.
The conservative plan for wealth creation is quite different. Conservatives know that wealth can be instantly created when people are allowed to create wealth through creativity, hard work, and free trade. They know that wealth creation helps everyone because there are more resources available - more money, more jobs, more technology, and more goods and services. Thus, conservatives want to reduce government intervention in the economy and lessen the regulations that stifle businesses. Conservatives want to make free trade freer (to encourage more people to trade), to protect the creativity of those who develop new ideas (by making sure they get a return for their hard work), and to reduce taxes (so that people keep more of their hard-earned money and can invest it back into the economy). These things do help business owners and investors, but they also help the workers. These plans also help create more jobs so that all people can earn the money they need. Everyone wins when there is more wealth.
Here is the third video in the series. In this clip, Bill Whittle explains how wealth can be created and debunks the myth that people only get ahead by taking from others.
-----
Here are all the parts of this series on What it Means to Be Conservative:
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
Part 5: The Right to Bear Arms
Part 6: Legal Immigration
Part 7: American Exeptionalism
Here are all the parts of this series on What it Means to Be Conservative:
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
Part 5: The Right to Bear Arms
Part 6: Legal Immigration
Part 7: American Exeptionalism
Friday, September 7, 2012
What it Means to Be Conservative - Part 2: Anti-Elitism
One of the major things that we conservatives are against is the concept of elitism, the idea that some people - those who are highly intelligent, educated, or wealthy - should be able to run the lives of others. The idea that these elites know more about how we should run our lives and should therefore make decisions for us is an idea that we find revolting and insulting. We do not and will not submit to having our lives dictated for us by those who consider themselves smarter or more qualified.
What conservatives also know is that the idea of a country run by elites is completely counter to the government that was set up by our Founding Fathers. While all other countries had elites to run things, whether a single king (monarchy) or a small group (oligarchy), the radical idea of the Founding Fathers was that the power belongs to the people. Each individual is the monarch of his own life, endowed by his Creator with the power and responsibility to make his own choices and to decide for himself how he will live. In this view, all men are equal under the law because each man or woman has this innate sovereignty. No one has been born to rule over others, nor can anyone attain the right to rule through any amount of achievement or capability. All people are inherently equal - subject only to God (their Creator), not to each other. This is the radical idea from which this country was born.
While we conservatives recognize that men are equal, we also realize that government is needed for the protection of the people. However, our government, unlike other governments, does not consist of elites making decisions for the people. Our government was set up as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The power that is wielded by government officials is lent to them by the people. The people have the power, and they have delegated some of that power to certain individuals who are selected by the people to represent them. For a more detailed discussion of this concept of delegated power, see my post on Inalienable Rights - Part 4: Government by Consent of the Governed.
Unfortunately, in this country we have allowed the concept of elitism to creep back in. Both parties are guilty of this. Too many politicians see themselves as the smart ones who must take care of the rest of us by giving us what we need and telling us how we should live our lives. Those of us who hold to the vision of our Founding Fathers want to take back our country from those who believe they have a right to rule over us.
In this second video of the series, Bill Whittle explains why elitism is morally repugnant as well as being unworkable on a practical level.
-----
Here are all the parts of this series on What it Means to Be Conservative:
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
Part 5: The Right to Bear Arms
Part 6: Legal Immigration
Part 7: American Exeptionalism
What conservatives also know is that the idea of a country run by elites is completely counter to the government that was set up by our Founding Fathers. While all other countries had elites to run things, whether a single king (monarchy) or a small group (oligarchy), the radical idea of the Founding Fathers was that the power belongs to the people. Each individual is the monarch of his own life, endowed by his Creator with the power and responsibility to make his own choices and to decide for himself how he will live. In this view, all men are equal under the law because each man or woman has this innate sovereignty. No one has been born to rule over others, nor can anyone attain the right to rule through any amount of achievement or capability. All people are inherently equal - subject only to God (their Creator), not to each other. This is the radical idea from which this country was born.
While we conservatives recognize that men are equal, we also realize that government is needed for the protection of the people. However, our government, unlike other governments, does not consist of elites making decisions for the people. Our government was set up as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The power that is wielded by government officials is lent to them by the people. The people have the power, and they have delegated some of that power to certain individuals who are selected by the people to represent them. For a more detailed discussion of this concept of delegated power, see my post on Inalienable Rights - Part 4: Government by Consent of the Governed.
Unfortunately, in this country we have allowed the concept of elitism to creep back in. Both parties are guilty of this. Too many politicians see themselves as the smart ones who must take care of the rest of us by giving us what we need and telling us how we should live our lives. Those of us who hold to the vision of our Founding Fathers want to take back our country from those who believe they have a right to rule over us.
In this second video of the series, Bill Whittle explains why elitism is morally repugnant as well as being unworkable on a practical level.
-----
Here are all the parts of this series on What it Means to Be Conservative:
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
Part 5: The Right to Bear Arms
Part 6: Legal Immigration
Part 7: American Exeptionalism
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
What it Means to Be Conservative - Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
I've discovered some excellent videos that present a concise, rational, and easy-to-understand explanation for the conservative position. I'll be posting them over the next couple weeks with a little bit of commentary.
----------
The first video deals with two of the most important things conservatives stand for: limited government and free enterprise. I like the way Bill Whittle points out in the video that both of these positions grow from our view of human nature as being imperfect and non-perfectable. We conservatives have a healthy skepticism of human motivation. We believe that people have a natural tendency to look out for their own self-interest first. It's not that no one ever acts altruistically (we know that there are many cases of people helping others with no benefit to themselves), but we don't simply trust people to always act for the good of others. Thus, we wish to limit the power that any person (or any group of people) has over others.
It is this desire that leads to a position of limited government. While we recognize the need for government to make laws and protect the people in society, we also realize that the people in society need protection from those in government. We conservatives know that government, like individual people, tends to look out for its own interest. Having limitations in place to protect the citizens from abuse by government is wise.
The preference for free enterprise also comes from this same view of human nature. We realize that people engage in transactions that are of benefit to themselves. The good thing about free enterprise is that it uses this fact of human selfishness to mutual advantage. Unlike government, businesses must convince you to voluntarily give them money for their goods and services. Thus, they have good reason (for the sake of their own interests) to ensure that they have quality products and service and that every one of their customers is happy with their experience. When people have the option to choose whom they will do business with and each transaction is voluntary, the experience is far more pleasant and satisfying for everyone.
Most of what I just wrote is covered, more or less, in the video. However, there is one other thing I'll point out that was not in the video. This view of inherent human imperfection and selfishness is consistent with a Biblical worldview. The Bible tells us that man is fallen from the perfect state in which God made him and has a natural tendency to do wrong. Obviously, one doesn't have to have a Biblical worldview in order to agree that humans are inherently selfish (you need only look around you), but it is consistent with what the Bible says.
So, without further ado, here is the first video. I hope you will find it enlightening, affirming, or at least educational.
-----
Here are all the parts of this series on What it Means to Be Conservative:
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
Part 5: The Right to Bear Arms
Part 6: Legal Immigration
Part 7: American Exeptionalism
----------
The first video deals with two of the most important things conservatives stand for: limited government and free enterprise. I like the way Bill Whittle points out in the video that both of these positions grow from our view of human nature as being imperfect and non-perfectable. We conservatives have a healthy skepticism of human motivation. We believe that people have a natural tendency to look out for their own self-interest first. It's not that no one ever acts altruistically (we know that there are many cases of people helping others with no benefit to themselves), but we don't simply trust people to always act for the good of others. Thus, we wish to limit the power that any person (or any group of people) has over others.
It is this desire that leads to a position of limited government. While we recognize the need for government to make laws and protect the people in society, we also realize that the people in society need protection from those in government. We conservatives know that government, like individual people, tends to look out for its own interest. Having limitations in place to protect the citizens from abuse by government is wise.
The preference for free enterprise also comes from this same view of human nature. We realize that people engage in transactions that are of benefit to themselves. The good thing about free enterprise is that it uses this fact of human selfishness to mutual advantage. Unlike government, businesses must convince you to voluntarily give them money for their goods and services. Thus, they have good reason (for the sake of their own interests) to ensure that they have quality products and service and that every one of their customers is happy with their experience. When people have the option to choose whom they will do business with and each transaction is voluntary, the experience is far more pleasant and satisfying for everyone.
Most of what I just wrote is covered, more or less, in the video. However, there is one other thing I'll point out that was not in the video. This view of inherent human imperfection and selfishness is consistent with a Biblical worldview. The Bible tells us that man is fallen from the perfect state in which God made him and has a natural tendency to do wrong. Obviously, one doesn't have to have a Biblical worldview in order to agree that humans are inherently selfish (you need only look around you), but it is consistent with what the Bible says.
So, without further ado, here is the first video. I hope you will find it enlightening, affirming, or at least educational.
-----
Here are all the parts of this series on What it Means to Be Conservative:
Part 1: Limited Government and Free Enterprise
Part 2: Anti-Elitism
Part 3: Wealth Creation
Part 4: Natural Law
Part 5: The Right to Bear Arms
Part 6: Legal Immigration
Part 7: American Exeptionalism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)