My wife and I revised the analogy of the two cows:
SOCIALISM
You have two cows, and your neighbor has none. The government takes both, hires you to milk them, and sells you the milk.
COMMUNISM
You have two cows. The state takes both and gives you some milk for the rest of your life.
FASCISM
You have two cows. The state takes both, sells you some milk, and tells you what to think about your cows.
FEUDALISM
Your liege-lord owns you and two cows. You milk them and he graciously lets you keep some of the milk.
CAPITALISM FOR THE ENTREPRENEUR
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. If all goes well, you sell the herd and retire.
CAPITALISM FOR ABLE-BODIED POOR
You have no cows, so you spend your life milking the entrepreneur's cows for a living. If he pays well, you save up and buy one cow.
CAPITALISM FOR THE LESS FORTUNATE
You have no cows and are unable to get/do paid work, but you are told you are lazy for not milking your cows.
CRONY CAPITALISM
You have two cows, and you sell the milk at a profit. The government gives you ten bulls because you seem promising. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell all your cows for a bull-only business model, and your business fails.
CRONY CAPITALISM, PART II
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. They get sick and die, and the government gives you a new herd.
WELFARE CAPITALISM
As capitalism, but the community votes for the entrepreneur to give some free milk to the less fortunate.
WELFARE STATE
The community votes for the entrepreneur to give free milk to the able-bodied poor.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Islam: A Wise and Peaceful Religion
When Islam came into being around 600 AD, it revolutionized the Middle East for several centuries. We don't hear about it in school, because American "World History" is mostly European history. However, during the European dark ages, the Middle East was thriving in education and technology. They had a large amount of religious freedom, something that can't be said for Europe at that time. About the same time as the Renaissance and Reformation in Europe, the Middle East started to decline. Because of that decline, as well as the hostile and predatory colonization of the Middle East by European powers, the positive effects that Islam originally had were lost. They lost their unity, their education, their supremacy.
A few turn to bitterness--the terrorists and warlords. Many turn to their religion, trying to reclaim the goodness and wisdom that Islam meant all those centuries ago. However, most of them are just struggling to survive.
My point is that the source of Middle Eastern terrorism is NOT Islam. It is bitterness, poverty, and ignorance. And the good people in those countries know it. They do everything they can to get their children educated, to develop their countries, and to fight violence.
I once heard a Jordanian prince speak at my school. He spoke English with virtually no accent, and he was working to get an education--a graduate degree in Public Health, actually.
I've also come to admire the Queen of Jordan. She has thousands of fans on Facebook and over a million followers on Twitter, because she devotes countless hours to serving people, to reducing the violence between Israelis and Palestinians, to improving education, etc.
I've met several Middle Easterners who were sent by their parents to a private Christian university, largely because they wanted a school with good values and morals, a place where their kids wouldn't waste their entire lives on alcohol, drugs, sex, or other potential addictions.
Throughout the Middle East, education and human rights are slowly improving. If you'd like a good example of how Islam should be separated from traditions of human rights violations, read this 1996 New York Times article: "Blame Men, Not Allah, Islamic Feminists Say".
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50C14F83E5A0C738DDDA90994DE494D81&scp=4&sq=Blame+Men%2C+Not+Allah%2C+Islamic+Feminists+Say&st=cse
(You may need a free New York Times account to be able to read it. I'm not sure.)
A few turn to bitterness--the terrorists and warlords. Many turn to their religion, trying to reclaim the goodness and wisdom that Islam meant all those centuries ago. However, most of them are just struggling to survive.
My point is that the source of Middle Eastern terrorism is NOT Islam. It is bitterness, poverty, and ignorance. And the good people in those countries know it. They do everything they can to get their children educated, to develop their countries, and to fight violence.
I once heard a Jordanian prince speak at my school. He spoke English with virtually no accent, and he was working to get an education--a graduate degree in Public Health, actually.
I've also come to admire the Queen of Jordan. She has thousands of fans on Facebook and over a million followers on Twitter, because she devotes countless hours to serving people, to reducing the violence between Israelis and Palestinians, to improving education, etc.
I've met several Middle Easterners who were sent by their parents to a private Christian university, largely because they wanted a school with good values and morals, a place where their kids wouldn't waste their entire lives on alcohol, drugs, sex, or other potential addictions.
Throughout the Middle East, education and human rights are slowly improving. If you'd like a good example of how Islam should be separated from traditions of human rights violations, read this 1996 New York Times article: "Blame Men, Not Allah, Islamic Feminists Say".
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50C14F83E5A0C738DDDA90994DE494D81&scp=4&sq=Blame+Men%2C+Not+Allah%2C+Islamic+Feminists+Say&st=cse
(You may need a free New York Times account to be able to read it. I'm not sure.)
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Separation of Church and State (Family Values and Israel)
I want to state my current views on the separation of church and state.
First, I believe that the separation of political and religious views is impossible. A person's outlook on life is largely determined by their religion. Their religious views will, unavoidably, affect their political outlook.
The separation of church and state simply means that the government cannot ever promote any one religious belief over any other. This means that government-funded schools cannot legally teach anything that promotes or demeans any specific religion or religious belief. Likewise, they cannot discriminate against any race, gender, socioeconomic group, or any other group, as long as that group respects the rights of others.
Now, in most areas, the separation of church and state is fairly easy. Economics? Foreign policy? It is fairly easy to separate religious views from these principles.
At this time, only two issues provide me with any difficulty in separating church and state. These are our interactions with the state of Israel and issues surrounding sex and family.
Issues involving sex and the nature of the family are difficult. Pornography is considered indecent by most people. Even those who view it themselves generally want to prevent children from viewing it. And yet, is it the government's place to restrict our freedom of speech in this way? My answer to pornography is simple: because it is incredibly addictive and emotionally destructive, people have a right to not see pornography against their will or in public places. Especially children. Violent porn leads to violent behavior. Therefore, I am in favor of making illegal any porn that includes violence, child pornography, and anything in a public place that arouses sexual feelings in most people (or, at least, most men, if it's an image of a woman).
Now, homosexual rights are also difficult. I do believe that it's reasonable to allow anyone who are living together for long periods of time to get similar legal benefits to what married couples get--to unite their finances and be covered on each other's insurance, etc. Therefore, I am in favor of civil unions.
However, it is not the government's place to define marriage. Marriage is an entirely religious and societal matter. Dictionary definitions are determined by practical usage; if the day comes when large numbers of people use the word "marriage" to refer to homosexual couples, then that is its definition. As long as the definition remain constant, teachers paid with taxpayers' money must use the taxpayers' definition of marriage.
I can see logic in making any sex outside of marriage illegal, since children have a right to be born to married parents and a married couple has a right to expect the faithfulness of each other. However, enforcing these laws is very awkward.
Those are my legal views regarding sex. However, my spiritual views are very different. My religious views are that sex is sacred and that God has commanded that it be reserved for marriage. I believe that any sexual activity that is not between a man and a woman who are married to each other is spiritually and emotionally unhealthy. I believe that sex is a choice. I believe that its purposes are to create physical bodies for children and to express love between husband and wife. Sex is special, even holy, and I cringe to think of people misusing it.
It is painful to me to admit it, but we cannot enforce chastity--keeping sex within marriage as it has always been defined--by the law of the land. We must leave it to God.
Some people have homosexual desires. These can be overcome. Sometimes homosexual desires are just emotional desires for companionship with the same gender. I believe that our society often confuses emotional desire with sexual and/or romantic desire.
I don't like talking about these topics so openly. It doesn't feel proper. But it must be done.
The final family value I want to bring up is abortion. In this, my religious and political views mesh perfectly. Why? Because sex is a choice! Anyone who wants an abortion and uses the "freedom of choice" argument, unless they were raped, is using a flawed argument. They do have a choice! Again, unless a person is raped, they have complete control over whether or not they get pregnant or get someone else pregnant. Therefore, my view is that abortion is morally wrong, except in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life is in danger or the baby is so deformed that, according to honest medical authority, they cannot survive beyond birth.
I once heard an analogy in a philosophy class. Let's say you woke up in a hospital bed one day with a famous unconscious violinist attached to you. Without your medical support, laying there attached to him, he will die. Would it be murder for you to detach the cables and walk away? The argument is no, because it's your life. You didn't choose to be hooked up to the poor comatose violinist.
Of course, this argument applies only to instances of rape, because that is the only instance where the person did not choose to be hooked up to their child. Here is a better analogy: let's say that you enter a drawing. In exchange for one thousand dollars (representing the pleasure of sex), you put your name in a hat. If your name is drawn, you will be hooked up to a helpless person for nine months to give them life support. One day, your name is drawn. You are surprised, perhaps shocked. You persuaded yourself that it wouldn't happen. Perhaps you thought you had the draw rigged (birth control). However, if you were to pull the cords and let the helpless violinist die, you would be a murderer. Why? Because you already had your choice. You made your choice the moment you put your name in that hat. The moment someone chooses to put themselves in situations that encourage their sexual desires, they choose the consequences of that choice.
I believe in freedom of choice as much as anyone. I do not believe in freedom from the natural consequences of your actions by harming others. Even if that other person isn't born yet. I'm sure he or she will thank you after their birth for letting them have the same gift your mother gave you. Life. What could be more glorious? I love my mother and am grateful to her. Even my adopted siblings feel gratitude to their birth mothers for life. That is your legacy, Mother.
Every mother carries that legacy to the grave, where she will meet those of her family who passed on before her. What will they say?
Many mothers who get abortions have nightmares afterward. I wish, at least, the law would require mothers to be educated before having an abortion--know their options, know about adoption, etc. Know how much it hurts forever to know that one less person came into the world because of you. It hurts. The Atonement of Christ can heal people, but the Lord will not bring back the dead for many years yet. Let them live! Let them live.
That is my plea to any of you are considering this decision or wondering what God thinks about abortion. He sent the child to you. Send them to their parents for life. Don't send them back to God. Not yet. Let them live the life He wants them to live first. Let them live. You are free to choose, but your choice will affect others, including your child's adoptive parents. They need him. They're waiting for her. Let the Spirit of God work on you and give you courage. It will. I promise you that, in the name of Jesus Christ, our Savior.
I know that He lives.
I am very passionate about my religious beliefs. And there is one belief I have yet to reconcile with political intelligence: our nation's relationship with Israel.
Israel is a Jewish state. They have freedom to practice your religion, but not to proselytize--just the same as most Muslim countries. They oppress Palestine. Politically, I do not see them as a beacon of democratic protection of the rights of all people.
Yet, the Bible prophesies the return of the Jewish people to that land. We cannot make them leave. God will keep them there until the Messiah comes to teach them more. But politically, it does not make sense to support them so much. Politically, we ought to cut all military support to Israel and force them to work out a compromise with Palestine as equals. But my religion, if I understand it right, suggests that we want to keep giving Israel aid, as they are the Lord's ancient covenant people.
I hope I can resolve this conflict someday. If not, I may have to step down from any political office that requires me to choose between my country and my religion. That way I can serve the one that means the most to me--my God--without betraying the trust of my country.
I hope I never have to make that choice.
First, I believe that the separation of political and religious views is impossible. A person's outlook on life is largely determined by their religion. Their religious views will, unavoidably, affect their political outlook.
The separation of church and state simply means that the government cannot ever promote any one religious belief over any other. This means that government-funded schools cannot legally teach anything that promotes or demeans any specific religion or religious belief. Likewise, they cannot discriminate against any race, gender, socioeconomic group, or any other group, as long as that group respects the rights of others.
Now, in most areas, the separation of church and state is fairly easy. Economics? Foreign policy? It is fairly easy to separate religious views from these principles.
At this time, only two issues provide me with any difficulty in separating church and state. These are our interactions with the state of Israel and issues surrounding sex and family.
Issues involving sex and the nature of the family are difficult. Pornography is considered indecent by most people. Even those who view it themselves generally want to prevent children from viewing it. And yet, is it the government's place to restrict our freedom of speech in this way? My answer to pornography is simple: because it is incredibly addictive and emotionally destructive, people have a right to not see pornography against their will or in public places. Especially children. Violent porn leads to violent behavior. Therefore, I am in favor of making illegal any porn that includes violence, child pornography, and anything in a public place that arouses sexual feelings in most people (or, at least, most men, if it's an image of a woman).
Now, homosexual rights are also difficult. I do believe that it's reasonable to allow anyone who are living together for long periods of time to get similar legal benefits to what married couples get--to unite their finances and be covered on each other's insurance, etc. Therefore, I am in favor of civil unions.
However, it is not the government's place to define marriage. Marriage is an entirely religious and societal matter. Dictionary definitions are determined by practical usage; if the day comes when large numbers of people use the word "marriage" to refer to homosexual couples, then that is its definition. As long as the definition remain constant, teachers paid with taxpayers' money must use the taxpayers' definition of marriage.
I can see logic in making any sex outside of marriage illegal, since children have a right to be born to married parents and a married couple has a right to expect the faithfulness of each other. However, enforcing these laws is very awkward.
Those are my legal views regarding sex. However, my spiritual views are very different. My religious views are that sex is sacred and that God has commanded that it be reserved for marriage. I believe that any sexual activity that is not between a man and a woman who are married to each other is spiritually and emotionally unhealthy. I believe that sex is a choice. I believe that its purposes are to create physical bodies for children and to express love between husband and wife. Sex is special, even holy, and I cringe to think of people misusing it.
It is painful to me to admit it, but we cannot enforce chastity--keeping sex within marriage as it has always been defined--by the law of the land. We must leave it to God.
Some people have homosexual desires. These can be overcome. Sometimes homosexual desires are just emotional desires for companionship with the same gender. I believe that our society often confuses emotional desire with sexual and/or romantic desire.
I don't like talking about these topics so openly. It doesn't feel proper. But it must be done.
The final family value I want to bring up is abortion. In this, my religious and political views mesh perfectly. Why? Because sex is a choice! Anyone who wants an abortion and uses the "freedom of choice" argument, unless they were raped, is using a flawed argument. They do have a choice! Again, unless a person is raped, they have complete control over whether or not they get pregnant or get someone else pregnant. Therefore, my view is that abortion is morally wrong, except in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life is in danger or the baby is so deformed that, according to honest medical authority, they cannot survive beyond birth.
I once heard an analogy in a philosophy class. Let's say you woke up in a hospital bed one day with a famous unconscious violinist attached to you. Without your medical support, laying there attached to him, he will die. Would it be murder for you to detach the cables and walk away? The argument is no, because it's your life. You didn't choose to be hooked up to the poor comatose violinist.
Of course, this argument applies only to instances of rape, because that is the only instance where the person did not choose to be hooked up to their child. Here is a better analogy: let's say that you enter a drawing. In exchange for one thousand dollars (representing the pleasure of sex), you put your name in a hat. If your name is drawn, you will be hooked up to a helpless person for nine months to give them life support. One day, your name is drawn. You are surprised, perhaps shocked. You persuaded yourself that it wouldn't happen. Perhaps you thought you had the draw rigged (birth control). However, if you were to pull the cords and let the helpless violinist die, you would be a murderer. Why? Because you already had your choice. You made your choice the moment you put your name in that hat. The moment someone chooses to put themselves in situations that encourage their sexual desires, they choose the consequences of that choice.
I believe in freedom of choice as much as anyone. I do not believe in freedom from the natural consequences of your actions by harming others. Even if that other person isn't born yet. I'm sure he or she will thank you after their birth for letting them have the same gift your mother gave you. Life. What could be more glorious? I love my mother and am grateful to her. Even my adopted siblings feel gratitude to their birth mothers for life. That is your legacy, Mother.
Every mother carries that legacy to the grave, where she will meet those of her family who passed on before her. What will they say?
Many mothers who get abortions have nightmares afterward. I wish, at least, the law would require mothers to be educated before having an abortion--know their options, know about adoption, etc. Know how much it hurts forever to know that one less person came into the world because of you. It hurts. The Atonement of Christ can heal people, but the Lord will not bring back the dead for many years yet. Let them live! Let them live.
That is my plea to any of you are considering this decision or wondering what God thinks about abortion. He sent the child to you. Send them to their parents for life. Don't send them back to God. Not yet. Let them live the life He wants them to live first. Let them live. You are free to choose, but your choice will affect others, including your child's adoptive parents. They need him. They're waiting for her. Let the Spirit of God work on you and give you courage. It will. I promise you that, in the name of Jesus Christ, our Savior.
I know that He lives.
I am very passionate about my religious beliefs. And there is one belief I have yet to reconcile with political intelligence: our nation's relationship with Israel.
Israel is a Jewish state. They have freedom to practice your religion, but not to proselytize--just the same as most Muslim countries. They oppress Palestine. Politically, I do not see them as a beacon of democratic protection of the rights of all people.
Yet, the Bible prophesies the return of the Jewish people to that land. We cannot make them leave. God will keep them there until the Messiah comes to teach them more. But politically, it does not make sense to support them so much. Politically, we ought to cut all military support to Israel and force them to work out a compromise with Palestine as equals. But my religion, if I understand it right, suggests that we want to keep giving Israel aid, as they are the Lord's ancient covenant people.
I hope I can resolve this conflict someday. If not, I may have to step down from any political office that requires me to choose between my country and my religion. That way I can serve the one that means the most to me--my God--without betraying the trust of my country.
I hope I never have to make that choice.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Republicans for Congress, Democrats for President
So, a good way to sum up my federal voting feeling is Republicans for congress and Democrats for president. Why?
Republicans espouse almost everything that I believe in domestic affairs: family values, economic freedom, etc. On the other hand, Democrats generally espouse the anti-war and humility in foreign affairs that I think America needs to adopt. Since Congress has more control over domestic affairs, and the President has more control over foreign affairs, it makes sense that I would want Republicans in Congress and Democrats for presidents.
However, I do try to vote for individuals, not parties. There are good and not-so-good leaders in both parties.
And, for Utah politics, I usually vote Constitution party for everything--or almost everything. They're my favorite party. But they're not a major player in federal politics at the moment.
Republicans espouse almost everything that I believe in domestic affairs: family values, economic freedom, etc. On the other hand, Democrats generally espouse the anti-war and humility in foreign affairs that I think America needs to adopt. Since Congress has more control over domestic affairs, and the President has more control over foreign affairs, it makes sense that I would want Republicans in Congress and Democrats for presidents.
However, I do try to vote for individuals, not parties. There are good and not-so-good leaders in both parties.
And, for Utah politics, I usually vote Constitution party for everything--or almost everything. They're my favorite party. But they're not a major player in federal politics at the moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)