Call of Wisdom

Print it out!

2011-05-21T08:44:00.001-07:00

I notice quite frequently the little notice on the bottom of the email of well intentioned individuals reminding me not to waste paper by printing the email. This admonishment, along with countless others coming from those who want to do their part to "Save the Planet" are sadly, in almost every case, taking steps to destroy it. Let me see if I can explain.

In the above example, we are encouraged not to print because it consumes paper, and consuming paper requires the use of trees which must be cut down, thereby stripping the land and destroying the planet. At least that is the logic. Here is the flaw in that logic:

Trees are a crop. Human beings grow them, harvest them, and sell them. There have been times in our history where that crop was harvested from open land not owned by the individuals selling the crop, so the case could be made that the land was being stripped and left barren. That isnt how it works any more. Today the land is owned by individuals who have decided to put that land to work producing trees. It is a business.

As a business, capital is invested to buy land, the tree crop is grown in such a way as to preserve and protect the land so that the capital investment is not lost, and trees are harvested and sold to produce a profit for the owners. The by-product of this business is 1) income for the thousands of people who are involved in the process, and 2) the wood itself, which is used in thousands of ways to make the lives of those who buy it better.

In a free market system people allocate their scarce resources in such a way as to maximize their satisfaction. When people do spend money, they do so because they've decided the the satisfaction they'll receive through that expenditure will be greater than the satisfaction they could have received by spending that money another way.

Markets respond to the above reality by trying to determine a better way to deliver greater satisfaction at lower cost so as to obtain a greater customer base and hence a greater income.

These two factors provide the two sides of the equation that make a free market economy possible. We all live on both sides of this equation. On the one side of the equation we attempt to maximize our income so that we can obtain greater satisfaction in our lives. On the other side we attempt to conserve our expenditures and get the most bang for our buck.

This works!

It produces wonderful products and services in ever greater abundance at ever decreasing costs. As markets solve human problems the world becomes a better place to live. We become healthier, we live longer, and we enjoy our lives more. This is a wonderful thing, a gift from God.

Furthermore, people who have their basic needs met go on to seek improvement in broader areas of their lives, such as in their local environments. Starving people don't care about the environment, they care about eating. Well fed and comfortable people do care about the environment. Inside each of us is a desire for beauty, but we don't seek after that desire until other more basic needs are met (Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs)

Concern for the environment we live in sits at the top of that pyramid. As the free market exchange of free human beings solves the problems of life, more and people move into higher levels of that pyramid.

Freedom leads to prosperity, and prosperity benefits the environment.

The quality of a nation's environment is directly proportional to prosperity of it's citizens. Look at the relative cleanliness of a typical prosperous American City vs a typical city in any poor country. The difference is stark. North Korea is a wasteland, ravaged by communism. South Korea is a prosperous, beautiful country. Look at this image of Haiti vs. the Dominican Republic. On one side there is lush beauty, the other is barren.

Freedom is good for the environment. So is consumption. When we consume the products of our fellow human beings, we are all made better off.

In ignorance, some people, being convinced that a person selling wood is in some way destroying their planet, start trying to manipulate the buyers of that product into consuming less of it. They are trying to prevent others from buying and selling what they want, and add social pressure (and eventually laws) to stop them.

I say ignorance, because the person selling wood is in no way destroying the planet. As a crop those trees would not be there were it not for the wood market. If one human being finds that wood makes his life better, and another can produce an income for himself and others by producing that wood, they are both made better off - at at the same time, as a direct result of their exchange, the land is improved and the crop is increased. The circumstances are improved for the buyer, the seller, the land, and the trees.

So the pressure produced by the ignorant to stop this exchange has a negative effect on every aspect of this reality. The people producing and selling wood see their income reduced, the people using that product to in some way to improve their lives must go without that improvement, the land will no longer be maintained to the degree that it was, and the total number of trees will be reduced. Why take care of the land and plant trees if people aren't buying?

It might seem small, but it isn't. One man's expense is another man's income. Anything that reduces the exchange between them reduces the quality of life for both of them and causes neglect of the tools and resources involved in the process.

Environmentalism doesn't improve the environment as it is currently practiced. Environmentalism is a highjacking of the human desire for a beautiful world and puts that desire to work in the cause of socialism and the accumulation of power in the hands of government. Nothing destroys an environment more thoroughly than excessive government power. Freedom produces prosperity and the forces which result in the improvement of the environment. Powerful governments are by their very nature anti-freedom and consequently they produce poverty and bleak environments.

We all want to live in a beautiful world full of trees, clean air, and clean water. Prosperity produced by the market exchange of free people trying to maximize their quality of life is the most effective way to achieve that end.

So if you find that printing this out in some way improves your life, do it! It will be good for all of us, including the planet.

Restraining the Beast

2011-02-04T08:09:00.001-08:00

The founders of the United States of America had a clear understanding of something that over the years has been largely lost, but that now, under the corrupt leadership of Obama they are rediscovering - government is a beast - and humanity's only hope for happiness on earth is the restraint of that beast.

Revelation chapter 13 describes a Beast as well. The book of Revelation is a picture of God's war against His enemy, Satan, and reveals that every Holy aspect of God has a counterfeit in the work of the enemy.

- God Himself is counterfeited by Satan, represented in the book of Revelation by the Dragon (Rev 12:9)
- The people of God, the Saints, represented throughout the Bible as the Bride of Christ, are counterfeited by those who reject God, and worship the Beast, represented in Revelation by the Prostitute, the woman who rides the Beast (Rev 17:3-4)
- The Holy Spirit is counterfeited in the book of Revelation by The False Prophet. (Rev 13:11-17)

And finally, the Beast is the counterfeit of Christ Himself. Jesus Christ is the Savior of the Christian, the One to whom we look for life, for comfort, for wisdom, for counsel, and for salvation.

So who is Christ's counterfeit? What agency (or "power") on earth serves the "Prostitute" (those who reject Christ) in the same capacity as Jesus Christ serves His Bride?

What power rises up out of the sea, which Rev 17:15 says is the clamoring multitudes of humanity, promising to give them what only God can give, and deceiving them into trading their souls for a crust of bread?

I believe the answer is found by considering what it was that the Founding Fathers were trying to chain. What is it that promises prosperity, promises to save the world, promises to protect you from those who would hurt you, promises to meet all your needs, promises to take care of your health?

What force on earth is nearly irresistible? What agency has the strength of armies, the power to take wealth, the power to limit freedom, the power to accomplish "great things" for it's supporters, and the very power to chose life or death?

To whom do the huddles masses turn? Where is their hope?

What is the nemesis of nearly every business in America? To whom must they pay allegiance? What agency holds the power to shut you down, or lift you into the stratospheres of success? Who is it that must be stroked and padded with lavish gifts by our lobbyists?

At some points in history, it was a King, such as Saul (1 Samuel 8), whom the Israelites believed would keep them safe and provide for them. At other times it was represented by Emperors like Nero of Rome. At other times it was a dominating dictator like Stalin, Khrushchev, or Hitler to whom a nation turned in hopes of victory and worldly success. And at other times, it was a charismatic leader who promised a chicken in every pot, a victory in times of war, a job for every worker, a safety net for the down-and-out, or a doctor at your disposal.

Yes, the Beast of Revelation, whom our Founding Fathers tried to chain and limit, against whom we fight even now on a daily basis and has become a very present threat to our prosperity, our freedom, and our lives is the seductive power of human government.

Revelation reveals that humanity will worship the beast and bow down to it, and surely we do (Rev 13:4).

It grows in response to every crisis. It consumes wealth of this generation and the next. It promises life, but delivers only slavery, fear, and death.

America as founded was a shining city on a hill, a beacon of hope to a dark and brutal world - proof that life on earth could be worth living. It was our faith, our freedom, and the limitation of government power that made it so.

The worst of history's experiences came as a result of power accumulated in the hands of a few. Great human power cannot be director for good, for very long, for the Beast grows within it. At first it looks appealing and we fall for it's seduction, but in the end it utterly destroys.

Will we decide again as a nation to chain the Beast? Will we return to our First Love, to the Creator who does give life, to living by faith and not by sight, and to the Constitution which formed the only chains the world has ever known capable of restraining the Beast?

Trade Deficits are Meaningless

2011-02-04T04:57:00.001-08:00

I decided to buy Crash 2.0 the other day to see what the author had to say about possible investment strategies during what I believe will be a very challenging few upcoming years in the US. Our government is on a deliberate path of self-destruction and their efforts are succeeding. I do not believe our economy will be able to withstand the consequences of deficit spending, an unstable dollar, and hi taxes. These next few years are going to suck for the average American, especially the ones dependent on employers for their security.
I expected to find in Crash 2.0 some good advice about how to invest, and maybe the author's advice investment advice is good, but the advice was immediately suspect to me because his concern for the economy was based on his alarm for the "trade deficit".
He is not alone in his concern. Everywhere I look I see fear about the looming trade deficit and how all this spending overseas will seal our doom.
This fear is completely misplaced. Completely. There is nothing to fear from trade deficits. Nothing. Let me try to convince you.

When an individual buys something, he does so because he has determined that his life is better off with the purchase than it is with the money he'll be using to buy it. When we buy things our lives and circumstances are improved. Buying a car makes it possible to drive to work, buying a computer makes it possible to email, work, shop, and do research. Buying a tool makes it possible to do things you couldn't do without that tool. These things make us more productive and better off.
You may think this not to be the case when considering what other people buy, but these are personal choices, it doesn't matter what you think, it matters what the buyer thinks.
If a person chooses to buy something made in China, both he and the person in China say thank you at the conclusion of the transaction. They both walk away happy. It is irrelevant that the individual now has less cash, he has weighed his options and decided he is better off spending the money. Furthermore, though he might have a personal trade deficit with the Chinese individual, he doesn't care, he isn't depending on the Chinese person for income, just for the product that he wanted. The individual has a source of income independent of the Chinese merchant.

What is true for the individual is also true for the group. If ten people individually buy something from China, they have all decided that they are better off and that their lives are improved by the purchase. If it is true for 10 it's true for millions. Millions of people buy things from China and each person doing so has decided that their life is better off as a result.

So yes, we run a trade deficit, but our wealth has increased because we now own the things that make us more happy, effective, and prosperous.

It's Not About Immigration!

2010-05-22T08:02:00.000-07:00

I'm tired of hearing republicans address the democrats on the basis of what the democrats are saying about the Arizona immigration debate. The democrats put forth positions on this debate on the grounds of fairness or human rights or whatever. It's all hogwash - and the republicans should be saying so.
The democrats aren't worried about fairness. They could care less about human rights. The democrats care about one this in this debate: positioning themselves in such a way as to secure the illegal immigrant vote. The democrats are simply making a stink about an innocuous law to make the point plainly to the illegal immigrants that "democrats are on your side" and republicans are racist.
I think the best strategy for dealing with this is to plainly state this truth. This debate is not about the law in Arizona, it's not about solving the immigration issue, its not about what is best for America. Its about the democrat's lust for power. Republicans should be saying so.
While it is never stated publicly, here is the goal of the left when it comes to immigration:
1) Take advantage of the fact that America is a country that many people want to come to in their search for freedom and a better life.
2) Offer the wealth of Americans to the illegal immigrant in the form of welfare, food stamps, health care, etc. to get those unprincipled individuals from all over the world who want something for nothing to come here.
3) Make it very difficult for high quality people from around the world to come here. Make it easy for the unprincipled and uneducated illegal immigrants to come here.
3) Make it easy for the illegal immigrant to vote.
4) Position yourself as the party of the "little guy" and "little illegal immigrant guy" in order to secure their vote.
The left is using this debate as an opportunity to rally their base and solidly position themselves as for the illegal immigrant. Combine that "political energy" with the policies of making it easy for illegal immigrants to vote and that is a combination that is hard to beat at the polls.
The right needs to stop debating the merits of this law. Its obviously a good law given the fact that federal laws stating the same exact thing are not enforced. We need to be making it plain to the American people at every opportunity what the left is up to.
The timing of this is not an accident. The Arizona law is merely is a convenient mechanism for accomplishing their purposes prior to the November 2010 elections - so don't be fooled, their concern is not about immigration, its about winning. And like EVERYTHING ELSE the left does, if not stopped, it will result in the destruction of America - the last great hope for mankind in the world.

Pride, Envy, and Hatred of the Rich

2009-10-31T08:04:00.000-07:00

The left's politics in many ways can be characterized by the hatred of the rich. Instead of celebrating the people that have successfully solved the problems of the world and gotten rich from that, they seek to vilify them, take their riches from them, and prevent others from ever following in their footsteps.

This is one of the sad side effects of envy. Both envy and pride are listed among the 7 deadly sins and both result from an unhealthy comparison of the self to others. Pride looks at others and says, "I'm better than they are." Envy builds on the work of pride, by looking at the success of others and says, "Given that I'm better than they are, they must be doing something wrong, or there is some fundamental problem in the world, if they can have so much while I have so little."

These two sins serve to distract an individual from a focus on his own bad choices, negative patterns of thought, and laziness, and results in the condemnation of the successful as evil, greedy, and exploitative of the poor. Hatred then, is the natural consequence of regularly seeing those who you deem as lower than you rise above you in wealth, status, and success.

Again, hatred is the spiritual consequence of the sins of pride and envy - and the left is consumed by it. And hatred, sadly, destroys all that it comes in contact with - including the individual who does the hating. It causes its possessors to take actions that destroy not only the lives of the people they hate, but the political systems and institutions that provided for the success of those they hate, even when those institutions are the very ones saving their own lives.

The left's pride, envy, and resulting hatred drive them to hate America, see its institutions as fundementally unfair and corrupt, and causes them to take action to destroy its foundations and replace them with systems that redistribute wealth and shackle those who seek to earn it. The person who hates cannot allow for the freedom of those they hate. That is why populism derived from anger towards the wealthy also drives a nation toward despotism and socialism. The populace hands power to the individuals or groups that promise to destroy the freedom of others to succeed. Hence, statism and socialism. Marxism is based on advancing the cause of the proletariat against the bourgeois, whom they hate for their success.

Hatred is at the root of liberalism - at the root of all human conflict. Love values freedom, both for the self, and for others. It declares a trust in God, in freedom, and in others - that as others pursue their own good, we will be okay - moreover, we'll be better off. Hatred says, "I can't trust God, I can't trust freedom, I can't trust others." It motivates an individual to take from others their freedom in a self-destructive attempt to protect one's interests.

It is the ultimate lie propagated from the devil himself declared first in the Garden of Eden. Cast out of heaven for his own pride, envy and hatred of God, he deceived the first humans by convincing them that God could not be trusted. It was a lie then, it is a lie now. We can trust God, we can trust freedom, we can trust others.

Just in case you have been tempted into agreeing with the hatred of the successful, I want to shine some truth on the subject of the rich so that you can break agreement with such thoughts and have the freedom that comes with it.

1) When the rich succeed, they do so by solving the problems of those who buy from them. The customer is better off than prior to the transaction. Both the rich man and his customer walk away better off than they would have been without the transaction. A poor man may be resentful of the fact that he must pay a rich man for, lets say, ten gallons of gas, but that ten gallons of gas will permit the poor man to get to work, to the grocery store, home, etc. The poor man would have been much worse off if a government official had prevented his "exploitation." The same is true for all free market transactions. My life is made immeasurably better by the options I have to buy a computer, a phone, fuel for my car, a home, entertainment, clothing, energy for heat and cooling, and food. Each of these is provided by "the rich." If you prevent others from getting rich by solving these problems then you prevent them from solving these problems.

2) When the rich build their companies, they put the rest of us to work. One person can do very little on their own. Real success comes from working with others. The rich have learned how to surround themselves with teams of people who are succeeding in their own right by virtue of their relationship with the rich. Not everyone has the vision to start a company or the temperament to manage its many facets - but their skills and strengths can be put to work by others - and both prosper as a result. The rich may have an idea for how to solve a human problem, and generate profits through that effort - but it takes the ingenuity, the labor, and the time of the people that work with him to bring that solution to the market. Both the employer and the employee are benefited by the arrangement.

3) When the rich consume, other businesses prosper. When the rich spend the money they've made, they provide income to the companies from which they buy. Rich people might buy cars, houses, airplanes, yachts, etc - but doing so employs the millions of people who serve in those industries. Vilifying the spending of the rich only hurts the people who make the products that they buy. The rich weren't hurt that much when the government put a luxury tax on yachts, the people who make them were. The rich aren't hurt that much when government tells them not to fly on private jets, but the people who fly them, who build them, who maintain them, who service them are hurt badly. The rich aren't hurt that much when everyone else complains about their visits to luxury hotels and resorts - but the people who work in those locations sure are when the rich decide to stay home instead.

3) When the rich save their money, they do so by placing it into investments that provide the capital other people need to bring their ideas to the market. The wealth accumulated by the rich does productive work in almost every capacity in which the rich choose to employ it. His incentive to save his money in some vehicle that produces returns is proof that others are benefited by that investment. A return is the evidence of value as measured by someone else. Those who pay a return on that investment are using that accumulated wealth to pursue other efforts that they believe will satisfy a market and produce profit.

4) When the rich give away their money, the charities that receive those funds and the communities they serve benefit. While this is probably characterized by most people as the highest good that the rich can do with their money, I believe it probably brings the least good to society as a whole. It is in this arena that much good can be done, but the most harm can be caused as well. Markets reveal true human need - both in the willingness of those with the need to spend money to solve their problems and in the solutions to those problems generated by that money. Charities ideally seek to meet the needs of those who by misfortune in some form do not have the money to meet those needs on their own. I contend that in most cases, these misfortunes would be greatly minimized in a political system that defended freedom and liberty.

In sum:

When the rich succeed, the rest of us benefit.
When the rich build their companies, the rest of us benefit.
When the rich spend their money, the rest of us benefit.
When the rich save their money, the rest of us benefit.
When the rich give away their money, the rest of us benefit.

The truth is - we should be celebrating the rich and the political and economic freedoms that allowed for them. If they succeeded, we can too; moreover, their success is a testimony to how much good they have done for the rest of us. The attempt to limit their success only limits their ability to bring good to others. Normal economic cycles are the free market's response to error and the correction of those errors. Larger economic downturns are the consequence of larger errors. I believe that the severe economic downturns we've seen several times in this century are the consequence of the freedom limiting policies advanced by those filled with pride, envy, and hatred. The real solution to the world's economic problems is freedom - and freedom advances when a nation's people trust. It retreats when they are filled with pride, envy and hatred.

Give Us A King! (Faith in Government)

2008-12-26T06:05:00.000-08:00

In the time of Samuel the prophet, the people of Israel wanted a king like the nations that surrounded them (1 Sam 8). Samuel was utterly dismayed by this development. The people of Israel had no ruler, yet were prosperous. They had no king, yet were thriving in the promised land. God Himself was their King and led the people of Israel through His revelation to the prophets. Yet, this wasn't enough for them. The people of Israel still felt the uncertainties of life and were deceived into thinking that if they had a king like the surrounding nations, then maybe they wouldn't feel so insecure.

When Samuel inquired of God about this request, God responded by saying that it wasn't Samuel that was being rejected, but God. He instructed Samuel to first warn the Israelites about the dangers of having a king. Here was the warning given by Samuel (1 Sam 8):

vs 10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."

Simply put, God was warning them that when you request a powerful human government (in any form) to "go before you and fight your battles" that your wealth and your freedom will be consumed by that government and the security sought will ultimately not be found. In the end you will have nothing but the insecurity you were hoping to remedy.

However, God does not force people to trust Him, so He instructed Samuel to go to the tribe of Benjamin and select Saul as king over Israel. They got their King, and the Bible tells the sad story of the history of Israel under those kings.

I see many parallels to the request of Israel and the shift of the balance of power in the United States today. As a people/culture drift away from faith in God, they look elsewhere to find security. Humanity has always been bedeviled by the illusion of the physical. Israel rejected Christ because He spoke of a spiritual Kingdom - they wanted a physical one. We are beset by a desire to see with our eyes, touch with our hands, and hear with our ears the entity that we entrust with our lives. How often did ancient people make useless idols rather than trust in God? It has been a perpetual problem for humanity.

People are no different today, but rather than idols, they look to strong governments to provide for them. Unfortunately, the same warning given by God to Samuel holds true today. When you ask for a physical solution to a spiritual problem, your "solution" will consume all your wealth, take away your freedom, and leave you with nothing but misery. Mankind has never found a way around this problem.

Socialism, the generic term for the system that attempts to provide for people through strong government and central planning, fails time and time again. The ideas that comprise socialism have incredible staying power because of the same issue within the human heart - a desire to trust in something physical that you can see and understand.

Our society today screams out for a king. They are delusional in their adoration of Barack Obama. The love, excitement, and anticipation of what is possible with him as President reaches beyond delusion to the pathetic. Asking one man to provide for you is frankly insane. Governments are bureaucratic systems that are unresponsive to the needs of the people they "serve" while consuming vast amounts of their wealth and passing laws that restrict their choices. A sane mind wants as little government involvement possible. A sane mind recognizes that governmental power rests in the balance against individual rights - as government power increases, individual rights decrease. If a government has the "power" to do a given thing, you no longer have the "right" to choose an alternative. If you give the government the "power" to collect taxes, you lose the "right" to keep your money.

This loss of choice is the ultimate insecurity. You can no longer make decisions that are in your own best interest. The greatest threat to an individual's freedom, prosperity, and quality of life is the concentration of power into the hands of a few. When governments (or kingdoms, or dictatorships, or monarchys, etc) are not limited in their power, people suffer.

The founding of the United States of America is a study in people attempting to escape the ultimate insecurity of life under kings. People suffering under the hand of oppressive governments realized that security wasn't found by the hand of a powerful king. They came to the conclusion that the proper role of government is to preserve liberty, not provide security (in the sense of money, a home, a job, etc). The United States of America was founded to establish this principle of limited government and quickly became the greatest nation on earth because of it.

Faith is the only remedy for insecurity. What we see today is "faith" in government rather than Faith in God. Government cannot provide for you, cannot give you security, cannot solve your problems. It can only make your problems worse by stealing your freedom to resist its choices.

There is a role for government - to protect our freedom. The constitution lays it out beautifully. Those who seek from Government what they should be seeking from God are not only going to destroy themselves, they will destroy this nation in the process.

One Aspect of the Financial Crisis

2008-09-26T04:11:00.000-07:00

I've attached a great article below that shows just one aspect of the government meddling that caused the current financial crisis. In a nutshell, when someone can't pay their mortgage, the bank forecloses on the house - this prevents the bank from losing all their money and allows the person living in the house to move on to a place to live that they can afford. Not much is lost by the home owner, especially these days, because not much was put down. Essentially, they paid "rent" while they lived there - in the form of their mortgage to the bank and the small amount of money they put down.

When government; however, prevents the bank from quickly foreclosing on the house and instead wants to protect the "innocent" homeowner (who isn't paying his bills), the bank cannot put the house back onto the market and recoup its losses. This keeps the banks money tied up in houses that it can't unload.

This government policy causes two things to happen:

Banks can no longer afford to lend - that is why we have a "credit crisis". If banks can't secure the loan with the value of the home, they have greatly increased risk in making the loan. (Unless it is government backed, which fanny and freddy provided, which is why there was "irresponsible" lending.)
People have no incentive to pay their mortgage. If they get to keep the house when they decide not to pay, there is no reason (other than character and integrity) to pay their mortgage. Sure, many will pay in this scenerio, but many will not. Hence, irresponsible borrowers ride on the efforts of the responsible borrowers.

Halting foreclosures is bad economic policy and one important aspect of this crisis. We must get the government out of this industry! These bad policies distort the market in ways that encourage people to make irresponsible choices. Check out the following article.

-----------------------------------------------

The Libertarian: Greed, Or Incentives?

Richard Epstein 09.23.08, 12:01 AM ET

It had been my devout wish to write a set of disinterested columns about labor markets to illustrate the power of the presumption against state regulation of voluntary agreements. But the financial meltdown of the past week has rudely interrupted my plan to pillory the minimum wage.

Instead, I shall turn on a dime to address two connected questions: How did we get to that sorry state where great institutions topple, and what should be done?

On both questions, our bipartisan consensus is holding true to form. In a system that is chock-full of heavy regulation, they instantly blame the current collapse on the excesses of the free market, for which a still heavier dose of regulation supplies some supposed cure. That indictment contains few particulars. It typically rests on a populist broadside whose centerpiece is greed on Wall Street, but never on Main Street--where there are more voters.

This prior is all wrong. Greed is a constant of human nature. Financial meltdowns are not a constant of economic political life. It takes, therefore, an understanding of the overall incentive structure to explain why selfish economic behavior produces great progress on some occasions and financial ruination on others.

On this question, your stalwart libertarian is persona non grata in respectable company. If voluntary markets normally align private incentives with social welfare, then always look first for a government intervention that knocks those incentives off line. It’s not hard to find some culprits.

One bad move has government legislators and courts intervening to slow down mortgage foreclosures because it is socially unacceptable for people to lose their homes. Unpleasant yes, but unacceptable no. Start with this assumption: Individual tenants can be evicted at the termination of their lease. Only the ardent defenders of rent control (which has ruined New York City real estate markets) find this outcome is unacceptable. Everyone else rolls with the punches.

So what is the difference between the evicted tenant and the foreclosed owner? Only this: The owner has put a down payment on the house. But so what? Foreclosed homeowners typically made only small down payments, or even none at all. Treat their mortgage payments as lease payments, and bump up their amount a bit by dividing the down payment over the number of months before foreclosure. Not much of a financial difference between the tenant and the owner.

Yet once regulators slow down foreclosures, other potential homeowners are denied opportunities to purchase housing they can afford. The housing stock cannot recirculate. Banks that acquired this mortgage paper see their portfolios nosedive. That dicey paper, as William Isaac noted in last week’s Wall Street Journal, drives the entire economy over the edge by strict government regulations that require all financial institutions to “mark-to-market” the various instruments in their portfolio.

Unfortunately, there is no working market to mark this paper down to. To meet their bond covenants and their capital requirements, these firms have to sell their paper at distress prices that don’t reflect the upbeat fact that the anticipated income streams from this paper might well keep the firm afloat.

One bad regulatory turn leads to another, and lo, the bailouts come thick and fast. At the nth hour, wise heads often rightly conclude that some desperate measure has to be taken to prevent the financial disintegration brought on by, well, prior government regulation. Those bailouts, of course, come from the hides of taxpayers who borrowed prudently. The entire system subsidizes destructive behavior, which means that we will get more destructive behavior in the future. We might as well sell flood insurance at bargain prices in Galveston, Texas, and New Orleans.

The moral of this story is that bad regulation metastasizes. Short term heroics are no substitute for dispassionate deregulation, which won’t happen so long as our political leaders are fixated on greed. Taking steps to prevent financial meltdowns is more likely to hasten their unwelcome arrival, so says the libertarian.

Richard Epstein writes a weekly column for Forbes.com. He is a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution and a professor of law at the University of Chicago.

Is Conservation Good for Us?

2008-06-19T07:21:00.000-07:00

For years now we've been hearing an ever growing chorus about the need for conservation. Lately the cry for recycling, using less plastic, less water, less fuel, etc. is deafening. As the volume has increased, I have grown more and more uncomfortable with this whole idea of conservation. Something just didn't seem right about it.

Whenever "everyone" is saying something I start looking for the angle. I've come firmly to the conclusion over the years that the politically correct position always has a fallacy at its core. Political correctness is a technique used to pressure people into doing something they wouldn't do on their own or isn't in their best interest. So I've been searching for that fallacy in politically correct conservationism. Here is what I've realized.

At the core of the conservation argument is the idea that mankind harms the earth by the consumption necessary in everyday living. I have long been aware of the left's belief that humanity is a parasite on the earth. In their opinion, if it wasn't for mankind, the earth would be a beautiful, pristine place. You can see this premise on display in the History Channel's recent production "Life After People" or the National Geographic Channel's "Human Footprint."

There are two aspects this position. One, that we are raping the earth by harvesting natural resources and that two, we pollute the earth when we consume them. I contend that both premises are flawed.

Resources are product of humanity, not the earth. Sure, resources come from the earth, but they are useless to us until someone converts them to a useful form. Oil was an annoyance to land owners until a human being discovered it could be used for fuel and learned how to convert it into that useful form.

This is why the "population alarmists" have it all backwards. We need more people, not less. Humanity is the world's greatest resource. The greatest threat future western nation’s face is declining populations. None of them are reproducing and are no longer having children at replacement rates.

So why conserve oil? Oil has completely changed the quality of life for millions! It has done so in every way conceivable. Every aspect of our lives is better because of what the energy in oil is able to do for us. Here is the only reason I know of to conserve oil: you want to reduce the amount of money you spend on it. For me it is a purely financial decision. As far as I'm concerned, if you have decided that consuming energy is more valuable than the money in your pocket - then you must have determined that it will improve your life or the world around you to some degree more than the money was worth. Because consuming energy has a cost - it's use must have a tangible benefit to people or else they would save the money and use it for other purposes.

The critic of my position will no doubt say that people should use less because of the resulting pollution. (The other half of the "humans are destroying the earth" premise). I believe this premise is flawed as well. Pollution is not a product of consumption; it is a product of poverty. Prosperous, free people want to live in clean environments and they will pressure polluters using any means available (product boycotts, government action, picketing, etc) to clean up their act. Compare the environment in any free, prosperous country to any socialistic, non-free country. Athletes don't even want to compete in china due to the dirty air. Poor people care about eating - prosperous people care about everything else. PC Conservationism, if it had its way, would ultimately do more damage to the environment by spreading poverty.

When we decide to conserve, we're actually saying that we will deprive another human being the opportunity to provide us with that service or product. I don't think anyone wants the public to be pressured into not to buying their product. I don't want people to conserve when it comes to the services I provide. The price and your budget will force you to conserve appropriately. If you can afford something and have determined that your life would be better off if you had it/used it, then buy it - don't let the PC police deprive you and the seller of the benefit of the exchange.

PC conservationism shames people into avoiding consuming, which really just means, stop putting your fellow man to work. Furthermore, it demonizes the people and companies that transform the world from a wild and savage place into a comfortable and enjoyable place to be.

The beauty of the free market and freedom in general is that even the laziest man is required to serve his fellowman in order to provide for his basic needs. Our hunger drives us to serve our fellowman, and the needs of our fellowman that we are able to meet with our skills, energy, and resources provide the income that satisfies our hunger.

But if you have served your fellow man, made your money, then you should feel free to use that money in whatever way you see fit. I personally give a set percentage away, save a set percentage for the future, then use the rest to provide for my family's needs and bring pleasure to our lives. The consumption I engage in at that level is healthy and right. It puts people to work providing the services that I consume.

I am not going to be guilted by the PC Conservation Police to use some resource less than my finances allow based on their belief that I'm destroying the world.

Why Democrats Will Never Support Drilling

2008-06-19T06:15:00.000-07:00

Why do the democrats fight every single approach to lowering the price of energy? The cover of USA Today gives the answer in large bold print - "Drivers cut back by 30B miles." That in a nutshell is why you'll never find a democrat doing anything to lower the cost of driving. They don't care about what the poor pay for gas, they don't care how much high gas prices affect the price of everything else you need.

The democrats don't want you driving! They don't want you traveling! They don't want you to have a car! They don't want you buying airline tickets. Stay home. Plant some tomatoes or something.

Democrats want high energy prices. They think Americans use too much energy. They will do anything they can to drive the price up so that we get out of our cars. Their religion of global warming has convinced them that any normal human activity is destroying the environment. Since they haven't been able to convince the voters to let them ban travel entirely (like was done in the Soviet Union), they do an end-run on travel by making it so expensive that people voluntarily give up all but the most necessary travel. Democrats are celebrating because the high cost of fuel is finally causing Americans to get rid of their SUVs, causing them to take the train, causing them to get jobs closer to home, etc. They love the high price - and they love the result.

That is why every democrat solution to the high energy costs only raises energy costs. Gas prices are high - "we must pass a windfall profits tax on the oil companies!" Natural gas prices are skyrocketing - "keep our huge natural gas reserves off limits to drilling!" Electricity is more expensive than ever -"Just say No to Nuclear!" Food prices are out of this world - "We need more ethanol!" They actually use the anger over energy costs to gain the political support necessary to do more damage! And many Americans gullibly urge them on.

We actually don't have an energy crisis, we have a regulatory crisis. We've got enough energy for 150 years of abundant, cheap energy, right here in America - but our politicians have made it impossible to take advantage of it. The latest mantra is "We can't drill our way out of this energy crisis." As if saying the exactly wrong thing with conviction will make believers out of skeptics. Drilling is EXACTLY what we need to do. Energy is expensive because we don't have enough of it. This isn't complicated. In a free market, prices always move to bring into equilibrium supply and demand. Supply is low, demand is high - prices go up. We need more energy. We need to drill now. We need to build nuclear power plants.

Actually "We" don't need to do anything. These things will happen automatically if our politicians would just get out of the way! What "We" need to do is come down on the politicians until they cave in.

The thing that gets missed in all of this, by both the left and the right, is the benefit to humanity of mobility. People are willing to spend hundreds of dollars a month on their automobiles and fuel because there is GREAT, GREAT benefit in being mobile. You can drive to a job that is better than what you might be able to find within walking distance of your home. You can shop at a greater variety of stores - thereby increasing competition among those stores which increses quality and reduces price (if you are bound to the store within walking distance, they don't have to fight all that hard for your business). You can increase your business prospects, doing business with a greater circle of people. You have a wider range of dating options for the single person. A wider range of educational options. Automobile means self-movement -> Auto = self, mobile = movement. Self-movement changed America. It is good for us and our standard of living.

Aviation does the same thing nationally and globally. Shipping does the same thing with heavy materials. The ability to move ourselves and our things has done more to increase the standard of living in the western world than almost any other thing (telecommunications and effective currency are way up there too).

Mobility is ultimately about relationships. People need people. As we increase our circle of personal and business relationships - we gain access to the people who can solve the problems in our lives - whether by trading with them or talking to them. Mobility gives us access to these people.

Republicans should be standing up for freedom in the form of mobility. This is a defining issue and needs to be clearly articulated - but it is being missed unfortunately. The conservation debate is a false argument and we shouldn't be having it on their terms. Conservation is the new political correctness to end freedom of association.

Ultimately, that is what the energy debate is all about. Democrats have bought into the notion that normal human activity - people doing the things that make their lives better - destroys the earth. America was founded by people who wanted the freedom to do that which made life better. Democrats do not want us to have that freedom. And if they can't take it from you by fiat -they'll price freedom out of your reach.

The Mortgage Lending Crisis

2008-01-24T05:27:00.000-08:00

About two years ago I moved to Long Island. At that time everyone was talking about the sky high prices of homes. The typical 3 bedroom 2 bath house in livable condition started at about $400k. I needed a house, and the prices were daunting. I came to Long Island for a pretty good job with better pay than my previous job. I knew the prices would be a lot higher than Tulsa, where we had moved from, but wow! I had sold a nice house for $150k and would have to spend over $400k for less house. The pay increase felt more like a pay-cut.

I remember talking with a friend about the "outrageous" housing prices on Long Island. We had both recently heard a news story about how young men and women were moving away from Long Island after they graduated high school and college and had to move out of their parents homes. Until you make about $120k a year, its almost impossible to buy a house here. Older families were cashing out and moving to North Carolina - younger families were simply leaving in search of something they could afford.

People were angry in many cases that they couldn't afford their homes. I spoke with a fellow pilot about his circumstances - wife, 3 kids, and a house payment that was killing him. He wanted to blame someone for how high prices were and just didn't think it was fair.

Now the lament is exactly reversed. Housing prices are "crashing! The Government must do something!" But wait - 2 years ago we were all complaining about unaffordable housing - now we're upset that housing is becoming more affordable? One man's feast in this case is another man's famine. Before it was a crisis if you were a buyer, now its a crisis if you're an owner. Hey people, its not a crisis, its the way things work.

This highlights for me a sad underlying reality. Politicians will make a crisis out of every change that makes news. If the prices are high (or rising), the politician will blame someone, propose a "solution" that increases his power while burdening the taxpayer and creating dozens of unintended consequences that hurt us all. If the prices are low (or falling), the politician will blame someone, propose a "solution" that increases his power while burdening the taxpayer and creating dozens of unintended consequences that hurt us all. See a pattern here?

What saddens me most of all is the fact that this housing/mortgage "crisis" was created by government in the first place - one of the unintended consequences of political action intended to help the victim of a previous crisis. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was passed because some borrowers couldn't get home loans. They weren't credit worthy, lenders weren't willing to throw away their money. Politicians didn't think this was fair that some people could get home loans and others couldn't. So they forced banks to extend loans to a broader customer base - now people could get loans who shouldn't have had them.

This worked okay for many years because housing prices were generally increasing. Then memories faded of the risks associated with taking huge loans and lenders and borrowers alike went crazy. Principle only loans, balloon loans, ARMS coupled with huge profits with house flipping, etc - and everyone lost touch with reality. "Hey, its a party, come on in, nothing can go wrong!"

We are reminded again that there is no free lunch. Buyers could only hang in there for so long and eventually people stopped buying. Remember - high prices are meant to do that - discourage buying when supplies become limited. So the market corrected. Prices are coming back to a more affordable level, lenders are "remembering" what they knew so well before - that some people don't pay back their loans and consequently shouldn't get loans.

Ah, but what about the politician? This is his big chance to do something. "People are hurting out there! They need help!" So now they want to violate the contracts that lenders signed with borrowers and force the lenders to be more "forgiving." Isn't losing billions to bad loans "forgiving" enough? A primary moral function of government is to enforce contracts between parties - but like so many other principles that modern politicians have abandoned - they are doing the opposite of the moral function of government.

We now hear talk of stimulus packages and bailouts. Senator Chris Dodd wants the government to buy up the bad loans. Senator Clinton wants government to take a more active role to "prevent excesses of the market." Wow! The unintended consequences of government action at this time will be painful - possibly devestating. It might not be immediate, but you can bet in the long run it will hurt the very people it was intended to help - and the rest of us even more.

Why I'm Against Government Run Health Care

2007-12-07T07:04:00.000-08:00

The big debate this election cycle will probably be over government run health care (or nationalized health insurance, etc). The tag lines will be about our lack of compassion for those that can't pay, about health care as a right, about how in other countries people don't have to worry about health care like they do in America. And those in America who do want to help their fellow man, who do want to help the "little guy", who do think that health care is too expensive, might very well get caught up in those lines of thought and give the government the authority to take over this sector of the economy.

Here are several reasons why I think it would be a big mistake to nationalize health care.

1) Quality and Costs: In every area that government gets involved, costs always skyrocket and quality always decreases. It is axiomatic, for one very well established reason - government doesn't have to compete. Competition is the force that drives excellence and reduces cost in our world. People work only as hard as they must in order to get by. It isn't necessarily laziness, its just natural, we want to spend time with our family, take care of the house, go to the beach and enjoy life - competition requires us to work before we can play. Our survival depends on getting up and going to work - and doing a good job while we're there. If we don't "bring it", somebody else will.

Not so in government. If they do a poor job at something, there are typically calls for increased funding, rather than the lost business that the rest of us have to face when we do our jobs poorly. Due to the fact that there is no competition trying to take the "government's" business away - the government doesn't have to do it better or at a better price, so the quality always goes down and the cost always goes up.

You might say - "I don't care if costs go up if I'm not having to pay for it." Well someone has to pay for it. Now you'll have to pay for it through taxes that will have to go up and up and up. The politicians will sell you an "illusion." They will convince you that you don't have to pay for it, then increase your taxes to cover the system that they create. And the system they create will cost more, offer you less, and you won't have any say in it! Don't fall for the "illusion."

2) Innovation Ceases - As a company tries to get ahead of its competition, it continually looks for ways to bring new products and services to the market. As a result, a steady stream of new innovations flow from the companies that provide health care technology, medicines, and services. The desire for profit drives new innovations. Profit is the magnet for human innovation. Remove the profit = remove the innovation.

One of the benefits that socialized medicine in other countries have is that they still have access to medical innovations coming out of the United States and other countries that are not socialized. If America socializes its health care system and removes the incentives to innovate that profit provides, the world will lose its source of medical innovation. They will no longer be able to depend on our system to provide breakthrough technologies - and neither will we. We will have effectively killed the goose that lays the golden eggs.

What is so sad about this fact is that it won't even be noticed. You don't miss what never existed.

Furthermore, when business men and women see that they can no longer succeed financially in the health care industry, they'll take their talents elsewhere. That means fewer qualified doctors, nurses, and others. Politicians will insist that doctors are overpaid and reduce their incomes to a "fair" wage. So the only doctors will be the remaining losers that couldn't make it in other fields. Then you'll have to deal with the bureaucratic gatekeeper to the health care system and the under qualified "doctor" who was satisfied with a "living" wage. The types who make great doctors will have moved on to fields that appreciate (and pay for) their talents.

3) The System Becomes Bureaucratic - Ever notice the difference between a car insurance company and the DMV? You need them both in order to drive your car - but one of them serves you in 15 minutes over the phone and the other one requires you to go to their office, sit for two hours until your number is called, fill out 4 or 5 forms, bring the required paperwork or they will send you away, pay taxes and fees that you can't negotiate, and deal with a sour state worker who wishes you weren't there.

I confess, most doctors offices are more like the DMV than Gieco, but that is due to excessive government interference already. Do you want more of that? Do you want getting a troublesome mole looked at to become like dealing with the IRS? Is that worth it for the "illusion" of not having to pay for it.

I can imagine a bumper sticker that says, "Health Care - brought to you by the people that brought you the IRS, FEMA, the DMV, and the INS"

4) Service Mentality Disappears - When I meet a potential client in my business, I'm genuinely glad they are there and considering using my services. Its a great opportunity for me when I speak to a new client, so I am on the ball, and using every resource at my disposal to figure out ways that I can meet their needs. I feel the same concern for my needs when I walk into other people's businesses. I know, sometimes you deal with employees who don't share their employers enthusiasm, but you can bet - if the owner was there, he would correct that, and does.

Why do we show such concern for our customers? Because they don't have to be there - they are free to walk away if you don't value them. Not so with a government agency. You might decide you don't feel like using Gieco and instead want to go with State Farm or Progressive. Every company knows this and does their best to keep you. But the DMV isn't worried about losing you. You can't go anywhere else. If you don't put up with their crap, you don't drive on "their" streets.

They don't care if you're there. Matter of fact, most of their employees wish you weren't so they could check email or something. You need them - they don't need you. Gieco needs you, so does State Farm and Progressive, so they act like it - they serve you. The DMV never will .

I want a health care system that wants to serve me. A government run system never will.

5) Choice Is Lost - As in any other government run system, the bureaucrats tell you what to do, how to do it, when to do it, and then make you pay for it. A socialized health care system will be one with lots of requirements and lots of prohibitions - no freedom of choice. They will choose a doctor for you and tell you when you can go see him/her. They will tell you what procedures you are eligible for - and if you don't like it - tough. Oh yeah, and forget about a second opinion - the first appointment took you 2 months to get, there will be neither the capacity or the interest in "allowing" you (yeah, "THEY" have to "ALLOW" you) to visit multiple doctors for additional opinions.

6) Freedom is Lost - If the government has to pay for your health, then the government has a stake in how you live. If your behavior can cost the government money, then they will have a "right" to control your behavior. You'll be glad when they tell everyone they can't smoke, and maybe you'll say, "hey, its the right thing" when they forbid certain kinds of fat, you'll be less excited about it when they tell Americans they can't eat dessert, you'll be pissed off when they require everyone to exercise a certain amount each day. I know it sounds far fetched - but 50 years ago nobody thought the government would tell them they couldn't smoke in their own homes/cars/restaurants. It is a slippery slope, and if they're paying for it, they'll tell you how to eat, work, live, etc - all in the name of saving money for the tax payer.

So please think twice about supporting a candidate who stumps for nationalized health care. You won't get it for nothing. As great as saving a few hundred dollars a month sounds, it's just an illusion and one that will destroy the system we have.

The Real Cost of Global Warming Hysteria

2007-10-11T06:54:00.000-07:00

This kind of stuff just infuriates me! The SoilAssociation, a European group that certifies food as organic is considering removing the organic certification from foods shipped by air. (Read Article Here) Their rationale is that food shipped by air creates more carbon emmissions than food shipped by other means, I guess they mean food carried on a donkey.

The unintended side effect of this BS is the potential loss of a market for thousands of African farmers who are slowly making their way out of extreme poverty by growing organic fruits and vegetables (typically without making any carbon emmissions!).

The reason this makes me angry is that is an example of how real people get harmed by liberal BS. Global warming hysteria has one ultimate effect - reducing the quality of life and the standard of living of human beings. Environmentalists are motivated by one underlying principle - they believe mankind is a parasite on the earth. Consequently, their politics, policies, and ideas all serve to reduce mankind's access to the things that improve their lives.

Broad markets improve lives. The fact that an African farmer can sell his goods in far off lands means he can reach customers that don't exist locally. It also means that people who desire inexpensive organic products can find them right in their neighborhood, even if they were shipped from thousands of miles away. Both groups benefitted, so did the companies who shipped the products. So do all of the places where all of these groups spend the money they made. So many people benefit from this kind of exchange.

But liberal environmentalists want to hurt everyone involved in this free exchange. They hurt the customer who will no longer be able to buy the products they want at a good price. They hurt the companies who were shipping these organic products by air. They hurt most of all the African farmer who no longer has a market for his produce.

Real people get hurt by liberal scaremongering. Please do your part to end this global warming hysteria - tell the truth to a neighbor today.

Achieving Success

2007-07-25T14:44:00.000-07:00

I heard a caller on a radio show ask this question yesterday, "So what's so wrong with socialism anyway." He made a few mindless points about taking care of people and the usual bash against successful people. As the host answered the caller, I thought of about 20 things that are "so wrong" with socialism. One thought I had related to the achievement of success.

In a free market or free enterprise system (especially one that has minimal governmental interference) those that best take care of their fellow man rise to the top. A free market system requires people to look out for the needs of others. It is a merit based system - meaning, if you are good at what you do, then you succeed. Another aspect of success though, is that your success must be recognized by others as measured by their desire to buy whatever service or product that you offer in your business.

In a free market system we all sell something. I'm a pilot, I sell my skill as a pilot to the company that employs me. My wife is a receptionist, she sells her time and diligence to her employer. My product is my knowledge, experience, skill, character, attitude, and time. On each of these attributes my employer measures my worth and decides whether or not he is receiving value from my position within his company. If the value is below what he requires and he determines that a different employee with different skills, attitude, etc would provide a higher return, then he'll replace me with that person.

Free market systems are voluntary. Every exchange is based on choice. I choose from whom I will buy. And other's choose whether or not they will buy from me. As a result, my manners and approach to those I serve must meet with their approval. I must work hard for them, be kind to them, make it easy for them - or they will go somewhere else.

All of us are required to take care of others if we want to succeed. If I don't take care of my employer he lets me go, if a business doesn't take care of its customers they shop somewhere else. In the amazing free market system a person may only consume in direct proportion to what they produce. A productive person pleases many people, makes a lot of money, and may therefore buy more for himself from others. He has met the needs of many and may therefore purchase the time, talent, and property of others in greater proportion than a person who has not met the needs of many. It is an immensely fair and balanced system.

The socialistic system is not this way - in fact, it is exactly opposite.

A socialistic system requires "pull". To achieve success in a socialistic system you have to know people who can help you get what you want. Governmental systems by their very nature are coercive. That means, anything that a government decides to do it will accomplish by force - people do not have the freedom to go elsewhere for the services required from government. If you want a license plate, you go to the DMV, there is no other way. If you want to drive on a highway, you go the speed they tell you, break the speed limit and you'll face a fine or go to jail. Want to fly a plane somewhere, you'll be dealing with governmentally run Air Traffic Control - you don't have the choice to use another "service provider."

Since socialistic systems are not voluntary and people have no choice about dealing with them, merit is not the means of obtaining success.

Our governmental system has become socialistic. Rather than preserving liberty which is the moral and proper function of government, our government has gotten into the entitlement business. They give gifts - why? Because that is how you succeed in government. The politician achieves success by offering goods and services to his constituents. Unfortunately, the goods and services that he "gives" away are coercively taken away from others. I say coercively because if you refuse to pay taxes, you'll go to jail at the point of a gun - that's coercion.

Socialism takes from one person and gives to another. The person who succeeds in a socialistic system has learned how to take the most from some people and give the most to others. The person who receives from government has learned how to get his name on the Pay To line of a government check, and it most cases it wasn't by providing a better service to his fellow man.

The more socialism advances, the more manipulation and exploitation of people is required to hold the system together. To be the successful socialist requires great skill in the manipulation and exploitation of people.

Free enterprise and socialism are fundamentally different. The difference lies in the fact that free enterprise systems are voluntary and socialistic systems are coercive. The end result is that free enterprise systems turn the hearts of men outward, towards others in a search for needs that other's have that they can fill. Success in a free market system requires personal development in ways that meets the needs of others. In socialistic systems, the heart of man turns inward, to look for ways to deceive their fellow man and exploit him. The socialistic system depends on who you know rather than who you serve.

Achievement in one system makes us take care of our fellow man, achievement in the other causes us to exploit him.

So to answer the caller, that is one major things "wrong" with socialism.

Religious Legalism

2007-03-10T07:36:00.000-08:00

I've had a few conversations over the last few months with "legalistic" Christians. This is often a frustrating endeavor for me. I honestly don't know how to reach them. I see these people as fundamentally unhappy and deep-down I see in them an anger towards God rather than a trust in His love for them and His desire to bring good into their lives.

I came across a blog I had written awhile back in which I made the point that life is about relationship, not religion. The second half of that blog discusses legalism. I'm copying that portion into this posting just to revisit the issue:

---------------

If we are in a relationship with God and commune with Him via the Holy Spirit (our spirit relating/connecting to His Spirit) we will be lead into right behavior. Jesus Christ set me free from the worry of sin, from the condemnation, from the fear. Now I walk with Him. I try things, I make mistakes (which includes sin), I fall, the Holy Spirit speaks to me, I learn, and I grow. It is by living that we become the men and women God wants us to be. Its partly by failing that I grow in my sensitivity to the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

So does God want us to sin? Absolutely not. The wages of sin is death. It hurts us dreadfully to sin. But God wants us to be able to let it go and move on. He wants to lead us out of sin as we commune with Him in a love relationship - not because we are fearful of hell or the criticism of fellow Christians. God wants to teach us to avoid sin because it is an assault on the relationship He has with us and because it is an assault on life itself. God has good plans for us and sin prevents Him from leading us into that blessing. Sin is the choice to do something our way, contrary to the leadership of God. God is the author of life and knows what it takes to provide for life. Sin produces death because it is contrary to God and to His wisdom. Follow God and live - that message is everywhere in the bible.

We often sin because we hurt. All people need love, acceptance, and leadership. God promises to meet all of those needs through the Sprit - He is our comfort (love), provides fellowship (acceptance), and offers counsel (leadership). When we connect with God, we can receive all of these things and be made whole. Our hearts can be filled, so to speak. When we are disconnected from God, our hearts become empty. It's at this time that we often turn to sin as a remedy for the pain of an empty heart. Only the love of God can fill an empty heart. Sin is man's attempt to fill his own heart; to find a little relief; to escape the pain of life. As we grow in our relationship with God, we learn how to recognize when we are disconnected from God by the desire for sin that sometimes rises within. We can sense our own "heart level" and use that nudge to step back into fellowship with God.

So why did Israel have the law? The bible says in Gal 3:19 that it was "added because of transgressions till the Seed should come." And in verse 24 that it "was our tutor to bring us to Christ." Like a child needs rules and laws provided by the parents for protection - Israel needed those laws because they had very little love for God and weren't interested in pursuing a relationship with Him. God made a promise to Abraham (Gen 22:18) that He intended to keep. Specifically, God promised that from Abraham's descendents a savior would come that would bless the entire world. Israel was the promised vessel through which Jesus Christ would come. If Israel didn't follow God, like so many other ancient nations, they would cease to exist. God gave them the law to protect them and hence His ability to keep His promise to Abraham. He didn't give the law to other nations and He doesn't give the law to us. The law was not God's wish - it was added because of Israel's sin. God has no love for the law. The law had a purpose; that purpose has been fulfilled - Christ has come.

Focusing on the sin is legalism - and legalism kills. Here are 6 serious problems with legalism.

1) A legalistic person has a relationship with rules rather than a relationship with God.
2) Legalism produces a sense of self-righteousness in the person who follows the rules. Fake holiness. A self-righteousness that keeps them from seeing their need for God. Remember the pharisees? They had no love for God because they were convinced of their righteousness.
3) Legalism produces self-condemnation in those who recognize their own inability to obey consistently. "I'll never be able to do this!" People give up and leave Christianity in their hopelessness.
4) Since the heart is still empty, a legalist is tempted to think that there might be relief in that which is forbidden. People begin to think, "I'm so unhappy, but those people sure seem to be having a good time. Maybe I'll try what they're doing." For that person, the remedy for the emptiness must be sin. The legalist is drawn to sin by his own desperation for peace within his heart.
5) Legalism makes Christianity look unappealing to the lost; like a bunch of boring people trying to be good. Who wants that?
6) Legalism prevents people from learning to listen to the Holy Spirit and recognize when they are disconnected from God and how to reconnect. It puts them in a state of spiritual blindness.

Our job on earth is to reach the lost. Legalism prevents us from doing so and focuses us on the sin of others rather than on ways to love them. Commenting or pointing out the sin of others never led them to Christ. Its love that draws people, not condemnation, not the fear of hell. Have a relationship with someone, find out what moves them, get interested in that. If you want to save them - love them. The Holy Spirit is already convicting them of their sin and you'll have opportunities to teach them as they grow in their relationship with God and learn to listen to the Holy Spirit. We are called to exhort, edify, and comfort (1 Cor 14:3) - not criticize.

Legalism steals the life that God intended for us to have. He wants us to live wonderful lives. Full of joy and blessing. He wants us to fully enjoy the kingdom of God. A great deal of Christians today are nothing more than modern day pharisees.

So, again I quote Jesus from the book of Luke:

So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’” (10:27)

The PC Police vs Coulter

2007-03-06T07:11:00.000-08:00

The thing that is so funny about everyone's concern about Coulter's comments is that it proves her point. Her point was that you can't say "faggot" without the left freaking out so outrageously that the only escape from the firestorm is to check into rehab. She was simply observing and commenting on the "pc police" and their totalitarian control over American speech - and her comments caused those same pc police to come out in force!

The same thing is true about her comments about the "Jersey Girls." Her point then was that the left uses people that you can't criticize to go out and be their spokesmen. As soon as she criticized the Jersey Girls for their stand, the left did exactly what she said - denounced her for criticizing their "uncriticizable" spokesman.

Besides, no one really cares about her comments - they care about the opportunity to silence her. They see this brouhaha as the chance to turn conservatives against her. The liberals already hate her and if the pc police can't silence her maybe they can pressure conservatives into rejecting her. I think the pc police LOVE it when someone on the right uses a forbidden phrase - now they have a target.

The left calls people who come out of the closet as "brave." I think it takes a lot more bravery to challenge the left's pc police and endure the firestorm that erupts as a result.

Suspending Economic Realities

2007-02-23T07:15:00.000-08:00

Thomas Sowell has been writing a super series about prices called Priceless Politics. In this series he emphasizes that politicians have for thousands of years tried to gain power by promising constituents that in exchange for their vote, the politician will overcome the underlying economic realities that prevent people from buying more than they can afford.

Economics is the study of how people with unlimited desires for stuff balance the acquisition of that stuff given that there isn't enough stuff for everyone to have as much as they want. It is the study of the relationship between unlimited wants and limited resources.

Prices are the mechanism that balance the two sides. Prices help people decide how they will use their limited resources to meet their limitless desires. I might want a new car more than I want a used one, but the difference in price forces me to choose wisely due to the fact that I also have to pay for groceries and the mortgage. A used car leaves enough resources in my budget that I can continue to pay my other bills.

One of Sowell's best sentences was this: "Prices force you to limit your claims on what other people have produced to the value of what you have produced for other people."

I love it! That is such a great statement. It is the essense of fairness! The liberals might tell us that it is not fair that a rich guy can buy whatever he wants (which isn't true) and that poor people can't. Fairness is being able to purchase from other people no more than you have produced for other people. Rich people are very productive (at least in a free market system), and poor people are not productive. Many people find the services of the rich to be a necessity in their lives and therefore pay them a great amount to obtain those services. Poor people have not made themselves or their services valuable to anyone, and therefore do not receive much income from others.

This is the essence of fairness. I also believe that it is the essence of morality. All people are called to serve their fellow man, especially in the Christian faith, but in many religions service to others is highly regarded. Only in the free market system is service to others (as recognized and chosen by them) required.

The politician is in the business of buying votes by promising gullible people that he can outsmart these economic principles. He thinks that by holding prices down for rents, or medical care, or food, or gas or by holding prices up in the case of minimum wage laws, that somehow the economic realities can be suspended. Unfortunately, wants are still unlimited and resources are still limited. The politician cannot suspend this fact. But he can get elected by promising to try. He still gets what he wants, and the rest of us have to live with the mess that results.

The sad consequence is this: by virtue of his meddling, the politician just distorted the transparent and fair mechanism of price and now some other mechanism must replace it - because there are more people who want the stuff and not enough stuff to go around. Maybe it will be long lines, maybe it will be bribes, maybe it will be "networking" (you have to know someone to get what you want), maybe it will be theft - but it will have to be something because their ain't enough stuff to go around!

Prices serve to equalize the supply of stuff and the demand for stuff. Politician intervention destroys the equalization. Prices are a fair and moral way of regulating the distribution of goods and services. Anything else is unfair and immoral.

Universal Health Care

2007-02-18T04:14:00.000-08:00

All people should have access to health care. All people should have access to whatever it is that they want or need. If they want food, they should be able to have it. If they want furniture, they should be able to have it. If they want a car, they should be able to have it. If they want a TV, they should be able to have it.

In America today we have people advocating socialized, universal health care. "Health care should be a right." Again, I believe that everyone should have access to health care, but socialized universal health care would be a complete disaster, and here's why.

A government bureaucracy is the least effective way to stimulate innovation. As a matter of fact, you could almost say that bureaucracy does only one thing well - stifle innovation. Innovation, and the resulting excellence and value that comes from innovation spring from one thing - the desire for profit. Profit is the magnet for human innovation. Where there is an opportunity to make money, people will come in droves trying to figure out a way to "harvest" that profit opportunity.

The recent housing boom is a good example of that. Over the last few years, housing prices were going up rapidly. In the major markets like the east and west coast, people couldn't think about a house for more than 10 minutes because someone else would snatch it up. Houses sold immediately because they were in such short supply. People started flipping houses, builders went on a building spree, and in a fairly short time we went from a housing shortage to a housing glut. The high prices encouraged lots of people to seek the profit that could be made there, increasing the innovation and supply within the housing market.

Government bureaucracy contains no profit opportunity (except for the politician) and therefore has no innovation. Bureaucracy creates mediocrity, free markets create excellence. When you buy a car, you can get car insurance with a "15 minute call to Gieko." Then turn around to register that car, and you spend several hours at the DMV. Is registering a car inherently more complex than insuring it? No, it should be much simpler - but car insurance is provided by private companies that have to compete for your business while the DMV is a state bureaucracy. The DMV can't lose your business - because the government gives you no other options! Fail to register your car and you'll pay the price! The bureaucracy has no incentive to improve. Consequently, you sit in line for hours, then approach the person behind the counter who is sour and wishes they didn't have to be there and points out all the things you filled out wrong on your paperwork and then tells you to come back another day with your passport (oh, new security procedures).

The free market has produced such entertainment wonders as the Ipod - an amazing collection of super sophisticated technologies giving each person total control over their personal entertainment. Download whatever song you want, nearly for free, and take it, along with thousands of other songs and videos in your pocket to be enjoyed whenever you choose. People want control over their entertainment, almost miraculously, the free market provided it!

The free market has provided Americans with access to a mind boggling array of products at amazingly low prices. You can have your two cars, a TV in every room, your ipod, a laptop computer, a cell phone, and still have enough money left over to pay $100 a month for cable and internet. That is amazing! Freedom, free markets, and free enterprise make nearly any human desire a reality. If you want it, the free market will provide it, and over time will provide it at continuously decreasing prices.

However, and this is a big however, whenever government gets involved, costs go up. Government gets in the way of free markets on so, so many levels. Like I said, bureaucracies exist to stifle innovation. The greater the government involvement, the less innovative the industry and the higher the cost of the product that industry provides.

So why can't health care give such an amazing array of options at such great prices? Because government involvement has permeated the industry so much that costs can longer be contained. Few of the normal market forces that usually exist to drive supply and ensure conservation exist within the health care industry. Moreover, political forces are seeking to drive the remaining free market forces out entirely - in the form of socialized medicine.

Take the government regulation off the health care industry and you'll see that every American does in fact have access to affordable health care, just like he has access to everything else he wants. Conversely, continue down the road we're on to socialized medicine and you'll find that it won't matter how "free" health care is, because you'll die while waiting the months it takes to get an appointment with a lousy doctor.

What is a lie?

2006-12-28T14:25:00.000-08:00

I had a great conversation with a friend the other day and we talked about lying. They were having a little relationship difficulty and one issue centered around a lie that had been told. As we discussed the ins and outs of lies, white lies, big lies, little lies, etc., this became clear to me:

A lie is an attempt to manipulate someone into doing something in accordance with your wishes when if they knew the truth they probably would not.

In essence, I see a lie as an attempt to manipulate another into doing something that is not in their best interest.

If you've read other entries in my blog, you know that one of my primary themes is freedom. I believe in freedom. I believe that God values our freedom. I believe freedom is very important in human relationships and in nearly every other aspect of life.

When we are free, we are able to do what is in our best interest. I add to that this caveat: our freedom should not take away the freedom of others to do what is in their best interest. I believe that God designed the world in such a way that things work best when people do what's in their best interest while at the same time respecting the freedom of others. Essentially the golden rule: "treat others as you would like to be treated."

Occasionally our interests conflict with the interests of others. I believe it is at this point that we are offered the temptation to lie.

Sometimes we want something very badly; however, we know that those around us may not want the same thing. I think we know when another will not want what we want. We know, like an innate sense, when it isn't in their best interest. When we suspect that another person does not want what we want, we have to choose at that point to press on and try to get it anyway, or back off. Its in our nature to try to get what we want and therefore we limit the information another has or in some way "frame" things so that the other person will "see" what we want them to see. We manipulate; we lie.

Quality human relationships are based on the truth and both parties are free to act as they see best. We enter into relationships with others because we see something of value in that person. We choose to have a relationship with another person because we believe that in some way we will be better off having known that person. Relationships are based on a mutual benefit. This applies to marriages, families, business, friendships, you name it. We have relationships that will in some way benefit us. I don't believe that this is an evil characteristic. Even when we help the poor or serve in a ministry to others, we benefit from that relationship. Service to others has its own rewards.

Lying takes the benefit away from the other person. We still want to benefit, but our lie prevents the other person from being able to benefit. If we want to have quality relationships, we've got to decide that we value their desires as much as we value ours. If we don't do this, the relationship will be shallow and short lived. So in the end, it's actually in our own best interest to seek the best interest of others!

Lying actually undermines our own interests by removing another's reason for being in the relationship and thus - robbing us of the benefit of that relationship. Lying is stealing - and people will not put up with that for long. If you lie enough to another person, they will know they are being taken advantage of and leave the relationship.

Oh - I can already hear the naysayers - "What about the little white lies? If my wife says, 'does this make look fat?' I can't say yes or I'll be in trouble!" There are plenty of good answers to that question. If it does make her look fat, how about saying, "yes" for starters. If she is not attractive in a particular outfit, telling her that she is attractive is not helping her.

People trust truth tellers! If you don't want to tell someone the truth, don't say anything. People don't need to know everything you're thinking. But when you speak, speak the truth - it may not always appear on the surface to be the "nicest" thing to do, but by doing so you are always preserving the right of others to decide for themselves what is best for them. They may or may not like hearing what you have to say, but once you've said it, they now have the option of responding to it in a way that is best for them. People around you will know that they are safer being around you, as a truth teller, then around the "nice" person who lies.

It's Not About the Temperature

2006-12-25T07:29:00.000-08:00

Global warming, global cooling, and every other environmental concern has but one end in mind - to stop the advance of mankind.

Liberals, without understanding what they profess, are filled with anger toward mankind and consider people a cancer on the earth. They will advance any cause that hurts humanity. They are for the reduction of population on the earth. They don't care about quality of life for the masses (which requires energy). They hate all who succeed and all who improve the quality of life for others - hence, they hate the corporations that work to give us the products we need for living (homes, automobiles, food, fuel, clothing). They hate freedom and free markets because freedom makes life worth living. They are ideologically aligned with terrorists (without realizing it) because they both hate America and the good that America brings to the world.

Environmentalism, and every other issue held dear by the left, is merely a vehicle to destroy the quality of life for as many people as possible. It is vital for us to understand why they choose the battles they choose. Why environmentalism? Why smoking? Why abortion? Why homosexuality? These are the issues that gain them the most ground, the issues that have powerfully seductive messages and at the same time do great damage to the quality of life for millions.

Consider the messages: Environmentalists say that they are concerned about the planet on which we all live. Who can disagree with wanting clean water, beautiful mountain views, the survival of endangered species? The anti-smoking lobby wins converts by claiming that second hand smoke kills even the person who doesn't smoke (and of course, the children). We want to protect innocent children don't we? We must allow legal abortion to save the innocent girl who got raped and would otherwise die at the hand of a back-alley abortionist. Homosexuality: who can be against two people loving one another? Doesn't the world need more love, not hate?

The average person, who just wants to stay out of trouble and live a peaceful life is seduced by these arguments. The truth of each debate is more challenging to understand and requires more than a sound-bite to articulate. Most people aren't willing to put in the energy required to really understand the issues. These people want what is best for society and are convinced by these seductive arguments to support causes that actually bring harm to many people.

Each one of these issues is strategic. Environmentalism is powerful in its political ability to reduce man's access to energy, to resources, to land, and to use his own property. Each one of these things is necessary for a person to provide for his family and to increase his quality of life. Global warming is about limiting man's access to energy and destroying all the good that energy brings to our quality of life. Enough people are worried about "global warming" to give governments around the world the power to destroy their freedom, their prosperity, their quality of life. We are now reaching the point where merely saying that you don't believe the earth is warming is like saying that the earth is flat - watch out for witch trials next.

Its not about the warming! If it was, liberals would be all in favor of nuclear energy - which they are not. They are in favor of no energy. They don't want to develop domestic energy sources. The only reason they clamor for alternative energy sources is because at this point in time, being for alternative energy is a way of being against oil companies - which we should be supporting. Energy is necessary for living. It is the resource we need to do our jobs, power our homes, feed ourselves, communicate. If it is worthwhile, it requires energy. Simply enjoying a book of poetry required the energy to print and transport the book. People who care about people should be actively searching for ways to support the companies that turn natural resources into energy. Liberals don't do this - they hate the energy companies and will do everything in their power to prevent them from providing inexpensive energy.

Smoking is similar: enough people dislike the smell of smoke that they give away their freedom to government officials who promise them smoke free environments. "I don't smoke so I don't care if the government prevents my neighbor from smoking." We will allow politicians to tell restaurant owners they can't allow smoking on their private property. Once we get comfortable giving away that freedom, other freedoms won't be far behind. The smoking issue is a lever - a lever to move a nation away from freedom towards socialism. Freedom is the issue, not smoking.

Consider the war on terror. Why is the left so opposed to any attempt Bush makes to keep America safe? It isn't about the mistakes he has made. It isn't about weapons of mass destruction. All the liberals believed exactly what Bush did about weapons of mass destruction before the war in Iraq. But Bush is succeeding in advancing freedom in the middle east, and freedom is the only thing that will help them there. Terrorists and radical Islam are full of hatred towards America. Why? We've done nothing to harm them, but yet they hate us with all they have. We are the target of their hatred because we succeed in making life worth living. We spread freedom around the world, we help others in need, we are prosperous, we enjoy living our lives. The terrorists hate that about us - so do the liberals.

Why is it that the left secretly hates the military? Because it is one of the few proper and moral responsibilities of a limited government. So is a police force. One protects our liberty from outside invasion. One protects our liberty from inside criminal activity. Liberals hate them both. If it is a proper and moral function of government, you can bet liberals will stand against it. Did you notice the thousands that marched in protest of the police in New York in December? Both the military and the police protect liberty. Although they don't realize it, liberals support any cause that harms liberty and oppose any cause that helps it. Liberty is mankind's surest foundation for success, prosperity, and quality of life - and that is why it is opposed.

What the issue comes down to - at its deepest level - is hatred for humanity. Liberals are angry, bitter people, full of hatred towards God and the good God desires for all people. The issues liberals hold dear are those that will do the most harm to the most number of people.

Hurray! 300 Million!

2006-10-18T06:41:00.000-07:00

I don't think of myself as a contrarian, but lately I find myself disagreeing with the mainstream on nearly everything. Here is another one: "300 Million Reasons For Concern." The "wise" people at the Washington Post are concerned about the number of people in the world. This actually makes me sad because the thinking is so flawed.

Let me start by saying this - people are a good thing. Remember when God finished creating Adam and Eve He said, "and saw that it was good." We are made in the image of God and our existence is a good thing. After creating man and woman God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it." (Gen 1:28) That was the first thing God ever said to mankind. God wanted us to fill the earth with people!

This concern reveals something about the person who is concerned about population growth - they actually don't like people. Sure - they don't want to see their friends and family removed from the earth, but they're more than happy to see most other people's friends and family removed from the earth. This is a violent and hateful perspective.

Where does this perspective come from? If God thinks people are a good thing and wants to see them fill the earth who would want to see them destroyed? Enemies of God.

God's enemy hates God and hates His creation. And if God loves His people as His crowning achievement, you can bet that God's enemy will hate that good thing and seek to destroy it. And that's what's going on - the devil hates humanity and hates to see the good that comes as a result of our existence.

Why do you think God wanted to fill the earth with people? I think that the answer is powerful and a beautiful revelation of the awesome character of God. I've said before that God loves our prosperity and wants us to live happy, healthy, comfortable lives. He wants good for the people that He has created - He does not desire squalor or misery for any of us. Would you want those kinds of miseries for any of your children? Of course not - we want good for our children, God wants good for His.

The short answer to why God wants to fill the earth is that we need each other to help make our lives better. Ask the people who want to limit population who they want to see removed. Of course not their friends and family, but what about their grocer? They need that guy for food. What about the guy that built their house? The kind of needed him too, so lets not kill him. What about the guy that built their car, or their computer, or their TV, or their hospital, or the people that created all the technological innovations that keep them healthy? They need those people too. Better not reduce population with any of those people.

Maybe we could get rid of the other grocers though, do we need so many? Well, if we didn't have so many prices sure would be a lot higher. Lots of people create lots of innovation, competition, and growth. The point is, each person brings something to this world that makes it better for others. All lives are important. (except for maybe the Washtington Post writer who wants to end the lives of others).

I've talked about wealth a time or two in this blog. Many people think of wealth as a lot of money, or something to that effect. The real source of wealth is the human spirit. It is the desire to experience something better and the innovation that flows from that. When a person gets up each day and goes to work, he succeeds by satisfying the needs of others. In this world, real success comes from taking care of your fellow man. And the more people that exist, the better things will be for each of us. Wealth is the product of the mind of man.

Resources are not limited by space or the capacity of the earth - they are limited by the minds of men who find and exploit them. We have oil because people have found it, retreived it, refined it, distributed it, and sold it - all to make a life for themselves and their families. Oil didn't just arrive at your gas station on its own - it required the hard work of people. People who Population Alarmists don't want around. Resources may be physically located in the earth, but they come from the mind of man.

We're not going to run out of space. Its just not even close to a problem! We've got gobs and gobs of space out there. So space, resources, overcrowding, starvation. They are not an overpopulation problem. This "problem" isn't about space or resources. Its a spiritual issue. It is about the fight between heaven and hell, good and evil. People are a good thing and more people are good for the earth. We don't need less people - we need more. (France gets it - read this article).

As each person seeks to build a life for himself - he brings his ability to take care of others to the marketplace - and those skills make all of our lives worth living. We need each other. We need each other's creativity. We need each other's hard work. We need each other's service. We need each other!

So I give thanks to God for the millions of people around the world who work tirelessly to solve my problems and make my life better. I'm grateful to God for recognizing the real wealth that lies within each person's mind and heart and for wanting us to have more of it and for giving the command "muliply" so that we could have more of it. Thank you God! People are such a blessing!

Technorati Tags: population

Do Accidents Require Banning Freedom?

2006-10-14T04:57:00.000-07:00

This article that I'm copying and pasting here needs to be heard. The cry for increasing restrictions on light airplanes is ludicrous. Accidents happen - why does every accident in aviation produce a public clamor for a loss of freedom. So now we want to ban all light aircraft operating over cities? What does that actually accomplish? Terrorists have all kinds of methods for inflicting harm, why ban just the airplanes?

Again, typical - the politician just uses any public "move" for an opportunity to remove freedom. Why, oh why do they always want to take away freedom?! Do they have no other option? Do they have no solution to any problem except by banning something? I am so sick of it!

So here is that article:

Enough is enough
BY PHIL BOYER
Mayor Daley's latest rants have sent me
over the edge. He used the accident in New York to once again demand a no-fly
zone over downtown Chicago for general aviation aircraft.
It was expected,
of course. He has an irrational hatred for piston-engine aircraft, as evidenced
by his illogical tirade this week. "They should not jeopardize, through
intentionally or by accident, a single- or two-engine plane flying over our city
[sic]," the Meigs Field destroyer exploded at a press conference. (I don't think
he was including Boeing 737s, 757s, and 767s in his list of twin-engine
aircraft.) "Remember: a single- or two-engine plane can kill as many people as
possible if they want to."
And if it were just Daley, I'd ignore his ravings,
just as the folks in the federal government in charge of security and airspace
do.
But it's not just him. Other politicians (with the spectacular and
notable exception of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg) and self-appointed
"experts" are jumping on the tragic accident — repeat, accident — in New York to
sound off again about the "danger" of light aircraft, and how they must be
regulated, restricted, banned.
OK, for all of those ranting about "threats"
from GA aircraft, we'll believe that you're really serious about controlling
"threats" when you call for:
Banning all vans within cities. A small panel
van was used in the first World Trade Center attack. The bomb, which weighed
1,500 pounds, killed six and injured 1,042.
Banning all box trucks from
cities. Timothy McVeigh's rented Ryder truck carried a 5,000-pound bomb that
killed 168 in Oklahoma City.
Banning all semi-trailer trucks. They can carry
bombs weighing more than 50,000 pounds.
Banning newspapers on subways.
That's how the terrorists hid packages of sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway
system. They killed 12.
Banning backpacks on all buses and subways. That's
how the terrorists got the bombs into the London subway system. They killed 52.
Banning all cell phones on trains. That's how they detonated the bombs in
backpacks placed on commuter trains in Madrid. They killed 191.
Banning all
small pleasure boats on public waterways. That's how terrorists attacked the USS
Cole, killing 17.
Banning all heavy or bulky clothing in all public places.
That's how suicide bombers hide their murderous charges. Thousands killed.
Number of people killed by a terrorist attack using a GA aircraft?
Zero.
Number of people injured by a terrorist attack using a GA aircraft?
Zero.
Property damage from a terrorist attack using a GA aircraft?
None.
So Mr. Mayor (and Mr. Governor, Ms. Senator, Mr. Congressman, and Mr.
"Expert"), if you're truly serious about "protecting" the public, advocate all
of the bans I've listed above. Using the "logic" you apply to general aviation
aircraft, you're forced to conclude that newspapers, winter coats, cell phones,
backpacks, trucks, and boats all pose much greater risks to the public.
So be
consistent in your logic. If you are dead set on restricting a personal
transportation system that carries more passengers than any single airline,
reaches more American cities than all the airlines combined, provides employment
for 1.3 million American citizens and $160 billion in business "to protect the
public," then restrict or control every other transportation system that the
terrorists have demonstrated they can use to kill.
If you're not willing to
be consistent, then we might think that you're pandering to uninformed public
fears, posturing from the soapbox of demagoguery, screaming security for your
own political ends.

Technorati Tags: Lidle, Airplane Crash, Freedom

The Cancer of Unions

2006-09-03T13:48:00.000-07:00

It's Labor Day, a great day to discuss such a politically charged topic as labor. Everybody labors don't they? Isn't everyone a laborer? Sure, but when it comes to politics, what matters is influence, and of all of us that labor, those with the most influence are the labor unions.

The "unionization" of labor is a difficult issue to get figured out. I spent a long time trying to figure out the "morality" of unions. Is a union a good thing? Afterall, don't the unions protect the lone worker and give him a voice? Isn't it true that the "business" is powerful and has the ability to run roughshod over the employee who doesn't stand together with his fellow workers?

After considerable thought, I've come to the conclusion that the union is a cancer that grows in certain unhealthy business environments. A company is, or at least should be, a group of people who share a common vision and have a common goal to provide a product or service to the marketplace in as competitive a manner as possible. The most successful companies are providing their product or service with the highest levels of excellence. As I've said many times in this blog, the free market forces businesses to increase excellence or go out of business.

When workers decide to form a union, they do so because they feel like they are being taken advantage of. I think everyone wishes that they made more and had better circumstances, but some companies are doing a poor job of taking care of their people, and their people inherently know it. A union is a natural result of an unhealthy business culture. I believe that while everyone contributes to a healthy culture, the responsibility for that culture begins at the top. It is up to management to recognize and meet the needs of their people in a way that draws the best out of each of them. It is up to the leaders of that company to model the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge and improve current processes, enable others to act, and encourage the heart. (The Leadership Challenge, Kouzes and Posner, 22) When leaders fail to do these things, employees suffer, and in order to protect themselves, they form unions.

If a business is ideally a group of people gathered out of society with the special skills necessary to build a great product or deliver a great service, then the union is a cancer that destroys the unity of the "body" and pits one part of the business against other parts. As Jesus said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The unionized business is a house divided. Rather than management and labor working together as a team pursuing a common vision to be the best in their industry, they are pitted against one another - seeing the opposite side as the enemy rather than the competition, which is the real enemy.

The union is a form of coercion where labor says, "You do things our way or we'll destroy your business." Unfortunately, by destroying the business the union destroys itself. There are many cancerous results of the union. One is the entrenchment of mediocrity. The union typically guarantees advancement to all employees based on seniority rather than excellence. The non-union employee has two powerful tools at his disposal. One is the ability to leave his job and go elsewhere if the conditions and pay are no longer suitable, and the second is the ability to advance based on performance rather than seniority. Both tools are part of what makes the free market system so capable of producing excellence. The union removes both tools. The result is waste and a loss of excellence.

The free market produces the miracles of innovation and productivity that it does because everyone can freely buy whoever has the best product. A man's labor is his product. When he is hired, it is because he offers that product at a price an employer is willing to pay. If either party becomes dissatisfied with the arrangement, either can shop elsewhere for a better deal - meaning, the employer can hire someone else or the employee can find a job somewhere else. This fluidity allows workers to find jobs at the best possible pay and employers to hire the best possible people. Employers demand high performance for their money and good employees demand good pay and good working conditions. Essentially, to get good employees, employers compete by providing good pay and benefit packages. Likewise, to get a good job, employees develop their skill set and protect their resume by having a good work ethic and habit patterns. Both parties bring excellence to the table in this free market arrangement and employer, employee, and customer all benefit.

The union removes these free market forces as they normally apply to labor. Within an industry, it is very difficult for a worker to seek better conditions at another company without starting again at the bottom of the seniority system. The union also makes it very difficult for the employer to retain, develop, and promote those employees with the greatest performance. Therefore, employees cannot seek to improve their lot by shopping for better pay and benefits, likewise, the employer is hampered in his search for more capable employees. The employees have tied his hands. The union employees stop looking for ways to go above and beyond in their performance since all performance requirements are clearly spelled out by the union contract. Mediocrity is the result of the union arrangement.

I am a pilot and within my industry there are both unionized and non-unionized sectors. The airlines are unionized and the corporate and charter pilots are not. As a corporate pilot, if I don't like how my employer treats me, there are other jobs out there at the same or possibly even better pay. It might be painful to change jobs, but at least I'm free to do so if I choose. The airline pilot cannot say the same thing - he is stuck. He either spends a career at the same airline, whether he likes it there or not, or he starts over again as a brand new copilot earning next to nothing with a new company. Consequently, airlines are suffering terribly right now with massive disputes raging in nearly all the major companies, while the corporate world is quite peaceful and healthy.

Sure, wages may be higher and some working conditions may be better in a unionized business, but wages determined by coercion rather than market forces make a company less competitive in the market. The cancer may grow by feeding on the body, but cancer kills, and when the body dies, the cancer dies too. Just look at the American automotive companies, public schools, the airlines, or unionized government sector jobs like air traffic controllers - in each case, performance is mediocre and businesses are increasingly failing.

It's up to management to build strong healthy companies. By doing so a business owner has the best chance of avoiding the cancer of a union. However, it is also up to employees to recognize that their best negotiating tool is their freedom to leave a job. When an employee chooses to give up that freedom and decides instead to form a union with fellow employees to coerce their employer, they have decided that the good of the company as a whole is no longer important to them. In essence, they've decided that they are willing to destroy their employers livelihood, the jobs provided to other employees in other parts of the company, and even to stop meeting the needs of the customers in order to get their way.

The union removes the employer' s freedom to shop for labor that has the best value, and in so doing, is an immoral entity. Like I've said in so many other blogs, freedom permits the most number of people to live in the best possible circumstances. It may not be perfect, but freedom, by far, is the best option we've got.

Technorati Tags: Unions, Labor, Freedom, Free Markets

The Ideological Lens

2006-08-18T16:18:00.000-07:00

As a follow-up to my last blog, in which I pointed out that the American left has the same ideological worldview as Hezbollah and Al-qaeda terrorists and therefore resist any effort to combat them or defend America or Israel against them, I want to point out another example of it that I've been hearing in the news today.

Several pundits are discussing the obvious disparity between the left's outrage over Mel Gibson's anti-semitic comments and the total pass they are giving Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his interview by Mike Wallace. The pundit's ask why there is outrage in one case and not in the other, and then sit there and discuss it like they don't really know the answer.

The answer is obvious. Mel Gibson does not share their worldview and Ahmadinejad does. Anti-semitism is simply a label that is used as a political weapon. It is used by the left, not as an attempt to defend or in any way to help Jews, but to harm a political opponent. The same is true regarding the labels of racism.

The left abandoned Mel Gibson when his worldview became obvious. He made it plain when he produced the "Passion of the Christ" against the advice of everyone in Hollywood. Mel Gibson is a Christian, he is "connected" to the God of the bible (see my last blog for my discussion of "connection"). Ahmadinejad is as far from a Christian as you can get, so consequently, he shares the same worldview as most of the media.

The outrage over Mel Gibson's foolish comments are nothing more than an attempt to use a political weapon against an ideological enemy. This is the left's chance to hurt him for having an ideology that they hate. Ahmadinejad is obviously anti-semitic and says so daily, but the left has no desire to use that weapon against him - they don't want to use any weapon against him - he is their ideological ally.

We're seeing the same exact phenomenon as the world realizes that the recent UN resolution to stop Israel from defending itself was nothing more than a cleverly disquised attempt by France to give Hezbollah terrorists a breather. In the left's mind, they see Israel as evil for simply fighting back, and have no outrage over Hezbollah using civilians as a shield.

This is a war of ideologies. Looking through this lens will always help you determine who will take what position on any issue. The world hates Jews and Christians - who both worship and serve the God of the Bible. President Bush is a Christian. Mel Gibson is a Christian. Most conservatives are Christian. It is for this simple reason that the American left hates Bush, Mel Gibson, and the conservative right. It is for the same reason that Muslim's hate America and Israel.

This isn't a disagreement that will end with a middle east peace deal. The current events that we see and discussed today have their roots in the same division that has existed since Abraham fathered Ishmael (the father of the Arab nations) and Isaac (the father of Jews and "spiritual" ancestor of Christians) in the book of Genesis. Even then it was prophesied that Ishmael would be a problem child, "He shall be a wild man; His hand shall be against every man, And every man’s hand against him. And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren." (Gen 16:12)

The battle between left and right, democrat and republican, liberal and conservative, will always be based on core beliefs. There are only two positions - you are either "His" or you're not. Consider this as you try to figure out the bizarre prediliction of the left to support the terrorist on every level.

Technorati Tags: Ideology, Israel, Hezbollah, Christianity, Mel Gibson, Ahmadinejad

The World is Divided

2006-08-16T06:30:00.000-07:00

Many on the right wonder why the world doesn't seem to understand that the war in the middle east began with aggression by Hezbollah. We sit back and marvel how clueless the United Nations seems to be. We yell at the reporters on CNN. It just seems so obvious: Israel has given up land for years and has never started a conflict, they simply respond when their enemies attack them. Israel always abides by the terms set forth in these "cease-fires" and the other side never does. Why doesn't the world get it?

The answer to that question is the same as the answer to this question: "Why doesn't the left support any of the efforts made by the president to combat terrorism?"

Simply put - there are only two main ideologies in the world. There are splinters and sects within each ideology, but there are only two sides to the real battle. I made a stab at explaining what these two sides are in this blog a few months ago. Essentially, you're either with the God of the bible or your not. Every political debate and issue comes down to that fundamental core question.

It is a question of the spirit. I wrote in another blog, "Spirit, Soul, and Body", that the essence of the spirit is the ability to "connect." To be spiritual is to be "connected." We are relational beings. It is in our nature to desire to connect with others and to connect with God. But we choose what we will do with our spirit. We choose where we will connect. We choose our relationships. We choose what "god" to connect to.

There are many "gods", but there is only one God. You are either connected to this one God or you're not. That is the defining issue for determining your worldview. That one relationship is at the heart of who you are. God is searching throughout the earth for those who want to be called by His name - and He knows those who are His.

For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him. (2 Chron
16:9)

They will call on My name, And I will answer them. I will say, This is My people; And each one will say, The LORD is my God. (Zech 13:9b)

I point that out to show that in this debate over the cease fire and why so much of the world lines up against Israel, and in the United States, why so many oppose the fight against terrorism, why there seem to be only two sides. The left leaning media, the left leaning United Nations, the left leaning countries of the world like France, Russia, Germany always seem to support the terrorist rather than Israel. Why? Because they share the same ideology. It might take a dramatically different form than radical Islam, but their ideology is based on the same "relationship", i.e. "No relationship with the God of the bible."

It seems to be such a waste of time debating with the left about Lebanon and Israel, Iraq, or any other political issue for that matter, without taking the debate to the core issue involved, which are deeply spiritual. So we end up debating the "results" of our ideologies rather than the ideologies themselves. What a huge waste of time. If you change someone's core ideology, then the "consequences" of their ideology will change. Meaning, when you change the deeper belief, the positions a person takes on political issues will change.

So Ann Coulter is right when she says, "we need to invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." Although the statement sounds harsh to our sensitive, politically correct ears, converting people to Christianity is the surest way to change their politics. People don't change because we're "nice" or we send them money and medicine. When you give something away, people will line up to take it - but their heart toward you will not change, they just see you as an idiot who is giving stuff away. As soon as the goods stop flowing or you place any demands on them, their friendly faces disappear and you still have an enemy.

The world is divided. This divide does not follow national borders, it follows "relational borders." Its sides are determined by "Who" you love, not by where you were born. When it looks like the political left in America supports the terrorists of Al-Qaida or Hezbollah - its because it actually does.

Technorati Tags: Cease-Fire, Israel, Hezbohhal, Ann Coulter, Terrorism

What do they want?

2006-08-15T11:23:00.000-07:00

I'm baffled to some degree about the reporting on gas prices recently. These are the messages:

"Gas prices are too high."
"If gas prices were higher, more alternative energy sources would be developed."
"We need to conserve - people should drive less."
"The government should increase gas taxes to reduce demand."

I can't figure out what the real concern is. For example, why develop alternative forms of energy? They won't be cheaper than gas, at least not right now and not for a long time - so what is the push? Trying to save money? You won't save money.

Are people worried about running out of fuel? I don't think so, I think they actually want us to run out of fuel so we'll quit ruining the environment with our stinky cars. Global warming is supposedly caused by burning fuel, so we're all gonna die because of gas anyway - sheesh, we should be banning fuel, not trying to conserve or reduce prices - isn't that the message?

Should we be trying to conserve? Why? If people can afford the gas, let them buy it and drive as much as they want. The price is the incentive to conserve, what other incentive do you want to create - ration stamps? Why conserve anyway? The more we use, the sooner we start to run out, the sooner the price drives us towards alternative energy sources. As we run out, other methods of transportation will be developed, so why freak out about it?

So I ask all these questions because the questions I hear being asked all have certain assumptions built in such as:

"The fuel companies are ripping us off."
"Burning fuel is destroying the world."
"America is evil for being modern and using so much fuel."
"I don't want to spend so much on fuel, the government should do something."

So these "concerns" or better yet, these "whining complaints" are creating another opportunity for politicians to take action due to the public mood. It makes me sad. Because so few people understand the beauty of the free market system, they respond to a desire to get something for nothing, and have no clue that they give up something precious to get something useless. This is what I'm saying: as the government acts in response of the envy, hatred, laziness, and blame of the uninformed public, they take actions that reduce the quality and quantity of energy, thus raising prices, growing government beauracracy and making life more challenging in the end.

People should be celebrating the success of the oil companies because as they succeed, they are pouring that money into development of the technologies and infrastructure that will actually provide inexpensive, clean, reliable energy sources for years to come. Oil companies succeed because they provide the product you want and their success will improve the environment you want.

My general message is this: nothing is wrong here, nothing needs to be fixed. Prices will drive the exact right amount of conservation. Leave the system alone. If you want to bring prices down, then allow the energy companies to increase supply by removing road blocks (regulations). Please, don't let the government get involved in trying to develop alternative energy or alternative transportation - that is such a huge waste of our tax dollars. Beauracracies don't innovate! They regulate! They get in the way of innovation, they slow down the wheels of progress.

But people want something for nothing and the politicians will give it to them to buy votes. So maybe the message between the lines of all the recent reporting on oil is this: "Bush is a jerk, oil companies are evil, America is destroying the world, the government should give us oil for free."

Technorati Tags: Gas Prices, Oil Companies, Alternative Energy

A Dinner Prayer

2006-07-20T13:26:00.000-07:00

As a departure from the political/religious/economic topics I've written about lately, I wanted to talk for a minute about an interesting scripture in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. The discussion there is on sharing the Lord's supper and the problems the Corinthian church were having while coming together for communion. The problem arose because people were divided at the Lord's supper and were looking our for themselves rather than desiring to have unity with one another. These people also had no connection and communion with God, the real purpose of the Lord's supper.

When we take the Lord's Supper, we break the bread as a remembrance of the fact that the Body of Christ was broken for us. Specifically, He was broken so that we could be healed. Isaiah 53 shows this in verse 4 and 5, "Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed."

That last phrase is key, "by His stripes we are healed." His punishment brings our healing. His punishment also makes it possible for us to have a relationship with Him. By His stripes we are healed and by the shedding of His blood we are forgiven. The second, you could say, allows for the first. When our sins are forgiven and we can reconnect with God, we can then receive from Him all that is necessary for healing. This is a physical, mental and spiritual healing. I'm not saying that a relationship with God means you won't have physical illness, but I do believe that good health begins with a relationship with God.

The person who is rightly connected to God is able to resist bitterness, is able to extend grace to others and forgive, is able to trust God in difficult circumstances, is able to go to God for answers in the midst of a challenge. Walking with God reduces stress! We don't have to have it all figured out, we can rest in Him. Just that alone is a great foundation for health. Add to that the leadership of the Holy Spirit in the various things we choose to do. For example, the Holy Spirit may lead me to drink less alcohol, eat less sugar, go to bed earlier, get more exercise, stop being so angry, let something I'm stewing over go. God actually leads me into a place of health. Connectedness with God is the beginning of the answer for every problem we face. Whether its relationships or work or depression or addiction or finances - you name it, knowing who you are in God and being connected to the source of your life is where you'll find the answers you need to deal with the problems that come up.

You might be wondering, "how can I tell how connected I am to God?" For me, a measure of my connectedness is 1) the quality of my praise of God and 2) my focus on others.

So the first measure of my connectedness is the quality of my praise of God. I heard someone say recently that happy people are first grateful people. Throughout all of life, there will be challenges. We all have challenges every day - everyone does. But at the same time we all have things in our lives that are going well. A happy person praises God for the things that are going well and trusts Him in the things that are difficult. If I am negative, upset, and focusing exclusively on the difficult things, then I'll quickly become unhappy. That unhappiness is evidence that I'm disconnected from God. But when I say, "God I trust you in this because you have promised me so many good things in your Word, plus I rejoice in and am grateful for all the good that I am experiencing", the weight of my difficult circumstances falls away. God comes through for the person who rejoices and gives Him praise - because that person is fully connected to God.

The second measure of my connectedness with God is the level of my focus on others. When I'm concerned mainly about me and what's going on in my life, I tend not to think about what is important to God and what is important to others. As the scripture began, "when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you." (vs 18) People are divided when they are concerned about themselves rather than loving those that God has brought into their lives. Factions and divisions are evidence of disconnection from God.

These scriptures point out the connection between our unity with God, our unity with others, the food that we eat and the impact of all of these on our health. The section culminates in vs 30 with this startling conclusion: "For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many die." We want the opposite of "weakness, sickness, and death." We want "strength, health, and life." These start with salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, and continue with an ongoing spiritual connection to God through the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

I wrote this blog today because I was thinking about the scriptures in 1 Cor 11 in regards to what we normally pray when we sit down to eat dinner. I wanted to write a dinner prayer that I could pray with my wife and our family. Considering what I learned from these scriptures, this is what I wrote:

"Dear Lord, we thank you for this meal and the opportunity we have to share in it together. We thank you for our fellowship and pray for unity as we eat. May our communion with you and with each other and may the food that we enjoy together provide for strength, health, and life. In the name of Jesus we pray. Amen."

Legislating Righteousness - The Loss of Love and Dignity

2006-06-22T09:22:00.000-07:00

As I've grown as a Christian and as a person who believes in and loves liberty, my perspectives have changed over the years. I find myself increasingly departing from the mainstream view of conservative Christians lately. As I develop a deeper understanding of liberty, something which I firmly believe that God endorses, my political viewpoint changes. Whereas once I believed and supported whatever leading Christian pundits were advocating, now I notice where certain positions are at odds with what I believe the bible says and at odds with the principles of liberty.

In general I'm referring to the pressure to pass laws regulating personal behavior that comes from the Christian community. Laws regarding drugs, alcohol, sexual choices, etc. By no means is legislating behavior limited to Christianity; however, it is the Christian I want to address. To make my point, let me give you my moral orientation.

In a nutshell, I believe in the God of the bible and in His Son Jesus who came in the form of a man in order to redeem mankind. I believe that God is good, that He loves all men and women, and that He wants every single person to be saved. I believe God is personal and wants to have an interactive relationship with everyone. I believe the essence of relationship is freedom. Freedom gives relationships value. An unchosen relationship has no value; therefore, without the choice to love (which must allow space for the opposite choice, which is not to love) a relationship is meaningless (or valueless).

I believe this freedom extends to all human endeavors. We are relational beings and everything we do in life revolves around our relationships. It is for this reason that I believe in free markets as the ultimate system for bringing two parties into an economic relationship. That is why I believe prices should move freely as both parties determine for themselves the value of an economic exchange. So that is why I believe that the role of government is simply this: to protect our liberty. That means it should prevent one person from doing harm to another. Willfully harming another person destroys their liberty; therefore, as a nation we collectively act to restrict the freedom of those who do not respect the freedom of others.

I say all of that to lay a foundation for this point: the government should not be in the business of making me righteous - even if I generally agree with the behaviors required by those laws. As I've said, government should be in the business of preserving my liberty. As a free human being, I am free to try those things that might bring me harm. In trying those things, I gain experience. I learn. I am able to decide for myself what things bring good into my life and what things bring harm.

If choice brings value to relationships, choice also brings value to our actions. Doing the right thing has more value when it is chosen than when it is compelled. Doing the right thing starts with love. When we choose to do what we believe is right, we do so because we value the good that comes from that right choice.

Consider these choices: I choose to eat right and take care of my body. I value my body and make the choices necessary to keep it healthy. Good comes from that choice. I want a happier relationship with my wife so I choose to be kind to her. I value her and her happiness. Good comes from that choice. I want to take care of my fellow man by returning the $20 bill he dropped. I value my fellowman more than the $20. Good comes from that choice. Maybe it is the good that comes to a young woman by the choice of a young man to respect her heart and respect her body. He values her more than his own sexual satisfaction. Good comes from that choice.

All of these right choices produce something wonderful in the soul. These choices are the result of love. These choices are the result of loving something more than the self. These choices are the result of loving God, loving His wisdom, loving what God has created, and valuing what He values. It is love that leads us to make right choices.

Choice reveals value. Our choices reveal what we value - they reveal what we love.

If you remember, God gave the law to Israel because they did not understand that concept and had no love for the truth or for God. "What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made." (Gal 3:19). The coming of Jesus fulfilled a promise to Abraham that through his Seed, all the nations of the world would be blessed. That promise was Jesus. Abraham followed the leadership of God because he loved God and valued the promise that God made. Abraham also wanted the world to receive that blessing that God was promising, showing that he valued the people of the world more than himself. Abraham was even willing to kill his own desperately wanted son Isaac, showing how completely he valued the will of God over his own will. That is love.

It is our love for the good that comes, our love of true value and worth, that compels us to make right choices. If we allow the government to compel us to make right choices by legislating matters of morality, then we no longer do it for love. If the law forces me to do what is right, then the value is lost. I am no longer responding to love, no longer recognizing the value in a decision or action. Instead, I become self-centered once again. I do the action required by law to avoid the penalty of the law, not because I value the object of my action.

Compelling righteousness also removes the dignity that comes from struggling with our natures and learning to overcome. We have two "selfs". One self wants instant gratification and is me/pleasure/now oriented. My other self looks to others and is willing to delay gratification for a greater good. These two selfs are at odds with one another. These two aspects of our character, the "Dr. Jeckyl, Mr Hyde" inside each of us compete on every level over every issue. Whether it is a decision about having a brownie, the decision about our attitude that day, the decision to offer a kind word to someone, the decision to drink, smoke, or look at a dirty magazine - we have to learn to manage the decision process and choose the good. I have struggled mightily with learning to overcome some aspects of my character. But I have learned! I have grown! And I am a better person, a person of dignity, for having had the opportunity to "sin" and learned how to overcome the slavery that results from sin.

One thing the founders of this nation resisted was the idea of "central planning." It is not the role of government to shape society. In order to shape society, one person must exercise his will for the direction of society over the will of another. For example, socialism, environmentalism, humanism, feminism, multiculturalism are all attempts to shape society according to the vision of a small group. Christianity, while typically the true defender of liberty, in many cases tries to do the same thing.

Again, this limits liberty. One person doesn't know better what is good for another person. Each person needs to take his own path, fight his own fight, learn his own lessons - write his own story. If you believe you know better than another, become a teacher, start a church, begin an advertising campaign. Attempt to influence others by allowing them to hear your message and freely come to your conclusion by the logic of your arguments and the strength of your love for them. But don't compel them to adopt your conclusion by the force of law.

Compelling righteousness, whether done by Christians or an "ism" destroys human dignity by removing the value that comes by learning from poor choices how to make good choices.

Subject Areas: Liberty, Government, Freedom, Christianity

Calling Evil Good

2006-06-20T06:30:00.000-07:00

I came across an amazing point this morning. I was reading the new Dennis Prager column in which he tries to figure out why the left is hysterical (did you know the etymology of the word hysterical? Its interesting, check it out) about global warming and the right isn't. He makes some interesting points, but I don't think he gets to the bottom of it. I've tried to figure it out as well - my attempt is written here.

Several people commented on his column on Townhall.com. One commenter said:

In an effort to justify greed and envy, defend sloth, etc., the Left will define
virtues as evil. According to the Left, it isn't "greed" to demand treasure from
others that one did not earn; it's "greed" to wish to retain the fruits of your
own labor. To the left, it isn't justice that someone should benefit from
undertaking actions that create jobs; jobs are an entitlement that no one should
have to "earn" and should be paid a minimum amount no matter how much the work is actually worth. And on and on...

What a great point! Isaiah the prophet made the same point a few years ago:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light,
and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe
to those who are wise in their own eyes, And prudent in their own
sight! (Isaiah 5:20-21)

Isn't that the battle we face? The fight for truth is the fight to see things as they really are. We fight a war of paradigms - how will information be presented, how will information be characterized?

There is poverty in the world. That's a fact. What then do we do with that fact? The left will use it to advance their cause while the right will use it as an individual call to action (there are probably exceptions on both sides).

Its up to those who love the truth to fight for it while loving those who disagree. It's a tough mission, but I know we've got what it takes.

Subject Areas: Global Warming, Christianity

The Real Crisis

2006-06-12T14:10:00.000-07:00

Everything is a crisis! Everything is a scandal! Everything is a threat to our way of life! Why can't we just have the news? Tell us what's going on in the world. But no, that's not the way the media works, that's not the way government works.

By the way things sound in the media, you'd think the world is coming to an end. The reporting and hysteria about global warming is just one great example. How about bird flu? Are we running out of fuel? The kids in this article worry about war, pollution, and global warming. Politicians in Antarctica are asking for government action. So many looming problems. But is it really that bad? You might think that these stories make the news because they are attention getters. "If it bleeds it leads." That kind of thinking. I don't think that is the motivation.

I think the manufactured crisis is the most effective means that the left and pro-government forces have at their disposal for generating the public reaction necessary to motivate people to give up their liberty. When people begin to truly believe that there is an environmental crisis, or a medical crisis, or a human rights crisis, or a hunger crisis - they give permission to the government to "do something."

Unfortunately, the "something" is actually a bigger threat to us than any of the other perceived threats. As a matter of fact, we could probably demonstrate that most of the crises that we face today are the result of "doing something" in years past. Laws get passed every day that make it harder for businesses to solve the problems that we commonly face, allowing those problems to loom larger. An "environmental crisis" (like Three Mile Island) in the past prevents nuclear power plants from being built, resulting in expensive energy today.

The real threat is government meddling. When the government gets involved, things get ugly. Vote buying helps the few at the expense of the many. It is the "crisis" that gives the politician what he needs to move legislation through the system.

Fake threats advance the cause of the real threat - government regulation.

The godless left (as described by Ann Coulter's new book) will do anything they can to advance their "vision." They have a plan for you, a plan for me. They are full of "isms." They believe in socialism, environmentalism, humanism, feminism, multiculturalism, just to name a few. An "ism" is nothing more than one man's dream that he would like to see imposed on all others. Unfortunately, when one person seeks to advance their ism, they must suppress the rights and liberties of others to do it.

And ultimately, that is what every ism is really about - the suppression of liberty. God loves freedom because it is the only road to happiness on earth. As each person pursues their idea of happiness, they write their own story. Adam Smith railed against the "system men" who see the world as a chessboard to be manipulated. He noted that each chess piece though was a person with their own dreams and aspirations, and that it was immoral for the government to move those chess pieces without their consent. When one man tries to advance his "ism", he does so at the expense of another man's freedom.

That's why I don't actually like the term "capitalism." It was coined by Karl Marx to describe what is more properly called "free enterprise." Free enterprise is not government planning, it isn't one person's vision imposed on others. Free enterprise allows each person to live and dream according to their own dictates, their own plans, their own religion, their own desire.

We were all given the freedom by God to write our own story. Our nation at one time recognized that "we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Our Declaration of Independence says that "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Government should not be in the business of advancing isms, they should simply secure our liberty.

The real threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in this world is not global warming or the bird flu. The left will milk these concerns for all they can to advance their isms, but in the end, we won't face any real crisis other than a crisis of liberty.

Subject Areas: Global Warming, Government, Liberty, Adam Smith, Declaration of Independence, Coulter, Capitalism

Relationship, Not Religion

2006-06-05T14:12:00.000-07:00

So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’” Luke 10:27

As you can probably tell from many of my blog entries, I am a bible believing Christian. I believe in God. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I believe that the bible is reliable and is the basis for truth. I believe that God wants to have a relationship with everyone on earth and to see them come to salvation.

Religion is a different matter. I don't believe in religion. I am not religious. Now don't get me wrong. There are lots of great religious men and women doing fabulous things: building communities of believers that love God, serving their fellow man, advancing the kingdom of God, all that stuff. But religion is not God. It is merely a system of beliefs advocated by those who do their best (in most cases) to adhere to the principles of scripture. Even Christianity is about people and made up of people. In that sense, it is highly fallible.

So why do I say all that? Because people love to be part of something. I love to be part of something. Being a part of something bigger than the self helps to give life meaning. Christianity and the activities and ministry of the local church helps to add meaning to the lives of many people. But it also distracts them sometimes from the real purpose of our existence.

God created us for relationship. He wants to walk with us, talk with us, help us to learn and grow. We are spiritual beings, created to know God. One of the problems I see with Christianity as a religion is that it takes its focus off of the relationship and puts it onto the "lifestyle" of Christians. There is a Christian lifestyle - common dos and don'ts, ways of talking and behaving, an expected political outlook - and unfortunately, a common critical eye towards those who believe differently and act differently. In this I find the biggest fault with Christianity - the focus on sin, both personal sin and the sin of others.

Jesus Christ did not come and die on the cross to get us to stop sinning. He came to set us free from sin. He came, not to put our focus on sin, but to take our focus off of it. The distinction is huge and the consequences even bigger. We are now dead to sin; dead to the law. It is fulfilled. If you got killed in a car accident and you were at fault, would the officer give you a ticket? No, you're dead - a ticket is pointless. We are dead to the law.

God wants our focus to be on Him, not on the rules. I don't lay down a law against my wife. We have a relationship, we love each other, and learn and grow together. Rules don't make that relationship work, love does. God wants the same thing to be true with the relationship He has with us. He wants it to be about love, not sin, not punishment, not getting it right every time, but learning and moving forward. "And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor 13:13) Love is mankind's greatest motivator. If anything stirs the heart of man, it is the desire for love. You see it everywhere - movies, books, music, poetry, art. We were made for relationship, and the beginning of any successful relationship is God.

If we are in a relationship with God and commune with Him via the Holy Spirit (our spirit relating/connecting to His Spirit) we will be lead into right behavior. Jesus Christ set me free from the worry of sin, from the condemnation, from the fear. Now I walk with Him. I try things, I make mistakes, I fall, the Holy Spirit speaks to me, I learn, and I grow. It is by living that we become the men and women God wants us to be. Its partly by failing that I grow in my sensitivity to the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

So does God want us to sin? Absolutely not. The wages of sin is death. It hurts us dreadfully to sin. But God wants us to be able to let it go and move on. He wants to lead us out of sin as we commune with Him in a love relationship - not because we are fearful of hell or the criticism of fellow Christians. God wants to teach us to avoid sin because it is an assault on the relationship He has with us and because it is an assault on life itself. God has good plans for us and sin prevents Him from leading us into that blessing. Sin is the choice to do something our way, contrary to the leadership of God. God is the author of life and knows what it takes to provide for life. Sin produces death because it is contrary to God and to His wisdom. Follow God and live - that message is everywhere in the bible.

We often sin because we hurt. All people need love, acceptance, and leadership. God promises to meet all of those needs through the Sprit - He is our comfort (love), provides fellowship (acceptance), and offers counsel (leadership). When we connect with God, we can receive all of these things and be made whole. Our hearts can be filled, so to speak. When we are disconnected from God, our hearts become empty. It's at this time that we often turn to sin as a remedy for the pain of an empty heart. Only the love of God can fill an empty heart. Sin is man's attempt to fill his own heart; to find a little relief; to escape the pain of life. As we grow in our relationship with God, we learn how to recognize when we are disconnected from God by the desire for sin that sometimes rises within. We can sense our own "heart level" and use that nudge to step back into fellowship with God.

So why did Israel have the law? The bible says in Gal 3:19 that it was "added because of transgressions till the Seed should come." And in verse 24 that it "was our tutor to bring us to Christ." Like a child needs rules and laws provided by the parents for protection - Israel needed those laws because they had very little love for God and weren't interested in pursuing a relationship with Him. God made a promise to Abraham (Gen 22:18) that He intended to keep. Specifically, God promised that from Abraham's descendents a savior would come that would bless the entire world. Israel was the promised vessel through which Jesus Christ would come. If Israel didn't follow God, like so many other ancient nations, they would cease to exist. God gave them the law to protect them and hence His ability to keep His promise to Abraham. He didn't give the law to other nations and He doesn't give the law to us. The law was not God's wish - it was added because of Israel's sin. God has no love for the law. The law had a purpose; that purpose has been fulfilled - Christ has come.

Focusing on the sin is legalism - and legalism kills. Here are 6 serious problems with legalism.

1) A legalistic person has a relationship with rules rather than a relationship with God.
2) Legalism produces a sense of self-righteousness in the person who follows the rules. Fake holiness. A self-righteousness that keeps them from seeing their need for God. Remember the pharisees? They had no love for God because they were convinced of their righteousness.
3) Legalism produces self-condemnation in those who recognize their own inability to obey consistently. "I'll never be able to do this!" People give up and leave Christianity in their hopelessness.
4) Since the heart is still empty, a legalist is tempted to think that there might be relief in that which is forbidden. People begin to think, "I'm so unhappy, but those people sure seem to be having a good time. Maybe I'll try what they're doing." For that person, the remedy for the emptiness must be sin. The legalist is drawn to sin by his own desperation for peace within his heart.
5) Legalism makes Christianity look unappealing to the lost; like a bunch of boring people trying to be good. Who wants that?
6) Legalism prevents people from learning to listen to the Holy Spirit and recognize when they are disconnected from God and how to reconnect. It puts them in a state of spiritual blindness.

Our job on earth is to reach the lost. Legalism prevents us from doing so and focuses us on the sin of others rather than on ways to love them. Commenting or pointing out the sin of others never led them to Christ. Its love that draws people, not condemnation, not the fear of hell. Have a relationship with someone, find out what moves them, get interested in that. If you want to save them - love them. The Holy Spirit is already convicting them of their sin and you'll have opportunities to teach them as they grow in their relationship with God and learn to listen to the Holy Spirit. We are called to exhort, edify, and comfort (1 Cor 14:3) - not criticize.

Legalism steals the life that God intended for us to have. He wants us to live wonderful lives. Full of joy and blessing. He wants us to fully enjoy the kingdom of God. A great deal of Christians today are nothing more than modern day pharisees.

So, again I quote Jesus from the book of Luke:

So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’” (10:27)

Love God, love your neighbor - its about relationship, not religion.

Subject Areas: Christianity, Religion, Relationship, Legalism

Is Marriage About Chemistry?

2006-06-03T15:51:00.000-07:00

I spoke with a 29 year old woman the other day who is still single and eager, but not desperate, to get married. I've been married 13 years tomorrow - my anniversary. Sometimes I'm amazed we've made it this far, but we learned a few things along the way that made it possible. So in chatting with this woman, I realized how much my thinking about marriage has changed over the years (and how hard it would have been to learn this prior to being married).

One of the notions that I kept hearing in her language (I don't remember the words she used) was the importance of the right chemistry between two people. She mentioned friends who think they might have settled too quickly for the wrong guy. These kinds of mindsets are so common. I believe that kind of thinking is dangerous. One of the points I made with her was that there is no value in discussing chemistry or if two people are right for each other after they are married. Once married, it is quite harmful to wonder whether or not you are with the right person. Here is the right way to think about it: "you're married, your spouse is now the right person, start thinking about how to improve your relationship rather than decide if you should be in it."

The thinking that wonders if someone is the right person assumes there is something critical about the combination of two people that makes relationships work. I don't believe things work this way. What makes a relationship work is the choices that each person makes, not some innate quality within the individuals that cannot be altered.

Relationships operate according to principles. These principles can be learned. As I've said previously, we enter into relationships that benefit us and both parties in any relationship expect certain terms to be adhered to. In marriage those terms are written as vows. Many of the relationship difficulties people face in marriage come from violating those vows. The other difficulties people face in their marriages come from selfishness and what I call "following with love" rather than "leading with love."

When a person "follows with love" they say to themselves, "I'll do something loving after my spouse does something loving." A follower waits until they feel loved before they do loving things. When dating, the relationship is all about the way the other person makes us feel (chemistry). Once married, there is a job to do. There are bills to pay, chores to do, problems to solve. Marriage then requires teamwork. It stops being about how you feel (reactive) and starts being about what you do (proactive). People get resentful because they no longer feel what they used to feel when dating. They want to feel that same thing again. Therefore they only do what they need to do when they feel what they want to feel. Unfortunately this results in two people who rarely feel what they want to feel and rarely do what they need to do.

My wife and I practice "leading with love." This means that we attempt to do loving things (we don't always succeed) even when we don't feel loved, even when the other person is not doing anything that qualifies them to receive our love. If Christ loved us when we were still in sin and utterly unlovable, then we should be striving to be like Him and do the same. We're actually commanded to do so in 1 John 4:10-11 "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another."

Christ loved while we were in sin and then asks us to love the same way. Wow. Tall order, but it is a principle that works. Plus, and here's the real benefit, the feelings of love follow "leading with love." The feelings of love are the result of loving actions. If I choose to do what I should do and my wife chooses to do what she should do, we both get the benefit of feeling the passion and the love that we enjoy so much. In God's economy things always work this way - the benefit follows the work.

The reason the woman I spoke with hears from friends that are wondering if they "settled" for the wrong person - they've lost "those loving feelings." (Think of the song - "You've lost that loving feeling") The feelings weren't lost, the couple just isn't doing what's necessary to produce them - serving each other. The person who wonders if they "settled" is assuming that if they had chosen a better spouse things would have worked out better. If already married - it doesn't do any good to wonder that! The marriage difficulties are not the result of marrying the wrong person, they are the result of not adhering to the principles of successful relationships.

Jesus Christ came to serve. As we learn to be more like him, especially in our relationships, we will find that our relationships will start to work. My marriage has lasted 13 years because my wife and I have realized that marriage is about serving, not being served. Loving first, not waiting to first be loved. We've learned that our marriage success comes from deciding that our marriage is more important than anything else. We have not given ourselves the liberty of deciding that "this isn't going to work out." We're going to make it work out. It's no longer about the chemistry - its about the choices.

Subject Areas: Christianity, Marriage, Dating

Government Demand and Vote Buying

2006-06-03T06:58:00.000-07:00

I listened to a discussion this morning where people were discussing the cost of sending their kids to school. I noticed another article in a magazine this morning about college costs. Here is another one in the Washington Post. College is expensive and getting more so. Why?

Prices of all things move in order to equalize supply and demand. If lots of people want something, and they have the means to buy it, prices will rise. If they don't rise, for any reason, there will be a shortage. An increase in price is the only way to avoid the shortage.

When government "visionaries" or what libertarians call "central planners" decide to promote something that they consider to be in the best interest of society, they alter its price structure. In the college issue, politicians searching for votes see a large vote base among the "disadvantaged" youth who may not be able to afford college. In their thinking, its only right that government should help out these youngsters who cannot afford college.

Unfortunately, government assistance only shifts the group who cannot afford college from one disadvantaged group to a different disadvantaged group. You see, when government provides funds for a given purchase, there now exists in the marketplace buyers who previously could not afford that product - an increase in demand. Thus, the price increases to bring demand into equilibrium with supply.

There are only so many "seats" out there in colleges at a given moment in time. When government funds one group in order to help them buy those seats, the price of each seat goes up; therefore a new group is going to find them unaffordable. Now, a politician rather than the fairness of the market is determining who gets to go to college. That of course, is just the way the politicians like it!

When I say "fairness" of the market, I mean it in this respect: those who are able to buy are those who have acquired the means to buy via service to the marketplace. Politicians love to celebrate the "virtues" of the poor. As much as I feel sorry for the difficulties that a poor person faces, they are poor because they have not brought their abilities to the market and used their time, talent, and energy to improve the lives of others. We might be able to blame their decision not to participate in the free market on many factors, but the end result is that they don't serve humanity like a rich person does. Rich people are rich because they do something that others find valuable enough to spend their money on. (This conclusion could obviously provoke debate. Let me clarify by saying a lot of the system is corrupted already. In a true free market, with a government functioning as it should to preserve liberty, our wealth would be a product of our service alone.)

The fairness of the market allows those who serve their fellow man to buy goods and services from their fellow man. Government intrusion into the market alters this moral principle. The government takes from one group and gives it to another. Since the group that gets it didn't earn it, and yet they have access to goods and services from the market that they otherwise wouldn't have had, we must recognize that an injustice has occurred.

So in our college example: since prices have risen and a new group that otherwise could have afforded college now cannot, we must recognize that in their case, an injustice has occurred. Government demand drove prices up to help a favored group at the expense of 2 other groups - 1) the group that paid taxes for services they didn't receive and 2) the group that can't afford education because the price is now too high.

Of course, the problem here is not limited to college tuition. The same injustices occur wherever politicians venture. Take for example farm subsidies. When the government supports a crop, the price rises above its natural price making it less affordable for buyers and removing the ability for other suppliers to compete effectively - thus keeping the price high since competition is suppressed. The same thing happens to the price of medical services with government subsidized health care such as Medicaid.

Many might agree with the governments choice of groups to favor. Unfortunately, any favored group creates injustice. Again this is an example of the impact of vote buying at the expense of the liberty and at the expense of fairness.

Subject Areas: College, Politics, Government Subsidies, Rich, Poor, College Tuition, Farm Subsidies, Medicare

The War on Prosperity

2006-05-31T17:46:00.000-07:00

Is there a war on against having any economic prosperity at all? I see article after article praising so many things that are so destructive to freedom and prosperity. My basic belief is that God is good and wants good things in the life of all humans. The bible says that God takes "no pleasure in the death of the wicked" (Ezekiel 33:11). And of course, everybody knows this one: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." (John 3:16,17) He loved the world, meaning, He loved all the people in the world, wanting to save each and every person that ever lived.

One of the ways God brings good into the world is through the principles that we see in scripture. You might say, He loves us via His commandments; His guidance to us; His word to us gives life. Why? Because through that instruction/ commandment/ guidance/ principle/ word we learn how life works and how to live. That's why, for the most part (some have other good reasons), those on the right are in favor of policies that increase liberty and reduce government regulation and involvement. "For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Gal 5:13,14)

God wants us to be free because liberty is mankind's best hope for peace on earth. When man is free he takes care of himself by taking care of his fellow man. When man is a slave, he has no incentive to do anything with excellence or to innovate or be creative or to in any way improve his lot in life or that of his neighbor. Just do what "master" tells you to. God hates that.

So if it looks like there is a war against prosperity going on out there - there probably is. The bible clearly states that we are a world at war. "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." (Ephesians 6:12) God's plan is opposed. He has an enemy. If God desires to bring good into the world via freedom and liberty - you can bet there will be a war on freedom and liberty by the spiritual forces that oppose God. That opposition can be seen everywhere in our society.

Here is just one example among thousands. This article which I just came across in the Washington Post finds a few people who are upset by the environmental impact of drilling for oil. This is such a common tactic and so sad. There are so many "tactics" of economic warfare on display here.

This article discusses the "terrible" damage oil drilling was doing in Canada to satisfy the "unquenched US thirst for fuel." Ugh, how about the whole world's thirst for fuel? It's not just the US - the whole world needs energy - life requires energy. People need to move, they do it with fuel. Basically all of the goods and services available in our markets today required the consumption of energy in their development and delivery. Its not the just lives we live here in America. I don't care who you are, your lifestyle depends on oil. You wants medicines in remote Africa to help the poor. It takes oil. You want an apple as a snack. It takes oil to get it to you. You want to turn the lights on, it took oil in about 1000 different ways to make the bulb available and to provide the electricity.

Drilling for oil is not destroying the world. Not drilling for oil would destroy the world! Can you image billions of people having no access to the products and services available to them right now. The world prior to the industrial revolution was not some pristine peaceful paradise. It was the industrial revolution that made man mobile, and the machine that freed his muscles so that his brain could start working to produce real prosperity. We live in a wonderful world compared to the one that existed 200 or 300 years ago. Oil made much of that possible. Oil is the current fuel for the ideas that make life great.

Oil is opposed because prosperity is opposed. The left in this country needs a permanent underclass - a permanent poor. It gives them their purpose and their voting base. As a result they oppose prosperity, they oppose economic freedom, they oppose liberty. Oh they give the appearance of being for freedom, but only in those areas that also destroy life, such as the destruction of the family, the celebration of easy sex, the advance of homosexuality, the destruction of the work ethic via welfare, etc. If, in general, it hurts people, the left is for it. But rest assured, they'll have a great sounding reason for being for it.

That's the case with oil. The reasons sound so legitimate: "Drilling for oil is damaging the environment, what kind of world are we going to leave our children?!" That is a tactic of a diabolical agenda to destroy liberty and destroy the blessings of life.

By the way, free markets are also solving the environmental impact problem in amazing ways. This article shows how garbage dumps are being turned into golf courses. Its happening all over the place (Palm Beach Post article). Land is valuable. If its in a place that people want to be, there will be an economic incentive to clean up those areas and somehow take advantage of the transformation of the land by the oil recovery. I've seen some mining sites turned into beautiful mountain lake communities. Just keep the government out of it and awesome things will happen.

Yes, there is a war on prosperity. Actually, its a war on everything that enhances life. Environmentalism isn't about the environment, its about shackling businesses, the engine of prosperity.

Subject Areas: Oil, Environmentalism, Spiritual Warfare, Liberty, Canada, Business

New York State of Mind (i.e. Socialism)

2006-05-30T06:32:00.000-07:00

Well, we got our first ticket in New York - for talking on the cell phone while driving. Wow, this one really bothers me. I was out of town on a business trip, my wife was driving home from work, and we were catching up on the day. She was pulled over by an unmarked police car who was saving the public from my dangerous wife.

I read recently that in terms of liberty, Kansas ranks first among the states. New York , not surprisingly, ranks last. I have not lived in New York before, but I can definitely see the practical reality a "low liberty" state.

Here are some of the other ways I've seen it. When you buy gas at a gas station, you can't check your oil. No, there is no law against checking your oil (well not that I know of), but there is a law against the catch that holds the dispenser and allows the gas to fill without you manually holding it. So I can't check my oil while my gas is filling. Oh, and forget about using the gas cap. There is actually a sign on the gas pumps that says, "It is illegal to use your gas cap to hold fuel dispenser."

Building permits and property taxes are another real New York State socialist fallout. We're looking for a house. In that search we've talked to sellers who have either made changes or tried to make changes to their home. They all describe the process as painful. We've also noticed that for a tiny, tiny two bedroom house, property taxes are about $6000-$8000 a year. Buy an average size home and you'll be spending more like $12,000 a year. Who's house is it? If I buy the house, its my land, my buildings, and my responsibility to maintain. But the local government can charge me huge amounts every year to live in my own house. It should be illegal. They have to do it because they've become so socialist already. The governments are doing so much more than they should be and they've got to pay for it.

What about seatbelt laws? Its my car, its my body. Leave me alone about my seat belt. All these laws are making constant suspects out of all of us. We're constantly under the threat of forgetting some law and getting caught. Now they are using night vision goggles in some places to catch those rotten people who forgot to put on their seatbelt. The justification is the "cost" on the medical system of people who were in accidents not wearing their seatbelts. Again, that's a problem of socialism, not liberty. If the government insists on making others pay for my medical bills, then they'll have an inappropriate interest in my health.

And of course, smoking. They are increasingly making it illegal to smoke anywhere. I'm not a smoker, so it doesn't affect me. But it sure as heck affects my liberty. Why? Because people are increasingly getting it in their heads that if they don't like the behaviors of their neighbors, they'll just make those behaviors illegal. Folks - that is not the way liberty is supposed to work!

Liberty is the only way mankind has ever been able to provide for any measure of "human perfectibility." Do you want peace on earth, harmony between individuals, high general prosperity, and an increase in human dignity? These come as people work on what they deem to be in their own best-interest, which can only result as they focus on the needs of others in a competitive marketplace. Except for envy, in a free society, people stop focusing on what is wrong with others and focus on doing their own job well. But when given the power to take from others through the hand of government, and the power to change another's behavior through the hand of government - we start to talk about what we'd like our neighbor to change rather than focus on what we need to change. We take on a victim mindset. "My happiness will come as others change." Freedom declares: "My happiness will come as I take care of the needs of others in the market." When we stand before government with our hand out, we stop producing, we stop innovating, and we start seeing all that's wrong with our neighbor.

So back to cell phones - over the last 10 years there has been an increasing effort to limit their use. Of course, this effort is made in the interest of "public safety." First of all, that is not a legitimate function of government. Its job is to ensure that the exercise of my rights does not interfere with the free exercise of the rights of my fellow man. I cannot be allowed to bring harm to my fellow man via my freedom. But the government has to be very careful in the exercise of this power because it is a slippery slope. Everything can become an interest of public safety.

I believe that limits on cell phone use are "lifestyle over liberty" issues. Not "preventing harm" issues. The science documenting cell phone use and accidents is not able to show cause, only association. They might say, lots of people were on their cell phone when involved in an accident last year. Their accident was associated with their cell phone use. But they can't say, the cell phone use caused the accident. Limiting the cell phone use may or may not decrease accidents.

Consider bluejeans - yeah, bluejeans. Studies would probably reveal that in a large number of accidents, people were wearing bluejeans. We should begin a public awareness campaign of the dangers of bluejean wearing drivers. It is important to save lives! The absurdity is obvious - but the analogy holds. If you can't show cause, don't regulate.

Lots of things cause car accidents. Are we going to regulate every one of them? Eating, drinking, talking, makeup, changing the radio station, fiddling with the kids, looking for an exit, looking for a certain store, looking at the hot girl in the next car. If you're going to make cell phone use illegal - you better start legislating - we're along way from safe "publics" as it stands now.

I suspect the cell phone bans began more with a slant toward "getting even with the rich" mentality. Early on, only wealthy people had cell phones. The sight of a "dirty rich bastard" talking on his cell phone pissed a lot of people off and they were going to do something about it. Now that everyone has cell phones (thank you free market) we had to find a better reason - public safety.

An article in the Washington Post discusses our need for political change. Wow, is that ever necessary. But I don't think it will happen until people stop looking to government for their livelihood and start realizing how much government destroys their opportunity for real freedom, real prosperity, and real happiness.

Subject Areas: Socialism, Liberty, Cell Phones, Government, Property Taxes, New York

Memorial Day

2006-05-24T16:56:00.000-07:00

For ten years I was a member of the military. I flew the C-5 for several of those years. The picture at left was taken on a mission flying from Dover, Delaware westbound to Qatar in the middle east via Guam and Diego Garcia. The green thing is my headset ear muff and the picture was taken just behind my head. At that moment we were over Hawaii just about to make contact with a KC-135 from the Hawaii Air National Guard to take on the fuel we needed to make it to Guam, our first stop. That day we were carrying supplies needed to support the war effort in Afghanistan. Even though I consider my job while in the military painless compared to the jobs of some of those in our Armed Forces, it was not easy. We flew 18 hour flights on 26 hour duty days with minimal rest while staying in rotten locations throughout Europe and the middle east. Don't get me wrong, I loved the people I served with, I enjoyed the challenge of the mission, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to serve America and the experience it gave me that I now use in my civilian life - but it was no picnic.

Life in the military is a sacrifice. Plain and simple. It is hard work for little pay, but for me, and for most of the people I knew, it was worth it. We were making a difference, we were part of a cause, and as my father, a Vietnam era B-52 pilot reminds me, "we were making history."

The United States Military performs an essential role, and it does it very well. As a matter of fact, it may be one of the only jobs that the government is still doing well. When considering the role of government, namely, to safeguard the liberty of its citizens, the military is our collective means for protecting us from foreign invasion, or in the words of the Constitution - "provide for the common defense". Unfortunately, our government has completely disregarded the limitations of the Constitution and overstepped its authority in virtually every other arena, but in regards to the United States Military, government has done its job.

Our founders had a moral foundation that directed them when considering the tenets of the US Constitution. They understood that peace, harmony, prosperity, and human dignity were all a product of liberty. They were concerned principally with securing the blessings of liberty while recognizing that throughout history, the biggest threat to liberty has been a country's own government. The concept of limited government was created in order to protect liberty from the intrusion of government power. Unfortunately, government usually becomes the biggest threat because all people, without exception, seek that which is in their own best interest - including government officials. As a result, government naturally tries to grow in order to increase its influence and power.

As citizens forget the lessons of history and the threat of government, they instead see the government as a means of gain - the ability to take from others. As this happens, even the citizenry forget that its their job to limit the size of government and instead begin to vote for those who will increase their "take" from the pot. When this occurs, all the roles that the government should be involved in are set aside, and those it should not be involved in are taken up.

The Military is a legitimate role of government, specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and an important part of protecting liberty. As such, it is constantly under attack by "takers." The legitimate roles of government are in competition against the illegitimate roles of government for funding. Providing a military is an expensive proposition. Money that goes to support the military could be used to pay for universal health care, welfare, social security, education, finding alternative energy sources, building bridges in Alaska, whatever - the entire range of illegitimate government activity.

That is why I say, support the military. It is under attack by those who would love to get their hands on that money. Other's attack it because they understand at a moral level the purpose of the military and deliberately seek to undermine that purpose. This nation is at war; war against terror externally, and a war against liberty internally. It is up to true patriots to defend this nation against these attacks. One of the simplest ways of defending liberty is by supporting that which the government should be doing and opposing that which it should not be. The government should provide for the common defense, therefore, it is up to us to encourage the government to support and strengthen the United States Military.

In addition, this Memorial Day, say thanks to those who do the work - who pay the price on a day to day basis. Say thanks also to the veterans, men like my father, who left home and comfort to defend and secure for all of us that which is priceless.

Subject areas: Military, Memorial Day ,Liberty ,Constitution

Evil Price Gouging

2006-05-20T05:38:00.000-07:00

This is such a popular term right now. People just hate it when others make money. For the record - I don't think price gouging is really even possible, and if possible, I'd like to make the case that it is a good thing rather than an evil thing. I don't need to sum up the entire thing - John Stossel made the case well in this article: In Praise of Price Gouging.

In another post I wrote that prices that move freely in response to market demand allow for the movement of resources to where they are needed most.

I'd like to make another point now - most of us are evil price gougers. In news reports those that price gouge are considered the worst sort of human beings. Do you realize that belief makes the average home owner an evil price gouger when he sells his home?

When we list our home on the market, we check to see what houses are going for in our area and typically price our home based on what others are asking. However, if you've owned your home a few years and have some equity in the house, why not sell it for what you owe rather than what the market will bear? Maybe you owe $100,000 on the house and its worth $200,000 according to the market. Isn't it price gouging to ask for $200,000 when you only need $100,000 to break even. Why do you need to make so much profit? Isn't that greedy?

Aren't we asking the oil companies to stop making so much profit? They only owe $3.00 on that gallon of gas, yet they are charging $3.10. The public thinks its evil for them to make that extra ten cents per gallon. Why is that any different than the home owner who makes a large profit on the sale of their home.

It is a good thing for people to sell their homes for what the home is worth. First of all, if everyone charged what they owed, there would be a shortage of homes on the market. The price equalizes supply and demand ensuring that there are just enough homes on the market to meet the demand of the market. Taking the profit out of a home also allows the home owner to "buy up" into a better house next time, making lower priced housing available to new home buyers. The home becomes a store of wealth.

All the same things are true for any other business that charges market prices. They will sometimes make a great profit because their costs are less than market prices. A rise in market prices doesn't make a seller evil, whether they are selling corn, houses, cars, or even fuel. We all charge what the market will bear for whatever it is we have to sell. How could it work any other way?

Technorati Tags: Price Gouging, Prices, Economics

Blink!

2006-05-17T07:14:00.000-07:00

I just listened to the book "Blink!" by Malcolm Gladwell a few weeks ago. I downloaded the book from Audible.com which is a great way to get through a book quickly.

The book itself was fascinating. Gladwell has made some amazing observations about the subconscious mind and its ability to key in on information and come to conclusions that the conscious mind may not identify for some time, if ever. He draws examples from many different arenas in life such as art, relationships, sports, medicine, and even finance. Gladwell doesn't necessarily try to come to concrete conclusions about the subconscious mind, he simply points out some of its capabilities and the way it is helping us make it through life despite our lack of awareness of its involvement.

I think this book helped me to see a couple of things more clearly. One is the way in which our mind disagrees with itself. Let me explain. One of the examples from the book looked into the concept of "speed dating" where dozens of people spend just a couple of minutes getting to know a person and then move on to another person when a bell rings. Kind of like musical chairs. At the end of the process people indicate who they liked most and if that person showed an interest in them as well, the organizers of the date will set up another meeting between them.

When "daters" were asked what they look for in a person, it never lined up with what they ended up choosing at the end of the "speed date". There is one level in our minds that thinks one way, but another level that wants something different.

One mind, I've noticed, is a short-term oriented, pleasure seeking, instant gratification, self-centered mind. The other is more long-term, delayed gratification, disciplined, other's oriented mind.

For me this concept manifests something like this: "we are going to stop spending more than our budget." But then my wife and I see something we like and suddenly the budget doesn't matter, only that we want something. Another manifestation goes like this: "I am not eating any more junk food!" But then, somebody offers that oh so beautiful chocolate chip cookie and I forget completely that I promised myself I wouldn't eat that junk. There is a disagreement between me and myself.

The bible describes this discrepancy as the war between the spirit and the flesh. Paul wonders, "For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do." (Romans 7:15) How many 12 steps groups are trying to help people align what they say they want with what they actually do? I've often thought that if I could just do what say I want to do, then there is no limit to what I could accomplish.

Blink points out that we act on our true beliefs, the ones held at the subconscious level. For example, a young girl may say she plans on saving herself until marriage, but if "wounds" she has received from her father in the form of, "you're ugly, no one will ever want you," fill her subconscious mind, she might act in a way that disagrees with her pronouncement that she plans on waiting until marriage.

I think much of our adult life is spent trying to align these two minds. We marvel at the bad choices people make. I bet in nearly every case, the person didn't think they would make such bad choices, such as cheating on their wives or regularly drinking too much. We do what we do not want to do. Well, kind of - we do at one moment what we do not want to do in another moment. At the moment we do the wrong thing, we want that "thing" more than anything else in the world. We trade a momentary pleasure for long term pain. Instant gratification rather than success in life. We throw away the real blessings of life in exchange for the pleasure of the moment. Ouch.

But we know what we're doing. And most of us are working on fixing it. As we age we start to see the damage we're doing by our lack of discipline and strive to improve it. As God helps us heal from the wounds we've gathered over the course of our lives, he does this by helping us to learn how to make good choices - and stick with those choices even when we don't feel like it.

Honestly, this is why freedom is so important, why each person must have the space to live their own lives. As we mature, we learn how to take dominion over the self-centered mind. How? By having the liberty to live self-centered for awhile. If you never got to eat junk food, you wouldn't really learn the value of eating well. If the government takes away your freedom to smoke cigarettes, you won't be able to come to your own conclusions about why you don't want to smoke anymore. Some people can learn without first trying something. Others can't. But if the government steps in and tells us how to live, it steals our dignity and forces us into living according to another's vision of the world - which may or may not suit us and may be wrong, or even evil.

Blink was a fascinating book. The insights you'll gain from it will go beyond what I noticed and will probably be geared toward those things you've gone through. It's a good book, and I recommend it.

Subject Areas: Blink, Gladwell, Books, Psychology, Freedom, Smoking

Spirit, Soul, and Body

2006-05-16T12:14:00.000-07:00

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thes 5:23)

This scripture shows that we have three parts: spirit, soul, and body. Many scriptures also make reference to the mind and the heart. These, I believe, are found in the soul. I want to talk mainly about the spirit, but to do so, let me first say what I think the soul and the body consist of in this context.

Our body is the physical substance of our existence. It is made up of atoms and molecules that form increasingly complex structures that provide for our lives on this physical earth. Some say this is all we are and develop complex worldviews to explain how the body is the sum total of us. For example, Naturalism based on evolution teaches that the body is all there is and that our thoughts and feelings are a product of chemical reactions. Existentialism is a worldview that tried to resolve the problems that Naturalism is confronted with by saying that there is an objective reality - physical reality - and a subjective reality, the world of the mind and heart. I'm sure my generalizations will offend the naturalists and existentialists, but its just a generalization - not a complete summary of their worldviews. Regardless, I disagree with them both.

My worldview, Biblical Theism, recognizes something beyond the physical. The soul is part of this worldview's explanation of that which lies beyond the physical. The soul is the conglomeration of our personhood - our intellect, thoughts, desires, emotions. Within the soul lies the mind where we reason, calculate, contemplate, and conclude. Also within the soul lies the heart wherein we love and hate and experience all the range of human emotion. The mind thinks, the heart feels - but both make up who we are, the person, the personality - these are the soul.

The spirit is very different. The spirit is that part of us that relates to another. It is the part of us the gets connected to another when we have relationships. As people, I believe we were made primarily for relationship. The highest calling of man is to relate to another being. Every part of us is built to accomodate that calling - to have relationships with other people. If you look around you in the world, most human endeavors culminate in the search for companionship, love, and acceptance - the desire to be a part of something bigger than the self. It is the spirit that draws us in that direction.

When we have a relationship with another person, that relationship is a spiritual thing. Our spirits connect us to each other. You might think that a spiritual person is a "holy" person. Actually, the spirit isn't moral or immoral - it's amoral. It just connects - to whatever we decide to connect it to. The bible says, "He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, And he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city." (Prov 16:32) It is up to us to rule our spirits well - to connect them approriately to that which does us good and not harm.

God has a Spirit - we call His Spirit the Holy Spirit. We were built to connect with the Holy Spirit. It is the connection above all connections. You may have heard people say, "We all have a God hole." Which is to say, there is an emptiness within each of us that can only be filled by God. Our spirit longs to connect with it's Creator. We need this connection - as a matter of fact, the bible says that we are sustained by this connection and broken without it: "The spirit of a man will sustain him in sickness, but who can bear a broken spirit?" (Prov 18:14)

We crave connection beyond all cravings. We are like electical plugs in search of an outlet. This plug has many options however. While it was made, first and foremost, to connect with the Creator - it can connect nearly anywhere. There are many imposters. We can substitute human relationships in the place of this God relationship - and so many of us do. We can substitute a relationship with substances, such as drugs, to fill this vacuum. Some people "connect" with food, others with alcohol, some with sex. There are lots of ways to temporarily satisfy the spirit with an imposter - but all imposters will eventually leave us unsatisfied and in need of an ever greater "dose" of the imposter.

The Bible refers to these imposters as "idols." God says, "connect with Me - let Me make you whole." We often say, "but I can't see you." We fall for our idols because they are physical. Humanity craves that which is physical. We want to see it, touch it, feel it, experience it. So with our spirit we often connect to the idol rather than the Real Thing. Connecting with the Real Thing requires faith, a subject for another time.

A spirit that is properly connected to its creator, can then properly connect with other people. When I am properly "relating" to God, all my other relationships go well - especially with my wife. My marriage depends on my being properly connected to God. If I am not responding to the leadership of the Holy Spirit, I tend to walk all over my wife, and I start to see her as a means to fill my wants rather than a person with whom I have a relationship.

I've said in another post that we have relationships that are of mutual benefit to each party. For a relationship to be beneficial, it must have terms. We formalize those terms when we get married via the wedding vows. A term might be: "forsaking all others". In other relationships, the terms are implied. In business relationships, terms are written in contracts. Regardless of the relationship, it is the terms that ensure that we receive the benefit of the relationship.

When terms are broken, the relationship is damaged - there is a severing that takes place in the spirit. When a married man looks at another woman, his spouse feels a spiritual assault. She senses that the terms of her relationship are at risk - the spiritual connection most important to her is about to be weakened. A woman gives her spirit, her soul, and her body to her husband when they marry. He enjoys those as benefits. She receives many benefits as well, but when he looks at another woman, she fears that she may have given that which is most precious away for nothing.

Sin is how the bible labels our breaking of the terms of the spiritual connection we have with God. When we sin, we deprive God of the benefit of our devotion, love, praise, etc. Instead we are focused on that which brings us pleasure (often to our detriment). We are connecting to an idol (relating to it) rather than to God. This is a spiritual assault against our connection with God. It hurts the relationship we have with Him. It is a spiritual disconnection. As a result, He withdraws from us. We lose the benefits for which we originally joined ourselves to Him. The Bible says that "the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Romans 14:17) When we disconnect from God, we lose the benefits of the Kingdom of God - righteousness, peace, and joy.

Since our connection with others depends on our connection with God, sin is also an assault on all of our human relationships as well. God asks us not to sin not only for His sake, but also for our sake. First, He doesn't want to lose the benefits of our relationship with Him, but He also doesn't want us to damage our relationships with others. Our human relationships are very important. They are the vehicle by which all good things enter our lives, and also the vehicle by which good things enter the lives of others. Above all, our relationships are the vehicle through which God is introduced to non-believers.

The spirit is that part of us the connects, that has relationships. It is probably the most important part of us, considering that we were made for relationships. But being made in the image of God however, means that we are body, soul, and spirit just like He is (Jesus Christ, Father, Holy Spirit) and God values every part of us.

A Free Market Side Effect

2006-05-08T22:13:00.000-07:00

Free markets allow for so many incredible things to be made available to the average person. The free market truly allows us to live life on our own terms. Eat the way you want, live where you want, work how you want, decorate the way you want, entertain yourself the way you want - sheesh, choices, choices, choices. What a beautiful thing!

I want to mention another incredible side effect to the free market system. Simply put - it makes each of us more effective at what we do.

Every time a person brings their ability to the market and another person purchases that ability, it makes the purchaser more effective in whatever it is that they do. Let's say one man has an ability to make a shovel. Another man, who has been digging holes with his hands, decides to buy that shovel. Now, instead of digging with his hands he is able to dig probably 10 times faster with the shovel.

One person's ability made the other more effective. Think of the consequences of that. Now the second person, the digger, can dig faster and make a better income digging than he was able to before the purchase of the shovel. Each of our abilities brought to the marketplace help the rest of society solve the common problems we face more and more effectively. Progress!

The implications of this one side effect are astounding. Lets trace through the human ability for just a minute that go into making me more effective. Like I've said before, I fly business jets. My abilities help business executives get to distant locations quickly and easily so that they can advance their business concerns more effectively. But without the business jet, how effective would I be? My ability to fly airplanes is effectively useless without the skills of those who build the planes I fly. And their ability to build airplanes rests on countless other technologies that other entrepreneurs brought to the market. How effective would Gulfstream be without Honeywell (making the avionics) and Rolls-Royce (making the jet engines)? How effective would they respectively be without the computers, the communications, the financial tools (banks, loans, credit cards) that provided what they needed to produce those avionics and engines.

The analysis of this cycle could continue nearly forever. We are ALL taking advantage of the abilities of others who were made more effective in their efforts by the abilities of others before them. It is an amazing gift that the free market gives to the world. The tools we have at our fingertips that increase our effectiveness are staggering to contemplate: the automobile, the computer, the telephone, the television, modern transportation, electricity, the internet. All of these make it possible to bring our product or service to those who we serve in our business.

This is why free markets are typically viewed by economists and libertarians (and some republicans) as such a good thing. We want to allow the abilities of as many people as possible to enter the market. Each additional person that brings their skill to the market makes the rest of us more effective. Sure, another person's ability might threaten your job security - but it will certainly motivate you to provide a better product and service to your customers. An upward spiral of excellence and effectiveness.

Why Write a Blog?

2006-05-08T21:04:00.000-07:00

I think all of us want the world to be a great place to live. But as I look around I see a world that sometimes seems like it is falling apart. I know what the bible says about the world. It's fallen. It's subject to frustration. It groans. The bible even says that one day the earth will be shaken, then the sky will be rolled up like a scroll and everything will melt in a fervent heat - then there will be a new heavens and a new earth. The point being, God doesn't intend for this world to last forever.

But what about the world that I have to live in? I used to think, man I hope that this world I enjoy living in with its beautiful skies, oceans, mountains, forests and this country that I love with its people, churches, schools, airports, restaurants, great stores, etc. lasts until after I'm gone. Meaning - I want a good place to live while I'm on the earth, but afterward, it doesn't matter to me.

I realize now that I'm no longer satisfied with that. I don't have children yet, but one day I will. What about them? What about my friend's children? What about them? It's up to us to leave them with a world that they can live, love, grow, prosper, and raise their children in.

So why write a blog? Well, because I believe that God has revealed a thing or two to me about how to live in this world. As I live and grow, I gain wisdom. God says with all your getting get wisdom. I'm not sure that I've given it 100%, but I've certainly given it a lot. I've asked God for wisdom. I'm eager to understand His heart and His mind and His thoughts about things. And I believe He has helped me to understand a few things.

I've been married now 13 years. I've gained some wisdom about marriage and relationships. I was a military pilot for about 10 years. I've worked in the business world. I've been a follower and in leadership positions. I've been through many learning experiences in the military, in churches, in business, and in life. I've followed politics closely and considered the role of government, the military, the people - all in a biblical context. I'm certainly not any smarter than most of the people I know, but I've focused on these things with a desire to understand and grow. And I feel like I have something to say now.

As a pilot I have a limited forum. I have great conversations with the people I fly with and we exchange ideas and each grow from those discussions, but I didn't feel like I was doing enough with what I felt God has taught me over the years. One of the drawbacks to being a pilot is the loss of a scheduled life. I don't have the liberty to teach a Sunday school class because I don't know from one day to the next where I'll be.

So I decided to write. Write a book? Develop a webpage? A blog? I wasn't sure - but google helped out. Blogger made it easy to begin putting my ideas down "on paper".

I don't know if anyone will ever read what I write, but I believe that writing is my little part of helping to make the world a better place for my children to live. We live in a world of ideas. Ideas motivate people, and motivated people change the world. Our nation is a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. Very few important things happen in this nation without a groundswell of public motivation.

So I put my energy into learning what principles can help make the world a great place to live. Who is God? What is His nature? What would He say about government, politics, economics, environmentalism, immigration, and every other major issue? What is His heart towards people?

I know that so, so many people associate the Christian perspective with judgmentalism, criticism, and self-righteousness. I think you'll find something different in my perspective. Sure I'm a Christian, and I believe in the bible, but the God I read about there wants us to have a great life and to spread a message of forgiveness and healing - a message about life, not condemnation. He gains nothing from condemnation - He gains greatly by His love. He is a God of liberty - A God of freedom. He made all people to be free. Free to choose Him, free to reject Him, and free to live the life that results from those choices and all the other choices that we make.

That message I believe forms an amazing foundation for every other social issue we face. I believe that the United States of America, in its original formation, reflected so much of the heart of God. I believe that America grew and prospered because of the principles of liberty upon which it was founded - principles revealed to the founders through the pages of the old and new testaments. The wisdom of God made manifest in our nation's founding documents - especially the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

When I see the world falling apart around me (as I mentioned earlier) it is in, what I believe, direct proportion to the degree to which we the people lose the intent of those founding documents.

So I write a blog. It is my little attempt to take the wisdom of God and put it in a form that may help a few people see what a great God we have and what a great nation His wisdom has given us. And in so doing, hopefully, this nation will remain a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people so that one day my children, and their children, for as many generations as the world remains, will be able to enjoy the liberty for which God made them.

Abilities, Needs, Self-Interest, and Excellence

2006-05-05T13:26:00.000-07:00

Capitalism is a system that makes no promises, but offers profound opportunities for the creation of good in society. Socialism, on the other hand, makes grand promises of creating widespread good but can't deliver. Here's why.

It has to do with self-interest. It is not possible, nor is it desirable, to live life without paying attention to your own self-interest. Unfortunately, many people associate self-interest with selfishness. Instead, they should associate self-interest with responsibility. When somebody takes care of their own needs, they remove the burden for that care from the society at large. Self-interest is the basis for responsibility. It is also the crux of why capitalism works and why socialism fails.

I am not confusing service with self-interest. Service to others is important - as a matter of fact - few people will really be happy without spending a significant portion of their lives serving others. But here is the critical element. The beauty of the free market system is that it links service with self-interest. Service is the use of your abilities to meet the needs of someone else. In some cases it is paid for, in other cases it is offered for free; regardless of the price, service is about taking care of people.

In a free market system, the way a person advances is by taking care of others. People patronize a business because they have a need. Since free markets are what their name implies, "free", nobody is required to do business with any other person. Therefore, if you want to succeed at your business, you better take care of people better than anyone else (excellence). If you don't, your customers will go to someone else.

In both free and socialistic systems we are dealing with the way abilities and needs interrelate. We all have abilities; we all have needs. The free market is the world’s most effective way of linking the abilities of one person with the needs of another. That is where self-interest comes in - he who succeeds most takes care of others best. Those who have become the richest among us are those who satisfy the most human need. If you want to make it big in America, you better start thinking about what your fellow man needs and start developing your abilities to meet those needs.

We've all heard the famous Karl Marx quote, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Since that sentence is missing the verb and subject, let’s assume Marx is saying, "We'll take the money talented people make with their ability and give it to those people who have great needs." That means a socialistic government (Marx’s dream) will be in the business of taking stuff from the most productive people and giving it to the least productive people. However, since every person has an innate ability to protect their interests, in a socialistic system, the expression of needs is amplified and abilities are hidden. The opposite is true in the free market system - abilities are developed and the expression of needs is reduced.

In the socialistic system, since each is given to according to his needs, everyone will tell the government that they have great needs in order to get as much as possible out of the system. Conversely, since the government takes from each according to ability, the productive will be asked to produce more without a corresponding increase in pay - as a result, their abilities will only be developed by pressure from the government and existing ability will be hidden to avoid the extra work.

To characterize the free market system, let’s play with Marx's words, "Money flows from each according to his needs to each according to his ability." The exact reverse of Marx's statement is actually how it really works. Each person brings their need to the market and shops around for the person with the ability/resources to best meet that need. As a result, people develop excellence within their abilities so they can sell more. Also, since people must pay to have their needs met, they conserve. Some needs are more important than others. When you have to pay for it, maybe you don't need it as much as you think. That’s the underlying reason for government waste – people who are not paying for something consider and express needs differently than those who are paying for something themselves.

Another beautiful thing about the free market system is that it is immensely fair. All of us have wants and needs. We make money by meeting the wants and needs of others. We spend money to get others to meet our wants and needs. Therefore, we can only have our needs met (spending) in exact proportion to the needs we meet of others (earning). Having more needs met (spending) than we meet (earning) puts us in debt - meeting more needs (earning) than we have met (spending) gives us a surplus. The free market systems required us to take care of each other. It aligns self-interest with service. The more we take care of others, and the better we take of others (excellence), the better we do ourselves.

Free markets produce excellence, creativity, innovation, opportunity, abundance, and prosperity. Socialism produces mediocrity, selfishness, hoarding, lack and squalor. Both as people pursue that which is in their best interests. Free markets make the world a great place to live – socialism makes the world an awful place to live. The United States of America is the great country it is because our founders recognized the power of freedom and the beauty of free markets. They deliberately created a system by which the maximum amount of freedom could be had by all. They recognized that power should remain with the people, not with the government and created a system to restrict the growth of government as much as possible so as to allow the success of free markets.

To sum it all up – the free market system allows that natural urge within for success to be satisfied only when we orient our thinking toward the good of others. It properly aligns our own self-interest with the service of our fellow man. As we take responsibility for ourselves by going out and making a living, we do the work necessary to make our country a great place to live. Oh, and if you want to help other nations around the world enjoy the same quality of life that you do – spread freedom.

Gas, Interests, and Term Limits

2006-05-04T17:51:00.000-07:00

This is a great article about fuel prices by a great economist, Alan Reynolds:

Mixing Gasoline and Moonshine

One of the points that I thought was really super was this: the amount of oil it takes to produce ethanol is nearly the same as the amount of ethanol produced. Add to that the increased costs of transporting ethanol and mixing it and producing cars for it to work on make it far less efficient than just using the oil. This is another example of governmental interference - which Alan is careful to point out.

I was reminded of another interesting point today: everyone works in their own best interest. This is axiomatic and cannot be avoided. Politicians work for their own interests. Essentially that means, that they will use their power to help whatever cause will bring them the most votes.

I'm thinking more these days about how to limit the damage a politician is likely to do by his need to focus on getting elected. I keep coming back to term limits.

The new guy on the job is typically the hardest worker and the most idealistic. A new politician is still acutely aware of the reasons he or she wanted to become a part of government and is likely to vote in accordance with their principles early on. As they "age" in their role as a government official they forget why they are really there and start focusing on how to stay there. It's a cush job with access to outrageous perks - like travel on government provided Gulfstreams - not to mention the parties thrown by lobbyists. Also, the term limited politician has to return to the world he helped create. If he runs a business, he'll have to go home and run that business under all the laws he passed. Indirectly, this forces him to act in his own best interests.

Ultimately, I believe the world works best when people are free to live according to their own best interest within the limits of the law. Government, beyond all others, is the human agency that advances its interests at the expense of those it serves. Businesses are only able to advance their own interests by meeting the needs of those they serve - primarily because those they serve must choose to buy from them. A business can be fired by its customers at any time. Government can't. We're stuck with it even when it does a terrible job at outrageous expense.

That's why I oppose government involvement in almost every area (we do need a government and it has several very important functions, but I'll get into those in another post) and am increasingly warming to the idea of term limits - they may be one method of more properly aligning our interests with that of the politician.

Subject areas: Ethanol, Term Limits, Government, Liberty

Minimum Wage

2006-05-03T18:53:00.000-07:00

In my last post I made the point that illegal immigrants are doing jobs that politicians have made illegal by the institution of the minimum wage. If there was no minimum wage then illegal immigrants would have to compete with Americans for those jobs that pay less than the minimum wage.

The minimum wage is just one example of where politicians willfully disregard the laws of economics to buy votes. Sure, their motivations are couched in terms such as "we should help those who are less fortunate," or "you can't support a family on so little income," etc. But none of those motivations can undo simple economic realities.

As mentioned earlier, prices are a result of something, not the cause - meaning, they react to market realities, they don't create them. Wages are no different. Wages are a price - the price of a person's labor. Each person has a product that they sell - that product being their energy, skill, time, and attitude - which we roughly call: labor. That product, like every other product on the market has a price that is determined by market conditions affecting supply and demand.

I'm a pilot. I fly charter business jets. My labor has a market price. It's a good job and I enjoy it. I make fairly good money, but not great, and I would like to make more. It's possible that I could find another job that pays a little more, but it's unlikely to be significantly different. Why? Because market conditions are such that the companies who need pilots with my ratings, skills, and experience are able to acquire the pilots they need at the wages that are currently being paid. If more airplanes are added to the corporate fleets across America and demand for pilots like me goes up, I'll be able to force my boss to compete with other companies needing my services. He'll either have to pay me more, or lose me and have to hire another pilot at the new higher wage. Either way, as demand goes up for pilots, wages will go up. The opposite is true if demand decreases, such as after 9/11 when many pilots were unemployed and willing to work for peanuts.

If a corporate pilot lobby was powerful enough, maybe they could convince congress to pass a pilot minimum wage. (I know, it's a silly idea, but I'm making a point here) Let's say it was $100,000 a year. I suspect most pilots who make less than that would be all in favor. Lots of pilots make around $20,000 a year. That's because they are inexperienced and using their cheap price tag to build experience. As they gain experience, they'll be able to earn more. But, if that minimum wage is enacted, employers won't suddenly have the finances to increase each pilot's pay by $80,000. They'll have to find other options. Maybe raise the pay on one of their pilots and lay off others. Maybe get rid of their airplanes and start using trucks. Unfortunately, this act by congress would drive up the costs of doing business while forcing the business owner to find less attractive means to accomplish his work - plus, many new pilots wouldn't be able to gain the experience they need to reach those higher paying jobs.

While this analogy may be a stretch - raising the minimum wage has the same effect regardless of the skills or wage levels. It always forces employers to restructure the way they do business to their disadvantage and makes it harder for workers to get entry level jobs.

Try looking at it another way - prices are the market's way of eliminating surpluses and shortages by finding a point of equilibrium between supply and demand. When price (remember, normally a result of market conditions) is artificially forced out of its place by governmental tampering, the equilibrium between supply and demand is lost. The result will always be surpluses or shortages depending upon which direction the price was manipulated. Force a price up, as in the case of minimum wage, and there will be surpluses of labor. Force a price down, as in rent controls, and there will be shortages of places to live.

Minimum wage hikes are really about vote buying at the expense of the low wage employee, the business owner, and the consumer. All three get hurt so the politician can get votes. The low wage employee finds it harder to find entry level positions and hence gain experience. The business owner finds it harder to find labor for low value work. The consumer has to pay higher prices. Personally, I'd rather see the politician get hurt and see the others freely engage in market activities to mutual benefit.

While we may not like the price we pay for things we need - we shouldn't complain about the price. If you have to complain (which I don't recommend), complain about things that can affect price - such as the factors that affect supply and demand. Please, please, please - don't call your congressman and ask him to do something about the price. If he thinks you'll vote for him, he'll do something alright, but it won't help. He can't do anything about the price. He can only hurt the business owner, the employee, and drive up costs - which ultimately drives up prices to the consumer.

For the most part, the only good your government official can do is get out of the way. America was not built on governmental involvement. It was built on American ingenuity as it tackled the problems we commonly faced. Government has a role, but it can do no good by trying to force a business owner to lower his prices or increase wages. The market will very effectively determine these levels and we should just get out of the way and let it happen.

Illegal Immigration and Minimum Wage

2006-05-02T06:19:00.000-07:00

A couple of years ago I started hearing the phrase, "Illegal immigrants are doing the jobs that Americans won't do." At the time, I didn't realize it would become such a dogmatic statement that forms a foundation for action. Lies often work that way.

Over time a lie is slipped into the public consciousness and because it has a soundbite quality and appeals to all the right emotional chords, people don't realize that it is a conditioning statement. It is conditioning them for later concessions that haven't yet reared their ugly heads.

I remember thinking at the time, "hmmm, that doesn't sound quite right." But, it wasn't being said every day from every pundit so I didn't pay it much attention. Now, on the other hand, its being used to defend amnesty for illegal immigration - so we better deal with it.

First of all, I don't blame the illegal immigrants. They obviously want to improve their lives and the opportunities this country affords are their best hope for that. I don't have any problem with someone wanting to come to America to work and participate legally in our system as long as they contribute to the system rather than taking from it. Here is what I have a problem with - politicians who see an opportunity to cash in on a group of people who can swing elections. That is the real risk in this debate - that rather than enforcing the law or passing laws that protect America and its resources - politicians try to give our country away to get elected and gain favor. Sick!

So back to the question - Are illegal immigrants doing the work Americans won't do?

No - illegal immigrants are doing the work that Americans are not allowed to do. We have passed laws in this nation that make certain jobs illegal for Americans. I'm not talking about prostitution or gambling either. We have told American employers, you are not allowed to hire someone to do a job that earns less than the minimum wage.

There are certain tasks that are not worth the minimum wage and certain workers who do not produce enough value to earn the minimum wage. Simply requiring employers to pay more doesn't suddenly remove the economic realities. A business owner cannot pay someone $6 an hour when they only produce $3 an hour of value. To do so is asking the business owner to become a charity, which may be commendable, but won't keep the guy in business.

When we make it illegal for a business owner to pay an American what they and the job they do are worth, we create a market. The owner still has a job he needs done and he is willing to pay someone to do it. In steps the illegal immigrant. He is undocumented, so he doesn't have a social security number, won't be paying witholdings, and no one will be checking to make sure he makes the minimum wage. Perfect solution. Pay the illegal immigrant less than minimum wage and get the job you need completed by someone who won't complain.

Unfortunately, there are lots of Americans who would have loved to have that job, but we made it illegal for them to have it and at the same time created a market for the illegal immigrant. Another example of political pandering and the law of unintended consequences.

The Beauty of Profit

2006-04-27T17:53:00.000-07:00

A common refrain heard when listening to the song about high gas prices it the amount of profit "those greedy oil companies" are making. Just this week, Neal Cavuto argued with Sen. Dick Durban about oil prices and the only thing Durban could focus on is the profit made by gas companies. Oh, how Neal tried to make the point that the government's take on a gallon of gas is 5 times that of the oil companies - and the government doesn't risk a thing - it just sits there with its hand out - and proposes a "windfall profits tax" to take even more. But to no avail - Durban's approach is single sided - hurt the gas companies.

What a terrible idea! Government officials have got to get it through their heads - if you remove the profit incentive, you'll remove innovation.

How the heck did we get to the place in our society that we are angered when someone makes a profit!? I'm sure its part of the politics of Hatred, Envy, Laziness, Blame that I discussed in an earlier article. It is a complete reversal of the American mindset that produces innovation, growth, and prosperity.

Profit is good! It is the fuel that drives innovation. Remove the incentive created by profit and you'll remove all the creative human endeavors that come from people trying to make a living by finding profit opportunities.

Think about profit this way - it is a financial expression of human need. A bunch of people need something in their lives - such as fuel. Another group of people realize that they could make a profit by using their abilities to meet that need. They form a company, pool their resources, take huge risks, put it all on the line in the hopes of "harvesting" the profit that was made available by the human need to power one's automobile. They didn't have to take those risks, but they saw an opportunity to profit and were willing to give it a shot - good ol' American innovation.

Other groups then see the profits that are being made and say, "hey, maybe we could sell better fuel cheaper than they do and take some of their profits." So the search for profit creates competition as well. This forces all parties to strive to increase efficiency and quality in the hopes taking profit from their competitors.

The beauty of the profit based free-market system is that it produces excellence. Those with a product they would like to sell, in the hopes of making a profit, offer it to the marketplace. Individuals in need of that product compare the various offerings, noting the distinctions in quality, benefits, features, and price. The products that get chosen are those that offer the most value to the consumer - excellence. So the makers of excellent products get the profit and the makers of mediocre products eventually go out of business. Excellence is the bridge between human need and human ability.

Two things make the process work. 1) Freedom and 2) the pursuit of profit. These are the two sides of the economic system. Companies bring their products to the market in order to make a profit. People come to the market to get their needs met and freely choose the products that have the most value (excellence). Freedom allows competition - competition creates excellence. The result, people have their needs met in increasingly excellent ways and others make the profit necessary to live their own lives and meet their own needs. It is a beautiful system and we're all engaged in it every day. Every one of us is working day in and day out to make a profit.

Unfortunately, the politician nurtures and exploits the darker side of human character - in this case, envy - to claim that those who meet our need (to drive cars) with their ability (producing fuel) in an excellent way (fuel on every street corner at a reasonable price) are making too much profit. If Dick Durban gets his way, in order bring more of your money into government coffers and ensure his reelection, he will stoke the fires of envy in the human heart and destroy the fuel of human innovation - profit.

As a nation we need to celebrate those that make a profit - for those that make a profit are the ones who have met our needs most effectively. They are the ones who have brought the most excellence to the market. Let's praise them and celebrate them rather than destroy them in the public square.

The Beauty of Prices

2006-04-25T11:37:00.000-07:00

Prices! Prices! Prices! It's the only thing I hear on the news today. The price of gas is too high!

I disagree completely! Do I like paying the high price of gas right now? No - I wish it was a quarter per gallon. But wanting the price to lower is one thing and making an argument that the price is too high is another. Saying the price is wrong, whether too high or too low, suggests ignorance about the role of prices. So let's talk about that.

Prices are not high or low because someone is trying to take advantage of you or because someone is evil. Actually, someone is always willing to charge too much for a product - that motivation will never go away. Don't you wish you made twice as much in your job? I sure do, but having that motivation doesn't make it possible. I charge for my labor what the market will pay. Any more than that and the market stops paying me and goes elsewhere for my skills.

The same is true for gas stations. There are about 10 stations within 3 miles of my home. I regularly drive by them all and know exactly which ones charge most and which ones charge least. I typically go to the cheapest unless one of the more expensive ones has a hot dog or something else that I want. Point being, the gas station can’t gouge because I’ll just go somewhere else.

You might say – but the gas companies all work together to keep prices high. Actually dozens of government inquiries (including one going on right now initiated by President Bush) have investigated the oil companies for that very thing, and each time the oil companies were exonerated. They are not colluding! They are competing – just like they are supposed to do.

So what is price? First of all, price is a reflection of market realities. The price a person charges for a product will always include all the costs that went into providing that product to the marketplace. Costs such as research and development, advertising, raw materials, production and labor, transportation, the retail environment – oh and lets not forget – taxes. These all must be paid for by the price charged to the consumer.

Every company is putting its best minds to the problem of reducing all of these costs in any way possible so as to gain an edge on the competition and drive more business to its doors and more profit to its shareholders. They can’t charge less than their costs for long without going out of business. They can’t charge much more than a reasonable profit because they’ll lose to the competition. So the price cannot be whatever the company wants it to be – it is tightly, tightly held in its given place by market realities – natural economic forces that are amazingly difficult to manipulate.

Second, price regulates the disparity between supply and demand. This is such a critical point and I hope you’ll read that sentence again and think about it. Why do we rarely have shortages of fuel in America? Or food, or cars, or TVs, or clothing, or toilet paper? Because prices of all these things are permitted (by the government - let's hope it stays this way) to fluctuate freely, thus regulating the disparity between supply and demand. When prices are controlled artificially, without fail you will have either shortages or surpluses. For example, when rent controls are put in place by local governments, two things happen: 1) People are less willing to provide rental units because they can’t cover their costs (supply goes down), and 2) People line up to rent units the units that are still on the market at artificially low prices (demand goes up). However, there is now a disparity between supply and demand. Less supply, more demand = shortage of rental units. So now we’ve got less housing on the market and more homelessness.

Oh and guess what – something else has to step in to regulate the difference. Getting a rent controlled apartment becomes an issue of “who you know” rather than “can you pay.” Do you think that possibly opens the door to discrimination? By the way, a decrease in discrimination is also a result of free markets – my gas station doesn’t care if I’m white or black, Christian, Muslim, or Jew – “can I pay?” is the only thing they care about. Added to that - I don't really care what ethnic group provided the gas, as long as it works in my car.

When the price of gas rises, people conserve. So without any government program or involvement, without being convinced by the President’s “Addicted to Oil” speech, people choose to figure out a way to buy less gas. I personally traded in my SUV (16 MPG) for a mid-size sedan (30 MPG). Not due to any other social pressure except the desire to save money on gas. Oh, and I also drive a little slower now too.

Okay, back to prices. Third – price allows resources to flow to where they are most needed. Let’s use Hurricane Katrina as an example. People were enraged that there were “hucksters” buying generators in neighboring states, driving them down to the coast and then charging twice as much as retail for those generators. “Those evil price gougers!” They even wanted to pass laws making such behavior illegal. Ok, let’s think this through. People took time off of work to buy and transport some generators that were desperately needed on the coast. There are now generators for sale that weren’t available a few days before – and we want to pass laws to prevent this?! There is so much wrong with that thinking I don’t know where to begin!

Consider this: the “high” price of the generator encouraged people to go out of their way to provide them. The “high” price of the generator kept people from buying them who didn’t really need them at the moment and had other options. Recognize this dynamic? Supply and demand were equalized – AND – resources went where they were needed most (from neighboring states to those most in need). These same principles work for every commodity – gas, water, labor, housing, you name it.

Do you know what the real threat is? Government involvement. The government erects roadblocks at every step for the oil companies. Environmental regulations affect exploration and extraction, limits on where they can drill, regulations about formulations, taxes. Every roadblock affects price by adding costs. If you want to do something about gas prices – tell the government to get out of the way. That is a market reality that we can affect. Freedom works – let’s try it!

So back to our initial point – the price of gas isn’t too high. It is exactly where it should be given market realities and the consumer demand for fuel. More importantly, fuel is exactly where it should be as a result – in the tanks of those who need it most. That is the beauty of prices - they almost magically adjust to prevent shortages or surpluses and at the same time ensure that precious resources go exactly where they are needed most. Amazing.

Subject areas: Oil Prices, Price Gouging, Hurricane Katrine, Addicted to Oil

Hatred, Envy, Laziness, Blame

2006-04-24T07:26:00.000-07:00

There is a politics of hatred, envy, laziness, and blame that is an absolute cancer consuming the possibility of good in the world. Not only does it seek to destroy what is good, it removes the possibility of developing the opportunity for good. There are many examples of this mindset. Here are a few: hatred of the successful companies that bring us the products we use on a daily basis such as Exxon and Wal-Mart. Terrorism is fueled by hatred. Most leftist politics are fueled by hatred for President Bush - the list goes on.

Politicians eager to advance in their careers are openly willing to capitalize on this cancerous growth. Without regard for the health of the nation, they respond to these cancerous attitudes by passing destructive laws in an attempt to get votes.

Consider the issue of gas prices. Politicians are responding to those that "hate those greedy oil companies". Nobody likes high prices, but are the gas companies to blame? Without the gas companies we’d have no gas! The politicians want to punish gas companies with a “windfall profits tax.” Who does that help?! The politician only! Gas prices are what they are because of the cost of doing business – buying crude, refining it, shipping it, building gas pipelines and gas stations. Should we add another cost on top of all that? Profit margins for gas companies are around 10%, which is less than most businesses. A significant price of gas is taxes already. The government actually makes about 5 times as much as the gas companies do on each gallon sold. Should we add more costs to the companies trying to provide you with fuel? You’ll be the one that pays the "windfall profits tax", not the gas companies! But it is the politics of hatred, envy, laziness, and blame that makes possible the enactment of laws that drive prices for all commodities higher. Why don’t we instead pass laws that reduce the burden on the gas companies, like laws that make it easier to develop domestic sources of energy?

Hatred, envy, laziness, and blame all work together. They are the ingredients of failure. They work together to prevent a person’s success, and they work together to take away the prosperity that comes from the success of others. When a person is full of hatred, they can’t see any good in those they hate. The object of that hatred in the hater’s mind becomes the one to blame for every failure that they face. Rather than looking at reality objectively, determining the reason for their own failure, they blame another. Rather than celebrating another person’s success and expressing gratitude for the environment that allowed for that success, they envy their prosperity and seek to do it harm.

These harmful human characteristics make it impossible to see opportunity. Instead of seeing potential around them, they see oppression. They see the actions of others and label them as evil. The black man who blames racism for his lot in life can’t see the opportunities around him because his focus is on something he can’t change – the attitude of others. Is there racism in the world? Certainly – will it erect a stumbling block at times? Sure – but does that mean success is impossible for the black man? No way! Every body has obstacles to their success. It is up to the individual to face those obstacles and find a way over, under, around, or through them. Nobody is going to do it for you!

Hatred, envy, laziness, and blame also prepare the mind to allow any injustice against the hated - such as what happened with the Jews during the holocaust. When you hate another person, when you are envious of what they have (because they must have obtained it unjustly), when you don't want to do the work they did, and when you blame them for your failure - you place no limits on what kind of evil can be done to that person. Logically - evil deserves no leniency. For this reason, Islamic terrorists have no problem slamming airplanes into building filled with people or cutting off the heads of innocent workers and missionaries. To the terrorists, the object of their hatred is so evil that such extremes are justified.

There are certain human character traits that built America. Ingredients, if you will, of a prosperous, healthy America. These human characteristics are the exact opposites of the cancerous ones: love, gratitude, hard work, and responsibility. Freedom is dependent upon these attitudes. So is prosperity. Let’s develop these attitudes personally and encourage our lawmakers to respond to these rather than hatred, envy, laziness, and blame.

Blessing

2006-04-23T03:15:00.000-07:00

It's sad, but true - a lot of people believe that if there is a God, He's angry with them. Somehow, in their minds, God is upset with them, with most people actually, and that He wants them to be "holy" - which translates into - "bored, unexciting, quiet" - you know - Holy. And since God is mad at them, he doesn't want any good thing for them. As a result, people don't really want to get to know Him.

What a terrible understanding of God. I like to think of God as the perfect Dad. It helps me to get my head on straight about the way He thinks about me and His desires for me.

First of all - is He mad at me? Well, I have screwed up big time in life and He certainly could point out a whole lot of areas in which I've fallen short. But as a good dad, God realizes that I'm His child, and still learning. The Bible says, "For He knows our frame" (Ps 103:14). God knows my strengths and He knows my weaknesses. He made me! He better know me! So, yeah, we've made some big mistakes, but God realizes that and expects that. He desires good for us anyway. Don't you for your children? They mess up, sure, but do you reject them as a result? Of course not, and how much more patience does God have than you? The Bible says His mercy never ends! "Oh, give thanks to the LORD, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever. " (Psalms 106:1) Wow - that is a lot of patience.

So what about all the stuff we've done wrong? It's covered! Jesus came, lived, and died, and rose again to cover all that stuff. Jesus came so we could quit thinking about all we've done wrong and get on with life. Sure, we've messed up - quit worrying about it, learn from it, do better next time.

So as the perfect Father, God is not mad at His children. He is however hoping that we can get more out of life. He wants good for us. Life operates according to principles. Cause and effect. As the perfect dad, with perfect understanding of the world, He knows cause and effect. He knows how we should live in order to get a great life - He wants us to have a great life. He also knows that many of our choices (which we are free to make) leads us away from that great life. He desires our obedience because He knows that if we'll follow His lead, we'll get somewhere great. Obedience to God's leadership produces wonderful things!

God wants wonderful things for us. All of us. Even those who don't believe in Him! The Bible says, "‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live." (Ezekiel 33:11) He wants life, even for the wicked. Doesn't a good father want his wayward children to see the error of their ways so that they can change and live a good life?

Oh - and what about this "holiness" business? Does God intend that we have no fun, that we lead dull lives of church attendance and prayer meetings? I think we have this image in our heads of the life God desires for us based on paintings on the walls of ancient churches. Who says that is holiness? The word holiness means to be set apart. It really means: to be His. "I am loved by God so I choose to love Him back - I am His." Holiness is not about kneeling for hours on concrete floors - or whatever painful image we tend to have of holiness.

So what does God actually want from us? Life! He wants us to live abundant lives. He created us to live. So how do we get this abundant life? By having a relationship with the One who created us so that He can teach us how to find life. He knows how to get it. He made everything and the laws under which everything functions. He knows how to have a good marriage. He knows how to get a raise at work. He knows how to build a home. He knows how to invest. He knows how to raise children. He knows how to have fun. He knows what it takes to have great sex. He knows how to make a great steak. He knows life - and He can teach us how to live it to the full. Knowing how to live life to the full starts with knowing Him.

And when we know Him, our lives will change. We will become the kind of people that make a difference in the world. Through a relationship with God we'll affect the world for good. People will learn from us that in God, you can have great relationships - in God, you can enjoy your work - in God, you can succeed financially - in God, you can find happiness. When the world sees you, they'll want the life you've got and will listen to the message you tell them about God. Its a big circle - God draws people into a relationship with Him by blessing those that are already His.

So what does God want from you? He wants to have a relationship with you so that He can teach you how to live a great life. Then He wants you to live a great life so that others can learn from you that having a relationship with God leads to a great life. That is holiness.

So God desires good for us, blessing not cursing - so choose life!

"I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live" (Deut 30:19)

God is Good

2006-04-22T18:03:00.000-07:00

"Oh, give thanks to the LORD, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever." Ps 136:1

For a man to have faith, to trust, in another person, he must believe that the other person is going to bring good to him and not harm. If we do not believe that another person has our best intentions in mind, we will be constantly wary of them, looking for ways that they might be planning to take advantage of us.

Most of us have spent our lives doubting the trustworthiness of people. We’ve been hurt many times. Our ability to trust another has been damaged. For many people, this taints their ability to trust in God. They see in God the characteristics of people who have hurt them. The person who says, “My dad was always so angry” often sees God as always angry.

If we are going to grow in our faith, we must first come to grips with the goodness of God. If we believe that God is always angry with us and that we are on the verge of punishment, then it is hard to feel close to Him and desire communion with Him.

Jesus Christ came to free us from the tyranny of always worrying about the wrath of God. Face it, we don’t meet the standard, we haven’t been good enough. In fact, we can’t be good enough to “earn” the love of God. Jesus Christ came to bring us back into communion with Him, to set us free from a constant awareness of our sin. He wants us to have a relationship with God and not worry about our unworthiness. That will come later.

God is the standard of goodness; the standard of excellence. We know good when we see it and we know evil. There is a movement in our hearts when we see something noble, something selfless, something kind. We are moved by such acts of goodness. There is a reason our hearts respond to these demonstrations – we are made in the image of God. Our emotions are patterned on His emotions; our awareness of good and evil is patterned on His awareness of them. Our hearts respond like His does. There is a lot that we can do to either silence or magnify this awareness; the heart can become hard, but it can also become more sensitive.

God wants us to learn to see His goodness. I believe that understanding the goodness of God is the starting point for choosing a relationship with Him. If we can learn to see that He desires good for us, and not harm, we can begin to bring our concerns to him. We can also learn to surrender to Him the choices that we know aren’t good for us – learning how to turn from sin, knowing that doing so is the way that God brings blessing into our lives.

Freedom

2006-04-22T17:14:00.000-07:00

Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Galatians 1:1

We were made for freedom. God's every interaction with us is on the basis of freedom. He doesn't force us to do anything. He would like a relationship with us, but He does not force Himself upon us. We are free to choose Him, and free to reject Him. We are free. The hallmark of any mature relationship is the freedom to choose that relationship. Whether discussing marriage, friendship, work relationships, business relationships, or our relationship with God, choice makes the relationship work.

Why is it then that we choose the relationships that we do? The mature, healthy individual chooses relationships on the basis of mutual benefit. God wants us to choose to have a relationship with him on that basis as well. He gets something out of it, we get something out of it.

So what do we get out of it? One of the more obvious answers is eternal life, but I don't think the mature individual chooses God on that tenet alone. We still have a life to live here, our entire existence can't be focused just on eternity. Do we get anything out of having a relationship with God now?

It is a common misconception among Christians and non-Christians alike that God for some reason doesn't want us to enjoy life. Many believe that God's desire for our lives is that we become holy and that somehow, enjoying our lives is inconsistent with the idea of holiness. Furthermore, many believe that God takes pleasure in our sacrifices, rather than pleasure in our joy. But Jesus Himself said, "I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly." John 10:10

I believe that God would much rather see us full of joy than full of sorrow. Wealthy rather than poor; God prefers success over failure. Psalm 35:17 says, "Let the LORD be magnified, Who has pleasure in the prosperity of His servant." A God who loves His children is a God who wants to see them experience good all their lives. It is God's heart to bless, not bring harm. Our choices often bring us harm, that is not God's heart, He would rather see us learn how to make good choices, and as a result be blessed

God wants us to choose a relationship with Him because it is the beginning of an awesome life! Not necessarily a life of church attendance and ministry work, but a life fully lived, in whatever form that takes for you.

The Roots of Ideology

2006-04-22T15:44:00.000-07:00

So why does someone become a liberal, a conservative, a democrat, a republican. What are the character traits that produce our political ideology? The concept of the political left and right is a fairly challenging one to identify and articulate. In general people fall one way or the other, almost regardless of the issue. Those that are politically left on one issue tend to be left on every issue. The same goes for the right. This explains why there are two prominent parties in the United States – Democrats and Republicans. Why there are two descriptions for those leanings – liberal and conservative. It even explains why we use a two sided designation – left and right. What is the root of this two-sided reality? Is there a cause of political ideology?
I’ve heard explanations for this tendency, suggestions that one side can face the truth and the other can’t – of course the definition being defined by a person on the side that can face the truth. Others suggest the division comes from a distinction between the haves and the have-nots. It might be tempting to say that it has something to do with race or class, or possibly even religious affiliation. Each of these, though, can be quickly dispatched with by a quick review of the members of the left and right. We find people who can face the truth on both sides. We find rich and poor on both sides. We find people of every race on both sides. We even find people on both sides of every religious affiliation.
I believe the answer is deeper, something in our makeup, something beyond our circumstances, something beyond the physical; something spiritual. Not spiritual in the religious sense. By religion I mean the system that people form around their spiritual beliefs. I mean spiritual in the relational sense. Huh?
To me, the essence of spirituality is relationship. By way of illustration, consider that all of the 12 step programs help people to recover from destructive behavior by admitting 1) their own powerlessness over their own lives and behavior, 2) that a power greater than themselves could restore them to sanity, and by 3) turning their lives over to God as they understood him. These admissions recognize human weakness and look to another for strength. They find resources for living by relating to some higher power — by placing trust in this higher power. It’s a relationship – you have to place trust in something or someone – that is what makes spirituality relational.
All people, even those not struggling with addiction, face hardship, uncertainty, failure, etc. We live in a world where things are happening all around us that we have no control over. Most things happen to us. As human beings, we are powerless to prevent these challenges. Markets change, accidents happen, people do things to hurt us, the unexpected happens, people die, businesses fail. Our choices move our lives in a given direction, but most of the time our choices are in response to things that happen to us, responses to opportunities that presented themselves to us. I certainly believe that that least among us can succeed wildly, as a product of their choices, but along the way they will face many challenges. We are weak; this world has the ability to toss us to and fro. We are powerless over so many of these circumstances and as a result, vulnerable – a condition that produces fear. It is a person’s response to these challenges that I want to discuss – and show as the root of a person’s political ideology. Before I present this thinking, I want to emphasize that I’m generalizing significantly. It will be easy to find examples of people who don’t fit the mold, who are motivated by other factors such as group think, family and peer pressure, social expectations, etc. So my rationale is a general tendency that will gradually present itself as people grow, shrug off social pressures, and become more honest with themselves and their motivations.
In everything we face, we have a choice – our response. Steven Covey pointed out in “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” that between stimulus and response there is a freedom to choose, a distinction that separates us from the animals. I want to consider the spiritual element though, not the physical response. Before we make physical choices and actually do something after a given stimuli, our heart moves. Spiritually, something happens. We have a spiritual response before a physical one. This spiritual response is either a reaching outward or reaching inward. It’s a determination of whose resources upon which to draw; either those belonging to our higher power or our own resources. It is a response that says, I can relax, though I am weak, my higher power can deal with this – or, I’m lacking what I need right now. One produces a heart of confidence and security, the other produces fear and insecurity. This spiritual response sets the stage for our physical response. Our physical response will either be based in a security that comes from trust in something more powerful than ourselves or based in the insecurity that comes from knowing our own weakness and trying to provide for ourselves out of that weakness.
Again, I want to stress, this is a relational issue, not a religious issue. A religion can’t help you, but a higher power can. For the purpose of this discussion, I’m not concerned with who this higher power is, only that a person trusts that this higher power exists and is available for help in time of need. This trust in some kind of higher power also has another aspect. The belief that this higher power has good in mind for them and will work to make things better.
So to sum up my theory: We are not gods; we are not all knowing or all powerful. Our humanity makes us vulnerable to unforeseen circumstances. Political ideology is a result of the spiritual response to our humanity. The response to weakness is the deciding factor in who goes left and who goes right.
I believe this hypothesis helps us to understand many of the behavioral characteristics we observe in ourselves and in our fellow man. Let’s examine these human tendencies.
The physical responses – gaining power over others. Gaining power in general. The natural response to a feeling of being out of control is to try to gain that control back.
In an organization, this tendency to fight fear by taking control will manifest as a manager trying to micro manage every activity within their responsibility – and quite a bit outside. The person who trusts in a higher power is more likely to push responsibility down and allow subordinates the opportunity to make decisions.
Those on the right, except where motivated by group think or a desire to be accepted by other members of the right (or other socially motivated pressures) believe essentially that things will work out. You see the product of this belief everywhere. They tend to trust people when people are working to take care of themselves. They tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. They tend to have more grace and give people space to make mistakes and to recover from them. Why? Because a higher power has allowed them to make mistakes and sees to it that they recover, learn, grow, and do better next time. They believe in the freedom to make mistakes because they have made mistakes. The trusting heart says, “I have no need to fear because though I am weak, my God is strong.”
This has another side – these people take responsibility for their choices. They take the blame for their mistakes because in so doing, they are no longer victims and have the power to overcome. These believers are overcomers. They learn and move on. As a result they believe that others should also reject a victim mentality, learn from their own mistakes, take responsibility for their own lives, and move on.
They believe in the golden rule – doing unto others as you want other to do to you. Although they will be generous with their own property to support that which they believe in, they don’t want their property taken from them to give to causes they don’t believe in – especially for those who claim to be victims. Consequently, they don’t insist that property be taken from their fellow man to support their own causes.
The people we presently label as conservative, the political right, or republican tend to believe in themselves, believe in their fellowman, and believe in the goodness of a higher power help make difficult circumstances work out for good. Those who do not trust in a higher power over their own powerlessness have a protectionist response. They often find another person to blame when things go poorly.
Beneath every political position are layers, much like an onion, that when peeled back reveal deeper beliefs about the person holding those views. People have their political affiliations due to deeply held core beliefs that they may not even be aware of. Keep peeling back the layers though, and you’ll eventually find a heart that either believes and trusts in God, or a heart that does not.