Is any nation especially blessed by God and empowered to enforce His will on earth? Are the armies of any nation the armies of the LORD? If armies murder the innocent by policy and routinely maim those who are not enemies in pursuit of an enemy, what is in store for that nation? Can righteousness employ evil to accomplish good? When a nation forgets God's precepts as it pursues the illusion of safety, will God bless that nation?
No! The people of the unrighteous nation will suffer along with their elders. Those who attempt safety through murder and theft will suffer loss and great sorrow, and their children will pay the debts of their unrightous fathers through generations. They will curse their heritage.
Thus says the LORD:
How the faithful city has become a whore, she who was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers. Your silver has become dross, your best wine mixed with water. Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not bring justice to the fatherless, and the widow's cause does not come to them. Therefore the Lord declares, the LORD of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel: "Ah, I will get relief from my enemies and avenge myself on my foes."
~Isaiah 1
For the lost of humanity, God's wrath comes in the form of eternal death. For the lost nation, it comes in the form of destruction and disgust throughout history.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Friday, December 16, 2011
Who is in Charge Here?
There is an excellent story of a young man, that was at sea in a mighty raging tempest; and when all the passengers were at their wits' end for fear, he only was merry; and when he was asked the reason of his mirth, he answered, “That the pilot of the ship was his father, and he knew his father would have a care of him.” The great and wise God, who is our Father, hath from all eternity decreed what shall be the issue of all wars, what the event of all troubles; he is our pilot, he sits at the stern; and though the ship of the church or state be in a sinking condition, yet be of good comfort, our Pilot will have a care of us. There is nothing done in the lower house of Parliament on earth, but what is first decreed in the higher house in heaven. All the lesser wheels are ordered and overruled by the upper. Are not five sparrows, saith Christ, sold for a farthing? One sparrow is not worth half a farthing. And there's no man shall have half a farthing's worth of harm more than God hath decreed from all eternity. - Edmund Calamy.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Avoid leveraged ETFs
Thursday, September 29, 2011
More Proverbial Pie Please
Mama knows that everyone wants a bigger piece of the pie.
She also knows that there is only so much pie,
And that she will run out of pie before everyone is satisfied.
Ben doesn’t know crust about pie.
Ben says everyone should consume more (pie).
If money is short, everyone should borrow so they can consume more (pie).
Ben is scared spitless that there might be a drop in prices (for pie).
So, Ben conjures fake money out of nothing so people can borrow and spend more (for pie).
Ben does not make pies.
But, somebody had best get off the couch and start producing pie.
Maybe Mama should be in charge?
She also knows that there is only so much pie,
And that she will run out of pie before everyone is satisfied.
Ben doesn’t know crust about pie.
Ben says everyone should consume more (pie).
If money is short, everyone should borrow so they can consume more (pie).
Ben is scared spitless that there might be a drop in prices (for pie).
So, Ben conjures fake money out of nothing so people can borrow and spend more (for pie).
Ben does not make pies.
But, somebody had best get off the couch and start producing pie.
Maybe Mama should be in charge?
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Two Forms of Social Organization
Over the history of mankind, there have been many types of social organization. The relationships within a group of people increase geometrically as the size increases, so it becomes practically impossible to comprehend all of the relationships in any society beyond a very small community. If we are to consider the forms of social organization, we must start with the nature of mankind. First, it is unquestionable that each individual must be a self owner, since control of the body, to the extent that it can be controlled, rests solely with the will of the individual inhabiting that body. Second, no two humans are the same in size, color, ability, etc. This seems ridiculously simple, but these two laws are important concepts to grasp because they allow us to understand many ethical aspects of the condition of societies of any size.
Assume that just two people exist. Both are self owners, and so also logically are owners of any goods that they have originally gathered from nature or have made using their own faculties. And, since people are not identical, each person will be endowed with greater abilities in some areas than the other, and so their possessions will also be somewhat different.
In this simplest of societies, if one person uses aggression to enrich himself at the expense of the other, this is a violation of the law of self-ownership. But this immediately introduces two ethical questions:
1. Should each individual in a society be a self-owner, or should some or all people be forced to be owned to some degree by another individual or group?
2. Should each individual in a society be allowed to be different, or should some or all people be forced to some degree to become closer to identical in possessions and / or abilities?
The answer to these two questions will define whether one is fundamentally a Socialist or an Individualist. So let's investigate how each would answer the following questions about our two person society.
In the simple society of two, how should the inequity in ability and possessions be addressed?
Socialist: The person with greater possessions should voluntarily give his excess to the one with less. The person with greater abilities should voluntarily attempt to increase the abilities of the other, or decrease his own. Failing to do either of these gives the less privileged person the moral right to achieve equality by force.
Individualist: The person with greater possessions should engage in voluntary exchange with the other, thereby allowing both to enjoy goods they would not have enjoyed otherwise. Therefore, both people regardless of abilities cooperate and use those abilities to enrich their society.
So, let's say that the society of two is one man and one woman and they cooperate by creating a family and a slightly larger society. How should this small community be organized?
Socialist: Those whom nature has favored by situation and ability should voluntarily give to the less fortunate. If and when they fail to do so, an organization of compulsion (call it Government) should be formed by right thinking citizens to force them to contribute to equality for all.
Individualist: Those with greater abilities should specialize in producing a particular good, trading what they produce with others who specialize in different goods. Those who have less ability, nevertheless have their own labor to trade, and so the entire society will produce more and better goods and will be richer by cooperation.
As the society grows it becomes obvious that the more Socialistic it becomes, the greater the level of organized violence and poverty there will be, and the more Individualistic it becomes, the greater the level of cooperation and prosperity.
Of course the inequality of individuals extends beyond physical and mental ability to ethical ability also. And for that reason, there will always be a criminal element in any society of appreciable size. So, how would crime be handled by the opposing philosophies?
Socialist: Criminals will be pursued by the organization of compulsion (Government), then locked away for a sufficient time and re-educated if possible until their debt to the society is repaid. Strong groups of enforcers will be required to make sure that those whom society favors will be safe from these criminals. Restitution, if any, will be paid to support the operation of the enforcers. Any level of force, up to and including the taking of life may be used to make society safe.
Individualist: There will be some producers in society who will provide protection services on a voluntary basis. Since there will always be a criminal element, nearly everyone will voluntarily retain some level of protective services. Criminals will then be pursued by a protection service and restitution will be paid to the victim. Apprehending criminals would be a high priority for the protective service, because otherwise they must reimburse the victim. Only proportional violence could be used in apprehending a criminal since members of the protective service would be private citizens liable to the same rules as everyone.
In the history of man, we have an almost unbroken tendency to organize ourselves into societies that are violent and predatory, but even in the most repressive of these, Individualism is never completely crushed. When you have thousands of years of history invariably indicating the same method of organization there must be a reason.
Cut open an ant hill and examine their organization. Why do they organize themselves in this way? Is it not because of the nature of the ant? And the nature of man causes the forms of society we see today and have seen throughout history. But what is it about the nature of man that causes so much misery?
Since individuals vary in strength and in ethics, those who are the strongest and most unethical will inevitably rise up to dominate any society that does not prevent them from doing so. And yet even when the worst happens and violence reigns, self ownership cannot be completely erased. Regardless of the reigning tyranny there is always an element of resistance through black markets, civil disobedience, lack of cooperation and flight if necessary. In the formation of societies, we are trapped in a struggle between two aspects of our own nature, and there is no prospect in sight of emerging into societal perfection.
Karl Marx envisioned the perfect state of society in Socialism, where everyone worked diligently for the good of the whole. But every society formed in the image that Marx conceived has been impoverished, murderous and short-lived. Meanwhile, self ownership has never been completely crushed, and yet never fully adopted either. Where is the Individualist who will influence the world for good as much as Karl Marx did for evil? We may search for such a person, but while we search, let each of us work to improve ourselves by recognizing the evil of Socialism and resisting that evil.
Assume that just two people exist. Both are self owners, and so also logically are owners of any goods that they have originally gathered from nature or have made using their own faculties. And, since people are not identical, each person will be endowed with greater abilities in some areas than the other, and so their possessions will also be somewhat different.
In this simplest of societies, if one person uses aggression to enrich himself at the expense of the other, this is a violation of the law of self-ownership. But this immediately introduces two ethical questions:
1. Should each individual in a society be a self-owner, or should some or all people be forced to be owned to some degree by another individual or group?
2. Should each individual in a society be allowed to be different, or should some or all people be forced to some degree to become closer to identical in possessions and / or abilities?
The answer to these two questions will define whether one is fundamentally a Socialist or an Individualist. So let's investigate how each would answer the following questions about our two person society.
In the simple society of two, how should the inequity in ability and possessions be addressed?
Socialist: The person with greater possessions should voluntarily give his excess to the one with less. The person with greater abilities should voluntarily attempt to increase the abilities of the other, or decrease his own. Failing to do either of these gives the less privileged person the moral right to achieve equality by force.
Individualist: The person with greater possessions should engage in voluntary exchange with the other, thereby allowing both to enjoy goods they would not have enjoyed otherwise. Therefore, both people regardless of abilities cooperate and use those abilities to enrich their society.
So, let's say that the society of two is one man and one woman and they cooperate by creating a family and a slightly larger society. How should this small community be organized?
Socialist: Those whom nature has favored by situation and ability should voluntarily give to the less fortunate. If and when they fail to do so, an organization of compulsion (call it Government) should be formed by right thinking citizens to force them to contribute to equality for all.
Individualist: Those with greater abilities should specialize in producing a particular good, trading what they produce with others who specialize in different goods. Those who have less ability, nevertheless have their own labor to trade, and so the entire society will produce more and better goods and will be richer by cooperation.
As the society grows it becomes obvious that the more Socialistic it becomes, the greater the level of organized violence and poverty there will be, and the more Individualistic it becomes, the greater the level of cooperation and prosperity.
Of course the inequality of individuals extends beyond physical and mental ability to ethical ability also. And for that reason, there will always be a criminal element in any society of appreciable size. So, how would crime be handled by the opposing philosophies?
Socialist: Criminals will be pursued by the organization of compulsion (Government), then locked away for a sufficient time and re-educated if possible until their debt to the society is repaid. Strong groups of enforcers will be required to make sure that those whom society favors will be safe from these criminals. Restitution, if any, will be paid to support the operation of the enforcers. Any level of force, up to and including the taking of life may be used to make society safe.
Individualist: There will be some producers in society who will provide protection services on a voluntary basis. Since there will always be a criminal element, nearly everyone will voluntarily retain some level of protective services. Criminals will then be pursued by a protection service and restitution will be paid to the victim. Apprehending criminals would be a high priority for the protective service, because otherwise they must reimburse the victim. Only proportional violence could be used in apprehending a criminal since members of the protective service would be private citizens liable to the same rules as everyone.
In the history of man, we have an almost unbroken tendency to organize ourselves into societies that are violent and predatory, but even in the most repressive of these, Individualism is never completely crushed. When you have thousands of years of history invariably indicating the same method of organization there must be a reason.
Cut open an ant hill and examine their organization. Why do they organize themselves in this way? Is it not because of the nature of the ant? And the nature of man causes the forms of society we see today and have seen throughout history. But what is it about the nature of man that causes so much misery?
Since individuals vary in strength and in ethics, those who are the strongest and most unethical will inevitably rise up to dominate any society that does not prevent them from doing so. And yet even when the worst happens and violence reigns, self ownership cannot be completely erased. Regardless of the reigning tyranny there is always an element of resistance through black markets, civil disobedience, lack of cooperation and flight if necessary. In the formation of societies, we are trapped in a struggle between two aspects of our own nature, and there is no prospect in sight of emerging into societal perfection.
Karl Marx envisioned the perfect state of society in Socialism, where everyone worked diligently for the good of the whole. But every society formed in the image that Marx conceived has been impoverished, murderous and short-lived. Meanwhile, self ownership has never been completely crushed, and yet never fully adopted either. Where is the Individualist who will influence the world for good as much as Karl Marx did for evil? We may search for such a person, but while we search, let each of us work to improve ourselves by recognizing the evil of Socialism and resisting that evil.
Friday, August 5, 2011
The Rock
As I watch the relative value of world currencies fluctuate day to day, it occurs to me that the numbers simply indicate which national currency is circling the toilet bowl the fastest. In the end they are all heading toward the sewer.
Step back, as if viewing the spectacle from the moon. What is stable? What is real money? How can one judge the dollar, euro or yen objectively? Find a position of stability and watch from there.
Step back, as if viewing the spectacle from the moon. What is stable? What is real money? How can one judge the dollar, euro or yen objectively? Find a position of stability and watch from there.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Theft
Theft comes in many forms, one of which is debasing the monetary unit. Those who knowingly benefit from this disgraceful act either by accepting and using the gift of counterfeit money, or by trading dishonest money for honest labor and goods, join the band of thieves.
And those who are unable or unwilling to steal are crushed into poverty.
And those who are unable or unwilling to steal are crushed into poverty.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)