Sunday, April 27, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Untitled
On the 4th of July this year, I will be in Latvia celebrating the marriage of my brother and my favorite new sister-in-law Gundega.
On the 4th of July 1776, 33 year-old Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
Jefferson then went on to outline some 18 offenses which he found grievous to the people living on this continent.
Like Jefferson, I too believe that we are born into this world with inherent rights.
Life: we each have a right to life and a responsibility to protect it.
Liberty: we each have a right to maintain our freedom from a despotic government; we have a right to freedom from an external rule; we have a right to freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions; we have a right to speaking, thinking and doing according to choice as long as we do not rob the life, liberty or property of others.
Pursuit of Happiness: This phrase is based on the writings of John Locke. Additionally, I have found Frederick Bastiat's, "The Law" (first published in June 1850) incredibly insightful in attempting to understand what this phrase could mean. In it, Bastiat states that, "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
It is to this end that I write this post. I have written previously regarding the 'balanced center,' I continue to feel that restoring Washington DC to this 'center' is the most important issue facing our country in the current presidential election. This balanced center is essential to ensuring that each of us is able to maintain our life, our liberty and our property (or pursuit of happiness). Many promises are being made by our current presidential candidates. It is our responsibility to decide if the candidates did deliver on these promises would the result maintain our personal rights, and our country's political balanced center?
I mention one such promise: health care. Of course we all want to be well and wish the same for others. Certainly, if every citizen of America was afforded health care this would aid in maintaining our goal of right number one: life. However, at what cost? Are we not trading one right at the expense of the other two? It has been said, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." I say, "Those who would sacrifice liberty and property for life deserve none."
Our country is in debt beyond comprehension; our dollar is deflating like an untied balloon, its' value against the Euro tanks daily; we spend money on existing programs and wars like they're going out of style; we continually bail-out (and consequently promote) bad investments. Look where the social security program is at today. We allow the government to rob us from each paycheck; in hopes that they will pay us back down the road. Fortunately, they do continue to pay us back, unfortunately it is with devalued dollars. Are we not smart enough to plan our own retirements? If you could opt-out of the social security program and instead invest 6.2% of your paycheck in your own retirement account would you participate? (At that point, maybe our employers would then be allowed to contribue their matching 6.2% to our personal retirement fund rather than the goverment's losing program!) Similar to social security, social health care would require that funds be taken from us in the form of taxes and be redistributed as best seen fit by Washington DC. Would this not tilt the scales further from toward tyranny?
On the 4th of July 1776, 33 year-old Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
Jefferson then went on to outline some 18 offenses which he found grievous to the people living on this continent.
Like Jefferson, I too believe that we are born into this world with inherent rights.
Life: we each have a right to life and a responsibility to protect it.
Liberty: we each have a right to maintain our freedom from a despotic government; we have a right to freedom from an external rule; we have a right to freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions; we have a right to speaking, thinking and doing according to choice as long as we do not rob the life, liberty or property of others.
Pursuit of Happiness: This phrase is based on the writings of John Locke. Additionally, I have found Frederick Bastiat's, "The Law" (first published in June 1850) incredibly insightful in attempting to understand what this phrase could mean. In it, Bastiat states that, "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
It is to this end that I write this post. I have written previously regarding the 'balanced center,' I continue to feel that restoring Washington DC to this 'center' is the most important issue facing our country in the current presidential election. This balanced center is essential to ensuring that each of us is able to maintain our life, our liberty and our property (or pursuit of happiness). Many promises are being made by our current presidential candidates. It is our responsibility to decide if the candidates did deliver on these promises would the result maintain our personal rights, and our country's political balanced center?
I mention one such promise: health care. Of course we all want to be well and wish the same for others. Certainly, if every citizen of America was afforded health care this would aid in maintaining our goal of right number one: life. However, at what cost? Are we not trading one right at the expense of the other two? It has been said, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." I say, "Those who would sacrifice liberty and property for life deserve none."
Our country is in debt beyond comprehension; our dollar is deflating like an untied balloon, its' value against the Euro tanks daily; we spend money on existing programs and wars like they're going out of style; we continually bail-out (and consequently promote) bad investments. Look where the social security program is at today. We allow the government to rob us from each paycheck; in hopes that they will pay us back down the road. Fortunately, they do continue to pay us back, unfortunately it is with devalued dollars. Are we not smart enough to plan our own retirements? If you could opt-out of the social security program and instead invest 6.2% of your paycheck in your own retirement account would you participate? (At that point, maybe our employers would then be allowed to contribue their matching 6.2% to our personal retirement fund rather than the goverment's losing program!) Similar to social security, social health care would require that funds be taken from us in the form of taxes and be redistributed as best seen fit by Washington DC. Would this not tilt the scales further from toward tyranny?
Is Christianity the Problem?
Next time you've got a spare 90 minutes, consider watching this debate:
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
See Me
Sommer and I just got back from seeing Ben Stein's new documentary movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."
I just looked the movie up on imdb.com's site to see how others are rating the film. Looks like it's definately a love/hate relationship with current statistics of 26% love, 57% hate and the remaining 17% anywhere in between. Thank you, Mr. Stein, for putting yourself out there and attaching your name to something you believe in.
I just looked the movie up on imdb.com's site to see how others are rating the film. Looks like it's definately a love/hate relationship with current statistics of 26% love, 57% hate and the remaining 17% anywhere in between. Thank you, Mr. Stein, for putting yourself out there and attaching your name to something you believe in.
I didn't know much about what the term Intelligent Design truly meant before seeing this movie. I, too, thought that the term Intelligent Design was synonomous with Creationism. I would be willing to bet that most Christians believe there is a bias in our public education system in America to influence children to accept evolution as fact. But why? What would such a conspiracy acomplish? What is the end-game? I felt Ben Stein did a fantastic job at attempting to answer these questions.
I recently watched a video online in which Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens debated the topic of "Is Christianity the Problem?" A line D'Souza used reminded me of something my brother-in-law mentioned to me a few years ago, "T, it seems that you hate BYU more than you love Utah." (And, I'll have to admit that he was probably right in the pre-Urban Meyer days.) D'Souza said that although he doesn't believe in unicorn's, he doesn't spend day after day disdaining them, antagonizing their believers and writing books to disprove their existence. So, why is it that the scientists who believe in evolution would rather spend their time disdaining, antogonizing and discrediting Intelligent Design?
I recently watched a video online in which Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens debated the topic of "Is Christianity the Problem?" A line D'Souza used reminded me of something my brother-in-law mentioned to me a few years ago, "T, it seems that you hate BYU more than you love Utah." (And, I'll have to admit that he was probably right in the pre-Urban Meyer days.) D'Souza said that although he doesn't believe in unicorn's, he doesn't spend day after day disdaining them, antagonizing their believers and writing books to disprove their existence. So, why is it that the scientists who believe in evolution would rather spend their time disdaining, antogonizing and discrediting Intelligent Design?
Similar to the pompous preaching of the Global Warming crowd, Evolutionists want it to be taught in our public education system that, "The debate is over!" I feel the federal government uses it's heavy hand more and more to sway what is being taught to our children. As Ron Paul teaches, the federal government does not own our children. Yet we act as if it does by letting it decide when, how and what our children will learn. This is not to say that I believe it is Intelligent Design that should be taught solely in education just as I do not like the current system of teaching solely Evolutionism in the classroom.
During the conclusion of his documentary, Ben Stein describes the acedemic arena in which profossors are forced to operate. He states that these professors are free to teach however/whatever they may, as long as they stay on the correct side of the wall. The problem is that the rest of us are not even aware that the wall exists. Go see his movie and decide for your self if the wall is there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)