I consider myself a rational person. I generally have the ability to discuss and debate issues without getting too emotionally involved or taking personal offense. But lately I find myself struggling more and more with the temptation of being angry at those who disagree with me, particularly when it comes to politics. I know why it is.
I'm not tempted to get angry at someone who doesn't know any better, or is simply confused. What makes me angry is willful ignorance and refusal to deal with obvious truth. It makes me particularly angry if someone else's willful ignorance drags others around them into disaster. and why does that bother me? I think at the root of it is the fact that they are clinging to an ideology that is diametrically opposed to my beliefs. That is really what willful ignorance is. It's holding on to an idea or principle so tightly that you ignore obvious truth. Ultimately people are willfully ignorant because they would rather accept the consequences of their ideas than face the consequences of admitting that they were wrong. It's what the Bible calls foolishness.
That refusal to hear reason is really what angers me. It's like trying to convince a brick wall that it's been build crooked. It will not hear you, and will not be convinced until it finally collapses under the weight of it's own faulty foundation.
But why does the refusal to hear reason bother me so much? I think it comes down to my own pride. By refusing to hear reason, they are essentially refusing to recognize my relevance, or even my existence. That is why I have no problem discussing things and debating things with someone who really wishes to discuss and debate. There is a mutual recognition there that the other person's ideas and arguments are relevant, even if I do not agree with them.
So what's the right response? Well, it's not anger. That's for sure. Anger just provides them opportunity to attack you and turn it against you. I think there is a time to walk away from an arguement, which I'm not very good at. It comes back to what proverbs says about answering a fool according to his folley. At times it is necessary in order to rebuke him and (hopefully) teach him wisdom. But if you allow him to pull you into his arena, then you will only hurt yourself and your cause.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
938 Billion
That's the CBO's estimated 10 year cost for the Health care bill that was passed. And the last time they over estimated the cost...never. More likely it will be in the range of 1.5-2 trillion. But assuming they're right, let me put that in perspective. That's enough to fund NASA for 90 years.
Also realize, that is not the total the government is spending on healthcare/medicare/medicaid. That's just the cost of this bill.
And for anyone that is shocked by the 13 Trillion dollar debt our country has amassed, chew on this. That's a phony number. it's actually only a small fraction of our true debt. Including unfunded liabilities (google this, if you don't know what it is) our national debt amounts to more than $60 Billion dollars. What does this mean? a lot of things...but it plane as day means that neither you nor I will receive social security, or medicare. (two of the biggest unfunded obligations.
One more economic nightmare. Social security's "security" over the next 30 years was based on a fund that have been stocked with surplus social security payments over the last 30ish years. Basically the government has been taking more in SS taxes than they were paying out, and investing that money in an account so that when the ballance shifts (as it will) to paying more than they are taking in, they will have a fund to ballance it for a while. It was announced recently that that fund has one thing in it. I bunch of IOU's from the federal government which has "borrowed" that money to help their bottom line in other areas.
I haven't posted in a while. There's a subject I've been mulling over, but have not determined the best way to tackle it yet. I'll be back soon.
Also realize, that is not the total the government is spending on healthcare/medicare/medicaid. That's just the cost of this bill.
And for anyone that is shocked by the 13 Trillion dollar debt our country has amassed, chew on this. That's a phony number. it's actually only a small fraction of our true debt. Including unfunded liabilities (google this, if you don't know what it is) our national debt amounts to more than $60 Billion dollars. What does this mean? a lot of things...but it plane as day means that neither you nor I will receive social security, or medicare. (two of the biggest unfunded obligations.
One more economic nightmare. Social security's "security" over the next 30 years was based on a fund that have been stocked with surplus social security payments over the last 30ish years. Basically the government has been taking more in SS taxes than they were paying out, and investing that money in an account so that when the ballance shifts (as it will) to paying more than they are taking in, they will have a fund to ballance it for a while. It was announced recently that that fund has one thing in it. I bunch of IOU's from the federal government which has "borrowed" that money to help their bottom line in other areas.
I haven't posted in a while. There's a subject I've been mulling over, but have not determined the best way to tackle it yet. I'll be back soon.
Monday, April 26, 2010
The Man Behind William Wallace
Every time I watch Braveheart, or any such movie where the noble hero sacrifices all for love and country, I ask myself: Could I do that? Could I hold to principle so dearly, and to life so loosely, that I would be willing to be the tragic hero, to suffer the most agonizing pains for that which I hold dear. I only recently realized that I was asking myself the wrong question. The question isn't whether I could be William Wallace, the question is whether I could be the man behind him. You know, the one you only see in a passing shot, out of focus in the background, and then a few moments later see struck down by an arrow before he had the opportunity to strike his first blow. You don't know his name, and hardly feel all that sad that he perishes. Scotland wasn't won primarily by the likes of Wallace, but by the common people standing up and being willing to sacrifice, not for glory, and not to be remembered for all of history, but simply for what they believed in.
I don't really doubt that I could hold firm if I knew that the eyes of a nation were on me, but I much more doubt my ability to hold firm if I know that, should I die, no one but my family will ever know the difference. And even most of them will have forgotten within a few generations. Next time you watch Braveheart (and I recommend you watch it at LEAST once a year), ask yourself that. Cause that's what it takes to purchase freedom.
"In the year of our Lord 1314. Patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields of Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom."
Think about it.
I don't really doubt that I could hold firm if I knew that the eyes of a nation were on me, but I much more doubt my ability to hold firm if I know that, should I die, no one but my family will ever know the difference. And even most of them will have forgotten within a few generations. Next time you watch Braveheart (and I recommend you watch it at LEAST once a year), ask yourself that. Cause that's what it takes to purchase freedom.
"In the year of our Lord 1314. Patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields of Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom."
Think about it.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
The Logical Conclusion
About sixty years ago John Nash published a paper called "Equilibrium Points in N-Person Games". This paper changed modern economic theory in a very real way. While I certainly can't claim to fully understand his theories, and definitely can not explain that theory, I'm intrigued by the interaction between his theories, and the debates raging in our governmental system right now.
Someone who understands this better may correct me on my explanation of Nash Equilibrium here, but let me try to explain it to you in terms of a two person "game". Each person has a set of "positions" which he may select from, and each combination (from the two players) of positions, entails a certain pay off for each player. (winnings or losses) The players alternate turns changing their position, each attempting to maximize his payoff. A Nash Equilibrium of pure strategies exists if there is a position from which neither player wishes to move. In other words bother players have maximized their payoff. The key point is that it is not their maximum theoretical payoff. (Player A may be able to earn a higher pay off if he could force Player B to chose a position that was less advantageous to Player B) He has maximized his realizable payoff. For instance, if you are maxing a widget, you calculate that your max profit not based on what it would be if you could control the price charged you by your material suppliers, but based on the prices which the material supplier specifies for you.
That is Nash Equilibrium in a very very simplified form that does not deal with mixed strategies and many other subtleties, but hopefully will be sufficiently clear to support the following discussion. In a nut shell, Nash's theory says that the best possible outcome is not achieved by an individual player maximizing his own output, but by maximizing his own out put, and all the other players outputs.
Now from an economic standpoint, this is hugely beneficial. It is really a statement of the simple (and in my opinion obvious) fact that things work out better for everyone else when people cooperate. When to countries sit down reasonably and establish trade agreements, both benefit from the prosperity brought on by trade. This should be a reminder to us all the next time we feel like just being a jerk about something and not cooperating just to tick someone off. (I've NEVER been guilty of that)
But that's the rub isn't it? This only works in the abstract where people do not have feelings which can be hurt, beliefs which they will not violate, and rights which they value above monetary profit. What happens if one person decides not to play the game according to the rules? Well obviously for the system to work, there must be an enforcer. For the good of the majority who are all benefiting from this game being played by the rules, and possibly even for the good of this individual who will also benefit from playing by the rules, someone must have the authority to enforce. In a family this is the parents. If the kids are working or playing together and one child is ruining the fun for everyone else, that child can be disciplined in order to maintain a good environment for all involved.
I hope you can see where I am going with this, but I am attempting to develop it all as systematically as possible.
I want to now take a look at our health care system. This may seem like a completely random quantum leap to some, but bear with me and I'll hopefully make it clearer what that has to do with the previous discussion.
Consider, if you will, our entire health care system as an N-player game. The players are individuals, doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies. (You'll see why I left the government, and lawyers out in a few moments) There exists some equilibrium point of prices and services for this system where patients pay a certain amount for insurance, hospitals charge a certain amount for services, etc. etc. This is the system in its pure state. However, the problem is that we don't live in a mathematically ideal society. Let's start with the government. The government sees itself as the "enforcer". What they have done is, rather than leaving the rules of the game the way they naturally would develop, they step in and change the rules to make them "better". For instance, hospitals are required by law (rule) to provide emergency care for anyone that shows up, regardless of their ability to pay for it/have it covered by insurance. We could debate whether this is a good or a bad thing, but it's the rules. However, what this essentially does is change the payoffs for players. Now patients have the option, rather than paying into the system and obtaining the care they need, or simply saving their money for emergencies, of simply relying on the hospital care which they are guaranteed, regardless of if they can pay for it or not. You may have heard of this referred to as the "free rider" problem. The free rider drives the price up for all those who have bought into the system. What's the solution to this? Well obviously, from the standpoint of the Enforcer, the solution is to set up a new rule which says everyone must have insurance. That way, by including everyone in the system, Nash's principles once again apply, right?
Sort of. The problem is that this approach only is acceptable in the abstract. Take a look at what we've done. By applying principles and logic, we've constructed a system in which the government has the right, for the good of the masses, to tell you how you must spend your money. This is exactly communism. It abolishes private property and instead establishes a system where your property is only yours as long as you are willing to use it the way the government wants you to use it. Obviously this is only one small aspect of the system, but analysis of many others shows the same result. It is a principle which the founders understood, but which we seem to have lost sight of. To wit, government involvement which does not have strict unbendable limits put upon it, regardless of the area, leads to more government involvement both in that and any related area. It is a self perpetuating system to which the only logical result is total control by the government.
I mentioned lawyers earlier. I think the roll of lawyers in the health care system is drastically underestimated. Essentially what lawyers do is to manipulate the legal system and drag it in between the different players (in particular the patients and the doctors) and use it for personal gain by preventing cooperation between the players which is necessary for a beneficial outcome to all. Essentially their sales pitch to the patients is, forget the payouts that everyone else goes by, I can get you a much larger payout from your doctor by using the legal system. (They never mention the payout they are actually looking for themselves.) What this does is it seperates the patient from the doctor because now the doctor must constantly be in fear the he will be sued. The result is increased cost to everyone involved in the system. Insurance companies must pay more in settlements. Patients must pay more in insurance to cover the huge settlement costs. Doctors must pay more in insurance to cover law suits. Patients must pay more to doctors to cover the doctors extra insurance. The only beneficiaries are a small number of the patients, and the trial lawyers. But what I find interesting is that it is really an example of how Nash equilibrium DOES work. If cooperation between players is prevented, the result is that everyone loses.
Now considering my previous warning about government involvement, you may think it hypocritical of me to say that the government must execute reform in this area. But notice what I said. It is not that the lawyers are players in the system who are refusing to play by the rules. The lawyers are actually inserting the government into the health care system. So once again the problem is government involvement, though indirectly this time. What the government needs to do is reform its laws to prevent itself from being dragged into the mess.
One point which I intended to cover but skipped over was the immorality of government forcing participants into playing the game the way the government wishes them to play the game. (Telling doctors what tests they must run, how much they must charge. Telling insurance companies what premiums should be, who they must cover, and similar issues. ) But again, just briefly, it quickly becomes clear that the only way this can be implemented is by total control. If the government tells the doctor he must lower his price, he is perfectly free to simply leave, if that is more beneficial to him. (this is already happening btw) When this happens, then thte whole system starts to collapse, unless the government extends its power further to not only tell doctors how they must perform their jobs, but THAT they must perform them. And anyone that thinks we are actually all that far from that situation, is, in my opinion, simply fooling themselves.
Until next time...
Someone who understands this better may correct me on my explanation of Nash Equilibrium here, but let me try to explain it to you in terms of a two person "game". Each person has a set of "positions" which he may select from, and each combination (from the two players) of positions, entails a certain pay off for each player. (winnings or losses) The players alternate turns changing their position, each attempting to maximize his payoff. A Nash Equilibrium of pure strategies exists if there is a position from which neither player wishes to move. In other words bother players have maximized their payoff. The key point is that it is not their maximum theoretical payoff. (Player A may be able to earn a higher pay off if he could force Player B to chose a position that was less advantageous to Player B) He has maximized his realizable payoff. For instance, if you are maxing a widget, you calculate that your max profit not based on what it would be if you could control the price charged you by your material suppliers, but based on the prices which the material supplier specifies for you.
That is Nash Equilibrium in a very very simplified form that does not deal with mixed strategies and many other subtleties, but hopefully will be sufficiently clear to support the following discussion. In a nut shell, Nash's theory says that the best possible outcome is not achieved by an individual player maximizing his own output, but by maximizing his own out put, and all the other players outputs.
Now from an economic standpoint, this is hugely beneficial. It is really a statement of the simple (and in my opinion obvious) fact that things work out better for everyone else when people cooperate. When to countries sit down reasonably and establish trade agreements, both benefit from the prosperity brought on by trade. This should be a reminder to us all the next time we feel like just being a jerk about something and not cooperating just to tick someone off. (I've NEVER been guilty of that)
But that's the rub isn't it? This only works in the abstract where people do not have feelings which can be hurt, beliefs which they will not violate, and rights which they value above monetary profit. What happens if one person decides not to play the game according to the rules? Well obviously for the system to work, there must be an enforcer. For the good of the majority who are all benefiting from this game being played by the rules, and possibly even for the good of this individual who will also benefit from playing by the rules, someone must have the authority to enforce. In a family this is the parents. If the kids are working or playing together and one child is ruining the fun for everyone else, that child can be disciplined in order to maintain a good environment for all involved.
I hope you can see where I am going with this, but I am attempting to develop it all as systematically as possible.
I want to now take a look at our health care system. This may seem like a completely random quantum leap to some, but bear with me and I'll hopefully make it clearer what that has to do with the previous discussion.
Consider, if you will, our entire health care system as an N-player game. The players are individuals, doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies. (You'll see why I left the government, and lawyers out in a few moments) There exists some equilibrium point of prices and services for this system where patients pay a certain amount for insurance, hospitals charge a certain amount for services, etc. etc. This is the system in its pure state. However, the problem is that we don't live in a mathematically ideal society. Let's start with the government. The government sees itself as the "enforcer". What they have done is, rather than leaving the rules of the game the way they naturally would develop, they step in and change the rules to make them "better". For instance, hospitals are required by law (rule) to provide emergency care for anyone that shows up, regardless of their ability to pay for it/have it covered by insurance. We could debate whether this is a good or a bad thing, but it's the rules. However, what this essentially does is change the payoffs for players. Now patients have the option, rather than paying into the system and obtaining the care they need, or simply saving their money for emergencies, of simply relying on the hospital care which they are guaranteed, regardless of if they can pay for it or not. You may have heard of this referred to as the "free rider" problem. The free rider drives the price up for all those who have bought into the system. What's the solution to this? Well obviously, from the standpoint of the Enforcer, the solution is to set up a new rule which says everyone must have insurance. That way, by including everyone in the system, Nash's principles once again apply, right?
Sort of. The problem is that this approach only is acceptable in the abstract. Take a look at what we've done. By applying principles and logic, we've constructed a system in which the government has the right, for the good of the masses, to tell you how you must spend your money. This is exactly communism. It abolishes private property and instead establishes a system where your property is only yours as long as you are willing to use it the way the government wants you to use it. Obviously this is only one small aspect of the system, but analysis of many others shows the same result. It is a principle which the founders understood, but which we seem to have lost sight of. To wit, government involvement which does not have strict unbendable limits put upon it, regardless of the area, leads to more government involvement both in that and any related area. It is a self perpetuating system to which the only logical result is total control by the government.
I mentioned lawyers earlier. I think the roll of lawyers in the health care system is drastically underestimated. Essentially what lawyers do is to manipulate the legal system and drag it in between the different players (in particular the patients and the doctors) and use it for personal gain by preventing cooperation between the players which is necessary for a beneficial outcome to all. Essentially their sales pitch to the patients is, forget the payouts that everyone else goes by, I can get you a much larger payout from your doctor by using the legal system. (They never mention the payout they are actually looking for themselves.) What this does is it seperates the patient from the doctor because now the doctor must constantly be in fear the he will be sued. The result is increased cost to everyone involved in the system. Insurance companies must pay more in settlements. Patients must pay more in insurance to cover the huge settlement costs. Doctors must pay more in insurance to cover law suits. Patients must pay more to doctors to cover the doctors extra insurance. The only beneficiaries are a small number of the patients, and the trial lawyers. But what I find interesting is that it is really an example of how Nash equilibrium DOES work. If cooperation between players is prevented, the result is that everyone loses.
Now considering my previous warning about government involvement, you may think it hypocritical of me to say that the government must execute reform in this area. But notice what I said. It is not that the lawyers are players in the system who are refusing to play by the rules. The lawyers are actually inserting the government into the health care system. So once again the problem is government involvement, though indirectly this time. What the government needs to do is reform its laws to prevent itself from being dragged into the mess.
One point which I intended to cover but skipped over was the immorality of government forcing participants into playing the game the way the government wishes them to play the game. (Telling doctors what tests they must run, how much they must charge. Telling insurance companies what premiums should be, who they must cover, and similar issues. ) But again, just briefly, it quickly becomes clear that the only way this can be implemented is by total control. If the government tells the doctor he must lower his price, he is perfectly free to simply leave, if that is more beneficial to him. (this is already happening btw) When this happens, then thte whole system starts to collapse, unless the government extends its power further to not only tell doctors how they must perform their jobs, but THAT they must perform them. And anyone that thinks we are actually all that far from that situation, is, in my opinion, simply fooling themselves.
Until next time...
Friday, April 23, 2010
Let Me Clarify
I discussed in my previous post the cost of Liberty. I wish to clarify. In previous generations countless men have laid down their lives to purchase Liberty for their country and their families. This is, perhaps obviously, the ultimate sacrifice. But what will be required of us? It is possible that my life, and the lives of others may be required, but I think there is a sacrifice which, in this day and age is almost as difficult for us, that I think is likely to be required of all of us. That is the sacrifice of our time and money, most importantly time. We are so busy in our day and age. So busy, and yet we hardly do anything. We spend all our time trying to make a living, spending the money we have on cars which don't last, clothes that are out of fashion before we pull them off the shelf, entertainment that is passing, and houses that many of us will never own, and most of us will not leave to our children. Those of us who are Christians spend time worshiping on Sunday, and perhaps some time during the week doing devotions and reading an occasional book. These pursuits are more lasting, but how much of our time do we actually spend on that as compared to our transitory obsessions? And indeed, I don't intend to say that only that which is eternal is relevant. Far from it. One of the chief things which I think we all should be doing is improving our minds and ourselves by extensive study and reading. Why?
I strongly believe that knowledge is power. If we are to win the battle before us, we must be well armed. Our chief weapons are our minds. These we must sharpen by study and application. This preparation requires sacrificing time and energy which could be used to improve our financial status, enjoy a movie, or drink a beer. (Though personally I think beer is a great companion to a good book) How many of us really understand the workings of our government, its history how it has developed, and the governmental theory and philosophy from which it has been devised? How many of us really understand free market capitalism, both in its strengths and its weaknesses, and understand the alternatives as well, how they have developed, the worldviews which they are based on, and why the do not work? How many of us understand the structure of our judicial system, how it has developed, and how it was originally intended to function?
We can not all be experts in everything. But we if we as a people are to remain free, we must understand what our government is doing, and the long term import of policies and worldviews. I will go into this in more depth in my next post.
My disorganization in this post is profound.
The next area which we must sacrifice is in the training of our children. They are the next generation of leaders, and we handicap them if, after spending all this time and energy educating ourselves, we force them to do the same thing by not passing on that which we have learned. I will expand on this more another time.
The last way I will address right now which we must sacrifice, is by participating in the function of our society and government. We must actively support good candidates, even if it is only in our discussions. We must educate ourselves on the various candidates and their views on the issues at stake. We must run for office ourselves. Political offices should not be filled by lifetime politicians, they ought to be filled by true civil servants. Our governmental system was never intended to provide political careers. I strongly feel that one of the greatest plagues on our government is the career politician. It is a pest which must be eradicated. Again, I have taken on so much in this post that there is no way I can discuss all of it in any detail whatsoever, but term limits on EVERY politician must be put into place. We must be willing to step up, even if it's not what we would prefer to be doing, and run for office at the local and state level. Societies are changed from the bottom up and so are governments.
Once again my thoughts have simply flowed freely onto the keyboard rather than being organized in any cohesive form. But perhaps I paint a picture for you of the sacrifices which Liberty requires of us. We must be willing from time to time to lay down our ambitions, our energies, and our time, in order to fight for the precious Liberty which our fathers gave to us. And we must do so because if we do not, all our time, our energies, and our ambitions will ultimately be spent in vain.
I strongly believe that knowledge is power. If we are to win the battle before us, we must be well armed. Our chief weapons are our minds. These we must sharpen by study and application. This preparation requires sacrificing time and energy which could be used to improve our financial status, enjoy a movie, or drink a beer. (Though personally I think beer is a great companion to a good book) How many of us really understand the workings of our government, its history how it has developed, and the governmental theory and philosophy from which it has been devised? How many of us really understand free market capitalism, both in its strengths and its weaknesses, and understand the alternatives as well, how they have developed, the worldviews which they are based on, and why the do not work? How many of us understand the structure of our judicial system, how it has developed, and how it was originally intended to function?
We can not all be experts in everything. But we if we as a people are to remain free, we must understand what our government is doing, and the long term import of policies and worldviews. I will go into this in more depth in my next post.
My disorganization in this post is profound.
The next area which we must sacrifice is in the training of our children. They are the next generation of leaders, and we handicap them if, after spending all this time and energy educating ourselves, we force them to do the same thing by not passing on that which we have learned. I will expand on this more another time.
The last way I will address right now which we must sacrifice, is by participating in the function of our society and government. We must actively support good candidates, even if it is only in our discussions. We must educate ourselves on the various candidates and their views on the issues at stake. We must run for office ourselves. Political offices should not be filled by lifetime politicians, they ought to be filled by true civil servants. Our governmental system was never intended to provide political careers. I strongly feel that one of the greatest plagues on our government is the career politician. It is a pest which must be eradicated. Again, I have taken on so much in this post that there is no way I can discuss all of it in any detail whatsoever, but term limits on EVERY politician must be put into place. We must be willing to step up, even if it's not what we would prefer to be doing, and run for office at the local and state level. Societies are changed from the bottom up and so are governments.
Once again my thoughts have simply flowed freely onto the keyboard rather than being organized in any cohesive form. But perhaps I paint a picture for you of the sacrifices which Liberty requires of us. We must be willing from time to time to lay down our ambitions, our energies, and our time, in order to fight for the precious Liberty which our fathers gave to us. And we must do so because if we do not, all our time, our energies, and our ambitions will ultimately be spent in vain.
Friday, April 16, 2010
The Price of Liberty
I ask you: what is the price of Liberty? Not what have others payed that you might have it. What are you willing to pay to keep it.
I have asked myself this question countless times over the past months. What would I be willing to pay to protect my Liberty, and more importantly the Liberty of my family and my nation?
Now consider what is the cost of Liberty. What may be required of you in order to protect Liberty? The answer, if we know the first thing about history, is quite clear. All.
Now I ask you a third thing. How do these two compare? If one does not meet the high standard of the other, you are now depending upon the courage and the dedication of your compatriots as well as your fathers to protect your liberty. And you may be assured that when a country judges the cost of Liberty a price too high to pay, what liberty they have will not long be theirs.
This is not fear mongering, this is not melodrama, this is simple fact. Liberty comes at a price. I submit to you that our country has long since judged Liberty to costly a gem to maintain. We rather want the security of government backed loans, "guaranteed" health care, and guaranteed schooling. (I do not say guaranteed education) And also I say with Benjamin Franklin, "They that give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety."
WAKE UP! We sit in our living rooms and complain and argue to one another about the politicians up in Washington, or the goons running the local school board, and then go on our daily lives like there's nothing we can do to change it.
Decide now whether Liberty is worth the price which she demands. If so then stand up and fight for her. And if not, then I don't want to hear another word about what you think of the most recent boondoggle coming out of Washington. We must be involved. You do not change the course of a battle by sitting on the sidelines and shouting ridicule at the enemy. Gear up and get out there! You win the battle by controlling the tide, and right now the enemies of Liberty have stormed the field and the few voices still out there are fighting back to back, just trying to survive.
The first thing that I need to do is educate myself. I know far to little about far too many issues. Think of this as training. If you're going to win the war, there must be intensive, rigorous, demanding training. The second thing I'm going to do (and I say this with all trepidation, cause I know my own track record) is write. More my own benefit, than anything. I don't even know if anyone has read my previous post, or if anyone will read this one. But I find that putting my thoughts into writing, clarifies them in my own mind. The third thing I must do is to pray. Pray for opportunities to be involved. I have no idea what form that will take, but if the battle is to be won, we must all be involved. There can't be any hanging back and hoping to avoid the conflict.
I'll end there, ignoring everything I have ever learned about how to write as it pertains to a sound introduction and conclusion format. think of this as a To Be Continued...
Please bear with my prolific grammatical errors. I fix them as I see them, but confess I am far too lazy to do a real proof reading of my posts.
I have asked myself this question countless times over the past months. What would I be willing to pay to protect my Liberty, and more importantly the Liberty of my family and my nation?
Now consider what is the cost of Liberty. What may be required of you in order to protect Liberty? The answer, if we know the first thing about history, is quite clear. All.
Now I ask you a third thing. How do these two compare? If one does not meet the high standard of the other, you are now depending upon the courage and the dedication of your compatriots as well as your fathers to protect your liberty. And you may be assured that when a country judges the cost of Liberty a price too high to pay, what liberty they have will not long be theirs.
This is not fear mongering, this is not melodrama, this is simple fact. Liberty comes at a price. I submit to you that our country has long since judged Liberty to costly a gem to maintain. We rather want the security of government backed loans, "guaranteed" health care, and guaranteed schooling. (I do not say guaranteed education) And also I say with Benjamin Franklin, "They that give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety."
WAKE UP! We sit in our living rooms and complain and argue to one another about the politicians up in Washington, or the goons running the local school board, and then go on our daily lives like there's nothing we can do to change it.
Decide now whether Liberty is worth the price which she demands. If so then stand up and fight for her. And if not, then I don't want to hear another word about what you think of the most recent boondoggle coming out of Washington. We must be involved. You do not change the course of a battle by sitting on the sidelines and shouting ridicule at the enemy. Gear up and get out there! You win the battle by controlling the tide, and right now the enemies of Liberty have stormed the field and the few voices still out there are fighting back to back, just trying to survive.
The first thing that I need to do is educate myself. I know far to little about far too many issues. Think of this as training. If you're going to win the war, there must be intensive, rigorous, demanding training. The second thing I'm going to do (and I say this with all trepidation, cause I know my own track record) is write. More my own benefit, than anything. I don't even know if anyone has read my previous post, or if anyone will read this one. But I find that putting my thoughts into writing, clarifies them in my own mind. The third thing I must do is to pray. Pray for opportunities to be involved. I have no idea what form that will take, but if the battle is to be won, we must all be involved. There can't be any hanging back and hoping to avoid the conflict.
I'll end there, ignoring everything I have ever learned about how to write as it pertains to a sound introduction and conclusion format. think of this as a To Be Continued...
Please bear with my prolific grammatical errors. I fix them as I see them, but confess I am far too lazy to do a real proof reading of my posts.
Speaking Out
Does anyone out there listen? Probably not. Then why, you might ask, do I bother? Is it just because I enjoy hearing myself talk? Perhaps sometimes. Sometimes I think it's just to vent my own frustration and feelings of helplessness of doing anything with the situation. What can one small voice do to make a difference in sweeping floods of rhetoric (or more often lack thereof) that flood our radio waves, our television sets, and the internet. But I have decided that I will speak out. I will speak out, not because I think I'm the most qualified person to do so, not because I think I will be able to convince the masses with my oratory skills, or, heaven knows my complete lack of blogging skills. But I will speak out cause it's the right thing to do. I am a citizen of two countries, and one state. Let me list them for you in the order in which they take priority: I am a citizen of a Heavenly country. I am a citizen of the great state of Alabama. I am a citizen of these United States of America.
As I begin to write, I find that my fingers are flooded with all of the thoughts that have been flooding my mind over the past months, and I don't know how I will possibly get them all out. Even less do I know how I will make any order of them. But since I have started on this path, let me further expound upon my previous statement about who I am in terms of my citizenship.
My Heavenly Home
Anyone who reads this probably is familiar with my faith and my beliefs. By the grace of God I was raised in a Christian home, and brought up to love the Lord. He has never failed, despite my weakness and my rebellion, to be faithful to me, and thus my allegiance lies first and foremost to him. No other entity to which I have pledged allegiance may rightfully ask me to betray this most fundamental allegiance. In fact, my Heavenly Country so defines my life and relationships, that I only understand what it means to be a citizen of an earthly country in terms of who I am as a citizen of my Heavenly Country. Since I am not half as eloquent as Patrick Henry, I'll let him speak for me:
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
I could expound upon this much further, perhaps I would bore you and you would never get to finishing.
My State of Citizenship
Now you may say I've got it wrong. I am a resident of my state, and a citizen of my country am I not? I am an American, and proud to be one. I believe I live in the greatest country in the world. But I also believe that the only reason we are as great as we are today is that we are still living on borrowed capital from our Founding Fathers. And the vision which they had for our country was one in which the States had Sovereignty, and the primary function of the federal government was in dealing with foreign nations or matter which concerned the nation as a whole. Thus I say, and I believe that almost all of the Founding Fathers would agree with me, that my allegiance lies first with my state, before my country. Incidentally, I think that Patrick Henry (again) said it best:
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."
For this very reason, only specific, very limited authorities were given to the Federal Government. It is much easier for citizens to keep an eye on government which is close to home.
One of my other heroes, forced to chose between his state and his country put it this way: With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home.
My Country of Citizenship
Having no particularly brilliant thoughts on my relationship to my federal govt that have not already been expressed in my previous discussion, I will simply quote Thomas Jefferson on what the relationship with the government should be:
"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity"
I feel somewhat more relieved now that I have spilled a small portion of my thoughts onto paper. Perhaps I shall make this a habit. I welcome any input from the two of you that will actually read this.
As I begin to write, I find that my fingers are flooded with all of the thoughts that have been flooding my mind over the past months, and I don't know how I will possibly get them all out. Even less do I know how I will make any order of them. But since I have started on this path, let me further expound upon my previous statement about who I am in terms of my citizenship.
My Heavenly Home
Anyone who reads this probably is familiar with my faith and my beliefs. By the grace of God I was raised in a Christian home, and brought up to love the Lord. He has never failed, despite my weakness and my rebellion, to be faithful to me, and thus my allegiance lies first and foremost to him. No other entity to which I have pledged allegiance may rightfully ask me to betray this most fundamental allegiance. In fact, my Heavenly Country so defines my life and relationships, that I only understand what it means to be a citizen of an earthly country in terms of who I am as a citizen of my Heavenly Country. Since I am not half as eloquent as Patrick Henry, I'll let him speak for me:
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
I could expound upon this much further, perhaps I would bore you and you would never get to finishing.
My State of Citizenship
Now you may say I've got it wrong. I am a resident of my state, and a citizen of my country am I not? I am an American, and proud to be one. I believe I live in the greatest country in the world. But I also believe that the only reason we are as great as we are today is that we are still living on borrowed capital from our Founding Fathers. And the vision which they had for our country was one in which the States had Sovereignty, and the primary function of the federal government was in dealing with foreign nations or matter which concerned the nation as a whole. Thus I say, and I believe that almost all of the Founding Fathers would agree with me, that my allegiance lies first with my state, before my country. Incidentally, I think that Patrick Henry (again) said it best:
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."
For this very reason, only specific, very limited authorities were given to the Federal Government. It is much easier for citizens to keep an eye on government which is close to home.
One of my other heroes, forced to chose between his state and his country put it this way: With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home.
My Country of Citizenship
Having no particularly brilliant thoughts on my relationship to my federal govt that have not already been expressed in my previous discussion, I will simply quote Thomas Jefferson on what the relationship with the government should be:
"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity"
I feel somewhat more relieved now that I have spilled a small portion of my thoughts onto paper. Perhaps I shall make this a habit. I welcome any input from the two of you that will actually read this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)