I often have a discussion with a friend of mine about religion and specifically he questions the rationality of my recognition and praying to an entity up there somewhere who is watching what I am doing, what I am eating and even what I am thinking. Of course this is a very difficult challenge to answer and ultimately comes down to faith. Our relationship with god, or lack thereof, is one aspect of religion but I think the equally or more important aspect of religion is the improvement/perfection of one's self and one's relations to others. One should come away from a house of worship with introspection. How can one be a better spouse, parent, or child? How can one improve in their place of business with honesty and integrity? How can one improve in their community by donating their time, visiting the sick or by giving charity? There is no doubt that we all have room to improve in at least one of these area and spending time in a house of worship challenges each one of us to ponder where we stand as individuals and how we can improve.
By being a part of a faith based community, the individual should be constantly challenged to improve him or herself. In doing this, as each member perfects themselves, the community as a whole strengthens, a bottoms-up individualistic approach. This stands in stark contrast to government's top-down approach of imposed behaviors. Religion targets the individual to effect change within himself while government uses a one size fits all approach to effect behavior in the population. Certainly, the individualistic approach is ultimately more effective.
A corollary to this individualistic approach is that the faith based leader should be challenging his/ her congregants to change themselves as individuals in order to improve their communities and strive for perfection. They should not be proposing to change others to effect change within their community. Additionally, they should put the blame of any shortcomings on the members of the community not to blame outsiders for what is lacking. If the faith based leader is blaming others for whatever deficiencies may exist then this is a poisonous endeavor and leads to destruction rather than perfection. If the sermon is not about how you can improve yourself but about how you can improve by changing someone else you should get up, walk out, and find a different house of worship.
So my friend would respond that he doesn't need a preacher to instruct him on how to behave, he does the right thing anyway, and he may be correct. But the vast majority of us need to be challenged to constantly improve our behaviors towards others. Very few of us are perfect and we often behave badly to our loved ones, or justify our cheating on an exam or in business, or only think about ourselves and not those less fortunate. Religion comes to challenge each one of us as individuals that we can be better to our fellow man. Not only because there is some entity up there keeping score but because our survival with our soaring population depends on us always challenging ourselves to improve our attitudes towards others.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Friday, December 9, 2011
Government and Fairness
As most are aware BO is turning to class warfare as his primary tactic in his re-election campaign. He claims the source for America's economic malaise is due to the rich and the business community who do not pay their fair share and do not play by the rules. Astonishing, when the top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of the federal income tax yet earn only 35% of the total national gross income. But in actuality it is the perfect strategy and one that will be very hard to beat since every individual has one vote and there are many more people on the bottom than the top. As I have mentioned in previous blogs this is an inherent defect in our democratic system and will necessarily lead to its undoing. The founding fathers likely foresaw this and is why voting was initially not a right granted just because one existed but only to land owners.
The Republican party will have a difficult time overcoming this demographic trend. Generally speaking, the poor will vote for BO to keep their checks and benefits coming and the rich will vote for the opposition to limit government's redistribution agenda. The question remains what happens to the vast middle? Will they support BO to take from the rich and give it to them? Or, do they want a system where one can strive to achieve wealth and keep it even though they may not be there yet. Perhaps, there are enough of those middle people that yearn for themselves or for their children to become future high wage earners and do not want the government to confiscate their hard work's rewards in their redistribution scheme. I am pessimistic and believe human nature would dictate people would rather sit at home and get a check from Uncle Sam rather than busting their butt.
BO talks of economic fairness constantly and he is right. But, the role of government is to make it fair for everyone to compete and achieve based on their abilities. Their should be a fair playing field where everyone can compete equally. No one should have an unfair advantage (bail outs, etc.) or an unfair disadvantage (discrimination based on race, sex, religion, etc.) and this is the exclusive yet limited role of government. But government should not be used to ensure equal outcomes and this where government oversteps its role. BO equates fairness with equal outcomes and this is his fallacy since if equal outcomes are predetermined or if success is blunted to redistribute to the losers then what is the reason to put in the effort to outcompete others. Hence, productivity falls as people feel its not worth the effort to take risks and compete. The fairness comes at the outset where everybody must compete on a level playing field, not at the backend when the results are tallied.
We are in a period in human history where competition for goods and services is international. The lower and middle class compete against workers from all over the world and our workers are entirely noncompetitive. They have priced themselves out of the competition and government has over regulated US industry to be noncompetitive worldwide. Thus jobs are on the decline and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. As the number of people in the bottom of society swell they will vote in candidates who cater to their redistribution desires. As redistribution tactics expand productivity slows, jobs decrease, total wealth decreases, and more people are on the bottom of the ladder demanding more from the government. The vicious cycle keeps going. Eventually society disintegrates (see Greece).
BO's tactics are highly effective and likely successful in the short term but long term will lead to disaster for the entire country.
A somewhat disjointed blog but I can sum it up with a quote from Margaret Thatcher, "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
The Republican party will have a difficult time overcoming this demographic trend. Generally speaking, the poor will vote for BO to keep their checks and benefits coming and the rich will vote for the opposition to limit government's redistribution agenda. The question remains what happens to the vast middle? Will they support BO to take from the rich and give it to them? Or, do they want a system where one can strive to achieve wealth and keep it even though they may not be there yet. Perhaps, there are enough of those middle people that yearn for themselves or for their children to become future high wage earners and do not want the government to confiscate their hard work's rewards in their redistribution scheme. I am pessimistic and believe human nature would dictate people would rather sit at home and get a check from Uncle Sam rather than busting their butt.
BO talks of economic fairness constantly and he is right. But, the role of government is to make it fair for everyone to compete and achieve based on their abilities. Their should be a fair playing field where everyone can compete equally. No one should have an unfair advantage (bail outs, etc.) or an unfair disadvantage (discrimination based on race, sex, religion, etc.) and this is the exclusive yet limited role of government. But government should not be used to ensure equal outcomes and this where government oversteps its role. BO equates fairness with equal outcomes and this is his fallacy since if equal outcomes are predetermined or if success is blunted to redistribute to the losers then what is the reason to put in the effort to outcompete others. Hence, productivity falls as people feel its not worth the effort to take risks and compete. The fairness comes at the outset where everybody must compete on a level playing field, not at the backend when the results are tallied.
We are in a period in human history where competition for goods and services is international. The lower and middle class compete against workers from all over the world and our workers are entirely noncompetitive. They have priced themselves out of the competition and government has over regulated US industry to be noncompetitive worldwide. Thus jobs are on the decline and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. As the number of people in the bottom of society swell they will vote in candidates who cater to their redistribution desires. As redistribution tactics expand productivity slows, jobs decrease, total wealth decreases, and more people are on the bottom of the ladder demanding more from the government. The vicious cycle keeps going. Eventually society disintegrates (see Greece).
BO's tactics are highly effective and likely successful in the short term but long term will lead to disaster for the entire country.
A somewhat disjointed blog but I can sum it up with a quote from Margaret Thatcher, "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)