Wednesday, August 22, 2012
On Blaming
People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don’t
believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the
people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and if they
can’t find them, make them.” – George Bernard Shaw "Mrs. Warren's Profession" (1893) act II
Respectful Public Discourse and Franky Schaeffer
“We have a Republican ticket with probably the most brutal far right
economic policy, coming from the same man who’s got the most anti-woman
policy.” He claimed Ryan is “a real extremist … a person who is brutal
toward women and equally brutal to the poor.” Even more hyperbolic, he
stated “women are second class citizens in his world, as are the poor.”
Merriam Webster defines the word “brutal” as “grossly ruthless or unfeeling,” or “cruel, cold-blooded.” Schaeffer may disagree sharply with Ryan, but is it appropriate to call him “brutal?”
Schaeffer alleged that Ryan “does not believe in the rights of all human beings,” and “he holds up only one part of Roman Catholic teaching faithfully and has dismissed the rest of it on the basis of being an Ayn Rand disciple, not a disciple of Jesus Christ.” He said Ryan would “attack programs for the poor that are the safety net that keep people from a miserable fate, defund Medicare … and attack Social Security.”
Speculating about the chance of Ryan making it to the White House, he said if Americans knew of “Ryan’s anti-woman, war on women record when it comes to abortion, contraceptives, towing the Vatican line to the extreme,” then there would be no chance of he and Romney’s election. He further accused Ryan of having a “preoccupation with other people’s sexuality … [and] is the only part of Roman Catholic teaching which has actually transferred into Ryan’s agenda. The rest of it, when it comes to compassion for the poor, serving others, following Jesus Christ when it comes to the view of wealth as opposed to sharing, in those areas he’s totally departed and … is a disciple of Ayn Rand.”
Respect for human life is not about oppressing women. It involves raising a legitimate concern for the value of human life before both men and women, as well as concerns for our sexual morality and practice. Free market economics is about the practical means for expanding the wealth of a country so that all persons benefit. It has nothing to do with oppressing the poor, regardless of what Franky Schaeffer, Obama, or Marx say about the topic. True, the Roman Catholic Church, like the Mainline Protestant denominations, have promoted liberal and progressive political causes for a long time, but especially since the depression. This does not mean that every pastor or parishoner needs to tow the line.
When it comes to Ryan and Rand, I would only say that the interest most people have in Rand is not in her philosophy generally (conservatives will read Locke, Smith, Burke, and Friedman for this) but in her polemical points regarding collectivism and individualism.
The only point in this brief comment is that Christians can engage in this public debate without assigning sinister motivations to your opponents. However, this seems to be what passes for public debate today.
Merriam Webster defines the word “brutal” as “grossly ruthless or unfeeling,” or “cruel, cold-blooded.” Schaeffer may disagree sharply with Ryan, but is it appropriate to call him “brutal?”
Schaeffer alleged that Ryan “does not believe in the rights of all human beings,” and “he holds up only one part of Roman Catholic teaching faithfully and has dismissed the rest of it on the basis of being an Ayn Rand disciple, not a disciple of Jesus Christ.” He said Ryan would “attack programs for the poor that are the safety net that keep people from a miserable fate, defund Medicare … and attack Social Security.”
Speculating about the chance of Ryan making it to the White House, he said if Americans knew of “Ryan’s anti-woman, war on women record when it comes to abortion, contraceptives, towing the Vatican line to the extreme,” then there would be no chance of he and Romney’s election. He further accused Ryan of having a “preoccupation with other people’s sexuality … [and] is the only part of Roman Catholic teaching which has actually transferred into Ryan’s agenda. The rest of it, when it comes to compassion for the poor, serving others, following Jesus Christ when it comes to the view of wealth as opposed to sharing, in those areas he’s totally departed and … is a disciple of Ayn Rand.”
Respect for human life is not about oppressing women. It involves raising a legitimate concern for the value of human life before both men and women, as well as concerns for our sexual morality and practice. Free market economics is about the practical means for expanding the wealth of a country so that all persons benefit. It has nothing to do with oppressing the poor, regardless of what Franky Schaeffer, Obama, or Marx say about the topic. True, the Roman Catholic Church, like the Mainline Protestant denominations, have promoted liberal and progressive political causes for a long time, but especially since the depression. This does not mean that every pastor or parishoner needs to tow the line.
When it comes to Ryan and Rand, I would only say that the interest most people have in Rand is not in her philosophy generally (conservatives will read Locke, Smith, Burke, and Friedman for this) but in her polemical points regarding collectivism and individualism.
The only point in this brief comment is that Christians can engage in this public debate without assigning sinister motivations to your opponents. However, this seems to be what passes for public debate today.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Ayn Rand Comments
Paul Ryan, on the influence of Ayn Rand, said at the Atlas Society, the official
name of the Ayn Rand fan club, back in 2005:
"I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are and what my beliefs are. It's inspired me so much that it's required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff."
And what's more,
"the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism."
Laura Hollis invites us to reflect on Ayn Rand in the following way.
Neither Rand's stilted delivery, nor her deep-seated sexual pathologies, nor even her mischaracterization of Christianity takes away from some essential truths that she identifies and catalogs in her novels, with some powerful success. One must remember that she fled the Soviet Union, having seen firsthand and suffered through the privations and depravities thrust upon the population by the ideologues who controlled it - slavish adherents of collectivism. She knew that at its core, this was a completely renunciation of any value of the individual, except as a part of the state.
Rand celebrated selfish individualism as a reaction against collectivism in all its forms and the widespread misery and destruction of life it caused, not only in the Soviet Union, but in Communist China, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, and Cambodia - all of which she lived to see, and all of which only served to reinforce her perspective. Given the starvation, political persecution, imprisonment, and death that Communism has brought everywhere it was implemented, one can hardly blame her.
Rand resonates with people now because she sounded the clarion call against all collectivist philosophies which would subordinate the individual to the state, and which - of necessity - denounce individual achievement and accomplishment as "greedy," or "selfish" as justification for doing so. The United States is the most prosperous country in the history of the world, and Americans are the most generous when viewed by any standard of philanthropy: the donation of money or time, or the creation of foundations and other charitable organizations. And yet, with each passing day we hear the steady drumbeat of denunciations of all business as "greedy," "exploitative," "corrupt." Regrettably, the fountainhead ( yes ) of this viewpoint is the president of the United States whose views about business are well- known to anyone who has bothered to read his works or (more importantly) the works of those who inspired him. This reached its recent apotheosis in the president's statement in Roanoke, Virginia last month: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
For those of us who know how businesses are *really* built, and who entrepreneurs *really" are – and Rep. Paul Ryan is among them -- this is not only the consummate insult, but a statement of staggering ignorance. We now live in a Bizarro-world society where certain social scientists and politicians would have us believe that huge swaths of the population cannot be held responsible for their own poor choices, but those of us who do not make those choices are at fault and will be forced to pay for them, not as charity, but by claim of right. Taxation is no longer cast as the contributions which are made to support civil society, but as reparations for blame. And yet, ironically, those among us who devote their lives and everything they own to building successful businesses that provide employment for millions of people, as well as goods and services that have created the highest standard of living in the history of the planet are not responsible for the fruits of their own work, but faceless strangers who never donated a dime or lift a finger to build those businesses are given the credit.
Rand is celebrated not because she was a great writer, but because she understood human nature and its relationship to political power. She understood that humans who celebrate government as God eventually act as if they have God's power. Her reaction was to reject the idea of God altogether. But many of us who believe in God have no difficulty separating her decision from our own. We simply acknowledge that no human is God and no human institution will deliver utopia. We study history and realize that a government which downplays or demonizes individual achievement, and excuses and subsidizes human failings under the guise of calling for higher and higher taxes will eventually be filled with a population which achieves little and expects much - all to be paid for on the backs of the shrinking numbers of people who still seek to accomplish something. Furthermore, it will be a system where power is held not at the level of individuals, families, communities - where it is most responsive, most diffused and least dangerous - but in the hands of a few whose primary contributions to society are their powers to take from some and distribute to others. At best, it is a system designed for financial collapse. At worst, it is a pathway to societal collapse.
Either way, we do not want it. And those of us who find value in Ayn Rand’s works understand that for all her faults, Rand foresaw it.
"I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are and what my beliefs are. It's inspired me so much that it's required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff."
And what's more,
"the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism."
Laura Hollis invites us to reflect on Ayn Rand in the following way.
Neither Rand's stilted delivery, nor her deep-seated sexual pathologies, nor even her mischaracterization of Christianity takes away from some essential truths that she identifies and catalogs in her novels, with some powerful success. One must remember that she fled the Soviet Union, having seen firsthand and suffered through the privations and depravities thrust upon the population by the ideologues who controlled it - slavish adherents of collectivism. She knew that at its core, this was a completely renunciation of any value of the individual, except as a part of the state.
Rand celebrated selfish individualism as a reaction against collectivism in all its forms and the widespread misery and destruction of life it caused, not only in the Soviet Union, but in Communist China, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, and Cambodia - all of which she lived to see, and all of which only served to reinforce her perspective. Given the starvation, political persecution, imprisonment, and death that Communism has brought everywhere it was implemented, one can hardly blame her.
Rand resonates with people now because she sounded the clarion call against all collectivist philosophies which would subordinate the individual to the state, and which - of necessity - denounce individual achievement and accomplishment as "greedy," or "selfish" as justification for doing so. The United States is the most prosperous country in the history of the world, and Americans are the most generous when viewed by any standard of philanthropy: the donation of money or time, or the creation of foundations and other charitable organizations. And yet, with each passing day we hear the steady drumbeat of denunciations of all business as "greedy," "exploitative," "corrupt." Regrettably, the fountainhead ( yes ) of this viewpoint is the president of the United States whose views about business are well- known to anyone who has bothered to read his works or (more importantly) the works of those who inspired him. This reached its recent apotheosis in the president's statement in Roanoke, Virginia last month: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
For those of us who know how businesses are *really* built, and who entrepreneurs *really" are – and Rep. Paul Ryan is among them -- this is not only the consummate insult, but a statement of staggering ignorance. We now live in a Bizarro-world society where certain social scientists and politicians would have us believe that huge swaths of the population cannot be held responsible for their own poor choices, but those of us who do not make those choices are at fault and will be forced to pay for them, not as charity, but by claim of right. Taxation is no longer cast as the contributions which are made to support civil society, but as reparations for blame. And yet, ironically, those among us who devote their lives and everything they own to building successful businesses that provide employment for millions of people, as well as goods and services that have created the highest standard of living in the history of the planet are not responsible for the fruits of their own work, but faceless strangers who never donated a dime or lift a finger to build those businesses are given the credit.
Rand is celebrated not because she was a great writer, but because she understood human nature and its relationship to political power. She understood that humans who celebrate government as God eventually act as if they have God's power. Her reaction was to reject the idea of God altogether. But many of us who believe in God have no difficulty separating her decision from our own. We simply acknowledge that no human is God and no human institution will deliver utopia. We study history and realize that a government which downplays or demonizes individual achievement, and excuses and subsidizes human failings under the guise of calling for higher and higher taxes will eventually be filled with a population which achieves little and expects much - all to be paid for on the backs of the shrinking numbers of people who still seek to accomplish something. Furthermore, it will be a system where power is held not at the level of individuals, families, communities - where it is most responsive, most diffused and least dangerous - but in the hands of a few whose primary contributions to society are their powers to take from some and distribute to others. At best, it is a system designed for financial collapse. At worst, it is a pathway to societal collapse.
Either way, we do not want it. And those of us who find value in Ayn Rand’s works understand that for all her faults, Rand foresaw it.
Ryan Budget
The following is from Dan Mitchel.
The most important headline about the Ryan budget is that it limits the growth rate of federal spending, with outlays increasing by an average of 3.1% annually over the next 10 years. …limiting spending so it grows by 3.1% per year, as Mr. Ryan proposes, quickly leads to less red ink. This is because federal tax revenues are projected by the House Budget Committee to increase 6.6% annually over the next 10 years if the House budget is approved (and this assumes the Bush tax cuts are made permanent).
To balance the budget within 10 years would require that outlays grow by about 2% each year. …There are many who would prefer that the deficit come down more quickly, but from a jobs and growth perspective, it isn’t the deficit that matters. Rather, what matters for prosperity and living standards is the degree to which labor and capital are used productively. This is why policy makers should focus on reducing the burden of government spending as a share of GDP—leaving more resources in the private economy. The simple way of making this happen is to follow what I’ve been calling the golden rule of good fiscal policy: The private sector should grow faster than the government.
One of the best features of the Ryan budget is that he reforms the two big health entitlements instead of simply trying to save money. Medicaid gets block-granted to the states, building on the success of welfare reform in the 1990s. And Medicare is modernized by creating a premium-support option for people retiring in 2022 and beyond. This is much better than the traditional Beltway approach of trying to save money with price controls on health-care providers and means testing on health-care consumers. …But good entitlement policy also is a godsend for taxpayers, particularly in the long run. Without reform, the burden of federal spending will jump to 35% of GDP by 2040, compared to 18.75% of output under the Ryan budget.
Dan Mitchel explains in the following videos why reducing government as a share of the Gross Domestic Product is important.
http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/a-fiscal-policy-tutorial-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-economics-of-government-spending/
The most important headline about the Ryan budget is that it limits the growth rate of federal spending, with outlays increasing by an average of 3.1% annually over the next 10 years. …limiting spending so it grows by 3.1% per year, as Mr. Ryan proposes, quickly leads to less red ink. This is because federal tax revenues are projected by the House Budget Committee to increase 6.6% annually over the next 10 years if the House budget is approved (and this assumes the Bush tax cuts are made permanent).
To balance the budget within 10 years would require that outlays grow by about 2% each year. …There are many who would prefer that the deficit come down more quickly, but from a jobs and growth perspective, it isn’t the deficit that matters. Rather, what matters for prosperity and living standards is the degree to which labor and capital are used productively. This is why policy makers should focus on reducing the burden of government spending as a share of GDP—leaving more resources in the private economy. The simple way of making this happen is to follow what I’ve been calling the golden rule of good fiscal policy: The private sector should grow faster than the government.
One of the best features of the Ryan budget is that he reforms the two big health entitlements instead of simply trying to save money. Medicaid gets block-granted to the states, building on the success of welfare reform in the 1990s. And Medicare is modernized by creating a premium-support option for people retiring in 2022 and beyond. This is much better than the traditional Beltway approach of trying to save money with price controls on health-care providers and means testing on health-care consumers. …But good entitlement policy also is a godsend for taxpayers, particularly in the long run. Without reform, the burden of federal spending will jump to 35% of GDP by 2040, compared to 18.75% of output under the Ryan budget.
Dan Mitchel explains in the following videos why reducing government as a share of the Gross Domestic Product is important.
http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/a-fiscal-policy-tutorial-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-economics-of-government-spending/
Extreme Label Not Helpful
The following is from Bill O'Reilly. I have gotten into trouble referring to him before. I do so now, only because I think this thought is spot on.
By labeling someone as extreme, you can dismiss whatever they say. That's the strategy being used against Ryan. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd writes: "Ryan should stop being so lovable. People who intend to hurt other people should wipe the smile off their faces."
--If you believe traditional marriage should be kept as the exclusive standard, you are not only extreme; you are a homophobe.The list goes on and on.
--If you believe all Americans should pay less in taxes, you are greedy and an anti-poor extremist.
--If you believe the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to buy and possess guns, you are promoting violence in an extreme way.
--If you believe the government has a duty to combat overseas terrorists without giving them constitutional protections, you are an extreme anti-human rights individual.
--If you believe abortion is the taking of a human life, you are an anti-woman extremist.
--If you support securing the nation's borders and regulating immigration, you are anti-Hispanic.
By labeling someone as extreme, you can dismiss whatever they say. That's the strategy being used against Ryan. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd writes: "Ryan should stop being so lovable. People who intend to hurt other people should wipe the smile off their faces."
Mr. Obama (The Father's Dream)
Austin Hill reports the following:
The President’s disdainful attitude towards privately possessed wealth should surprise absolutely no one- his own father was also a powerful governmental figure who displayed this same kind of indignation.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the biological father of our President, was a bureaucrat in the communist government of Kenya back when the nation first declared its independence in the 1960’s. And while Kenya’s government was at that time moving towards pro-Western, free-market economic reforms, Obama staunchly opposed such changes.
Thus, Mr. Obama published an academic paper in 1965, responding to his government colleagues who supported the westernization of Kenya. Entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Mr. Obama advised Kenya’s then-President Jomo Kenyatta against relying on private investors, private capital, and private property ownership, as a means of improving the country’s dreadful economy. Why was private capital and investment a problem? Because, Mr. Obama reasoned, private investors inevitably seek to earn “dividends” from their investments, and “turning a profit” was the gravest of all immoralities. Instead, Mr. Obama proposed higher taxes on the wealthy, and a redistribution of that money, for the “collective good” of the nation.
“Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income,” Mr. Obama wrote, “so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” In the view of Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the right of the individual person to freely work, earn, and invest, meant nothing. All that mattered was the “collective good” of the nation. And if confiscating certain people’s hard-earned money could help benefit “everyone,” then so be it. That wealth would be put to better use, Mr. Obama argued, if it were controlled by the leader of the government.
The President’s disdainful attitude towards privately possessed wealth should surprise absolutely no one- his own father was also a powerful governmental figure who displayed this same kind of indignation.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the biological father of our President, was a bureaucrat in the communist government of Kenya back when the nation first declared its independence in the 1960’s. And while Kenya’s government was at that time moving towards pro-Western, free-market economic reforms, Obama staunchly opposed such changes.
Thus, Mr. Obama published an academic paper in 1965, responding to his government colleagues who supported the westernization of Kenya. Entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Mr. Obama advised Kenya’s then-President Jomo Kenyatta against relying on private investors, private capital, and private property ownership, as a means of improving the country’s dreadful economy. Why was private capital and investment a problem? Because, Mr. Obama reasoned, private investors inevitably seek to earn “dividends” from their investments, and “turning a profit” was the gravest of all immoralities. Instead, Mr. Obama proposed higher taxes on the wealthy, and a redistribution of that money, for the “collective good” of the nation.
“Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income,” Mr. Obama wrote, “so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” In the view of Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the right of the individual person to freely work, earn, and invest, meant nothing. All that mattered was the “collective good” of the nation. And if confiscating certain people’s hard-earned money could help benefit “everyone,” then so be it. That wealth would be put to better use, Mr. Obama argued, if it were controlled by the leader of the government.
Lincoln-Douglas Debates, August 21, 1858
Here is a post from Bill Bennet that I found interesting for today.
August 21, 1858, brought the first of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in Illinois between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, both running for the U.S. Senate. There were seven debates in all, the first in the town of Ottawa, and they set the prairies ablaze as people flocked by the thousands to see the tall, lanky Lincoln match wits with the short, squareshouldered, broad-chested Douglas.
The debates centered on the question of whether slavery should be allowed to expand into U.S. territories. Douglas, a famous sitting senator, argued that the people of each territory should decide whether to allow slavery in their land. Lincoln opposed any expansion of slavery, which he regarded as a “moral, social, and political wrong.” In the final debate Lincoln argued:
Newspapers across the country followed the debates, and although Lincoln lost the Senate
race to Douglas, his careful arguments helped turn him from a relatively obscure prairie lawyer
into a national figure. The Lincoln-Douglas debates were the most important since the
ratification of the Constitution. Lincoln showed a mastery of law, philosophy, and history that
raised him above not only Douglas but ultimately every other statesman of the age.
August 21, 1858, brought the first of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in Illinois between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, both running for the U.S. Senate. There were seven debates in all, the first in the town of Ottawa, and they set the prairies ablaze as people flocked by the thousands to see the tall, lanky Lincoln match wits with the short, squareshouldered, broad-chested Douglas.
The debates centered on the question of whether slavery should be allowed to expand into U.S. territories. Douglas, a famous sitting senator, argued that the people of each territory should decide whether to allow slavery in their land. Lincoln opposed any expansion of slavery, which he regarded as a “moral, social, and political wrong.” In the final debate Lincoln argued:
 |
That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between two principles. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same spirit that says, “You toil and work and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.” No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle. | |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)