Friday, September 02, 2005

• Currently Gaming Blitzkrieg By CDV Software see related

  Going by the feedback I had about my last post, I think it is necessary to explain further as to what I meant. :)

  If you do disagree with me, which I’m almost positive many of you will, please tell me why, and understand that I am not judging, but simply acknowledging a political problem, and the mindset, from what I’ve seen, of much of the conservative political circles.

  In order to reach proper conclusions for which policies a government should have, governments should have a foundational philosophy. In other words, it should have a few sentence/paragraph explaining when it is the right time for it to intervene in the public/social specter.

  In most political circles it is generally accepted that totalitarianism is wrong, and that limited government is a good thing, for it breeds freedom rather than tyranny. But let's think about this for a moment. If there is no set standard or philosophy for when a policy is good or not, then there would be no guarantee that the nation would not become tyrannical. The reason can be found in the following example.

  Sam has not-so-clean room. His room has clothes on the floor, books on the bed, and food smeared just about everywhere.

  He wants to go out and play, and asks his mother if he can. "Only if your room is clean", she says. "Oh, my room is clean", he says with an innocent grin. His mother walks to his room and looks at the disaster area. After recovering from a cardiac arrest, she tells him his room is not clean. "But mom! I pushed a path through the clothes on the floor to get up this morning!"

  Obviously, there is a serious problem for what the standard for "clean" is. Now, if Sam was in charge of the house, he would think that his room was clean enough to allow him to go out and play. His mother, who is in charge, would not think that his room is clean. So there would be different policies towards going outside, depending on who is in power.

  So Sam would or wouldn't go outside, depending on whether or not the person in charge's standard of "clean" is being met. The person in charge, in both scenarios, would agree that the room should be clean before Sam goes outside, but it all hinges on the standard of "clean".

  In this same way, most political circles support a limited government as good government. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that a limited government (rather than complete totalitarianism) is good. Their problem is deciding what the standard for limited, good government is. Because of this, our policies change back and forth constantly, because the standard for governmental intervention is completely unclear.

  That is the reason it is important to establish a standard, or philosophy. It is important to decide when government intervention is justified; if we don't establish a standard, then the government isn't really limited... it can do whatever it feels is good for the situation. Considering governments are bent towards the usurpation of rights and freedom, rather than respecting it, giving them free reign would equal less freedom and liberty for the people. So, for the sake of liberty, a standard must be in place.

  But what is the standard? That is the reason for this entree, to explain what I believe the standard should be. Obviously, I won’t be able to explain every bit of my governmental philosophy, but I’ll give an attempt at explaining it.

  Government should not restrict its citizens unless the restriction meets the following criteria:

  1.It recognizes and protects the unalienable rights of all those involved from encroachment.

  2.It establishes order, rather than chaos.

  3.It does not go against any governmental restrictions established by the people, such as a constitution or bill of rights.

  4.It is only restricting someone who is violating the rights of another.

  Let’s look at each of these criteria individually.

  1.It recognizes and protects the unalienable rights of all those involved from encroachment.

  “We hold these truths to be self evident- that all men are created equal- that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights- that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness- that governments are instituted among me to protect these rights”

  -The Declaration of Independence.

  This principle is the one which our nation was founded upon; the founders where in unison on this issue.

  Sadly, our nation no longer understands this concept. To them, government is simply something that we use to accomplish what we as individuals should accomplish… almost like a time saver. I'll explain more on this in criteria 4.

  2.It establishes domestic tranquility, rather than chaos.

  “We the people of the United States in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

  -Preamble to the United States Constitution.

  In times of chaos, people make, to put it bluntly, dumb decisions. People are willing to sacrifice their rights when, though their life probably isn’t in danger at all, chaos reigns. In order for the spirit of liberty to thrive, people must be in their senses. Domestic tranquility is a must.

  3.It does not go against any governmental restrictions established by the people, such as a constitution or bill of rights.

  “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the round of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of it’s institution”

  -Preamble to the Bill of Rights

  As you can see, the founding fathers believed in restricting the federal government. But, why? The answer is simple: as I stated earlier, governments are bent on the usurpation of the people’s rights. Only if the government is restricted can the people be free. Either the government is the master and the people are in chains, or the people are the master, and the government is in chains.

  But why should the government follow the letter of the law? Obviously, our current government looks at the constitution and Bill of Rights as power-giving document, and not as a binding document, though it is both. Is our current government wrong? The answer: Absolutely. Our government doesn’t follow the third criteria. Because of this, it is essentially unlimited.

  Think about it. The people really don’t care whether the constitution is being violated anymore, mainly because they have no foggy clue as to what is actually in the constitution. Considering the people are no longer enforcing the entirety of the constitutional restrictions on Congress and the President, Congress and the President are now usurping just about all of them. Indeed, it is hard to find a single amendment, besides perhaps the third, which is untouched from the current regime.

  But why not just enforce a few of the amendments, like the First and Second? After all, the fourth could cause us another 9/11. The answer is thus: If you want to change the constitution, amend it. Otherwise, you are violating it. If you violate part of it, you are violating all of it, because you have destroyed the need for it. It’s like a fence. One breech and the fence is worthless. In the same way, one constitutional violation and the constitution is worthless. It’s sort of like God’s law. "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all", James 2:10.

  4.It is only restricting someone who is violating the rights of another.

  This is another lost concept. Conservatives tend to think that government is there to stop people from sins. This is not true. As you remember from my previous entree on the subject, Jesus lifted punishment from the adulteress. Let’s look at this as an example of sin and whether or not is should be restricted.

  TV Woes

  Now, going by some, lust and the like should be made illegal. But should it be illegal? I have no doubt in my mind that it is a sin, and separates humans from God, but the question still stands: should government intervene and punish those who lust, or profit monetarily from the sin? The answer is no. Jesus’ response was, “Go and sin no more.” He did not punish the person, but forgave them.

  Biblically, this sin should not be punished by man, going by Jesus' words.. Pragmatically, it also shouldn’t be punished. Jesus, in the book of Mathew, said that if you lust in your heart, you have committed adultery in your heart. Going by that, we have all sinned, for if you show me someone who claims to have never lusted, I will show you a liar (which is another sin we will talk about). If we have all lusted, we should all be punished. The idea of putting those who have sinned in this way, regardless of how ungodly the sin is, makes no sense. Unless all people are to be punished for this sin, it shouldn’t be outlawed.

  Now, this sounds, I’ll admit, like I’m condoning this sin. That is far from the truth! I believe that the problem is to be resolved, not by government, but by the church and by individuals.

  America tends to have the problem of thinking that they can use the government to replace the church. I have no foggy clue why. Perhaps it is laziness. They don’t want to deal with the sinful issue, so they leave it to the FCC; they leave it to the government.

  This is not the actions of a responsible American citizen. Do not use the government as a cop out of the question. Admit that action must be taken on and individual and church basis, not a governmental basis.

  Besides, you will never be able to effectively combat the sins of immorality on a governmental level. It is a problem that must be killed at the root: at the individual level.

  The same applies to all forms of uncleanliness. I am personally disgusted at the attitude of many Christians. Especially those who were shocked when they witnessed the Janet Jackson incident, because they sat there watching a half-time show, knowing that it probably wasn’t going to be the godliest thing on the face of the planet. I was also disgusted at their response, which, for many, was to use the government to ban or fine her.

  Though I mean this with all gentleness and respect, this is ludicrous. We should not fine her with the government; we should boycott every single product that she even comes into contact with. She could handle a fine… but she couldn’t handle a nation-wide boycott. DixieChicks anyone? We should do that with all of those who have outrageously immoral/uncalled-for behavior.

  Seriously, it boggles my mind why Christians will watch the Super Bowl half-time show anyways. They know that it probably won’t be the closest thing to Sunday school on TV. Them watching the activities makes whatever they watch their own fault- they asked for it. Their rights were not infringed when they watched that show. They knew that immorality was going to be there (unless, of course, Janet Jackson is a moral person), and it was their wrongful decision to watch it. They can blame no one but themselves.

  I personally think that Americans should have nation-wide boycott on professional and college football, until the immoralities (immoral cheerleaders, commercials, half-time shows, etc) are gone.

  To those Christians who are not willing to give up football but want the government to intervene, instead: Do you not understand that this attitude of “government should do something” is destroying our nation’s restricted government? The constitution is brutally clear when it comes to the expression of opinion, and speech, and of the like. Congress, and the FCC that it created, have no constitutional authority to stop people from behaving the way they wish. Does this mean that they should behave this way? Of course not! But nevertheless, the constitution is clear. Unless we want to destroy the limitations on government because we don’t have the guts to give up a little football (or basketball, or whatever sport or pass-time that is infected) then we should not support government intervention in situations like the one above. Is football as important as our liberty?

  Socialism

  If you notice, no socialistic program, such as grants, welfare, etc, would fit under the philosophy of government. Why?

  First, let’s read a story (a paraphrasing of something I read in a book from the 50’s).

  There once was a land in which a just and upright king lived. Throughout his land his people rejoiced, for he was good to them. One day, a weaver asked for audience with the king. The King, who wished to hear of all problems in the kingdom, granted him the audience.

  The weaver said, “Oh, great and glorious king, hear my request for help. We know you are a just man, and will deal justly with my honorable family and me. I am a weaver. A fortnight ago a poor family set up a weaver shop across from mine, and sold cheaper, lower-quality products. Now, many people no longer want my higher-quality products, and purchase only his products. This means that their clothing will not be as warm during the winter, and will harm them. This also hurts my business, and now my children now must be taught by my wife, for we cannot afford to send them to school. Oh, great and glorious king, our nation has paid many taxes to better our nation. Surely, it is bettering our nation for my children to have their schooling paid for? Oh, king, I ask that you give tax-money for my children’s schooling and for their future.”

  The king looked thoughtfully at the weaver. A sad frown crept over his face. He turned, and said, “Armor bearer, bring me my sword!” The sword was brought. The king took and, and, sword in hand, walked up to the weaver. “Weaver”, he said, “take this sword. Wherever you go, use this sword to force families to give you money, so that your children may have schooling.”

  The weaver’s mouth fell open. Surely the reports of the justice of this king must be in erring! “Oh, great and glorious king! I cannot do what you ask, for I am an honorable man”, he said.

  The king gave the sword back to his armor bearer, and said, “And I too am an honorable man. I will not force others to pay for your school.”

  The weaver was ashamed, bowed his head, and left the king.

  Nice story. How does it relate to socialistic policies? The answer is simple. It is morally wrong for you to pick up a gun and force your neighbor to pay for your college. Why would it be right for you to use the government to do so? It wouldn’t be.

  It would be morally wrong for you to hold a knife to a man and force him to pay for your food and housing while you are researching something. Why would it be right for the government to do so?

  Think about it. Where does the government get their money? The people. How do they get it? They threaten the people with imprisonment if they don't donate to the government... that, in essence, is what taxation is. Simpliy slapping a label on it doesn't make it anything else.

  Going by that, in every situation, if it is wrong for the individual to force money from someone to give to an individual use, then it is morally wrong for the government to do so.

  In conclusion, I hope this makes sense. If it doesn’t, just drop me a letter at shaunconnell@gmail.com. I’d love to hear from you. J

  Shaun

  • 2:51 PM
  • 1 view
  • 6 eprops
  • 5 comments