First of all, how would having the government control the wealth and distribute the wealth equally actually teach the people? That's not how people learn lessons.
I think there are two large issues with socialism.
First of all, is does not completely eradicate class distinctions or separation between peoples. This is because there has to be somebody in charge of distributing the wealth and who has ALL the power. This automatically creates a power position and thus inequality among the people. Also, people will be competing in some way to attain this position. Furthermore, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Whether it is one person or a group of people who are in the government, the power that they have combined with the innate sinful nature of mankind equals a power struggle or some sort of falsehood to attain more power. Thus socialism can ultimately be contradictory to what it sets out to do.
Secondly, it takes away any self-motivation or healthy sense of competition which drives a healthy economy. No man focused on only earthly/natural items will feel motivated by anything other than self-gain. Whether it is the gain of wealth or just making themselves feel good, they will typically do something for themselves. It can be bad, the only way socialists view it, but it can also be a great way to motivate productivity and advancement. This is something that an economic system has to harness and not dismiss.
The ultimate issue with socialism is pretty simple. The actually concept and idea is wonderful; it sounds fantastic. It is the actual application of it and when innately sinful men enter the equation, when it becomes corrupt and ineffective.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Economics #1
The idea that he spoke about that, I must say, frustrated me the most, is the comment about being "smart enough" to figure out an economic system that works perfectly. What Moore completely disregards in this comment is that humans are innately evil. He's looking at mankind as evolutionary beings, who have got to have lived long enough to evolve to a point of intelligence that could create such an economic system. This of course is completely wrong. Humans make the same stupid mistakes day after day, year after year, century after century. Yes, perhaps for example, humanity has grown smart enough to create windows, but that doesn't mean that they are smart enough to never forget that the sliding door is closed and not run into it! No matter how advanced our science or technology become that is not a sign that humans must be evolving to a point of higher consciousness or intelligence that can create a perfect system. Human theories can be great, but human application gets very messy, very quickly.
Also, he is disregarding the basic instinct in man to compete and survive. No entire society, let alone world, is going to be made up of people who have no desire to compete or survive. There will always be someone who wants more or who wants what their neighbor has, or who even wants the power the leaders of the society have. Thus any economic system must understand and adjust to this truth, not just believe that it doesn't exist.
Also, he is disregarding the basic instinct in man to compete and survive. No entire society, let alone world, is going to be made up of people who have no desire to compete or survive. There will always be someone who wants more or who wants what their neighbor has, or who even wants the power the leaders of the society have. Thus any economic system must understand and adjust to this truth, not just believe that it doesn't exist.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Global Secular Government
Well, the obvious result would be the persecution and denigration of anything remotely "religious" (AKA Christian). This may include things from tearing down of churches to even the destruction of Bible-centered art. Technically, this would also call for other religions to set down their ways as well.
However, the main difficulty with a global secular government is that it will simply never work the way they want it. Mankind is innately sinful, no matter how much you try to sugar coat it. Thus, billions upon billions of sinful people are NEVER going to be able to all work together with as much perfection and coordination as a global government would require. This idea also doesn't take into account the stubbornness of people. When people really believe in something or agree/disagree with something, then they are not going to be easily dissuaded from that. However, a global secular government would require everyone to give up something so as to appease the "general consensus".
Another flaw in the process to create this form of government is that it would require all nations to get rid of all of their weapons. This is just not going to happen. If the Cold War taught us anything, it's that no government is going to be the first to get rid of or admit that they have no more weapons. This would leave anyone open to destruction or take over, because we are all sinful people. Therefore, this step of the process alone would take hundreds upon hundreds of years.
Now, back to the actual ramifications of such a government. Besides the obvious outbursts against such a government, this government would have to focus a lot on their own leaders. Any leader who has power over the entire world is going to be very easily corrupted, especially when they have no moral absolutes to hold to (or to force anybody to hold to). This sort of government could very well result in a globally corrupted government, led by power-hungry people.
However, the main difficulty with a global secular government is that it will simply never work the way they want it. Mankind is innately sinful, no matter how much you try to sugar coat it. Thus, billions upon billions of sinful people are NEVER going to be able to all work together with as much perfection and coordination as a global government would require. This idea also doesn't take into account the stubbornness of people. When people really believe in something or agree/disagree with something, then they are not going to be easily dissuaded from that. However, a global secular government would require everyone to give up something so as to appease the "general consensus".
Another flaw in the process to create this form of government is that it would require all nations to get rid of all of their weapons. This is just not going to happen. If the Cold War taught us anything, it's that no government is going to be the first to get rid of or admit that they have no more weapons. This would leave anyone open to destruction or take over, because we are all sinful people. Therefore, this step of the process alone would take hundreds upon hundreds of years.
Now, back to the actual ramifications of such a government. Besides the obvious outbursts against such a government, this government would have to focus a lot on their own leaders. Any leader who has power over the entire world is going to be very easily corrupted, especially when they have no moral absolutes to hold to (or to force anybody to hold to). This sort of government could very well result in a globally corrupted government, led by power-hungry people.
Abortion #1
1. The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?
This whole argument, I must first point out, is extremely EXTREMELY selfish. Any woman who says that her civil rights hinge on being able to have an abortion is completely ignoring the growing human inside of her, who is utterly dependent on the mother's ability to take responsibility for her actions. And, as we have established extensively in class, a fetus is not less of a human just because it is dependent on the mother (or differs in size, level of development, and environment).
Now that I have established how selfish this is, I will move on. One part of this argument that for some reason, rarely gets discussed is that a woman has a right to choose. She has a very clear right to choose whether or not to have sex and get pregnant. For some odd reason (sarcasm intended) this is never addressed in conversation about being a part of the issue at all. A woman has the right to control her body and demonstrate some self-control in certain situations.
A woman's rights are not dependent on whether or not she has the right to choose to kill a growing child or not. A woman has civil rights and she has plenty of options available to her, other than death to the fetus. It is a woman's personal responsibility and wisdom that should (emphasis on should) lead her to make an educated decision, completely in her realm of rights. This argument need not go down the "slippery slope" if people simply acted with more self-control and understanding.
Finally, forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization is not even close to giving a woman the right to kill a fetus. They are on completely different planes and all come back to the SLED acronym that I discussed earlier. Thus, a woman's civil rights are not dependent on her right to choose.
This whole argument, I must first point out, is extremely EXTREMELY selfish. Any woman who says that her civil rights hinge on being able to have an abortion is completely ignoring the growing human inside of her, who is utterly dependent on the mother's ability to take responsibility for her actions. And, as we have established extensively in class, a fetus is not less of a human just because it is dependent on the mother (or differs in size, level of development, and environment).
Now that I have established how selfish this is, I will move on. One part of this argument that for some reason, rarely gets discussed is that a woman has a right to choose. She has a very clear right to choose whether or not to have sex and get pregnant. For some odd reason (sarcasm intended) this is never addressed in conversation about being a part of the issue at all. A woman has the right to control her body and demonstrate some self-control in certain situations.
A woman's rights are not dependent on whether or not she has the right to choose to kill a growing child or not. A woman has civil rights and she has plenty of options available to her, other than death to the fetus. It is a woman's personal responsibility and wisdom that should (emphasis on should) lead her to make an educated decision, completely in her realm of rights. This argument need not go down the "slippery slope" if people simply acted with more self-control and understanding.
Finally, forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization is not even close to giving a woman the right to kill a fetus. They are on completely different planes and all come back to the SLED acronym that I discussed earlier. Thus, a woman's civil rights are not dependent on her right to choose.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Law #3
A Christian sees God as the Supreme law-giver and the ultimate authority of law. Law originates from the character and nature of God. They believe that there is a natural law the is revealed through general revelation. The natural law is comprised of both physical and moral laws, both of which are known by all because they see it all over, everyday (general revelation). Christians believe in an absolute standard that all laws should adhere to and that absolute standard is God's will as revealed in the Bible. According to the Christian worldview, man's law is a necessary thing because of the innately sinful human nature. Thus, it keeps man from utter chaos and turmoil. However, man's law must included laws regarding basic human rights, for human's are of great importance in the Christian worldview. We are all made in God's image and therefore are important to God. Jesus becoming man caused human life to assume even greater importance than before. Finally, the ultimate result of Christian law is that God will judge the human race according to His standard.
On the other hand, Islam believes that the ultimate authority for law is Allah and his words in the Qur'an and the sayings in the Hadith. Law, however, does not stem from the nature or character of Allah. There are a few laws that are actually required or denied with eternal reprecussions but there are many laws that are purely recommended or disapproved. Islam does not believe that man is innately evil and therefore they do not considered the sinfulness and corruption of man in their law. They give their governments absolute power without any thought that that might corrupt their country.
There is plenty of differences between the Islamic approach to law and the Christian approach to law.
On the other hand, Islam believes that the ultimate authority for law is Allah and his words in the Qur'an and the sayings in the Hadith. Law, however, does not stem from the nature or character of Allah. There are a few laws that are actually required or denied with eternal reprecussions but there are many laws that are purely recommended or disapproved. Islam does not believe that man is innately evil and therefore they do not considered the sinfulness and corruption of man in their law. They give their governments absolute power without any thought that that might corrupt their country.
There is plenty of differences between the Islamic approach to law and the Christian approach to law.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Law #2
NO! As someone who wants to potentially go into Constitutional law this topic is one that intrigues and frustrates me to no end. If a law is up to individual interpretation then what is the point of having laws?! There is no need to hold an entire society accountable to something that they can each interpret differently. For example, someone could interpret not stealing as only not stealing candy bars, but robbing a bank is okay. It just doesn't work out.
This is especially counter-productive to the whole basic purpose of government - protecting and creating order. If every person is doing their own thing then chaos and danger are soon to follow.
With this all being said, their is always a little bit of interpreting that has to be done with every legal case or criminal act. Every situation is different and thus punishments that fit the crime must be decided through interpreting the repercussions of each crime. For instance, a child who steals a candy bar and a man who robs a bank should require different punishments, and therefore do not steal would be applied more harshly to the man than the child. This sort of interpretation is only logical, and even established in punishments in the Bible.
The difference is that the individual application of the law is not up to interpretation. A person can't decide, as stated before, that robbing a bank is fine but stealing a candy bar is not. The only interpretation that is involved is in deciding appropriate punishment for each individual crime (even though with that there is still some form of absolutes).
This is especially counter-productive to the whole basic purpose of government - protecting and creating order. If every person is doing their own thing then chaos and danger are soon to follow.
With this all being said, their is always a little bit of interpreting that has to be done with every legal case or criminal act. Every situation is different and thus punishments that fit the crime must be decided through interpreting the repercussions of each crime. For instance, a child who steals a candy bar and a man who robs a bank should require different punishments, and therefore do not steal would be applied more harshly to the man than the child. This sort of interpretation is only logical, and even established in punishments in the Bible.
The difference is that the individual application of the law is not up to interpretation. A person can't decide, as stated before, that robbing a bank is fine but stealing a candy bar is not. The only interpretation that is involved is in deciding appropriate punishment for each individual crime (even though with that there is still some form of absolutes).
Law with Sarah (#1)
Governments are not the ultimate authority for law for a few reasons. First and most important, God is the ultimate authority for law. He created law and order and it is a part of His perfect nature. Emphasis on PERFECT. The second reason is tied to this last point. Governments are made up of sinful men, and thus can easily fall into sin and error. However, God in His perfection cannot make an error. How much better is it then to obey a being who is not faulty and doesn't make mistakes than one who could potentially steer you a wrong direction.
The argument may be said that Christians are instructed to obey those put in authority over them, aka government. This however, does not say that government is the ULTIMATE authority. Just that it is an authority that should be obeyed. There is still a big but in this statement. Because God is the ultimate authority if the government ever makes a law that goes against what the word of God says or against His nature then we are not required to obey it. We answer to God first, then government. This only makes sense with an eternal view of life. How much more important is it to obey the authority that you will have to answer to for all of eternity than the temporary earthly government.
To tie this all back to the original topic, if we are to obey God first and not governments, then God is logically the ultimate authority for creating the laws that we obey. Governments may make laws, but the source of justice and order is God.
The argument may be said that Christians are instructed to obey those put in authority over them, aka government. This however, does not say that government is the ULTIMATE authority. Just that it is an authority that should be obeyed. There is still a big but in this statement. Because God is the ultimate authority if the government ever makes a law that goes against what the word of God says or against His nature then we are not required to obey it. We answer to God first, then government. This only makes sense with an eternal view of life. How much more important is it to obey the authority that you will have to answer to for all of eternity than the temporary earthly government.
To tie this all back to the original topic, if we are to obey God first and not governments, then God is logically the ultimate authority for creating the laws that we obey. Governments may make laws, but the source of justice and order is God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)