On the 4th of November, I posted the following in reply to a post on Disqus. See if you think I made some good points against blind acceptance of evolution.
You must admit that there are some things that are real that science can never fully help us understand. For example, returning to my sugar analogy. Science can never help us to know what sugar tastes like, yet the taste is as real as we are. Science can do a lot with sugar: it could help us produce it, it can explain why we taste sugar, it can explain how sugar functions in the body. But again, it can never show us what sugar tastes like. It must be experienced to realize the truth of it.
Regarding the DNA issue, I suppose my wording and my not using the proper scientific terminology made it less clear.
My basic point is that the genetic code was present in the earliest organisms. If life came into existence unaided by some sort of intentional plan, would we really expect these most primitive organisms to contain a coding system that could be used to eventually create humans billions of years later? Is this a reasonable belief? I don't think it is. I believe that earlier organisms would have had some primitive system of coding that would have had to change over time before more complex creatures could be produced. The DNA coding system that existed in the earliest organisms had all that was necessary to be capable of producing humans if only the correct sequence were put together. To me that suggests a framework for life that was put in place from the beginning.
Based on unaided evolution, we must then assume that random forces somehow not only produced a form of life, but produced perhaps the only form of life that contained this DNA coding system that could change and mutate sufficiently to produce humans. I just don't buy it. Scientist haven't proven this to be the case, but only make guesses and assumptions based on their current understanding of things.
I don't buy the concept of an unintelligent process somehow yielding a result so superior to itself, the most complex and intelligent being on the planet. Is this concept reasonable? We have no precedent for it. Perhaps man's most advanced creations are computers or fighter aircraft, maybe nuclear power plants. None comes close to the complexity of human beings. Yet each of these creations took much knowledge and intelligence to create, as well as intentional efforts. Other than man's theories, what precedent do we have for a process creating something so significant, so complex, so impossible?
I believe in science and find the workings of the universe fascinating. But when we try to use science to dispute something that is beyond the realm of science, then I have a problem with that. Rather than using science to somehow feebly disprove the existence of a creator, I believe we should look for evidence that there is a creator. I think we should use our knowledge that we gain from science to better understand our creator. His knowledge is greater than our own, as evidenced by the vast complexity of life and our earth. Maybe we could learn something from him.
- Posted on disqus on 4 Nov 2014
I mentioned above, the scenario regarding the taste of sugar. We could extend this some more. For example, science also can't help a person to know what the color blue looks like if they had never seen it. Now with these two sensory experiences, the taste of sugar and the color blue, we can see another issue. We must experience the particular item through the proper medium. In other words, you can't see or hear what sugar tastes like, but you must taste what sugar tastes like. And with the color, you can't taste or hear what blue is like, but you must see what the color blue looks like.
In terms of a creator, who created us, we must experience a connection with him through the proper medium. Perhaps this explains why science can't give much insight to the existence of God. It has the means to detect many things through various media, but what medium can scientists use to examine God? For those who believe, the medium seems to be through the "heart" or emotions and feelings. But this medium also seems to include events that an individual senses are acts of God on his or her behalf, for his or her benefit. Obviously, this is a very simplified, non-scientific description of the medium through which one might come to know God. We would also have to somehow include the Holy Spirit in this medium. The medium likely is quite complex, thus eluding scientists and their "all-knowing" instruments.
Another question that evolution scientists have not yet answered is whether natural selection can really cause changes from one species to the next. Experiments have proven that various conditions can indeed cause a particular species to change in various ways, such a color changes or changes in size of bird beaks. But this is only a small revelation that in no way proves that these incremental changes could actually lead to a whole new species with a different genome than the previous species.
One experiment has been going on for over twenty years using e. coli bacteria. Because of the rate of multiplication of the bacteria, these twenty years are equivalent to many thousands of years of evolutionary activity. In the study, researchers have observed changes in the bacteria that in fact seem to be effects of natural selection. However, with all the changes, they still only have e. coli bacteria.
I would argue that natural selection can only go so far, strengthening a species to the maximum that is possible within the species for the present conditions. Within the species, natural selection will lead to a peak in survivability for the prevalent conditions where the species exists. Beyond that, it is likely natural selection can't do much; there will never be a new species evolved from the e. coli bacteria in the study.
There are still more questions to be answered about evolution. I challenge biologists, and other evolution science practitioners to test this hypothesis. We need an answer.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Friday, October 24, 2014
Say “NO” to Communism in America on November 4th
For the last few decades, we have seen the decline of Communism in the
world and the rise of capitalism in its place. Major Communist regimes like the
USSR and China are now thriving in a capitalist economy, embracing free trade
with other nations. “See, capitalism is working and Communism is dead,” we
might say. In the United States of America, we have nothing to fear, since
Communism is gone and no longer poses a threat. This is what we’ve been told or
lead to believe. Is it really true?
As November 4th approaches and we consider whom to vote for in
the elections, this question of Communism is an important one. Communism, as
envisioned by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is not as simple as the
government kindly taking care of the people of the nation; their vision
included the harsh take-over and implementation of government control, despite
what the voice of the people may desire. While claiming to be a system to end oppression
of the working class (the Proletariat), the system really moves the source of
oppression from big business to government.
This issue is important because, whether we realize it or not, elements
of Communism are all around us and growing right here in the US! A few of the
tenets of Marxist Communism include: the abolition of family, doing away with religion,
the abolition of private property, and free government schools (see The
Communist Manifesto). Additionally, for a government to take over our nation,
it would be quite valuable to disarm the people and to justify the take-over. Each
one of these is taking place gradually here in the US. One party seems to
support all the causes that establish these Communist tenets; one side of the
political spectrum dominates this territory. Although they never mention
Communism, they do seem to publicly acknowledge socialism as ideal. Socialism
is a forerunner to Communism. The evidence all around us suggests that once we
are securely in their grasp, full-fledged Communism will be instituted.
Although most politicians probably (hopefully) don’t consciously intend
to bring Communism into the United States, if they support these concepts, they
are doing so anyway.
Let’s look at some of the Communist tenets manifested in America.
Abolition of Family
Over several decades or more, the legitimate, natural family has been
smeared into a mess of self-interested sex relationships. We hear of “free
love,” “reproductive rights,’ and so on. What we got were myriad anti-family
options: abortion, living together without marriage, and sex between
individuals who are not biologically compatible to produce life. Can anyone say
what “family” is any more? Once families are no longer defined, government can
make sure children are raised the way they want them to be, because no one but
the state really has claim on them anymore.
There is only one type of natural family. When a man and a woman are
united intimately, they produce children. This is the natural family, because
it happens naturally. When the man and woman are married to each other, committing
under God to each other for life or eternity, then we have the legitimate,
natural family. The parents who produced these children generally have the
highest interest in their well-being. For ages, societies have accepted proper
substitutions within such a family. These proper substitutions include:
adoption of children, a man replacing a man who has passed away, or a woman
replacing a woman who has passed away. The legitimate, natural family is still
preserved when any of these substitutions is done by the proper procedure (i.e.
adoption process, marriage).
Doing away with Religion
No prayer in school? The Ten Commandments removed from public facilities?
A growing view that evolution explains all we need to know about life, so there
can’t be any God? Is freedom of religion really a revered U.S. Constitutional
right anymore? There seems to be a growing disinterest in religion generally
and many are hostile toward any mention of religion, especially in public or
with any government connection. Need I say more on this?
Abolition of Private Property
This may be the hardest one to show, but we do see encroachments on
private property, mainly through environmental claims and related legal
actions. Let’s don’t forget the concept of “imminent domain,” either. Also,
government bailouts of corporations put them in a position to more easily
transfer the means of production to the government.
Free Government Schools
Well, we all are familiar with this one. We’ve all (or most of us) have
been through the system. It seemed okay, right? We weren’t filled with loyalty-to-the-state
propaganda. But schools are changing. When we see a national curriculum being
forced on the states, it’s a red flag reminding us of the potential for centralized
government control and indoctrination. And many schools currently support the “no
religion” concept and increasingly support the blurring of the family definition.
Children are taught about environmental issues as well (environmental
stewardship is a good thing, but it has already been carried too far).
Disarming of the American People
For a government to take authoritarian control, the people must not have
the means to fight back. Long-range weapons (as opposed to hand-to-hand
fighting), such as guns, are a threat to anyone attempting a hostile take-over.
For years now, debates have raged between gun control and gun rights. One by
one, certain freedoms relating to guns have been reduced. Responsible gun
ownership is imperative, but too often government officials attempt to vilify
gun ownership and make “availability of guns” the culprit rather than
attributing the problem to the people who misuse them or the culture that
produced those people. It’s as if they strive to scare the American people into
giving up their guns: “okay, okay, I guess we need more gun control laws!” Just
a reminder: We need more people who value each other, regardless of who they
are. That naturally leads to less desire to use a gun on them.
Justifying a Government Take-over
How could the government justify a take-over? Perhaps if we stir up divisions
between the people, eventually they will be at each other’s throats to the
point that the government “must step in” to fix the problem. If that happens,
given all the above conditions, how likely is it that those who have a Socialist-Communist
mindset will give up control without a fight? We mustn’t let that happen!
From the “culture war” to congressional debates between Democrats and
Republicans, conflict between rich and poor, gangs and deadly neighborhoods, school
shootings, on and on and on… Are we divided enough yet? Perhaps not yet, since
there hasn’t been a take-over. But it isn’t getting any better and the government
often takes actions that continue to stir up the divisions.
Consider it. What better explanation is there? Even if it’s not
intentional, once the right person realizes the opportunity he or she has, it
will come if we don’t stop it first. Do your own research and you might be surprised
to find even more than what I’ve uncovered here.
Don’t let stealth and crafty arguments fool you! We mustn’t let those who
promote Communist tenets govern our nation. STOP THEM BEFORE THEY STOP US! VOTE
November Fourth!
P.S. Spread the word! (Share this post.) And remember, it’s no longer enough to
vote and complain how our nation is doing. Get more involved somewhere,
somehow.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
More on Free Markets vs. Central Distribution
Okay, here's another comment I posted for my economics class in reply to an article by Walter Williams (a professor of economics) that can be found at:
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/politics/markets-governments-and-the-common-good/
My Response:
This economics professor obviously is very biased toward the free market system. His description of the two systems is skewed in favor of free markets. Either system--individuals trading individually in a free market or individuals contributing to and receiving from a centralized (government) distribution system--requires a solid moral foundation to best function for the benefit of the people in the system. Absent a foundation of concern for the well-being of others, commitment to integrity and honesty in all dealings, and so on, either system will run the gamut of evils.
Let's say high achiever Joe and struggling Bob work each day and produce some essential goods in a centralized economy. Joe produces 50 chickens in a month and Bob only manages to produce 5 chickens. These 55 chickens are placed into the central distribution system. Since it is well known that every family needs 10 chickens a month to survive, Bob is given 10 chickens to take home. This leaves 45 chickens. Since Joe contributed much more to the system, let's say he is given a double dose of chickens: 20 chickens, more than his family needs to survive. There are still 25 chickens to be distributed to other struggling producers in the system.
In this system the moral prerequisites include: 1) the distribution managers care about the well-being of those receiving goods, 2) these managers have sufficient training and understanding of the system to operate effectively, 3) each producer (Joe, Bob) honestly gives his best effort to produce.
Now let's move high achiever Joe and struggling Bob to a free market economy. Joe still produces his 50 chickens and Bob produces his 5. Bob has a dilemma here. Can he trade his 5 chickens for 10 of Joe's? That doesn't seem fair. Bob could ask Joe for 5 chickens to supplement what he produced, but Joe might say "no." If everyone Bob asks says "no," Bob and his family eventually starve and die.
Now, in this scenario, which system is more moral?
In my scenario, I wrote it in favor of the first system. Both my scenario and the one in the article are of course very simplified to highlight the concepts. In the second scenario Bob could perhaps offer to work for Joe in exchange for 5 chickens. But assuming Joe's and Bob's labor to raise chickens were equal numbers of hours, then Bob ends up working more hours just to have barely enough for his family.
The moral prerequisites of the second system include: 1) each individual must care enough for other individuals not to rip them off in exchanges, 2) individuals must be willing to help those not as fortunate (especially those at the bottom of ability and capacity).
My point is that the question isn't really whether free markets are better than some other system, but rather "can we ensure our people are morally upright enough to handle the free market?"
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/politics/markets-governments-and-the-common-good/
My Response:
This economics professor obviously is very biased toward the free market system. His description of the two systems is skewed in favor of free markets. Either system--individuals trading individually in a free market or individuals contributing to and receiving from a centralized (government) distribution system--requires a solid moral foundation to best function for the benefit of the people in the system. Absent a foundation of concern for the well-being of others, commitment to integrity and honesty in all dealings, and so on, either system will run the gamut of evils.
Let's say high achiever Joe and struggling Bob work each day and produce some essential goods in a centralized economy. Joe produces 50 chickens in a month and Bob only manages to produce 5 chickens. These 55 chickens are placed into the central distribution system. Since it is well known that every family needs 10 chickens a month to survive, Bob is given 10 chickens to take home. This leaves 45 chickens. Since Joe contributed much more to the system, let's say he is given a double dose of chickens: 20 chickens, more than his family needs to survive. There are still 25 chickens to be distributed to other struggling producers in the system.
In this system the moral prerequisites include: 1) the distribution managers care about the well-being of those receiving goods, 2) these managers have sufficient training and understanding of the system to operate effectively, 3) each producer (Joe, Bob) honestly gives his best effort to produce.
Now let's move high achiever Joe and struggling Bob to a free market economy. Joe still produces his 50 chickens and Bob produces his 5. Bob has a dilemma here. Can he trade his 5 chickens for 10 of Joe's? That doesn't seem fair. Bob could ask Joe for 5 chickens to supplement what he produced, but Joe might say "no." If everyone Bob asks says "no," Bob and his family eventually starve and die.
Now, in this scenario, which system is more moral?
In my scenario, I wrote it in favor of the first system. Both my scenario and the one in the article are of course very simplified to highlight the concepts. In the second scenario Bob could perhaps offer to work for Joe in exchange for 5 chickens. But assuming Joe's and Bob's labor to raise chickens were equal numbers of hours, then Bob ends up working more hours just to have barely enough for his family.
The moral prerequisites of the second system include: 1) each individual must care enough for other individuals not to rip them off in exchanges, 2) individuals must be willing to help those not as fortunate (especially those at the bottom of ability and capacity).
My point is that the question isn't really whether free markets are better than some other system, but rather "can we ensure our people are morally upright enough to handle the free market?"
Friday, October 10, 2014
Free Market or Communism?
It has been a while since I've posted here because I am in school full-time, which is taking just about all my time. I'm nearly finished with my bachelor degree in business. I just finished writing a response to an article for my international economics class. I felt that it was perfect to post here too.
The article that I was to read and respond to is found here (among other places):
http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/opinion/2014/07/02/economic-freedom-key-prosperity/12119417/
My response:
This article seems pretty one-sided. The author makes some good points in support of economic freedom, but at the same time he seems to blur distinctions between free-market causes and other causes for our prosperity.
I understand Mr. Williams' desire to counter President Obama's statement: "'The market will take care of everything,' they tell us. ... But here's the problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked. ... I mean, understand, it's not as if we haven't tried this theory."
The president apparently attempts to justify socialism (or communism?) by refuting free-markets. The problem here is that we have also tried the Marxist-Communist theory and it didn't work either. The US and free-market West countries have been more successful than Communist nations because they were able to more effectively correct defects in the free-market system. The Communists didn't correct their system defects as effectively, partly because they were probably too set in following the Marxist theory to the letter, and partly because they had fewer minds to draw on (for the most part the people couldn't give much input).
Examples of defects resulting from too-free markets, that we eventually corrected:
- Excessive work hours, even for children
- Monopolistic entrepreneurism
- Minimal value seen in employees--they were paid low wages, and were replaced if they were not happy with employment conditions.
- Slavery
The author says, "The key features of a free market system are private property rights and private ownership of the means of production. In addition, there's a large measure of peaceable voluntary exchange."
Voluntary exchange isn't present because the free-market created it. It allowed it, but individuals with a moral sense of helping others created those exchanges. (I'm thinking here that we are talking about volunteerism.)
Mr. Williams goes on to give some evidence of our economic advantage.
"People who live in countries closer to the free market end of the economic spectrum not only have far greater income than people who live in countries toward the communist end but also enjoy far greater human rights protections."
"In the freest nations, the average income of the poorest 10 percent of their populations was $11,382. In the least free nations, it was $1,209."
"Life expectancy is 79.5 years in the freest nations and 61.6 years in the least free. Political and civil liberties are considerably greater in the economically free nations than in un-free nations."
We do have greater incomes, but he doesn't say anything about the cost of living among the various countries. Most lower-income countries also have a lower cost of living than we do.
As for civil liberties, that's not a result of free-markets. That is a sociopolitical result. For the U.S. it started with our Constitution and the bill of rights. Socially and morally conscientious people worked to further expand our civil liberties since then.
As for life expectancy, perhaps there are some significant contributions due to the free market. There could be some health benefit from the free market system for some people (especially the most successful). Also, the free market surely encouraged medical research and development that has lead to better healthcare (and high prices).
Mr. Williams continues, "The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France and the U.K."
Could it be that we have larger living spaces because we have a lot more land to build on? The countries mentioned are geographically small. Could it also be that because our nation is younger, we were able to build from a different mindset than those much older nations that are building amidst hundreds of years of construction and population history? Our lifestyles and our level of individualism are also different, leading to different desires in our residences.
He also says, "Our having a free market and limited government more than anything else explains our wealth. Most of our major problems are a result of government. We Americans should recognize that unfettered government and crony capitalism, not unfettered markets, are the cause of our current economic problems and why the U.S. has sunk to the rank of 17th in the 2013 "Economic Freedom of the World" report."
While surely it is true that much of our economic trouble right now may be a result of inappropriate government actions, it is also likely that the current size of government partly resulted from unfettered markets. Much of the growth of government came as a result of problems created by industry and free markets. (FTC, EPA, and OSHA are obvious examples.)
Free market and limited government surely made the conditions possible to build our wealth, but where did that wealth come from? To a large extent it came from other nations, in various ways. Through our trade with other countries, we were able to accumulate financial rewards from them, trading US resources for financial wealth. This suggests that another reason we became wealthy is because we had vast natural resources to trade.
Also, from other nations we received large numbers of emigrants. Of course that means more manpower, more ingenuity, and so on. They contributed to our wealth (and now we can't stand the thought of "those Mexican immigrants.")
So free trade, along with other various conditions, made us wealthy, to some degree at the expense of other nations. Now since a free market is so great, let's say all the nations of the world started participating in a single free market. Over time, the lower-income nations would start to increase their wealth, their income, their standard of living. That sounds great. But are we prepared for the effects that this will necessarily bring to the wealthier nations such as the U.S.? As incomes rise in the less-well-off nations, cheap labor in those nations will disappear, leading to higher labor costs for our products and higher prices. Our standard of living will likely decrease as the world equalizes to a common standard of living. For some nations this will be a benefit, for some it may be a loss.
If wealth and economic prosperity are the only measure we use to determine the merit of a system, then free markets likely win the prize. But what are some of the associated non-economic costs of the free market?
- To start off, many nations are hostile toward the U.S. for various reasons, largely because of our business operations that we pursue for our economic welfare as well as government actions that get noticed because of our economic status. Because of our economic strength, we have the power to bully other countries for our further economic benefit. It sort of reminds me of Wal-Mart, a very prosperous company that everyone complains about.
- We are losing our faith in God, who created us, because we now believe we understand so much that we don't need him. Partly, it's a consequence of pride associated with our prosperity. As this happens, expect some blessings of our nation to be lost.
- The moral standards of our people decline as the masses follow after the latest decadence in entertainment and pursue the gluttony and disregard that marketers encourage, which are results of free markets.
Others surely could be named.
A free-market republic or a communist nation? Is one really better than the other? They both have advantages and disadvantages. They each have problems because of the nature of people. Either form of government/economy could be pleasant, but only when benevolence is widespread throughout the nation.
As the founding fathers understood, we must be a sufficiently moral people for our free system to function properly.
Rather than economic prosperity, I believe the highest success is to achieve the most good in the world while causing the least harm.
The article that I was to read and respond to is found here (among other places):
http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/opinion/2014/07/02/economic-freedom-key-prosperity/12119417/
My response:
This article seems pretty one-sided. The author makes some good points in support of economic freedom, but at the same time he seems to blur distinctions between free-market causes and other causes for our prosperity.
I understand Mr. Williams' desire to counter President Obama's statement: "'The market will take care of everything,' they tell us. ... But here's the problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked. ... I mean, understand, it's not as if we haven't tried this theory."
The president apparently attempts to justify socialism (or communism?) by refuting free-markets. The problem here is that we have also tried the Marxist-Communist theory and it didn't work either. The US and free-market West countries have been more successful than Communist nations because they were able to more effectively correct defects in the free-market system. The Communists didn't correct their system defects as effectively, partly because they were probably too set in following the Marxist theory to the letter, and partly because they had fewer minds to draw on (for the most part the people couldn't give much input).
Examples of defects resulting from too-free markets, that we eventually corrected:
- Excessive work hours, even for children
- Monopolistic entrepreneurism
- Minimal value seen in employees--they were paid low wages, and were replaced if they were not happy with employment conditions.
- Slavery
The author says, "The key features of a free market system are private property rights and private ownership of the means of production. In addition, there's a large measure of peaceable voluntary exchange."
Voluntary exchange isn't present because the free-market created it. It allowed it, but individuals with a moral sense of helping others created those exchanges. (I'm thinking here that we are talking about volunteerism.)
Mr. Williams goes on to give some evidence of our economic advantage.
"People who live in countries closer to the free market end of the economic spectrum not only have far greater income than people who live in countries toward the communist end but also enjoy far greater human rights protections."
"In the freest nations, the average income of the poorest 10 percent of their populations was $11,382. In the least free nations, it was $1,209."
"Life expectancy is 79.5 years in the freest nations and 61.6 years in the least free. Political and civil liberties are considerably greater in the economically free nations than in un-free nations."
We do have greater incomes, but he doesn't say anything about the cost of living among the various countries. Most lower-income countries also have a lower cost of living than we do.
As for civil liberties, that's not a result of free-markets. That is a sociopolitical result. For the U.S. it started with our Constitution and the bill of rights. Socially and morally conscientious people worked to further expand our civil liberties since then.
As for life expectancy, perhaps there are some significant contributions due to the free market. There could be some health benefit from the free market system for some people (especially the most successful). Also, the free market surely encouraged medical research and development that has lead to better healthcare (and high prices).
Mr. Williams continues, "The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France and the U.K."
Could it be that we have larger living spaces because we have a lot more land to build on? The countries mentioned are geographically small. Could it also be that because our nation is younger, we were able to build from a different mindset than those much older nations that are building amidst hundreds of years of construction and population history? Our lifestyles and our level of individualism are also different, leading to different desires in our residences.
He also says, "Our having a free market and limited government more than anything else explains our wealth. Most of our major problems are a result of government. We Americans should recognize that unfettered government and crony capitalism, not unfettered markets, are the cause of our current economic problems and why the U.S. has sunk to the rank of 17th in the 2013 "Economic Freedom of the World" report."
While surely it is true that much of our economic trouble right now may be a result of inappropriate government actions, it is also likely that the current size of government partly resulted from unfettered markets. Much of the growth of government came as a result of problems created by industry and free markets. (FTC, EPA, and OSHA are obvious examples.)
Free market and limited government surely made the conditions possible to build our wealth, but where did that wealth come from? To a large extent it came from other nations, in various ways. Through our trade with other countries, we were able to accumulate financial rewards from them, trading US resources for financial wealth. This suggests that another reason we became wealthy is because we had vast natural resources to trade.
Also, from other nations we received large numbers of emigrants. Of course that means more manpower, more ingenuity, and so on. They contributed to our wealth (and now we can't stand the thought of "those Mexican immigrants.")
So free trade, along with other various conditions, made us wealthy, to some degree at the expense of other nations. Now since a free market is so great, let's say all the nations of the world started participating in a single free market. Over time, the lower-income nations would start to increase their wealth, their income, their standard of living. That sounds great. But are we prepared for the effects that this will necessarily bring to the wealthier nations such as the U.S.? As incomes rise in the less-well-off nations, cheap labor in those nations will disappear, leading to higher labor costs for our products and higher prices. Our standard of living will likely decrease as the world equalizes to a common standard of living. For some nations this will be a benefit, for some it may be a loss.
If wealth and economic prosperity are the only measure we use to determine the merit of a system, then free markets likely win the prize. But what are some of the associated non-economic costs of the free market?
- To start off, many nations are hostile toward the U.S. for various reasons, largely because of our business operations that we pursue for our economic welfare as well as government actions that get noticed because of our economic status. Because of our economic strength, we have the power to bully other countries for our further economic benefit. It sort of reminds me of Wal-Mart, a very prosperous company that everyone complains about.
- We are losing our faith in God, who created us, because we now believe we understand so much that we don't need him. Partly, it's a consequence of pride associated with our prosperity. As this happens, expect some blessings of our nation to be lost.
- The moral standards of our people decline as the masses follow after the latest decadence in entertainment and pursue the gluttony and disregard that marketers encourage, which are results of free markets.
Others surely could be named.
A free-market republic or a communist nation? Is one really better than the other? They both have advantages and disadvantages. They each have problems because of the nature of people. Either form of government/economy could be pleasant, but only when benevolence is widespread throughout the nation.
As the founding fathers understood, we must be a sufficiently moral people for our free system to function properly.
Rather than economic prosperity, I believe the highest success is to achieve the most good in the world while causing the least harm.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
My Letter to the Republican National Committee
I sent a letter today to the Republican National Committee (RNC) to express my opinion about some of their tactics for raising money and about the direction of the Republican Party. I am registered as a Republican, but as you can see in the letter, I'm not a carbon-copy Republican. Please leave a post telling what you think. I really need your feedback. Thanks. Emil
20 Aug 2014
To: Reince
Priebus, Tony Parker, and other RNC leaders
Dear RNC
Leaders,
In 2012 I donated to the RNC two
times. My purpose was to help Mitt Romney win the presidential election. I had
no interest in long-term support for the RNC, but only to support Mitt Romney. However,
for the two years since then, the RNC has hounded me routinely for additional
donations, through mail and phone contact. On more than one occasion, during a
phone conversation, I have told the RNC representative that I don’t want to
donate and to please take my name off the RNC’s contact list, but apparently
the RNC doesn’t understand the word “no.” So as the founding fathers did in
their declaration of independence, I shall now explain my reasons for remaining
a non-supporter of the RNC.
When I first donated to the RNC
hoping to enhance Mitt Romney’s chances for the presidency, I didn’t know
anything about the RNC. I had no plans for long-term support of the RNC because
of my lack of knowledge about the organization. Now I choose not to support the
RNC financially because of my experience with the RNC, as well as the weakness
I see in the Republican Party’s inappropriate positions and attitudes on some
issues.
One RNC practice that turns me away
is the use of gimmicks and guilt tactics to stir people to donate. For example,
I originally responded to a request for a donation to help Mitt Romney become
president. I gave money for a specific campaign. Now the RNC expects me to
“renew my membership.” I never chose to be a member—there’s nothing to renew.
The latest disgusting tactic was to print “past due” on the outside of the
envelope that you sent requesting I send money to renew this imaginary
membership. Throughout most of the letters, I read line after line of biased
statements aimed at making one feel guilty for not throwing out more money to
stop the Obamacrats. Just give me facts and information; don’t attempt to make
me feel guilty.
Also, in many of the letters I have
received, you talk of preserving our freedom. The liberals believe in freedom
too. They believe in freedom in sexual matters, freedom of all kinds of
expression, freedom from religion, freedom from environmental harm, freedom
from control by parents, and so on. You need to clearly express what sort of
freedom you are fighting for.
Another unpleasant practice is that
every communication that I have received from the RNC involves asking for
money. I have yet to read any reference
to other ways I can help candidates get elected, such as through social media.
The communications are always centered on requesting more money from me, except
for the few times that you asked me to fill out surveys.
That leads to another problem: your
surveys are biased and unprofessional. They seem aimed at leading the
respondent to the sorts of answers you expect to receive. If you really want to
collect valid data, hire a real research agency to create a survey that meets
professional guidelines.
For me, the worst practice that the
RNC has been guilty of is harassment—sending me a constant stream of mail
begging for my money, along with numerous phone calls for the same purpose.
STOP!
My final complaint for the RNC and
the Republican Party (and perhaps all politicians) is that no one seems to
speak up about the moral pollution destroying our nation. We talk of the
economy, illegal aliens, and other such “issues,” but what we really need to
focus on is the moral laxness and corruption of our citizens. We are swimming
in sex everywhere, from suggestive entertainment to a major pornography
industry; deception, cheating, and cruelty are found at all levels, from
schools to all-too-blatant business corruption; and an entitlement mentality
pervades our culture from children to government officials. That’s just a few
facets of our moral deficit. This moral deficit is our biggest problem, the one
that really needs everyone’s attention. As the founding fathers recognized, our
republic and Constitution cannot survive unless the masses of our people are
virtuous and morally upright. (Let’s replace political correctness with moral
correctness.)
Our nation, and I believe the
Republican Party, were founded on Christian principles. But it seems the party
has held on to part of these principles, while forgetting others—or at least
subordinating them. The Republican Party has been good at talking about
accountability, punishment for crime, defending our nation, responsibility to
provide for ourselves, etc. But in each of these situations, we seem to subordinate
the fact that each of these situations involves people. Conservatives talk a
lot about justice; liberals talk more about mercy. Both are essential Christian
principles. We can’t forget the two greatest commandments were to love God and
love people.
To elaborate: in talking of punishing
someone for a crime, conservatives seem to give lesser value to the criminal,
forgetting that often his circumstances made crime a more attractive option
than obeying the laws. Sure, when we come from a cultural norm that teaches us
the proper path for success, it’s hard to empathize with the person who grew up
in a gang- and drug-infested neighborhood and starts turning to crime. Often we have societal problems we need to
fix in order to reduce crime—it’s not merely a matter of a bunch of “bad
people.”
When conservatives talk of Latin
American illegal aliens, they could just as well be referring to cattle that
crossed into the wrong field and need to be driven back with whips or whatever
works. But these are people who are searching for a better life and are
following a course that has worked for others. They aren’t all criminals; they
aren’t disobeying their law, but the law of a foreign land in which they see
something far better than where they are now, and are even willing to take a
risk to gain it. We need to control our borders, but in a compassionate way. I
would really like to see us import more products from Latin America and fewer
from China. This could improve Latin America’s conditions, which would reduce
the desire to escape to America. We must remember, also, that each of us has
ancestors who escaped to America, through various means, at various times.
On the topic of marriage,
conservatives felt they had to produce a new law to define marriage. I was
supportive of that law until its recent repeal. But it really isn’t the place
of government to create or define marriages. Marriage is from God and therefore
belongs in the churches. I believe the best avenue now is for the government to
put marriage back in the hands of the churches and other religious
institutions. Let them define and perform marriages how they will, and the
courts can merely record each marriage performed legitimately by a recognized denomination.
Divorces would also have to be handled by the churches. The government would
then be free of this controversy and would cease to give legitimacy to gay
marriage.
Along with that, conservatives often
seem to be hostile toward people known to have same-sex attractions. Again,
these are people who deserve at least human dignity. They have now grown up in
a culture telling them homosexuality is okay and even normal. Should we be
surprised that some would follow that path? It is the role of parents and the
churches to lead people to the right and true path. Schools should help too.
Instead, for many, their values come from entertainment media, advertisers, and
other sources that often promote questionable values that become part of our
culture and our people.
Regarding religion: let the
Republican Party strive to inspire people to seek and return to their religious
and spiritual roots or find them in the first place. It doesn’t need to be a Christian
message, but one of Christian principles that are shared by other faiths.
Promote faith; promote love of people; and promote self-control, wholesomeness,
and decency. Let’s strive to more fully teach good and right moral values to
the children of our nation, which in turn will reduce the need to punish them later
as adults because they didn’t learn them.
I believe the party needs to be more
focused on both sides of God’s laws. We need to expect responsibility and
accountability from people (the current conservative view) and also show clear
evidence of compassion, acceptance, even love for people (more or less the
liberal view). We need to more fully embrace a cultural foundation based on
morals and values established by God rather than by transient popularity.
I believe the party could appeal to
Christians, Jews, and Muslims if we could stand up in support of the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, seeking to balance both sides of His will (justice
and mercy), while also inspiring the best in human achievement. Instead of
shunning anything of a religious nature, we should encourage the people of our
nation to turn back to the holy books and search them for guidance. I believe
we need to encourage an increase in the spirituality of our nation, rather than
tolerating the process of sweeping out all aspects of God or godliness from our
government. The government mustn’t establish a religion, but it surely can and
should encourage the people to seek out and choose a religion, and to turn to
our Creator. We should also attempt to reconcile faith and science, rather than
choosing one over the other.
If we could do these things, I
believe we could win a lot of support from groups that are currently hard for
conservatives to win. Many minorities would likely turn to the party if we
showed clearly that we support those who are downtrodden, weak, or
disadvantaged. The religious faithful of the major religions would likely lend
their support if they could hear clearly that the party strives to follow God
in all it does. And the greatest result would be blessings from God, likely
leading to greater prosperity and peace.
While I can’t stomach being identified as a liberal, I have
been questioning the direction of the Republican Party and hope to see some
positive changes.
Sincerely,
Emil M. Therianos
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Are You a Wall Hugger?
Are you a wall hugger? I believe most, certainly many, Americans
are. Wall huggers have a hard time walking down a middle path of a controversial
issue; they seem to quickly cling to a wall on one side or the other. Whatever group we feel we are part of, we tend
to repeat the same words and ideas that come from our group’s culture. The
middle road involves clear thinking, good judgment, and calm emotions. There is
no wall to guide us, but only our wisdom. It’s a lot easier for the blind to
hug the wall to wherever it may lead, but there’s no guarantee he’ll like it
when he gets there—and then he’ll blame someone else for the wall he followed.
Most conservatives or liberals will sound about the same as
the rest of their group. Most gays will sound the same; most Christians will
sound the same. Believers will cluster
together and atheists will cluster together. The list can go on for many
issues. In each case some things each side says are good points and some of
what they say is just hogwash. The true and right answers are usually somewhere between the two extremes.
We need more clear thinkers to guide us, with a balanced
understanding of both sides of an issue. We need more people without the emotional
baggage that divides us.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Please Thank Google - No Pornographic Ads
Please take a few minutes to thank Google for taking steps to eliminate explicit advertisements on its site. If we let them know there are many of us who appreciate a cleaner Internet, they will have more incentive to continue their new policy that is to start around Sep 2014. If we really want to change America, we need to do more than just vote someone into government office, then complain when it doesn't get better.
Below are some pertinent links and a copy of my letter to Google.
Below are some pertinent links and a copy of my letter to Google.
Thanks,
Emil
Emil
News release about Google's policy:
http://pornharms.com/big-win-
Link to a form to send feedback regarding "AdWords":
https://support.google.com/
Google's announcement of the change:
https://support.google.com/
New adult-content ad policy coming in Sep 2014:
https://support.google.com/
Besides adult content, Google controls many other sorts of innapropriate content and actions:
https://support.google.com/
MY LETTER
Dear Google,
Thank you for updating your adult-oriented content policies to remove all explicit ads. I feel this is an important step in making the Internet a pleasant place for all of us, without stumbling across offensive materials. I appreciate that you even went further and limited even ads that are suggestive, sensual, or revealing. All of these things are on my list of unwanted media content. For me, it’s about keeping a clean mind; removing such material is a major help to let virtue garnish my thoughts unceasingly.
I have used Google for many years as my search engine, mainly because of the clean, uncluttered appearance of the search page and the relevant search results. As a result of these policy changes, I have a deeper respect for Google as a provider of several services that I now use. So long as it remains a place where I can safely work without offensive material making me angry, I’ll keep using Google. I'm glad you agree that not everything merits publication.
|
Jul 29 (1 day ago)
| |||
| ||||
Hello Emil,
We really do appreciate hearing from you and hope that you'll continue to let us know how we can improve the Google AdWords experience.
Thank you for writing in and thanks for taking the time to share your feedback regarding our policy on adult content. We're always striving to make improvements to the AdWords program, and we really appreciate you taking the time and sending us a note on this, I'll be sure to share
We would love to hear from you in the future as well, if you have any comments or suggestions not just about our policy but even products, please do let us know. You can use this link to send us the feedback.
We really do appreciate hearing from you and hope that you'll continue to let us know how we can improve the Google AdWords experience.
Sincerely,
Kadambari
| Google Inc. | | The Google AdWords Team | | 1866-2-GOOGLE | | adwords.google.com |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)