Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending our quarterly meeting for the Society of Statesman (SOS). SOS is essential a network of masterminds built on the principles of helping us (young spirited professional become the best that they can be…a Statesman). We were fortunate at this meeting to be taught by an Arizona congressman. The topic was a little pie in the sky at first meaning all theory no practical. We then discussed the bailouts which this individual is vehemently against as well as taxes. We cited philosophers; we cited books, prophets, and everything else going tit for tat. The last hour seemed to be me vs. him. This was not my intention however I was having difficulty accepting many of the premises he was teaching, i.e. very small government (which I kind of like) and the tax penalty concept. I know I have spoken of this before however he took it to the agency level.
He said speaking hypothetically “If I make $500,000 and the government through of its taxes (51%) leaves me with $250,000, I am less free”. He then began to correlate our agency as given by a creator and liberty. He believed that they were one in the same and that taxes imposed on his liberty, his agency. Assuming the words are the same I will concede that I see his point while ignorant I see the logical argument. Here is my problem…
When did freedom become extrinsic? Was it not every man’s hero, William Wallace, who said that the British could take their lives, land, and families but never their freedom? I believe that agency is intrinsic and that freedom is just a tool. Moreover, I believe there is a difference between agency and liberty. The difference between to the two is by what authority it’s given. Agency is given by God; liberty is given by man (or governments). Regardless of semantics we are free choose anything and everything; however, under either agency or liberty we are not free from consequence. I believe best said that we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s (I am not professing that good economic policy is high tax rates!).
I was then told that I was a moral relativist and that that was a slippery slope. I am not sure if I am or not; however, if by moral relativism he meant I don’t walk through life with blinders on and my 3 cookie cutters for every situation then yes I am a moral relativist. Yes, I weigh the facts on consequences of life. I am against abortion! Except, when the mother’s life is in danger…I guess that is relative. You damn right! My wife’s life is far more precious to me than that of my unborn child. I digress. It is interesting that I am a relativist by weighing pros and cons, yet this individual also succumbed to relativism when he defined his freedom/agency monetarily. I would like to think that my agency is priceless (although it did take a 1/3 part…..NOT 1/3 of children for those reading who are LDS).
Obviously these thoughts can continue and make for interesting conversation. But my last thought concerning this “principled” non-relative thinking is that at what point do principals become pride? During the VP debate the moderator asked the candidates if they have changed any of their principles or ideas since entering politics. Joe Biden said yes. He said it was hard for him to change his conditioning, but that we felt that he have received more information and that information changed his viewpoint. I respect that entirely! The media’s biggest argument against Mitt Romney was that he is a “changer”. I have a news flash of my own, if you are not changing you are not learning and if you are not learning you are not progressing and if you are not progressing you are a detriment. Sarah Palin said that she hadn’t changed and didn’t think she should and that she was “worked across the aisle” but that she never really changed. Really Gov. Palin, you won’t change? You’re going to be a maverick? Great, I really hope that we can continue to stay the course. Staying the course is a great philosophy for golf or horse racing not for life.
I am saying that many things are worth fighting for (WWII, Revolution, education, etc..) My favorite quote says…”…However long and hard the road…”. So you fight. You fight for that which is good and you don’t stop until you learn that it’s not good or until it is finished. And some principals are great. I have some of my own principals and many of which I hope to never change because they are from God and I love them. But I have other principals that I hope to change because I feel they have become weaknesses.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Too Far
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What have we done with this? We have justified a lot! We have given voices to the minorities (some deservedly some not). We have also segregated or rather passively enforced self-segregation. We have allowed a platform for the squeaky wheel to get the grease. Most dangerously he have allowed activists to control destiny.
A context of history should teach us that the founding measures were more in response to overcoming tyranny an oppression. But I wonder if that is good in all accords? Tyranny by definition I believe to be immoral, wrong, impractical, and should be eliminated. But oppression? Why shouldn't we oppress? I will presume that many of your first thoughts are Civil rights related or women's suffrage; however, that is not the oppression that I am speaking about.
I believe in a God and such I accept that there is good and evil in this world. Because I recognize their is evil I feel it important to suppress evil, to oppress evil. You are correct in that "my evil" may not be "your evil", but should we both concede to a higher authority we might find some "common evils". Yet, "your authority" is not "my authority" and as such commonality might be more difficult then deciding on what to eat for breakfast.
Likewise, we have taken this too far: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
How so? Well my authority tells me that former governments based on religion were based on incorrect religion. So I understand the comment..."Do not build a government upon the foundation of incorrect religious teaching". What is ironic is that almost every "major" religion believes in some degree of ultimate salvation where their leader will reign over a 'government' built upon it's religious tenants. So if we do subscribe to that philosophy maybe we should let Mr. Jefferson's letter go quietly into the night seeing that no "religious" person truly believe there should be such a separation. I do not believe their should be.
It is sad to me to that to bear a standard is synomous with segregation, intolerance, hate, close-mindedness and the like.
So, I will not separate but I will accept our current system so far as it has been inspired by "my higher authority" and I will with all of my ability oppress those movements that seek to oppress "my good".
What have we done with this? We have justified a lot! We have given voices to the minorities (some deservedly some not). We have also segregated or rather passively enforced self-segregation. We have allowed a platform for the squeaky wheel to get the grease. Most dangerously he have allowed activists to control destiny.
A context of history should teach us that the founding measures were more in response to overcoming tyranny an oppression. But I wonder if that is good in all accords? Tyranny by definition I believe to be immoral, wrong, impractical, and should be eliminated. But oppression? Why shouldn't we oppress? I will presume that many of your first thoughts are Civil rights related or women's suffrage; however, that is not the oppression that I am speaking about.
I believe in a God and such I accept that there is good and evil in this world. Because I recognize their is evil I feel it important to suppress evil, to oppress evil. You are correct in that "my evil" may not be "your evil", but should we both concede to a higher authority we might find some "common evils". Yet, "your authority" is not "my authority" and as such commonality might be more difficult then deciding on what to eat for breakfast.
Likewise, we have taken this too far: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
How so? Well my authority tells me that former governments based on religion were based on incorrect religion. So I understand the comment..."Do not build a government upon the foundation of incorrect religious teaching". What is ironic is that almost every "major" religion believes in some degree of ultimate salvation where their leader will reign over a 'government' built upon it's religious tenants. So if we do subscribe to that philosophy maybe we should let Mr. Jefferson's letter go quietly into the night seeing that no "religious" person truly believe there should be such a separation. I do not believe their should be.
It is sad to me to that to bear a standard is synomous with segregation, intolerance, hate, close-mindedness and the like.
So, I will not separate but I will accept our current system so far as it has been inspired by "my higher authority" and I will with all of my ability oppress those movements that seek to oppress "my good".
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Idealist, The Stock Market, and Me
The last time I checked I had money in the stock market. I checked back a few moments later and I had more. Later in the day I checked back and lost more than I had in the previous 3 weeks. So I ask myself…Is the stock market a good investment me? Maybe.
I know it’s not the answer one wants to here; however, I recognize that institutional investors, hedge funds, and sovereign funds, rule the market and I am just along for the ride. Along for the ride? Is that what I am basing my retirement off of? Here’s a thought why not put one’s money to work over something one can control…you! I do not think (maybe an absolute) that there is a more superior investment that human capital. The investment in my own personal education has and will continue to pay dividends far greater than any amount of capital gains I could have garnered from the stock market. Which only leads me to wonder, is there a way to invest in human capital? Is there a way to invest in people? Is it possible for me to “buy” part of someone’s future? Have you ever wondered how many other Bill Gates’ or LeBaron James’ there are? I would be will to say that there are far more than we realize. I bet many stars are snuffed out by the demands of the world before they are able to become stars.
Example, I have a friend who is currently in medical school. Before this individual could get into medical school he needed to get good grade and test scores. This individual had financial assistance that enabled him to focus. Coupled with his desire he achieved. What about the individual who doesn’t have the assistance? I know what you are thinking…J there are banks…get a loan. But why have the system based off a spread? Shouldn’t there be a system where funds or support are available with the understanding that the individual simply returns what is borrowed. Let me ask you…when was the last time you donated to a bank? Never! Really, you’ve never thought... “Hey the bank loaned me money for the car and now that it is paid off I should thank them by giving them more”. I can imagine an individual being grateful for the assistance received only to become a life long giver to “cause”. Maybe we should do something about this, we wouldn’t be the first other people have done something similar…the Carnegies’, Rockefellers’’, Vanderbilt’s’….etc.
I know it’s not the answer one wants to here; however, I recognize that institutional investors, hedge funds, and sovereign funds, rule the market and I am just along for the ride. Along for the ride? Is that what I am basing my retirement off of? Here’s a thought why not put one’s money to work over something one can control…you! I do not think (maybe an absolute) that there is a more superior investment that human capital. The investment in my own personal education has and will continue to pay dividends far greater than any amount of capital gains I could have garnered from the stock market. Which only leads me to wonder, is there a way to invest in human capital? Is there a way to invest in people? Is it possible for me to “buy” part of someone’s future? Have you ever wondered how many other Bill Gates’ or LeBaron James’ there are? I would be will to say that there are far more than we realize. I bet many stars are snuffed out by the demands of the world before they are able to become stars.
Example, I have a friend who is currently in medical school. Before this individual could get into medical school he needed to get good grade and test scores. This individual had financial assistance that enabled him to focus. Coupled with his desire he achieved. What about the individual who doesn’t have the assistance? I know what you are thinking…J there are banks…get a loan. But why have the system based off a spread? Shouldn’t there be a system where funds or support are available with the understanding that the individual simply returns what is borrowed. Let me ask you…when was the last time you donated to a bank? Never! Really, you’ve never thought... “Hey the bank loaned me money for the car and now that it is paid off I should thank them by giving them more”. I can imagine an individual being grateful for the assistance received only to become a life long giver to “cause”. Maybe we should do something about this, we wouldn’t be the first other people have done something similar…the Carnegies’, Rockefellers’’, Vanderbilt’s’….etc.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Penalty and theTax-Gap
On Yahoo's homepage this morning and throughout last night’s debate we heard about Joe "the plumber". Joe said (I will paraphrase)...'if I work harder and earn more why should I be penalized.' Joe believes that taxes are a penalty. When did supporting an organization that allows you the freedom to do what you do become a penalty?
Let's say that one morning some of Joe's plumbing vans were stolen. What would Joe do? I bet Joe would call the police and have then resolve the issue; however, Joe that will cost you. Joe purports the same ignorant attitude that I hear over and over again...'give me something and I'll give nothing". Oh and I know your argument Joe creates jobs! Yes he does, but when the economy slows down whom do you think fires more people...Joe. The simple truth is we owe our government the funds necessary so that they can provide the services we need, so that they can provide an environment where Joe can make his money. In return, they owe it to us to be good stewards of those funds particular in many cases where those funds represent the widow’s mite.
Taxation is game theory at its finest. Because individuals feel that the government is going to misuse their funds, individuals decide not to give the funds. What makes this little dichotomy even better is that the same individuals who complain that "foreigners own America" i.e. "China owns all of our debt"....that is true in some regards but we should ask ourselves how did China become such a larger debtor? The answer is politicians misusing funds and individuals not paying (the Tax-Gap is est. $350 billion). Do you want to know how to fix the problem....honesty. Isn't it funny that the only way to fix the giant financial problem that looms over America has nothing to do the scarcity of funds but honesty; politicians not being honest and people not being honest. So before demand that Washington change, maybe we should change. And I would bet that once we change and when we then change our communities and our communities change our areas that we will elect in a natural process Rep. and Sen. whom like us have our best interests at heart even if we need to be penalized.
Let's say that one morning some of Joe's plumbing vans were stolen. What would Joe do? I bet Joe would call the police and have then resolve the issue; however, Joe that will cost you. Joe purports the same ignorant attitude that I hear over and over again...'give me something and I'll give nothing". Oh and I know your argument Joe creates jobs! Yes he does, but when the economy slows down whom do you think fires more people...Joe. The simple truth is we owe our government the funds necessary so that they can provide the services we need, so that they can provide an environment where Joe can make his money. In return, they owe it to us to be good stewards of those funds particular in many cases where those funds represent the widow’s mite.
Taxation is game theory at its finest. Because individuals feel that the government is going to misuse their funds, individuals decide not to give the funds. What makes this little dichotomy even better is that the same individuals who complain that "foreigners own America" i.e. "China owns all of our debt"....that is true in some regards but we should ask ourselves how did China become such a larger debtor? The answer is politicians misusing funds and individuals not paying (the Tax-Gap is est. $350 billion). Do you want to know how to fix the problem....honesty. Isn't it funny that the only way to fix the giant financial problem that looms over America has nothing to do the scarcity of funds but honesty; politicians not being honest and people not being honest. So before demand that Washington change, maybe we should change. And I would bet that once we change and when we then change our communities and our communities change our areas that we will elect in a natural process Rep. and Sen. whom like us have our best interests at heart even if we need to be penalized.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Absolutes
Is there anything that is absolute? When speaking to friends, listening to the news, or reading articles I realize that people often speak in absolutes. Maybe this is a practice to incite emotion or "to get a reaction". Or maybe its the byproduct of laziness. Maybe, just maybe, there are individuals who make conscience decisions to not think and either side black or white, republican or democrat, etc.. So I ask why not more independence? Why not more thought before decision? We established a country on independence or the ability not to have to follow the majority or the "establishment". Where has our spirit of independence gone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)