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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I wish I was there. What is a month's membership cost at the Society of Future Politicians?
I like your ideas. I would have to say to this congressman, as I have said before, his taxes are what buy his freedom and liberty. They are not a burden on his freedom! There are too many self proclaimed "self made" millionaires who forget that it is the freedom and greatness of America that afforded them this opportunity in the first place. Where do they get off on this entitlement crap? I'm entitled to it...I earned it...rubbish. They wouldn't have had this opportunity had they not been in America.
Am I wrong to think that one of the doctrines behind tithing is to teach us that when success comes, that it is from God, and not from our own greatness?
I also told him and I don't know if I mentioned this in my blog but that as an LDS I have already agreed to essential a 100% tax so what do I care. He then attempted say that they are different and that God does not compell where the Governement does. I told him God absolutely compells so far as to say that God says if you want what I have then you have to pay. That sounds the same in principal to me.
Post a Comment