Tag Archives: Best Of

Evidence of Rights

0
Posted by Anthony Martin on 23 October 2008 – 7:59 pm
Filed under Theology
Tagged as , , , ,

All rights derive from property.  In other words, I receive my rights through the ownership of property.  One must own property in order to have rights.  This is true with life, liberty, and private property.

Now understand, as a believer in God, I believe God is the originator of all rights.  But I just said property is how rights are made manifest.  Is that a contradiction?  We'll get into that.

The Father does not manifest as a physical entity, meaning God the Father is not a man with a body and physical form.  God is spirit and as such, cannot interact with sinful man.

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Also understand, I believe Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.  Unlike the Father, the Son does have physical attributes.  That may seem like a contradiction if you don't understand the Trinity.  But even the most well studied Christians have trouble understanding the Trinity.  I'll get into that in another article.

I believe God transmits our individual rights through ownership of individual property.  God originates rights and makes them physically manifest through property.

That means we have a right to life because we own our own life.  The physical evidence of our right to life is that our heart is beating.  That's pretty much all it takes to make this claim.

Here's the shocking part.  One need not believe in God to believe all rights derive from property.  I believe Christians, Atheists, New Age Believers, etc. can stipulate that all rights derive from property without having to stipulate to the nature of God.

There are those who regard God as an analogy like "Mother Nature."   If someone believes God is an analogy, does that mean they believe their rights are also an analogy?  If rights derive from property and property is real, rights are real.  Someone who believes God is an analogy may have trouble convincing themselves that there is an originator of rights, but we can at least all agree the rights exist because we can all see the property.

So there's no excuse to deprive someone of their life, liberty, and private property if we all stipulate that rights derive from property.  Christians have no right to treat an Atheist poorly just because the Atheist lacks certain beliefs.  The Atheist has a right to life regardless of their belief in God because they have a beating heart.

It just so happens that the Christian belief can explain the origination of rights from God through property.  I believe the Atheist has a philosophical liability to account for.  But I don't think laws need to account for this philosophical liability.  And the New Age Believer thinks he/she is God and his/her property is God, but it doesn't impact the actual existence of rights.

So if believers and non-believers can agree to stipulate to property rights, both should be satisfied with the laws and governance upon them.  If we agree that it's against the law to beat people up and steal their stuff because it violates property rights, we are able to agree to a civil society.

Atheists don't forfeit their rights just because they can't explain the ontological origin of their rights.  There are many things that people take as given that they can't readily explain.

On the other hand, one might say that Christians forfeit their own right to life by becoming a follower of Jesus.

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?  For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
See: I Corinthians 6:19-20

The arrangement defined in I Corinthians 6:19-20 does not extend to anyone else.  It is only between the believer and God.  It is true that many believers hold to this, but it does not mean the believers are owned in joint with one another.  It reflects the realization that the individual believer comes from God and belongs to God.  One cannot aggress against person merely because either or both parties voluntarily submit to God.

In that regard, it is a personal journey.  Personal journeys appeal to individualism.  But individualism can lead to the "Lone Ranger" effect which is a common result of Christianity in America.  Real spiritual growth happens in the called out assembly, where believers interact with other believers.

Believers can impress their understanding of scripture on one another.  But one believer cannot forcefully impress a particular view on another believer's heart.  And since believers cannot, they have no standing with non-believers either.

It doesn't mean that the understanding of scripture is subjective.  It just means one person's belief cannot be inferred upon others by force.  It is this use of force that contributes to the totalitarian society, even when they're based on Christian values.

There is an excellent video about this subject.  But it tends to offend Christians.  It does this because it doesn't start with God.  We should approach this video knowing that all truth is God's truth.  This video happens to start with "property rights" even though the Christian philosophy starts at an earlier point.  Don't let that distract you from the truth.

Learn more ...

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Share


Tags: , , , ,

Bush's Bogus Bailout Blunder

0
Posted by Anthony Martin on 11 October 2008 – 9:19 pm
Filed under Political
Tagged as ,
After the bailout was passed (October 3rd), the Dow fell 400 points by the end of the day. Now, it has fallen by greater than 2000 points since the bailout was passed. By my calculations, the Dow has lost at least $1.4 trillion, and they haven't even spent the $700 billion yet.

Since cheap credit and over stimulation caused this financial meltdown, then obviously we need more cheap credit and more stimulation to fix it. Even after the bill was passed, articles were popping up that hinted it wasn't enough. Well no wonder.

Yet our bailout money will be recouped, at least? We got it straight from the horses mouth when President Bush said (emphasis mine):

As the banking sector and the market for troubled assets recover, the government will begin to recoup some of the taxpayers' funds invested in the recovery. In other words, some of these assets that were taken are at a depressed value. Home ownership -- homeowners -- home prices are down, the value of the assets are down. Eventually, we expect that much, if not all, of the tax dollars will be recouped.

Source: White House

So the President flat out disagrees with Jim Rogers (skip to time index 5:19, if you don't have time to watch the whole thing):

Which person do you think is more well informed on the subject? Jim Rogers, who has been right more often than the Fed Chairman himself, or all the President's men?

Another odd statement from the President:

Every American knows the burden of taxes. During the tough economic time, that burden falls especially hard. A lot of people are wondering whether or not their taxes are going to go up. One of the interesting things about the package I signed is that it does prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax from kicking in, which would have cost 26 million Americans $2,200 apiece. During this economic uncertainty, we don't need to be raising taxes.

Source: White House

The President did not need this bill to prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax from kicking in. The President has distorted the truth again. In fact, it was illegal for the Senate to attach this tax revision to a previous bill in this manner. Illegal, kind-of like when the House authorized the President to go to war with Iraq. We have checks and balances for a reason. If not, why have them? The rule of law means nothing to our illustrious government.

By the way, if you don't know what the Alternative Minimum Tax is, and you are in favor of the Fair Tax, shame on you! That's one of your platforms!

I wish I could snap my fingers and make what happened stop. But that's not the way it works. And I told you, I made a decision that is really opposite of my philosophy. I basically believe if people make bad decisions in the marketplace, they ought to fail. The problem is, in this case, failure would have cost you. What appeared to be something that might have been isolated in New York, would have cost you the job. And that was unacceptable to me.

Source: White House

Seems like the same dilemma Andrew Jackson faced during the banking crisis of his day. Jackson made the right choice, Bush made the wrong choice. Bush totally blundered. How do I know? Because Bush ignored the Constitution. He ignored his oath to protect life, liberty, and private property. More people will suffer from his decision than if he had pulled the plug on the economy himself.

Now see if you can decode this "question" from one of the people who attended:

I mean, just to give you some quick numbers. We're a $3.5 million dollar company, and we rely on a $500,000 home credit line to support our business, which means we have to roll this money over six, seven times a year. That's how much we need this credit. And now the -- we've got a notice or a letter from a bank -- or from the bank that runs our credit line -- that says home values are going down a little bit, and if you pay down your principle a little, we're not going to give you quite as much back. And so our strategy is don't pay it down, to keep it maxed out all the time.

... to continue ...

And so we're comfortable now, and we're able to take care of our business by doing this. But it's so important for you to emphasize the need that small businesses have for the use of that credit. And I thank you so much. You're really working hard --

Bush's response:

Thanks for hanging in there.

That is totally sick. This business is operating in a perpetual half-million-dollar hole, and the president just thanks him for hanging in there? I feel bad for people who are in this mess, but even if it was me, I wouldn't expect the government to bail out my bad decisions. Up until now, we seem to have thought it was perfectly normal for a giant percentage of businesses to be in debt. This is why easy credit is bad. It distorts our thinking and the free market.

By the way, this entire discussion smacks of being completely scripted from beginning to end, especially the Q-and-"A". How's that for bogus? All to sell us on a bill that was passed using fraud, bribery, and threats of violence.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Share


Tags: ,

Government's Role

0
Posted by Anthony Martin on 30 September 2008 – 8:36 pm
Filed under History, Political
Tagged as ,
On the latest episode of The Sitter Downers, "Tom Gets Hitched…," Adam and Torri asked me what I think the role of government is.

Torri's question was, "Does the federal government not have a role in society at all? Should we not have laws against robbery and murder and things like that?"

Adam asked, "What powers does the federal government have, that are in accordance with the constitution?"

In a nut-shell, these amendments help express the federal "box" we have a duty to keep them in (air-holes are optional):

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To summarize these two amendments, even if the right is not explicitly expressed in the Constitution, the people still have that right (ninth amendment). And if the right is not explicit expressed in the Constitution, the federal government does not have that right (tenth amendment).

Thomas Jefferson supposedly once stated:

If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny.

Even if Jefferson did not make that statement, I'm sure he would be against he idea of the FDA. This is just one example of a fundamentally and practically bad idea because its very existence suggests people should abdicate their responsibility to a group of people with a lower incentive to do their job right.

Insofar as federal agencies preventing or prosecuting robbery and murder, the several states are perfectly well equipped to deal with these things. Even now, as a function of percentage, when there is a murder, federal agents rarely get involved.

Of course, the feds step outside of this box all the time. Who's job is it to keep them in this box?

If you have thirty minutes for a complete answer from a real expert, here is an excellent explanation of The Role of Government:

The Economics Of A Free Society by Ron Paul
Download now or listen on posterous

2891 The Economics of a Free Society.mp3 (6690 KB)

If you think Bush acts like a democrat, what do you think McCain would do if he were elected? If democrats act like democrats and republicans act like democrats, doesn't that mean we actually have a one party system?

By the way, you can listen to the audio in my blog from iTunes (or on an iPod).

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Share


Tags: ,

Den Of Vipers

0
Posted by Anthony Martin on 27 September 2008 – 5:02 pm
Filed under History
Tagged as , , ,

President Andrew Jackson said in 1836, during the banking crisis of his day:

Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out.

There are a lot of similarities in this small paragraph with our current situation.  Jackson doesn't blame speculation alone, but they do today.  He identifies the privatized profits and socialized losses.  If only Bush could have taken this approach with the Federal Reserve System.  Instead, he is a willing accomplice.  Jackson did something that was unpopular to the ten thousand families, but it was the moral thing to do.  He got rid of the central bank of his day, we must do the same in ours.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Share


Tags: , , ,

Romans 13:1-7

25
Posted by Anthony Martin on 24 September 2008 – 7:53 pm
Filed under Theology
Tagged as , ,

Many church leaders invoke biblical passages like Romans 13:1-7 to bolster the congregation's trust in the government and keep paying taxes, as it says in the King James Version of this passage:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:  For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.  Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.  For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.  Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Ok, some churches teach out of this passage because they're looking for the truth, and that's what they should be doing.  Not all churches use this passage for social control.  I'm referring to this misuse of scripture:

So I'll break it down thought-by-thought.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.

This is where people get confused.  I believe "higher powers" do not refer to all governments like the video says, but only the ones God has established.

For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

This further emphasizes the fact that if God didn't ordain it, it's not a valid power.

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

So it's extremely serious to resist the power God ordains because it's tantamount to resisting God.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.

Now this is a clarification about who those powers are embodied by.  The key here is that if the person of authority is a terror to good works and not evil, that person is not a ruler.

Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:  For he is the minister of God to thee for good.

This further links the ruler with the power God ordains.  The ruler embodies the power.  If the person of authority does not praise good works, we should question the legitimacy of their leadership.  They don't fit the description God has given us so they are impostors.

But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Again, if you do evil and you are not punished by the person of authority, this further identifies that person as not being a minister of God.  They continue to defy God's description of a real leader.

Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

But only under the true authority defined previously.  It is a determent to our conscience to allow an unfit authority to rule us.

For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.  Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Only pay moral taxes.  Only allow your tribute to pay for things God would approve.  Only honor God's servants with our precious resources.

In summary, the Bible defines the kind of ruler we should follow.  A qualified ruler rewards good and punishes bad.  Do rulers reward bad and punish good?  If you ask people in the world if they know rulers who do that, they'd say yes.  So we have a problem.  Is the Bible in contradiction or are people's definitions wrong?

The Bible is not in contradiction.  The Bible refers to bats as birds.  Now we refer to bats as mammals that happen to fly.  Did the Bible become wrong because science changed?  No, and likewise, just because a person subjects himself to an unworthy authority and calls them rulers, doesn't make the Bible wrong.  They are just not true rulers.  They are cheap copies.  The Bible gives us a narrow description of what a ruler is and therefore excludes unjust rulers from having any authority.  We widened the definition beyond what the author originally intended.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Share


Tags: , ,