In a message dated April 22, 1998, DavidTietz writes:

I think the main point here is that religion - as it is a form of philosophy - has political ramifications, as its moral system is applied to interpersonal relationships. Economics is a natural consequence to this fact. The primary in this context though is not economics, but politics, as political philosophy dictates the economic system of a society. If the prevailing political philosophy of a society is based on the morality of rational self-interest, then the basic political principle will be man's right to exist for his own sake. Such a view of politics necessarily and essentially views man the individual as a sovereign entity for in his own right, who exists by right, not by permission, who is free to trade with whomever he/she chooses without government compulsion or moral compulsion (so-called 'duty'). This principle of man's right to exist for his own sake is the cornerstone to laissez-faire capitalism, which has never existed in its full, unregulated, unfettered glory anywhere on the globe to date.

The alternative to this approach to politics is that model which is based on the morality of sacrifice, such as altruism or pietism. Sacrifice is the surrender of a higher value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value. The morality of sacrifice holds as its core essential the notion that man does not have the right to exist for his own sake, that he has a moral 'duty' to sacrifice himself - to whatever degree - to those around him. The resulting political system is called collectivism, which has many forms (such as socialism [like Nazism], communism and fascism), but all of which share the same hatred and envy for man the individual, particularly if he has ability and is productive.

Any philosophy whose moral system is altruistic in nature necessarily demands that each individual sacrifice himself to 'his brothers' - who lay in wait for whatever else he can surrender to them - and thus informs a socialist political system. Religion is notorious for its endorsement of sacrificial ethics in its moral philosophy. Naturally, for the principles I describe briefly above, the implicit political doctrine of Christianity is socialism. Hence, the establishment of a body of sheepish, guilt-ridden shells of self-sacrificing men and women called a church. The nature of a church is to swallow men into selfless slavery - either to 'ideals' they can never hope to achieve, or to 'the community' or the 'common good'.

Note the current call for 'democracy' heard from every political pundit, as if 'democracy' were the answer to all woes. Democracy is best illustrated as two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. America is not a democracy; America - according to initial design - is a Constitutional Republic, in fact, the first of its kind. However, you never hear the politicians and news anchors ranting, "We need to make the world safe for Constitutional Republics," but rather, "We need to make the world safe for democracy." In a democracy, the wolves have the sheep for dinner; in a constitutional republic which recognizes man's right to exist for his own sake, no matter how hungry the wolves get, they have to right to have the sheep for dinner.

Political systems of a socialistic nature are fueled by envy: envy for the able, envy for the successful, envy for industrious, envy for the productive, envy for the rational, envy for the self-sufficient, envy for anyone who dares to exist for his own sake. It is this group of individuals that the socialists want to enslave into one group, under one yoke, with one neck for one noose. This century has plenty of examples throughout the world to illustrate this fact unequivocally. Look at any of the former states of the Soviet Union, or any eastern bloc nation. Look at their history, look at the philosophy that led their statist regimes, which led to the gulags, the concentration camps, the unrivaled poverty among its 'masses', and the conspicuous absence of prosperity, success and innovation produced by these nations. The reason is singular in its cause: Errant philosophy.

___________________

I would say that four months' wages taken from me each year in taxes is an accurate estimate. Remember that I produced the wealth that was seized from me, not the bureaucrat who can redistribute my values with the stroke of his pen, and not the 'end user' - whoever he may be, and whatever sorry state he may be in. If it continues to inch its way from four months, to five months, to six months, etc., as it seems to be doing each time I turn around, then what good is it for me to go out and produce values in the first place? I'm going to wind up like these 70-year-olds standing in welfare lines at the end of my life. All the same, and not by any miracle of god and certainly not by the help of some 'benevolent government policy' - I successfully saved ten grand in 1996 by scraping every penny I earned. I had never been able to do that before. So, hopefully as it is all now invested away into the market economy I love so much, it will grow and grow - like Manhattan Island did from the first days of its European settlers, and I won't have to stand in that line when I'm 70. After all, if I live for my own rationally selfish sake, I should never have to rely on some 'free government money'.

But yes, David, a lot is taken from the money I earn, the wealth that I produce, wealth that did not exist until I produced it. By what principle do the bureaucrats trample my right to my property and seize my wealth - before I even ever see it!?

You're telling me!

David, I agree, not all people have the same opportunities, and to be fair, I don’t think AirwaveBoy was disputing that. All men are equal before the law, but no two are equal in ability, skill, talent, drive, motivation, determination, discipline, and self-confidence to go out and eek out a living. The question, however, has not so much to do with 'natural gifts' as some would refer to it, but to the choices individuals make. When I was 15 years old, for instance, I used to clear horse trails at an equine farm in central California. It was back-breaking labor, in the heat of the summer, long hours: menial wages for a menial job. I never complained, though, I never said, "I got to do this." Instead, my attitude was, "I want to do this," not so much because I liked the labor (though it might do my physique a little good these days…), but because I like earning my own values. There was little else a 15-year-old with no skills could do. I had to start somewhere, and I refused to go the route of so many kids I knew who resented working for the money they wanted - an attitude that has disgusted me since I can ever remember - who badgered their parents, almost holding them hostage for an 'allowance' they never earned (they wouldn't even mow their own lawns for it, some of them!).

Next I worked as a dishwasher, as a motel maid (yes, I made beds and cleaned toilets for a living!), then I worked for an airline cleaning fuselages and vacuuming up spilt barf bags. Finally, I said: "To hell with this kind of work, it will get me nowhere, and it barely pays to support me now, I'm going to school!" I saved up as much money as I could, enrolled in school, went part time to college, and worked - two, sometimes three jobs at a time concurrently with school in order to pay for it, and to support myself. Never once did I take out a loan (I have a natural aversion to debt) neither did I accept federal grants of any kind, and neither did I seek assistance from my parents. I set out to prove to myself that I could earn my education, as well as eek out a living simultaneously, and emerge debt-free with a 'four-year' degree. Though it took me over seven years, and a lot of headaches and struggle, not to mention sleepless nights and a sweaty back, I finally did achieve that degree I wanted so bad - completely at my own expense. Plus, I graduated with honors in a program I chose. It was the greatest taste of success I had ever enjoyed up to that point in my life.

So, no, we don't all start out with the same opportunities. I was not born with a degree handed to me, with a nice, well-paying job waiting for me whenever I was ready for it. I had to earn it, and I'd not have it any other way. I never made any excuse for the fact that I could never run a hundred yard dash, that I could do one pull-up at best, I never made excuses that I cannot throw a touchdown, I never made an excuse that I scored low on aptitude tests and IQ tests, that I almost failed trigonometry in high school, that my reasoning skills are 'under par', that I couldn't do this, that I couldn't do that… We put ourselves in our own prisons by the needless excuses we throw up all the time. I got out there, and I'm still out there, and it is by my own sovereign spirit and love for my own life that I'm out there everyday making a success of myself. And some people cannot stand to see me succeed. That's what I call the syndrome of envy.

___________________

What about them? It is not the purpose of my life to stop and suspend my dreams in order to pick up their broken dreams, no matter what tragedy happened to befall them. What I stand against is the notion that I have a moral duty to sacrifice for these individuals, even if their 'misfortune' is legitimate. Their suffering is not a lien on my life.

In a nation of free individuals, you would be completely free to offer these individuals all the service and benevolence you desire to give, just as I would have the freedom not to. It's all one's own, sovereign choice. What I fight is the notion that - just because others believe they have a moral obligation to support these folx, that gives them the right to force me to support them, too. If it is the poor you are so worried about, then put your own money where your mouth is. You cold start by selling your computer and giving that money to 'the poor' - as if they constituted some formless, interchangeable mass.

David, in all earnestness, just don't be one of these hypocrites who scream for the plight of 'the poor' and then seek to put my wages under the knife of the surgical bureaucrat for endless, tax-absorbing public policies and programs while wading in the same wealth you pose as loathing. I would say you have every right to conduct your life in such a manner, but the hypocrisy would be glaring. I just hope that is not the case.

___________________

If you were to ask 100 people what the phrase 'common good' means, how many different answers do you suppose you'd get? I would suspect at least 100. And isn't that ironic? Since all this 'common good' is supposed to benefit all 100 of those individuals. Or is it?

The problem with such a phrase as 'common good' is that here it enjoys the benefit of emotional appeal, it lacks in intellectual substance. It is one of those terms - like 'family values' - that is tossed around so much, and ever anchored to objective definitions, but left to the vague orbits of the verbally 'understood'. As such, this phrase is at best conceptually contentless.

Define it, or trash it.

Cheers,

Tindrbox

_________________________________