Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Angels dancing on pins, Christian philosophy

April 20, 2014

The considerations of “angels dancing on the head of a pin” is a common mistake of most of all generations, among the intellectual and “thinker” class. I’m sort of a member, but had the advantage of both growing up poor (compared to the majority in the US anyway), and raised by a Christian family, plus knowing the influence of education and academia in my life, later corrected a number of ways.

The phrase is a fair way to describe many theological discussions, but there are even more important histories to consider. Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, these are philosopher often discussed and quoted, and their ideas bounced around in these discussions, but the most important influence on the way people of all economic and intellectual shades regarded “living well” and the issues of happiness.

Nobody in the history of the world had a greater influence than Jesus Christ, through his life and teachings and person, and his disciples, even *without* counting the most important event for Christians, the Resurrection. (The “cross is meaningless without it, but represents power with the other).

Paul said he had learned to be content “in whatsoever state”, and to both “abase and abound”. I’ve been poor, and I’d still appreciate a windfall, but some of my happiest moments were when I was a missionary “south of the border” and watching the changes in people’s lives. People living happy and free from letting material considerations and from guilt. Yes, we did NOT push a “guilt trip” on anybody, we showed them Jesus’ offer of freedom from guilt.

Jesus wept over Jerusalem, he wreaked out his painful wrath on those moneychangers, healed the sick, raised the dead, inspired the Samaritans, but he still said “My joy I leave with you”.

Now for the 21st century obligatory disclaimer. Mr. Bush’s insisting that Jesus was his favorite philosopher was, in my opinion, a blatant lie. I do believe in faith healing (so do several double-blind studies), but I can watch a TV evangelist for two minutes and tell you which ones are false prophets and probably on their way to the wrong place. But some of the happiest Christians of history ancient and modern were, and are, the ones who suffered the worst abuses at the hand of lying hypocrites who said they were doing God’s work.

There is no well-being in such behavior, It is disobedience to the ones they say they revere.

Following Jesus, the first rule is the Golden Rule, which as corollary demands what we now call the “non-agression principle”.

A Christian philosophy teacher at a Catholic university once shared an insight on the subject. He said, “A philosopher is one who seeks answers. Jesus Christ is a wise man who has the answers”.

Living well, achieving the good life; Learn how to be content

April 20, 2014

These thoughts were inspired by Wendy’s musings at Daily Bell again:
http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/35064/Wendy-McElroy-How-to-Achieve-the-Good-Life/

She has a habit of posting interesting topics and thoughts for discussion.

Some people put too much importance on finances and material well-being.

Looks like the Stoics had it right on this one. If you anchor your happiness to external conditions, you’re pegging your feelings about life on external circumstance, but that doesn’t vanish upon living well materially. Debts grow, things happen, the homeowner has to get a new roof, your company lost half its customers due to [whatever]. I grew up poor, and I know the attitude that they sneak into Hollywood productions sometimes, that it’s easy for a rich person to say it doesn’t satisfy.

What are you going to do with a family farm? If his “living well” definition depended on the weather, it would be just as fickle. Why should we guarantee our own sour disposition and grow our bitterness. Let us live free of basing ourselves on fleeting circumstance.

As a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of people throughout history were farmers, and more than half of the rest lived at survival level. Consider life before the Industrial Revolution, before the conveniences you take for granted. For example, only in the last few years has the poorest youth in barrios in my wife’s country of Honduras been able to have a phone even in their household. Now, there’s a ipod or Android in almost every cardboard shack!

A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than silver and gold.-Proverbs 22:1

I heard one speaker share his father’s wisdom, from the same circumstances. The father had lost literally everything, all income, and the son asked him why he didn’t steal something. The reply was that his honesty was all he had left.

My friend, if you are poor and habitually honest, thank God for this precious treasure He has blessed you with. It is worth more than all the dollars the Federal Reserve can print. I was a missionary in an independent Christian youth movement without the rich denominational support. Support was many, many days hand to mouth. My first day with them after my decision to join the Jesus “revolution”, we were evicted from the property after a dispute that had been provided to us by agreement by a certain TV personality of the time.

My second night was sleeping on a park bench under the stars. That was one of my happiest nights ever. The “Son of Man” had nowhere to lay his head, and has given us the key to eternal happiness. Polycarp happily scoffed at the emperor’s demands to recant, with the lions waiting. Paul said he had learned both to abase and abound, and learned to “be content” in “whatsoever state” he found himself in, and he lived it.

If you warned me to avoid stepping into dogpile, does it mean you hate me?

April 19, 2014

If I tell you to avoid stepping into dogpile, do you call me hater?

If you are born with all the attributes of a swan, but you run with ducks and you think you are a duck, does that make you a duck? We had a dog that thought it was a human like the rest of the kids: should we share the delusion or continue considering the real world as it is? Is it hate to give him dog food?

If the physiology and the psychology clash, does reason repeal biological fact and substitute mental state?

For example, here I am battling to STOP government interference in the institution of marriage, and I am sick and tired of pastors invoking “by the power vested in me by the state of [my state], I now pronounce you man and wife”. Adam and Eve had no oppressive command government, no “pastor”, they were just man and wife. Period.

Then along come the Roman conquerors, the rulers of this and that, and decree who can marry. And now we have clamorings to share the homage to the state required by marriage laws.

Jesus told the woman “caught in adultery”, “Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more”. The big emphasis should be on “neither do I condemn thee”. Like Paul said, some sins carry as a natural consequence their own judgments and punishments. Tyrants sow hate for themselves and become prisoners of paranoia like Stalin. They hate the religious because most religious doctrines demand allegiances outside the state. Tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sun, especially hate Christianity, because its believers are inspired by the history of a risen Christ and the power over death and hell, heaven and Earth, that it proved.

The tyrants also hate the natural nuclear family, of man, woman and children, which cultivates culture in a domestic home setting, a bulwark against indoctrination into allegiance to the state. Hillary Clinton in her college essays penned that marriage was like slavery. So she married a guy she could dominate, apparently. Posters in 1993 appeared: “Impeach the president and her husband too”

If your idea of hate means disagreement with you, and a reasoned perspective based on even science and nature, it’s a hateful idea itself.

Why Creationists and Libertarians WIn Debates

April 19, 2014

All of us have been soaked in anti-theistic views on everything all through our “religion-free-by-decree” indoctrination. We’ve gone from laws against teaching Darwin (Scopes) to commands to remove all reference to God as having anything to do with scientific perspective or reality.

Creationists like myself have that advantage. Libertarians have the same advantage. We already know the philosophies of the rulers’ indoctrinations. They surround us with them. My journey from atheism and socialism through science and reason took me to the real world as described more accurately in the Bible, in spite of the indoctrinations.

I accidentally once bought a book with essays compiled by a “scientist” and faithful (faith-filled) Darwinian, Ashley Montague. By admission, he had been roundly and soundly defeated in a debate with a Creationist (he did not say who in his intro to the book). Said admission was by way of the excuse that you can’t “explain” everything about evolution in a debate.

What he did not say is that Creationists and “Designists” (not the same in the least) always use lots of science in their debates, and most anti-creationists base most of their position on two legs: (1) criticisms of “faith” –as if their dogmas were not, and (2) predicting disaster.

According to Bill Nye’s reasoning, technology and science disappear from a land when everybody returns to the same beliefs that Isaac Newton had, along with the other greatest minds of 16th, 17th, 18th and most of 19th century science, and much of the blacklisted scientists of the 20th century too.

Yes, it’s that insane. What do we expect. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”.

Krugman gets $25,000 a month gig to address inequality

April 19, 2014

Krugman the Keynesian economist gets $25,000 a month gig to address inequality:
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/04/18/gutfeld-calls-out-evil-genius-krugman-over-new-25k-month-job-address-inequality

Remember he’s the guy that said “stimulating” the economy with funny money from the keystrokes on Federal Reserve computer keyboards to the amount of a half-billion in just one of the episode was not enough, they should have typed in another couple of zeros.

When Ron Paul’s bipartisan initiative finally got legislation passed the forced the disclosure by the Fed of the $16 trillion dollars they gave away during the 2008-2009 treasury looting party, much of it to European banks, Krugman did not back off, did not recant.

But he’ll take $25,000 a month for six months to teach about the “problem” of “inequality”.

But he doesn’t advocate lifting the tortuous weight of ruling mandates that block the small guy from doing business. He doesn’t protest the legislation that protects the banks and businesses that are “too big to fail”, that give a federal guarantee of “solvency” (haha) to the very biggest corporations in the country, at the expense of the subjects of this plutocratic regime.

Home on the range?

April 19, 2014

I wanted to pass on this historical perspective I found at http://www.lewrockwell.com from William Norman Grigg, originally from the “Pro Libertate Blog”, at http://www.freedominourtime.blogspot.com:

Very Interesting

April 18, 2014

Tucker’s new form of libertarianism: responses

April 15, 2014

Tucker: A New Form of Libertarianism:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/04/tucker-new-form-of-libertarianism.html

I’ve known that Reason Magazine has taken up an editorial stance outside in some areas that are irrelevant and even inimical to libertarian philosophy, though not as much as Tucker seems to have done in the quotes found at the Economic Policy Journal web site.

He wrote at FEE last October:

I see within Students for Liberty the emergence of a new form of libertarianism—something more intellectually and strategically sophisticated than forms from the last century… here are some non-negotiables, and they aren’t only about the ban on the use of power. As an extension of the above point, this generation puts a premium on civilized thinking and behaving that includes absolute exclusion of bigotry in all its forms. Racist, sexist, and anti-gay attitudes are not only tacky, but embody the opposite of the tolerance that old liberalism identified as a main bulwark against State oppression. This necessarily means a special identity with groups that have been victims of State oppression and remain so in many parts if the world.

So, for example, it is true that in our time many feminists look to the State for privilege, but it is also true that many racial minorities (and people of all races and classes) look to the State. But the fundamental history and drive of feminism and the anti-slavery movement, historically understood, are about empowering every member of the human family with the freedom that is his or her right.

If we love capitalism, we must remember that it alone has done more to bring about that empowerment than any political change. For this reason, we should embrace the ideals of feminism in the same way we embrace the anti-slavery cause. It is our cause, our banner, our history, our movement. We should never give this up to the oppressor class.

Robert Wenzel does a good job at refuting this cockamamie idea by simply quoting some famous feminists:

“This necessarily means a special identity with groups that have been victims of State oppression”? What the hell is he thinking? Does he think that businessmen and taxpayers aren’t oppressed by the state? Does he think that drug dealers aren’t oppressed by the state? Where exactly does he get the idea that a bunch of loudmouth feminists who will use state power at every opportunity are victims of the state?

How can this be anything but a through the looking glass house of horrors libertarianism?

Do I really have to run these quotes once again to point out that feminism has nothing to do with libertarianism? Feminists are a bunch of family-hating, state-loving, men-haters:

“The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” — Linda Gordon

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” — Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” –Robin Morgan

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” — Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” — Catherine MacKinnon

“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone; Actress

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future – If There Is One – Is Female.

And they have no problem with making this an embedded part of government:

The most senior feminist minister in the U.K., Harriet Harman, wants businesses to hire women preferentially over White men http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/harman-defends-positive-discrimination-plans-854475.html

In India, the minister for Women and Child Development Renuka Chaudhary has promoted and defended the blatantly anti-male Domestic Violence Act, a law under which a man can be jailed for insulting any female relative.

In Sweden, they even have a party – Feminist Initiative – that promotes the feminist ideology e.g. the abolition of marriage, and a special ‘man tax’ to pay for the cost of domestic violence against women.

Feminists are also about promoting the absurd idea that women are paid unequally. Here’s feminist Lauren Berg calling for government action to end the “unfairness.”

On Wednesday, every U.S. Senate Republican voted against proceeding to debate the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would hold employers more accountable for wage discrimination against women…U.S. Census Bureau data shows that women who work full-time earn an average of 77 cents for every dollar men earn in a year….People need to stop thinking about feminism being unnecessary or simply a “women’s issue.”… Feminism is not just a women’s issue, it is a humanitarian issue. It is a question of “do you think men and women should be equal?”

See: WaPo Slams Obama on Talk of a Male-Female Wage Gap on the distortion about the wage gap claim.

I can’t think of one issue that modern day feminists are attempting to advance that has anything to do with libertarianism. Not one. In fact, most things on the feminist agenda are anti-libertarian.

Of course feminism has nothing to do with the anti-slavery movement, as Wenzel points out.

But Wenzel himself was less forthcoming about the things Tucker said about the gay activism movement. This embrace of political fad, and following thought police dictates in lock step merely shows a lack of conviction about keeping the state monsters out of our lives and our pocketbooks. Like the Bible warns against being “tossed about by every wind and doctrine”. Some of these guys that despise Biblical wisdom so much could double their IQ with counsel like that if they only heeded it.

So Tucker agrees to put away “bigotry in all its forms”? Oh yeah? Then why not put away the bigotry of mindlessly thinking that gays should be able to get state licenses for same-sex marriage and that anybody is a bigot who disagrees with their ideas of marriage (including little old heterosexual me, who wants the state to bug out of it already!)

And “minorities”?

What about the Christian minority? How about the dark-skinned Christian minority? What about the even smaller creationist Christian minority? They’re getting persecuted by the feminists and the militant government-loving Act-Up Queer Nation lookalikes, by government, by militant proselytizing atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (who was by the way a sometimes guest at www.reason.com

Government Debt Default, How (Not If) Will it Happen

April 15, 2014

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article15219.html

by Gary North

I have surveyed the Austrian School’s theory of money. This theory began with Ludwig von Mises’ “Theory of Money and Credit” (1912). I presented Mises’ theory of fractional reserve banking and the creation of the business cycle in my mini-book, Mises on Money (2002).
The previous parts of this series are on-line here.

I have done my best to get across a line of reasoning regarding money. This line of reasoning is not shared by other schools of economic thought. To the extent that it is understood by the decision-makers in the governments of the world and central banks, it is resisted. It is regarded as old-fashioned and out of touch with newer, more scientific theories of money and banking.

The crisis of 2008 has led to a revival of interest in the Austrian School’s theory of the business cycle. Why? Because several Austrian School economists and newsletter writers warned of the looming crisis. They did so two years before it hit. These predictions were dismissed as radical and out of touch. The most widely viewed debate over this matter – after the fact – took place on CNBC in 2006. Peter Schiff warned of the recession. Arthur Laffer dismissed it.

Finally, the Wall Street Journal ran an article on Mises’ prediction of the Great Depression. The article ran on November 6, 2009. Better late than never.

..Read the rest, it’s enlightening..

BLM pulls away from thefts of cattle. Why?

April 13, 2014

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/12/federal-agency-pulls-back-in-nevada-ranch-standoff-but-legal-fight-remains/

The BLM says they’re pulling out because of concern for employees’ safety and for the public:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3461435998001/safety-concerns-prompt-feds-to-end-nevada-cattle-roundup/?intcmp=latestnews#sp=show-clips

They’re apparently also releasing some of the cattle back to Bundy and his supporters.

Bundy is in the right, and in my opinion, they didn’t back down just over safety concerns but because they were losing the propaganda contest very big time. It was starting to get attention nationally and it was no doubt spilling into international attention.

This is an Internet victory too. So they may look again for ways to tamp down alternative media. They’re fighting a losing war in that venue.

There’s another reason they may have pulled back. It could very well be that the police forces they were sending up against these people were starting to rebel against being forced themselves to do something they hated doing, and sympathized with the Bundy cause and the protestors.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 150 other followers