Freedom and Happiness

[Facebook readers will read this more easily at:  http://www.kentsclubhouse.blogspot.com/]

"The freedom and happiness of man...[are] the sole objects of all legitimate government."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1810

Kent comments:

I must disagree somewhat with Mr. Jefferson on this point - as though I have any kind of status to disagree with Jefferson!  But since he is not around to put me in my place, I will venture this anyway.

I understand that my theological perspective was not shared by Mr. Jefferson, and this is probably the root of our somewhat different conclusions here.  But it is very clear that the “sole object” of legitimate government according to the Bible is the execution of retributive justice.  That is, it is the purpose of legitimate government to punish those who do evil, especially those evils that are done to other human beings.

To put this another way, it is the object of legitimate government to make sure that “crime doesn’t pay” – or to be more precise, to make sure that those who commit crimes do pay for them.  This must, of course, be done justly.  That is, we must be careful that only those deserve to pay are forced to do so, and that they are forced to pay only in appropriate ways.

We have been prone recently to fail to require the appropriate payment for murder, which is the life of the murderer.  We have been committed for far too long to locking up those who commit property crimes rather than making them repay the victims via restitution.

We are also very prone of late to making crimes of peaceful human behavior that is not worthy of punishment.  In fact, we now have so much law, much of it created by bureaucrats rather than legislators, that it is impossible for a reasonably informed person to know if and when he is breaking the law.  Those caught in the web of unknowable law are not really criminals – they are victims.  (See a perfect example of this here.)

But the proper “sole object” of legitimate government is to punish only those who deserve it, and in ways in keeping with the goal of retribution.  When a government does this and only this, interesting and useful by-products will result.  For example, Mr. Jefferson’s “freedom and happiness” will tend to blossom and grow.

Freedom and happiness result from these two general conditions:  peaceful people know that those who attack them or rob them will be punished quickly and appropriately, AND, peaceful people are confident that government will not punish their peaceful pursuit of happiness.  But these are the by-products, not the object, of legitimate government.  It is possible that Mr. Jefferson and I differ only in the way we would state this – I’m not sure.

What I am sure of is that our current governments are doing only a hit-and-miss job of retributive justice, and have completely failed at the job of leaving people unmolested in their pursuit of peaceful happiness.  And if Mr. Jefferson were here, I am quite certain he would agree.

 

Endowed by Their Creator

from The Foundry:

Monday night in Rockville, Md., President Barack Obama told Democratic Senate candidate donors: “As wonderful as the land is here in the United States, as much as we have been blessed by the bounty of this magnificent continent that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’”

At first blush, that seems like a fine statement about what makes America exceptional. But look at President Obama’s “quote” from the Declaration of Independence again. Here is what the Declaration actually says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” If you think that President Obama’s abandonment of the Creator was an accident, think again. Monday was the third time in a little over a month that President Obama wrote the Creator out of one of our nation’s founding documents.

Kent comments:

When I first read this, I wondered why Obama would retain “created equal” if he is attempting to downplay “the Creator.”  Perhaps this is explained in part by the fact that the phrase “all men are created equal” has been used in a stand-alone fashion for so long that changing it to “all men are equal” would change the cadence of the line enough to stand out like a hangnail to most people.  But there is much more to the story than this.

The very thought of creation must be banished if the goals of Obama and his kin are to make headway.  This goes back a long way.  Consider what Woodrow Wilson said in regard to the view of government found in the Declaration and the Constitution:

The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton.

To Wilson – and Obama – government is not something that draws its ultimate justification from the Creator.  It is, rather, a “living thing” – but it is a living thing whose life is created, directed, and redirected by man.

For a long time there has been an almost maniacal reaction by the ‘progressive left’ to any serious consideration of the idea of the Creator.  Why has cosmology moved a long way from Newton, while biology clings closely to Darwin?  While many important reasons could be cited, one is that the whole social-political conception of society put forth by the ‘progressive left’ requires a foundation in Darwin.

So for now, “all men” can be considered “created equal” – but their rights cannot be “endowed by their Creator.”  If rights come from the Creator, then their might be limits on the moral permissibility of social engineering in all its forms.  And for the ‘progressive left’ this would never do.

P.S. – For one of the best an brightest men in the world (who usually reads a teleprompter, it seems) we have to wonder about this construction:  “each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights.”  Since ‘each’ is singular, it requires the singular form of the verb ‘to be’ which is not ‘are’ but rather ‘is.’  Does no one edit the teleprompter material for B.H.O.? 

Incivility As A Cover

'Civility May Not Be Sexy'

Amid a call for civility, Christians trade political jabs.
Tobin Grant | posted 10/08/2010 10:39AM

Civility 'Key to our Political Salvation'

Sojourners president Jim Wallis thinks everyone—particularly Christians—need a more civil political engagement.

"Civility may not be sexy, but it is now key to our political salvation," said Wallis.

Wallis put his call for civility to the test when Fox News host Glenn Beck (once again) compared Wallis to a Nazi. Wallis responded by asking readers to petition the cable news channel to consider dropping Beck "for the sake of truth and civility."

Kent comments:

The point today is not to comment directly on the Beck-Wallis debate, as interesting as that is.  But there is an important sidebar to all this, and it’s something Wallis brings up above.

Christians very often call for this kind of ‘civility.’  To some extent, I can agree with that call.  But unfortunately, it is often misused.

Take Jim Wallis, just for an example.  Wallis apparently wants to rule out ahead of time any possible analogy between him and Nazis.  But why should Christians agree to that?

If anyone is simply calling Wallis a Nazi as a bad name, meant to preclude any response on Wallis’ part, then I agree that there is a lack of ‘civility’ involved.  There is, in fact, a lack of logic involved if that is all there is to it.  That is just an “argument against the person” and it is a logical fallacy.

But what if there are important similarities between (again, for example) Jim Wallis and some ideas held by Nazis?

Wallis gives every indication, from what he writes and says, that he is a strong supporter of some version of a welfare state/socialist system.  Nazis supported a very similar kind of system.  We can debate the details, such as national socialism versus international socialism.  We can consider how the motives for this support are different when we compare Wallis to Nazis.

But none of this changes the fact Wallis wants a system that is comparable in many important ways to the system put into place by the Nazis.  This comparison can rightly be made with no hint of incivility.  In fact, at some point one begins to suspect that the phony cry of “incivility” is an attempt on Wallis’ part to avoid the issue at hand.

Jim Wallis could, of course, make this comparison completely illegitimate – he could renounce socialism and statism in all forms.

But I don’t expect that to happen soon.  And until it does, the comparison is not uncivil – it is just the case.

Whose Got the Power?

Michelle Obama ranked world's most powerful woman

By Michelle NicholsWed Oct 6, 6:02 pm ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) – First lady Michelle Obama beat out heads of state, chief executives and celebrities to rank as the world's most powerful woman in Forbes magazine's annual listing on Wednesday.

Kent comments:

Here is a sure sign that the office of President is completely out-of-control.  If being the President’s wife makes you the “world’s most powerful woman” we are beyond out-of-control.  (I know the wives of Presidents have positioned themselves this way before.  M.O. is just our latest example.)

Power is a dangerous commodity.  Only one being is morally equipped to handle it properly:  God.  Humans should be very wary of it when it is found anywhere else.

Contagious Stupidity

Find this comic strip at:  http://www.arcamax.com/nonsequitur/s-783782-384963

Kent comments:

If I understand this correctly, the author of this strip is painting those who want to reduce the scope of government as stupid.  I very well could be misunderstanding it because, as someone who wants to reduce the scope of government, I must be, according to this strip, stupid.

I don’t think there are many true anarchists around most less-government groups these days.  I’m sure there are a few, but not many.  I am also certain that to those who want governments to do almost everything imaginable – which is many people these days – even modest reductions are viewed as near-anarchy.

But I would remind Wiley Miller (the author) that every time governments interfere with ordinary human decisions such as what to buy, where to buy it, who we can hire to work for us, how much we must pay them, how much schooling we decide to buy and how much to pay for it, what kind of house we live in, what kind of transportation we use – this list is almost endless – every time governments meddle in such matters, human freedom is reduced.

Government action can increase freedom.  When governments make it expensive to murder and steal, that has the effect of increasing human freedom.  When governments create stable legal rules and processes to help curb murder and theft, human freedom is increased.  In this kind of framework human beings can, and historically we see that they will, do all sorts of amazing things that will have the indirect effect of making life a little better for everyone.

But there always seem to be those who get the idea (and this is where the theory that stupidity is contagious really comes into play) that if government punishes those who murder, why not have it punish those who overeat, who eat “the wrong things” or especially those who sell “the wrong food”?  They get the idea that if government punishes theft, why not have it punish those who sell a car for “more than it is really worth”?

When these kinds of ideas are implemented, government moves from the role of freedom maintenance to the role of freedom destruction.  There is a distinct and qualitative difference between murdering your neighbor, and grilling him a hamburger he wants to eat, no matter how bad some might think hamburgers are for people.

If people are not free to make decisions some others may think are unwise, then freedom is destroyed.  When governments impose the views of some on such matters onto everyone, there is too much government.  It is very easy to have too much (and thus freedom-destroying) government.  It is very difficult to keep government working, but working within its proper bounds.

So those people with the signs in the comic strip above – even when they are a little rough around the edges, I’m glad they are there.  We need them to keep reminding us how easy it is to have too much government.

Blow This Up

Perhaps you have seen it.  I had only heard about it until a friend sent me a link today.  I’m talking about the “How to Cut Carbon Emissions” video.  It is very gruesome, but here is the gist:  in several settings, those unwilling to cut carbon emissions are summarily blown up – with their guts and blood flying everywhere.

This is much more than just tasteless.  It is very honest.  Many environmentalists hate people – especially those who do not share their destructive goals.  Some of their spokesmen have made this very clear.  For examples:

“The ending of the human epoch on Earth,” writes philosopher Paul Taylor in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, “would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!’”

In a glowing review of Bill McKibben's The End of Nature, biologist David M. Graber wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “Human happiness (is) not as important as a wild and healthy planet...Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

Those are just a couple of my personal favorites.  The attitude that human suffering is not nearly as important as preserving a “pristine planet” is a key and widespread tenet of the environmentalist movement.  So it should surprise no one that those unwilling to “help solve climate change” would be pictured as being blown to smithereens.  As one commentator put it, “’No Pressure’ celebrates everybody who is actively tackling climate change... by blowing up those are aren't.”

Notice how it is no longer “global warming” but rather “climate change.”  This way, no matter how the climate changes, the environmentalists can prattle on about how we need to stop living in order to “save the planet.”  It’s the ultimate un-falsifiable thesis!

Long before there were enough humans to matter, the climate was changing.  If the environmentalists had their way and most humans were killed off, the climate would continue to change.

Another thing that needs to change is our attitude toward environmentalists.  If they don’t understand that humans can’t affect the climate, they are just stupid.  If they understand it and yet still try to use it to manipulate opinion, they are morally perverse.  Either way, they should simply have the courage of their convictions, kill themselves, and thereby “decrease the surplus population.”

The Company You Keep

Tomorrow, October 2, is the “One Nation Working Together” rally for Big Government to energize “progressive” voters for the upcoming election. Over 100,000 demonstrators are expected, thanks mostly to unions bussing in supporters.

Sponsors of the rally include National Education Association, AFSCME, National Council of La Raza, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Campaign, Americans for Democratic Action, the NAACP, AFL-CIO, Democratic Socialists of America, the American Muslim Association of North America, Code Pink, National Center for Transgender Equality, Jim Wallis’ Sojourners, and the United Church of Christ, plus the Communist Party USA.

Kent comments:

Who your close friends are, the ones you share important values with, say a lot about you.  Not everything, of course.  I’ve had a few friends with whom I had very little in common in regard to ideology and ethics.

But when you have a several friends who are – oh, I don’t know – let’s say “scum bags” and if the nature of your association requires agreement in important matters, then that DOES say something about you.

So what should we think about, for example, the NEA?  Perhaps you should see how many of your children’s teachers (if you have children with teachers) are members of the NEA.

Then there is Jim Wallis and all his fellow-traveling Sojourners.  They are all good Christian people, I suppose.  It’s just that they like to hang out with Socialists, Communists, and Abortionists.  It’s probably not a big deal.

Then there is the United Church of Christ – you know, the President’s church.  He has been very busy lately telling us that he is a Christian, and why he is a Christian.  His church is all about transgendering, socializing, communizing, and aborting.

What a fellowship, what a joy is mine, leaning on the communistic arms!