Great Quotes: Ludwig Von Mises

The aforementioned individual was a widely acclaimed economist and political philsopher of his time. Born in 1881 in what is now Liviv, Ukraine, he became a great leader in the classical liberal movement and in advancing the Austrian School of Economic though (libertarianism and extremely laissez faire economics, respectively). Justifying his opinion that government ought not to be in the business of protecting people from their own foolishness, he opined in his great book Human Action, as follows:
Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous and habit forming drugs. But once a principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government’s benevolent providence to the protection of the individual’s body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music?

The passage struck a chord with for the same reason it did for the great skeptic and libertarian Michael Shermer, who said of the passage that it  “…resonated with me because his analogue from the physical to the ideological is so effective in conveying the central message of freedom and liberty[.]”

“Essential” government handouts

My advocacy of abolishing government charity like welfare and international food aid has been quietly growing over the last few years. Authors like John Stossel and Fredric Bastiet have caused me to criticize government action on such matteres, prefering instead that the government content itself to national defense and basic matters of public peace.

My reasoning here is multifacted, ranging from  philosophical meditations on government theory to practical cause and effect studies that issue a rebuke to those who have endless faith in government policy to fix problems that are better and traditionally left to the volunatary action of private individuals.

Following up on that note, its interesting to note that in spite of what action-hungary politicians are likely to tell you, it may be that foreign aid, whether cash or commodity (food, etc) is not all that “essential” or “critical” so solving whatever “crisis” happens to be at hand. An observation by the Council on Foreign Relations seems particularly provoking to those who subscribe to this view:

“With the plight of the hungry so acute, the calls for additional food aid have grown. So far this year, the World Food Program spent $650 million—compared with the $400 million spent during the same period in 2007 to buy roughly the same amount of food (BusinessWeek). But some experts point out that the aid system keeps people hungry in the long run even as it feeds them in the short term. Alec van Gelder and Caroline Boin of the International Policy Network, a development think tank based in London, argue that aid has actually depressed development (Business Daily) in Africa. They note “70 [percent] of Africans who live off the land have falling incomes and life expectancy, while Asian countries that got little or no aid have prospered.”

Interesting point. African countries recieve lots of aid and fail. Asian countries recieved little or none and succeed. But politicians argue that such programs are essential anyway.

The latest trends

As mentioned previously, I had no idea how hard a senior year could be, but I”m enjoying every minute of it. That being said, I have also found out that it is not possible to devote equal amounts of brainpower to every interesting subject in a meaningful way. Therefore, three things of hard thought have been occupying my thoughts recently.

1. Theological subejcts: God cannot create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it. This in no way contradicts the rationale for believing in God. More on this later
2. Abortion: This is a subject I will write about more. The main thing here for the pro-life movement is that we haven’t been as effective as we could be in how we debate the issue. Of course we’re pro-life because we believe the unborn are living human persons. But we’re not good at taking on leftist rhetoric about “choice” and “rights,” and we do not effectively demonstrate why we believe the unborn are persons. This must change, and I hope to communicate what I have learned in this regard through this blog. Maybe someday I’ll get a chance to speak on it.
3. The Drug Debate: I’m beginning to suspect that the war on drugs is over-rated. People like the libertarian ABC Anchor John Stossel have used their cynical writing skills to provoke me to re-think what most of my associates assume about the matter. Its a divisive issue, but research into the matter, and studies about the effectiveness of keeping them illegal seem to substantiate Stossel’s claim. In short, there’s a lot of evidence out there that needs plenty of thought and critique, and so I’m beginning to suspect that I will one day enter politics with a very libertarian position on the issue. I hope to develop some of those thoughts here in the mid to far future. Time right now is being spent collecting the evidence on both sides.

No posts in awhile

Its been too long since I’ve posted. I didn’t know a senior year in high school could be so busy. A couple of quick thoughts:

1. I hope to get back to writing regularly. I would like the theme of my next few posts to be about some theological issues, specifically addressing the problem of omnipotence (can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?) and I’d also like to write about Abortion. Its a huge issue that should have been on the forefront of the presidential election. But, like most controversial issues, it gets put on the back burner by mutual consent, for no candidate wants to be appear to be too intractable and unreasonable by taking a monolithic stance on a moral issues; thus the business of politics sustains and deepens its tendency to disconnect the voters and disgust them with politics, especially on the Republican side.
2. John McCain will lose big. I may be about to sacrifice my entire future political fortune by making a prediction, but I”ll go ahead and say that the Republicans are in for a bigger swatting than they anticipate. Everyone knows that they’ll get beat, but I predict they will get crushed beyond the most depressing expectations. So for the prediction: McCain will get 200 or few electoral votes. There it is. I might delete that in hopes of saving my future political credibility, but I doubt it. If my political potential dies by the inaccuracy of my prediction, so be it, and may I calmly kiss my political aspirations goodbye.
3. I’m going to launch a campaign. I’m officially campaigning for politics. No official party yet. That will come later. For now, I’m going to espouse a few major policy issues, like abortion, taxes, and regulation. The rest of the time, I”ll be speaking out on hypocrisy in the Washington System in both parties, the senseless frills and privileges that accompany those who are unfortunate enough to be called “politicians” and so on.
4. I think if Ron Paul were the candidate on the Republican ticket, the party wouldn’t be losing so badly.
5. I think if Ron Paul were a little more polished as a speaker and communicator, then he would’ve have been on the ticket.
6. I’ll develop more thoughts later.

On Obama and Taxes

My good friend Will Simpson over at Will’s Perspective wrote a fantastic article on Obama’s tax plans (note the plural) this morning. The excerpt below will lead you to his post:

A preface on tax cuts:  Congress writes them, not the president.  Anyone want to take a  wager on how likely Democrats in Congress are to cut taxes for anyone?  Major Garrett of FoxNews is beginning to refer to potential problems for John McCain from an unlikely issue: taxes.  Apparently, the American people are beginning to believe the propoganda from the Obama campaign about taxes, while factcheck.org is criticizing McCain claims and the new, post-partisan, positive Obama campaign perpetually calls McCain the “sleaziest, most dishonest campaign in American history.”  Yes, those are the words repeatedly used.

Here’s the facts:

1) Obama’s on his third tax plan….(continue reading here)

BornAliveTruth.org makes CNN and Hannity and Colmes!

BornAliveTruth.org was noticed by the CNN Political Ticker yesterday, and generated 222 comments before commenting was disabled. Some of the comments really intrigued me. A lot of sad assumptions about the unborn:

“My Body, My Choice !!”

“I am not a woman, so I cannot partake in this thread.”

“Obama’s opponents just keep shooting blindly hoping that eventually, something’ll hit. It’s a pitiful strategy.”

“So, you want women to raise kids resulting from a rape or incest? Where are their rights? You love to see those women victimized the 2nd times??”

“Abortion is a fundamental right of liberty. What other rights will the Republicans take from us?”

So lets face it: There’s a lot of bunk.

You can read the article here.

Gianna Jesson also appeared on Hannity and Colmes two days ago. Of course, Sean Hannity was all for Jesson, and Colmes tried to put in a word about how Obama doesn’t support “infanticide”. Jesson and Hannity had some strong points in return. Check it out:

BornAliveTruth.org…Check it out today

Someday I should write an essay on an introduction to pro-life apologetics, or, how to defend the pro-life view using science, logic, and observation.

If I ever get into politics, abortion will become my number one issue. Millions of innocent lives are at stake. My passion against abortion really took off when I saw a lecture by pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf. In his 2 hour lecture, he outlines several cogent scientific and logical reasons to believe that life begins at conception, and his presentation totally blew his opponents argumennts out of the water.

Then I did some reading on my own, and was stunned to read the story of Gianna Jesson, an abortion survivor who goes around the country now speaking for the pro life cause. Abortion survivor? I didn’t know there was such a thing, but my discovery that there are motivates me all the more, and makes me wonder all the more how politicians can talk about a woman’s “right” to an abortion with a straight face.

I watched some videos of Gianna Jesson on youtube and was moved by what I saw. Hopefully someday someone will make a documentary of her story for the world to see on the screen, but until then, I was really pleased to find this TV ad that will be airing in a few states as the presidential campaigns head for the home stretch.

Be sure to check out the 527 website sponsoring the ad, BornAliveTruth.org

A slight amendment…

I’ve decided I can’t get away from political blogging. Besides, faith and politics can mix to a certain extent. Just how far I’m not sure, but I’ve decided to blog a little about politics again. Apologetics will still be the focus, but politics will not be excluded.

 

Yours truly.

Michael Shermer on the Problem of Evil

My favorite skeptic, Michael Shermer, has written a book titled “How We Believe: The Search for God in the Age of Science”. I’m enjoying it so far. The critics seem to like it too. “Well researched, comprehensive, and persuasive” “This is an important book” “Great read…!”

I’ve always been fascinated by the problem of evil. I assume at least most of my small readership is familiar with the issue. The question basically is: “How can an all good God and all powerful God allow evil in this world and still be sinless?”

I’m still thinking and reading on the topic, and I hope to write more about it soon. What I have concluded is that despite the apparent conundrums inolved with the problem, I am not yet convinced that the existence of pain and suffering justifies the rejection of God. Nevertheless, I’m still intruiged by other people’s reasoning and justifications for their worldview, and I now present an excerpt from page five of his book mentioned above:

“To this day I have not heard an answer to the Problem of Evil that seems satisfactory. As with the Problem of Free Will, most answers involve complicated twists and turns of logic and semantic wordplay. One answer, for example, is based on the fundamental assumption of a stone so heavy he cannot lift it. Likewise, God cannot be encompassed in the in the subset of evil. Evil, like heavy stones, exist independently of the larger set of God, even though remaining in that set. Another riposte involves explaining specific historical evils, like the Holocaust, where one answer is that “humans committed these evil acts, not God.” But this avoids the problem altogether: Either God allowed Nazis to kill Jews, in which case He is not omnibenevolent, or God could not prevent Nazis from killing Jews, in which case he is not omnipotent.”

Others have found the answer. I hope to find it too.

On Faithful Skepticism and Rational Faith

It is my observation that the mainstream media and academia stigmatize faith as something intellectually inferior and antithetical to both science and reason. This is not always true of every respected scientist. Some, like Michael Shermer (editor of Skeptic Magazine and the one to whom I also like to refer to as “my favorite skeptic”) have a less villifying take on faith in general, and the Christian Faith in particular. Still, atheists like George H. Smith boldy assert that “Christian theism must be rejected by any person with even a shred of respect for reason”. Websites too, like Importance of Philosophy make assertions such as “The result of using faith consistently is the complete inability to think.” Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

I disagree.

To either replace their faith and justify their rejection of it, skeptics turn to other pinnicles on which to view truth and analyze the world. Some go all out in support of Science. Its all about science. What do emperical experiments tell us. What’s happening in the labratory. Others are all about reason. “This is rational.” “That is not.” “If God created everything, then God created evil. And since evil exists, and acording to the principle that our works define who we are, the we can assume God is evil.”

Media and acadamia potray these alternatives to faith (reason, science, etc) as exclusive to faith. “Science and Faith are not compatible” or “Reason and Faith cannot be reconciled”. The implication is that if you have faith, then you are not rational. You are not scientific. You wonder in the wastelands of stupidity and cluelessnes. Such implications are used, particuarly in our college campuses, as tools by which to destroy people’s religious faith.

And it works. The Christian Church doesn’t do very well educating its people on how to defend the faith. The de-conversion rate of college students is at an all time high. So when our young people go to college, who wants to be called “irrational” “stupid” “clueless” etc? And so people fall away from the faith or cower from the mighty intellecutals in fear because someone convinced them that faith is inherently exclusive to the other faculties of reason, science, and so on.

Part of the problem may be that we let our opponents define what faith is. And when that happens, they are more than happy to define it in the negative. “Faith is the opposite of reason” or “Faith is antithetical to science”.

But is faith merely a dictionary antonym for intellectual glory?

I think not.

I propose that we as Christians take our definition of faith from the 19th book of the New Testament, the Book of Hebrews, the 11th chapter, and the first verse, which says: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

In other words, strictly speaking, faith is merely the belief in something that we have not directly seen or experienced firsthand. That’s it.

If this is the case, then it has far reaching implications into whether or not faith should be stigmatized as something inherently irrational. Because if it is true that faith is merely belief in something not directly experienced, then everyone has faith.

I have not been to England. But I have strong faith that it exists. I haven’t seen it first hand, but Rick Steves has apparantly been there and made a movie about it. The name appears in my history books and all of them agree on the general size and location of the country on the map. Its a well grounded faith too, because there is good evidence for it.

Scientists have not actually seen macro-evolution happen. No one has gone to the zoo for a few million years and watched a monkey turn from ape to homo-sapien. Its a matter of faith because they’re believing in something that they have not actually seen.

In light of this, the argument in our culture ought not to be about whether faith is inherently dangerous or evil; everyone has faith; the argument ought to be over who has the best faith supported by experience, reason, science, and logic.

As a historical faith, Christianity has, in my experience, been able to meet the burden of proof to my satisfaction such that I am convinced that, while theism and christianity are not proveable with mathmatical certainty, the archeological, scientific, philosophical, and historical evidences make faith in God and the Bible a reasonable state of existence not outside the realms of science and rationality.

The evidence that makes this so will be explored on this blog as time goes on. But for now, remember: Faith is not irrational in and of itself. Everyone has to one varying degree or another in various fields of thought and persuasion. The debate ought to be over which faith is best supported by our deductions and observations.

I conclude as I often like to do with the great quote from the great Voddie Baucham:

“Is that your final answer? I hope its not. Let me give you an answer to that question that I believe is better than ‘I was raised that way’ or its better than “Well I’m Southern Baptist and that’s the way we believe’ or its better than “I tried it, and it worked for me” Let me tell you why I choose to believe the Bible. I don’t believe the Bible because I was raised that way—because I wasn’t. I don’t choose to believe the Bible because I tried it and it worked for me. My mother’s Buddhism worked for her—that’s why she was a Buddhist! I need something more than just ‘because it works’. Here’s the answer—I’ll give it to you and unpack it for you:

I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report [of] supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claimed that their writing are divine rather than human in origin.”