Capitalism vs. Socialism
by Will Armstrong
Thomas Jefferson said “ Still one thing more, fellow citizens -- a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government”.
In comparing economic systems one must first look at the governmental system that makes it possible. So the initial question that needs to be answered is, what is good government? Jefferson’s’ quote starts with the emphasis of protecting individual rights, not interfering with commerce and the avoidance of wasteful spending.
“The most important the role of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.”(Benson 1968) What rights and freedoms are we talking about? I can’t think of a better place to look than in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence, since they are the blueprints of our government.
In The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
It vital to realize that the source of our rights are not from the government but given by our creator. We already possess the unalienable rights and we charge the government to protect those rights. “Government has no innate power or privilege”(Benson 1968) only what “we the people” choose to delegate to it. Therefore the government is to be the servant of the people not their master.
One must also discern that we can’t delegate power that we ourselves do not possess. Another words we can’t empower government to do what we have no right to do. An example of this principal is that, since I don’t have the right to take what doesn’t belong to me how can I empower the government to redistribute the wealth of another.
One of the greatest benefits of capitalism is the freedom of choice. The choices of career, purchasing and investment decisions, to takes risks and reap the rewards. For capitalism to exist, the rule of law must protect property rights, individual rights, the right to start a business, and to invest. The rule of law is a fixed law that set definite limits on governments and individuals but can’t be changed at the whim of government or leaders. The concentration of government power, typical
in socialistic governments causes them to seldom respects the rule of law because it interferes with the power needed to implement their massive programs.
Capitalism allows the freedom to earn your way and the opportunity to be your best. It offers rewards for excellence, creativity, innovation and hard work. Your production improves the lives of others. Investors and business owners create opportunities for others. The rights of the individual are not sacrificed for special interest groups that empower government i.e. affirmative action, some eminent domain rulings, a tax code supporting redistribution of wealth, suppression of religious freedom through political correctness.
In a capitalist system, prices provide accurate information and incentives about how resources need to be allocated, thereby maximizing efficiency. Profits reward companies that are the most efficient and best serve the public. Companies that are inefficient and provide poor service are penalized. Profits provide strong disciplinary measures to businesses, and investor’s continually funnel resources into stronger companies continually creating more wealth and higher quality of life for everyone. (Mark J Perry 1995)
Some of the goals of socialism have merit. There is much value in collective enterprise; life and society has a social not just an individual facet. (Martin Luther King) Sometimes what works doesn’t fit in to our narrow political ideology. But the practice of socialism seems to range from bad i.e. much of Europe; to terrible i.e. the former USSR, Cuba, China, and North Korea
One of the problems with socialism is that whatever the noble intentions are to give power to the people, the power always ends up in the hands of an all-powerful elitist government. Socialist governments cannot trust the common man with power or freedom. Socialist’s tend to see corporations or corporate power to be the greatest threat to the freedom and advancement of the common man but have a naïve view that government can be trusted.
Think about this; if man can’t be trusted to govern himself why trust government to govern him, since those in government are subject to the same weaknesses as all of us?
Corporations are subject to the disciplines of the free market, if they fail to serve the public a competitor will replace them. Governments, on the other hand have no competitors, they have a monopoly, if they don’t serve us well its much more difficult to remove them. In the marketplace we are free to do business with who we want, the government, on the other hand can enforce their policies by force of arms. (Ross1997) Good examples of the dangers of concentrated government power are the roughly 100 million government- sponsored murders in the former USSR, China, Cambodia, Japan and Nazi Germany.
We need to consider the wise words of George Washington- “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!"
Thomas Jefferson also says "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Socialist policies runs counter to the principles of limited government and to the enumerated powers given to government specified in the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution. Our courts have usurped legislative powers and abused the Constitutions general welfare clause to justify massive social programs, excessive regulations and a tax system that redistributes wealth and buys votes.
Another troubling side effect of socialist economic policy is the lack of incentives. If people don’t produce, there is nothing for the government to distribute, no matter what promises the government makes. Since there really isn’t a powerful reason to produce and innovate in a socialist system, poverty is the inevitable result. I mean why work hard if your hard work and ideas won’t significantly improve your living conditions.
The inevitable result of removing peoples incentives to produce and God given rights to run their own lives, is that people will do next to nothing and the state will be compelled to create a coercive enforcement mechanism whose extreme forms include i.e. secret police, Gestapo ect. Coercive enforcement is necessary to support the unpopular policies that keep the socialist ruling elite in power.
Since this country has become more socialistic, you can see some examples of mild types of political oppression in the form of political correctness. People are now afraid of speaking out on issues such as homosexuality, race relations, child discipline and religion for fear of ridicule, losing your job or even legal action.
Much of the criticism of capitalism is actually the result of corporatism or state sponsored capitalism, which is a form of socialism not genuine free market capitalism. Corporatism includes “direct handouts, corporate bailouts, eminent domain, licensing laws, antitrust regulations, or environmental edicts (Gregory2005) More recent examples of corporatism include Enron, who powerfully lobbied for the strangling regulations in the Kyoto treaty. Why would a large corporation want expensive environmental regulations? The answer is the promise of lucrative government energy contracts and of course the elimination of their competition through huge start up expenses. This may explain why many, if not most of America’s wealthiest corporate leaders are socialist leaning liberals.
As long as economic systems involve people there will always be problems but capitalism has consistently out preformed socialism by any objective measure. No matter how wise a system of central planning is, it can never exceed the collective wisdom of millions buyers and sellers in a free market. Any system that restricts the freedom of choice, private property rights, disregards incentives and looks to government, as its savior will eventually fail. With all its faults, there is no economic system that holds a candle to free market capitalism.
References:
The Proper Role of Government by Ezra Taft Benson 1968
http://wwwwww.zionsbest.com/proper_role.html
Why socialism failed by Mark J. Perry PHD. June 1995
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/why-socialism-failed/
How Should A Christian View Communism? Martin Luther King Jr.
http://www.redmoonrising.com/AmericanBabylon/christandcomm.htm
Human Nature, Anarchy, and Capitalism by Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. 1997 http://www.friesian.com/fallen.htm
Corporatism and Socialism in America by Anthony Gregory, February 23, 2005 http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0411e.asp
Friday, March 12, 2010
Is our Constitution a living document?
Is our Constitution a living document that can change over time?
By Will Armstrong
The term "living document" refers to the idea that the constitution should be interpreted to accommodation the changing times. Some say that the framers left the language of the Constitution vague so that it could change over time to stay relevant with changing conditions; they contend that the document was not supposed to be taken literally but interpreted according to its broad meaning or the spirit of it. The Constitution already has a provision for change, in the Amendment process.
The problem with viewing the Constitution this way is that you can in effect make the Constitution say what you want it to say. The problems with this view are many and it dangerously threatens our democracy. The constitution isn't just a theoretical expose but the law of our land; our elected official swears an oath to it. If the meaning of the Constitution blows with the wind what are these people swearing allegiance to.
My experience with the truth on debatable issues is that it’s usually simpler than people like to admit. I’ll admit that this issue seems pretty cut and dry to me, according to the research I’ve done. In looking at the arguments in favor of a living document I’ve noticed some self-contradictions. For instance they will complain about how the original meaning of the constitution can’t be applied to many of the current issues but at the same time claim that they are originalists or that we can’t know what the original framers but later on claim they understand the spirit of the document.
Clarence Thomas said it best when he said, “there are only two ways to interpret the Constitution – try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up” and “unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores”.
The president swears an oath to preserve the Constitution, but if it meaning is in constant change what are you preserving? Why would the founders want to write a legally binding document in unclear terms, isn’t it intended to be clearly understood by as many as possible. Federal employees and judges, members of the armed forces, congress, civil servants all to an oath to support, defend and uphold to Constitution. Doesn’t it make sense that it’s meaning should be as clear and specific as possible? The online google dictionary defines Constitution as the fundamental law of the land, a legal document describing a formal system. The definition of constitution itself refutes the idea that it’s a living document.
In conclusion it seems that the unclear and inconsistent reasoning, proponents of a living Constitution seem to have, points to an agenda and rationalization behind their opinions. Where as those opposed have a more consistent and sound rationale. The idea of a living document that changes over time reminds me of the secular idea of moral relatism, which can be changed at a whim. Either way there is no foundation.
References:
Theories of Constitutional interpretation Retrieved January 11, 2010 http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html
Wikipedia (2009). Living Constitution Retrieved January 11, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
Wikipedia (2009). Oath of office Retrieved January 11, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#Military_Oaths_-_Federal_and_State
By Will Armstrong
The term "living document" refers to the idea that the constitution should be interpreted to accommodation the changing times. Some say that the framers left the language of the Constitution vague so that it could change over time to stay relevant with changing conditions; they contend that the document was not supposed to be taken literally but interpreted according to its broad meaning or the spirit of it. The Constitution already has a provision for change, in the Amendment process.
The problem with viewing the Constitution this way is that you can in effect make the Constitution say what you want it to say. The problems with this view are many and it dangerously threatens our democracy. The constitution isn't just a theoretical expose but the law of our land; our elected official swears an oath to it. If the meaning of the Constitution blows with the wind what are these people swearing allegiance to.
My experience with the truth on debatable issues is that it’s usually simpler than people like to admit. I’ll admit that this issue seems pretty cut and dry to me, according to the research I’ve done. In looking at the arguments in favor of a living document I’ve noticed some self-contradictions. For instance they will complain about how the original meaning of the constitution can’t be applied to many of the current issues but at the same time claim that they are originalists or that we can’t know what the original framers but later on claim they understand the spirit of the document.
Clarence Thomas said it best when he said, “there are only two ways to interpret the Constitution – try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up” and “unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores”.
The president swears an oath to preserve the Constitution, but if it meaning is in constant change what are you preserving? Why would the founders want to write a legally binding document in unclear terms, isn’t it intended to be clearly understood by as many as possible. Federal employees and judges, members of the armed forces, congress, civil servants all to an oath to support, defend and uphold to Constitution. Doesn’t it make sense that it’s meaning should be as clear and specific as possible? The online google dictionary defines Constitution as the fundamental law of the land, a legal document describing a formal system. The definition of constitution itself refutes the idea that it’s a living document.
In conclusion it seems that the unclear and inconsistent reasoning, proponents of a living Constitution seem to have, points to an agenda and rationalization behind their opinions. Where as those opposed have a more consistent and sound rationale. The idea of a living document that changes over time reminds me of the secular idea of moral relatism, which can be changed at a whim. Either way there is no foundation.
References:
Theories of Constitutional interpretation Retrieved January 11, 2010 http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html
Wikipedia (2009). Living Constitution Retrieved January 11, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
Wikipedia (2009). Oath of office Retrieved January 11, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#Military_Oaths_-_Federal_and_State
Is America founded a Christian nation?
America a Christian nation?
by Will Armstrong
Was America founded a Christian nation or are its roots primarily from the age of enlightenment, free from the influence of Christianity? Enlightenment philosophy, being more closely related to secular humanism or even atheism than to Christianity. Some argue that although there were many Christians at the time of our nations founding, Christianity and Christian principals were intended to have no influence in our government or public life. They will point to Thomas Jefferson’s concept of “a wall of separation between church and state”, as proof of their theory.
Some say that the constitutional convention of 1789 was primarily influenced be enlightenment and deist sentiment and had little to do with Christianity. They will point to influential leaders such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson who they claim were more inclined towards deism than Christianity.
To remove any doubt that Christianity had a role in our nations founding, they will point to a statement made in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, in which we find the words, "…the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion….”.
Examining a few the approximately 17,000 documents written around the time period of our nations founding will give a balanced view of the beliefs of the leaders at this time.
John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court wrote, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." This quote was from 1797, the year of the treaty of Tripoli. (Norris 2007) Was religion to have no place in government, not according to our first chief justice? It doesn’t appear that he’s taken a position of religious neutrality, he is advocating for Christianity.
‘Fisher Ames, author of the First Amendment, wrote an article in 1801 entitled "School Books." His concern was that by adding so many new textbooks in schools, there would not be enough time for the Bible. He said we must make sure the Bible regained its proper place of pre-eminence in the classroom!”(Bellavita 2008) Now why would the author of the first amendment advocate for the pre-eminence for the bible in schools? It is apparent that the establishment clause of the first amendment has a radically different meaning today than when it was written.
George Washington in his Farwell address said this “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." This does not sound like someone who wants to remove Christianity from public life or government, does it? The father of our nation says it’s impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. If this isn’t proof of a Christian nation I don’t know what is! Not only does Washington advocate Christianity as the source for government but also that our civilization itself depends it.
“Senator Robert Byrd noted that of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 29 were Anglicans, 16-18 were Calvinists, and among the rest were 2 Methodists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 lapsed Quaker-sometimes Anglican, and only 1 open Deist — Benjamin Franklin who attended all Christian worships and called for public prayer.”(Pearlston 2001) These men knew there very lives we’re on the line, if they we’re deist’s and not Christians they would make it public, don’t you think?
William Holmes McGuffey is the author of the McGuffey Reader, which was used for over 100 years in our public schools with over 125 million copies sold until it was stopped in 1963. President Lincoln called him the "Schoolmaster of the Nation." In reference to Christianity in America, Mr. McGuffey says:
"The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our notions on character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible I make no apology."(Jones 2010) Now why would president Lincoln declare a man, “school master of the nation”, who believes Christianity is at the foundation of our government and society, if in fact Lincoln believed in the equality of all religions and that religion has no place in public life or government? Unless we believe that the brilliant President Lincoln had a shallow or misguided understanding of our countries true foundation. I suppose you would have to say George Washington, John Jay, John Adams and many others must have been as mistaken as Lincoln regarding the countries foundations.
Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President of the United States wrote, "The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."
In 1947 Harry Truman said, "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and Saint Matthew, from Isaiah and Saint Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State."(Pearlston 2001) Now if Christianity is the basis of our countries laws and government, how can there be a ‘wall of separation” as generally understood today? The answer is of course; there can’t, unless you undermine the foundation of our nation.
Although this country didn’t have a state imposed religion as England and other European nations, its laws and government were based on Christianity. The establishment clause was intended to protect religious liberty not remove its influences from our government and society. Nor can we conclude a neutral view on religion because the founders made it clear that Christianity and the Bible are the basis of our government and society. If we really believe Christianity has no place in public life we should remove the pledge of allegiance from schools, remove “In God we trust” from our money, do away with religious holidays such as Christmas, Easter and Martin Luther King day and take out all religious references from our government buildings. If we do this, we would have a separation of church and state similar to its concept in the former Soviet Union, which completely removes religion from public life but allegedly allows freedom of private religious practice. Yes this country was most definitely founded a Christian nation, unique among the nations of the earth, destined to be that “city on the hill”, spreading the gospel of Christ to the nations.
References:
“A Christian nation” by Steve Bellavita November 29,2008
http://www.heraldonline.com/2008/11/29/985934/a-christian-nation.html
“Is America a Christian nation?” by Carl Pearlston 2001
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0040.html
“ Is America a Christian nation?” by Chuck Norris September 17, 2007
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57666
“Forsaken roots” by Mary Jones retrieved March 11, 2010
http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/forsakenroots.html
by Will Armstrong
Was America founded a Christian nation or are its roots primarily from the age of enlightenment, free from the influence of Christianity? Enlightenment philosophy, being more closely related to secular humanism or even atheism than to Christianity. Some argue that although there were many Christians at the time of our nations founding, Christianity and Christian principals were intended to have no influence in our government or public life. They will point to Thomas Jefferson’s concept of “a wall of separation between church and state”, as proof of their theory.
Some say that the constitutional convention of 1789 was primarily influenced be enlightenment and deist sentiment and had little to do with Christianity. They will point to influential leaders such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson who they claim were more inclined towards deism than Christianity.
To remove any doubt that Christianity had a role in our nations founding, they will point to a statement made in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, in which we find the words, "…the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion….”.
Examining a few the approximately 17,000 documents written around the time period of our nations founding will give a balanced view of the beliefs of the leaders at this time.
John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court wrote, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." This quote was from 1797, the year of the treaty of Tripoli. (Norris 2007) Was religion to have no place in government, not according to our first chief justice? It doesn’t appear that he’s taken a position of religious neutrality, he is advocating for Christianity.
‘Fisher Ames, author of the First Amendment, wrote an article in 1801 entitled "School Books." His concern was that by adding so many new textbooks in schools, there would not be enough time for the Bible. He said we must make sure the Bible regained its proper place of pre-eminence in the classroom!”(Bellavita 2008) Now why would the author of the first amendment advocate for the pre-eminence for the bible in schools? It is apparent that the establishment clause of the first amendment has a radically different meaning today than when it was written.
George Washington in his Farwell address said this “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." This does not sound like someone who wants to remove Christianity from public life or government, does it? The father of our nation says it’s impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. If this isn’t proof of a Christian nation I don’t know what is! Not only does Washington advocate Christianity as the source for government but also that our civilization itself depends it.
“Senator Robert Byrd noted that of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 29 were Anglicans, 16-18 were Calvinists, and among the rest were 2 Methodists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 lapsed Quaker-sometimes Anglican, and only 1 open Deist — Benjamin Franklin who attended all Christian worships and called for public prayer.”(Pearlston 2001) These men knew there very lives we’re on the line, if they we’re deist’s and not Christians they would make it public, don’t you think?
William Holmes McGuffey is the author of the McGuffey Reader, which was used for over 100 years in our public schools with over 125 million copies sold until it was stopped in 1963. President Lincoln called him the "Schoolmaster of the Nation." In reference to Christianity in America, Mr. McGuffey says:
"The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our notions on character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible I make no apology."(Jones 2010) Now why would president Lincoln declare a man, “school master of the nation”, who believes Christianity is at the foundation of our government and society, if in fact Lincoln believed in the equality of all religions and that religion has no place in public life or government? Unless we believe that the brilliant President Lincoln had a shallow or misguided understanding of our countries true foundation. I suppose you would have to say George Washington, John Jay, John Adams and many others must have been as mistaken as Lincoln regarding the countries foundations.
Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President of the United States wrote, "The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."
In 1947 Harry Truman said, "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and Saint Matthew, from Isaiah and Saint Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State."(Pearlston 2001) Now if Christianity is the basis of our countries laws and government, how can there be a ‘wall of separation” as generally understood today? The answer is of course; there can’t, unless you undermine the foundation of our nation.
Although this country didn’t have a state imposed religion as England and other European nations, its laws and government were based on Christianity. The establishment clause was intended to protect religious liberty not remove its influences from our government and society. Nor can we conclude a neutral view on religion because the founders made it clear that Christianity and the Bible are the basis of our government and society. If we really believe Christianity has no place in public life we should remove the pledge of allegiance from schools, remove “In God we trust” from our money, do away with religious holidays such as Christmas, Easter and Martin Luther King day and take out all religious references from our government buildings. If we do this, we would have a separation of church and state similar to its concept in the former Soviet Union, which completely removes religion from public life but allegedly allows freedom of private religious practice. Yes this country was most definitely founded a Christian nation, unique among the nations of the earth, destined to be that “city on the hill”, spreading the gospel of Christ to the nations.
References:
“A Christian nation” by Steve Bellavita November 29,2008
http://www.heraldonline.com/2008/11/29/985934/a-christian-nation.html
“Is America a Christian nation?” by Carl Pearlston 2001
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0040.html
“ Is America a Christian nation?” by Chuck Norris September 17, 2007
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57666
“Forsaken roots” by Mary Jones retrieved March 11, 2010
http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/forsakenroots.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)