(Link to original talk http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-947-7,00.html )
Hope, what a great topic for Pres. Uchtdorf to choose, and how applicable for our day. I appreciate that he has ensured that the Saints understand the true meaning of this oft repeated word. Throughout history Satan and his servants have attempted to distort and change definitions of the words and language that we use, that have historically had very specific meanings, and are usually words with spiritual significance, and some, if it weren’t for the restoration of the gospel, and additional scripture would have lost its original meaning.
Pres. Uchtdorf said “Hope is one of a three-legged stool, together with faith and charity. These three stabilize our lives regardless of the rough or uneven surfaces we might encounter at the time. The scriptures are clear and certain about the importance of hope. The Apostle Paul taught that the scriptures were written to the end that we might have hope.”
Some of the past, as well as a couple of more recent examples of attacks on the language that followers of Christ use, are the words already mentioned, faith, charity, along with more modern examples of marriage, agency, and freedom. Hope, most recently has been used as a political slogan, defined, by the context in which it was used, as the expectation that if we elect a particular individual to a certain office all of our personal wants and needs will be met. Is this what hope is?
From the first recorded conversations of the council in heaven Satan tried to redefine words. He said “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will dredeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely eI will do it; wherefore fgive me thine honor”… Redeem has a very specific meaning, referring to paying a price, or exchanging something in ransom. As Christ redeemed us with his blood. But you can see from the context of the way he uses the word, he did not intend to pay any price for the redemption of mankind, but to rule as supreme dictator. Maybe if he was the ruler of the world enforcing his will on the people of earth he would force everyone to wear their seatbelts in their cars, or tell you, you are not allowed to buy milk from your neighbor who owns a cow(ask sister Lennigton about that)
What was the war in heaven all about? It was the struggle between light/dark, good/evil, agency/force, freedom/security. This war has moved from the battlefield in heaven, where a third of Gods children sought force over agency here to earth where this same war is in full force. I’m sure many that were lost in that first battle, thought “is it not Just and right that everybody be saved, and everybody have the same reward?” It is a mentality that is asserting itself more and more strongly in our day. Our political leaders say, “here am I, send me, I will make sure that all mankind has a job, and a roof over your head, and food to eat, just give me the power to do it, and the glory, and honor”. Are we on the side of freedom and agency, or are we on the side of force and security?
From Cain’s, attempt to get favor through force, all the way down to the most recent attempts by modern day tyrants to keep us from squirting off our sidewalk or taking from individuals by force the fruits of their labor to give to those, of their choosing, who they see as entitled to that fruit.
Why do so many people feel hopeless despite the fulfillment of “our” part, of the electing the right person to office? It is because we have been told that hope is something that it is not. Elder Uchtdorf says “Hope is a gift of the Spirit….that it transcends the trivial and centers on the Hope of Israel, the great hope of mankind, even our Redeemer, Jesus Christ. Hope is not knowledge, but rather the abiding trust that the Lord will fulfill His promise to us….this hope is sure, unwavering, and active…With hope comes joy and happiness. With hope, we can “have patience, and bear our afflictions.” God never said to the Israelites “Have hope in Moses”, or to the early latter-day saints “have hope in Joseph”, and he certainly never said “have hope in an elected government official.”
Why is the faith of many people in our day waning? I believe that in part it is because of the hijacking of the language once again. I would venture to say, that from my own experience out in world that most people don’t understand the meaning of faith, and there are very few that actually take the time to study the true meaning of faith. The world teaches that all beliefs are valid. There is not one absolute truth, and that if we have enough “faith”, and close our eyes really tight, and believe enough, whatever we are praying for will come true. By allowing this belief to go unchallenged, we are allowing the world to equate faith with wishing on a star, or tossing a penny into a well, or blowing out birthday candles.
In the lectures on faith, Joseph taught “faith is the assurance which men have of the existence of things which they have not seen, and the principle of action in all intelligent beings”. Faith has to be rooted in truth and leads to action on our part, it is not based on the whim of man.
We are taught, in the world that Charity is an action, a specific action of writing a check to a non-profit organization, and getting a tax deduction for contributing. Whether it is contributing to save an “endangered snail darter” or to save humans from a deadly disease, it is all seen as charity to the world. Some people would go so far as to say that the government is involved in charity through the social programs it has put in place. But as latter-day saints we know better than to believe this. We know that charity is the pure love of Christ, and is something that has to be possessed by each individual. If we have charity we will love all of our brothers and sisters and seek for their well being freely. There is no compulsion that can force charity into the hearts of people. The bishop, or the prophet cant force us to have charity, how is it possible to believe that the government can force charity into our hearts, and if the government replaces all truly charitable acts with a welfare program, where does it leave each of us in our quest for the pure love of Christ? This is not to say that charity can only be expressed in money, food, and houses, for these are the things the scriptures speak of as having the moth and rust corrupt, but there are opportunities that are being lost every day to become better, more giving people by having the government replace family, neighbors, friends, and church as the place someone turns to in times of need.
In one of the most recent and contentious battles for language, the world has gone so far as to seek to change the definition of a word through the force of government. From the beginning of time we know that God married Adam and Eve. From that time to the present, in all civilizations, marriage has always been used to describe a committed relationship between a man and a woman, and we are being asked now to change the definition. Thanks to the inspired and strong leadership of the church we have won a small battle.
Our battle for the language is a part of a larger war, a war for our freedom and agency. Every day there is an assault on our individual liberties, an assault that was begun by Satan when the plan of salvation was presented to us in the council of heaven, and continues through this day. President Benson said
“The War that began in heaven is not yet over. The conflict continues on
the battlefield of mortality. And one of Lucifer's primary strategies
has been to restrict our agency through the power of earthly
governments. . . .
. . . We must appreciate that we live in one of history's most
exceptional moments-in a nation and a time of unprecedented freedom.
He also said:
The coming forth of the Constitution is of such transcendent importance
in the Lord's plan that ancient prophets foresaw this event and
prophesied of it. In the dedicatory prayer for the Idaho Falls Temple,
President George Albert Smith indicated that the Constitution fulfilled
the ancient prophecy of Isaiah that "out of Zion shall go forth the law"
Which side of this war are we fighting on? Do we side with God and Christ for greater freedom and agency, or do we side with greater restrictions and force?
I would like to conclude with this quote from Pres. Uchtdorf:
“Hope sustains us through despair. Hope teaches that there is reason to rejoice even when all seems dark around us.
With Jeremiah I proclaim, “Blessed is the man…whose hope the Lord is”
With Joel I testify, “The Lord is the hope of his people, and the strength of the childdren of Israel”
With Nephi I declare: “Press forward with steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.”
This is the quality of hope we must cherish and develop. Such a mature hope comes in and through our Savior Jesus Christ, for “every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as the Savior is pure.”
And to all who suffer--to all who feel discouraged, worried, or lonely--I say with love and deep concern for you, NEVER GIVE IN
NEVER SURRENDER.
NEVER ALLOW DESPAIR TO OVERCOME YOUR SPIRIT.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Contrasting view of innovation by producers vs. moochers/looters
If one of the big three auto companies developed a system or machine that would allow them to produce the same number of cars with half the cost, and half the labor required to build a car, and in less time; what would be the reaction?
Depending on your reaction one could probably tell whether you are a producer in society or a moocher/looter feeding off of society. Is your reaction to lament the loss of jobs created by this new technology or to praise the innovation, and see the possibilities of additional growth.
Below is a paragraph from the book Atlas Shrugged that illustrates a producers reaction to innovation. Dagny Taggart, one of the books main heroes, is viewing a motor that was invented that would revolutionize energy production. Observe her reaction, and see how it compares to your reaction to the example above.
"She thought of this structure, half the size of a boxcar, replacing the power plants of the country, the enormous conglomerations of structure, lifting ounces, pounds, tons of strain from the shoulders of those who would make it or use it, adding hours, days and years of liberated time to their lives, be it an extra moment to lift one's head from on task and glance at the sunlight, or an extra pack of cigarettes bought with the money saved from one's electric bill, or an hour cut from the work-day of every factory using power, or a month's journey through the whole, open width of the world, on a ticket paid for by one day of one's labor, on a train pulled by the power of this motor--with all the energy of that weight, that strain, that time replaced and paid for by the energy of a single mind who had known how to make connections of wire follow the connections of his thought. But she knew that there was no meaning in motors or factories or trains, that their only meaning was in man's enjoyment of his life, which they served--and that her swelling admiration at the sight of an achievement was for the man from whom it came, for the power and the radiant vision within him which had seen the earth as a place of enjoyment and had known that the work of achieving one's happiness was the purpose, the sanction and the meaning of life."
Depending on your reaction one could probably tell whether you are a producer in society or a moocher/looter feeding off of society. Is your reaction to lament the loss of jobs created by this new technology or to praise the innovation, and see the possibilities of additional growth.
Below is a paragraph from the book Atlas Shrugged that illustrates a producers reaction to innovation. Dagny Taggart, one of the books main heroes, is viewing a motor that was invented that would revolutionize energy production. Observe her reaction, and see how it compares to your reaction to the example above.
"She thought of this structure, half the size of a boxcar, replacing the power plants of the country, the enormous conglomerations of structure, lifting ounces, pounds, tons of strain from the shoulders of those who would make it or use it, adding hours, days and years of liberated time to their lives, be it an extra moment to lift one's head from on task and glance at the sunlight, or an extra pack of cigarettes bought with the money saved from one's electric bill, or an hour cut from the work-day of every factory using power, or a month's journey through the whole, open width of the world, on a ticket paid for by one day of one's labor, on a train pulled by the power of this motor--with all the energy of that weight, that strain, that time replaced and paid for by the energy of a single mind who had known how to make connections of wire follow the connections of his thought. But she knew that there was no meaning in motors or factories or trains, that their only meaning was in man's enjoyment of his life, which they served--and that her swelling admiration at the sight of an achievement was for the man from whom it came, for the power and the radiant vision within him which had seen the earth as a place of enjoyment and had known that the work of achieving one's happiness was the purpose, the sanction and the meaning of life."
Sunday, May 3, 2009
I am the face of the new Republican Party!
For too long the group of republicans that have lead the party for the last 100 years, with very few exceptions have played the same game the democrats have been playing, which is to buy votes and popularity with entitlement programs, while those of us who believe in the Constitution, and the principles the founders framed in the Constitution, are left with the choice of the lesser of two evils. This last presidential election is a perfect example of the non-choice that the American people truly have, when it comes to party choice. If you put the candidates platforms side by side there is almost no difference between the two other than degrees. We are even being told now by many republicans on the national stage that the reason we are losing is because we have become too "conservative", as if any time in the last 20 years we have had a principled leader of our party who stood on principle.
-We are told that we should take a softer line on gay marriage, as if it has not been struck down by the popular vote of one of the most liberal states in the union, and that is what is causing our downfall as a party.
-We are told we should take a softer stand on illegal immigration, where we should give all people who are here, breaking our law, a path to citizenship, regardless of their ability to create value for our country by being here.
-We are told by many in our party "the government has to do something" with what is going on with our economy, as if by the government removing wealth from the most productive citizens and businesses of the country and reallocating that money to the least productive citizens and businesses of the country is going to improve our economic situation.
-We are told we should "go green" and invest in green technology, which in many cases we are doing it, if nothing else, for the show of it. As if there has ever been a major technological break through in any industry supported by the government.
-We are told to be outraged, not at government, but at wall street, and the executives of all major corporations, especially those evil bankers, as if it wasn't the federal mandates that forced the banks to give a certain number of sub prime loans to low income families.
-We are told if we would be just a little bit more like the democrats we will start winning again, as if we are ever going to win the "bribe war" by offering less than the democrats in entitlements.
I am not going to take it any more, I am personally reclaiming the republican party from the posers who have claimed the face of the party since the beginning of the 1900's. Just today in the Washington Times there was an article about an event where some leaders of the republican party spoke, and former republican governor of Florida, Jeb Bush went so far as to say the party should"give up its "nostalgia" for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in the 2008 election" ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/03/gop-listens-in-drive-to-thrive/ ). Reagan didn't win in landslide victories by promising additional entitlements, or compromising principles, he won by promising to get the government the hell out of the way of the private citizens of this country, and taking us back to a country that would follow the principles articulated by our founders. He didn't promise to make more cabinet positions, departments or "Czars" but to eliminate all departments that fall outside the bounds of the Constitution.
I am beginning the new revolution within the republican party, I will stand on principle, and ask all those who believe the principles that the founders of our great country espoused, and articulated in our Constitution, to join me in fighting those who would rule over us as tyrants and who expect our consent because they are filling our pockets and bellies by the sweat of others brow. Stand up and be heard, there is a ground swell approaching, and we saw a glimmer of it on tax day this year when hundreds of thousands gathered to let all who would listen know that though we love our great and peaceful country, we love freedom and liberty more, for these are the principles that this country was founded on and any who seek to take this from us will not be tolerated.
Join me in overthrowing the republican establishment, lets take back the party of principle, and by so doing get the country back on the path the founders intended and may God prosper us.
-We are told that we should take a softer line on gay marriage, as if it has not been struck down by the popular vote of one of the most liberal states in the union, and that is what is causing our downfall as a party.
-We are told we should take a softer stand on illegal immigration, where we should give all people who are here, breaking our law, a path to citizenship, regardless of their ability to create value for our country by being here.
-We are told by many in our party "the government has to do something" with what is going on with our economy, as if by the government removing wealth from the most productive citizens and businesses of the country and reallocating that money to the least productive citizens and businesses of the country is going to improve our economic situation.
-We are told we should "go green" and invest in green technology, which in many cases we are doing it, if nothing else, for the show of it. As if there has ever been a major technological break through in any industry supported by the government.
-We are told to be outraged, not at government, but at wall street, and the executives of all major corporations, especially those evil bankers, as if it wasn't the federal mandates that forced the banks to give a certain number of sub prime loans to low income families.
-We are told if we would be just a little bit more like the democrats we will start winning again, as if we are ever going to win the "bribe war" by offering less than the democrats in entitlements.
I am not going to take it any more, I am personally reclaiming the republican party from the posers who have claimed the face of the party since the beginning of the 1900's. Just today in the Washington Times there was an article about an event where some leaders of the republican party spoke, and former republican governor of Florida, Jeb Bush went so far as to say the party should"give up its "nostalgia" for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in the 2008 election" ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/03/gop-listens-in-drive-to-thrive/ ). Reagan didn't win in landslide victories by promising additional entitlements, or compromising principles, he won by promising to get the government the hell out of the way of the private citizens of this country, and taking us back to a country that would follow the principles articulated by our founders. He didn't promise to make more cabinet positions, departments or "Czars" but to eliminate all departments that fall outside the bounds of the Constitution.
I am beginning the new revolution within the republican party, I will stand on principle, and ask all those who believe the principles that the founders of our great country espoused, and articulated in our Constitution, to join me in fighting those who would rule over us as tyrants and who expect our consent because they are filling our pockets and bellies by the sweat of others brow. Stand up and be heard, there is a ground swell approaching, and we saw a glimmer of it on tax day this year when hundreds of thousands gathered to let all who would listen know that though we love our great and peaceful country, we love freedom and liberty more, for these are the principles that this country was founded on and any who seek to take this from us will not be tolerated.
Join me in overthrowing the republican establishment, lets take back the party of principle, and by so doing get the country back on the path the founders intended and may God prosper us.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
It's Not About the Money(totally at least).
In the next few weeks, members of the CWA, which is the call workers union, will possibly go on strike. If the union goes on strike I will be crossing the picket line to go to work, the derogatory term is SCAB. As mentioned in previous posts I did not join the union, and I have, as people have asked at work why this is, explained to them my general position on unions. I am writing this post because the most common reaction that I have been getting, as I have told people that I will be crossing the picket line, is that I am doing it for the money. Though I unapolagetically admit that if I participated in a strike lasting more than about a week we would, as a family, possibly be in trouble financially. If it was only about the money, with no other reason behind my decision, I would take the week off and enjoy the free time with my family. So let me explain the reasons behind my decision to be a SCAB.
In the struggle between liberty and freedom versus tyranny and force I have made a personal decision to always side with liberty and freedom. I believe that this is an eternal struggle that began at the foundations of this earth. This struggle pervades our liturature throughout history, all of the great authors have written about it. As I have studied, read and learned more about this struggle I have realized how ignorant I have been for a long time. I have begun to see this struggle all around me, and I am amazed and anxious at how few people are currently siding with freedom and liberty.
To understand how this applies to my current situation with the CWA, let me have a short discussion about rights. What is a right? I am not talking about the concept that popular culture throws around that is synonimous with entitlement, and means that if I need it to survive I have a right to it. I am talking about natural rights, rights that naturally flow to us, some say from God. These existed before government, and exist even if government attempts to legislate them away, which has occured right here in the US with ever increasing frequency, explicitly in opposition to the Constitution of the US. The natural right is only afforded to an individual and boils down to an individual should be free from force. There is no such thing as a natural group right. This is what is so pernicious about the class warfare that was brought to our shores here in the US, where previously the individual was considered supreme, and was protected by the Constitution and the rule of law, now in its place we have the group, a concept heavily propogated by the followers of Marx and Engels, and accepted more and more among the main stream of American society. We now have the bourgeoisie and the proletariate; we have been divided into upper, middle and lower class; we have been pitted against each other and told that the upper class is evil and would step on the throats of children to make more money. This is a ridiculous assertion, perpetuated by the upper class within the government to increase their own power and wealth, where, in the great majority of business owners, who are demonized every day by polititians and others who benefit personally from this propoganda(including union representation), are providing the means of living for groups of individuals ranging from a single employee to thousands(as is the case with AT&T), and not only providing a comfortable living for them, but paying for their health care, and saving for their retirement. On top of all of this great benefit that these business owners are providing to all of these people, look at the charitable contributions given by the "upper class"; if these evil business owners went away, which is what some seem to be advocating, all private charities, that do so much good in the world, would disapear. Not only would private charities disapear, but government, both federal and state would have a hard time meeting their constitutional responsibilities, let alone all the crap that they are trying to do these days.
The proper role of government is to protect the natural rights of the individual. Unions, and I am talking about all unions, not just the CWA have sought the force of government to compel business owners to sit down and have discussions with the union representatives. They have sought special status as a group, or in other words they are seeking rights that dont exist, and is contrary to freedom and liberty of the individual. They are seeking for the government to say they, as a group, because they have a bunch of people that want it, have more rights than the business owner. All workers of any company have the right to negociate for themselves, or to have somebody negotiate for them for their pay, benefits, etc. They are free to accept or reject the terms of their employment, they are free to show up to work or go on strike. Business owners(also individuals) also should have freedom to do the same with his employees, that is, negotiate directly with or have somebody negotiate with the employees he/she hires. They should be free to keep or fire an employee based on the pre conditioned agreement that was established upon hiring that employee, and if an employee or group of employees dont show up for a scheduled day of work they should be free to fire them if it breaks the original agreement.
Unions in my mind represent almost all that is wrong with the direction of our country at this time. They seek force where freedom should be protected, they seek special "rights" where none exist and equal protection should be the standard.
I AM A SCAB, not because of the money I would lose by not going on strike, but because I believe in something larger than myself, and is more important to me than the few associations I might lose because of ignorance. I am proud to stand on the side of freedom and liberty, and always will be.
In the struggle between liberty and freedom versus tyranny and force I have made a personal decision to always side with liberty and freedom. I believe that this is an eternal struggle that began at the foundations of this earth. This struggle pervades our liturature throughout history, all of the great authors have written about it. As I have studied, read and learned more about this struggle I have realized how ignorant I have been for a long time. I have begun to see this struggle all around me, and I am amazed and anxious at how few people are currently siding with freedom and liberty.
To understand how this applies to my current situation with the CWA, let me have a short discussion about rights. What is a right? I am not talking about the concept that popular culture throws around that is synonimous with entitlement, and means that if I need it to survive I have a right to it. I am talking about natural rights, rights that naturally flow to us, some say from God. These existed before government, and exist even if government attempts to legislate them away, which has occured right here in the US with ever increasing frequency, explicitly in opposition to the Constitution of the US. The natural right is only afforded to an individual and boils down to an individual should be free from force. There is no such thing as a natural group right. This is what is so pernicious about the class warfare that was brought to our shores here in the US, where previously the individual was considered supreme, and was protected by the Constitution and the rule of law, now in its place we have the group, a concept heavily propogated by the followers of Marx and Engels, and accepted more and more among the main stream of American society. We now have the bourgeoisie and the proletariate; we have been divided into upper, middle and lower class; we have been pitted against each other and told that the upper class is evil and would step on the throats of children to make more money. This is a ridiculous assertion, perpetuated by the upper class within the government to increase their own power and wealth, where, in the great majority of business owners, who are demonized every day by polititians and others who benefit personally from this propoganda(including union representation), are providing the means of living for groups of individuals ranging from a single employee to thousands(as is the case with AT&T), and not only providing a comfortable living for them, but paying for their health care, and saving for their retirement. On top of all of this great benefit that these business owners are providing to all of these people, look at the charitable contributions given by the "upper class"; if these evil business owners went away, which is what some seem to be advocating, all private charities, that do so much good in the world, would disapear. Not only would private charities disapear, but government, both federal and state would have a hard time meeting their constitutional responsibilities, let alone all the crap that they are trying to do these days.
The proper role of government is to protect the natural rights of the individual. Unions, and I am talking about all unions, not just the CWA have sought the force of government to compel business owners to sit down and have discussions with the union representatives. They have sought special status as a group, or in other words they are seeking rights that dont exist, and is contrary to freedom and liberty of the individual. They are seeking for the government to say they, as a group, because they have a bunch of people that want it, have more rights than the business owner. All workers of any company have the right to negociate for themselves, or to have somebody negotiate for them for their pay, benefits, etc. They are free to accept or reject the terms of their employment, they are free to show up to work or go on strike. Business owners(also individuals) also should have freedom to do the same with his employees, that is, negotiate directly with or have somebody negotiate with the employees he/she hires. They should be free to keep or fire an employee based on the pre conditioned agreement that was established upon hiring that employee, and if an employee or group of employees dont show up for a scheduled day of work they should be free to fire them if it breaks the original agreement.
Unions in my mind represent almost all that is wrong with the direction of our country at this time. They seek force where freedom should be protected, they seek special "rights" where none exist and equal protection should be the standard.
I AM A SCAB, not because of the money I would lose by not going on strike, but because I believe in something larger than myself, and is more important to me than the few associations I might lose because of ignorance. I am proud to stand on the side of freedom and liberty, and always will be.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Common Sense quotes for our day
So in addition to Atlas Shrugged I am also reading Common Sense by Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklins Auto-biography. As I was reading Common Sense today I ran in to several very powerful quotes from the book that like Atlas Shrugged apply extremely well to what is going on in our day. Please, feel free to comment, I entertain all view points.
This first one that I am posting is a great call for all men in our day- "O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her-Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind." Powerful words from an American Patriot.
This next one speaks to national debt and government spending. How did the founders view leaving government debt to our children?- "Debts we have none; and whatever we may contract on this account will serve as a glorious memento of our virtue. Can we but leave posterity with a settled form of government, an independent constitution of its own, the purchase at any price will be cheap. But to expend millions for the sake of getting a few vile acts repealed, and routing the present ministry only, is unworthy the charge, and is using posterity with the utmost cruelty; because it is leaving them the great work to do, and a debt upon their backs, from which they derive no advantage. Such a thought is unworthy a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a peddling politician."
When Paine talked about ensuring checks and balances on the different branches of government he said- "When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember, that virtue is not hereditary."
I love how bold Paine is in this next quote. He is speaking of the inclination of some to believe that rights emanate from government and are not natural/God given. He starts out quoting Sir John Dalrymple of England- "'it is very unfair in you to whithold them from that prince, by whose NOD ALONE they were permitted to do anything.' This is toryism with a witness! Here is idolatry even without a mask: And he who can calmly hear, and digest such doctrine, hath forfeited his claim to rationality- an apostate from the order of manhood; and ought to be considered- as one, who hath not only given up the proper dignity of man but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and contemptibly crawl throught the world like a worm."
I will continue to post applicable quotes from all of my reading and look forward to additional discussion here on the blog.
This first one that I am posting is a great call for all men in our day- "O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her-Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind." Powerful words from an American Patriot.
This next one speaks to national debt and government spending. How did the founders view leaving government debt to our children?- "Debts we have none; and whatever we may contract on this account will serve as a glorious memento of our virtue. Can we but leave posterity with a settled form of government, an independent constitution of its own, the purchase at any price will be cheap. But to expend millions for the sake of getting a few vile acts repealed, and routing the present ministry only, is unworthy the charge, and is using posterity with the utmost cruelty; because it is leaving them the great work to do, and a debt upon their backs, from which they derive no advantage. Such a thought is unworthy a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a peddling politician."
When Paine talked about ensuring checks and balances on the different branches of government he said- "When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember, that virtue is not hereditary."
I love how bold Paine is in this next quote. He is speaking of the inclination of some to believe that rights emanate from government and are not natural/God given. He starts out quoting Sir John Dalrymple of England- "'it is very unfair in you to whithold them from that prince, by whose NOD ALONE they were permitted to do anything.' This is toryism with a witness! Here is idolatry even without a mask: And he who can calmly hear, and digest such doctrine, hath forfeited his claim to rationality- an apostate from the order of manhood; and ought to be considered- as one, who hath not only given up the proper dignity of man but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and contemptibly crawl throught the world like a worm."
I will continue to post applicable quotes from all of my reading and look forward to additional discussion here on the blog.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Atlas Shrugged-Quotes for Our Day
I have recently started re-reading the great book Atlas Shrugged. Almost from the first pages I began to see parallels between the story, written as a fiction book in the 1950's by the author and philosopher Ayn Rand, and what is going on today here in the United States. The first time I read the book, a few years ago, I thought that the laws passed, and the way people acted in the book were exaggerated to illustrate the principles Ayn understood and tried to teach through her writings. To my surprise as I began reading the book this time, what I had thought were exaggerations I have witnessed occurring, and I have seen the characters come to life over the last several months in the form of politicians, bureaucrats, and media. In this article I am going to post some quotes from the book that I have found particularly applicable in our current situation. I invite all who read this to offer their thoughts.
This first one is the "Anti-dog-eat-dog Rule". If you replace the words railroad systems with banking or finance systems, or even auto company, it is like hearing an echo of what is currently going on in those industries, and our governments plan to subsidize failing companies with the money they loot from successful companies.
-"Then it was said that large, established railroad systems were essential to the public welfare; and that the collapse of one of them would be a national catastrophe; and that if one such system had happened to sustain a crushing loss in a public-spirited attempt to contribute to international good will, it was entitled to public support to help it survive the blow"
This next quote addresses all of these "victims" of bad investments. The people who lost their life savings in "investments" they didn't understand, and claim no personal responsibility in. This is part of the story when Dagny confronts Francisco about the "failed" copper mine that was just nationalized by the Mexican government that her brother(James) and others had lost a bunch of money in.(see in place of copper-mining, investment.
-"I don't find it amusing. Your brother James and his friends knew nothing about the copper-mining industry. They knew nothing about making money. They did not think it necessary to learn. They considered knowledge superfluous and judgment inessential."
This last one is a continuation of the argument mentioned above. See here in place of the conversation of the copper mine, the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae debacle and in place of roast of pork, a house for everybody that wants one. "The government of the People's State of Mexico has issued a proclamation," he said, "asking the people to be patient and put up with hardships just a little longer. It seems that the copper fortune of the San Sebastian Mines was part of the plans of the central planning council. It was to raise everybody's standard of living and provide a roast of pork every Sunday for every man, woman, child in the People's State of Mexico. Now the planners are asking their people not to blame the government, but to blame the depravity of the rich, because I turned out to be an irresponsible playboy, instead of the greedy capitalist I was expected to be.
I am only on page 122 so I am sure that I will find many more, and I will continue to update this list as I come to them. Please add your thoughts so we can have an exchange of ideas. All points of view are welcome.
This first one is the "Anti-dog-eat-dog Rule". If you replace the words railroad systems with banking or finance systems, or even auto company, it is like hearing an echo of what is currently going on in those industries, and our governments plan to subsidize failing companies with the money they loot from successful companies.
-"Then it was said that large, established railroad systems were essential to the public welfare; and that the collapse of one of them would be a national catastrophe; and that if one such system had happened to sustain a crushing loss in a public-spirited attempt to contribute to international good will, it was entitled to public support to help it survive the blow"
This next quote addresses all of these "victims" of bad investments. The people who lost their life savings in "investments" they didn't understand, and claim no personal responsibility in. This is part of the story when Dagny confronts Francisco about the "failed" copper mine that was just nationalized by the Mexican government that her brother(James) and others had lost a bunch of money in.(see in place of copper-mining, investment.
-"I don't find it amusing. Your brother James and his friends knew nothing about the copper-mining industry. They knew nothing about making money. They did not think it necessary to learn. They considered knowledge superfluous and judgment inessential."
This last one is a continuation of the argument mentioned above. See here in place of the conversation of the copper mine, the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae debacle and in place of roast of pork, a house for everybody that wants one. "The government of the People's State of Mexico has issued a proclamation," he said, "asking the people to be patient and put up with hardships just a little longer. It seems that the copper fortune of the San Sebastian Mines was part of the plans of the central planning council. It was to raise everybody's standard of living and provide a roast of pork every Sunday for every man, woman, child in the People's State of Mexico. Now the planners are asking their people not to blame the government, but to blame the depravity of the rich, because I turned out to be an irresponsible playboy, instead of the greedy capitalist I was expected to be.
I am only on page 122 so I am sure that I will find many more, and I will continue to update this list as I come to them. Please add your thoughts so we can have an exchange of ideas. All points of view are welcome.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Response to the CWA
In this post I will respond to some assertions that the CWA has made in a pamphlet they used for their "Lunchtime Lingo", which was supposed to be a discussion they had during their lunchtime about union issues. Here is a link to the original pamphlet http://files.cwa-union.org/district6/Lunchtimelingo22709.pdf .
Under the section "Collective Bargaining is a Public Good"
"-It strengthens our democracy. You can't have a democracy without strong, independent, democratic unions."
“It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
Alexander Hamilton June 21, 1788
First off, this country was never intended to be a pure democracy. On the other hand if you are talking about the more loose definition of democracy, as in our representative government that we currently have, the second part of this statement by the CWA is obviously false since this country prospered for almost 200 years without a strong union presence.
"-It raises everyone's wages, not just union members."
The immediate effect of a labor union forcing a certain wage on an employer is for the employer to downsize the positions that are not worth whatever that minimum wage is. All you have to do is look at what happened to the percentage of teenage employment as the government has implemented the minimum wage, and continued to raise it.
For a longer term effect lets take a look at industries that the unions have traditionally had a strong presence in.
Mining
Steel working
Textile
Auto
Teaching
In every instance the union has taken a thriving US industry and destroyed it. Though there is a temporary boost to the current workers' pay and benefits, it ultimately hurts more people than it helps.
"-It reduces wage inequality and demands that workers get a fair share of the profits."
This assertion is one of the most ridiculous statements I have encountered in a long time. No employee of any company is entitled to the profits of the company they work for. Each of us as individuals has a certain skill set we are able to trade to the company that we work for in exchange for an hourly wage or yearly salary. In every instance the individual willing to work for that wage, values that wage more than the time they are spending working for that company, and the company values the work that employee is doing more than the money they spend for that employee. It is a fair trade, I cannot think of a rational argument that someone could make that would show where an employee of a company is entitled to the profits of that company.
"-It promotes political participation by workers."
If by political participation they mean confiscating union dues straight out of paychecks, and donating them to the Democrat candidates on behalf of the union membership regardless of the approval of the members, I guess you are technically right there.
"-It promotes healthy and safe work environments."
It is a good thing they are on top of this, or else people would be losing limbs every day over there in the call center.
-On page four of the pamphlet
"The middle class is shrinking."
While this is true, the lower class is not where they are going. The lower class is actually shrinking along with the middle class, the class that is growing is the upper middle and upper class which I don't know anyone except a straight up Marxist that would believe this is a bad thing.
I thought I would address in this post some of the easiest points to refute. I welcome comment, and would love a discussion along these lines. Thanks.
Under the section "Collective Bargaining is a Public Good"
"-It strengthens our democracy. You can't have a democracy without strong, independent, democratic unions."
“It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
Alexander Hamilton June 21, 1788
First off, this country was never intended to be a pure democracy. On the other hand if you are talking about the more loose definition of democracy, as in our representative government that we currently have, the second part of this statement by the CWA is obviously false since this country prospered for almost 200 years without a strong union presence.
"-It raises everyone's wages, not just union members."
The immediate effect of a labor union forcing a certain wage on an employer is for the employer to downsize the positions that are not worth whatever that minimum wage is. All you have to do is look at what happened to the percentage of teenage employment as the government has implemented the minimum wage, and continued to raise it.
For a longer term effect lets take a look at industries that the unions have traditionally had a strong presence in.
Mining
Steel working
Textile
Auto
Teaching
In every instance the union has taken a thriving US industry and destroyed it. Though there is a temporary boost to the current workers' pay and benefits, it ultimately hurts more people than it helps.
"-It reduces wage inequality and demands that workers get a fair share of the profits."
This assertion is one of the most ridiculous statements I have encountered in a long time. No employee of any company is entitled to the profits of the company they work for. Each of us as individuals has a certain skill set we are able to trade to the company that we work for in exchange for an hourly wage or yearly salary. In every instance the individual willing to work for that wage, values that wage more than the time they are spending working for that company, and the company values the work that employee is doing more than the money they spend for that employee. It is a fair trade, I cannot think of a rational argument that someone could make that would show where an employee of a company is entitled to the profits of that company.
"-It promotes political participation by workers."
If by political participation they mean confiscating union dues straight out of paychecks, and donating them to the Democrat candidates on behalf of the union membership regardless of the approval of the members, I guess you are technically right there.
"-It promotes healthy and safe work environments."
It is a good thing they are on top of this, or else people would be losing limbs every day over there in the call center.
-On page four of the pamphlet
"The middle class is shrinking."
While this is true, the lower class is not where they are going. The lower class is actually shrinking along with the middle class, the class that is growing is the upper middle and upper class which I don't know anyone except a straight up Marxist that would believe this is a bad thing.
I thought I would address in this post some of the easiest points to refute. I welcome comment, and would love a discussion along these lines. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
