Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Don't Ask A Thought-Provoking Question If You Don't Want A Thoughtful Answer
Last Saturday night, during the Miss USA pageant, Carrie Prejean, Miss California, was asked if more states should follow the lead of Vermont and Iowa and adopt same sex marriage. A serious, thoughtful question that demands a serious thoughtful answer. Miss Prejean gave her honest opinion and said marriage is between a man and a woman; a view shared by our current president, vice president, Secrectary of State, and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Her honesty likely cost her the Miss USA crown.
Regardless of your position on this hot-button issue, you have to respect this young woman for giving an honest answer instead of dancing around the question. Perez Hilton, the openly gay celebrity blogger/judge who asked the question was offended by the answer. Since the pageant aired, he has not missed an opportunity to slam Ms Prejean for her answer. Mr Hilton would do well to remember that name calling is neither a persuavive arguement nor an effective tool to advance your agenda.
The Ancient Greeks did not require a specific civil ceremony, a man and woman mutally decided to regard themselves as husband and wife. Likewise, the Romans had neither marriage ceremony nor a decree of divorce, all that was required was mutual agreement. There was no state involvement in marriage in Protestant Europe until the 1600's. The Council of Trent in 1545 decreed a Catholic marriage must be performed by a priest and two witnesses. The Council also issued a 1566 Catechism which defined marriage as a conjugal union between a man and a woman. John Calvin and his Protestant colleagues enacted the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva which said that marriage must be registered by the state and consecrated by the church in order to be valid. These are consistent with the biblical teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
This issue is bigger than a beauty pageant contestant and a celebrity blogger and deserves more thoughtful debate, consideration, and respect from all involved.
Regardless of your position on this hot-button issue, you have to respect this young woman for giving an honest answer instead of dancing around the question. Perez Hilton, the openly gay celebrity blogger/judge who asked the question was offended by the answer. Since the pageant aired, he has not missed an opportunity to slam Ms Prejean for her answer. Mr Hilton would do well to remember that name calling is neither a persuavive arguement nor an effective tool to advance your agenda.
The Ancient Greeks did not require a specific civil ceremony, a man and woman mutally decided to regard themselves as husband and wife. Likewise, the Romans had neither marriage ceremony nor a decree of divorce, all that was required was mutual agreement. There was no state involvement in marriage in Protestant Europe until the 1600's. The Council of Trent in 1545 decreed a Catholic marriage must be performed by a priest and two witnesses. The Council also issued a 1566 Catechism which defined marriage as a conjugal union between a man and a woman. John Calvin and his Protestant colleagues enacted the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva which said that marriage must be registered by the state and consecrated by the church in order to be valid. These are consistent with the biblical teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
This issue is bigger than a beauty pageant contestant and a celebrity blogger and deserves more thoughtful debate, consideration, and respect from all involved.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Taxes, Irony, Patriotism, & Secession
During the campaign, President Obama was vilified for his insufficient (for some) love of America and Mrs. Obama was blasted for saying the 2008 was the first time she could remember being really proud of her country. This past week, Texas Gov. Rick Perry suggested that Texas could one day get fed up and secede from the US as a crowd of supporters at a Tax Day Tea Party chanted "Secede" while waving American flags. That my friends, is the definition of irony - a bunch of people whose taxes have been lowered claiming to be taxed too much chanting "Secede" while waving an American flag.
The patriotism of anyone willing to endure the hardships of a modern presidential election is beyond question. Advocating secession is grounds for questioning one's patriotism.
As an aside, Texas gets back approximately $.80 cents of every tax dollar they send to Washington. Alaska, home to a secessionist movement itself, gets $1.84 cents of every dollar they send to Washington. Those are what I would call welfare states. With investment returns like that, why secede?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Government Is Not A Business
It has been said that government should be run like a business. Businesses cut back in lean times to stay open, so why shouldn't government cut taxes in lean times? This makes sense on the surface, but this ignores fundamental differences in the very nature of business and government.
A business provides a good or service in exchange for money and exists to turn a profit.
Government exists to protect its citizens, provide for the common defense, regulate commerce, and provide for those who cannot help themselves.
A business is allowed to market itself and to an extent, can pick and choose its customers by dint of their location and the price they charge for their goods and services. A business is also susceptible to competition from other businesses and the invisible hand of the market. A good business will survive and a bad business will fail. A business cannot operate at a loss for very long – it will cease to exist if there is no infusion of capital to make it solvent.
Government cannot pick and choose its customers; it must serve all its citizens without passion or prejudice. Government provides services such as roads, schools, police, fire, and military protection that the private sector simply cannot or will not provide. Government is tasked with regulating commerce so that the general public will be protected from unscrupulous businesses. Government also insures a peaceful society through a fair and impartial criminal justice system. Government can engage in deficit spending through the sale of bonds. Granted, this is not an ideal situation but is sometimes necessary in order for government to continue governing.
A business can raise money by increasing their prices and in lean times, cut costs in order to stay in business. Government raises money through taxation in order to provide services to its citizens. Cutting taxes means reducing services – services like national defense, police and fire protection, education, homeland security, environmental regulation, criminal justice, and so forth. Which of the aforementioned services is a luxury in today’s economy?
A business provides a good or service in exchange for money and exists to turn a profit.
Government exists to protect its citizens, provide for the common defense, regulate commerce, and provide for those who cannot help themselves.
A business is allowed to market itself and to an extent, can pick and choose its customers by dint of their location and the price they charge for their goods and services. A business is also susceptible to competition from other businesses and the invisible hand of the market. A good business will survive and a bad business will fail. A business cannot operate at a loss for very long – it will cease to exist if there is no infusion of capital to make it solvent.
Government cannot pick and choose its customers; it must serve all its citizens without passion or prejudice. Government provides services such as roads, schools, police, fire, and military protection that the private sector simply cannot or will not provide. Government is tasked with regulating commerce so that the general public will be protected from unscrupulous businesses. Government also insures a peaceful society through a fair and impartial criminal justice system. Government can engage in deficit spending through the sale of bonds. Granted, this is not an ideal situation but is sometimes necessary in order for government to continue governing.
A business can raise money by increasing their prices and in lean times, cut costs in order to stay in business. Government raises money through taxation in order to provide services to its citizens. Cutting taxes means reducing services – services like national defense, police and fire protection, education, homeland security, environmental regulation, criminal justice, and so forth. Which of the aforementioned services is a luxury in today’s economy?
The corporation as a psychopath
Would you be friends with a person who behaves in an antisocial manner and only acts in his own self interest with no regard for the consequences of his actions and without considering the adverse effect of his antisocial behavior on other people?
What do you call a person who has gets satisfaction through antisocial behavior and has no remorse for his actions?
What would you do with a person who deliberately breaks the law and rationalizes it by saying it’s cheaper to break the law rather than comply with it?
Would you let a friend eat your food, trash your home, and pollute the air in your home despite your pleas to the contrary?
A person who behaves in an antisocial manner and only acts in his own self interest with no regard for the consequences of his actions and without considering the adverse effect of his antisocial behavior on other people is by definition a psychopath. That's not someone you would want as a friend. Yet there is legal precedent for allowing corporations to behave in such a manner.
A person who deliberately breaks the law and rationalizes it by saying it's cheaper to break the law rather than comply with it would be in serious jeopardy of losing his freedom. Corporations do this very thing and receive little more than a slap on the wrist. Corporations use a cost/benefit analysis to decide whether to obey environmental and safety regulations or risk being caught and being punished. If it costs too much to comply with regulations, they simply don't comply because they are beholden to their shareholders and not the government. The only directive a corporation has is to make money for its shareholders. This is why corporations can get away with polluting the air and contaminating our waters - they claim it costs too much to comply with the regulations. A person acting in this manner would be jailed, however, corporations are rarely held accountable for this same behavior.
Since it's highly unlikely that corporations will be legislated out of existence, they are considered persons under the law, we need to hit them where it hurts - their wallet. Increased the penalties for noncompliance so that non-compliance is more expensive than compliance then there will be a corresponding change in corporate behavior. Corporations will care about the environment when it benefits their bottom line.
What do you call a person who has gets satisfaction through antisocial behavior and has no remorse for his actions?
What would you do with a person who deliberately breaks the law and rationalizes it by saying it’s cheaper to break the law rather than comply with it?
Would you let a friend eat your food, trash your home, and pollute the air in your home despite your pleas to the contrary?
A person who behaves in an antisocial manner and only acts in his own self interest with no regard for the consequences of his actions and without considering the adverse effect of his antisocial behavior on other people is by definition a psychopath. That's not someone you would want as a friend. Yet there is legal precedent for allowing corporations to behave in such a manner.
A person who deliberately breaks the law and rationalizes it by saying it's cheaper to break the law rather than comply with it would be in serious jeopardy of losing his freedom. Corporations do this very thing and receive little more than a slap on the wrist. Corporations use a cost/benefit analysis to decide whether to obey environmental and safety regulations or risk being caught and being punished. If it costs too much to comply with regulations, they simply don't comply because they are beholden to their shareholders and not the government. The only directive a corporation has is to make money for its shareholders. This is why corporations can get away with polluting the air and contaminating our waters - they claim it costs too much to comply with the regulations. A person acting in this manner would be jailed, however, corporations are rarely held accountable for this same behavior.
Since it's highly unlikely that corporations will be legislated out of existence, they are considered persons under the law, we need to hit them where it hurts - their wallet. Increased the penalties for noncompliance so that non-compliance is more expensive than compliance then there will be a corresponding change in corporate behavior. Corporations will care about the environment when it benefits their bottom line.
Tax Day
It's been said that freedom isn't free - that's something almost all of us can agree on. Our freedom came at great cost. The cost being the lives of brave men and women who fought and died so that we might live in a free country.
Living in a civilized society isn't free either, that price must be paid in taxes. Without taxes, we wouldn't have roads, schools, utilities, water and sewer service, police protection, fire protection, military protection, higher education, federal insurance of bank deposits, and other government services like driver's licences and social security. Today is April 15, also known as tax day - no one likes paying taxes, however, what kind of country would we have if we didn't have taxes? How would we pay for roads and schools? Who would protect us from crime? Would we have bucket brigades to fight fires? Who would defend the country?
I recently came across a statement in a book I'm reading that said no one is a self made man, he is building on the work of others. Donald Trump didn't start from scratch, he built up the company his father started. Yahoo and Google didn't invent the internet, scientists in the 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's laid the foundation of today's internet. How were thoses scientists funded? Taxes. Everyone has an obligation to give back to help future generations, taxes are a means to achieve that end. If we didn't have taxes, we wouldn't have government. Without government, we would descend into anarchy, chaos, and lawlessness. As mauch as I dislike taxes, I dislike anarchy, chaos, and lawlessness more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
