I have a new baby in the house, my third and very likely my last. He is six weeks old this week, still tiny and vulnerable, and still needing nourishment several times during the night. I was sitting up last night, having just fed him, and didn't want to try to put him back down just yet. I leaned back on the couch, lifted him to snuggle on my shoulder, and just spent a moment enjoying it.
Yes, mothers love their children because it's right and natural. For now, though, I'd like to lean on the word 'natural'. The simple act of child-bearing involves some of the strongest hormonal shifts known to the human race. The love that binds that mother and infant snuggling in the early morning is strongly driven by perfectly natural bonding hormones that work on their senses of sight, hearing, and especially scent.
Child-bearing isn't the only system that involves hormonal tweaking of social behavior, of course. Every now and then, two people meet and become very attracted to each other. Nowadays, we call this 'being in love'. Of course, the word 'love' as it has meant throughout the ages has very little to do with the hormonal cocktail driving this initial euphoria. Still, we treat it as though it is the 'strongest force in the universe', capable in many of our stories of breaking down every barrier and vanquishing every foe. We glorify it, put it on a pedestal. Increasingly, we are even using it as justification to break our most sacred contracts and important societal conventions. As long as they're "in love", why deny them anything they feel they need?
Those of you who read the title of this post are no doubt wondering where abortion comes into this. Now's your opportunity to find out. When debating pro-choicers, I often hear the unborn referred to as a 'parasite'. I have also heard the argument about whether it would be right to force a woman to, say, remain in a hospital bed to provide life support for some stranger for nine months, or even one day. The reason why pro-lifers stop and stare in dismay at people who provide these arguments is not because it is such a good and decent argument that they simply have no good counter. The reason is because we do not understand how pro-choicers can neglect the most important issue in abortion -- what the unborn actually is.
Now I'm not going to start on about whether a perfectly human life starts at conception or when you measure brain waves or when the lungs are formed... that's a perfectly good argument for a different post. I would like to address the part of the abortion debate that is rarely if ever brought up. The unborn is the woman's baby. The unborn is part of the woman in a very real and intricate way. Would pro-choicers argue for the inalienable right of a man to amputate his own perfectly healthy and properly-functioning arm? Of course not! We would be more likely to regard the man as if he was mentally ill for even wanting to do such a thing. But nature binds the unborn.. and post-birth infant.. to his mother as surely as if he was a natural, healthy, normally-functioning part of her body.
Remember, half of that unborn comes from something which has been part of that woman's body since before she was born. It is in the womb that the unborn baby girl develops in her ovaries every egg that she will ever have. Even if the father was a complete stranger, the baby is not.
Arguments that refer to the baby as a 'parasite' or a stranger with which the mother must provide life support completely neglect the identity of the unborn, a human being containing part of the mother within himself, forming a hormonal, natural bond with his mother that is every bit as real and valid as the act of 'falling in love' that we prize so highly.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Teen pregnancy: Many generations, no 'evolution'
Back in the 1950's and earlier, teen pregnancy was a problem just as it is today. Back then, however, we dealt with it in a horrible, barbaric manner... so say the feminists, at least. A pregnant teen was often shuttled off to a relative's house or a special house for pregnant teens, hidden away from Polite Society until her baby was born. Many times, that baby was either raised by her parents as her sister, or adopted out to another family. Shame was the order of the day. Her friends and schoolmates might suspect, but "ideally" should never have actually known for sure.
Now it's much better, or at least that's what impressionable teen girls are taught by those who are trying to inculcate them in the New Method and keep them from questioning it. Now, instead of being hidden away for months in a state of shame, they are taken away for only a few hours, maybe even less. It is still a hidden place, a place of shame, where advocates do all they can to assure that the procedure they undergo is done in the strictest secrecy. Even the girls' own parents often are not allowed to know about the abortions that the Planned Parenthood consultant or the school nurse will so gladly procure for them.
In the end, however, the mindset is the same, and the word of the day is shame. The 50's girl was taken to a hidden place to have her baby. The modern girl is taken to a hidden place to abort her baby. In both cases, they are given the message that their mistake is being 'fixed', in such a way that will not embarrass them in public. So what is the real difference? Not in cause, not in mindset... only the effect is changed. Before, at least a living person would have the chance to see the light of day and grow up to make all of her choices. Now, not only is that living person snuffed out, but her mother is held down and violated with sharp metal instruments tearing at her insides and, disturbingly often, causing physical as well as emotional damage that will haunt her for the rest of her life. Pro-abortion people, and, unwittingly, pro-choice people, call this Progress.
I would like to introduce another way of thinking about teen pregnancy.
When I was a young adult, I picked up a book that has fallen out of favor in modern day highschools. It is called The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Nowadays, it is generally barely mentioned, and only in derision. This book, in which an adulterous woman is sentenced to wear an embroidered red A on the chest of her clothing for the rest of her life, is condemned as a primitive Puritan shame-fest. It should be re-examined for what it actually is.
The young woman who bore the letter, Hester Prynne, was discovered in adultery when she became pregnant during a very long absence of her husband. She found a quiet, small house in which to live and raise her daughter. Over time, her scarlet A lost its initial horror as the people became accustomed to her. As she showed her skill with the needle, earning her keep, and showed herself to be a sober person committed to raising her child with dignity, the A further lost its sense of shame and horror. Living with her shame presented outwardly to society instead of hidden away, she beautified her life and became accepted within the community.
Meanwhile, she continued to staunchly refuse to reveal the name of her child's father. While her shame was open for everyone to see, his shame was hidden. Out of unexpressed guilt, he deteriorated, destroying himself by his silence while she built herself up by her deeds. Her good deeds, you see, in the face of her shame, rehabilitated her image by demonstrating her repentance. His good deeds only mocked him, giving him an image that he did not deserve, hurting him instead of easing his conscience. Finally, by the time he set out to break the bonds of hidden shame over his heart, it was too late... and the effort killed him.
When we hide away pregnant teens until their babies can be 'properly' killed so that 'nobody has to know', we are condemning them to the life of Hester's co-adulterer. When we used to hide away pregnant teens until their babies were born and spirited away, at least we were not adding murder to our efforts to hide their shame. We have not 'evolved', we have not progressed. We have regressed.
Someday we will face real progress, and create a society in which the shame of the pregnant teen is brought out into the open and faced clearly. Only then will we be able to build them up in the light instead of tearing them down in the dark.
Now it's much better, or at least that's what impressionable teen girls are taught by those who are trying to inculcate them in the New Method and keep them from questioning it. Now, instead of being hidden away for months in a state of shame, they are taken away for only a few hours, maybe even less. It is still a hidden place, a place of shame, where advocates do all they can to assure that the procedure they undergo is done in the strictest secrecy. Even the girls' own parents often are not allowed to know about the abortions that the Planned Parenthood consultant or the school nurse will so gladly procure for them.
In the end, however, the mindset is the same, and the word of the day is shame. The 50's girl was taken to a hidden place to have her baby. The modern girl is taken to a hidden place to abort her baby. In both cases, they are given the message that their mistake is being 'fixed', in such a way that will not embarrass them in public. So what is the real difference? Not in cause, not in mindset... only the effect is changed. Before, at least a living person would have the chance to see the light of day and grow up to make all of her choices. Now, not only is that living person snuffed out, but her mother is held down and violated with sharp metal instruments tearing at her insides and, disturbingly often, causing physical as well as emotional damage that will haunt her for the rest of her life. Pro-abortion people, and, unwittingly, pro-choice people, call this Progress.
I would like to introduce another way of thinking about teen pregnancy.
When I was a young adult, I picked up a book that has fallen out of favor in modern day highschools. It is called The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Nowadays, it is generally barely mentioned, and only in derision. This book, in which an adulterous woman is sentenced to wear an embroidered red A on the chest of her clothing for the rest of her life, is condemned as a primitive Puritan shame-fest. It should be re-examined for what it actually is.
The young woman who bore the letter, Hester Prynne, was discovered in adultery when she became pregnant during a very long absence of her husband. She found a quiet, small house in which to live and raise her daughter. Over time, her scarlet A lost its initial horror as the people became accustomed to her. As she showed her skill with the needle, earning her keep, and showed herself to be a sober person committed to raising her child with dignity, the A further lost its sense of shame and horror. Living with her shame presented outwardly to society instead of hidden away, she beautified her life and became accepted within the community.
Meanwhile, she continued to staunchly refuse to reveal the name of her child's father. While her shame was open for everyone to see, his shame was hidden. Out of unexpressed guilt, he deteriorated, destroying himself by his silence while she built herself up by her deeds. Her good deeds, you see, in the face of her shame, rehabilitated her image by demonstrating her repentance. His good deeds only mocked him, giving him an image that he did not deserve, hurting him instead of easing his conscience. Finally, by the time he set out to break the bonds of hidden shame over his heart, it was too late... and the effort killed him.
When we hide away pregnant teens until their babies can be 'properly' killed so that 'nobody has to know', we are condemning them to the life of Hester's co-adulterer. When we used to hide away pregnant teens until their babies were born and spirited away, at least we were not adding murder to our efforts to hide their shame. We have not 'evolved', we have not progressed. We have regressed.
Someday we will face real progress, and create a society in which the shame of the pregnant teen is brought out into the open and faced clearly. Only then will we be able to build them up in the light instead of tearing them down in the dark.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Women's Body-Altering Fashion
There was a time when women wore corsets so tightly that they actually had ribs surgically removed. They compressed their organs to the point where they did internal damage to themselves. That's because society desired for them to have smaller waists than a normal woman is naturally given.
There was a time when women practiced breast-binding. They put themselves at further risk of breast-related diseases and medical conditions. They did this because society desired them to have smaller breasts than a normal woman is naturally given. The same has been done in Asian countries with women's feet, for the same reason, with similar dangers and results.
There was a time when women were basically expected to wear four-inch high heels all over the place, to everything and everywhere. The heels pushed their leg muscles up to an unnatural extent, gave them the illusion of greater height, and eventually malformed both feet and legs... raising the risk for back injury, shortening important calf tendons, and causing permanent damage to the feet. Society desired them to have a differently shaped leg and butt than the average woman is given by nature.
More recently, I've heard of all sorts of incredible stuff that women end up doing to themselves for the sake of society's flouting of nature. Women have botox injections on their face. Increasingly, I'm hearing of women having botox injections in their butt to make it bigger and plumper. Then we have breast implants and all their associated dangers. There seems to be no end to the number of things that women treat as essential, things that have one purpose... to alter a woman's natural body in such a way as to make it more 'acceptable' to society.
Now Obama insists that hormonal contraception pills are a woman's right and so must be provided by her employer for free, even at the cost of violating the employer's and/or other employees' faith.
What is the hormonal contraception pill? To be fair, for some women, it is a needed medication. However, the majority of women taking it are/were normal, healthy women who found, yet again, that society needed them to be something different from what women naturally are. To support society's current penchant for rampant sexual promiscuity, women must render themselves artificially infertile. The pill comes with its dangers, including an increased risk of breast cancer and potentially fatal blood clots. Then again, women's attempts to alter themselves for the latest fashion have almost always resulted in painful consequences.
Obama and his group (I cannot in good conscience say 'all Democrats' as many Democrats oppose this latest move) are spinning this horrendous new directive as "women's health", and many of the discussions surrounding it have focused on pitting "women's health" or "sexual freedom" against "religious liberty". But I'd like to take a moment and put a new spin on it, asking those of you who read this post to answer this simple question:
When will society favor the real, natural woman in all of her real, natural glory?
There was a time when women practiced breast-binding. They put themselves at further risk of breast-related diseases and medical conditions. They did this because society desired them to have smaller breasts than a normal woman is naturally given. The same has been done in Asian countries with women's feet, for the same reason, with similar dangers and results.
There was a time when women were basically expected to wear four-inch high heels all over the place, to everything and everywhere. The heels pushed their leg muscles up to an unnatural extent, gave them the illusion of greater height, and eventually malformed both feet and legs... raising the risk for back injury, shortening important calf tendons, and causing permanent damage to the feet. Society desired them to have a differently shaped leg and butt than the average woman is given by nature.
More recently, I've heard of all sorts of incredible stuff that women end up doing to themselves for the sake of society's flouting of nature. Women have botox injections on their face. Increasingly, I'm hearing of women having botox injections in their butt to make it bigger and plumper. Then we have breast implants and all their associated dangers. There seems to be no end to the number of things that women treat as essential, things that have one purpose... to alter a woman's natural body in such a way as to make it more 'acceptable' to society.
Now Obama insists that hormonal contraception pills are a woman's right and so must be provided by her employer for free, even at the cost of violating the employer's and/or other employees' faith.
What is the hormonal contraception pill? To be fair, for some women, it is a needed medication. However, the majority of women taking it are/were normal, healthy women who found, yet again, that society needed them to be something different from what women naturally are. To support society's current penchant for rampant sexual promiscuity, women must render themselves artificially infertile. The pill comes with its dangers, including an increased risk of breast cancer and potentially fatal blood clots. Then again, women's attempts to alter themselves for the latest fashion have almost always resulted in painful consequences.
Obama and his group (I cannot in good conscience say 'all Democrats' as many Democrats oppose this latest move) are spinning this horrendous new directive as "women's health", and many of the discussions surrounding it have focused on pitting "women's health" or "sexual freedom" against "religious liberty". But I'd like to take a moment and put a new spin on it, asking those of you who read this post to answer this simple question:
When will society favor the real, natural woman in all of her real, natural glory?
Saturday, January 28, 2012
The Modern Gentleman
A couple of days ago, my son went to his usual mid-week social function, a huge age-separated club with hundreds of kids... about thirty or so in his age group. He enjoys his time, learning to play team sports, doing crafts, and meeting up with all his friends. (He's a popular kid.)
On his way to pick up his coat, he realized that he had short sleeves, so he started doing that arm thing that boys and men do, showing off his muscles. Or, rather, showing off what he thinks are his muscles, bless him. He's just turned nine years old. He hasn't had the necessary testosterone kick to really develop anything noticeable. Then, suddenly and quite unexpectedly to him, this girl about his size came up to him and started hitting him.
Oh it didn't hurt, or so he said. She didn't leave bruises. But the thing is, he's learned that he must never hit a girl. I've been trying to break his toddler sister of the habit of going after him. She'll pound on him when she's angry or frustrated at me. But he never hits back. Both Daddy and I taught him that way. That was fine with him, no big deal. But then he tried to move on and she blocked his path.
He didn't want to push her. She's a girl, and he's been taught to respect girls and not manhandle them. But manhandling her would be the only way to get where he needed to go. He needed to go... my sister was waiting for him, and my husband was waiting out in the car for both of them. He knew he was late, and he was frustrated. But he would not push her out of the way. He knew that the next step was to ask an adult for help, but she wouldn't let him get to one. He felt trapped and frustrated.
But still he did not strike back, and she tired of the game and wandered off. He hurried to grab his coat and meet up with his people, apologizing for being late for all the world as if it was his fault. The incident has clearly bothered him. He's mentioned it several times.
My husband and I were at a loss when we heard the story tumble out. We don't want to teach him to hit or shove girls. But I realized that, in disarming my son for the sake of protecting young ladies, we had left him vulnerable to girls who were not ladies at all. We finally let him know that, yes, you could push aside someone blocking your path, even a girl, as long as you did not shove hard... and you could do so for the purpose of dealing with someone who blocks your path and refuses to move. That's an interim solution... I don't know what a better one would be.
Oh Feminism! You teach girls to hit boys, and justify your behavior by claiming that men do not respect women as they should. But when we women, in our positions of power, teach our men to respect women, we leave them vulnerable to the ones who hit! What are we to do? We are patiently and carefully building up the men that feminists say that they want. We are fixing all the problems that feminism was made for... fixing them at the root. We are bringing up young men who will honor and respect you, who will love and cherish you, who will value your intelligence and your ability to work independently. Men who will treat you as an equal in the business world, who won't stare at your breasts when talking to you, who won't dismiss your words just because you're female.
But instead of helping us, you're working against us. My son is a gentle soul, a real person, with dreams and wishes and an inherent human dignity. Modern Feminism will not acknowledge that human dignity. They are all too happy to beat on him, to block his path, to advance their goals. They see him as someone to compete against, someone to fight. You and I know very well that a nine-year-old boy doesn't show his muscles because he expects a girl to start hitting him. Peacocks don't spread their plumage so that the peahens will start pecking and scratching them. He did not at any time consider her to be someone to fight, someone to punch, someone to risk hurting in a testosterone-fueled brawl.
And if you want your daughters to be able to find a man who will not abuse them, who will not hit them, who will treat them with dignity and respect...
...I'd appreciate it if you teach your daughters to not fly into attacks against people who have no interest in fighting them, people who are constrained by morality to not hurt girls. Because as much as I want my son to respect women, I love him too much to leave him open and vulnerable to those who will not respect him.
On his way to pick up his coat, he realized that he had short sleeves, so he started doing that arm thing that boys and men do, showing off his muscles. Or, rather, showing off what he thinks are his muscles, bless him. He's just turned nine years old. He hasn't had the necessary testosterone kick to really develop anything noticeable. Then, suddenly and quite unexpectedly to him, this girl about his size came up to him and started hitting him.
Oh it didn't hurt, or so he said. She didn't leave bruises. But the thing is, he's learned that he must never hit a girl. I've been trying to break his toddler sister of the habit of going after him. She'll pound on him when she's angry or frustrated at me. But he never hits back. Both Daddy and I taught him that way. That was fine with him, no big deal. But then he tried to move on and she blocked his path.
He didn't want to push her. She's a girl, and he's been taught to respect girls and not manhandle them. But manhandling her would be the only way to get where he needed to go. He needed to go... my sister was waiting for him, and my husband was waiting out in the car for both of them. He knew he was late, and he was frustrated. But he would not push her out of the way. He knew that the next step was to ask an adult for help, but she wouldn't let him get to one. He felt trapped and frustrated.
But still he did not strike back, and she tired of the game and wandered off. He hurried to grab his coat and meet up with his people, apologizing for being late for all the world as if it was his fault. The incident has clearly bothered him. He's mentioned it several times.
My husband and I were at a loss when we heard the story tumble out. We don't want to teach him to hit or shove girls. But I realized that, in disarming my son for the sake of protecting young ladies, we had left him vulnerable to girls who were not ladies at all. We finally let him know that, yes, you could push aside someone blocking your path, even a girl, as long as you did not shove hard... and you could do so for the purpose of dealing with someone who blocks your path and refuses to move. That's an interim solution... I don't know what a better one would be.
Oh Feminism! You teach girls to hit boys, and justify your behavior by claiming that men do not respect women as they should. But when we women, in our positions of power, teach our men to respect women, we leave them vulnerable to the ones who hit! What are we to do? We are patiently and carefully building up the men that feminists say that they want. We are fixing all the problems that feminism was made for... fixing them at the root. We are bringing up young men who will honor and respect you, who will love and cherish you, who will value your intelligence and your ability to work independently. Men who will treat you as an equal in the business world, who won't stare at your breasts when talking to you, who won't dismiss your words just because you're female.
But instead of helping us, you're working against us. My son is a gentle soul, a real person, with dreams and wishes and an inherent human dignity. Modern Feminism will not acknowledge that human dignity. They are all too happy to beat on him, to block his path, to advance their goals. They see him as someone to compete against, someone to fight. You and I know very well that a nine-year-old boy doesn't show his muscles because he expects a girl to start hitting him. Peacocks don't spread their plumage so that the peahens will start pecking and scratching them. He did not at any time consider her to be someone to fight, someone to punch, someone to risk hurting in a testosterone-fueled brawl.
And if you want your daughters to be able to find a man who will not abuse them, who will not hit them, who will treat them with dignity and respect...
...I'd appreciate it if you teach your daughters to not fly into attacks against people who have no interest in fighting them, people who are constrained by morality to not hurt girls. Because as much as I want my son to respect women, I love him too much to leave him open and vulnerable to those who will not respect him.
Monday, December 19, 2011
The scientific argument for monogamy
I've heard this one before. Have you? "Humans might be naturally promiscuous," they say. Then they bolster their opinion with, "After all, our closest ancestors are apes and monkeys, and they're promiscuous." Now what do you say in response to that? You know that men are not apes, and that we aren't supposed to act just like them. The argument against their talking point has generally taken that tack (apes also engage in rape and infanticide, and we wouldn't want to make that part of society, would we?) or simply the emotional/spiritual form (we have the ability to act beyond our instincts, it separates us from the animals, etc.), which is hard to explain to someone who doesn't think we're anything special.
So in interests of advancing a new argument to bring into the mainstream, I would like to introduce you to the Prairie Vole.
The prairie vole is a curiosity among voles because of it's monogamous behavior. It has, in fact, *very* monogamous behavior. It forms a life-long mating bond. The mated couple live together, groom each other, engage in various animal forms of affection (rather than only showing interest during mating time), and the male even helps the female nurture and raise the children. Promiscuity is very rare, mostly because the mated vole comes to dislike the very scent of other voles of the opposite sex.
Why should we care about the prairie vole? After all, doesn't the whole "we are promiscuous because apes are promiscuous" argument hedge on our similarity to apes? Well, that's the interesting thing. We share DNA with the prairie vole. Specifically, our sexual-behavior DNA is an identical strand. It has the same information, and it repeats the same number of times. Does it make a difference? Yes. When that DNA strand was fitted into a sample group of the ardently promiscuous meadow vole, they turned just as monogamous as the prairie vole.
Curious, I did a search on "prairie vole" and "homosexual". The best I could come up with was a study that showed that prairie voles formed temporary same-sex relationships under certain conditions. However, though the relationships involved shared sleeping space and some grooming, they did not mention anything about actual *sexual* behavior.
So in interests of advancing a new argument to bring into the mainstream, I would like to introduce you to the Prairie Vole.
The prairie vole is a curiosity among voles because of it's monogamous behavior. It has, in fact, *very* monogamous behavior. It forms a life-long mating bond. The mated couple live together, groom each other, engage in various animal forms of affection (rather than only showing interest during mating time), and the male even helps the female nurture and raise the children. Promiscuity is very rare, mostly because the mated vole comes to dislike the very scent of other voles of the opposite sex.
Why should we care about the prairie vole? After all, doesn't the whole "we are promiscuous because apes are promiscuous" argument hedge on our similarity to apes? Well, that's the interesting thing. We share DNA with the prairie vole. Specifically, our sexual-behavior DNA is an identical strand. It has the same information, and it repeats the same number of times. Does it make a difference? Yes. When that DNA strand was fitted into a sample group of the ardently promiscuous meadow vole, they turned just as monogamous as the prairie vole.
Curious, I did a search on "prairie vole" and "homosexual". The best I could come up with was a study that showed that prairie voles formed temporary same-sex relationships under certain conditions. However, though the relationships involved shared sleeping space and some grooming, they did not mention anything about actual *sexual* behavior.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Capitalism is not one-size-fits-all
"Well, we won't have any problems with the dead ones, sir."
"They'll have relatives. They always do."
The Robocop series of movies lampoons a city that is increasingly run by 'capitalism'. A far-reaching company with a pitiless CEO runs various public utilities and services, including the police department. As a result, poverty and crime reign supreme, and environmentalism has gone right out the window. It's a very funny set of movies. Unfortunately, socialists tend to take these movies as the solid truth and the danger against which they are fighting every time they ensure that the government, "not some corporation", tells you want to do.
Unfortunately, there is one basic thing that socialists seem to not understand about capitalism. Capitalism is an economic theory.
Now that sounds a bit silly, so let me explain further. Of course socialists know that capitalism is an economic theory. However, socialism is not. Or, more properly. socialism is not only an economic theory. Socialism is supposed to provide a framework for economic activity by replacing the market with a redistribution center. It is supposed to abolish property by giving it all to the government. In this way, it is much, much more than an economic theory. The socialist government is supposed to do so much more than to provide a framework within which free people can pursue happiness. Instead, full socialism must provide an economic framework, take personal responsibility for the personal welfare of all citizens, decide the proper lifestyle and employment for all citizens, and the moral framework by which the citizens act properly within the society.
It is important for socialists to understand that capitalism is not meant to fulfill all of these needs for a society. In the United States, for instance, capitalism provided the economic framework, Christianity provided the moral framework, the people took personal responsibility for their welfare, lifestyle, and employment, and a mixture of the people and Christianity provided for those who could not provide for themselves.
I have often heard liberals panic at the thought of not mandating all of these levels of society through the Federal Government, as if there was no other force in existence. They seem to believe that capitalism is meant to serve for everything, and if it doesn't, then capitalists simply believe that these other systems are unimportant.
Consider this for a moment. Suppose you have a guest visiting you, and he walks into the bathroom while you brushing your teeth. "What are you doing?" he gapes. "Moving the brush in those little circles?"
"Well, it works for me," you reply. "That's the best way to brush your teeth."
"Yes," he explains, "but it'll wreck your hair!"
This is how conservatives feel when they try to explain capitalism to liberals. The liberals seem to have no concept that (back to our analogy) you can brush your hair with different strokes than you use on your teeth, much less that you can do a far better job on both if you do not use the same method. Unfortunately, this gap in knowledge simply leads to the two talking past each other: the liberal demands to know how the poor will be cared for (this is usually the part they focus on), while the conservative is mystified as to how they got to be talking about charity instead of economic theory.
"They'll have relatives. They always do."
The Robocop series of movies lampoons a city that is increasingly run by 'capitalism'. A far-reaching company with a pitiless CEO runs various public utilities and services, including the police department. As a result, poverty and crime reign supreme, and environmentalism has gone right out the window. It's a very funny set of movies. Unfortunately, socialists tend to take these movies as the solid truth and the danger against which they are fighting every time they ensure that the government, "not some corporation", tells you want to do.
Unfortunately, there is one basic thing that socialists seem to not understand about capitalism. Capitalism is an economic theory.
Now that sounds a bit silly, so let me explain further. Of course socialists know that capitalism is an economic theory. However, socialism is not. Or, more properly. socialism is not only an economic theory. Socialism is supposed to provide a framework for economic activity by replacing the market with a redistribution center. It is supposed to abolish property by giving it all to the government. In this way, it is much, much more than an economic theory. The socialist government is supposed to do so much more than to provide a framework within which free people can pursue happiness. Instead, full socialism must provide an economic framework, take personal responsibility for the personal welfare of all citizens, decide the proper lifestyle and employment for all citizens, and the moral framework by which the citizens act properly within the society.
It is important for socialists to understand that capitalism is not meant to fulfill all of these needs for a society. In the United States, for instance, capitalism provided the economic framework, Christianity provided the moral framework, the people took personal responsibility for their welfare, lifestyle, and employment, and a mixture of the people and Christianity provided for those who could not provide for themselves.
I have often heard liberals panic at the thought of not mandating all of these levels of society through the Federal Government, as if there was no other force in existence. They seem to believe that capitalism is meant to serve for everything, and if it doesn't, then capitalists simply believe that these other systems are unimportant.
Consider this for a moment. Suppose you have a guest visiting you, and he walks into the bathroom while you brushing your teeth. "What are you doing?" he gapes. "Moving the brush in those little circles?"
"Well, it works for me," you reply. "That's the best way to brush your teeth."
"Yes," he explains, "but it'll wreck your hair!"
This is how conservatives feel when they try to explain capitalism to liberals. The liberals seem to have no concept that (back to our analogy) you can brush your hair with different strokes than you use on your teeth, much less that you can do a far better job on both if you do not use the same method. Unfortunately, this gap in knowledge simply leads to the two talking past each other: the liberal demands to know how the poor will be cared for (this is usually the part they focus on), while the conservative is mystified as to how they got to be talking about charity instead of economic theory.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Spinning the situation
My congressman sent me a "poll/survey" through the email.
Right now, Congress and the president are negotiating a solution to resolve our default crisis. If Congress does NOT vote to raise the debt ceiling, do you believe that this would be a real and serious problem?*
Yes
No
Not Sure
As a member of the Congressional Seniors Task Force, I cosigned a letter to the President this month objecting to proposed benefit changes to Social Security and Medicare as part of any deal. Do you believe that changes to benefits and cuts to Medicare and Social Security should NOT be part of a debt agreement?
Medicare and Social Security should not be cut or changed.
Cuts to Social Security and Medicare should be considered.
Not Sure
Republicans in Congress have said they are unwilling to raise any taxes, including on oil companies, corporations and the wealthy. Do you believe that closing tax loopholes or increasing revenues on corporations or millionaires should be part of a balanced approach to ending our default crisis?
Yes
No
Not Sure
This was my emailed response:
I tried to take your survey on the debt limit crisis, but I couldn't. The answers to the questions were all horribly skewed, and I couldn't pick one that came even close to my thoughts.
If Congress does not raise the debt limit, it may be a serious problem, but not nearly as serious as if we raise it with no plan to balance the budget and start paying off the debt. It's a no-brainer that you don't open a new credit card for someone who has ten of them maxed out and no plan to pay them off, but that's exactly what President Obama is asking us to do.
I do disagree with cutting Medicare and Social Security as part of this deal. That is why I supported Cap/Cut/Balance so strongly. I also strongly support a repeal of Obamacare, which will cut Medicare spending as part of its function. I have the feeling, from your record over the years, that this is not what you had in mind when you signed the agreement.... especially as Obama has already sworn to veto plans that do not include cuts to either. I sincerely hope that you are not engaging in scare tactics through an implication that Obama is trying to stop the Conservative Opposition from cutting things that they have explicitly excluded from cuts again and again.
I believe that closing tax loopholes must be accompanied by lowering taxes. I cannot agree with equating the words "tax" and "revenue", as lowering taxes in the past decades has resulted in increased revenues. In fact, I believe firmly that raising taxes at this point on our job creators will only reduce revenues. What we need now is to remove the loopholes that big business prompted legislatures to create along with new taxes and regulations, and reduce overall tax rates, so that everybody pays their fair share. It is not lost on me that the companies that contribute to Democrat politicians end up paying less at tax time. This is wrong.
Please consider this to be my response to your survey.
Right now, Congress and the president are negotiating a solution to resolve our default crisis. If Congress does NOT vote to raise the debt ceiling, do you believe that this would be a real and serious problem?*
Yes
No
Not Sure
As a member of the Congressional Seniors Task Force, I cosigned a letter to the President this month objecting to proposed benefit changes to Social Security and Medicare as part of any deal. Do you believe that changes to benefits and cuts to Medicare and Social Security should NOT be part of a debt agreement?
Medicare and Social Security should not be cut or changed.
Cuts to Social Security and Medicare should be considered.
Not Sure
Republicans in Congress have said they are unwilling to raise any taxes, including on oil companies, corporations and the wealthy. Do you believe that closing tax loopholes or increasing revenues on corporations or millionaires should be part of a balanced approach to ending our default crisis?
Yes
No
Not Sure
This was my emailed response:
I tried to take your survey on the debt limit crisis, but I couldn't. The answers to the questions were all horribly skewed, and I couldn't pick one that came even close to my thoughts.
If Congress does not raise the debt limit, it may be a serious problem, but not nearly as serious as if we raise it with no plan to balance the budget and start paying off the debt. It's a no-brainer that you don't open a new credit card for someone who has ten of them maxed out and no plan to pay them off, but that's exactly what President Obama is asking us to do.
I do disagree with cutting Medicare and Social Security as part of this deal. That is why I supported Cap/Cut/Balance so strongly. I also strongly support a repeal of Obamacare, which will cut Medicare spending as part of its function. I have the feeling, from your record over the years, that this is not what you had in mind when you signed the agreement.... especially as Obama has already sworn to veto plans that do not include cuts to either. I sincerely hope that you are not engaging in scare tactics through an implication that Obama is trying to stop the Conservative Opposition from cutting things that they have explicitly excluded from cuts again and again.
I believe that closing tax loopholes must be accompanied by lowering taxes. I cannot agree with equating the words "tax" and "revenue", as lowering taxes in the past decades has resulted in increased revenues. In fact, I believe firmly that raising taxes at this point on our job creators will only reduce revenues. What we need now is to remove the loopholes that big business prompted legislatures to create along with new taxes and regulations, and reduce overall tax rates, so that everybody pays their fair share. It is not lost on me that the companies that contribute to Democrat politicians end up paying less at tax time. This is wrong.
Please consider this to be my response to your survey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)