Individual Interests, and Society's Welfare

Ludwig von Mises Institute‎"Man becomes a social being not in sacrificing his own concerns for the sake of a mythical Moloch, society, but in aiming at an improvement in his own welfare." Ludwig von Mises (1949), Human Action


Those that believe otherwise put society before the individual. Society is made up of individuals who act within a social network. Such societies are free societies that so not seek to circumvent the individual's desire to prosper in all areas of his life!

Identities, Faith and Such...

Identities are known to be "attached" to something. A fully developed and functioning "self" has come to understand itself within a framework of values that are of utmost importance. These values hold the "key" to understand what motivates the person to action and is what the personal identity is "attached to".

Children "attach" their identities to their "important other". Their "self" is understood only in relationship to another whose opinion and desires they seek to please. Parents are of utmost importance in the early stage of the developing ego. But, parental "images" continue in Christian understandings of faith. Reason does not define faith, but trust does. This is an infantile stage of ego development.

Young adults must be allowed the freedom to choose for themselves for what their "attachments" will be. Will their attachments be to their social group of origin, whether that be defined by religious/cultural/familial or will they find a separation of their identity because of "reasonable" reasons? The difference is based on whether one thinks that man is a "thinking self" or a "relational self". I don't think the answer is going to be an "either/or". Man is a thinking, as well as a social animal. And each individual will have variances of these tendencies.

Some have suggested that without content, faith has no value. This may be the case for some. The political has a lot to do with how the social is understood. The political is about power. Power was not the position of the early Christians, for the most part. Therefore, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that faith was a "crutch" to defend the identity of those whose identities had be stolen by those in power?

Democracy allows the "self" to develop beyond the infantile dependent stage of childhood. Freedom of information, and the individual's self determination of choice are important values to uphold in "helping" the individual to develop fully. Tribalisitc mentality leads nothing to critical thinking, but a dependent attitude of helplessness that mimics another's values, instead of coming to terms with their own unique identity. This is why American values of "life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness" is of ultimate value for anyone who believes in the individual and the individual's "right to exist".

Privatization of Veteran's Insurance, and Universal Healthcare for Everyone Else

I had wondered why Michele Obama and her husband made such a "fuss" over the military, when their policies seem so contrary to conservative values. Obama proposes to pull the military out of Iraq, which many average citizens believe to be a good idea.

Tonight it was reported that there was a breech of security issues concerning the new head of an intelligence area, Deutsch, while loosing his secret clearance under the Clinton adminstration and getting a pardon. He had maintained military secrets on his personal computor and now he is being appointed to oversee a major area of our security.

Obama recently declared his intention for development of a universal healthcare system, but backed away from the rhetoric concerning this major issue, when he "heard" the outcry of the American people about the economy.

How do I think these are related? Well, to be honest, I think that the military is being undermined by this proposal. Although it was reported that it would be defeated from "all sides", the mere suggestion of our military serving in harm's way and not being benefitted by our government, while government benefits AIG? I suspect that the private sector is licking it chops at the prospect of government contracts in the healthcare industry. The privatization of military insurance, is just a step toward government control of all of our healthcare. It is creating "class envy" through putting before the public the fact that the military is being taken care of by the government. Remember "Clintoncare", when Hillary headed up her committee on healthcare, only to be held accountable by the Sunshine Law...which demands freedom of information. The average Joe, if not given the the real agenda, will be led, on the heels of the anger toward corporation bail-out plans, that they need a "piece of the action". Entitlement is the name of the game when it comes to our populace and their "goals". And "class envy" is a means to get government control with acqueiscence, and the "leaders" will hold the power and the treasury.

While entitlement is an obesession with "rights", "rights" nevertheless, should be given to the individual in choice of vocation, healthcare, and general 'way of life". The dignity of the individual demands that government allows that freedom.

I am hopeful that our country is waking up before it is too late. And I hope that there are people that hold government accountable to the Constitution and other laws that would protect the "common man" from the overstretched hand of government control.

Determined by Evolution, God, or Choice?

Rational people take responsibility for their lives, but reason is not the domain of determinism, by God or by evolution.

Evolution maintains that man is a product of chance, while Divine predestination determines by Sovereign Will. Blind Chance or Sovereign Will do not lead to responsible behavior. Chance leads one to disregard human life as nothing other than part and parcel of the natural order, while Divine Will disregards man as morally responsible or accountable for life in this world. Both undermine personal value and choice based on rationale.

Theistic evolutionists hold to "God" ordering the world through evolutionary means. But, at what point does man become responsible for the "chance" or "chaos" that occurs within reality? Some have argued at the "age of accountability", when the child reaches puberty. The Jewish religion and many others have a 'rite of passage" where the young person becomes an adult. Adults are called to self-determination or self-governance. But, not only is man responsible for himself, but man is to order the universe. Man determines, not nature or "god". But, if man determines, what is he to determine? Since man is a responsible being, then man should not determine another, but allow freedom of choice in responsible behavior.

The West understands social/political reality as one of contract or treaty. We negotiate and strategize with the other party, but we do not plan deterministically. Historically, this was not the case, as slaves were given, or exchanged in trade agreements, disregarding the slave's life and personal boundary. Kings had the pre-reogative to determine other's lives, but democracy values all life equally.

Evolutionists to be consistant would disregard any boundary of another as we are not separate entities but a "World Soul" or less. Divine Providence is no less culpable in disregarding the individual's life, if that is the pre-determined state of " God's will". There is no room in this view for personal boundary, as "God" is seen to be the Ultimate. Our wills should be nothing less than "His", which dissolves the distinction between God and man. Man is to become "One" with God. Personal, social and political distinction dissolve or really have no value or meaning when one views life in these ways.

America's values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness affirm the value of the individual in personal boundaries and moral choice. Moral value hinges on moral choice, otherwise, life is no more than an evolutionary "play" or God's "novel", where He is the Only character that really exists or matters.

I would much rather believe in freedom to be, to do, and determine my own destiny, without interference. Those who would like to help me find the way are welcome to do so, but only if they respect my choice and value my independence.

Determined to Be Free

The three positions of reality; open, closed and flat are ways of understanding God's universe. God's determined plan of creation was stewarding the universe in responsible ways.

We do not live in a completely open universe, as we must work with what is given, within our particular contexts, and creation givenness. While the universe is limited in this way, we do have choices in how we will live in the universe as given in our particular contexts and givens. These are responsible responses to and in our particular cultural heritage.

Because our universe is made, but not determined, we as rational beings must use our reason to the best of our ability. Using our ability, presupposes political freedom.

Political freedom is not a given, as governments are ordered by men. Men, unless accountable to an understanding of order, will not act responsibly or rationally. "Citizen" is a term that presupposes duty and responsibly behavior.

Thankfully, the West is free because of these understandings. We take these freedoms for granted to our own demise.

Ethics, Morality, and Universiality

I listened to a professor of Ethics from Princeton U. on the radio today. He was suggesting that we have a moral obligation to alleviate "world poverty". This suggests or assumes that world poverty can be alleviated, and also suggests that the only moral question is one of poverty.

These "moral universalists" impose thier views or convictions on others, just as much as those who want to legislate their personal moral convictions, say, about gay marriage, or abortion. Laws are made to impose moral action. Those with religious convictions are of course divided as to what is of most importance, in a world that is filled with complex issues.

Our nation has been generous in humanitarian aid, but that aid has been limited by immoral governments. Government determine, control and demand certain actions, while prohibiting and limiting others. A moral government must not limit individual choice, otherwise, it becomes a dominating, limiting, and oppressive government. Our nation has given 2%, while most other nations have given much less.

Social moralists are socialistic and Marxist in ideological commitments. These ideological commitments are regimes that make us all poor. This is proven historically.

Moral outrage should never drive our policy or legislation. But, these "moral universalists" demand that others have the same conviction and commitment and, Ulitmately, the same political view of implementation. "Welcome to "globalism"...

Moral univeralism limits personal responsibility and hinders freedom of expression and opinion. Governments then become "run" or led by those whose views are uniform, which ultimately makes for a communistic view of governing.

Diverse views promote and allow academic freedom, individual and personal freedom, and benefits man through creative ways of taking responsibility for their own life in innovative ways of making a living. Otherwise, the free market is limited, by government controls, and demands, which limits productivity and the ability to produce and to give.

Marxism has never led to the betterment of mankind, but in a world that is seeking for a way to understand altruism in an evolutionary world, there are no easy answers. But, usually, these believe that man must be responsible in planning how altrusim should be developed. Self interest is the epitome of "social sin".

Although I do not condone pursuing the "Almighty Dollar", pursuit is a relative term. Absolutism in the domain of morality is nothing less than domination by government control, which is immoral itself, as there must be moral choice and responsibility for there to be any moral value!