I think this is great. Not because secession is a good idea - it certainly is not - but because it's important for people to realize that the founders intended for state and local governments, rather than the federal government, to weild the bulk of the power to make decisions affecting citizens' lives.
It has nothing to do with the alleged virtuousness or wisdom of a particular leader. Centralized power is always, always, always oppressive.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Interesting Articles
Michelle Malkin takes the Congressional Black Caucus to task for their willingness to be used as tools of propaganda for Castro's oppressive Cuban government. It's always amazing how one's idealogy can blind them to reality.
Charles Krauthammer perfectly summarizes the effect of President Obama's European Apology Tour, particularly in light of the recent developments in North Korea.
Jonah Goldberg explains why it is impossible to keep our values out of foreign policy. This is a really interesting article, and seriously undemines any argument that American foreign policy oppresses others by attempting to impose western values.
Charles Krauthammer perfectly summarizes the effect of President Obama's European Apology Tour, particularly in light of the recent developments in North Korea.
Jonah Goldberg explains why it is impossible to keep our values out of foreign policy. This is a really interesting article, and seriously undemines any argument that American foreign policy oppresses others by attempting to impose western values.
Pope Benedict XVI - Look Upon the World with Eyes of Love
I took a moment today to read the Pope's homily at the Mass of the Lord's Supper. No, I'm not Catholic, but I love this guy. If you haven't read anything he's written, I highly recommend it (try this, this or this).
Protestants tend to be wary of the Catholic Church, although perhaps less so in the United States since the Catholic Church has not been as politically dominant here. And while I definitely have serious doctrinal differences with Catholicism, I'm thoroughly convinced that Pope Benedict is as genuine a man of God as has ever lived.
Consider Mark 9:38-41: "Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us." "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward."
Protestants tend to be wary of the Catholic Church, although perhaps less so in the United States since the Catholic Church has not been as politically dominant here. And while I definitely have serious doctrinal differences with Catholicism, I'm thoroughly convinced that Pope Benedict is as genuine a man of God as has ever lived.
Consider Mark 9:38-41: "Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us." "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward."
Thursday, April 2, 2009
The Meaning of Meaning
This is an interesting Jonah Goldberg blog entry on the concept of meaning in life, specifically addressing the way we attempt to impose our own vision of a meaningful life on others using the power of government.
Here's a taste, followed by a brief conclusion of my own...
"In [President Obama's] acceptance speech at the Democratic convention he tried to redefine the invidualistic pursuit of the 'American dream' into a more collective...endeavor to achieve 'America's promise.' But for many of us, America's promise is not what we all do together via the government, but what we're all capable of achieving on our own when government gets out of the way.
[T]he best the government can do is provide the means to pursue happiness. That's why the constitution doesn't promise to give people anything beyond basic security and common defense while guaranteeing that it won't get in the way of people trying to pursue their own understanding of happiness (The old Soviet constitution, by contrast, promised to provide everything people needed to be happy, and failed across the board).
Again, the problem is when governments, or political movements seeking to take control of the government, seek to provide meaning to people.... Such an effort, by definition, becomes oppressive because one person's or one government's definition of happiness will inevitably be someone else's idea of Hell."
My two cents: This is why private action is always better than state action. A person offering their vision of a meaningful life to others through active involvement with their church or other social organization (serving or evangelizing in the community) has all the same power to positively influence and enrich the lives of others, but none of the power to oppress in any real way.
Once a person has become convinced that their own rightness (or righteousness) justifies the use the coercive power of the state to impose that view on less "enlightened" others - the line has been crossed. This isn't to say that it's wrong to be certain of your convictions and to try and convince others of the same. On the contrary, it is necessary. But to attempt to force or coerce others to believe something is an exercise in futility, and to force or coerce others to do something is just plain oppressive. Both paths, however well-intentioned, are tacit rejections of God's wisdom and authority to imbue each of us with the liberty to, wisely or foolishly, direct our own lives.
Here's a taste, followed by a brief conclusion of my own...
"In [President Obama's] acceptance speech at the Democratic convention he tried to redefine the invidualistic pursuit of the 'American dream' into a more collective...endeavor to achieve 'America's promise.' But for many of us, America's promise is not what we all do together via the government, but what we're all capable of achieving on our own when government gets out of the way.
[T]he best the government can do is provide the means to pursue happiness. That's why the constitution doesn't promise to give people anything beyond basic security and common defense while guaranteeing that it won't get in the way of people trying to pursue their own understanding of happiness (The old Soviet constitution, by contrast, promised to provide everything people needed to be happy, and failed across the board).
Again, the problem is when governments, or political movements seeking to take control of the government, seek to provide meaning to people.... Such an effort, by definition, becomes oppressive because one person's or one government's definition of happiness will inevitably be someone else's idea of Hell."
My two cents: This is why private action is always better than state action. A person offering their vision of a meaningful life to others through active involvement with their church or other social organization (serving or evangelizing in the community) has all the same power to positively influence and enrich the lives of others, but none of the power to oppress in any real way.
Once a person has become convinced that their own rightness (or righteousness) justifies the use the coercive power of the state to impose that view on less "enlightened" others - the line has been crossed. This isn't to say that it's wrong to be certain of your convictions and to try and convince others of the same. On the contrary, it is necessary. But to attempt to force or coerce others to believe something is an exercise in futility, and to force or coerce others to do something is just plain oppressive. Both paths, however well-intentioned, are tacit rejections of God's wisdom and authority to imbue each of us with the liberty to, wisely or foolishly, direct our own lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
