Social Justice is Not Love

There is a lot of talk about "social justice" on the political scene and I'm afraid, out of perhaps good intentions, it has made itself into the church. Wikipedia defines the term "social justice", in the sense that it is used in a modern context, as follows:

Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity and equality of outcome than may currently exist in some societies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

Social justice as described here requires that an outside force create this concept of justice, and that by force. That kind of force can only be applied by a government.

Many in the church have been advocates of social justice out of a desire to help the poor. While the Bible advocates that we, as a church and individually, help the poor (see Matthew 25:37-40 and James 1:27 for example), this is different than social justice in that it compelled by the love of Christ, not by any means of force. Social justice, as administered by a government, is going to be inferior to a love-based heart toward giving and helping the poor in many ways:

1. It takes no love, no compassion, to want money to be compelled from one person for the benefit of another. Giving of one's own means is the more likely expression of compassion (though I acknowledge that even this can be done for wrong motives).
2. When a church or an individual Christian sees someone in need, there is freedom to meet both real and felt needs. When a person needs food, you can give food. If a person needs financial counseling, you can help that person find the right counseling. A government can only treat everyone the same, regardless of real needs.
3. A government requires a major bureaucracy to administrate helping those in need. This siphons off a good portion of the money that is brought in. A church or individual can help people more directly, without the huge administrative cost. Churches, and even other non-profit charities, while they always have some administrative cost, will have no where near the bureaucratic expenses a government will.
4. Bureaucracies designed to help people tend to breed corruption. Those in charge have millions or even billions of dollars they work with on a regular basis and it comes in regularly regardless of outcome because it is compelled from taxpayers.
5. There are always unintended consequences when the government gets involved in charity. Programs designed to help those out of work encourage many who are out of work to give up looking. "Free" health care leads to over-utilization. Requiring banks give loans to those who can't pay them back leads to bankruptcy and foreclosures. Subsidized poverty leads to more poverty.
6. Even more than food to eat or water to drink in this life, people need the gospel, a truly free gift. (Romans 6:23)

What is the bottom line? Give water to the thirsty and food to the hungry, help the orphan and the widow, speak the truth of the gospel, but don't be an advocate of social justice.

Why I'm Done with the Republican Party and Only Want True Liberals in Office

If you know me, I'm sure that got your attention, but I'm serious. The time is right to see true liberals in Washington, DC. I don't mean the kind of liberals (i.e., progressives, socialists, and, in some cases, Marxists) that are there now. I mean liberals in the classic sense, like our founding fathers, the kind of liberals who were defined by a belief in liberty. These were men who built a republic, and who wrote a Constitution that was meant to protect liberty. They recognized the dangers of a large and powerful government, believed strongly in private property, and believed in a free market.

Unfortunately, the Republican party, with few exceptions, has strayed from much of this. They have, for the most part, supported larger government, with a slightly different favor of pork. They're campaign materials brag about federal monies they got for local causes. Some of them fight against progressive causes but on the wrong grounds. Take the healthcare issue. Most of the Republicans in Congress are trying to make the healthcare bill somehow more "conservative" rather than fighting the premise that the constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to even be in healthcare.

I want candidates who believe in the Constitution, who believe that the federal government has only the authority that is enumerated in the Constitution, and who would only support justices that uphold the Constitution. Do you sense a common theme here? Don't get me wrong; I would support a Republican like this. But I'm no longer voting straight Republican just because they are "more like" what I believe in. I want true liberals.

I'm encouraged because I'm not alone. I think you see a shift that is evident in the Tea Party movement, in the 9/12 Project, etc. Who is with me?

There Are No Greedy Corporations

In the wake of the AIG bonus controversy, there has been much talk about greedy corporations. In fact, I did a Google search on "greedy corporations" (in quotes, so as to find only those two words together as a phrase). There were 58,100 results when I looked but there are sure to be more tomorrow. The other day at lunch, one of my coworkers used the phrase "greedy corporations".

Let me say something that is contrary to common thinking: There are no greedy corporations. In fact, no institution can be greedy. Only people are capable of greed. Why is this important? I think we too often want to depersonalize greed, selfishness, or any other form of evil, attributing it to institutions rather than people. It is popular to assume that people are basically good and are corrupted by the institutions that facilitate evil behavior when, in fact, amoral institutions are simply populated with immoral people. I have to confess that I've been guilty of thinking this way sometimes, thinking that politicians are somehow corrupted by Washington, as if the environment in the city were somehow making good people bad.

Do you agree or disagree? I'd like to hear.

As Good Friday approaches, it is a reminder to us that we are all greedy, all selfish, and yes, even all evil. But it is also a reminder of something greater. The necessary punishment for that evil by a God who is holy and cannot stand evil, was lovingly taken on by His Son so that we wouldn't have to receive that punishment. My pastor just gave a excellent sermon called Why Did Jesus Have Die? Check it out if you get a chance.

An Excellent Civics Lesson

I'm not sure who did this but it is excellent:

Reflections on the Election

I started to write all of the reasons I was thinking that Barack Obama was elected as our next President: the willing help of the press, the bad economy and the perception of Republican responsibility, the charisma and celebrity of Obama, the lack of a compelling and truly conservative candidate, etc. However, God reminded me of the real reason Barack Obama will be our next President:

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Romans 13:1 (NIV)

Don't Fall For the Class Warfare Lie

It's the night before the election so here is some food for thought regarding election ads: Be wary of anyone who demonizes the wealthy and pits the poor or middle class against them. Also, be wary of anyone who pits people against corporations, which are owned by...you guessed it, people. In fact, if you own any stocks, even in a 401(k) or retirement account, you are one of the owners of probably a number of corporations.

Anyone who argues for raising taxes on the wealthy or on corporations to benefit the middle class or poor, is either ignorant of economics or is dishonest. The current economic crisis is a problem of a decrease of wealth in the United States, not the shifting of wealth. Wealth is actually created in the United States (and can therefore be destroyed) not merely shifted from one group to another. Trying to increase taxes on the wealthy actually creates disincentives for wealth creation as those who have accumulated wealth seek to protect it from being taken away by the government, rather than risking it in investment (which leads to jobs, which leads to more wealth created, etc.). Trying to increase taxes on corporations simply results in higher prices for consumers and/or decreased business costs, including investment and labor costs (meaning layoffs). As Ronald Reagan once said:

The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us. Business doesn’t pay taxes, and who better than business to make this message known? Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business. Begin with the food and fiber raised in the farm, to the ore drilled in a mine, to the oil and gas from out of the ground, whatever it may be—through the processing, through the manufacturing, on out to the retailer’s license. If the tax cannot be included in the price of the product, no one along that line can stay in business.

So, here is the bottom line: Don't fall for the class warfare lie. It's steeped in jealousy but not in truth.

Liberal Arrogance

There is a guy I work with that sends out an occasional political e-mail to a group of us. He and I are in the minority in the fact that we are politically conservative. (For some reason, there are a lot of liberal software developers out there.) Recently he sent out a link to an article entitled House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks. Much argument ensued over the fact that it was mere contemplation. Here was my response:

The problem is not the contemplating. The real problem is the disturbing belief system and arrogant attitude that has prompted the contemplating. For example:

• “I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”
  This is really disturbing. She regards money that we earn that is not taxed as a subsidy. So does she regard charitable contributions that are deducted as the government subsidizing my church? Does she regard the mortgage interest deduction as the government subsidizing my debt? This comes from a scary and arrogant attitude that I did not earn the money I worked for but that it belongs to the Nanny State...and maybe they'll let me keep some of it.
• “I want to spend our nation’s dollar for retirement security better."
  This is the problem. Why does congress get to decide this (and on what Constitutional grounds)? Shouldn't the person that worked hard for the money in the first place decide how to save his or her money for retirement?
• "Everybody would now be covered” if the plan were adopted, Ghilarducci said.
  I hope she doesn't mean that. Should those who don't work get retirement at the expense of those who do? I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she doesn't really mean "everyone" since it says "workers" earlier.
  

Behind all the contemplating is the arrogant attitude that congress and bureaucrats know better how to take care of your needs than you do. The scary part is that many of them either actually believe it or they are being deliberately dishonest to give themselves more power.

What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

Today the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was signed into law by President Bush. Despite whatever you might think of the new law, commonly referred to as the bailout, you have to be asking yourself what caused this to begin with? My Dad sent me to a link to the following video, which I believe explains this complicated issue very well. I don't agree with 100% of this--it plays to class warfare somewhat--but it seems to be an accurate picture of the facts surrounding this issue.



Also, here is a New York Times article from 1999 that was a foreshadowing of things to come.

Supreme Court Rightly Interprets Consitution...Barely

I haven't read all of the details of the case, but it appears that the Supreme Court of the United States has, at least for the most part, rightly interpreted the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Today, the Court decided that Americans could own guns. And I thought that was determined 217 years ago. Oh, well.

The Court also determined that laws that put unreasonable burdens on gun owners, such as trigger locks or having the guns remain disassembled in the home, were unconstitutional.

The scare thing was that this only passed 5 to 4. This highlights how important this year's presidential election is. The next president may appoint up to three justices to the Supreme Court.

What do you think? Are you going to vote?

Powers Not Delegated by the Constitution

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
--Amendment 10, The United States Constitution

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act

John Campbell, a Republican congressman from California, recently introduced a bill called the "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act". This bill was designed to allow those rich liberals who complain about themselves and others not paying enough taxes to easily donate money to the federal government on their tax forms. He said, "It's a great injustice that citizens wishing to fulfill their dream of paying more taxes cannot simply check a box on their 1040 form to make a donation."

This bill would give liberals the opportunity to assuage their guilt while not putting a further burden on the rest of us who already feel overtaxed. I love it.