The Counter-Bureaucracy Revolution

I have an idea for the coming peaceful political revolution. It's called the Counter-Bureaucracy, and it works something like this:

Why should the government be the only one allowed to have a bureaucracy? Why should not the citizens have their own bureaucracy? Clearly, we avoid it like the plague, but that doesn't mean we can't have it and use it.

Imagine the following scenario: You go to your local public school to enroll your child. As the administrators are taking down your information you stop them and say, "wait, you haven't signed my form yet!" They look surprised as you pull out your own form, and start asking them for their information. They are even more shocked when you ask them to sign the bottom of the page, below a disclaimer reading something to the effect of "I understand that I am providing a service to the parents of this child in educating them, in return for the taxes being paid by said parents. I recognize the parents as the final arbiter of my conduct as the child's educator. I also recognize that the parent has the final responsibility for this child, not the state." And perhaps also, at the end, "I recognize that the parents do not have to choose public schooling for their child, and I appreciate them choosing our school to provide this service."

Or perhaps this scenario: The Child Protective Services decides to forcibly enter your house, because a neighbor complained you were homeschooling your children (because the public school refused to sign your form). You stop them at the door and say, "you can't come in until this form is completed," and hand them a "Proper Conduct Upon Forcible Entry Form 12/34-5." This form states that every 5 seconds of time spent within the premises incurs a $50 charge, for each person. Furthermore, upon the determination of unlawful forceful entry (as determined by the Home Office Review Board, a.k.a. the Parents), the state will be fined an additional $5,000,000 for each child inconvenienced by the event. If they actually sign the form, you hand it back to them and tell them it needs to be notarized.

Of course, no government agency or agent would ever sign such a document. But that's the point, isn't it? When they refuse to sign your document, you simply refuse to sign theirs.

The Other Problem with Socialism

As if there were not enough problems already with the evils of Socialism, there's this gem that I discovered this morning: Socialism not only views its own actions as a morally correct path, it defines them as the morally correct path. And not to follow that path is conversely morally evil. I don't see how you could see it any other way. So, when George W. Bush does not use the power he has to bring about Socialist policies, he is in fact committing evil, though all he has done is chosen not to steal from one person to give to another.

I hit on this perspective while considering the tipping point for various peoples to reject their government, after watching the movie "Valkyrie" last night. This is a dicey topic, to say the least, and I in no way reject our government beyond any of the legal political mechanisms that our founders were so kind enough to set in place. The fact that I had to spell that out is a sign of our times.

But my connection between the two topics was made by blogersations (conversations in the blogosphere) with a liberal friend of mine. We argued about the election, and about the abject hate directed at Bush. She said it was justified based on Bush's actions. Given that these people were comparing Bush to Hitler (not in passing, not in jest, but actually really giving them the same standing), I think we had better start examining EXACTLY what those actions are, what Hitler's actions were, and what actions we truly think ought to spark a revolution.

Again, this was from the words of a liberal friend of mine, who thought the comparison was justified. Maybe they don't understand what making that comparison means. Maybe after watching the movie I just watched they'll understand. What I think it means, although I think there was a lot of smoke being blown as well, was that they thought some kind of non-political revolution might be justified, particularly if Bush was not gotten out of office (and a political-clone was not put in to replace him). But, that is the beauty of our political system, that we can blow lots of smoke and have it exorcised when we vote. Even if we lose, there's a certain catharsis to having at least cast our vote.

Finally, the point is that Socialism's tipping point in determining the evils of a president or leader is not in terms of whether he thought torture was good, or had some personal scandal of monumental sin (boy, Bill Clinton proved that!), but in whether they implemented Socialst policy. If he had used his power to advance Socialism, then all would have been forgiven about the War on Terror, etc. (As if he needed to apologize for what the Terrorists did to us). If they thought he was trying to bring about Socialist utopia to Iraq, and the far off reaches of the earth, the conflict would be justified. But to bring about anything less, then forget it, no dice, no pass, you're Hitler.

I leave you with one final thought, a topic for another article another day. Since I as a conservative believe that Bush has embraced Socialism, at least tentatively, where does that leave the Socialist Left? Their anger was predicated on his lack of Socialism, but here at the end he has given them everything they wanted and more. If this had happened at the beginning, would things be different?

"Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear." - I Peter 1:17

Pro-Homosexual Arguments Against Sodom

It has been argued by Christian proponents of the Homosexual movement that the sin for which Sodom (& Gomorrah) was destroyed was not the sin of homosexual immorality, but rather the sin of greed. This argument in itself presupposes an argument against homosexuality, that because of the homosexual nature of the inhabitants of Sodom, God saw fit to destroy it.

I reject the first argument, and therefore the response by the pro-Homosexual movement. My view is that it was not only homosexuality that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, but rather a host of sins, including homosexuality, greed among them. I firmly believe that sin does not exist in a vacuum, but rather where there is one sin, you are very likely to find many sins. Which came first, greed, then sexual immorality (of all types, I'm sure)? Probably. The point is, it's preposterous to try to claim that when the cities were destroyed it could not have had anything to do with homosexual behavior.

At the very least, we must conclude that it was possibly the reason, and perhaps continue to look for guidance on the matter, perhaps from other Leviticul sources. It is also dangerous to think that there was only one sin for which the cities were destroyed, and that somehow by avoiding that one sin we too can avoid destruction.

Render Under to Ceasar

“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God’s.” – Jesus Christ

This verse seems to be used constantly to berate Christians into not only paying their taxes but to also try and make them feel good about paying their taxes, since it was Jesus who said it. There are so many things wrong with both of those assertions, it’s hard to know where to begin.

Let’s start with the case of one Christian arguing to another Christian that they should not mind higher taxes, or progressive taxes, according to this verse. Specifically, they are arguing that we should vote for a political candidate who plans to do just that. They actually want the higher taxes on rich people, and the rich people should not mind, because we should “render unto Caesar.”

The first thing we should consider here, is who is who in this little mini-parable. It seems that the first Christian wants to be Caesar, or at least support the rise of a Caesar, to whom we all should then be obligated to give money to. I didn’t read anything in the parable or its context to suggest that Caesar was a good guy in all of this, that it was a good thing for him to be collecting taxes. Caesar (pick one) was the guy who burned Christians at his parties as human candles, to save even more of the taxes he collected for more important things, like exotic lions to eat more Christians at the Circus Maximus.

Jesus wasn’t saying we should vote for Caesar so we can pay him taxes, he was saying that when the evil, murdering, thuggish, tyrant Romans came looking for their blood money, you should pay them what they want instead of stabbing them in the eye and crying ‘Revolution!’ Why? Ah, now the important part.

Render unto God what is God’s. That’s the real crux of this verse. That’s where the Jews who were trying to trip up Jesus got tripped up themselves. They were arguing to keep, deservedly so, the fruits of their labors from Caesar. But Jesus said to give to God what is God’s. What is God’s? Everything. Which Christians can say that some part of their lives is their own and not God’s? Specifically though, I think he was talking about our hearts. That is, don’t worry about your money, it’s not important compared to the spiritual connection with God, and the state of your heart. It’s nothing squared, so let Caesar have his bits of metal that will rust, that will fade and disappear. I’m the Son of the God of the Universe, I don’t need “taxes,” I want your heart and soul, bought and paid for with my blood.

I don’t even think Jesus was saying “revolution” was out of the question, but that’s another topic for another day. The important thing was that the Jews were consumed with the occupation of their lands by the Romans, when they should have been consumed with the renewing of their hearts and minds through communion with the Most High God.

In summary, this verse says nothing to me about the actual morality of taxation. For a discussion of the morality of taxation, see “The Morality of Taxation.”

Piecemeal Politics

I'm just too much of a perfectionist to lay out all my ideas in one position paper, so I'm just going to start dumping it all out in little bite sized pieces. Hopefully that will keep me from becoming too wordy as well.

First Piece: CAVEATS! These are my caveats to everything else I have to say, which I can conveniently refer back to when I most need them (until I get so many that I can't remember them, or keep track of them).

Idea Manager Update 1

My idea manager is progressing. I've started collecting rough ideas already, using a rudimentary scheme. What I really need now is a nice software implementation, probably using the open-office database application. I can't get too far ahead of myself or I'll never be able to type in all the ideas I'm coming up with. They're overflowing!

Idea Manager

I have an idea. Actually, it's the first idea. Namely a scheme to organize all other ideas. I intend to use this idea to store everything I write. Then, I will transfer those thoughts and ideas to my blog. If I respond to a blog, it will be in my list of ideas first.