Health Reform Constitutional?

http://www.theweek.com/bullpen/column/104493/Health_reform_Unwise_not_unconstitutional

Fortunately, David Frum does not decide what is and is not Constitutional. And neither does the Supreme Court. For something to be "Constitutional" it must be something that *I* agree should be in the purview of the federal government. That is the only standard of Constitutionality, and no one can tell me something is Constitutional when I believe it is not. What I decide to do about the circumstance (namely that the Federal Government agrees amongst itself that my personal health care / insurance / banking / transportation etc. falls under their jurisdiction) is an entirely different subject.

Statement of Faith (a work in progress, but a good start)

I believe that the people, places, and events of the Bible are real. I have read the accounts of those people, and believe that the God they spoke of is real, including all that he said and did, and promised to do. I believe the accounts spoken and written down about the man Jesus, who was called the Christ, the Messiah. I believe that the claims he made of himself were true, that he is the Son of God, who was and is and is to come. I believe that he was slain in my place, that he was executed for my transgressions. I believe the account of those who saw him raised from the dead, in physical form that they could touch, feel, and talk to. I believe that just as he was raised from the dead, so I will have new life through my faith in him. I believe this new and eternal life is a gift, freely given, and is not from any worthiness on my part. I believe I do not deserve it, and that no one does. But I believe it was offered freely, and I have freely accepted it, in faith.

I believe that humanity has been holding the burning coal of the knowledge of Good and Evil in its hands, ever since Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of the same. I believe all of our struggles as humans stem entirely from that event, and everything we do can be cast in the light of our attempts as humans to deal with that knowledge, whether to bury it, to put it back, to try and absorb it unto ourselves, to try to pass it on to get rid of it or at least share the burning pain, or to just wither under it. I believe the only way to deal with this knowledge and its resulting condemnation of ourselves is to ask for forgiveness from the God who made us, and accept his offered sacrifice of his only begotten Son, Jesus the Messiah, to account for that condemnation.

I believe heaven will be literally greater than I can possibly imagine. I believe that I will be counted worthy of entering into God's glory there, not from my own merit but from him whose blood covers my iniquity.

I believe when Jesus said on the cross that it was finished, I believe he meant it. I believe that the Gospel, the good news of human salvation and restoration to God through the death and resurrection of Jesus was complete and perfect the day the curtain to the Holy of Holies was ripped, and when he walked out of the tomb on the third day. I believe that our attempts to enhance and improve upon the Gospel are far more likely to be a regression back to the pagan heritage of our culture, than to be progressive advances in our spiritual maturity.

Therefore, I believe that our civilization is not advancing to a Utopian climax, but is only reflecting the seeds of its character, in proportion to its size. As humanity grows, so we see the fruits of those seeds clearer, but their character has not changed. I believe that at the right moment, God will remove the good fruit from the earth, and destroy what is left. I believe that this judgement is for God to perform, and not our place as humans, in this age, except within ourselves against the evil fruit in our own lives. Yet, I believe that wherever possible, and with whatever strength is given to us, we should defend those around us from the evil of this world.

I believe that Israel has been reconstituted according to God's will and is fulfilling the Biblical prophecies made about that nation. I believe that the Biblically prophesied war of Gog and Magog may happen within my lifetime, and that the nations and alliances of that war are almost all nearly in place. I believe that my country, the United States of America, has created a government founded on Biblical principles in a way unlike any other in history since the ancient nation of Israel, and like that nation it will not achieve the perfection it seeks until Christ reigns on the throne.

Meta-physics Model for a World without Time

It has been posited that our universe is actually only one of an infinite number of universes comprising the Multi-Verse, in which every possible state of being is captured.

I would like to posit that these are not disconnected universes, but rather form a single matrix of static 'verses, which in and of themselves do not change. There is in fact no dimension of Time at all. Rather, what we experience as time is actually the sequential movement through an infinite series of Universes, each with a different static state, much like a finite state machine. In my model, this "Infinite State Machine" has inputs for the current state of the Universe, and our "free-will" inputs as the remaining inputs, which the infinite state machine (again, in my model, God or his Creation) then uses to point to a new Universe.

God controls the frequency at which the states are traversed, and therefore our "Time" has almost no meaning to God. A thousand years are as a day. Also, we are not just occupying a single Universe, but rather are connected to every Universe, or possibly only a theoretical connection to infinite universes, since really only one universe would need to exist at any given time.

*Speculation* (as opposed to the previous iron clad mathematical proofs)

Perhaps, with this model, we would see the results of the famous quantum physics experiment, whereby a single "interfering" molecule stream behaves as a continuous wave, since a discrete stream of particles taken at subsequent states would appear to be a continuous stream. That is, the previous state *for that stream* was the previous particle issued, and so subsequent discrete particles interfere with the previously issued particle, creating the impression of a continuous stream.

Health Care Debate - Some Thoughts

Firstly, it has been posited that a private Insurance company is only in it for the money, and therefore will not have your best interests at heart. I would like to point out that the if a private company is just in it for the money, then the gov't is just in it for the power! Frankly, I'd rather be broke from an Insurance company sucking down my pocket book and still be free, than to have cheap health care, some extra money in my pocket, but be a slave to the gov't. And then have the gov't tax that extra money in my pocket so then I'm still broke.

Secondly, Insurance Companies do not have a problem of Capitalism (which is implied by them only being in it for the money), if anything they have a problem of Socialism. They are tasked with distributing money pooled together by a group of people, and trying to make sure they have enough left to make it worth their while. If they couldn't, they'd be doing something else more productive with their time! So, why would gov't, who would essentially be doing the same job, distributing pooled money out to people, be any better? Just because they won't keep any extra for a profit? They still have to pay all the people to do the work, and have you seen the gov't union retirement / benefits plan? Not cheap. But hey, if you don't think your insurance company shouldn't be making a profit, then fire them! Get someone else, or start your own! You can't do that with the gov't. Actually, a bunch of people have already started their own non-profit co-op insurance companies. Why not use them?

Thirdly, the Gov't doesn't magically change the amount of money available out there for all these health services. The only thing it has is an ability to borrow astronomical sums of money because of the guaranteed revenue stream from us, the tax payer. If you think that borrowing money to pay for increased health care for an entire nation in perpetuity is wise, then maybe we should also try filling the Sahara desert with water from a Dixie cup, which would be about as effective.

All gov't can do is redistribute the money differently. If you think its more equitable to have a "company" that you can't fire and compels you to use it making all your health choices, then I ask you, why can't we at least leave it to the State Gov'ts?

For my next post: "Why For-Profit ventures are better than Not-For-Profit ventures"

The Paradox of Freedom: Part I

The PROBLEM as I see it: We find our selves as a country wrestling with a conundrum, a living hypocrisy that is eating away at our body politic. That is, our country has been founded on the notion that there are some things that we as a collective society of individuals must agree to do together, in order to maintain our status as individuals. And therein lies the problem. Having accepted the premise that there are some things in which we must work together on (and hence sacrifice our sense of individuality), it now becomes difficult to argue which other things we must not be required to work together on.

Put another way, our founders decided that a nation of individuals, being a most high ideal, could not be obtained by those individuals remaining completely such. That is, for an instant in time they were indeed individuals, complete and sovereign (politically), owing no allegiance to anyone but themselves. But immediately after that moment they began to choose to join in compact with other sovereign individuals, for the purpose of defending against those that would remove their individuality.

But was this a bargain with the devil? When the first colonial said to the second colonial, "let's take up arms together, so that we may protect ourselves. We'll stand back to back so that no one may sneak up on us," was that the end of their lives as pure individuals? Or was the choice they made as individuals the very validation of themselves? After all, they chose to join together, and no one else made them to do so. And when a thief did sneak up and was shot by the colonials, did not they preserve themselves, to go on making choices?

"The freedom you enjoy, is the freedom enjoyed by others to use against you," they reason to themselves, after all while they walked where they would, so could the thieves! "But the freedom you sacrifice is the freedom sacrificed of others that they can no longer use against you," they reason further, and decide they have done a good thing. After they were joined, they could only walk where the other desired and vice-versa, but the thieves were denied walking behind the one or the other now.

Of course, the real question is can you make a choice to have no more choices? Can the first colonist choose to be joined forever to the second colonist? And is it really a choice if you cannot return from it?

Let us suppose that the colonists find themselves among many other like minded individuals, so many that the use of them all for a defense requires an overseer to coordinate the project. The overseer is chosen by a means agreed to by all the individuals, and performs his function of coordinating the defense of the group of individuals. The overseer then decides to coordinate the building of a wall around their dwellings, which the overseer says is also arguably for the defense of the group. The overseer then coordinates the building of public sewer systems within the walls, in case of prolonged siege, again for the defense of the group. Hospitals follow, along with safety regulations and management regimes, to ensure the group's resources are properly used, and that everyone is well fed and healthy to be ready for action "in defense of the group."

Soon the overseer has taken charge of every aspect of every individual action the "individuals" of the group might make. Many of the more trivial actions are permitted, such as which street to walk down, but the extent of those actions is approved by the overseer and documented in the group's laws. Did the individuals desire this outcome? The original purpose of appointing an overseer was so that they could conduct their individual affairs more freely by denying those who would seek to control and conquer them a divided and easy target. But in the end result, they have become precisely what they sought to avoid.

The first colonial decides, after reviewing the affair, that he would rather be shot in the back by a thief and at least have the freedom to walk where he liked without the by-your-leave of the overseer. After all, he reasons, "it is better to die trying to live free than to live as a slave forever. Perhaps I'll invite the second colonial as well, and we can go on protecting each others backs again as we used to."

The overseer cannot find anything in the book of the group's laws that say that "individuals" are allowed to leave the group. In fact, on closer inspection, the overseer cannot find anything about individuals at all any more, as everything has come under the purview of "the defense of the group" which does not contain the sense of individuals any longer. In fact, anyone who does not recognize themselves as being part of the group is then jailed for not contributing taxes for the "defense of the group."

The second colonial gives up and works within the group, since he'd rather have the illusion of freedom than to be jailed and have no sense of freedom at all, although he'd still rather walk freely and risk being shot by a thief, given the chance. The first colonial tries to make a run for it, but he finds there is no where to run to. The walls of the group have extended to the very sea itself. So the colonial decides to start over again right where he is, and is promptly arrested for non-payment of taxes, and thrown into jail.

While he sits in jail, he contemplates the paradox that has brought him and his follow colonials to this point. Namely, that they agreed to have any of their liberty as individuals taken away, in order that they might preserve their status as individuals, and thus eventually had all of their liberty taken away, and became individuals no longer! He reckons this in two ways: By the first reckoning, when some amount of liberty was removed, he was protecting the latter half. But by this reckoning, it implied there was a happy balance of liberty lost to liberty gained. Why, he could even lose up to half of his liberty to protect the other half and still come out even in the end! But was it possible to have a happy medium? Is not a single shackle just as constricting as ten shackles?

And so he tries to reckon a second way. How does a shackle not become a shackle? When you have the key, of course! In fact, forget the shackle, and turn those agreements into ropes, ones that we hold on to, and more importantly can let go of any time we would like. In fact, the only shackle he wishes to have any longer, is the one that will prevent all others from taking hold. The only agreement he wishes to make is the one whereby he will always be able to "let go" of the rope. And therefore the only agreement of freedom without paradox is ironically to agree to be able to break an agreement.

"But surely this is Anarchy, is it not?" says the colonial to himself. Ah, but then he considers that the freedom to break an agreement is also the freedom to make agreement anew. The freedom to make and break agreements is not a statement of Anarchy, it is only a means to either Order or Anarchy, as seen fit by the individual. "Wherever agreements breakdown into Anarchy, individuals may choose to make new agreements to bring Order to Chaos." Or so his thinking goes, as he ponders the paradox that is the basis of the government of his world.

Term Limits

A lot of talk has been bandied about lately, either through the Tea Party movement or other forums, about imposing Term Limits on congressional representatives and senators.  It's not that I think this is a bad idea per say, but rather that there are unintended consequences.  It is not a cure-all, not even close, and may be worse than what we have now.

First of all, from a philosophical viewpoint, what are Term Limits?  They're a limit on the people that are being represented.  "But wait," you say, "isn't it a limit on the candidate?"  Currently, the people have the right to vote out the candidate every two years, no restrictions.  If you put term limits in, you've limited the right of the people to choose who they want to represent them.  What we're really saying with Term Limits is that we don't like who the people have chosen, or we think the people are too stupid to figure it out, and therefore we need to limit the damage the people can cause to themselves by kicking the representatives out for them.  

That doesn't sound like representative republican democracy.  It sounds like people trying to escape the accountability, that democracy demands, of the people for whom they elect (which I argue is one of the defining reasons for any democratic system).  This is not "Conservative" in my view.  Conservatives don't believe we need Government to protect ourselves from our own stupidity.  We only really need to protect ourselves from the stupidity of Government.  We'll deal with our own stupidity on our own, and with whoever we can convince to help us!

Second of all, we have right now people like John McCain, who have been in politics forever, who can't even get the point of entry of the 9/11 terrorists correct.  And these people are supposed to have experience.  Fine you say, let's kick them out, since experience means nothing.  But who will these new senators and congressmen rely on for the information to make their way through congress?  Will they not have Career, Life Long, Washington Insider staffers to grease the gears?  If so, we are now not just stuck with an incompetent life-long politician, who we can at least vote out of office, we are now stuck with scores of staffers who we can't vote out, and who will end up running our government.

I know, they probably Are running it right now.  But I guess that's my point.  Term limits will not change that fact, and may make it more of a fact.  And, they will limit our own choice.  There really is no solution to the "Staffer" problem.  We can only vote for and hold accountable politicians who are going to rely on good people, people that we can trust to serve the interest of those they represent.  Anything else would be unfairly limiting the representatives, telling them who they can and can't get help from (say, with term limits for staffers).

Of course, one change we might make is to get rid of the congressionally provided money they are allowed to hire staffers, but the unintended consequences are still there.  The richest representatives would drown the others in staffers hired from their own pockets (do they do this now?  Not sure, but probably), and overwhelm the congress with process and procedure.

No, the only real recourse is to reduce the power of the National Government (per Mark Steyn, "'federal' doesn't seem the quite the word anymore") to limit the damage career politicians can have.  And learn from our mistakes and vote in citizen legislators who won't be run over by career staffers.  To that end, I think it was mistake (and a massive power grab) for us to limit the size of congress.  As we grow ever larger, the portion of repesentation grows ever larger with it, till a citizen legislator just doesn't feel right in such an August Esteemed Body.  If they were still held to 1:30,000, we might actually know who our representative was without them having to have a major scandal to get on the news. 

Intentional Civil War

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9485

I so called this one. If only there was some kind of reward, instead of getting stuck in the middle of it all.