Islamic Fundamentalism

A friend and I were discussing the attacks in India today. I kept coming back to- What is it that the Islamic Fundamentalist want?? I think there are only two things that they desire of us, and it is an either / or situation. They want us to convert to Islam as THEY wish it practiced OR they want us to die. As a Christian, I know that we had the crusades. The things done in the Lords name were horrible. Fortunately, Christianity survived it's barbaric period without inflicting too much damage. Unfortunately, Islamicism is hitting it's 'crusade' period in a world that cannot bear it. The damage that can be done by a few today is greater by a huge factor over what the same number could achieve a thousand years ago. What the Christians, Jews, Liberals, Conservatives - Everyone in this country has to realize is that THIS IS A RELIGIOUS WAR!!! To the enemy this is a religious war. This means the enemy is prepared to die to get to us. This means that there is no negotiation possible. To them, we are evil, they are on the side of God. To them, since they are god's warriors, any unspeakable act is ok - it is God's will. I don't know what it will take to get the people of this country to understand this. I don't know if people like Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, and Susan Sarandon will ever be able to grasp it. If the Islamic fundamentalists were suddenly in power, Penn, Robbins, and Sarandon would be three of the first that would be slaughtered. That is what I find so ironic. The many many peaceful practitioners of Islam will eventually have to make a choice. Will they continue to be relatively quiet as the Fundamentalist kill in the name of Islam - or - will they denounce the fundamentalists??? This outcry has to be huge. What may eventually have happen is that practitioners of Islam in this country may have to be segregated and isolated like the Japanese in World War II. That was horrible, and I hope it never has to come to that. The fact remains that if it comes down to survival - rights get trumped. Looking back, the situation with the Japanese was jumping at ghosts. I am sure that most of those involved then did not know that. I hope the Islamic Fundamentalists back off and let us live in peace and that they can live in peace. If they do not back off, it WILL be US or THEM - NOT because WE want it that way, but because THEY do. If we have to fight for our survival- if that group of humanity continues to hold it to us in those terms, then what our general populace needs to realize is that we can not fight nice. We WILL commit atrocities. We WILL kill women and children. We WILL torture when necessary. We will do this not because we wanted something that the Islamic Fundamentalists have, but because we want to live. We will do this or we will die. The Geneva conventions will only apply to us. If the other side will not abide by them - and they won't - then we cannot do so either. I am sorry Sean, Tim, Susan, - Real war is brutal. It is not what we want, but what is being forced upon us. In order for you to be able to live like you live, our soldiers are going to act in uncivilized ways. War is not civilized. Rules are only rules when both sides abide by them. Otherwise, rules are the noose around the neck of the side that does abide them. There WILL be innocent casualties. Innocent people WILL die. We DON'T want it, but it is an unavoidable part of war. The point to remember is that if the Islamic Fundamentalists practice their beliefs without imposing them on others on threat of death, then none of these bad things happen.

Atlas Shrugged

Ayn Rand wrote a book titled, "Atlas Shrugged." It was a fictional story built around a philosophy and also a warning. The philosophy is that it is proper and right to express self interest, it is right to enjoy the fruits of your labor, it is proper to expect compensation or payment for your efforts, logic and rationality are of man's highest nobility. The warning is that there are those out there that see need as the measure of the award due a man. There are those that believe that a man or woman of business is an evil person. They believe that a person's success can only come at the expense of someone else. They believe that it must be government that must level the playing field to their concept of fair. The crowning irony is that those who are successful must be willing or complicit in their own enslavement and condemnation at the hands of those that would claim for their own the fruits of that person's efforts. In other words, a successful business person sees themselves as less than virtuous simply because of the opinions of those who are not successful. Yet, those very people who condemn the successful business person depend upon him or her either directly or indirectly for their sustenance. What if one day, all the successful business people threw up their hands and quit? What then?

Well, folks,

Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957. Ms. Rand might almost seem prophetic. The government bureaucracy, which is a spring that absorbs all momentum, is being expanded at a phenomenal rate. Many of our businesses are being vilified by those who have never produced. Many of the seemingly bad decisions made by business were in some way foisted upon those businesses by government programs, laws, and regulations that consider need as a measure of merit. Is it logical to extend a mortgage to one that cannot pay it back? Why would a business do that? On it's own, it would not. It does something like that due to an outside factor such as a government regulation promising some sort of punitive measure for not doing it.
Automotive CAFE standards, Safety Standards and the like - Can't consumers vote with their power of purchase? Why must government force something that the populace has not demanded?
What of Unions? Unions are good when they are formed to address real abuses of workers. What are some such abuses? Such abuses are forcing a worker into a dangerous situation where the worker has no ability to control the danger. IE: forcing a worker to use a ladder with broken rungs ,work from a platform with a bad floor. Another abuse is asking the employee to do something illegal. Unions are bad when they negotiate salaries and benefits beyond what the market would normally bear. Unions are bad when the resort to intimidation, threats, and violence to achieve their goals. If a situation is truly bad at an employer's facility, coercion will not be needed for the employees to unionize. Mere opportunity is all that needs to be provided. If the opportunity is provided but not taken, then the employer is not that bad.

When the efforts of government and unions are combined against an industry that is fine when left to respond to pure market forces, that is when double trouble starts.

I see private property rights in danger. I see eminent domain being twisted to where it is used to seize private property from one person and given to another based on the taxes that will be generated. I see that we are being robbed at the point of the figurative and literal government gun. The stolen 'loot' is then given liberally to those who have done nothing to earn it. All the while, the things that make a government necessary such as infrastructure and common defense are ignored by that government. I see more and more of this looting by our government to provide medical care. Do you really want the government in on your medical history? Do you really want it so that it is illegal for you to seek medical care outside that government system?
The costs of health care are awful. I am not clear on all the reasons, but I am sure that it has something to do with government and insurance companies. At one time in my childhood, a doctor's visit was $10. The doctor actually gave you a few minutes. The doctor had his own practice and was not affiliated with a large corporation. I have a theory. The doctors are not making much more in real money than they ever have.

I am meandering around. The point is that a book published over half a century ago is becoming more and more relevant every day. I recommend reading it. You may learn something.

Gay Marraige

Me oh My!! Can't we all just get along??

As is usual the government has it's nose where it doesn't belong. Marriage is a religious institution. It always has been. So in violation of the separation of church and state, government has it's fingers deep into marriage. Why so??? TAXES.

There is a simple answer to this entire mess. The government should issue only civil unions. These civil unions can be between any combination of consenting adults. The tax breaks are based on a 'divide by two' strategy. IE: Any two civilly joined people get the 'married' tax rate. Any three get the tax rate for a couple and a single. Any four get the married tax rate for all. In other words, an odd coupling will leave one party to pay single rate while the others pay 'married' rates.

Marriages, being religious institutions, should be performed by religious entities.

Any group of people that wishes to bind themselves legally should be able to do so. Government has no business in the living arrangements of consenting adults.

The individual religious institutions would have to decide those for whom they want to perform a marriage ceremony. IE: If a church was morally opposed to homosexuality, then they would refuse to marry that gay couple. If another church had a different view, it could marry the same couple. For legal purposes, the government would have to issue the civil union.

If the government were to go to a flat tax and abolish all other taxes - embedded and overt, then it would not even have to worry about civil unions at all. Legal name change would be all that was involved. But the flat tax rate is a different post.

My take is that if 5 women and two men wish to ALL be married to one another in a big 'ol 'family', it is none of the government's business.

The Freedom to Fail

What do you guys think of the many bailouts that are happening or are being proposed? The prevailing wisdom is that the pain of an AIG tanking would be worse than the pain of bailing them out. I am not so sure. If these companies have mad decisions that should cause collapse, maybe they should be allowed to die. Newer companies will step in and will grow - if the need is there. What I fear is that the bail out occurs and then after consuming millions in taxpayer bailout money, the company dies anyway. What I fear is that a brief jab of pain is going to be prolonged into a long dull throbbing agony. Our markets are an exercise in faith. - There is nothing concrete that can be pointed to as an indicator of value. No currency is tied to a metal or a concrete valuable. So, once the faith is shaken, it takes awhile for that faith to return. If a firm dies naturally, it is over - done. If that firm is bailed out and dies a longer death, it can deal more damage to the collective financial faith than if it had died the natural death it had earned.

In the name of charity open up!!!

What is the role of government in charity?

We have many social net programs in our country that are paid for by the government directly and indirectly by you and by me. Is this the role that we wish our government to have? Charity by definition is a voluntary giving. The government has chosen to fund these various welfare programs, but many taxpayers would rather the government not fund them. Yet, the government takes the money in taxes from one person and gives it to the other. This can be thought of as a form of socialism. Absolute capitalism nor absolute socialism is the answer. To me, it is clear that we must have a maximal capitalistic structure with a minimal socialistic safety net for those who truly have need of it. I wish to enumerate a few things below. I would appreciate constructive feedback.

1 - Most charity must be of a non government nature. Why??.....
a) There is too much lost when government is in the charity business. Inefficiency.
b) Government is here not to cradle us, but to provide Defense and Infrastructure
c) Government is poorly equipped to evaluate true need.

2 - The thin net that government should provide......
a) Should be limited to emergency circumstances or
b) Serious disabilities (If a person can work at McDonalds - No help.)
c) The ability to have children is not a qualifier.
If you cannot care for a child, don't get pregnant or give it up at birth.
This does not apply to existing children cared for and now some emergency has occured.
d) Should Be Time limited when possible.
e) Should be available only to legal citizens of this country.

My friends, governmental charity programs are eating us alive. This includes the bail out. Sure, it's only supposed to be a loan, but many of these institutions are going to end up owned by the government.
National government was only intended for the common defense, national infrastructure, and to mediate affairs between the states. State and Local government was to have most of the power. After all, you and I can talk to a town council. A local government can be much more responsive to those it represents. The way our national government is used is akin to using an atomic bomb as a flyswatter. It will work, but an awful lot of energy is wasted and there sure is a lot of collateral damage.