Dinnertime Revolutions
December 2, 2008 by Erin Reynolds · Leave a Comment
(Guest Contributor)
Part 1
“The growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.” -George Eliot
What is the power of one boy walking alone? The impact of one man going home early? The portent of one woman on her knees?
The essence of the world, and in fact this world’s summation, can be found at the scene of a family gathered around a table, leading the world’s great revolutions.
One father can stop an army. One mother can make the difference between a World War and a Continental Conference.
The next American Revolution has begun. It has commenced within the quiet precincts of our nation’s homes. The collective cry for help is being sounded by a world in chaos; the pledge to assist is being offered one person at a time.
American freedom has provided a sounding board for the great ideas of the twenty-first century. American freedom has allowed its citizens the opportunity to decide what those major ideas will do. American freedom, begun long before 1776, can no longer be just another subject we study in school, or a pledge at a ball game, or a prayer in church.
American freedom is clearly an obligation — a resounding cry that must be answered, because very soon roll will be called, and solutions will be required. The discrepancies of justice refuse to be silent; the arbiters of justice will be called to take account.
But who knows about his or her obligation to the world? Each person born in America today faces challenges as great as did Gandhi, Churchill, or Lincoln. And while we may not be required to suppress cultural rebellions, conquer international dictators, or defend human dignity, our challenges match and sometimes exceed those of past generations.
The Challenge
Our challenge today is to defend the destiny of the world; it is to promote liberty in our legislatures and at our dinner tables, at home and abroad. Americans are at an influential fulcrum point. The future of freedom hinges on decision we are making unawares. We must therefore become aware of all we have to offer, and all that is at stake, or we cannot summon the courage to reckon with our fears and thereby deny our enemies their only real weapon.
Today we are obligated to defend freedom when it may seem in our best interest to do otherwise. In sharing liberty we may risk opposing political and economic agendas designed to promote what some have termed “American freedom” and “American prosperity.”
But this revolution will teach us that no biased, selfish agenda can ever be called American. As part of the revolution we could be invited to sacrifice personal prosperity and peace on behalf of those who have who have not experienced either. We will choose by how we vote, whom we follow, and how we live, whether or not our children’s children will think of freedom as a legacy, or a memory.
The line connecting our children to freedom, and ourselves to the defense of that gift, has never been clearer, or harder to realize. More could not be at stake.
For at least five decades freedom has allowed peace and prosperity. It has not been requisite that the patriotic citizen sacrifice his business for his country, or his home for the world. But revolutions breed strange benefits. We may be surprised at what is asked of us, and even more, at what results.
The sacrifices demanded by this revolution will bring benefits of courage and virtue. They will inculcate greater prosperity and peace. Yet, as in any war, much hinges on the knowledge of the nature and aims of the enemy. Ignorance of this revolution may lead to loss of more than our own happiness. If we are not careful, we could indeed find ourselves fighting on the wrong side.
To find ourselves fighting for our own enemies seems almost impossible, but it is easily accomplished when the impact of ignorance is forgotten. We often do not realize that the bridge linking us to true fulfillment is not the next bridge, nor the last bridge, but the one we’re burning right now.
It can be hard to see that the reason our children are sent to battle is not because we cannot find the answer to war, but because we will not give the price of peace. Indeed, many of us do not know exactly what that price is.
What is this revolution, and what does it mean?
Who are its advocates? Against what is it revolting? This revolution is not really industrial, economic, or political –- though it impacts each of these. It is a departure from current trends, a return to past principles, and a leap forward in terms of what will be demanded, what will be given, and what will result. This revolution will show us that the years ahead offer more enjoyment, more fulfillment, and more happiness than we have ever known. As with the first great American Revolution, more than anything this revolution is concerned about what will be.
While this revolution is purely American in region, in thought, and principle, its founders come from nations worldwide. Its advocates are found on all sides of the political spectrum, and some of its greatest heroes are those whose eyes never viewed the land of the free and the home of the brave. But their hearts still thrilled at the thought of liberty, and their voices still defend what is right — Joan, Solon, Wellington and a host of others.
True liberty was their hope and their ideal, a vision that gave life meaning, and death purpose. For it they surrendered family, friends and fortune, but all this with the understanding that their sacrifices, alone, would never be enough. They looked forward with the knowledge that somehow, someway, somewhere freedom could ignite not just one individual, but an entire nation, and thereby liberate not one class, or one country, but actually revolutionize a world.
This was the liberty they sought; this is the obligation we have inherited.
The leaders of this revolution are the men and women, the mothers and fathers, the grandsons and granddaughters who care about not only the next twenty years of peace, but also about the next two hundred. They are leaders of movements past and present that look to us to defend the fact that freedom is not an American enigma, but a condition of progression.
Finally, what is this revolt against? It is a revolution against bondage, against mediocrity, particularly mediocrity of the most important things. The most dangerous battles are the ones where the “least” is at stake; in such scenarios those who fight are prepared for, and question, nothing. Whatever they lose, then, is more than they were prepared to surrender, and less than they could have given.
Such seemingly insignificant battles define the most significant ones. This revolution may seem insignificant. It may appear that not much is at stake. But to choose mediocrity now could make our lives as well as our nation meaningless. Our personal choices are no longer personal, and in fact touch the very center of civil service.
Family: The Heart of the Revolution
Our business strategies may not be as important as our marital success. Our financial legacy may hold less meaning than a family tradition. The degrees and accolades, the promotions and profits, often detract from the real purpose at hand. The world measures success by the only method it knows: public opinion. But by its very nature, such opinion can grant only public happiness.
Slow down and consider this for a minute — public happiness. We tell ourselves how happy we all are, and it must be true. Right? Everyone says so. But the only happiness you can take home with you is private. As we turn to sources closer to home to find inner happiness and peace, we will be fighting more than our own battles.
Our dinnertimes hold greater meaning than we may think.
********************
This essay is Chapter 1 of Dinnertime Revolutions: Meeting the American Challenge by Erin Reynolds. Click here to purchase the book.
Erin Reynolds is a graduate of George Wythe University with a Bachelor’s degree in Statesmanship and a Master’s Degree in Education. She has taught in a number of venues, including spearheading a group to Uganda. She resides in Cedar City, Utah.
Why I Don’t Like “Enlightened Self-Interest”
November 26, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 1 Comment
This is a follow-up to my last article, wherein I write that I prefer the term “submission” over the term “enlightened self-interest.”
My aversion to the term “enlightened self-interest” comes from its common usage in economic and narrowly practical terms. In other words, it doesn’t go far and deep enough for what I wish to convey with “submission.”
And, once again, understand that this is written from my understanding of Christian epistemology and doctrine. You may take issue with my interpretation/understanding, but if you reject Christian epistemology, then we have no basis for debate.
Enlightened self-interest largely has its roots in Adam Smith’s concept of “the invisible hand,” as found in Wealth of Nations, wherein he writes:
“By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.”
Ayn Rand’s term for this is “rational selfishness.” In The Virtue of Selfishness Rand writes:
“The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness — which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man — which means: the values required for human survival — not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the ‘aspirations,’ the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.
“The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash — that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.”
In either case, we find self-interest to be grounded in the material world, confined to a mental, or rational, sphere, and narrowly defined in terms of economic exchange.
Adding the spiritual element, according to my understanding, changes, or at least broadens, the whole picture. When animated by a spiritual connection with a Supreme Being, people do things that may appear to be irrational — at least to those who place the mental realm as the highest realm of existence. Furthermore, they may do things that may appear to have no or limited economic value, in the strictest of terms.
For example, Christ’s willingness to take upon Himself our sins and weaknesses is ridiculous and irrational to the atheist/strict Objectivist. (Per Rand’s statement, “In spiritual issues, a trader is a man who does not seek to be loved for his weaknesses or flaws, only for his virtues, and who does not grant his love to the weaknesses or the flaws of others, only to their virtues.”)
His sacrifice, borne of submission to His Father, was not calculated to bring him money, or to prosper in narrow economic terms.
Mother Teresa didn’t run her orphanages for the purpose of exchanging her labor for money for herself. She didn’t start out thinking of “promoting an end which was no part of [her] intention.” She actually intended to achieve altruistic ends. The good she did in the world wasn’t a mere by-product of pursuing her own interest solely — it was the target, the conscious goal.
Washington didn’t suffer through Valley Forge because of rational, mental, self-interested, economic-based calculations. Left to himself, Washington would have been a quiet farmer his entire life. But because he had submitted to God, not only did he sacrifice, but his sacrifices actually got him closer to his true self-interest than not making them could have. (Of course, this is an assumption based on Christian epistemology and an eternal perspective.)
Submission: The Highest Form of Applied Self-Interest
Enlightened self-interest is not, in my estimation, the highest form of applied self-interest. While it definitely is much more preferable to selfishness, or “irrational selfishness,” it doesn’t go far enough to describe my understanding of Christian doctrine. It’s predicated upon mental calculations intended to bring us the best returns. And, as I wrote previously, since we can’t have full knowledge of what is in our best interest at any given time, we must rely upon an external source — God — to guide our calculations.
Submission to God seems to me a much better term for the highest form of self-interest. God doesn’t ask us to be irrational brutes; He merely asks us to have faith in Him. We’re not to shut off our mental calculations; we’re simply to trust that His recommendations (revelation) — no matter how difficult or “irrational” they may seem at the moment — supersede our calculations and will lead to our best interest.
He may ask us to choose a lower-paying job over a higher-paying one for reasons that we don’t understand. He may ask us to do things we don’t like (e.g. Washington). He may tear our heartstrings — as He did with Abraham — in order to expand our compassion and understanding. His revelations and guidance may lead to our suffering and death (e.g. Joan of Arc, Christ’s original apostles).
Without a belief in and relationship with God, we may never perform the sacrifices that would have led us, in actuality, to our highest self-interest. Even with a relationship with God, our self-interest can still be limited if our actions are based upon what we see in any given moment. If we can’t see how an action will benefit us immediately, we’ll choose a different (lower) path.
To conclude, I don’t prefer the term “enlightened self-interest” because it’s become, through common usage, limited, narrow, and defined strictly in terms of economic exchange. Submission is my preferred term to describe the highest form of self-interest.
It’s expansive enough to include the concept of “losing our life to save our life.” It implicitly presupposes an omniscient Being to whom we must submit, a Being who knows far better what is in our self-interest than we ever can. It doesn’t discourage nor negate rational thought; it expands and deepens it. It transcends the physical and mental realms and opens the door into the spiritual realm.
And by the way, I don’t even pretend to be a good example of what I’m describing. I echo Seneca who said, “I persist in praising not the life that I lead, but that which I ought to lead. I follow it at a mighty distance, crawling.”
Email This Post
People Who Disagree With You Aren’t Stupid
November 3, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 2 Comments
There’s nothing like a heated election to bring out passion — and disrespect — in people.
I was recently engaged in a conversation about Barack Obama where the following comments were made:
“You are wasting your breath. There are too many idiots out there who have no rational though [sic] when it comes to this thing we call voting. How else could a guy with absolutely no credentials (other than being black) get this close to being president. People are dumb. Then you have fools who thing [sic] that Bush screwed up enough that we need to vote Democrats in to get change going. Little did all the idiots know, but they were electing the american version of Yassir Arafat. I would like to congratulate the American people for being freaking morons of the highest order.”
And today I edited a comment on this site from a member who labeled those who disagree with him as “slow learners.”
Interesting. The implicit assumption that underlies such comments is that everyone who disagrees with the speaker is an idiot, dumb, a fool, a moron, and a slow learner.
There are two problems with this kind of approach: 1) there’s truth in every perspective, and 2) it negates our responsibility to persuade.
Truth In Every Perspective
As uneducated as I am, I do try to read frequently. I have yet to read anything or explore the perspective of any individual without finding something valuable and true.
I find truth in the writings of Karl Marx — he described and accurately diagnosed a severe problem, that of aristocratic exploitation by using the force of government to favor those with capital over those with little or none.
I find truth in Hegel — his dialectic approach has added to my own thought processes immensely (as witnessed by this article).
I find truth in Qu’ran, the Torah, the Old and New Testaments, the Tao Te Ching, and the Bhagavad Gita.
I find truth in the perspectives of John Keynes, John Stuart Mill, Gunnar Myral, John Galbraith, and Herbert Marcuse.
To clarify, I also find a lot of falsehoods in each of these — as I do in the writings of “conservatives” and in the perspectives of the Founding Fathers. The point is that people who disagree with you aren’t stupid — they simply have a different perspective based on their nature and nurture, their background and their education. And there’s much value to be gained from the people with whom you disagree the most.
Labeling those who disagree with you as “stupid” is a great way to lose out on a valuable perspective that could help you to hone your own views and become more effective in the battle for freedom.
The Responsibility of Persuasion
Let’s assume for a moment that those who call others “dumb” are right. Being right doesn’t give you license to denigrate; it gives you the responsibility to persuade with love and patience. Those who feel that they are the most “right” have the most responsibility to help others to see their perspective.
If it’s true that you’re right, then why would you push people away by calling them idiots and morons? If it’s true that you’re right, then why aren’t you serving and uplifting, rather than attacking, those with whom you disagree? If it’s true that you’re right, shouldn’t you be doing everything in your power to persuade others to your side/perspective/cause? And how does name-calling and condescension help that effort in the slightest? When was the last time you won anyone to your side by putting them down?
Conclusion
Those who are the most passionate should be the most loving, kind, and patient. Those who feel the strongest about their positions should serve those with a different position the most. “Liberals” aren’t any more or less stupid than “conservatives.” Republicans in general are no more or less educated or patriotic than Democrats. There’s truth to be learned and value to be gained from socialists and libertarians alike.
When you find yourself in a heated discussion, step back and strive to find the good, the true, and the valuable from the person you disagree with. The world will be a better place, peace will trump conflict, and you’ll find that you attract and persuade far more effectively.
None of us have a monopoly on truth. But if we did, being right is a call to serve, not a license to vilify.
(By the way, if you think I’m self-righteous for posting this, be assured that I’m also talking to myself. Those who know me well know that I have a history of conflict and condescension. How do you think I’ve learned that it doesn’t work?)
Recommended Reading:
Are You Asking the Right Questions?
Email This Post
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
Was Jesus Christ A Liberal Socialist?
October 13, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 22 Comments
One of our subscribers and best supporters (Thanks Linda!) emailed me today asking for my perspective on a couple questions. The questions have arisen as she has been involved in a debate on another forum.
The first question is, “Was Jesus Christ a Liberal Socialist?”
The first step to answer this question is to define the terms. Much disagreement exists not because those arguing fundamentally disagree, but because they’re simply defining terms differently.
If by “liberal socialist” one refers to a person who seeks to serve his fellow man with compassion and charity, and who spends his life voluntarily clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, liberating the captive, educating the ignorant, and caring for the sick and afflicted, then yes, Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist and we should all strive to be liberal socialists.
If being a liberal socialist means striving to attain just and equitable society, a society where there are no rich or poor, where all men are treated equally, then Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist. If liberal socialism means to give of our talents and substance to serve and uplift others, then Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist.
For those readers who are choking on my words, please read on carefully to digest the full context.
Consider the following excerpts from the Bible:
Matthew 19: 16 - 21
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him…if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness.
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All of these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me.
Luke 6:35-38
35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
Matthew 25:34-46
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
In an interview with Pastor Rick Warren, Barack Obama, currently the most prominent liberal in America, said, “America’s greatest moral failure…has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew, ‘Whatever you do to the least of my brothers, you do for me.’ That basic principle applies to poverty, it applies to racism and sexism, it applies to not…providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class…This country, as wealthy and powerful as we are, we still don’t spend enough time thinking about the least among us.”
I agree with those words — in a certain context — and I think that Jesus Christ, as I understand His life and teachings, would agree as well.
Content Vs. Context
Let’s pause a moment. Understand that no truth exists without context. Needles are content; using them to insert drugs or life-saving medicine are examples of context. Water is content; watering crops and drowning a person are examples of context. Needles aren’t good or bad — it’s how they are used that determines their virtue, or destructive power.
The words “liberal” and “socialist” are nothing but content; without understanding the context in which they are used it’s impossible to determine whether or not Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist.
To counteract my claims above that Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist, now consider a different context:
If by “liberal socialist” one refers to a person who justifies using force to steal from one person or group of people to give to another, then Jesus Christ was the furthest thing from a liberal socialist.
Force Vs. Voluntarism
The crux of the argument lies in understanding the purpose and function of the government. As I have written elsewhere, government is force. No policy can ever be enacted through government without it being backed by a gun to the head of every citizen who chooses to disobey the law.
Those who claim that Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist, and who believe that liberal socialism is enacted by government force, misunderstand the voluntary nature of charity. As I write in an essay entitled On Bridge-Building:
“Unprincipled social workers seem relatively harmless on the surface, yet when an entire culture embraces a false sense of government-sponsored philanthropy, the long-term consequences are an irresponsible society operating under a crippling sense of entitlement. The desire to lift and serve others is good, but the danger from the group I speak of comes from using government force to impose their sense of morality upon the populace. This degenerates into a moral cannibalism that ultimately destroys the society.
“When the true sense of public virtue is distorted and counterfeited to become forced wealth distribution, the virtue is lost and replaced with resentment and anger by those forced to give, and the loss of dignity and self-reliance on those who depend on the givers. False charity destroys those who know how to fish at the expense of those waiting for fish to be given to them. The cruel irony is that the people who are hurt the most by forced welfare schemes are the same people that misplaced charity is precisely designed to help. People who set out to ’serve society’ and who do not operate under moral principles inevitably seek to ‘lift’ the bottom by forcefully taking from the top. The result is a miserable mediocrity for all.”
The gospel of Jesus Christ is, at its core, one of voluntary virtue. Being forced at gunpoint to support others is not virtue at all — it is unabashed theft.
While Jesus Christ demonstrated the path we should follow by washing Peter’s feet, He also taught, “Thou shalt not steal.” Interestingly, contemporary liberals and socialists break one of His laws in order to fulfill another. They justify theft in the name of charity — ironically rendering charity obsolete in the process.
I wholeheartedly agree with Barack Obama — and Jesus Christ — that the ideal society is one in which all citizens seek the interest of their neighbors and do everything in their power to serve and uplift the downtrodden, the oppressed, and the underprivileged. And I also believe and strive to adhere to the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.”
Using the government to take from one person or group to give to another is an act of force. Strip away all of the nice-sounding language about “social justice” and the concept of the “village” and all it is is one person putting a gun to another’s head and saying, “You will give this money or you will be shot dead, or at the very least imprisoned.”
“…a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” -Thomas Jefferson
If charity is not implemented on a voluntary basis it is thievery, it is moral cannibalism, and it fails every time, as proven throughout history.
So, was Jesus Christ a liberal socialist? It depends on the definitions and the context. Our challenge is to follow Him without resorting to force.
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
What Trampolines Can Tell Us About Ideal Society
September 23, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 1 Comment
I was jumping on the trampoline today with my three kids — eight year-old Alex, three year-old Liberty (Libby), and eleven month-old Avery — and, like I am prone to do, reflecting on ideal society.
Alex, skilled and energetic, wants to jump as high as he can and perform tricks. Libby, unaware of her surroundings, jumps wildly, often upending Avery. Avery has a good time, yet she’s at risk from her older, heavier, more capable siblings. Much of the time was spent cautioning Alex and Libby to be careful with Avery. In fact, the experience revolved around catering to Avery, the youngest, weakest, and least capable in our family.
One adult and three kids on a trampoline — a microchosm of society, or at least what it should be. The following are the lessons I identified:
1. Cater to the weakest.
Just as we cared for baby Avery on the trampoline, in the ideal society, individuals voluntarily serve and uplift the weak, the poor, the aged, the disabled. Competition and cooperation go hand-in-hand; competition increases quality while cooperation ensures peace and stability. Competition should never create ill feeling; cooperation should never create dependency. The goal of this ideal isn’t to take the strongest down to the level of the weakest; rather it is to uplift the weak to increased capacity, thus raising all of society without creating wide discrepancies in social status and/or wealth distribution.
2. Create outlets for all skill levels and interests.
While the ideal caters to the weakest, it also allows for full expression of every individual, including the most talented and capable. The disease of socialism is that it tends toward mediocrity, tearing down the able in the name of “helping” the weak. In the ideal, catering to the weak is never done at the expense of the strong. In the case of our trampoline experience, we took turns so that each child could do what they wanted and grow on their terms. Alex took a turn alone, doing flips and aerials. Libby did her crazy thing. Then, I held Avery in my arms and we all jumped together. No desires were sacrificed, Avery was protected and made to enjoy the experience at a higher level than she could alone.
Think of this concept in a public school setting. Inevitably, in a class of 25 or more students, the “slow” learners get left behind, while the “fast” learners quickly become bored. Both the weak and the strong suffer.
Imagine a setting where each individual is allowed to learn and progress on their own terms, at their own speed. Then, having grown, they help others to do the same.
3. Protect rights.
Just as my youngest daughter needed to be protected from physical danger posed by her siblings, the ideal society has a strong institution that protects the rights of every individual. Keeping individuals safe from harm from others is not the same as giving every individual the same material goods.
4. The ideal is for all of this to happen at the level of family and community.
Politicians and bureaucrats in Washington have no intimate knowledge of, nor a relationship with, the members of our communities. While families and community members voluntarily serve each other, the federal government relies solely upon force to institute “goodwill.” Top-down, removed-from-the-source charity always tends toward bureaucracy, wastes money and misemploys resources, and depends upon force as its animating factor.
Ideal charity is animated by voluntary love, is based on intimate relationships, makes the most productive use of resources as possible, and creates independence from dependence, and interdependence from independence.
Conclusion
So who cares? There’s no startling revelation here. What matters is what we do with this knowledge, not what we sit and ponder on. Be a bridge-builder: Identify where society is, where it should be, then quietly and powerfully insert yourself in the middle. Find people that need to be served and serve them. Help the unemployed develop skills and find employment. Help addicts find freedom. Care for your aged parents in your own home instead of sending them to a retirement center. Be active in your community. Be true to your spouse and loving to your children. Teach your children the importance of service, especially through your example. Remove the need for federal government force by replacing it with family and community-centered voluntary charity.
The next time you’re disgusted with federal government waste, deception, and/or force, turn that disgust into positive action by building your family and community. The stronger our families and communities, the less involved and smaller the government can be. And spend some time jumping on a trampoline — there’s no telling what you’ll learn.
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
-
Free Newsletter Subscription
Subscribe to The Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and receive two free gifts. Your personal information will never be shared.
Subscribe To The Cause Of LibertyPolls
Loading ... Loading ... Loading ...