Posts Tagged With: Determinism
“Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Much of what once seemed mysterious — the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe — can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science.
Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there’s good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever.
Carroll argues that God’s sphere of influence has shrunk drastically in modern times, as physics and cosmology have expanded in their ability to explain the origin and evolution of the universe. “As we learn more about the universe, there’s less and less need to look outside it for help,” he told Life’s Little Mysteries.
He thinks the sphere of supernatural influence will eventually shrink to nil. But could science really eventually explain everything?”
My take on it is that when you separate the premises as presented of this theory from the rest of the story and question them thouroughly the theory still lacks scientific credibility. Thus it becomes a preconceived hypothesis liKe any other theory of the existence of God from the mind of an atheist.
Nearly two years after the introduction of the path-breaking plug-in hybrid, GM is still losing as much as $49,000 on each Volt it builds, according to estimates provided to Reuters by industry analysts and manufacturing experts.
Cheap Volt lease offers meant to drive more customers to Chevy showrooms this summer may have pushed that loss even higher. There are some Americans paying just $5,050 to drive around for two years in a vehicle that cost as much as $89,000 to produce.
Read more here
This is an election year, a year where many persons seek to be elected into a political office including the President of the nation. The economy and government’s role in it is on the front burner of everyone’s mind. It is an election that, in my mind, will determine whether the people seek a socialistic form of economic system or a system of free enterprise. It will be the ultimate test of the value of the democratic system of government.
The end results may not be seen in the immediate future but never the less time will be the judge of the outcome. And there are many who are uncertain of what is to be expected of them and that uncertainty is felt throughout society right now during this recessionary period. And they are looking to government for the solutions
Economics is a strange creature. It can be measured on the individual level as well as on the collective level. It can be established in many forms also as history has shown us. But regardless of what form of economics is the dominant form at any given time there is one principle that must be applied and that principle is the law of supply and demand.
From an economic viewpoint any society can be divided up into four types of collectives, government, private business, charities, and the family (individual). The success of each is dependent on how well they deal with the relationship between revenues and expenses. In a perfect system of economics expenses would never exceed revenues. But that would only occur if both revenues and expenses can be totally controlled. Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect existence and the economy of any society cannot be controlled regardless of what anyone knows or believes.
Socialism is a form of economics where the focus is on the demands of the individual with the expectation of the collective to provide the supply to meet that demand. It is also the foundational basis of their perception of the meaning of rights. In their eyes the needs of the individual is synonymous with the right to possess the object of that need even if it is at the full expense of that collective.
For a socialistic form of economics to thrive theoretically one must believe that people are by their nature altruistic or that life is deterministic and that men can be trained to be altruistic by the application of laws. This would imply that an advocate of socialism believes that a free enterprise form of economics is the cause of greed and self-interest thus immoral and unjust.
It is the profits inherent in a free enterprise form of economics that best exemplifies the self-interest and greed of human beings. To the socialistic mindset it is the fact that within a free enterprise system that profits must come at the expense of some is seen as the crux of the immorality and the injustice of the system itself. It is a declaration that one individual must suffer so that another man may know the benefits of the system.
Socialism is an economic theory that attempts to use a scientific approach for the solutions of the problems of life. Its a viewpoint that sees the imperfections of life then tries to ascertain the cause of that imperfection for the purpose of eliminating that cause and replacing it with a man made solution. Since it is seen as being a scientific approach then in the eyes of a socialist it must be a valid solution.
If socialism is a scientifically valid solution to the problems of life then there can be no reason not to implement it in any society and this is the substance of the socialist’s argument. Even religions are strong proponents of this form of economic system. Yet when it’s fully implemented it proves out to be a failure. It is the acceptance of it being scientifically valid theory that leads a socialist and those on the left to continue to have faith in this theory.
There are a lot of differences between the Right and the Left. And a lot of these differences are not reconcilable. The biggest reason for these differences is the basic differences of the meaning and purpose of what a government is. Both sides will agree that governments are the regulatory arm of any society. The only problem lies in the amount of power that a government possesses. History teaches us that when a government is a totalitarian government it is then that the people are powerless. And when the people are powerless then abuse of power by the government is inevitable.
This would lead us to believe that if governments are a necessity of a society then it must be a government that has limited powers. This would further lead us to accept that any powers that the government does not possess belong to the people. And if a society has set up a government with limited powers then those powers need to be clearly identifiable. For if they are not clearly identifiable then there is no way for anyone to determine when and if government is acting outside of the powers given to it. This is also an inevitability. And this in itself would be considered as an abuse of power by the government.
Now, let us not get into the mindset that division of powers eliminates abuse of powers no matter how strictly one adheres to that division of powers. The only way to eliminate the abuse of power is to eliminate the cause and in this case, the possession of power itself is the cause. This is also a historical fact.
Another difference between the right and the left are the concepts of individualism vs collectivism. These concepts are a little harder to define because many who advocate for individualism have elements of collectivism within their set of beliefs without being able to differentiate between the two concepts. And they justify this by declaring it as a necessity of life when it is, in reality, a part of what they were taught to believe in regards to a society. I might also add that those on the left have a misunderstanding of the meaning of the concept of individualism.
It is from this misunderstanding that we come to a third difference between the two sides, the concept of rights and privileges. Those on the left will declare that rights are possessed by a collective. Those who are of the right will declare that rights are the possession of the individual. This is the crux of all political disagreement in every society. It is also the crux of the accusation of extremism on both sides though this accusation has no merit. Either collectives possess rights or individuals possess rights. On this there can be no compromise.
The left sees some collectives as possessing rights that other collectives do not possess thus see them as being a privileged collective. In other words, the left understands the word in terms of being an adjective. It is from this viewpoint that inequality of collectives are perceived and is the foundation of their entire understanding of society and lack of justice. Thus, for justice to ever be achieved in a society, a socialistic form of economics as well as government must be set up and abided by. Anything less than this will always lead to an unjust society in their minds.
The big problem with a socialistic form of government is the fact that it requires a totalitarian form of government. One is the necessity of the other. If we are to see a totalitarian form of government as a just government then it must be a government run by people with altruistic attributes which is to say that it is a government without any powers over the people. This, in itself, would be a self-contradiction.
The right would see privileges in terms of being a noun. Privileges would be seen as what any individual could do with the permission of government. A license is one form by which government gives its permission to individuals. Since licenses are regulatory by their very nature they also can be seen as a hindrance but not a preventative to the freedom of the individual. And this leads us to another difference between the right and the left, the freedom of the individual vs the regulation of the behavior of the individual.
While there may be a need to regulate the behavior of individuals of any society we must ask at what point does it become an over-regulated society which by its very nature would be declared as an abuse of power by the government?
What say you, my friend?
Given the Supreme Court’s ruling that the federal government has the authority to force people to buy health insurance I thought it would be appropriate to remind everyone of the words of warning from the “Father of this nation” as he said of government. The following is a repost of something written way back in the end of the year 2009, December 16, to be exact.
Read it as you reflect upon what has occurred in the Supreme Court then ask yourself if this is how you wish to be treated by your government. I might remind you that the Supreme Court is an integral part of the federal government not a separate department from the federal government.
“Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
If there be one quote that guides me to an understanding of the government’s place in society, the above quote would be the one I’d choose. I can’t think of a more eloquent illustration nor can I think of a better reason for a government to be limited in its powers than the above quote.
Yes, I have heard of all the arguments for trusting in my government and yes I have had the strings of my heart pulled many times as I have watched my fellow man suffer through the problems that life will bring upon us as human beings. It is only when I remember the words above that I see that no problem that a man may bring upon himself that can compare with the problem that would be inflicted upon him if his government has no restriction placed upon it as many seek now.
From the above quote we can see that government is not only the servant of the people but that government is also the people’s master. It is only by doing for ourselves can we be free of the dangers of this servant. It is only by liberating ourselves that we need not fear the wrath of the master. Is this not reason? Is this not expressing the eloquence so desired in life?
From the above quote we can see that the man who believes himself to be the master of his government will soon be wearing the chains and shackles of his arrogance, his back revealing the scourges of the whip. The servant that government be will be wielding the whip while the master that government be will be holding the key to the locks of the chains.
Now, there will be those who think me a fool for the words I use here this day. They will seek to dispel the words of fear that I feel and am trying to instill. They will downplay the dangers, as if unfounded. But a man who is not fearful of the power of a government is a man already in chains, his will bent to the will of his master.
So, be careful of what you ask of your government, my friends, for it will be given unto you but it will be for a price no man should be willing to pay. And if a man does not pay the price willingly it will be exacted by force.
By the way, the speaker of those words I quoted was none other than Geo. Washington, a man who knew the meaning of force better than most men being a military man and also an owner of slaves. So, it would be the wise man who heeded his words well.
Grandpa slowly walked up to the lectern in front of the small crowd that had gathered after hearing of the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare. As he spoke you could hear just how disappointed he was in the outcome. Here is what he had to say.
“Well, folks, The Supreme Court has just torn up the whole Constitution. With this ruling on Obamacare the door has been opened to allow the federal government to do whatever it wants without limitation. The federal government now has the power and authority to demand of its citizens whatever the governments says is best. The people no longer possess the right to think for themselves as to what is right for him. We now have a government of absolute authority and power over the people.
The Bill of Rights no longer has any meaning. As far as i’m concerned this ruling was the last nail in the coffin of the great nation that was intended at the beginning. It is only a matter of time before the burial will take place and then what? Where does a man go who loves his liberty? Where in this world can a man go who seeks to live under a government limited in its powers as our government once was?
We are a nation under a totalitarian State. It may be passive at the moment but totalitarian it still be. And it will remain passively totalitarian for as long as the people see it as being a benevolent government. This is what a people gets when they view the government as the servant of the people.
There are persons out there that see this ruling as a short term loss but a long term gain for the right. Others see it as being nothing but a tax issue. Both may be right in a political sense but the Supreme Court made it a Constitutional issue by setting a precedence with this ruling, a precedence that the left will hold the right responsible for and hold them to in any further Supreme Court dealings when similar cases come up to be tested. I see no way around this fact of law making.
The only thing any politician has to do now in order to grab more power is to convince the people to pay higher taxes. Given the attitude towards the rich and the poor that no longer is a hard sell. Convince the people that everyone else other than them will be paying the higher tax and you have a winning argument. Too many people are stuck on the idea of getting a free lunch these days from the government.
As far as I am concerned this upcoming election has only one issue to consider now. The only issue of concern for me to consider when the time to vote for is Obamacare and how hard will that person fight to repeal the law. Every other issue can sit on the back burner and that includes the issues of the deficit and the economy.
This election must be so lopsided as to leave no doubt as to why people were elected. This is one law that if not repealed needs to have mass disobedience. The people need to let government know that it is bad law and that we will not give absolute authority and power to it as it seeks. Are we, as a people, strong enough to do that?
As another man said so eloquently, “Give me liberty or give me death.” that Constitution was clearly written for everyone to understand. That Constitution was written with a specific purpose and intent. And I congratulate the man who was able to convince people that it was not clearly written so as to mislead the people in its purpose and intent. I believe it now can be said that where government is concerned, power takes priority over principle. That I will never accept.
So, where can a man go who seeks only the freedom of living his life as he has chosen? Where can a man go where he can enjoy the benefits of his own decisions and is willing to accept the consequences of them also? Where can I go and take my grandson so that he may grow up and know the freedom of his choices.? How can the boy fulfill his full potential without that freedom just taken away from him?”
With these words spoken, grandpa slowly and with sadness showing in his face walked back to his seat by grandma. It was as if the future had been stolen from him this day and nobody seemed to care.
The barn was raised and after a night of social gathering and dancing come the next morn and the people began to return to their homes in a scattered manner. A man stopped near grandpa, looked at the barn and then said with a hint of pride in his voice,
“Tis a fine barn that was built, one that will remain standing long after the chickens come home to roost, don”t you think?” He then reached down his hand to grandpa.
Grandpa reached up his hand and shook the hand of the man and said,
“ That it be, that it be.”
After the man rode off grandpa looked down at me and said,
“ This be your first barn raising event, boy. This is what collective action can result in when a man finds himself in a situation where the help of the community would be a blessing. But if you have been a watching and listening as I instructed you to do you will be able to tell me what was the difference between this and the collective action that the progressives would say was necessary. In other words, boy, what did you learn in these past few days??”
Grandpa caught me off guard with his question and I had to think a few minutes before I responded with these words,
“I learned that individuals will act voluntarily and in a collective manner when they know that another individual is in need of help. Each and every person who came to this barn raising came because they were invited to help and each of them would still have stayed and helped even if no one else had come. The reason being is that each of them wanted to help. That is the difference between a collectivist and an individualist.
The collectivist thinks that people need to be forced to aid those in need and believe that the government is the moral way to do it. The individualist believes that people will help voluntarily when people are in need and that the use of force, regardless of source, is an immoral means of aid.”
Grandpa just smiled at me as he said,
“Boy, we have two cases in recent weeks that illustrate the destructive mindset of collectivism. The first be the Zimmerman/Martin case and how the public reacted to it in a collective manner. The second case involved how two men beat a third man as a result of this mindset. The excuse given for the beating and that is all that it can be called, an excuse,
After being arrested, Hayes told police he was upset by the Trayvon Martin case and beat the man up because he was white, Cook County State’s Attorney’s office spokeswoman Tandra Simonton said, citing court records.
Anybody who believes that the federal government can continuously add programs and control its spending by taxing the rich can be conned into believing that the government is God.
“Now we learn that the Buffett tax the Senate is expected to vote on early next week will make the deficit worse. That’s because both Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats have made it clear that their new “fairness” tax is to offset the revenue loss from another provision related to the Alternative Minimum Tax.
That measure would exempt more than 20 million middle class Americans with incomes as low as $80,000 a year from getting nailed by the AMT. This year’s Obama budget clearly describes their intent: “The Buffett Rule should replace the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now burdens middle-class Americans rather than stopping the richest Americans from paying too little as was originally intended.”
The Joint Tax Committee—the official scoring referee on tax bills—calculates that the combination of AMT repeal for the middle class and the Buffett tax would add $793.3 billion to the debt over the next decade. As Mr. Obama has said, “This isn’t politics, this is math.”
READ MORE HERE
The actress best known for portraying fiery lawyer Miranda Hobbes on “Sex and the City” is up to her perfectly arched eyebrows in controversy since The New York Times Magazine published a profile in which she was quoted as saying that for her, being gay was a conscious choice. Nixon is engaged to a woman with whom she has been in a relationship for eight years. Before that, she spent 15 years and had two children with a man.
More of her claims here
What say you on the issue?
About the Griper
The Foolish Writers
Wisdom of friends
|Dcat on Will Science Prove That God Do…|
|Dcat on Will Science Prove That God Do…|
|Tim Shey on I Am Your Fellow Man but I Am…|
|The Griper on Those Evil, Greedy Oil Co…|
|BK Griffith on Those Evil, Greedy Oil Co…|
Areas of Discussion
- 12,911 hits