Free-Market means free individual

 I know a few people who are not "real big proponents" (to say the least) of the free market system. "Capitalism is just an unfair system where the rich exploit the poor" they say. As far as I'm concerned, this is about as true as saying "socialism is just an unfair system where the lazy exploit the hard-working." Both arguments are straw man arguments. Capitalism is not the exploitation of the poor, although that tragically has occurred before. The same is true for socialism. Lazy exploiting the hard-working is a loophole within the system, not the system itself.

 I am a clear proponent of the free-market system. I mean, CLEAR PROPONENT. Against minimum wage. Against anti-trust laws. Against unions. Against OSHA. Against permitting and liscence offices. Like I said, clear proponent.

 I understand the objection, however, that the rich seem to get richer and the poor seem to get poorer. This does seem, at times, to feel like it's the case. It's a myth, however, to say that the socialist system accomplishes national wealth. A look at history will demonstrate that that has never once occurred. Why people believe "the next time will be different" is lost on me, and I fear I will not come to understand it anytime soon. Even local and recent examples can show us this. Many of the poorest states in America are ardently modern liberal/democrat, and yet have remain every bit as poor as when they starting hoping liberalism could change things.

 I must admit that capitalists do not do a very good job at explaining how capitalism is the ladder out of poverty, instead of the pit that keeps them stuck. One of the great things about capitalism is that innovation is always available to you, and your hard work to accomplish it will be rewarded in the capitalist system. Hard work, sacrifice, and innovation pay off in a free market. Not so, in a social welfare system.

 But my commitment to free market is not essentially about reward for hard work. It's about personal liberty. The free market allows you to do things your way. You do not need the government to tell you how a business should be run, nor do you need the government to tell you which business you need to work in. In a free market, an individual has the right to self-govern his work, and he has the right to self-govern his purchases. This, I believe, is most in keeping with our constitution, and most in keeping with the beliefs of our founding fathers.

 And, by the way, when did the people surrender the right to regulate business to the government? I don't remember any amendments that granted those powers to the government..... perhaps they just took them from us without asking.

Faith and Politics

 I'm not really a Rick Warren buff or anything. I didn't read "Purpose-Driven Life" -- can't say that I intend to either. But he did say something in that Presidential interview forum recently that was intelligent. "We believe in the separation of church and state, but not religion and politics." These distinctions are important, and he is quite correct about them. 

 A friend of mine was a political science major when he went through college. He recalled to me a conversation in class after George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004, shocking most liberals around the globe. People were talking about how the "religion vote" helped Bush gain his re-election -- some were quite upset by this -- and how foolish they felt people were to vote based upon religion. One man even said that votes based on religion shouldn't count, because of the separation of church and state. And, I suppose, that in this country of free speech, I will support people's right to say and believe things like this, even if the ideas are dumber than the night is dark.

 But Rick Warren was quite right to make a distinction between "church and state" and "religion and politics." There is quite a large difference between the two. "Separation of church and state" refers to a divide between the public law to which people are bound under penalty to follow, and necessarily religious dogma set up by instituted moral authority, or those essentially acting as one. It's a divide that protects people's ability to exercise their own religion in the way that they see fit, within the bounds of not interfering with other people's rights. This does not mean that religious perspective and understanding must be absent from political activity. 

 Webster's Dictionary, under it's second definition of the word "Religion" states : "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices" Hardly something that can be removed from one's entire approach to politics. Really, if that man in college had been honest with himself, he would have his own religious beliefs to bring to the table with him, even if it consists entirely of a belief that religion is useless (which would be an attitude, belief and practice of a question that is necessarily religious in nature). Religion, in this sense, is nothing more than a part of the understanding that shapes a person's view of what is important, and how he is to interact with the world around him. In this sense, it is impossible to separate one's religion from one's politics as much as it would be impossible to separate one's self-identity, or one's view of good and bad from his politics.

 In fact, saying separation of church and state means separation of religion and politics is quite a large amount of hypocrisy. Religion, in it's broadest sense, is unavoidable. People who claim to be "without religion" are not really without it at all. Everyone believes something about the ideas of God, good and evil, faith, and truth. These questions are unavoidably religious. To say that God exists is not somehow "more religious" than to say that he does not. To say that "good and evil" are relative as opposed to clearly defined objectively does not change the fact that in order to answer the question, one must, by simple nature, involve one's self in a strictly religious belief. Same as the fact that saying two plus two is four is not somehow "more mathematic" than saying two plus two in not five. 

 And so, to say that the church and the state must be separated actually protects one's right to mix religion with politics. To say that religion must be absent from one's political approach is to really say that one must act politically as an atheist -- and atheism is necessarily a religious perspective.

The Limits of Government

So, If I say the purpose of government is to secure the rights of the people (as the Declaration of Independence says), what then is the scope of government. What do people mean by limited government or small government? This is a question for the U.S. Constitution. 

Some people have used the Constitution as an excuse for government expansion. The Preamble says that "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and Secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity...." This has been used by many as guidelines for the purpose of and scope of government. This, however, is not what the Constitution is saying. Government is not supposed to promote the general welfare, for instance. Rather, in order to promote general welfare, the Constitution lays down the rules of government. Do you see the difference?

The Limits of government are laid out in the 10th Amendment (a favorite of a libertarian friend of mine)."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." In other words, the scope of the US government is limited to the scope specifically laid out in the Constitution. Many people talk about "The constitution doesn't grant you that right!" but this is totally backwards. If the Constitution does not grant government the ability to get involved, then it is they who do not have rights on issues the Constitution is silent on. The purpose of Amendments are to add to the powers of the Federal government, or to add clarity to the relationship of the states with each other and their people. So by "limited government", I don't mean that I want a government as small as possible. I mean I want a government limited to the bounds the Constitution grants it.

(More about this can be found at my friend Joel's blog, at http://the3rdamericanrevolution.blogspot.com/ -- a great Libertarian blog that predates mine)

The Purpose of Government

Its funny how often people forget the reason they have something, or the reason they do something. It's like traveling to a location, and then forgetting where you are going on the road. You inevitably begin to wander around. Without a destination, you are bound to get lost. What's the purpose of government? Its sad how rarely we ask ourselves this important question. After all, how can we steer the government with our vote if we are not sure what direction we want it to go? How can we know if it has made a wrong turn?

Particular policies is not what I mean here. I know that foreign policy is important to people, or taxes, or the environment..... but these are waypoints, not destinations. At least not in the way I mean the question. I don't mean, "What ought the government be doing?" -- I mean why is it there? What is it for?

Many men have come up with many answers to this question. Some have thought of government like a service buisness. Someone to be responsible for the services we cannot provide ourselves. Like the post office, or building roads. Others have thought of the government as a good neighbor. Someone who will watch out for you. Someone who will help you out, and know what you need. Maybe help you find a job, and help you pay your bills until you find one. Others see government as an instrument for personal gain -- maybe like a fat government contract for your business. Or even a way to make sure that football games are on free television. So, what would you say?

I think, and have thought for a while now, that I'll pick the answer that the Declaration of Independence gives. Government exists to secure and protect the rights of its people. If its been a while since you've read it, you should go back and read it again. Here's the first two paragraphs, which clearly answers that question of governments purpose:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have them connected with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the seperation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed......"

The American Government was established on the belief that all men are equal and posses certain rights that are theirs without condition by nature, and that government is established by people to protect, or "secure" these rights. These individual rights are not moral rights, nor are they cultural rights, but inherent ones. The purpose of government is to protect them.