I’ll use this thoughtful post (HT: GVH) as an introduction to my latest blog link. John’s path of philosophic evolution is very similar to mine.

Great blog - check it out.

An excellent post by GVH explores the next ring in the chain of America’s tyrannical noose. Staying true to the cause of trampling rights, specifically the right of Employers to set their own terms with Employees, our Dictators strive to restrict Hospitals from taking disciplinary action against workers who refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable. Since morality is subjective and arbitrary for a large percentage of people, virtually any action can be refused on moral grounds - and Hospitals can’t take any punitive measures! Because there probably won’t be any repercussions for such negligence starting in the near future, we can only hope in the event of a medical need that the ER attending can’t imagine any arbitrary reason to object to our aid on moral grounds.

Two areas of interest here: the broad offense of mingling religion and Government, and the interference by Government in the private terms between two individuals (employer and employee) - both violations of rights by the supposed protector of rights. The first represents a blatant protest for why this country was founded, and the second, which underlies a tremendous record of economic strangling, has become so mainstream that most people don’t even question it.

Employers and employees are individuals acting in voluntary agreement. So long as no force is involved, either party is able to abandon the relationship on any grounds they deem appropriate. If an employee wants the job, they’ll concede to the terms of the employer. If the employer allows duty exemptions based on personal moral objections, they do - if they don’t they don’t. It’s their right as the property owning agent to set their terms as they see fit. For Government to intervene by trumping such terms is a violation of their rights to life, liberty and property. The employer’s livelihood depends on their ability to remain profitable by conducting their business in a way that consumers pay them for services. In order to scale their business, they must hire competent individuals that add at least as much value as they cost. To achieve such gains, the employer has the right to set the terms of employment lend themselves accordingly. They also have the right to dictate the terms for another individuals presence on their property.

When Government interferes with the Employer’s rightful discretion regarding employment terms, not only are they violating property rights by negating the employers ability to set the terms for another individuals presence on their property, they are also interfering with their ability to manage their employees, a violation of their right to act freely in their best interest which effectively limits their ability to scale their business, which directly affects their livelihood.

Whether we’re talking about forcing an employer to pay wages based on metrics other than they choose, forcing them to allow individuals on their property with firearms regardless of their discretion, or forcing them to make exemptions in their terms of employment based on arbitrary religious whims - all are violating the employers rights.

People that condone such intrusive power by Government usually fail to think beyond the concrete terms relating to their specific moral compass. Never mind the fact that a proper Government doesn’t initiate force, many Christians are fine with injecting religion into Law (or education), but fail to consider (by abstraction) the threat which such authority would impose if any other religion or standard of morality were plugged into the same power template. Likewise, collectivists are fine with the idea of trumping rights as long as it’s their moral code which is the guiding agent. Once a Government has the overall authority to force, the restricting stipulations will vary with consensus. Those who don’t hesitate to use Government to force their beliefs on others, in doing so they’re also establishing the precedent and plumbing for such force to be diverted to a cause they wouldn’t dare condone. They don’t mind giving the key to their front door to a neighbor for purposes they approve, but in doing so they’ve granted him the means to betray their terms. Now that he has it, he may come in at will and wreak any havoc he chooses, or copy the key a thousand times so every thug in town can also help themselves. Such is the risk of failure to abstract.

As stated by Gus…

If leftists really didn’t want to be under the knife of fundamentalist doctors, they would support freeing all medical care from government control, and then take advantage of that freedom to boycott such physicians. Likewise, if conservatives really valued freedom of conscience for physicians, they, too, would begin working to get the government out of medicine. They could have whole hospitals that didn’t practice abortion! (But then, they would have to give up on their dream of forcing everyone else to abide by their arbitrary dicta.)

Our freedom is eroding from both sides of the isle because both fail to properly regard the individual. Not only must we abandon any law that tramples an employers right to set their own terms with employees, so we must abolish any legal tenet that violates an individuals rights to life, liberty or property.

by Craig Biddle at 8:23 PM

The religious tradition of saying grace before meals becomes especially popular around the holidays, when we all are reminded of how fortunate we are to have an abundance of life-sustaining goods and services at our disposal. But there is a grave injustice involved in this tradition. It is the injustice of thanking an alleged God for the productive accomplishments of actual men.

Where do the ideas, principles, constitutions, governments, and laws that protect our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness come from? What is the source of the meals, medicines, homes, automobiles, and fighter jets that keep us alive and enable us to flourish? Who is responsible for our freedom, prosperity, and well-being?

Is freedom a gift from God? It is not. Freedom, the absence of physical coercion, is a political condition resulting from the rational, principled thought and action of men—men such as Aristotle, John Locke, the Founding Fathers, Frederick Douglass, and American soldiers.

Did God make the ambrosia that melts in your mouth, or the asthma medicine that keeps your child alive, or the plush recliner in which you relax, or the big-screen TV on which you watch your favorite show? Did God create the jetliners that bring friends and family from afar, or the stealth bombers that keep the barbarians at bay, or the music that warms your heart and fuels your soul?

Since God is responsible for none of the goods on which human life and happiness depend, why thank him for any such goods? More to the point: Why not thank those who actually are responsible for them? What would a just man do?

Justice is the virtue of judging people rationally—according to what they say, do, and produce—and treating them accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves. If someone spends the day preparing a wonderful meal, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for doing so. If someone provides his family with a warm, safe, comfortable home, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for providing it. If a policeman or fireman or doctor saves someone’s life, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked. If a loving spouse or child or parent or friend provides you with great joy, justice demands that he, not God, be acknowledged accordingly. If a philosopher discovers the principles on which freedom depends—and if others put those principles into practice—justice demands that they, not God, be given credit.

To say grace is to give credit where none is due—and, worse, it is to withhold credit where it is due. To say grace is to commit an act of injustice.

Rational, productive people—whether philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, businessmen, military strategists, friends, family, or yourself—are who deserve to be thanked for the goods on which your life, liberty, and happiness depend. This holiday season—and from now on—don’t say grace; say justice. Thank or acknowledge the people who actually provide the goods. Some of them may be sitting right there at the table with you. And if you find yourself at a table where people insist on saying grace, politely insist on saying justice when they’re through. It’s the right thing to do.

In a truly heart-warming ceremonial speech our president enlightens us to his definition of freedom.

Here in America you’ll find a nation of compassion. Americans believe that the measure of a free society is how we treat the weakest and most vulnerable among us. So each day citizens across America answer the universal call to feed the hungry and comfort the sick and care for the infirm.

I guess the phrase “answer the universal call” means “submit to mandatory income redistribution”. Compulsory compassion, how noble of us.

In a world where some see freedom as simply the right to do as they wish, we need your message that true liberty requires us to live our freedom not just for ourselves, but “in a spirit of mutual support.”

In other words, one can’t be truly free unless he’s bound by the shackles of, and to the extent he panders to, the collective. In a single paragraph, he reveals the glob of contradiction that suffocates this country.

Individualism, justice… bad. Collectivism, injustice… good.

Here in America, you’ll find a nation that is fully modern, yet guided by ancient and eternal truths. The United States is the most innovative, creative and dynamic country on earth — it is also among the most religious. In our nation, faith and reason coexist in harmony. This is one of our country’s greatest strengths, and one of the reasons that our land remains a beacon of hope and opportunity for millions across the world.

If pure dissonance can still be considered harmonic, then yes. Completing the metaphor, to the extent that we embrace reason we will resolve.

As John Galt put it:

The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society—a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man’s mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man’s right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man’s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth—to his great-grandchildren.
“Selfishness—say both—is man’s evil. Man’s good—say both—is to give up his personal desires, to deny himself, renounce himself, surrender; man’s good is to negate the life he lives. Sacrifice—cry both—is the essence of morality, the highest virtue within man’s reach.

This speech is especially crafty in that it effectively breaches the collectivist fence that separates the the soul/body dichotomy by bragging of our mental sacrifice to the supernatural, and our physical sacrifice to the needy. Not many people can bridge the two camps as eloquently as it is done here.

Gus Van Horn writes of an alarming example of state sponsored religion in Minnesota. I urge anyone who’s on the fence with regards to supporting public education to read. Also, anyone who doesn’t object to Christianity, or any other religion, creeping into education should realize that the underlying principle is exactly what enables situations described above. In other words, when you give government permission to indoctrinate your kids because you may happen to agree with the particular variant of indoctrination, the permission grants the practice, not the subject matter, which could change at any whim of consensus. In fact, the same risk applies when allowing government sponsorship of any religion in any way.

The point that Gus makes that I think is noteworthy is this:

In a mixed economy, controls breed controls (and not just in the economic realm), making all arrangements inherently unstable. This is partly because of distortions in the economy created by the controls, and partly due to the fact that there are always people willing to take loot when it’s being passed around. In other words, mixed economies foster bad decision-making and dishonesty.
[bold added]

Control breeds control - in every form, every time. Economic laws are absolute and just. As long as there are objective laws pertaining to theft or fraud, the market will operate smoothly. Players seeking reward will always act in their best interest or the market will punish them either immediately, or in time. Unless there is some form of external meddling, some entity forcing a player in the market to act against his better judgment, a free market is self regulating. When there is meddling of any form or degree, the balance is disturbed and reverberative waves will result to the degree of the tinkering. Players react and adjust to the waves, often times acting against their self-interest, which inevitably entices government to further regulate. The cycle of destruction continues until the economy is a wreck. Look no further than our current “housing crisis” for a perfect example where government promotion (via rates, policies and bailout) of subjective, economically ignorant lending and borrowing was a recipe for disaster. Yet another social and economic engineering project attempting to defy reality.

Once again we hear the cause is the “free” market and the remedy is more onerous restrictions which will wreak more havoc, and will leave the central planners calling for more regulation.

while(governmentMeddling==true){
     result = furtherEconomicDestruction;
     if(economicDestruction == true){
        bureaucrats.blameCapitalism();
        bureaucrats.callForEmergencySuperPowers();

        moreBandAidRegulation++;
     }else{
         a!=a;
     }
}

The environmentalist rash is certainly flaring up. Whether it’s the trendy “Green” packaging (usually showing some type of little green leaf icon) of consumer products, the patronizing “why aren’t we just doing something about it?” commercials from the smugly confused energy corporations, or the silly news segments showing us all how to sacrifice for the greater good of mother earth - the barrage of green propaganda is hard to miss. ‘We are in a crisis’ they say, and only mouth-breathing, greedy, war-mongering, redneck, gluttons could think otherwise.

The latest man-hating charade was in the form of a solemn tribute called “Earth Hour”, where in the spirit of renouncing consumption, the symbolic act of going without carbon based energy for an hour was supposed to prove allegiance to the movement to save the earth. What exactly was this supposed to accomplish? What are the motivations of those playing along?

There are many who would surely love to see man and his innovation crumble back to the cave, or worse, who see humans as a disease that the planet must purge itself of. They envision what the world could be like without man. Unfortunately, those who crave destruction (or reduction) of human life, seem reluctant to lead by example.

I think these varmints only represent a small segment of the movement. Then there are those who still have managed to hold on to just a twinkling desire to live. They feel guilt of man’s sins against the earth, but enjoy the tangible results of the human mind. They are the ones who urge us to live a sort of “diet-life”. Basically, they think we should live, but we should devolve every innovation or luxury as a compromise. They regard them with the same pantomimic superficiality that they do their own life, where the facade is what should be valued, not the underlying reality. They think we should keep using light bulbs, just handicap them to near junk. We can still enjoy automobiles, just render them impractical and/or nearly unusable. We can still apply a protective finish to stringed instruments, just not as attractively or with as much protection.

Through sacrifice we can all exist and die at the same time, like zombies going through the motions of only a fraction of our potential lives. To them, a “diet-life” is the ideal compromise between life and death.

I suspect the rest being herded into this cause are nothing more than environmental poseurs. They have no intention of full compliance with the green code, they only seek the prestige of belonging to a cause, and will play along for the approval of others. Sure, they’ll play the game for an hour, but full devotion to the cause has never crossed their minds. They remind me of “Sunday Morning Christians”, those who put on the happy face, clean up their language, and code-switch into a religious devotee for an hour or two on Sunday morning; then resume their normal state of mind, and mode of operation until next week. I know this feeling well. They go through the motions and put on the mask when they feel the judgment of their peers. The reason they regard it as a mask is that they really don’t subscribe to the doctrine. They want to subscribe, and they want others to think they are “feelin’ it”, but it doesn’t feel natural or rewarding. They know their checkbook of reason doesn’t balance, but they’ve been lead to believe that it shouldn’t, or that faith demands they ignore it. They feel guilt for questioning it, shame for denying it, and fear embarrassment if they don’t project it.

The religious nature of environmentalism demands that we feel guilty for consumption, that utilizing natural and man-made resources in order to survive and enjoy our existence is evil. We should sacrifice our quality of life for the greater cause of not interfering with the natural balance of the earth. The premise is that the earth, a spinning ball of gas and dust, has a higher priority than man, a volitional being capable of reason, creativity and love.

This is a complete inversion of reality. Mans purpose is to live and be happy. The earth has no purpose. It is a random result of energy and matter that merely exists. It simply is. Sacrificing the living to the non-living isn’t justified or moral for any cause.

It’s now official, there are several new ways to offend god, and ensure your eternity with the damned. For those who still attempt to reconcile Catholicism and Capitalism, don’t panic and donate your retirement accounts just yet. Only those who become “obscenely” rich are doomed, so the determination of your status is still highly subjective. “Taking Drugs” is now also considered a mortal sin - neither Diet Coke, Coffee, Lipitor nor Advil were mentioned specifically, but my unfortunate hunch is that they are mere luxuries of the past for devout Catholics. On the bright side, “Social Justice” is now a very high priority, so the forceful cause of Government wealth redistribution should gain a number of ardent supporters. Perhaps the most noteworthy of the new offenses is “causing poverty”. We can only hope that this includes causing poverty for one’s self, which should really provide a sound jolt to our economy as the faithful take steps to improve their financial status - so long as they don’t take it so far as to risk obscenity. Also, environmentalism now gets a major sponsor by way of an official endorsement by the church, as “Polluting” is named as a mortal sin. No specifics were mentioned, but I assume most any of the usual environmentalist prescriptions; recycling, impractical electric transportation, decreased sanitation and fake light bulbs would be considered virtuous. Which, by chance I’m sure, are also adequate means of wasting excessive wealth, effectively clobbering two offenses with one measure.

In summary, one should forgo (almost) all determination, success, luxury, comfort, pleasure, convenience, pride and self-esteem in order to prepare for, and be rewarded by an eternity of submissive worship. The more sacrificial misery one can invite by means of waste (both time and materials), unconditional compassion (for even the most vile being), intentional mediocrity (in terms of intellect as well as productivity), and refusal to partake in the benefits of man’s mind (science and technology) - the more worthy one is in the eyes of God.

What a risky scheme.

(yes, I feel sarcastic today)