Milton Friedman on the issues of poverty and equality

Milton Friedman – Poverty and Equality

Uploaded by on Feb 18, 2011

In response to questions, Professor Friedman explains how capitalism is a more effective approach to the alleviation of poverty than is socialism.

_________________

Milton Friedman had to put up with someone yelling during his speech in the clip above but he handles it great.

____________

So many times the “do-gooders” tell us that the government should take from the rich and give to the poor in order to make every equal at the finish line. However, it is the government’s job to do such thing. Look at the final conclusion of the article below:

“Free markets may yield odd results and certainly unequal outcomes, but the greater opportunities and prosperity have made the tradeoff worthwhile for American society.”

Our Economic Past | Burton W. Folsom Jr.

Equality, Markets, and Morality

September 2008 • Volume: 58 • Issue: 7

Burton Folsom, Jr. is a professor of history at Hillsdale College and author of New Deal or Raw Deal?, to be published by Simon & Schuster this year.

The subject of “equality” is the source of much political debate. Ever since the founding era, free-market thinkers have argued for equality of opportunity in the economic order. Equality, in other words, is a framework, not a result. In modern terms the goal is a level playing field. Government is a referee that enforces property rights, laws, and contracts equally for all individuals.

What the free-market view means in policy terms is no (or few) tariffs for business, no subsidies for farmers, and no racism written into law. Also, successful businessmen will not be subject to special taxes or the seizure of property.

In America this view of equality is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence (“all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights”) and the Constitution (“imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States” and “equal protection of the laws”). Much of America’s first century as a nation was devoted to ending slavery, extending voting rights, and securing property and inheritance rights for women—fulfilling the Founders’ goal of equal opportunity for all citizens.

Progressives and modern critics of equality of opportunity have launched two significant criticisms against the Founders’ view. First, that equality of opportunity is impossible to achieve. Second, to the extent that equality of opportunity has been tried, it has resulted in a gigantic inequality of outcomes. Equality of outcome, in the Progressive view, is desirable and can only be achieved by massive government intervention. Let’s study both of these objections.

To some extent, of course, the Progressives have a valid point—equality of opportunity is, at an individual level (as opposed to an institutional level) hard to achieve. We are all born with different family advantages (or disadvantages), with different abilities, and in different neighborhoods with varying levels of opportunity. As socialist playwright George Bernard Shaw said on the subject, “Give your son a fountain pen and a ream of paper and tell him that he now has an equal opportunity with me of writing plays and see what he says to you.”

What the Progressives miss is that their cure is worse than the illness. Any attempt to correct imbalances in family, ability, and neighborhood will produce other inequalities that may be worse than the original ones. Thomas Sowell writes, “[A]ttempts to equalize economic results lead to greater—and more dangerous—inequality in political power.” Or, as Milton Friedman concluded, “A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.”

Failure During the New Deal

Sowell’s and Friedman’s point is illuminated by the failed efforts of the federal government to reduce inequalities during the New Deal. In the early 1930s the United States had massive unemployment (sometimes over 20 percent). In 1932 President Herbert Hoover supported the nation’s first relief program: $300 million was distributed to states. This was not a transfer from richer states to poorer states but a political grab by most state governors to secure all they could. Illinois played this game well and secured over $55 million, more than New York, California, and Texas combined.

Massachusetts, with almost as many people as Illinois, received zero federal money. Massachusetts had much poverty and distress, but Governor Joseph Ely believed states should try to supply their own needs and not rush to Washington to gain funds at someone else’s expense. Ely therefore promoted a variety of fundraising events throughout his state to help those in need. “Whatever the justification for [federal] relief,” Ely noted, “the fact remains that the way in which it has been used makes it the greatest political asset on the practical side of party politics ever held by any administration.”

In 1935 President Franklin Roosevelt confirmed Ely’s beliefs by turning the Works Progress Administration (WPA), which he had established, into a gigantic political machine to transfer money to key states and congressional districts to secure votes. Roosevelt and his cohorts used the rhetoric of removing inequalities as a political cover to gain power. Reporter Thomas Stokes won a Pulitzer Prize for his investigative research that exposed the WPA for using federal funds to buy votes.

The use of tax dollars, then, to mitigate inequality failed because—whatever the good intentions—the funds quickly became politicized.

Presidential (and congressional) authority to tax and to transfer funds from one group to another also proved to be a dangerous centralization of power. Taxation increased both in size and complexity. The IRS thus became a weapon a president could use against those who resisted him. “My father,” Elliott Roosevelt observed of his famous parent, “may have been the originator of the concept of employing the IRS as a weapon of political retribution.”

Sowell and Friedman indeed recognized that efforts to remove inequalities would create new inequalities, perhaps just as severe, and would also dangerously concentrate power in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats. But Sowell and Friedman have readily conceded that when markets are left free, the inequality of outcomes is not necessarily morally justified. In other words, some people—through luck or inheritance—become incredibly rich and others, who may have worked harder and more diligently, end up barely earning a living. Rewards, as F. A. Hayek, among others, has noted, are “based only partly on achievements and partly on mere chance.” Societies are more prosperous under free markets, but individual success and failure can occur independently of ability and hard work.

Progressive Claims in Light of History

What the historical record does seem to demonstrate is that the richest men in American history have been creative entrepreneurs who have improved the lives of millions of Americans and have achieved remarkable upward mobility doing so. For example, the first American to be worth $10 million was John Jacob Astor, a German immigrant and a son of a butcher. Astor founded the largest fur company in the United States, transforming tastes and lowering costs in clothing for people all over the world.

John D. Rockefeller, the first American to be worth $1 billion, was the son of an itinerant peddler. Yet Rockefeller, with little education or training, went into the business of refining oil and did it better than anyone in the world. As a result, he sold the affordable kerosene that lit up most homes in the world. (He had a 60 percent world market share in the late 1800s.)

Henry Ford, the son of a struggling farmer, was the second American billionaire. He used the cheap oil sold by Rockefeller and cheap steel that was introduced by immigrant Andrew Carnegie to make cars affordable for most American families. The most recent wealthiest men in the United States—Sam Walton and Bill Gates—both came from middle-class households and both added much value for most American consumers.

Free markets may yield odd results and certainly unequal outcomes, but the greater opportunities and prosperity have made the tradeoff worthwhile for American society.

April 30, 2012 – 5:35 am Categories: Milton Friedman | Post a comment

Christian view versus Ayn Rand on altruism (Part 4)

Ayn Rand on the Purpose of Life

Uploaded by on Apr 27, 2010

Ayn Rand on the Purpose of Life

_________________

I ran across a fine article that takes a look at Ayn Rand’s view of capitalism and selfishness and compares it to the Christian view found in the Bible. I have decided to start a series on this subject. The Christian comes from the article “Was Ayn Rand Right?” by Jay Richards.

Was Ayn Rand Right?

Capitalism and Greed
JAF1324
Jay W. Richards

Synopsis

In response to the critics of capitalism, many conservative Christians turn to philosopher Ayn Rand for ammunition. Rand was a staunch defender of capitalism, but also an anti-Christian atheist who argued that capitalism was based on greed. Greed, for Rand, is good. But if Rand is right, then Christians can’t be capitalists, because greed is a sin. Fortunately, Rand was wrong. She missed the subtleties of capitalism. First, we should distinguish self-interest from selfishness. Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, famously wrote, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” True enough; but that alone isn’t a problem. Every time you wash your hands or look both ways before you cross the street, you’re pursuing your self-interest—but neither activity is selfish. Second, Smith never argued that the more selfish we are, the better a market works. His point, rather, is that in a free market, each of us can pursue ends within our narrow sphere of competence and concern—our “self-interest”—and yet an order will emerge that vastly exceeds anyone’s deliberations. Finally, Smith argued that capitalism channels greed, which is a good thing. The point is that even if the butcher is selfish, he can’t make you buy his meat. He has to offer you meat at a price you’ll willingly buy. So capitalism doesn’t need greed. What it does need is rule of law, freedom, and human creativity and initiative. And we can point that out without any help from Ayn Rand.

THE GIFT GIVERS

                Think of a stereotypical miser like Ebenezer Scrooge (as opposed to the ordinary greedy person). Misers hoard their wealth. They hole up in their bedrooms, counting their gold bullion and hiding it in their mattresses. “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal,” Jesus commanded His disciples, “but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven….For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” Jesus is talking about the person who hoards, who trusts his possessions rather than God. “You cannot  serve both God and money” (Matt. 6:19–21, 24 NIV). The Apostle Paul said that greed is idolatry (Eph. 5:5). If religion involves our “ultimate concern,” as Paul Tillich said, then the miser is an idolater. He worships his money. That’s because you can only have one ultimate concern.

                Many of the biblical warnings seem to apply to misers, but how many misers have you met? Do you know anyone who keeps a bag of money in his mattress, where he can count it? Probably not. We see misers on TV, read about them in children’s books and in Dickens. In capitalist societies, however, misers are in very short supply. That’s because capitalism discourages miserliness, and encourages its near-opposite: enterprise.

                “The grasping or hoarding rich man is the antithesis of capitalism, not its epitome,” writes George Gilder, “more a feudal figure than a bourgeois one.”20 The miser prefers the certainty and security of his booty. Entrepreneurs, in contrast, assume risk. They cast their bread on the waters of uncertainty, hoping that the bread will return with fish. They delay whatever gratification their wealth might provide now for the hope of future gain. The miser treats his bullion as an end in itself. The entrepreneur, whatever his motives—including the desire for more money—uses money as a tool. The carpenter uses hammer and saw; the doctor, scalpel and stethoscope; the entrepreneur, cash and credit. 

                Only by the constant din of stereotype could we come to mistake the entrepreneur for the miser. In his modern classic, Wealth and Poverty, George Gilder explores a surprising feature of enterprise: supply precedes demand. After all, before you can exchange, you must first have something to exchange. I must have a good or service, a coconut or a potholder or an iPod that someone wants in order for trade to ever get started. Right off the bat, if I’m an entrepreneur, I have to think about the wants and needs of others. In a free economy, great entrepreneurs, including greedy ones, succeed by anticipating and meeting the desires of others. In that sense, Gilder argues, they are altruistic—alter in Latin means “other.” Entrepreneurial investments, he argues, are like gifts, since they are made without a predetermined return.21 Competition between entrepreneurs in a free economy thus becomes an altruistic competition, not because the entrepreneurs have warm fuzzies in their hearts, or are unconcerned with personal wealth, but because they seek to meet the desires of others better than their competitors do.22

                Not for nothing did Ayn Rand dedicate her final lecture to a tirade against Gilder. But her view of the capitalist, in the end, was skewed by the Marxist stereotype she had officially rejected. Gilder’s view captures much better the nature and subtlety of entrepreneurial capitalism.

                Far from requiring vice, entrepreneurial capitalism requires a whole host of virtues. Before entrepreneurs can invest capital, for instance, they must first accumulate it. So unlike gluttons and hedonists, entrepreneurs set aside rather than consume much of their wealth. Unlike misers and cowards, they risk rather than hoard what they have saved, providing stability for those employed by their endeavors. Unlike skeptics, they have faith in their neighbors, their partners, their society, their employees, “in the compensatory logic of the cosmos.”23 Unlike the self-absorbed, they anticipate the needs of others, even needs that no one else may have imagined. Unlike the impetuous, they make disciplined choices. Unlike the automaton, they freely discover new ways of creating and combining resources to meet the needs of others. This cluster of virtues, not the vice of greed, is the essence of what Rev. Robert Sirico calls the “entrepreneurial vocation.”24

                I’m convinced that Ayn Rand continues to be popular, in part, because she dared to make entrepreneurs the heroes of her novels. Whatever her other failings, this was a keen insight. Without entrepreneurs, very little of what we take for granted in our economy and our everyday lives would exist. Here in my office, the concrete forms of entrepreneurial imagination are everywhere: paper, scissors, pens, highlighters, ink, CDs, an empty Tupperware container that held the pork loin I ate for lunch, a flat-screen monitor, fonts, lamps, light bulbs, Post-it notes, windows, sheet rock, speakers, a laptop computer, and an optical mouse. Behind all these visible objects lay real but less visible innovations in finance, manufacturing, and transport that I scarcely comprehend. All of these things are gifts of entrepreneurs. Only the most miserly moralizer could look at this mysterious efflorescence of cooperation, competition, and creativity—of entrepreneurial capitalism—and see only the dead hand of greed.

                Does this mean that if you’re a Christian, you must embrace capitalism? No. But it does mean that Christians don’t need to adopt Ayn Rand’s anti-Christian philosophy to defend the morality of capitalism. Once we comprehend the nature of entrepreneurial capitalism, we see that it has fit within the Christian worldview all along.

Jay W. Richards is the author of Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem (HarperOne, 2009). He has held leadership positions at Discovery Institute and the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty, and is currently a Visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute.

April 29, 2012 – 3:15 pm Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Christians welcome nonbelievers like Dan Mitchell in their criticism of Ayn Rand’s view of altruism

Nonbelievers like Rand really do not have an answer to the question “What is the meaning of life?”

Ayn Rand on the Purpose of Life

Christians are commanded to help others by Christ. However, many Christians do believe in the free market and think that system best suits the ideas that flow from Christianity. (Doug Douma wrote a fine article on this.)

Ayn Rand was very critical of altruism and she said it was evil. I have a four part series on that and I have posted the links below. Many nonbelievers like Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute also have been critical of Rand’s attack on altruism and below is his recent article.

I’m in Monaco for the 10th forum of the Convention of Independent Financial Advisors, a Swiss-based NGO that focuses on promoting an ethical and productive environment for private investment. I moderated a couple of panels on interesting topics, including the European fiscal crisis.

Matthieu Ricard

But I want to focus on the comments of another speaker, Monsieur Matthieu Ricard, a French-born Buddhist monk. As you can see from his Wikipedia entry, he’s a very impressive individual. In addition to his other accomplishments, he serves as the French translator for the Dalai Lama.

During one of the dinners, we got into a fascinating conversation about the Buddhist concept of altruism (or at least one strain of that tradition) and Ayn Rand’s concept of selfishness, both as general ideas and as they relate to happiness.

At the risk of sounding un-libertarian, I’m siding with the monk.

Even though I’m a big fan of Ayn Rand and periodically give away copies of Atlas Shrugged to unwary young people, I’ve always been puzzled by the Randian hostility to altruism.

Yes, coercive altruism is wrong. Indeed, it’s not even altruism, particularly if you think (like Michael Gerson or Barack Obama) it’s noble or selfless to forcibly give away other people’s money.

But Rand seemed to think (and some Randians definitely think) that voluntary acts of charity and compassion are somehow wrong. In some sense, these folks take an ultra-homo economicus view that people are relentless utility maximizers based on self interest.

If this is a correct interpretation of Randianism (perhaps I should say Objectivism?), then I think it is inadequate. Yes, people want money, and almost everybody would like more money, but I’m guessing that it is non-monetary things that make people happiest.

I don’t want to sound too warm and fuzzy and ruin my image, but aren’t children, friends, family, and love the things that make the world go ’round for most of us? Yes, we also value achievement, but even that can be unrelated to pecuniary considerations.

These are amateur ramblings on my part, and I’ve probably done a poor job of describing the views of Randians and Monsieur Ricard. Moreover, I’m sure that very intelligent people have examined this issue in a much more sophisticated fashion.

For a fiscal policy wonk like me, though, this conference and this encounter forced me to give some thought to how you can be a big fan of Ayn Rand while also feeling good about holding open doors for little old ladies.

Uploaded by on Jul 17, 2009

Questioned by Mike Wallace, Ayn Rand explains her philosophy of objective reality and contrasts it with altruism.

Related posts:

Christian view versus Ayn Rand on altruism (Part 4)

Ayn Rand on the Purpose of Life Uploaded by prosumption on Apr 27, 2010 Ayn Rand on the Purpose of Life _________________ I ran across a fine article that takes a look at Ayn Rand’s view of capitalism and selfishness and compares it to the Christian view found in the Bible. I have decided to […]

Christians welcome nonbelievers like Dan Mitchell in their criticism of Ayn Rand’s view of altruism

Nonbelievers like Rand really do not have an answer to the question “What is the meaning of life?” Ayn Rand on the Purpose of Life Christians are commanded to help others by Christ. However, many Christians do believe in the free market and think that system best suits the ideas that flow from Christianity. Ayn […]

Christian view versus Ayn Rand on altruism (Part 3)

Uploaded by MetrazolElectricity on Oct 30, 2010 Talking to Rose, patron-saint of the conservative movement , Bill buckley chats about ayn and her magnum opus atlas shrugged. On atlas shrugged, WFB:”I had to flog myself to read it.” On ayn, WFB : “Her scorn for charity,for altruism was such as to build up an unfeeling […]

Christian view versus Ayn Rand on altruism (Part 2)

Uploaded by LibertyPen on Jul 17, 2009 Questioned by Mike Wallace, Ayn Rand explains her philosophy of objective reality and contrasts it with altruism. _________________ I ran across a fine article that takes a look at Ayn Rand’s view of capitalism and selfishness and compares it to the Christian view found in the Bible. I […]

Christian view versus Ayn Rand on altruism (Part 1)

Uploaded by LibertyPen on Oct 26, 2009 Ayn Rand makes the case that altruism is evil. ___________________  I ran across a fine article that takes a look at Ayn Rand’s view of capitalism and selfishness and compares it to the Christian view found in the Bible. I have decided to start a series on this […]

 

April 29, 2012 – 3:11 pm Categories: Cato Institute, Current Events | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , |

Christian view versus Ayn Rand on altruism (Part 3)

Uploaded by on Oct 30, 2010

Talking to Rose, patron-saint of the conservative movement , Bill buckley chats about ayn and her magnum opus atlas shrugged. On atlas shrugged, WFB:”I had to flog myself to read it.” On ayn, WFB : “Her scorn for charity,for altruism was such as to build up an unfeeling system”

_________________

I ran across a fine article that takes a look at Ayn Rand’s view of capitalism and selfishness and compares it to the Christian view found in the Bible. I have decided to start a series on this subject. The Christian comes from the article “Was Ayn Rand Right?” by Jay Richards.

Was Ayn Rand Right?

Capitalism and Greed
JAF1324
Jay W. Richards

Synopsis

In response to the critics of capitalism, many conservative Christians turn to philosopher Ayn Rand for ammunition. Rand was a staunch defender of capitalism, but also an anti-Christian atheist who argued that capitalism was based on greed. Greed, for Rand, is good. But if Rand is right, then Christians can’t be capitalists, because greed is a sin. Fortunately, Rand was wrong. She missed the subtleties of capitalism. First, we should distinguish self-interest from selfishness. Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, famously wrote, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” True enough; but that alone isn’t a problem. Every time you wash your hands or look both ways before you cross the street, you’re pursuing your self-interest—but neither activity is selfish. Second, Smith never argued that the more selfish we are, the better a market works. His point, rather, is that in a free market, each of us can pursue ends within our narrow sphere of competence and concern—our “self-interest”—and yet an order will emerge that vastly exceeds anyone’s deliberations. Finally, Smith argued that capitalism channels greed, which is a good thing. The point is that even if the butcher is selfish, he can’t make you buy his meat. He has to offer you meat at a price you’ll willingly buy. So capitalism doesn’t need greed. What it does need is rule of law, freedom, and human creativity and initiative. And we can point that out without any help from Ayn Rand.

___________________

FALLING INTO CAPITALISM  

                 So, contrary to Rand, capitalism doesn’t need greed. At the same time, it can channel greed, which is all to the good. We should want a social order that channels proper self-interest as well as selfishness into socially desirable outcomes. Any system that requires everyone always to act selflessly is doomed to failure because it’s utopian. That’s the problem with socialism: it doesn’t fit the human condition. It alienates people from their rightful self-interest and channels selfishness into socially destructive behavior such as stealing, hoarding, and getting the government to steal for you.

                 In contrast, capitalism is fit for real, fallen, limited human beings. “In spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity,” Adam Smith wrote, business people “are led by an invisible hand…and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society.”17 Notice he says “in spite of.” His point isn’t that the butcher should be selfish, or even that his selfishness is particularly helpful. His point is rather that even if the butcher is selfish, even if the butcher would love nothing more than to sell you a spoiled chunk of grisly beef in exchange for your worldly goods and leave you homeless, the butcher can’t make you buy his meat in a free economy. He has to offer you meat you’ll freely buy. The cruel, greedy butcher, in other words, has to look for ways to set up win-win scenarios. Even to satisfy his greed, he has to meet your desires. The market makes this happen. That’s making the best of a bad situation, and of a bad butcher.

DOES CAPITALISM MAKE PEOPLE GREEDY?

                Even if capitalism doesn’t need greed, doesn’t it feed greed? Many religious scholars don’t even distinguish capitalism and greed.18 Capitalism is just greed elevated to economics, or so they think. And if you happen to catch Donald Trump on The Apprentice, you might suspect they’re on to something.

                To be sure, Rand and other champions of capitalism appeal to greed, even glory in it. There’s no evidence, however, that citizens of capitalist countries in general, or Americans in particular, are more greedy than average. In fact, the evidence suggests just the opposite.19

                Of course Americans should be more generous, more loving, more thankful, more thoughtful, and less sinful. If you look, you can find greed all across the fruited plains and in every human heart. That’s because we’re fallen human beings, not because we’re Americans or capitalists. Every culture and walk of life has heaping helpings of greedy people. There are greedy doctors, greedy social workers, greedy teachers, politicians, park rangers, and youth pastors. That’s why greed can explain why capitalism works no better than it can explain the universal thirst for, say, well-synchronized traffic lights: greed is universal. Capitalism is not.

April 29, 2012 – 3:01 pm Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Remembering Francis Schaeffer at 100 (Part 4) “Schaeffer Sunday”

schaeffer

This

THE FRANCIS SCHAEFFER CENTENNIAL – INVOCATION – PASTOR TONY FELICH

Uploaded by on Feb 3, 2012

Pastor Tony Felich of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Overland Park, KS gives the invocation to the mini conference event in honor of Francis Schaeffer’s 100th Birthday.

__________________________

This year Francis Schaeffer would have turned 100 on Jan 30, 2012. I remember like yesterday when I first was introduced to his books. I was even more amazed when I first saw his films. I was so influenced by them that I bought every one of his 30 something books and his two film series. Here is a tribute that I got off the internet from Chuck Colson’s website www.breakpoint.org :

A Jeremiah Summer
By Diane Singer|Published Date: August 29, 2011

sun

“And I will declare my judgments against them, for all their evil in forsaking me. They have made offerings to other gods and worshiped the works of their own hands.” Jeremiah 1:16

Prophetic timing
The summer of 2011 has been a memorable one, but for all the wrong reasons. Much of the country has been gripped by an unrelenting heat wave, the nation is reeling from ever-worsening economic news, violence has broken out in a number of cities here and abroad, and the battle for traditional marriage and moral decency lost another round with New York state’s endorsement of same-sex marriage.

During this time, I’ve been teaching Jeremiah in my Sunday morning Explore the Bible class. It wasn’t my idea to teach this particular book at this particular time: it’s part of a nine year through-the-Bible curriculum established by Lifeway publishers. However, the timing does seem, well, prophetic. The similarities between the stiff-necked rebellious people of Judah living six centuries before Christ and the stiff-necked rebellious people of America living today are terrifying — terrifying because of the strong possibility that Judah’s fate foreshadows America’s not-too-distant future.

I realize that many people will say, “America is not Judah. God does not have the same relationship with America as He did with Israel and Judah; therefore, it’s impossible to draw parallels.” They’re wrong. While I concede that no two nations are alike, let alone two nations separated by more than 2500 years of history, we must recognize that God establishes and rules over all nations from the beginning of history to its end. Time does not erase what He requires, both for those who rule and for those who are ruled. Think about it:

  • God is still the same.
  • His holiness hasn’t diminished.
  • His standards for what constitute a good and just society haven’t altered.
  • Our responsibility to hear and obey His Word hasn’t been negated.
  • The “law of cause and effect” (sowing and reaping) is still in effect.

Furthermore, to ignore the warning signs of a nation on the verge of destruction – signs we see in Jeremiah – is to make a liar of the apostle Paul, who wrote that all of the Old Testament is written for our instruction (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:11). It also makes a liar out of God, who speaking through the prophet, asserts that “If any nation will not listen, then I will utterly pluck it up and destroy it” (Jeremiah 12:17).

The indictment against Judah
Jeremiah had a great deal to say about why the people of Judah were headed for destruction:

  • They “went after worthlessness and became worthless” (2:5).
  • They “turned degenerate” (2:21) and wore themselves out sinning (9:5).
  • They were so wicked that they even taught “wicked women” things they didn’t know (2:33).
  • They “polluted the land with [their] vile whoredom” (3:2).
  • They were callous and unjust toward the poor (2:34).
  • They repeatedly claimed that they had not sinned (2:35).
  • They were greedy, conniving, unashamed, and self-deluded regarding their true status (6:13-15).
  • They treated the Word as an object of scorn (6:10).
  • They were incapable of speaking the Truth (7:28).
  • They followed their own hearts and went after false gods even more diligently than their forefathers had (9:14).
  • They broke their covenant with the Lord (11:1-13).
  • They were not correctable: they would not listen to God’s prophet (2:30; 5:3), and they would not obey His Word.
  • They assured themselves that God would not judge them, that disaster would not fall (5:12).

They were wrong, as history demonstrated in 586 BC when Judah was crushed by the Babylonians.

The indictment against America
It doesn’t take much effort to read through the list of Judah’s sins and see America’s. Even a casual perusal of the television shows being offered today provides plenty of examples of “worthlessness” and of an exuberant, even gleeful, promotion of every kind of immorality and perversion. The poor, and even the middle class, are being destroyed by the government’s irresponsible fiscal policies and by a welfare policy that keeps them dependant and living in poverty. Movies, television shows, and many so-called news programs are boldly promoting their anti-Christian agenda – one designed to keep Bible-believing Christians intimidated and cowed into silence when it comes to the public square. (If you don’t believe this, consider how people who support the Bible’s view of marriage are now labeled homophobic haters in the media.) And public figures who speak up about what the Bible has to say about the state of the nation are ridiculed as backward, desperate, and dangerously out of touch with reality. Even our president has characterized Bible-believing Christians in disparaging terms.

At the 2011 Resolved Conference, pastor John MacArthur made a claim, based on a passage in Isaiah 5, that particularly offended the anti-Christian crowd: “Materialism, drunkard pleasure seeking, arrogant conceit, defiant sinfulness, moral perversion, and corrupt leadership…Do you not see [them] in America?,” MacArthur asked. He then explained that just as these sins resulted in the destruction of Israel in 721 BC, these sins have brought the USA under divine judgment today.

The Christian response
MacArthur’s pronouncement comes as no surprise to anyone who has read Francis Schaeffer’s 1969 book Death in the City. Schaeffer not only claimed that both Europe and America were even then under “the wrath of God,” he also addressed the question of the contemporary relevance of Jeremiah:

“We do not have to guess what God would say about this because there was a period of history, biblical history, which greatly parallels our day. That is the day of Jeremiah. The Book of Jeremiah and the Book of Lamentations show how God looks at a culture which knew Him and deliberately turned away.

But this is not just the character of Jeremiah’s day of apostasy. It’s my day. It’s our day. And if we are going to help our own generation, our perspective must be that of Jeremiah, that weeping prophet Rembrandt so magnificently pictured weeping over Jerusalem, yet in the midst of his tears speaking without mitigating his message of judgment to a people who had had so much yet turned away.” (emphasis mine)

Our response to the evil of our day – to the millions of people who “knew Him and deliberately turned away” – therefore, must mirror Jeremiah’s sorrowful but unflinching response:
April 29, 2012 – 2:03 pm Categories: Current Events, Francis Schaeffer | Post a comment

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , |

Christian view versus Ayn Rand on altruism (Part 2)

Uploaded by on Jul 17, 2009

Questioned by Mike Wallace, Ayn Rand explains her philosophy of objective reality and contrasts it with altruism.

_________________

I ran across a fine article that takes a look at Ayn Rand’s view of capitalism and selfishness and compares it to the Christian view found in the Bible. I have decided to start a series on this subject. The Christian comes from the article “Was Ayn Rand Right?” by Jay Richards.

Was Ayn Rand Right?

Capitalism and Greed
JAF1324
Jay W. Richards

Synopsis

In response to the critics of capitalism, many conservative Christians turn to philosopher Ayn Rand for ammunition. Rand was a staunch defender of capitalism, but also an anti-Christian atheist who argued that capitalism was based on greed. Greed, for Rand, is good. But if Rand is right, then Christians can’t be capitalists, because greed is a sin. Fortunately, Rand was wrong. She missed the subtleties of capitalism. First, we should distinguish self-interest from selfishness. Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, famously wrote, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” True enough; but that alone isn’t a problem. Every time you wash your hands or look both ways before you cross the street, you’re pursuing your self-interest—but neither activity is selfish. Second, Smith never argued that the more selfish we are, the better a market works. His point, rather, is that in a free market, each of us can pursue ends within our narrow sphere of competence and concern—our “self-interest”—and yet an order will emerge that vastly exceeds anyone’s deliberations. Finally, Smith argued that capitalism channels greed, which is a good thing. The point is that even if the butcher is selfish, he can’t make you buy his meat. He has to offer you meat at a price you’ll willingly buy. So capitalism doesn’t need greed. What it does need is rule of law, freedom, and human creativity and initiative. And we can point that out without any help from Ayn Rand.

_________

SELFISHNESS AND SELF-INTEREST

                Some thirty million books by Rand have been sold, and more than five-hundred thousand copies of her books are still sold every year. In a poll conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club in the 1990s, Atlas Shrugged came in second behind the Bible as the most influential book. Although her work is best known in the U.S., it’s read around the world.

                Perhaps it’s not surprising that many conservatives, including many Christians, embrace her: they think they have nowhere else to go. Who but Rand made industrialists the heroes of novels? Whatever the reasons for her popularity, however, she completely missed the subtleties of capitalism. Her hatred of Marxism and collectivism led her to defend a caricature of capitalism more grotesque than anything Marx imagined.

                Her praise of “greed” is the reduction to the absurd of a bad interpretation of Adam Smith’s concept of self-interest. Smith, a moral philosopher, didn’t goad butchers, brewers, and bakers to be more selfish.10 He believed that normal adults aren’t self-absorbed monads but have a natural sympathy for their fellow human beings. His point about self-interest is that, in a rightly ordered market economy, you’re usually better off appealing to someone’s self-love than to their kindness. The butcher is more likely to give you meat if it’s a win-win trade, for example, than if you’re reduced to begging. Smith isn’t suggesting that butchers should never help beggars.11

                Smith was a realist. He wasn’t naïve about the motives of merchants and everyone else. In fact, like most academics, he harbored snobbish prejudices against business. He knew the difference, however, between self-interest and mere selfishness.12 Smith believed humans are a mixed breed. We are pulled to and fro by our whims and passions, but we’re not a slave to them, since our passions can be checked by the “impartial spectator” of reason. We are capable of vices such as greed and virtues such as sympathy.

                Unlike Mandeville, moreover, Smith didn’t view all our passions as vicious. We may be passionately committed to a just cause, for instance. At the same time, he saw greed as a vice. So while he agreed with Mandeville that private vices could lead to public goods, he was an ardent critic of the Dutchman. “There is,” he said, “another system which seems to take away altogether the distinction between vice and virtue, and of which the tendency is, upon that account, wholly pernicious: I mean the system of Dr. Mandeville.”13 You’d never catch Smith endorsing Ayn Rand.

                For Smith, pursuing your self-interest was not in itself immoral. Every second of the day, you act in your own interest. Every time you take a breath, wash your hands, eat your fiber, take your vitamins, look both ways before crossing the street, take a shower, pay your bills, go to the doctor, read a book, and pray for God’s forgiveness, you’re pursuing your self-interest. That’s not just okay. In most cases, you ought to do these things.

                In fact, proper self-interest is the basis for the “Golden Rule,” which Jesus called the second greatest commandment, after the command to love God: “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 7:12 NIV). I’m supposed to use my rightful concern for myself as a guide in how I treat others. This makes sense, since I know best what I need. “Every man is, no doubt, by nature,” Smith said, “first and principally recommended to his own care; and as he is fitter to take care of himself than of any other person, it is fit and right that it should be so.”14

                Self-interest isn’t just looking out for number one at everyone else’s expense. Since we’re social beings, our self-interest includes our friends, families, communities, coworkers, coreligionists, and others.15 When I pay my bills, I’m not just pursuing my narrow interest, but the interests of my family, my bank, my community, and whomever I’m paying. I chose my church and my neighborhood and my car not just for myself, but for my children. (Mostly for them, in fact. If I were childless, do you think I’d drive a grey Honda Accord?)

                Most of your choices involve the interests of others, too. Self-interest has to do with those things we know, value, and have some control over. I’m most responsible for what I do. Smith’s point was not that the more selfish we are, the better a market works. His point, rather, is that in a free market, each of us can pursue ends within our narrow sphere of competence and concern—our “self-interest”—and yet an order will emerge that vastly exceeds anyone’s deliberations.16 The same would be true, even if we did everything with godly rather than mixed motives. The central point is not our greed, but the limits to our knowledge. The market is a higher-level order that exceeds the knowledge of any and all of us.

April 29, 2012 – 12:00 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Reagan and Clinton had good fiscal policies according to Cato Institute

Uploaded by on Dec 16, 2010

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/16/new-video-pork-filled-spending-bill-just-… Despite promises from President Obama last year and again last month that he opposed reckless omnibus spending bills and earmarks, the White House and members of Congress are now supporting a reckless $1.1 trillion spending bill reportedly stuffed with roughly 6,500 earmarks.

________________________

Below you see an article and videos by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute concerning Reagan and Clinton. First lets look at where we are now with Obama.

Over the last 10 presidents was have had 16.9% of GDP of deficits total from five Republican presidents and 12.7% total from Democratic presidents. However, what is most disturbing is that 8.3% of the 12.7% comes from the Obama administration who is currently in power and we are no longer in the cold war era. That is almost double the total of all the other four Democratic presidents combined under just one president. Take a look at the chart below from the Heritage Foundation:

Rob Bluey

January 1, 2012 at 9:56 am

Over the past 50 years, 10 U.S. presidents have made annual budget requests to Congress, projecting deficits both big and small. But no other president compares to Barack Obama when it comes to the size and scale of the current budget deficit facing the United States.

The country is facing an 8.3 percent estimated average national deficit of a two-term Obama administration — the biggest of the past 50 years. By comparison, the current estimate for Obama is nearly double the percentage under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush — and they were fighting the Cold War.

Political party doesn’t tell the whole story, however. President Bill Clinton leads the pack of presidents since 1961, according to data from the White House Office of Management and Budget. Heritage put together this graphic as part of our Budget Chart Book.

So what does the current trajectory mean for the United States? We’re certainly no longer looking at a continuation of manageable deficits in the years to come. This is a dramatic change in the magnitude of annual shortfalls at the federal level. That’s one reason Heritage came up with a plan to fix the debt crisis.

If you have a suggestion for a chart we should feature in the future, please post a comment below, email us at scribe@heritage.org, or send me at tweet @RobertBluey.

_______________________
Here is a perspective from Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute:

To Fix the Budget, Bring Back Reagan…or Even Clinton

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

President Obama unveiled his fiscal year 2012 budget today, and there’s good news and bad news. The good news is that there’s no major initiative such as the so-called stimulus scheme or the government-run healthcare proposal. The bad news, though, is that government is far too big and Obama’s budget does nothing to address this problem.

But perhaps the folks on Capitol Hill will be more responsible and actually try to save America from becoming a big-government, European-style welfare state. The solution may not be easy, but it is simple. Lawmakers merely need to restrain the growth of government spending so that it grows slower than the private economy.

Actual spending cuts would be the best option, of course, but limiting the growth of spending is all that’s needed to slowly shrink the burden of government spending relative to gross domestic product.

Fortunately, we have two role models from recent history that show it is possible to control the federal budget. This video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity uses data from the Historical Tables of the Budget to demonstrate the fiscal policy achievements of both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Spending Restraint, Part I: Lessons from Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton

Uploaded by on Feb 14, 2011

Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both reduced the relative burden of government, largely because they were able to restrain the growth of domestic spending. The mini-documentary from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity uses data from the Historical Tables of the Budget to show how Reagan and Clinton succeeded and compares their record to the fiscal profligacy of the Bush-Obama years.

_____________________

 

Some people will want to argue about who gets credit for the good fiscal policy of the 1980s and 1990s.

Bill Clinton’s performance, for instance, may not have been so impressive if he had succeeded in pushing through his version of government-run healthcare or if he didn’t have to deal with a Republican Congress after the 1994 elections. But that’s a debate for partisans. All that matters is that the burden of government spending fell during Bill Clinton’s reign, and that was good for the budget and good for the economy. And there’s no question he did a much better job than George W. Bush.

Indeed, a major theme in this new video is that the past 10 years have been a fiscal disaster. Both Bush and Obama have dramatically boosted the burden of government spending — largely because of rapid increases in domestic spending.

This is one of the reasons why the economy is weak. For further information, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government.

Another problem is that many people in Washington are fixated on deficits and debt, but that’s akin to focusing on symptoms and ignoring the underlying disease. To elaborate, this video explains that America’s fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too much debt.

Last but not least, this video reviews the theory and evidence for the “Rahn Curve,” which is the notion that there is a growth-maximizing level of government outlays. The bad news is that government already is far too big in the United States. This is undermining prosperity and reducing competitiveness.

Spending Restraint, Part II: Lessons from Canada, Ireland, Slovakia, and New Zealand

Uploaded by on Feb 22, 2011

Nations can make remarkable fiscal progress if policy makers simply limit the growth of government spending. This video, which is Part II of a series, uses examples from recent history in Canada, Ireland, Slovakia, and New Zealand to demonstrate how it is possible to achieve rapid improvements in fiscal policy by restraining the burden of government spending. Part I of the series examined how Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were successful in controlling government outlays — particularly the burden of domestic spending programs. http://www.freedomandprosperity.org

 
April 28, 2012 – 11:59 pm Categories: Bill Clinton, Cato Institute, President Obama, Ronald Reagan, spending out of control, Taxes | Post a comment

“Soccer Saturday”

My son Wilson got to see Renoldo play while he was in Los Angeles last summer.

Cristiano Ronaldo has had better season than Messi, says Mourinho after Bayern loss

Goal.comBy Tom Webber | Goal.com – Wed, Apr 25, 2012 7:10 PM EDT

Real Madrid coach Jose Mourinho insisted that Cristiano Ronaldo has had a better season than Lionel Messi, despite the forward’s miss from 12 yards in the Champions League semifinal penalty shootout with Bayern Munich on Wednesday.

Los Blancos soared into a two-goal lead with a double from the Portuguese forward but Arjen Robben pulled one back for the visitors to make it 2-1, thus ensuring the tie would be settled from the spot.

Ronaldo, Kaka and Sergio Ramos all missed their kicks for Madrid, which enabled Bastian Schweinsteiger to secure Bayern’s place in the final with a 3-1 shootout win. The 49-year-old trainer however remained supportive of his players, especially his highest scorer.

“Cristiano Ronaldo is fantastic. I will not compare him with [Lionel] Messi, we’re talking about two great players. I will say this year Cristiano Ronaldo has been better,” Mourinho declared in his post-match press conference.

He went on to praise the character of all of his players who stepped up to take a penalty, reminding those present that even the best can fail at times.

“The ones that miss the shot are the ones that have the balls to shoot. Fearless, not selfish, they go and try. I’m proud of my men.

“They’re super men but Superman is a film. Messi missed yesterday [against Chelsea], and today three men missed because this is football, and these things happen.”

“People criticize and question why these errors happen, people that if they climb two floors on ladders are exhausted.

“These guys worked like animals for two hours, they gave it all, then they go there and miss the shot.”

Mourinho was also critical of the fact that while his team was forced to play a potentially title-deciding fixture against Barcelona on Saturday, Jupp Heynckes was able to rest eight key players for Munich’s visit to Werder Bremen with the Bundesliga title out of reach.

“Both of them [Bayern and Chelsea] used their second squads this weekend, and they played versus Barca and Real, who played the most important match of the domestic season last weekend.

“It’s our fault. If we were not playing for La Liga we would have not lined up our best men last Saturday.

“[It is] very difficult to stay in more than one competition. The final of the Champions League will be played between the fifth team of the Premier League and the secnd of the Bundesliga, [which is] 10 points behind [the league leaders].”

Los Blancos will now look to bounce back from defeat and secure the Liga, starting when they welcome Sevilla to the Bernabeu on Sunday.

Follow Goal.com on to get the latest soccer news directly. Check out Goal.com’s page; be part of the best soccer fan community in the world!
April 28, 2012 – 2:28 pm Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Christian view versus Ayn Rand on altruism (Part 1)

Uploaded by on Oct 26, 2009

Ayn Rand makes the case that altruism is evil.

___________________ 

I ran across a fine article that takes a look at Ayn Rand’s view of capitalism and selfishness and compares it to the Christian view found in the Bible. I have decided to start a series on this subject. The Christian comes from the article “Was Ayn Rand Right?” by Jay Richards.

Was Ayn Rand Right?

Capitalism and Greed
JAF1324
Jay W. Richards

Synopsis

In response to the critics of capitalism, many conservative Christians turn to philosopher Ayn Rand for ammunition. Rand was a staunch defender of capitalism, but also an anti-Christian atheist who argued that capitalism was based on greed. Greed, for Rand, is good. But if Rand is right, then Christians can’t be capitalists, because greed is a sin. Fortunately, Rand was wrong. She missed the subtleties of capitalism. First, we should distinguish self-interest from selfishness. Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, famously wrote, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” True enough; but that alone isn’t a problem. Every time you wash your hands or look both ways before you cross the street, you’re pursuing your self-interest—but neither activity is selfish. Second, Smith never argued that the more selfish we are, the better a market works. His point, rather, is that in a free market, each of us can pursue ends within our narrow sphere of competence and concern—our “self-interest”—and yet an order will emerge that vastly exceeds anyone’s deliberations. Finally, Smith argued that capitalism channels greed, which is a good thing. The point is that even if the butcher is selfish, he can’t make you buy his meat. He has to offer you meat at a price you’ll willingly buy. So capitalism doesn’t need greed. What it does need is rule of law, freedom, and human creativity and initiative. And we can point that out without any help from Ayn Rand.

If you’re over forty, you probably remember the 1987 movie Wall Street. Kirk Douglas played the key role, a ruthless corporate raider named Gordon Gekko. Gekko is famous for his defense of selfishness: “Greed…is good,” he tells a young broker. “Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all its forms…has marked the upward surge of mankind.” Gekko embodies the enduring stereotype of the greedy businessman.

                Given the coverage of the current financial crisis, it’s no surprise that Twentieth Century Fox is now producing a sequel. Many people, including many Christians, believe that the crisis is the product of greedy capitalism—pure and simple. Others, including many Christians, want to defend capitalism, but end up drawing on the work of philosopher and playwright Ayn Rand, who called greed a virtue. That puts most of us between the proverbial rock and the hard place.

                As if in response, some prominent evangelicals such as Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, and Ron Sider have criticized capitalism as based on the “greed principle” (to quote Campolo).1 And it’s hard to blame them, since even many fans of capitalism, such as Rand, seem to agree. And certainly for Christians, greed is not good. Greed, selfishness, or “avarice” is one of the seven deadly sins, and the Bible has nothing good to say about it. In the Gospels, when Jesus was asked to settle an inheritance dispute, He responded: “Watch Out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions” (Luke 12:15 TNIV). The Tenth Commandment says, “Do not covet,” which no doubt applies to greed as well. Jesus includes greed with murder and adultery in a long list of sins (Mark 7:21– 22). Paul tells the Ephesians that no greedy person—“that is, an idolater,” he explains—will inherit the kingdom of God (Eph. 5:5 ESV). These are just a few of the dozens of biblical passages condemning greed.

                So what do we do? Must we embrace Rand’s anti-Christian philosophy to defend capitalism? Or must we reject capitalism because it’s based on greed? I don’t think we have to do either. The truth is much more interesting, and much more encouraging.

THE BEEHIVE

                Rand wasn’t the first one to identify capitalism with greed. That honor goes to a Dutchman named Bernard Mandeville. In 1705, he wrote a poem called The Fable of the Bees. Nobody noticed it. So in 1714, he republished it with a lengthy commentary explaining that the poem was a metaphor for English society. Mandeville saw humans and bees as little more than bundles of vicious passions. The Parable reflected that belief.

                In the beehive, different bees do different tasks, but they all have the same motivation—vice. The poem describes avarice, pride, and vanity as producing great wealth for the hive. The bees, however, are discontent. They grumble at the lack of virtue around them. They gripe so incessantly that Jove eventually gives them what they ask for. Honesty and virtue now fill the hive. And everything collapses. The bees’ virtuous actions led to disaster whereas the individual acts of evil had led to social good.

                Taken literally, Mandeville’s claim is ridiculous. Good doesn’t come from evil. Virtue isn’t born from vice. Virtue doesn’t destroy society. Still, he did get one thing right: bad intentions don’t always yield bad results. Recall that the Apostle Paul once delighted that some were preaching the gospel out of envy of him. He didn’t delight in the envy, but in the preaching. So even private sinful acts may lead to a social good.

THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS?

                After Mandeville came the Scottish philosopher Adam Smith, who in 1776 wrote the most famous book in the history of economics, The Wealth of Nations. Though the book is long on pages and detail, its basic purpose was simple. Smith wanted to defend what he called the natural system of liberty: rule of law, unobtrusive government, private property, specialization of labor, and free trade. To prosper, a society needed “little else,” he said, “but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice.”2 But so far from flattering the business class, Smith famously said that “people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”3 Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

                Smith never credited the happy outcomes of trade and business to the virtues of business people. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker,” he wrote, only to be quoted by every economics textbook ever written, “that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”4 Nevertheless, through the invisible hand of the market, individuals will “promote an end which is no part of [their] intention.”5 That end often benefits society overall.

                If you don’t read Smith carefully, you might think that he’s making the same argument as Mandeville: individual greed is good for society. That’s a misreading of Smith, which was made wildly popular by Ayn Rand.

THEN COMES RAND

                Perhaps more than anyone else, Ayn Rand not only identified capitalism with greed, but defended it in those terms. She even wrote a book called The Virtue of Selfishness.6 For Rand, greed was the basis for a free economy. Capitalism and greed go together like fat cats and big cigars. To prevent readers from thinking she was using hyperbole, Rand went out of her way to espouse atheism and stridently denounce Christian altruism as antithetical to capitalism: “Capitalism and altruism are incompatible,” she said, “they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society.”7 In fact, she had a hard time distinguishing Christian altruism from socialism.

                Rand was born in Russia in 1905 as Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum, and immigrated to the United States in 1925, just as communism was securing its stranglehold on the Soviet Union. Her hatred of the collectivism she saw in her youth was etched into her worldview, her writings, even her strange personality. After coming to the U.S., she worked as a script writer in various Hollywood studios. The release of her novel The Fountainhead in 1943 made her famous. Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, made her a sensation.

                In her novels, she developed characters that expressed her philosophy “of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”8 Her books read more like tracts for her philosophy of “objectivism” than ordinary novels. As Daniel Flynn puts it, “The themes of Rand’s four novels—We the Living, Anthem, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged—are identical. As far as the philosophy of her novels goes, to read one is to read them all.”9

                But for millions of readers, her books still inspire. I discovered Rand during my senior year in college. Her books were like a blow to the chest. She mercilessly skewered every leftist cliché that I had taken for granted. I found her bracing prose and iconic heroes attractive and repellant at the same time. For a few months, she seized me. I frittered away a week of my senior year reading Atlas Shrugged rather than studying for a German final.

                The book tells about an elite group of creative entrepreneurs and inventors, “individuals of the mind,” who go on strike against a state that implements the communist principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” For Rand, these entrepreneurial heroes, like Atlas in Greek mythology, hold up the world. By pursuing their long-term self-interest, they create value for everyone. So when they shrug—that is, strike—society begins to decay.

                The hero of Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, founds a secret community off the collectivist grid, called Galt’s Gulch. Here in this New Jerusalem, individuality and self-interest are prized above all else. One long chapter of the book, “This is John Galt Speaking,” is nothing but a speech by Galt. It’s the perfect distillation of Rand’s philosophy.

                Despite Rand’s official praise of selfishness, however, John Galt doesn’t look anything like Ebenezer Scrooge or that fat, cigar-smoking, tuxedo-clad guy in Monopoly. On the contrary, Galt is a pioneer, a brave creator of wealth who pursues his vision despite powerful obstacles, including a malevolent state bent on destroying him. In fact, although Rand despised Christian self-sacrifice, Galt is suspiciously Christ-like. He preaches a message of salvation, founds a community, challenges the status quo and official powers-that-be, who hunt him down, torture him, but ultimately fail to conquer him.

                To be sure, there are dissonant notes. His symbol is not a cross, but the dollar sign. The book ends with Galt and his lover tracing the sign of the dollar across a dry valley. But insofar as Galt’s character works, it’s because he contradicts the miserly stereotype that Rand’s philosophy leads the reader to expect. In fact, not one of Rand’s best fictional characters fits her philosophy very well.

                Rand convinced me that collectivism was a false moral pretense. She also taught me the importance of entrepreneurs in creating wealth. Rand knew, better than some economists, that you can’t have capitalism without capitalists. Rand continues to be popular with some conservatives, including some Christians. Based on my brief description of her work, that might seem unlikely. But the lack of robust moral defenses of capitalism has left a void. And for many, Rand has filled it.

                That’s a problem, of course, since her philosophy as a whole is clearly incompatible with the Christian worldview. Fortunately, we don’t need Rand’s philosophy to defend capitalism. Capitalism and Rand’s defense of it are two different things. This is clear once you realize that Rand bought into a myth more common among critics of capitalism, that the essence of capitalism is greed.

April 27, 2012 – 7:25 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Letter to White House generated form letter response April 3, 2011 (part 4)

I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet.  (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on April 3, 2011. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have linked several of the letters I sent to him below with the email that I received.

_____

The White House, Washington
 

 

April 3, 2012

Dear Everette:

Thank you for writing.  As President, it is my privilege to hear from Americans like you who take time to offer their perspective on the serious issues facing our Nation.  I appreciate your message and value your input.

From putting Americans back to work to expanding access to medical care, my Administration continues to take bold action to do what is right for our Nation.  We have enacted the most comprehensive financial reforms in decades, rescued and helped retool our auto industry, expanded student aid to millions of young people, helped level the playing field for working women, and made the largest investment in clean energy in our history.  Because of the courageous acts of our service members, we have been able to end the war in Iraq and take down Osama bin Laden.  We have also made historic commitments to provide for our troops as they return home.  Securing our country’s future will take time, but I will not stop working to rebuild the kind of America where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules. 

I am always eager to hear ideas that will help our country adapt to changing times and lead us toward a brighter day.  The enduring American spirit is revealed in the letters I receive, and I remain dedicated to ensuring it is reflected in our efforts to improve the lives of all Americans.

Thank you, again, for sharing your views.  I encourage you to explore www.WhiteHouse.gov to learn more about the ways we are moving America forward.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

_____

An open letter to President Obama (Part 56)

President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. When you […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 55)

_______________ President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. It […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 54)

Uploaded by WSJDigitalNetwork on Feb 23, 2012 Editorial board member Steve Moore breaks down Mitt Romney’s and President Obama’s tax plans. _____________________ President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 53)

Uploaded by CFPEcon101 on May 3, 2011 This Economics 101 video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity gives seven reasons why the political elite are wrong to push for more taxes. If allowed to succeed, the hopelessly misguided pushing to raise taxes would only worsen our fiscal mess while harming the economy. The seven […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 52, A response to your budget)

President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. If you […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 51, A response to your budget)

On Bloomberg, Sessions Discusses Astounding Gimmicks In President’s Budget Uploaded by BudgetGOP on Feb 13, 2012 ___ President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 50, A response to your budget)

On Bloomberg, Sessions Discusses Astounding Gimmicks In President’s Budget Uploaded by BudgetGOP on Feb 13, 2012 ___ President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 49, A response to your budget)

On Bloomberg, Sessions Discusses Astounding Gimmicks In President’s Budget Uploaded by BudgetGOP on Feb 13, 2012 __________________ Rep. James Lankford Responds to President Obama’s $3.8 Trillion Budget Uploaded by RepLankford on Feb 13, 2012 Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) responded to President Obama’s FY 2013 budget proposal that fails to cut the deficit in half by […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 48 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

An open letter to President Obama (Part 48 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12) Rep Michael Burgess response Uploaded by MichaelCBurgessMD on Jan 25, 2012 This week Dr. Burgess provides an update from Washington and responds to President Obama’s State of the Union address. President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 2012 […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 47, A response to your budget)

Corker Says President’s 2012 Budget Proposal Shows “Lack of Urgency” on Spending Uploaded by senatorcorker on Feb 14, 2011 In remarks on the Senate floor today, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., expressed disappointment in President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal, saying it displayed a “lack of urgency” to get federal spending under control. Corker has introduced […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 46, A response to your budget)

Senator Blunt Participates in Press Conference in Response to President Obama’s Budget 2/13/2012 Uploaded by SenatorBlunt on Feb 13, 2012 U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Mo.) participated in a press conference with GOP Senators in response to President Obama’s budget proposal on February 13, 2012. _________________________ President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 45, A response to your budget)

Rep. James Lankford Responds to President Obama’s $3.8 Trillion Budget Uploaded by RepLankford on Feb 13, 2012 Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) responded to President Obama’s FY 2013 budget proposal that fails to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term as promised. The budget also delayed the tough decisions to cut […]

Adding another 265 billion to deficit in 2012 will not stimulute economy

Government Spending Doesn’t Create Jobs Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Sep 7, 2011 Share this on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/qnjkn9 Tweet it: http://tiny.cc/o9v9t In the debate of job creation and how best to pursue it as a policy goal, one point is forgotten: Government doesn’t create jobs. Government only diverts resources from one use to another, which doesn’t […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 44, A response to your budget)

On Bloomberg, Sessions Discusses Astounding Gimmicks In President’s Budget Uploaded by BudgetGOP on Feb 13, 2012 _______________________ President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do […]

An open letter to President Obama (Part 43 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12)

An open letter to President Obama (Part 43 of my response to State of Union Speech 1-24-12) Congressman Rick Crawford State of the Union Response 2012 Uploaded by RepRickCrawford on Jan 24, 2012 Rep. Rick Crawford responds to the State of the Union address January 24, 2012 President Obama’s state of the union speech Jan 24, 2012 […]

April 27, 2012 – 6:35 am Categories: President Obama | Post a comment