Tag Archives: http www youtube

Chynna Phillips discusses the lack of the need of revenge when God is Just!! Adrian Rogers’ sermon on 5 minutes after death



 

 

 



Chynna Phillips is open about her Christian faith 

“Dancing with the Stars” (DWTS) is a  very popular show.  I have only watched it a little, but I am a big fan of Chynna Phillips. I love a lot of her music.

Dancing With the Stars: Chynna Phillips Speaks Openly About Her Christian Faith

Actress and singer Chynna Phillips has proven to also be a skilled dancer and a faithful Christian on “Dancing with the Stars” as she has openly expressed her faith live on air.

Formerly a member of Wilson Phillips, she is the daughter of The Mamas and the Papas band members John and Michelle Phillips.

Access Hollywood reported Phillips saying, “I think some people will be surprised that I am doing Christian music.”

The 43-year-old is a born-again Christian, and released a Christian album entitled “One Reason” in 2009.

In an interview with the Christian media source Charisma, Phillips explained her transition after her singing group broke up.

“Although I did accomplish a lot of the things I wanted to… as a member of Wilson Phillips, nothing compares to what I’m doing now. Nothing is more gratifying as a Christian believer than being able to thread my faith and love for Jesus into my music.”

The singer has been married to actor Billy Baldwin since 1995, and the couple share three children together. Phillips told Charisma that she noticed something was missing from her life, and thought: “I know there’s more.”

Writing songs about her faith and love for God has given her “true joy, peace, and fulfillment,” said Phillips.

Appearing on season 13 of “DWTS” Phillips has impressed the judges with her graceful dancing as well as positive attitude. During the second week of performances on “DWTS,” Phillips exclaimed on camera, “Sometimes dancing is so hard, there’s nothing you can do BUT curse!”

Frustrated with learning the quickstep, Phillips added, “Sorry Jesus I have to curse!”

Her performance that week earned her a score of 21.

Frequently mentioning her Christian faith and love for Jesus on the show, Phillips also took to her Twitter account ahead of her third performance on “DWTS” Sunday to thank fans as well as Jesus.

“@wallacejnichols love your work! Thank you Jesus for people like you!” Wrote Phillips, who also said, “@jaydozthegreat hilarious!! I’m here! Sweet dreams- take Jesus!”

During Monday’s dance performance on “DWTS” Phillips and her dance partner Tony Dovolani danced to “Hold On” a song of her own which she claims a strong personal connection to. The elegant Rumba earned her a massive 26 points out of 30.

Phillips and her partner will be dancing the encore performance on Tuesday’s episode of “Dancing with the Stars,” which airs on ABC at 8 p.m. EST.

ADRIAN ROGERS PICTURED AT WHITE HOUSE AFTER BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT OF SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION

The Message I Tried To Talk Myself Out Of is called A PLACE CALLED HELL

Our topic this time is a controversial one. Dr. Rogers said,

“I’ve actually tried to talk myself out of this message. And I’ll tell you why. It’s not a happy one. I’d much rather say something about joy, life, victory—but I’m convinced the missing message in today’s church and especially on the air waves is the message concerning Hell. And I believe we’re reaping the consequences of failing to bring that message. The reason we have so much so-called Hell in our world is because we have so little in our pulpits.

I’m not speaking primarily to the lost. Most lost people are not saved by hearing a message on Hell. I’m preaching primarily to the church—those of us who aresaved—because so often we fail to be properly motivated to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

One great motivation is “the love of God that constrains us.”  Another is “knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:11).

Some of you have loved ones who will die and go to Hell unless you bring them the message of salvation and redemption. We need to be shocked out of our lethargy.

If I am to be a faithful preacher of the Gospel, I have to preach the whole counsel of God and preach as Jesus preached. Jesus had more to say about the place called Hell than any other person in the Bible.

Let’s begin our study. First the good news, then the bad:

1. Turn to Revelation 21:7, filling in some key words as we go:

He that ___________________ shall inherit all things, and I will be his ______, and he shall be _____ ______.”

So far, wonderful. Continue to v. 8:

“…but the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the ________ which ____________ with ______ and _________________, which is the second death.”

Hell—It’s No Joking Matter

Hell is often the subject of jokes, but it’s a somber, serious fact. As you go through this study, you can choose to do one of several things:

1. You can reject it. That’s your privilege.
2. You can ignore it.
3. You can accept it and do something with it.

When people think of Hell, they picture the devil as a comical character wearing a red suit with horns, a tail and a pitchfork, making people shovel coal. Satan loves that image because we laugh at it.

Satan promotes laughter about Hell because if people don’t understand the teaching of Hell, they’ll not prepare to go to Heaven, to give their hearts to Christ.

It makes no difference if all the scholars, preachers, scientists, statesmen, politicians and liberal theologians put together say there is no Hell, it wouldn’t change one letter of what the Word of God says.

Often the minister who preaches on Hell is accused of being unloving. With a sneer the world loves to call him a “hell-fire and damnation preacher.” The late, great Dr. Robert G. Lee said,

I know some people call the preacher who stands squarely upon the teaching of Christ and His apostles narrow, harsh, and cruel. As to being narrow, I have no desire to any broader than was Jesus. As to being cruel, is it cruel to tell a man the truth? Is a man to be called cruel who declares the whole counsel of God and points out to men their danger? Is it cruel to arouse sleeping people to the fact that the house is on fire? Is it cruel to jerk a blind man away from the rattlesnake in the coil? Is it cruel to declare to people the deadliness of disease and tell them which medicine to take? I had rather be called cruel for being kind, than to be called kind for being cruel.

The cruelest thing we could do would be to fail to warn people about Hell and what the Bible has to say about it. To ridicule a preacher who warns of Hell is like ridiculing a doctor who warns of cancer. Hell is not a pleasant subject, but it is a reality.

Sometimes it can be a shocking reality. Each day we hear of someone who met a sudden, unexpected death. In a recent news event, one minute people were alive and well and the next split second they were in eternity, facing Almighty God. For many of us, death is not way out there in the future. The only thing between some people and a literal, burning Hell is a heartbeat. Thank God, between me and Hell is the cross of Jesus Christ.

2. One reason people ridicule is that they don’t like to think about it.  Turn to Proverbs 28:5:

Evil men understand not _______________.

Since our sinful nature recoils at the thought of hell and judgment, people think of ways to refute the idea.

  • “Well, I just don’t believe in life after death.”
  • “Well, I believe in life after death for the saved, but not for the lost”—a doctrine known as “annihilation,” the belief that the lost will just be “gone,” like an earthworm or an amoeba.
  • “Everybody, eventually, is going to heaven”—the doctrine of “universalism.” Universalists believe in life after death; they don’t believe in annihilation but that God may have some remedial place where He keeps people until they finally come to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.  Being a loving God, He’s going to say, “Oh, well, that’s alright. I’ll overlook your sin and bring everybody to Heaven.”
A CLOSER LOOK AT “ANNIHILATION”There are those who knock on your door with their religious pamphlets and tell you there is no everlasting place called Hell. They’ll tell you that when you die, you die like a horse, a dog, a cow—that there’s no conscious existence in Hell. That’s not what God says about it. Revelation 14:10-11 dispenses with that idea, and we’ll get to that in a moment. The only thing you, I, or anybody else knows about life after death is what God’s holy Word says about it. An ounce of what God says is worth a ton of what some philosopher has to say.

Is “Hell” Literal or Figurative?

As we open these passages of Scripture and read the Bible’s description of Hell, the question will come to your mind:
“Are these passages to be interpreted literally or figuratively?”

Whether we take it literally or figuratively, I want us to take it seriously. I teach it like it’s written. When I face God, I’d much rather Him say, “Adrian, you took My Word too seriously” than to hear, “Adrian, you explained it away.”

What Hell Will Be Like

A. A Place of Vile Associations

3. Back to Revelation 21:8, in Hell who would your companions be?

“but the ____________and the ____________________ and the ________________, and ________________, and ________________, and ____________, and ______________, and all ________ shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone which is the second death.”

Xxxxxxxx

Mark Twain is reported to have said, “Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.” Hell is a place of isolation, and this is who you’ll be in isolation with.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

4. Turn back one chapter to Revelation 20, verse 10. Look who you’ll have for a roommate:

“and the ___________ that deceived them was cast into the _______ of ______ and brimstone.”

At times Scripture refers to him as “the prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2), the father of lies (John 8:44), a murderer (John 8:44), your adversary (1 Peter 5:8), your enemy (John 10:19, Matthew 13:39), and a destroyer (John 10:10, Psalm 17:4).

5. Where is Satan right now? Is he presently in Hell? Google maps won’t help, but to some extent we can GPS him.

a. Turn to Ephesians 2:2:
“Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that ____ _________  ___ ____ _______________ ___ __________________.”  This nefarious activity can only be carried out where people are.

b. Turn to Job 1:7:
And the Lord said unto Satan, “Whence comest thou?” Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro in the ___________, and from ___________ up and down _____  ______.”

c. Turn to 1 Peter 5:8:
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, _____________ about, seeking whom he may devour.”

Not literally walking, because Satan is a spirit, but he—or more likely one of his minions—is tracking you.

So the devil is not in Hell yet, but one day he will be.

When he goes, it will be a one-way ticket.  He will be cast into a lake burning with fire and brimstone and will suffer there like everyone else. He is not going to be running around as “the lord of Hell,” any more than prisoners in maximum security go around running the place.

6. Turn to Matthew 25:41. Beside Satan and those who rejected God’s offer of salvation through Jesus Christ, what other group will be there?

Once bright shining creatures, they fell from the glories of Heaven. Now foul spirits under Satan’s command, they too will one day be incarcerated in Hell.

7. Turn to Matthew 25:41. For what purpose was Hell originally created?

8. So we have seen in Revelation 21:8 the people who will be there. In case you look at the list and think, “Well, I’m not in that category—I’m not that bad,” look at the first two types of people in the list. Who are they? The ___________ and the ____________.

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE GREATEST SINWe’re not talking here about “the unforgiveable sin,” but the greatest sin. For a more complete look at this, read Mark 12:28-34. It is not sexual perversion, rape, murder, arson or thievery. The greatest sin is unbelief, to fail to love God with all of your heart. Many who don’t love God, who’ve never surrendered to the Lord Jesus Christ, think Hell is for the drunkard and thief, but not for them. But if you’ve never bowed before the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ and said, “Oh God, I’m a sinner. I repent of my sin, and with all of my heart, dear Lord, I believe in you,” you head the list of those who one day will end up in the place called Hell. Those who don’t know the Lord Jesus Christ, the fearful and unbelieving, will spend eternity there.

B. A Place of Separation from People You’d Want to Spend Eternity With

Hell is not only is company with the ungodly but separation from those who are godly.

9. Turn to Revelation 21:27:

a. “ And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: They that are ____________ in the __________’s _________  of  _________.”

b. What place is our Lord describing here?__________________. We’ve seen who will not be there. Who will be there?

10. If your name is not there, you will be separated from the saints. And what will you experience? Turn to Luke 13:28:

“There shall be ______________ and gnashing of teeth when ye shall see _______________, and ____________, and ___________, and all the ______________ in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves __________  _____.”

If you have refused the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and Lord, not only will you be in Hell with the devil, the beast, the false prophet, all of the demons, all of the ungodly, all of the unbelievers of all of the ages, but you’ll be separated from the godly and the righteous for all eternity.

C. A Place of Sensual Misery

11. You will feel in Hell. Turn to Luke 16 and look in verses 23, 24 and 25. Jesus is contrasting the eternal destiny of a certain rich man and a poor beggar named Lazarus. Upon his death—not because of his wealth but because of his rejection of God—the rich man is in Hell.  What word does Jesus use three times to describe his condition?

23 And in hell he [the rich man] lift up his eyes, being in _____________, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am ____________ in this flame.”
25 But Abraham said, “Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime received thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art _______________.”

Whether Jesus is speaking here of literal fire or in a metaphor of something even worse, it makes no difference. Whatever Jesus intends to convey by the word “fire,” you do not want to go there. You’ll be tormented if you go to Hell.

D. A Place of Emotional Misery

12. Look again at verse 25. Abraham says to the rich man, “Son, _______________.” What does this word tell you about Hell?

If you go to Hell, you’ll take your memory with you. Memory will sting like a hornet in Hell. You will remember the prayers of your mother, every message where the speaker implored you to give your life to Christ, every opportunity you had to be saved, and every time you stubbornly said no to the Lord Jesus Christ.

E. A Place of Eternal Darkness

13. Go back to Revelation 21:23:

…and the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon to shine in it: for the _______ of ________ did light it, and the ___________ is the __________of it. And the nations of them who are saved shall walk in the ________ of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their _________ and _________ into it.

Heaven is a place of fantastic beauty and light. But Hell is a place of darkness. How do we know this?

14. a. Turn to the book of Jude, verse 13:

Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the ____________________ of _______________ forever.

No man’s art can fashion a window that will let in the slightest ray of light.

b. Turn to Matthew 8:11-12. Jesus said,

And I say unto you that many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
But the children of the kingdom [of Satan—those who rejected Christ] shall be cast out into __________ ________________: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Those who die without Christ never again see a glimmer of light. Never will you see the twinkle of a star, the glory of the sun, the luster of the moon. The Bible calls it “outer darkness.” If you die without Jesus Christ, you will never again see a morning, a sunrise, the smiling face of a child or the beauties in this city of light God described in Revelation 21. The “blackness of darkness forever”!

AN ASIDE HERE
You know, as Christians we go through some very dark times right here on this earth. We think sometimes we won’t survive. But the Bible comforts us with this truth: “Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.” (Psalm 30:5) Darkness may endure for you for a season, but you will know joy again. Joy comes in the morning. We who belong to Christ have that hope. For us, there is an eternal morning.

F. A Place of Everlasting Dying and Separation from God

15. The child of God will only die once—we will experience physical death. But for the lost, there is a second death that’s spiritual and eternal. Look again at Revelation 20:14.

…and __________ and Hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the __________ death….

The Bible calls this everlasting, eternal separation from God “the second death.”  It is the separation of your soul from God for all eternity.

16. Turn to 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9. There is both comfort and terror in this passage:

And to you who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels,8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with __________________ destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power;
You will be shut away from the presence of the Lord for all eternity.  You will walk the burning corridors of the damned, alone, separated from God. Never can your prayers be answered. Never can you have fellowship with God.

BUT JESUS TOOK THAT FOR YOU
Separation from God is what Jesus suffered on the cross for you. When He died, He took your Hell, crying out, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” Jesus suffered your Hell on the cross, being forsaken of God, His Father.

In Contrast, Heaven is a Place of Everlasting Life

For the child of God, Heaven is a place of union with God for all eternity.

17. Turn to 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 for some reassuring words from the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul:

Therefore we are [how often?] ___________ ________________, knowing that while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
8 We are ­­­­­_____________ [there’s that word again], I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

Paul knew that upon his death (separation of soul from body) he would be in the presence of the Lord. Death is not annihilation. It is separation of the soul from the body. When we die, our body will cease to live. We will simply move out. But those who have trusted Christ will be kicking up gold dust on the streets of glory.

G. A Place of Everlasting Hopelessness

Bernard Baruch said, “‘Hopeless’ is the saddest word in the English language.”

18. Turn to Proverbs 11:7:

When a wicked man dieth, his __________________ shall perish: and the ________ of unjust men perisheth.

At this point in time, you can be saved if you want to be saved. You may accept Christ as Lord now. If you have rejected Christ, when you die, hope dies with you. After death there is no chance, no repentance.

It would be bad enough to have your doctor or your banker tell you, “It’s hopeless.” But think how sad it would be to be in Hell, knowing it was hopeless—that there is never, ever a way out of Hell—for eternity.

19. If you have the idea that you could spend, perhaps, a few thousand years in Hell and then get out, there would be some hope. But turn to Revelation 14. You may want to read the entire chapter for context. The setting is the time of the Tribulation on earth, when people are aligning themselves with the Antichrist. Those who do face great judgment. For our purpose, we are looking at verses 10 and 11 to understand the length of time involved.

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for  _______  _____  _______: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

What is the length of this judgment?

This judgment is not just for those who pledge allegiance to the Antichrist but for all who reject God’s offer of salvation. If you go to Hell, you’ll be there for eternity without hope.

H. A Place of Everlasting Burning

I saved this for last not because I relish it, but because so often when people want to ridicule the idea of Hell, they ridicule the idea of fire. Is there fire in Hell? Listen not to Adrian Rogers but to Jesus Christ.

20. a. Turn back once again to Matthew 25:41:

Then shall He say also unto them on the left hand, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting ________, prepared for the devil and his angels.”

Again, look at Revelation 20:14. Remember it says, “and death and Hell were cast into the lake of ________. This is the second death.”

b. Back to the verse we began with, Revelation 21:8:

… shall have their part in the lake which ______________ with _______ and brim-stone, which is the second death.”

You know, people who scoff at the idea of fire in Hell do not put the fires of Hell out. They laughed at Noah when he spoke of the flood. They scoffed at Lot when he warned that God was going to destroy Sodom with fire and brimstone. They disbelieved Daniel when he said Belshazzar would be slain and the kingdom overthrown. Whether literal fire or metaphorical, when Jesus said in Mathew 18:8 that it would be better for you to cut off your right hand and cast it away from you than to enter into everlasting fire, He was not saying we have to cut off our hand to go to Heaven, but “Whatever price you have to pay, miss Hell. Don’t go to Hell, no matter what it costs.”

Why I Believe in Hell

  • The words of Jesus teach it. There are at least 162 texts in the New Testament that speak of Hell and the judgment of the lost, over 70 issued by Jesus Christ Himself. I believe in Hell because I believe in Jesus.
  • The death of Jesus demonstrates it. If there’s no Hell from which men need to be saved, Jesus did not need to die and Calvary is the blunder of the ages.
  • The justice of God demands it. God is just. Acts of unspeakable injustice on earth will be accounted for. There is a judgment to face, a time when things are made right, when equity does come.

In Closing…

God doesn’t want you to go to Hell. I want to tell you, dear friend, God has placed a blockade on the road to Hell, and it is the cross of Jesus Christ. If you go to Hell, you’ll have to climb over His cross to get there. God is lifting up the blood-stained cross of the Lord Jesus Christ saying, “Please, don’t go to Hell!” It was created not for you but for Satan and his minions. God is pleading with you today. With nail-pierced hands Christ is pleading with you today. The Holy Spirit is pleading today. And if you have loved ones who are lost, tell them about the Lord Jesus.

Soon we’re going to meet the Lord. Jesus died to save you from Hell. With His blood He paid your sin debt. Your sin will be pardoned in Christ or punished in Hell, but it will never be overlooked. Come to Jesus. Trust Him. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” You don’t have to go to Hell if you don’t want to.

If you would like to know Jesus for the first time or to learn more, visit “Discover Jesus” at our website.

__________________

Friday, June 26, 2015

Five Minutes After Death

Luke 16:19-31 (Program: 2217, Air date: 06.28.2015)

  1. INTRODUCTION
    1. Man is the only creature who knows that he is going to die, and he is trying desperately to forget it.
    2. No one is ever ready for life until he is no longer afraid of death.
    3. Humanity seems more interested in the origin of the species rather than the destination of the species.
    4. There was a time when you were not, but there will never be a time when you will not be. Your soul will continue to exist either in Heaven or in Hell.
    5. Jesus told a story in Luke 16 that deals with the three great issues we all face: life, death and eternity.
      1. This is a story of contrasts. Jesus tells of the contrasts between two men in their lives, deaths and destinies.
  2. A CONTRAST IN LIFE (Luke 16:19-21)
    1. The rich man and Lazarus the beggar described in Luke 16 were very different.
    2. Life is full of inequities.
      1. Congenital inequities
        1. We are born with inequities.
        2. We are each born with different gifts and abilities.
      2. Material inequities
        1. Some are born into great wealth; others are not.
        2. Psalm 62:10
      3. Social inequities
        1. Those who are rich and those who are poor are often perceived differently.
  3. A CONTRAST IN DEATH (Luke 16:22)
    1. Both the poor man and the rich man died.
    2. The Bible states that the rich man died and was buried.
    3. The Bible doesn’t say that the beggar was buried. The beggars of that day were often discarded when they died without a proper burial.
    4. 1 Samuel 20:3
  4. A CONTRAST IN ETERNITY (Luke 16:22-23)
    1. The beggar died and was carried by the angels to Heaven.
      1. Heaven is referred to in this passage as “Abraham’s bosom.”
      2. The man who had been feeding on crumbs is now feasting at a banquet at the highest place of honor.
      3. The glories of Heaven:
        1. Heaven is all that the all-beneficent loving heart of God would desire for you, all that the omniscient mind of God could design for you, and all that the omnipotent hand of God could prepare for you.
        2. Heaven will be just right.
    2. The Bible says that the rich man was in torments.
      1. Many scoff at those who believe in Hell. Mark Twain is reported to have said, “Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.” But the Bible teaches it and gives other examples of those who were mocked for proclaiming God’s Word.
        1. Noah Genesis 7:22
        2. Lot Genesis 19:24-25
        3. Daniel Daniel 5:30
        4. 1 Peter 1:25
      2. Why I believe in Hell:
        1. The words of Jesus teach it.
          1. There are at least 162 texts in the New Testament that speak of Hell and the judgment of the lost. Over 70 of these texts are issued by Jesus Himself.
          2. Matthew 5:29-30
        2. The death of Jesus demonstrates it.
          1. If there is no Hell from which we need to be saved, then why did Jesus die?
        3. The justice of God demands it.
          1. There must be a time when things are made right.
      3. The agonies of Hell:
        1. What will Hell be like?
          1. It is a place of sensual misery.
            1. Luke 16:23-25
            2. Matthew 25:41
          1. It is a place of emotional misery.
            1. Luke 16:25
            2. One will remember in Hell.
          2. It is a place of eternal misery.
            1. Luke 16:26
            2. Hebrews 9:27
          3. It is a place of spiritual misery.
            1. Luke 16:27-29
            2. Once in Hell, the rich man was concerned about his loved ones’ spiritual destiny; but it was too late for him to warn them.
  5. CONCLUSION
    1. Don’t put off salvation. Acknowledge Jesus as your Lord today.
    2. Romans 10:9-10
    3. Romans 10:13

_____________

Friday, June 12, 2015

The Final Judgement

Revelation 20:11-15 (Program: 2213, Air dates: 06.14.2015 & 06.21.2015)

  1. INTRODUCTION
    1. There is coming a time when the Millennium we read about in the book of Revelation will come to an end; and time, as we have known it, will conclude.
    2. Each unsaved person has a date with Deity and will stand before Almighty God to be judged.
    3. Hebrews 9:27
  2. THE SETTING DESCRIBED  (Revelation 20:11)
    1. The throne
      1. The throne is great, which speaks of its power.
      2. It is also white, which speaks of its purity.
      3. The word “throne” speaks of its purpose because there is a Sovereign judge sitting upon it.
      4. Those who stand before the great, white throne to be judged are those who are lost in their sins and eternally condemned.
    2. The judge is Jesus Christ.
      1. Jesus Christ is both Savior and Judge.
      2. John 5:22
      3. Revelation 1:13-16
        1. In this passage, Jesus is depicted as wearing the regal robes of a king and a judge.
        2. His hair, white as wool, speaks of His unsullied, absolute purity.
        3. His eyes, like a flame of fire, means that not only does He see you, but He also sees through you.  He knows all about you.
        4. His feet are like fine brass.  Brass, in the Bible, is a symbol of judgment.
      4. Hebrews 4:13
      5. In Revelation 20:11, it states that the Earth and the Heaven fled from His face, and there was no place for them.  This means that everything stable is gone, and there will be no hiding from this Judge.
  3. THE SUMMONS DELIVERED  (Revelation 20:12-13)
    1. Who will be called to the judgment?
      1. The out and out sinner those who hate God, Christ, the Bible and Christianity.
      2. The self-righteous those who think the gospel is only for the thief, the murderer, the drunkard.  They think that because they are nice people and live good lives that they are Heaven-bound.
        1. Titus 3:5
        2. Isaiah 64:6
        3. The worst form of badness is human goodness when human goodness becomes a substitute for the new birth.
      3. The procrastinator these know that they need to surrender to the Lordship of Jesus, they know they need to be saved, and they intend to…one day.
        1. Proverbs 27:1
        2. Proverbs 29:1
        3. James 4:14
      4. Lost church members those who are religious, who are church members, who may have been baptized, but have never surrendered to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  They give lip service to it but have never been born again.
        1. Revelation 20:15
        2. The church only points the way to Heaven; it is not the way to Heaven.
      5. Those who have never heard the gospel these have never heard the saving message of Jesus Christ.  And while they do not have enough light to save them, they do have enough sin to condemn them.
        1. Many ask, “Is God fair to let someone die and go to Hell who never heard the gospel?”  But the bigger question is whether or not we are saved if we don’t want to tell them about Jesus.
        2. Luke 12:47-48
  4. THE SECRETS DISPLAYED  (Revelation 20:12-13)
    1. Every secret thing word, thought and deed is recorded and will be judged.
    2. Ecclesiastes 12:14
    3. Romans 2:16
    4. Matthew 12:36
    5. Luke 12:2-3
  5. THE SENTENCE DETERMINED  (Revelation 20:13-15)
    1. The sureness of it
      1. The judgment will occur and will be final.
      2. Romans 14:11-12
    2. The severity of it
      1. There will be no mercy in the judgment.
        1. Forgiveness and grace are freely offered to us in this life through the atoning work of Jesus Christ’s death, burial and resurrection.  But if we reject the Lord Jesus in this life, we will receive no mercy in the judgment.
      2. Hebrews 9:27
      3. Hebrews 10:28-31
    3. Three parts to every trial
      1. The evidence is presented.
        1. The books will be opened; and every word, thought and action will be judged.
        2. One’s influence upon others will also be judged, as well as the failure to do those good and right things that we should have done.
          1. James 4:17
      2. You make your defense.
        1. What will your defense be as you stand before Jesus Christ?
        2. Excuses of not knowing which church to attend, hypocrites in the church, not having enough time, etc., will not satisfy.
          1. We’re told to believe in Jesus Christ, not in a particular church or hypocrite.
          2. You can be saved today, now.
            1. Acts 16:31
      3. The verdict is handed down.
        1. Matthew 10:33
        2. The ones who stand before the great, white throne of judgment will not find their names written in the Book of Life.
  6. CONCLUSION
    1. You don’t have to stand before the great, white throne of judgment if you settle out of court by surrendering today to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
    2. Romans 8:1
    3. Call upon Jesus Christ today.  Repent (turn) from your sins, and turn to Jesus.  Ask Him to forgive you of your sins, and acknowledge Him as Lord of your life.
    4. Romans 10:9-10
    5. Romans 10:13

_____

Friday, June 5, 2015

The Value Of A Soul

Mark 8:35-38 (Program: 2211, Air date: 6.7.2015)

THE VALUE OF A SOUL
(Mark 8:35-38)
(RA2211 ~ Program: 2315, Air date 06.07.2015)

  1. INTRODUCTION
    1. Our souls, which are made in the image of God, will never cease to exist.
    2. The fact that we are made in the image of God makes us uniquely distinct from the rest of God’s creation.
      1. Genesis 1:26-27
    3. The Bible refers to our bodies as an earthly house.
      1. 2 Corinthians 5:1
    4. Oftentimes, we pamper the body and neglect the soul.
    5. Jesus taught that it is a bad bargain if we should try to exchange our souls for the world.
      1. Mark 8:35-38
    6. We need to recognize the value of our souls.
  2. THE FABULOUS TREASURE
    1. Your soul is a priceless treasure.
    2. There are five things that make our souls valuable:
      1. Creativity
        1. The identity of the creator adds to the creation’s worth.
        2. Our Creator is God.
          1. Genesis 2:7
          2. Ephesians 2:10
      2. Potentiality
        1. God has predestined His children to be conformed into the image of His Son.
          1. Romans 8:29
      3. Durability
        1. Our souls will exist for eternity, either in Heaven or in Hell.
          1. Daniel 12:2
      4. Rarity
        1. Our souls are absolutely unique and rare.
        2. There will never be another you.
      5. Desirability
        1. What something is worth is determined by what someone will pay for it.
        2. Jesus gave His life upon bloody Calvary for our souls.
          1. 1 Peter 1:18-19
  3. A FOOLISH TRANSACTION  (Mark 8:36-37)
    1. It is a bad, foolish bargain to try to exchange our souls for this world.
    2. Three reasons why this is a bad bargain:
      1. Nobody gains the whole world.
      2. The part of the world you gain, you can’t keep.
      3. The world will never satisfy you.
        1. Acts 17:28
    3. To lose your soul would be a tragic loss.
      1. It is an irreversible loss.
        1. Hebrews 9:27
        2. Ezekiel 18:4
      2. It is an immeasurable loss.
      3. It is an irreplaceable loss.
      4. It is an inexcusable loss.
        1. You don’t have to lose your soul.
  4. THE FATAL TRAGEDY  (Mark 8:36)
    1. Many of us are engaged in bargaining away our souls for pieces of this world, and we’re not even gaining the pleasures of the world.
    2. Surrender your soul to Jesus.
    3. “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”  (Mark 8:36)

_______________

Chynna Phillips tells her mom Michelle about possibility of having spiritual relationship with Jesus!


Chynna Phillips is open about her Christian faith 

“Dancing with the Stars” (DWTS) is a  very popular show.  I have only watched it a little, but I am a big fan of Chynna Phillips. I love a lot of her music.

Dancing With the Stars: Chynna Phillips Speaks Openly About Her Christian Faith

Actress and singer Chynna Phillips has proven to also be a skilled dancer and a faithful Christian on “Dancing with the Stars” as she has openly expressed her faith live on air.

Formerly a member of Wilson Phillips, she is the daughter of The Mamas and the Papas band members John and Michelle Phillips.

Access Hollywood reported Phillips saying, “I think some people will be surprised that I am doing Christian music.”

The 43-year-old is a born-again Christian, and released a Christian album entitled “One Reason” in 2009.

In an interview with the Christian media source Charisma, Phillips explained her transition after her singing group broke up.

“Although I did accomplish a lot of the things I wanted to… as a member of Wilson Phillips, nothing compares to what I’m doing now. Nothing is more gratifying as a Christian believer than being able to thread my faith and love for Jesus into my music.”

The singer has been married to actor Billy Baldwin since 1995, and the couple share three children together. Phillips told Charisma that she noticed something was missing from her life, and thought: “I know there’s more.”

Writing songs about her faith and love for God has given her “true joy, peace, and fulfillment,” said Phillips.

Appearing on season 13 of “DWTS” Phillips has impressed the judges with her graceful dancing as well as positive attitude. During the second week of performances on “DWTS,” Phillips exclaimed on camera, “Sometimes dancing is so hard, there’s nothing you can do BUT curse!”

Frustrated with learning the quickstep, Phillips added, “Sorry Jesus I have to curse!”

Her performance that week earned her a score of 21.

Frequently mentioning her Christian faith and love for Jesus on the show, Phillips also took to her Twitter account ahead of her third performance on “DWTS” Sunday to thank fans as well as Jesus.

“@wallacejnichols love your work! Thank you Jesus for people like you!” Wrote Phillips, who also said, “@jaydozthegreat hilarious!! I’m here! Sweet dreams- take Jesus!”

During Monday’s dance performance on “DWTS” Phillips and her dance partner Tony Dovolani danced to “Hold On” a song of her own which she claims a strong personal connection to. The elegant Rumba earned her a massive 26 points out of 30.

Phillips and her partner will be dancing the encore performance on Tuesday’s episode of “Dancing with the Stars,” which airs on ABC at 8 p.m. EST.

MUSIC MONDAY:Chynna Phillips is open about her Christian faith

Chynna Phillips is open about her Christian faith jh31

“Dancing with the Stars” (DWTS) is a  very popular show.  I have only watched it a little, but I am a big fan of Chynna Phillips. I love a lot of her music.

Dancing With the Stars: Chynna Phillips Speaks Openly About Her Christian Faith

Actress and singer Chynna Phillips has proven to also be a skilled dancer and a faithful Christian on “Dancing with the Stars” as she has openly expressed her faith live on air.

Formerly a member of Wilson Phillips, she is the daughter of The Mamas and the Papas band members John and Michelle Phillips.

Access Hollywood reported Phillips saying, “I think some people will be surprised that I am doing Christian music.”

The 43-year-old is a born-again Christian, and released a Christian album entitled “One Reason” in 2009.

In an interview with the Christian media source Charisma, Phillips explained her transition after her singing group broke up.

“Although I did accomplish a lot of the things I wanted to… as a member of Wilson Phillips, nothing compares to what I’m doing now. Nothing is more gratifying as a Christian believer than being able to thread my faith and love for Jesus into my music.”

The singer has been married to actor Billy Baldwin since 1995, and the couple share three children together. Phillips told Charisma that she noticed something was missing from her life, and thought: “I know there’s more.”

Writing songs about her faith and love for God has given her “true joy, peace, and fulfillment,” said Phillips.

Appearing on season 13 of “DWTS” Phillips has impressed the judges with her graceful dancing as well as positive attitude. During the second week of performances on “DWTS,” Phillips exclaimed on camera, “Sometimes dancing is so hard, there’s nothing you can do BUT curse!”

Frustrated with learning the quickstep, Phillips added, “Sorry Jesus I have to curse!”

Her performance that week earned her a score of 21.

Frequently mentioning her Christian faith and love for Jesus on the show, Phillips also took to her Twitter account ahead of her third performance on “DWTS” Sunday to thank fans as well as Jesus.

“@wallacejnichols love your work! Thank you Jesus for people like you!” Wrote Phillips, who also said, “@jaydozthegreat hilarious!! I’m here! Sweet dreams- take Jesus!”

During Monday’s dance performance on “DWTS” Phillips and her dance partner Tony Dovolani danced to “Hold On” a song of her own which she claims a strong personal connection to. The elegant Rumba earned her a massive 26 points out of 30.

Phillips and her partner will be dancing the encore performance on Tuesday’s episode of “Dancing with the Stars,” which airs on ABC at 8 p.m. EST.

 

Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)

E P I S O D E 8

 

How Should We Then Live? Episode 8: The Age Of Fragmentation

Published on Jul 24, 2012

Dr. Schaeffer’s sweeping epic on the rise and decline of Western thought and Culture

__________

I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me.

T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION

I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought

A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas) and Post-Impressionism (Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Seurat): appearance and reality.

1. Problem of reality in Impressionism: no universal.

2. Post-Impression seeks the universal behind appearances.

3. Painting expresses an idea in its own terms as a work of art; to discuss the idea in a painting is not to intellectualize art.

4. Parallel search for universal in art and philosophy; Cézanne.

B. Fragmentation.

1. Extremes of ultra-naturalism or abstraction: Wassily Kandinsky.

2. Picasso leads choice for abstraction: relevance of this choice.

3. Failure of Picasso (like Sartre, and for similar reasons) to be fully consistent with his choice.

C. Retreat to absurdity.

1. Dada , and Marcel Duchamp: art as absurd.

2. Art followed philosophy but came sooner to logical end.

3. Chance in his art technique as an art theory impossible to practice: Pollock.

II. Music As a Vehicle of Modern Thought

A. Non-resolution and fragmentation: German and French streams.

1. Influence of Beethoven’s last Quartets.

2. Direction and influence of Debussy.

3. Schoenberg’s non-resolution; contrast with Bach.

4. Stockhausen: electronic music and concern with the element of change.

B. Cage: a case study in confusion.

1. Deliberate chance and confusion in Cage’s music.

2. Cage’s inability to live the philosophy of his music.

C. Contrast of music-by-chance and the world around us.

1. Inconsistency of indulging in expression of chaos when we acknowledge order for practical matters like airplane design.

2. Art as anti-art when it is mere intellectual statement, divorced from reality of who people are and the fullness of what the universe is.

III. General Culture As the Vehicle of Modern Thought

A. Propagation of idea of fragmentation in literature.

1. Effect of Eliot’s Wasteland and Picasso’s Demoiselles d’ Avignon

compared; the drift of general culture.

2. Eliot’s change in his form of writing when he became a Christian.

3. Philosophic popularization by novel: Sartre, Camus, de Beauvoir.

B. Cinema as advanced medium of philosophy.

1. Cinema in the 1960s used to express Man’s destruction: e.g. Blow-up.

2. Cinema and the leap into fantasy:

The Hour of the Wolf, Belle de Jour, Juliet of the Spirits, The Last Year at Marienbad.

3. Bergman’s inability to live out his philosophy (see Cage): Silence and The Hour of the Wolf.

IV. Only on Christian Base Can Reality Be Faced Squarely

Questions

1. Explain what “fragmentation” means, as discussed by Dr. Schaeffer. What does it result from? Give examples of it.

2. Apart from the fact that modern printing and recording processes made the art and music of the past more accessible than ever before, do you think that the preference of many people for the art and music of the past is related to the matters discussed by Dr. Schaeffer? If so, how?

3. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds… With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.” Emerson wrote this over a century ago. Debate.

4. How far do you think that the opinion of some Christians that one should have nothing to do with philosophy, art and novels is a manifestation of the very fragmentation which is characteristic of modern secular thought? Discuss.

Key Events and Persons

Beethoven’s last Quartets: 1825-26

Claude Monet: 1840-1926

Poplars at Giverny, Sunrise: 1885

Paul Cézanne: 1839-1906

The Bathers: c.1905

Claude Debussy: 1862-1918

Wassily Kandinsky: 1866-1944

Arnold Schoenberg: 1874-1951

Picasso: 1881-1973

Les Demoiselles d’Avignon: 1906-7

Marcel Duchamp: 1887-1969

Nude Descending a Staircase: 1912

T.S. Eliot: 1888-1965

The Wasteland: 1922

John Cage: 1912-1992

Music for Marcel Duchamp: 1947

Jackson Pollock: 1912-1956

Karlheinz Stockhausen: 1928-

Sartre’s Nausea: 1938

Beauvoir’s L’Invitée: 1943

Camus’ The Stranger: 1942

Camus’ The Plague: 1947

Resnais’ The Last Year at Marienbad: 1961

Bergman’s The Silence: 1963

Fellini’s Juliet of the Spirits: 1965

Antonioni’s Blow-Up: 1966

Bergman’s The Hour of the Wolf: 1967

Buñel’s Belle de Jour: 1967

Further Study

Perhaps you have seen some of the films mentioned. You should try to see them if you haven’t.Watch for them in local art-film festivals, on TV, or in campus film series. They rarely return nowadays to the commercial circuit. The sex and violence which they treated philosophically have now taken over the screen in a more popular and crude form! Easier of access are the philosophic novels of Sartre, Camus and de Beauvoir. Read the titles Dr. Schaeffer mentions. Again, for the artwork and music mentioned, consult libraries and record shops. But spend time here—let the visual images and the musical sounds sink in.

Listening patiently to Cage and Webern, for example, will tell you more than volumes of musicology.

T.S. Eliot, The Wasteland (many editions, usually in collections of his verse).

Joseph Machlis, Introduction to Contemporary Music (1961).

H.R. Rookmaaker, Modern Art and the Death of a Culture (1970).

Donald J. Drew, Images of Man (1974).

Colin Wilson, The Outsider (1956).

Myth:Conservative Herbert Hoover responsible for Depression?

Myth:Conservative Herbert Hoover responsible for Depression

When I grew up I always heard that the conservative Herbert Hoover was responsible for the depression. Is that true?

The Hoover Myth Marches On

Posted by David Boaz

In the New York Times today,  columnist Joseph Nocera quotes a book published in 1940 on Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression:

Herbert Hoover was “leery of any direct governmental offensive against the Depression,” writes Allen. “So he stood aside and waited for the healing process to assert itself, as according to the hallowed principles of laissez-faire economics it should.”

OK, let’s go to the tape. In a new Cato study economist Steve Horwitz notes what Hoover really did:

  • He almost doubled federal spending from 1929 to 1933.
  • He expanded public works projects to “create jobs.”
  • He pressured businesses not to cut wages, even in the face of deflation.
  • He signed the Davis-Bacon Act and the Norris-LaGuardia acts to prop up unions.
  • He signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff.
  • He created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.
  • He proposed and signed the largest peacetime tax increase in
    American history.

And that’s why FDR brains-trusters Rexford Guy Tugwell and Raymond Moley acknowledged later that Hoover “really invented” all the devices of the New Deal. Frederick Lewis Allen might not have recognized that in 1940, but Joseph Nocera should. And if we don’t want to relive the Great Depression, as Nocera worries, then we’d better learn what didn’t work in 1929-33 any better than it worked in 1933-39.

Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 3 – Anatomy of a Crisis. part 1

FREE TO CHOOSE: Anatomy of Crisis
Friedman Delancy Street in New York’s lower east side, hardly one of the city’s best known sites, yet what happened in this street nearly 50 years ago continues to effect all of us today. Wall Street. Most of us know what happened here 50 years ago. Inside the Stock Exchange on October 29, 1929, the market collapsed. It came to be known as Black Thursday. The Wall Street crash was followed by the worst depression in American history. That depression has been blamed on the failure of capitalism. It was no such thing but the myth lives on. What really happened was very different.
Although things looked healthy on the surface, business had begun to turn down in mid 1929. The crash intensified the recession. So did continuing bank failures in the south and Midwest. But the recession only became a crisis when these failures spread to New York and in particular to this building, then the headquarters of the Bank of United States. The failure of this bank had far reaching effects and need never have happened.
It was something of a historical accident that this particular bank played the role it did. Why did it fail? It was a perfectly good bank. Banks that were in far worse financial shape had come under difficulties before it did and had, through the cooperation of other banks, been saved. The reason why it wasn’t saved has to do with its rather special character. First its name, Bank of United States, a name that made immigrants believe it was an official governmental bank although in fact it was an ordinary commercial bank. Second its ownership, Jewish, both its name and the character of its ownership which had so much to do with attracting the large number of depositors from the many Jewish businessmen in the city of New York. Both of them also had the effect of alienating other bankers who did not like the special advantage of the name and did not like the character of the ownership. As a result, other banks were all too ready to spread rumors, to help promote an atmosphere in which runs got started on the bank and which it came into difficulty. And they were less then usually willing to cooperate in the efforts that were made to save it.
Only a few blocks away is the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It was here that the Bank of United States could have been saved. Indeed, the Federal Reserve System had been set up 17 years earlier precisely to prevent the worst consequences of bank failures.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose directors today meet in this room, devised a plan in cooperation with the superintendent of banking of the State of New York to save the Bank of United States. Their plan called for merging the Bank of United States with several other banks and also providing a guarantee fund to be subscribed to by still other bankers to assure the depositors that the assets of the Bank of United States were safe and sound. The Reserve Bank called meeting after meeting to try to put the plan into effect. It was on again, off again. But finally, after an all night meeting on December 10, 1930, the other bankers, including in particular John Pierpont Morgan, refused to subscribe to the guarantee fund and the plan was off. The next day the Bank of United States closed its doors, never again to open for business. For its depositors who saw their savings tied up and their businesses destroyed, the closing was tragic. Yet when the bank was finally liquidated, in the worst years of the depression, it paid back 92.5 cents on the dollar. Had the other banks cooperated to save it, no one would have lost a penny.
For the other New York banks, they thought closing the Bank of United States would have purely local effects. They were wrong. Partly because it had so many depositors, partly because so many of the depositors were small businessmen, partly because it was the largest bank that had ever been permitted to fail in the United States up to this time, the effects were far reaching. Depositors all over the country were frightened about the safety of their funds and rushed to withdraw them. There were runs. There were failures of banks by the droves. And all the time the Federal Reserve System stood idly by when it had the power and the duty and the responsibility to provide the cash that would have enabled the banks to meet the insistent demands of their depositors without closing their doors.
The way runs on banks can spread and can be stopped is a consequence of the way our bank system works. You may think that when you take some cash to a bank and deposit it, the bank takes that money and sticks it in a vault somewhere to wait until you need it again to turn it back over to you.
Bank teller: Okay, how would you like this? Two tens, one five and five ones. Okay.
Friedman: The bank does no such thing with it. It immediately takes a large part of what you put in and lends it out to somebody else. How do you suppose it earns interest, to pay its expenses, or pay you something for the use of your money? The result is that if all depositors in all the banks tried all at once to convert their deposits into cash, there wouldn’t be anything like enough cash in the banks of the country to meet their demands. In order to prevent such an outcome, in order to cut short a run, it is necessary to have some way either to stop people from asking for it, or to have some additional source from which cash can be obtained. That was intended to be the purpose of the Federal Reserve System. It was to provide the additional cash to meet the demands of the depositors when a run arose.
A classic example of how this system could and did work properly can be found over 2,000 miles from New York near the great Salt Lake in Utah.
In the early 30’s some banks in Salt Lake City and surrounding towns began to get into difficulties. The owners of one them were smart enough to see what had to be done to keep their banks open and courageous enough to do it. When fearful depositors began to clamor to withdraw all their money, one of George Eccles jobs was to brief his cashiers on how to handle the run.

What does created equal mean according to Milton Friedman? “Friedman Friday”

What does created equal mean according to Milton Friedman?

In his article “A test for first among equals,” Arkansas News Bureau, September 30, 2011, Matthew Pate asserted:

Among the most familiar passages in the Declaration of Independence is the section reading, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Who am I to dispute one of the key sentiments contained in the great foundational document of our republic?

 

Even so, I’m disputin’ it.

Namely, I have a problem with the idea that we are all created equal. Perhaps in some abstract sense of tabula rasa, we all emerge from the womb with approximately equal potential, but I am dubious of even that.

This said, I readily, wholly and unequivocally believe we should all be treated as though we were equal, but facts being what they are, we are not all equal.

As someone whose job requires the issuance of class grades, I can fully attest that not all snowflakes are special. They all may be unique and valuable, but some are bright white and some appear to have been visited by sled dogs. Like it or not, we are a people of standards, rankings and competitions.

_______-

The answer to this question of what equality is can be found in the first part of the episode “Created Equal” in the film series FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton Friedman.

Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan

Liberals like President Obama (and John Brummett) want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other freedoms are not present.  This is a seven part series.

Created Equal [1/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)

Uploaded by on May 30, 2010

In this program, Milton Friedman visits India, the U.S., and Britain, examining the question of equality. He points out that our society traditionally has embraced two kinds of equality: equality before God and equality of opportunity. The first of these implies that human beings enjoy a certain dignity simply because they are members of the human community. The second suggests societies should allow the talents and inclinations of individuals to unfold, free from arbitrary barriers. Both of these concepts of equality are consistent with the goal of personal freedom.

In recent years, there has been growing support for a third type of equality, which Dr. Friedman calls “equality of outcome.” This concept of equality assumes that justice demands a more equal distribution of the economic fruits of society. While admitting the good intentions of those supporting the idea of equality of outcome, Dr. Friedman points out that government policies undertaken in support of this objective are inconsistent with the ideal of personal freedom. Advocates of equality of outcome typically argue that consumers must be protected by government from the insensitivities of the free market place.

Dr. Friedman demonstrates that in countries where governments have pursued the goal of equality of outcome, the differences in wealth and well being between the top and the bottom are actually much greater than in countries that have relied on free markets to coordinate economic activity. Indeed, says Dr. Friedman, it is the ordinary citizen who benefits most from the free market system. Dr. Friedman concludes that any society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither. But the society that puts freedom before equality will end up with both greater freedom and great equality.

___________________________

FREE TO CHOOSE 5: “Created Equal” (Milton Friedman)
Free to Choose ^ | 1980 | Milton Friedman

Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 3:58:44 PM by Choose Ye This Day

FREE TO CHOOSE: Created Equal

Friedman: From the Victorian novelists to modern reformers, a favorite device to stir our emotions is to contrast extremes of wealth and of poverty. We are expected to conclude that the rich are responsible for the deprivations of the poor __ that they are rich at the expense of the poor.

Whether it is in the slums of New Delhi or in the affluence of Las Vegas, it simply isn’t fair that there should be any losers. Life is unfair __ there is nothing fair about one man being born blind and another man being born with sight. There is nothing fair about one man being born of a wealthy parent and one of an indigenous parent. There is nothing fair about Mohammed Ali having been born with a skill that enables him to make millions of dollars one night. There is nothing fair about Marleena Detrich having great legs that we all want to watch. There is nothing fair about any of that. But on the other hand, don’t you think a lot of people who like to look at Marleena Detrich’s legs benefited from nature’s unfairness in producing a Marleena Detrich. What kind of a world would it be if everybody was an absolute identical duplicate of anybody else. You might as well destroy the whole world and just keep one specimen left for a museum. In the same way, it’s unfair that Muhammed Ali should be a great fighter and should be able to earn millions. But would it not be even more unfair to the people who like to watch him if you said that in the pursuit of some abstract idea of equality we’re not going to let Muhammed Ali get more for one nights fight than the lowest man on the totem pole can get for a days unskilled work on the docks. You can do that but the result of that would be to deny people the opportunity to watch Mohammad Ali. I doubt very much he would be willing to subject himself to the kind of fights he’s gone through if he were to get the pay of an unskilled docker.

This beautiful estate, its manicured lawns, its trees, its shrubs, was built by men and women who were taken by force in Africa and sold as slaves in America. These kitchen gardens were planted and tended by them to furnish food for themselves and their master, Thomas Jefferson, the Squire of Monticello. It was Jefferson who wrote these words: We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These words penned by Thomas Jefferson at the age of 33 when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, have served to define a basic ideal of the United States throughout its history.

Much of our history has revolved about the definition and redefinition of the concept of equality, about the intent to translate it into practice. What did Thomas Jefferson mean by the words all men are created equal? He surely did not mean that they were equal and/or identical in what they could do and what they believed. After all, he was himself a most remarkable person. At the age of 26, he designed this beautiful house of Monticello, supervised its construction and indeed is said to have worked on it with his own hands. He was an inventor, a scholar, an author, a statesman, governor of Virginia, President of the United States, minister to France, he helped shape and create the United States. What he meant by the word “equal” can be seen in the phrase “endowed by their creator”. To Thomas Jefferson, all men are equal in the eyes of God. They all must be treated as individuals who have each separately a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Of course, practice did not conform to the ideals. In Jefferson’s life or in ours as a nation, he agonized repeatedly during his lifetime about the conflict between the institution of slavery and the fine words of the declaration. Yet, during his whole life, he was a slave owner.

This is the City Palace in Jaipur, the capitol of the Indian state of Rajasthan, is just one of the elegant houses that were built here 150 years ago by the prince who ruled this land. There are no more princes, no more Maharajas in India today. All titles were swept away by the government of India in its quest for equality. But as you can see, there are still some people here who live a very privileged life. The descendants of the Maharajas financed this kind of life partly by using other palaces as hotels for tourists __ tourists who come to India to see how the other half lives. This side of India, the exotic glamorous side, is still very real. Everywhere in the world there are gross inequalities of income and wealth. They offend most of us.

A myth has grown up that free market capitalism increases such inequalities, that the rich benefit at the expense of the poor. Nothing could be further from the truth. Wherever the free market has been permitted to operate, the ordinary man has been able to attain levels of living never dreamed of before. Nowhere is the gap between rich and poor. Nowhere are the rich richer and the poor poorer than in those societies that do not permit the free market to operate, whether they be feudal societies where status determines position, or modern, centrally-planned economies where access to government determines position.

Central planning was introduced in India in considerable part in the name of equality. The tragedy is that after 30 years, it is hard to see any significant improvement in the lot of the ordinary person.

Related posts:

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 3 of transcript and video)

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 3 of transcript and video) Liberals like President Obama want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other […]

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 2 of transcript and video)

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 2 of transcript and video) Liberals like President Obama want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other freedoms are […]

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 1 of transcript and video)

 Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan Liberals like President Obama (and John Brummett) want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other freedoms are not present.  This is a seven part series. […]

 

Milton Friedman:Republicans are wrong to oppose payroll tax reduction (Part 2 of Friedman interview with John Hawkins)”Friedman Friday”

Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan

John Brummett is critical of Republicans for opposing the payroll tax reduction and I have to agree with him on this.

In an interview shortly after the Bush Tax Cuts passed Milton Friedman was asked:

John Hawkins:Do you think George Bush, with the economy being as it was, did the right thing by cutting taxes?

Milton Friedman: I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible. The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending. The question is, “How do you hold down government spending?” Government spending now amounts to close to 40% of national income not counting indirect spending through regulation and the like. If you include that, you get up to roughly half. The real danger we face is that number will creep up and up and up. The only effective way I think to hold it down, is to hold down the amount of income the government has. The way to do that is to cut taxes.

_______________________

Here is some more of the interview:

Written By : John Hawkins

John Hawkins:I’d like to switch to a different area here. The economy certainly did well in the Clinton years except for the recession that started right at the end of his term. Was that because of Bill Clinton’s policies, a continuation of the success of Ronald Reagan’s policies, or something else?

Milton Friedman:I think it was #1 a continuation of the Reagan policies and #2 an indication of the virtues of a President of one party and a House and Senate of the other. That’s the best combination for economic growth…

John Hawkins:Because they hold down spending?

Milton Friedman:Yes, you have a deadlock. You can’t get any major spending programs through because one party or the other will oppose it. That’s why we have what looks like a paradox. The Clinton administration, in terms of the budget, has one of the best records of holding down spending. Spending went up less under Clinton than almost any other President.

John Hawkins:So do you think if we had Democrats controlling the House and Senate we’d have much less spending from the Bush administration?

Milton Friedman:If the White House were under Bush, and House and Senate were under the Democrats, I do not believe there would be much spending.

John Hawkins:That may be true. Switching directions again, Europe has been moving towards a single currency. Do you think that’s a wise move for all the states, some of them, or none of them? Why so?

Milton Friedman:We’re in the midst of a wonderful natural experiment. You have a really different arrangement with the euro than we’ve ever had historically. We’ve had many cases in which a number of countries have used the same currency. That’s when they’ve used gold or silver as money. But each individual country has been able to control the content of its own money. So while they were using the same commodity as currency, they were always in a position to determine what the terms of exchange were between their own currency and the other currencies.

But the euro is a very different arrangement. For the first time in history, we have essentially an independent central bank for a considerable number of distinct political entities. I, in advance, was very negative about it and have been very negative & pessimistic about it. We’ll see how the Europe plan does on the one hand and on the other, how the other countries of the world, the UK, the United States, Japan, which are linked together by flexible exchange rates, we’ll see how they do.

So we’ll have a really nice, natural experiment just as before the Soviet Union dissolved, we had a natural experiment comparing socialism and capitalism.

John Hawkins:If the euro were to replace the dollar as the medium of exchange, if everyone bought and sold their goods in euros instead of dollars, would that have an impact on the US economy?

Milton Friedman:The success of the United States will depend on how much it can produce at home, how much it can sell abroad, what it buys from abroad. It’s of less importance whether it is denominated in dollars or euros.

John Hawkins:So in the end, that is really not going to make a big difference one way or the other…

Milton Friedman:That’s not going to make a great deal of difference. What’s going to make the difference is the productivity of the different countries. But personally, as I say, I believe the Euroland is going to run into big difficulties. That’s because the different countries have different languages, limited mobility among them, and they’re effected differently by external events.

Right now for example, Ireland and Spain are doing very well, but on the other hand Germany and France are doing very poorly. The question is; “Is the same monetary policy appropriate for all of them?” Germany and France on one hand and Ireland and Spain on the other: it’s very dubious that it is. That’s why you’re having increasing difficulties within the Euroland group. As you probably know Sweden, which had not joined the European Monetary Union, voted down doing so and will keep its own currency.

John Hawkins: It was 56% to 42%so they voted it down by a good margin. Switching gears again here, in your opinion, what caused us to pull out of the Great Depression? Was it Roosevelt’s policies, WW2…

Milton Friedman:Roosevelt’s policies were very destructive. Roosevelt’s policies made the depression longer and worse than it otherwise would have been. What pulled us out of the depression was the natural resilience of the economy + WW2.

You know, it’s a mystery as to why people think Roosevelt’s policies pulled us out of the Depression. The problem was that you had unemployed machines and unemployed people. How do you get them together by forming industrial cartels and keeping prices and wages up? That’s what Roosevelt’s policies in the New Deal amounted to. Essentially, increasing the role of government, enhancing the monopolistic position of labor, and creating as I said before the equivalent of price fixing cartels made things worse. So most of his policies were counterproductive.

John Hawkins:Fast forward to today and there are a lot of Democrats & people on the left out there who say, “Why don’t we just have exorbitant taxes on the rich and minimal taxes on everyone else”? What would that do to the economy?

Milton Friedman:That would eliminate the rich.

John Hawkins:Right. Would it have a negative effect on economy overall?

Milton Friedman:Well, who would provide the funds, the capital, and the entrepreneurship for the new industries? In a world in which there were no rich people, how would you have ever gotten the capital to produce steel mills or automobile plants? You can do it through the state, but the world tried that with the Soviet Union.

It’s an interesting thing. If you ask yourself, “what tax system would be best for the low income group,” it’s the opposite of what they’re saying there. It would be a system with a maximum amount of taxation rather than a minimum. If you look at the taxation system in China for example, which is now doing very, very, well, that’s exactly what it is. In Russia you now have a 20% flat tax which is having the effect of increasing revenues rapidly and also stimulating production. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

John Hawkins:If we don’t “fix” Social Security, what sort of impact is it going to have on the economy in say 10-20 years?

Milton Friedman:Well, Social Security is having a bad effect now through the tax system. But ya know, when Adam Smith was told that the British loss at Yorktown would be the ruination of Britain, Adam Smith replied, “Young man, there’s a deal of ruin in a nation.” So, we’re a very strong country, lots of able people, lots of active entrepreneurs, and so the Social Security system will be a burden, but it won’t destroy the country.

I think it will be changed of course. I think there is a great and growing pressure towards privatizing Social Security, converting it into individual accounts. We’ve been moving that way indirectly through 401ks and the equivalent retirement accounts. I think Mr. Bush will go back to his emphasis on privatizing Social Security. I think there’s a good chance it can be done. It has been done in a considerable number of countries around the world. There’s no reason why it couldn’t be done here.

John Hawkins:Are there any political websites you’d like to recommend to our readers?

Milton Friedman: No, I don’t really follow any political websites. I think they’ll do better reading the Wealth of Nations(laughs)…

John Hawkins:Last but not least, is there anything else you’d like to say or promote?

Milton Friedman:I’d like to promote lots of things. I’d like to promote elimination of drug prohibition. I’d like to promote parental choice in education through vouchers. Those are two things I think are very urgent and important. They’re both more important than the harm which Social Security will do.

I think that our policy with respect to drugs is fundamentally immoral and it’s really disgraceful that we cause thousands of deaths in South America because we cannot enforce our own laws. If we could enforce our own laws against consumption of drugs, there would be no drug cartels in South America. There would be no — nearly a civil war in a place like Columbia.

Similarly, I think the performance of our school systems is disgraceful. I think roughly a quarter of the population never graduates high school. We have a lower level of literacy today than we had a hundred years ago. That’s not despite, but because of the poor schools, particularly in low-income areas.

But I think that’s enough for you. It has been nice to talk to you.

John Hawkins:Thank you for your time Mr. Friedman.

If you’d like to find out more about Mr. Friedman, you can do so at the Milton & Rose D. Friedman Foundation & the Hoover Institution.

 Related posts:

Myth:Conservative Herbert Hoover responsible for Depression?

Myth:Conservative Herbert Hoover responsible for Depression When I grew up I always heard that the conservative Herbert Hoover was responsible for the depression. Is that true? The Hoover Myth Marches On Posted by David Boaz In the New York Times today,  columnist Joseph Nocera quotes a book published in 1940 on Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression: […]

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 6 of 7)

I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen worked pretty well for a whole generation. Now anything that works well for a whole generation isn’t entirely bad. From the fact __ from that fact, and the undeniable fact that things […]

Milton Friedman discusses Reagan and Reagan discusses Friedman

Uploaded by YAFTV on Aug 19, 2009 Nobel Laureate Dr. Milton Friedman discusses the principles of Ronald Reagan during this talk for students at Young America’s Foundation’s 25th annual National Conservative Student Conference MILTON FRIEDMAN ON RONALD REAGAN In Friday’s WSJ, Milton Friedman reflectedon Ronald Reagan’s legacy. (The link should work for a few more […]

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (Part 10)

Milton Friedman – The Social Security Myth Uploaded by LibertyPen on Mar 5, 2010 Using Social Security as his prime example, Professor Friedman explodes the myth that the major expansions in government resulted from popular demand. In a speech delivered more than 30 years ago, he directly relates this dynamic to today’s health care debate. […]

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 4 of transcript and video)

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 4 of transcript and video) Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 4 of 6.   Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools Transcript: It seems to me […]

Tax increases are not the way to go

Tax increases are not the way to go, but the president doesn’t get that. Liberals love tax increases. Seven Reasons Why Tax Increases Are the Wrong Approach 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 […]

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 3 of transcript and video)

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 3 of transcript and video) Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 3 of 6.   Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools Transcript: If it doesn’t, they […]

Some poor are guilty of poor choices (Friedman Fridays)

Why can’t we do something about the poor?

I love Milton Friedman’s film series “Free to Choose.” In that film series over and over it is shown that the ability to move from poor to rich is more abundant here than any other country in the world.

Poor Choices

by James A. Dorn

James A. Dorn is professor of economics at Towson University and editor of the Cato Journal.

Added to cato.org on September 27, 2011

This article appeared in The Baltimore Sun on September 27, 2011.

The persistence of poverty in Baltimore is disturbing. It is even more so when one looks deeper into the official data.

The 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates that 25.6 percent of Baltimore’s population “for whom poverty status is determined” (602,129 people) are in poverty, as measured by pre-tax income relative to the poverty threshold used by the U.S. Census Bureau. For example, if a two-person family’s pre-tax money income is less than $14,218, it is considered poor; the corresponding figure for a family of four is $22,314.

However, the 25.6 percent figure doesn’t tell the whole story about Baltimore’s poverty.

If latent poverty is to be reduced, Baltimore needs to address the problem of how to improve economic development.

If one looks at the ACS for families, one finds that 28 percent of Baltimore families with children under 18 are living below the poverty level. That figure rises to an astonishing 40.6 percent for female-headed families with no father present. Is it surprising that poverty persists in Baltimore?

Poverty is often blamed on high taxes, onerous regulations, barriers to occupational entry and other economic factors. But poverty is also affected by people’s choices. For individuals who wait to have children, get married and stay married, obtain more education, and stay out of jail, poverty rates diminish greatly.

The poverty rate for married-couple families with related children under 18 in Baltimore is only 7.4 percent (7.5 percent for whites and 6.8 percent for blacks). Educational status is also important: Female-headed households with less than a high school degree have a poverty rate of 44.1 percent; the rate is 11 percent for those with a college degree.

With many dysfunctional families, a culture of crime, and public schools that are frequently ineffective and sometimes dangerous, the cards are stacked against poor people trying to escape poverty in Baltimore.

Government policies can influence one’s choices and the level of responsibility one takes. The growth of the welfare state has eroded personal responsibility and made the poor more dependent. After spending billions on welfare programs since President Lyndon Johnson announced the War on Poverty, the U.S. poverty rate is still about the same as in 1966 (14.7 percent). How can that be?

One answer is that the official poverty statistics mismeasure the actual extent of poverty. The U.S. Census Bureau measures only pre-tax money income and ignores noncash transfer payments in the form of Medicaid (by far the largest welfare program), food stamps, children’s health insurance, and child nutrition and health. If those in-kind transfers were included, the official poverty rate would decrease substantially.

Nevertheless, as Charles Murray pointed out in his landmark book Losing Ground (1984), even if all transfers were included as income and brought many people above the poverty thresholds, “latent poverty” would remain. That is, if welfare payments were taken away, people would return to poverty. Welfare alone cannot create wealth. Economic growth is the only sure way to reduce dependence and poverty.

Just look at China. Since 1978, when it began its march toward the market, China has achieved the world’s highest sustained rate of economic growth and allowed several hundred million people to lift themselves out of absolute poverty.

Counting noncash benefits of those living in poverty in Baltimore would reduce “poverty” but not free people from welfare. A huge underclass has captured politicians for their cause of maintaining and increasing transfers rather than limiting the size and scope of government to make people more responsible and foster economic growth.

No one could say that the poor in Baltimore today are less well-off materially than 50 or 100 years ago. Indeed, if one looks at personal consumption expenditures — a better measure of one’s living standard than pre-tax money income — one finds that official figures significantly overstate the extent of poverty.

Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show that in 2009, consumer expenditures for the lowest fifth of income earners were more than twice as high as before-tax income (which includes cash transfers and food stamps). Average annual consumption expenditures were $21,611 for the lowest quintile, while income was $9,846.

James A. Dorn is professor of economics at Towson University and editor of the Cato Journal.

More by James A. Dorn

This disparity is due to underreporting of income, outside financial assistance, loans and other factors. If poverty is better measured by one’s consumption rather than income, then Baltimore’s 25 percent poverty rate is misleading.

Most “poor” households now have a TV, air conditioning, enough food and medical care. Many have Internet access and a cell phone (subsidized by the federal government). What they don’t have is a safe environment, two parents and choice in education.

If latent poverty is to be reduced, Baltimore needs to address the problem of how to improve economic development. Part of that problem lies in heavy taxes on capital, but part also lies in the rise of government welfare and the decline in morality.

The bulk of Baltimore’s budget is spent on public safety (crime reduction) and education. Government failure is evident in those areas — taxpayers are not getting their money’s worth. Rather than spending more on welfare, perhaps it’s time to think about how to reduce latent poverty and make people more responsible for their choices.

Related posts:

Surprising facts about America’s poor

Surprising facts about America’s poor Here are some interesting facts: Morning Bell: Surprising Facts about America’s Poor Mike Brownfield September 13, 2011 at 11:00 am In his address to the joint session of Congress last week, President Barack Obama called for $477 billion in new federal spending, which he said would give hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged […]

The poor in the USA have best chance in the world to go up

I love Milton Friedman’s film series “Free to Choose.” In that film series over and over it is shown that the ability to move from poor to rich is more abundant here than any other country in the world. This article below reminded me of that that. Are Poor Really Helpless Without Government? By Michael […]

Bill Clinton condemns class-warfare and engages in it in same speech

President Bill Clinton’s Speech Oct 1, 2011 with Joshua & Anna at Little Rock Arkansas

Uploaded by on Oct 2, 2011

_______________________________

In this speech in Little Rock on October 1, 2011 former President Bill Clinton noted:

There is no example of a country in the fix we are in that can balance the budget without a combination of spending cuts, the people who can afford it paying more and growing the economy.

What was the secret of the Clinton Presidency? Clinton tells us in the same speech:

We decided to stop the politics of pitting one American against another by race…income, by anything else.

_________-

President Obama and other politicians are advocating higher taxes, with a particular emphasis on class-warfare taxes targeting the so-called rich. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video explains why fiscal policy based on hate and envy is fundamentally misguided. For more information please visit our web page: www.freedomandprosperity.org.

I just don’t understand how a politician can say two things in the same speech that cancel each other out? John Brummett and Max Brantley love to try to act like all of our problems would be solved if we could take the money from the rich guy. Below is an article that makes some great points concerning class-warfare:

Soaking the Rich Is Not Fair

by Jeffrey A. Miron

Jeffrey A. Miron is Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies at Harvard University and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. Miron blogs at JeffreyMiron.com and is the author of Libertarianism, from A to Z.

Added to cato.org on September 2, 2011

This article appeared on The Huffington Post on September 2, 2011.

What is the “fair” amount of taxation on high-income taxpayers?

To liberals, the answer is always “more.” Liberals view high income — meaning any income that exceeds their own — as the result of luck or anti-social behavior. Hence liberals believe “fairness” justifies government-imposed transfers from the rich to everyone else. Many conservatives accept this view implicitly. They oppose soak-the-rich policies because of concern over growth, but they do not dispute whether such policies are fair.

But high tax rates on the rich are not fair or desirable for any other reason; they are an expression of America’s worst instincts, and their adverse consequences go beyond their negatives for economic growth.

The liberal hatred of the rich is a minority view, not a widely shared American value.

Consider first the view that differences in income result from luck rather than hard work: some people are born with big trust funds or innate skill and talent, and these fortuitous differences explain much of why some people have higher incomes than others.

Never mind that such a characterization is grossly incomplete. Luck undoubtedly explains some income differences, but this is not the whole story. Many trust fund babies have squandered their wealth, and inborn skill or talent means little unless combined with hard work.

But even if all income differences reflect luck, why are government-imposed “corrections” fair? The fact that liberals assert this does not make it true, any more than assertions to the contrary make it false. Fairness is an ill-defined, infinitely malleable concept, readily tailored to suit the ends of those asserting fairness, independent of facts or reason.

Worse, if liberals can assert a right to the wealth of the rich, why cannot others assert the right to similar transfers, such as from blacks to whites, Catholics to Protestants, or Sunni to Shia? Government coercion based on one group’s view of fairness is a first step toward arbitrary transfers of all kinds.

Now consider the claim that income differences result from illegal, unethical, or otherwise inappropriate behavior. This claim has an element of truth: some wealth results from illegal acts, and policies that punish such acts are appropriate.

But most inappropriate wealth accumulations results from bad government policies: those that restrict competition, enable crony capitalism, and hand large tax breaks to politically connected interest groups. These differences in wealth are a social ill, but the right response is removing the policies that promote them, not targeting everyone with high income.

The claim that soaking the rich is fair, therefore, has no basis in logic or in generating desirable outcomes; instead, it represents envy and hatred.

Why do liberals hate the rich? Perhaps because liberals were the “smart” but nerdy and socially awkward kids in high school, the ones who aced the SATs but did not excel at sports and rarely got asked to the prom. Some of their “dumber” classmates, meanwhile, went on to make more money, marry better-looking spouses, and have more fun.

Liberals find all this unjust because it rekindles their emotional insecurities from long ago. They do not have the honesty to accept that those with less SAT smarts might have other skills that the marketplace values. Instead, they resent wealth and convince themselves that large financial gains are ill-gotten.

Jeffrey A. Miron is Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies at Harvard University and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. Miron blogs at JeffreyMiron.com and is the author of Libertarianism, from A to Z.

More by Jeffrey A. Miron

The liberal views on fairness and redistribution are far more defensible, of course, when it comes to providing for the truly needy. Reasonable people can criticize the structure of current anti-poverty programs, or argue that the system is overly generous, or suggest that private charity would be more effective at caring for the least vulnerable.

The desire to help the poor, however, represents a generous instinct: giving to those in desperate situations, where bad luck undoubtedly plays a major role. Soaking the rich is a selfish instinct, one that undermines good will generally.

And most Americans share this perspective. They are enthusiastic about public and private attempt to help the poor, but they do not agree that soaking the rich is fair. That is why U.S. policy has rarely embraced punitive income taxation or an aggressive estate tax. Instead, Americans are happy to celebrate well-earned success. The liberal hatred of the rich is a minority view, not a widely shared American value.

For America to restore its economic greatness, it must put aside the liberal hatred of the rich and embrace anew its deeply held respect for success. If it does, America will have enough for everyone.

Related posts:

Warren Buffett does not endorse Obama’s plan

Addington, McConaghy Debate Obama’s Jobs Plan Published on Sep 9, 2011 by Bloomberg Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) — David Addington, vice president at the Heritage Foundation, and Ryan McConaghy, economic director at Third Way, discuss President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan. They speak with Deirdre Bolton and Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg) […]

Is soaking the rich fair?

Is soaking the rich fair? Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy Uploaded by afq2007 on Jun 15, 2009 President Obama and other politicians are advocating higher taxes, with a particular emphasis on class-warfare taxes targeting the so-called rich. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video explains why fiscal policy based on hate […]

Is it class warfare? Brummett says no

Take a look above at this clip. In his article “Class Warfare versus Pay it forward,” Sept 26, 2011, Arkansas News Bureau, John Brummett tries to make the case that Obama is not involved in class warefare. He quotes Elizabeth Warren to prove his point. Unfortunately, logically this argument fails because although we all benefit […]

Obama’s tax plan would not work even if tried

The Flat Tax: How it Works and Why it is Good for America Uploaded by afq2007 on Mar 29, 2010 This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video shows how the flat tax would benefit families and businesses, and also explains how this simple and fair system would boost economic growth and eliminate the special-interest […]

Three points where Brummett misses the boat in discussion versus Charlie Collins

Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy Uploaded by afq2007 on Jun 15, 2009 President Obama and other politicians are advocating higher taxes, with a particular emphasis on class-warfare taxes targeting the so-called rich. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video explains why fiscal policy based on hate and envy is fundamentally misguided. […]

President Obama and Alternative Minimum Tax

President Obama and Alternative Minimum Tax Dan Mitchell does it again. He is always right on the mark. CPAs Celebrate as Obama Proposes to Create a Turbo-Charged Alternative Minimum Tax Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell Wow, this is remarkable. The alternative minimum tax (AMT) is one of the most-hated features of the tax code. It […]

Buffett wants the rich soaked but that will not solve our problem in the budget

Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted: Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than that of many of the working people in his office on account of preferences for […]

Brummett touts Buffett’s math, but it is wrong

Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog, August 15, 2011, asserted:   Billionaire Warren Buffett laments, again, in a New York Times op-ed how the rich don’t share the sacrifices made by others in the U.S.. He notes his effectiie tax rate of 17 percent is lower than […]

Ron Paul’s Pro-life view

Ron Paul’s Pro-life view

Ron Paul’s Pro-Life Speech in Ames, Iowa

Uploaded by on Aug 13, 2011

Free email updates: http://www.RonPaul.com/welcome.php

Please like, share, subscribe & comment! http://www.RonPaul.com

08/13/2011–

Ron Paul is America’s leading voice for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, sound money, and a pro-America foreign policy.

___________________________________

Related posts:

Crowd at Occupy Arkansas pales in comparison to annual pro-life march

Demonstrators march through the streets of Little Rock on Saturday in a protest organized by Occupy Little Rock. (John Lyon photo) Occupy Arkansas got cranked up today in Little Rock with their first march and several hundred showed up. It was unlike the pro-life marches that I have been a part of that have had […]

Ark Times blogger asks “…you do know there is a slight difference between fetal tissue and babies, don’t you? Don’t you?”

The Arkansas  Times blogger going by the username “Sound Policy” asserted, “…you do know there is a slight difference between fetal tissue and babies, don’t you? Don’t you?” My response was taken from the material below: Science Matters #2: Former supermodel Kathy Ireland tells Mike Huckabee about how she became pro-life after reading what the science […]

Pro-life marchers turn to prayer

What Ever Happened to the Human Race? Jason Tolbert told a  story about pro-life marchers and their tactic of prayer: OWNER TURNS SPRINKLERS ON PRO-LIFE PRAYER VIGIL In July, I wrote about a new movement springing up in Arkansas that seeks to combat abortion not with violent protest, but with peaceful prayer demonstrations.  It is called “40 […]

Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were prophetic (jh29)

Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were prophetic (jh29) What Ever Happened to the Human Race? I recently heard this Breakpoint Commentary by Chuck Colson and it just reminded me of how prophetic Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were in the late 1970′s with their book and film series “Whatever happened to the human […]

Ronald Reagan’s pro-life tract (Part 100)

A Ronald Reagan radio address from 1975 addresses the topics of abortion and adoption. This comes from a collection of audio commentaries titled “Reagan in His Own Voice.” I just wanted to share with you one of the finest prolife papers I have ever read, and it is by President Ronald Wilson Reagan. I have […]

Taking up for Francis Schaeffer’s book Christian Manifesto

I have made it clear from day one when I started this blog that Francis Schaeffer, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan and Adrian Rogers had been the biggest influences on my political and religious views. Today I am responding to an unfair attack on Francis Schaeffer’s book “A Christian Manifesto.” As you can see on the […]

Pro-life meeting at 1st Baptist Little Rock shows prayer works

President and Nancy Reagan talking to Mother Teresa in the Oval Office. 6/20/85. Superbowl commercial with Tim Tebow and Mom. Jason Tolbert wrote a great article this week about a pro-life meeting. He mentons William Harrison who I have written about before on this blog. I used to write letters to the editor a whole […]

Ark Times blogger has identified correct issue concerning abortion (part 3)

I wrote a response to an article on abortion on the Arkansas Times Blog and it generated more hate than enlightenment from the liberals on the blog. However, there was a few thoughtful responses. One is from spunkrat who really did identify the real issue. WHEN DOES A HUMAN LIFE BEGIN? _______________________________________ Posted by spunkrat […]

Pro-abortion Ark Times article refuted here (Part 2)

Superbowl commercial with Tim Tebow and Mom. The Arkansas Times article, “Putting the fetus first: Pro-lifers keep up attack on access, but pro-choice advocates fend off the end to abortion right” by Leslie Newell Peacock is very lengthy but I want to deal with all of it in this new series.   click to enlarge ROSE MIMMS: […]

Pro-abortion Ark Times article refuted here (Part 1)

The Arkansas Times article, “Putting the fetus first: Pro-lifers keep up attack on access, but pro-choice advocates fend off the end to abortion right” by Leslie Newell Peacock is very lengthy but I want to deal with all of it in this new series.   click to enlarge ROSE MIMMS: Arkansas Right to Life director unswayed by […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 7) Have you wondered why we have abortion in the USA?

“Jane Roe” or Roe v Wade is now a prolife Christian. She’s recently has done a commercial about it.   _______________________________ I have often wondered why we got to this point in our country’s life and we allow abortion. The answer is found in the words of Schaffer. Philosopher and Theologian, Francis A. Schaeffer has […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 6)

Modern man’s humanist thought has brought us to the point now that many people realize that they could not find final answers and that would lead to despair. Many people then took leaps into the area of non-reason to find some kind of meaning in life. Some people actually tried to look at communism and […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 5)

Modern man’s humanist thought has brought us to the point now that many people realize that they could not find final answers and that would lead to despair. Many people then turned to trying to find answers in the area of non-reason. There were no fixed values and they just held on to the two […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 4)

Richard Land on Abortion part 3 On the Arkansas Times Blog this morning I posted a short pro-life piece and it received this response: We have been over this time and again SalineRepublican, and I think we all know the issue: when does the right of a woman to control her own body yield to […]

Ronald Wilson Reagan Part 69

Bob Jordan / Associated Press No. 13: Duke ends UNLV’s perfect season Final Four, March 30, 1991 — The Runnin’ Rebs returned four starters from the 1990 champions and rolled through the ’90-91 season. They entered the Final Four 34-0 and faced Duke, a team the Rebs beat by 30 points in the ’90 title […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 3)

Vice Admiral C. Everett Koop, USPHS Surgeon General of the United States Francis Schaeffer Main page Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop put together this wonderful film series “Whatever happened to the human race?” and my senior class teacher Mark Brink taught us a semester long course on it in 1979. I was so […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 2)

This is such a great video series “The Silent Scream.” I have never seen it until now and I wish I had seen it 30 years ago.  Take a look at the video clip below. I wanted to pass along a portion of the excellent article “Bernard Nathanson: A Life Transformed by the Truth about […]

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 1)

Sherwood Haisty is taking my sons Hunter and Wilson to Grace Community Church in the Los Angeles area this morning where Dr. John MacArthur is pastor. They will be attending both Sunday School and Worship. I wanted to pass along a portion of the excellent article “Bernard Nathanson: A Life Transformed by the Truth about […]

Like this:

Be the first to like this post.
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. Edit