A person or nation should never look a gift horse in the mouth. China's one child policy may be abhorrent to Western sensibilities but it is a policy that is actually beneficial to the U.S.
China's one child policy is actually working in the favour of the U.S. because this policy is leading to China facing a demographic implosion just when it is on the cusp of being the biggest economy in the world. Given this fact it seems that China's place at the top will be short lived compared to that of the U.S.
China's one child policy also has the country facing reproductive capability problems due to the fact that its gender ratio is skewed towards males. For a country to have too many males is a recipe for population decline.
China's one child policy means that China's army will face problems when it comes to fighting members. The lack of sufficient young people will also pose a problem to the productive capacity of the Chinese economy. Young people who are forced into the military are young people who will not be available to produce material goods for export or domestic consumption. These are young people who will not be using the intellectual capacities for designing consumer or industrial goods. It is also the young who engage in the production and accumulation of wealth.
How China will confront these looming problems is yet to be seen. However it is safe to say that any attempt to confront them all will mean that none of them will be dealt with well. If China were to attempt to pursue the goal of maintaining or acheiving military parity or superiority with the U.S. then it will have to neglect economic growth and the establishment of a social safety net that would care for the old. Whilst the pursuit of economic growth will allow China to confront the needs of an aging population but will mean it having to direct less resources to the military.
I conclude therefore that although the one child policy is morally repugnant that it actually is a policy that in the long run actually favours the U.S.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
The Church, Homosexuality and Ordination
I read Mr. Jason's letter which appeared in the Ponoka News of October 12 and would like to point out some errors that were contained therein. I will present these errors in no particular order which is indicative of the error's importance.
One error that I would point out is the error which sees the church as a servant of society or even worse as an organisation that belongs to its members when the church is neither. The church as an institution does not exist by the will of its members or by the permission of the State. The Church as a community of the redeemed exist purely by the will of God, the church is the community of the redeemed- 1 Corinthians 1:2. The goal of the church is not to serve the needs of humanity but rather to testify to the living God and to be the Body of Christ, John 10:15. Therefore we can see that the Church and the nation state do not have the same criteria for what qualifies an individual for membership into their respective institutions. For membership in the nation state you need to do one of two things- be born in the nation, or if born outside of the nation's borders then you must be born to a member of that nation, or as a adult you can voluntarily become a member. To be a member in good standing it is required of the nation's citizens that they adhere to the nation's laws. This is a stark contrast to the means by which membership in the church is acquired. Membership in the church is not acquired by birth but is a given by God to a few and according to his own good pleasure - John 17:9.
As with the State, the church has some codes of conduct that are prescribed or prohibited for its members. Some of those behaviours which mandated of those who are members of the church are found in passages like- Mark 12:30, Rom. 12:9, Deuteronomy 27:10. Those who refuse to abide by the ordinances that are in the Bible are said to have no part in the church - Romans 1:26-32, Romans 6:12-13. In Romans 12:1-21 we have the instructions for how the followers of Christ must live their lives.
Notice that in vs. 2 of Romans 12 we are clearly instructed that members of the church are not to be conformed to the spirit of the world but that believers are to be transformed by renewing work arising out of their faith. Right now the spirit of the world is embracing same sex relationships but those kind of relationships are clearly forbidden by God - Romans 1:26-27, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, 1Timothy 1:10, 1Corinthians 6:9.
The other area of error that I see in Mr. Jason's letter is that of comparing acceptance of homosexuality with the disappearance of racist attitudes toward interracial marriages. Now in this situation the church clearly has Biblical teachings that forbid discrimination between fellow believers on any grounds related to race, wealth or societal status - Colossians 3:11, Galatians 3:28, Romans 3:29,
I Corinthians 12:13, Isaiah 60:3, Isaiah 2:3, Acts 10:34.
In conclusion it is the Biblical evidence that God's expectations of the members of His church centers on their behaviour in relationship to His commands. Human weaknesses are not taken into consideration as constituting grounds for the altering of His absolute commands. Therefore on this basis there can be no Biblical argument for legitimizing homosexuality amongst church members or by good and necessary inference can the church allow the ordination of homosexual pastors.
In the end there were two genders that were created - Genesis 2:7,22 - and not one. Outside of the sexual coming together of individuals from these two genders, there can be no future for the existence of the human race.
One error that I would point out is the error which sees the church as a servant of society or even worse as an organisation that belongs to its members when the church is neither. The church as an institution does not exist by the will of its members or by the permission of the State. The Church as a community of the redeemed exist purely by the will of God, the church is the community of the redeemed- 1 Corinthians 1:2. The goal of the church is not to serve the needs of humanity but rather to testify to the living God and to be the Body of Christ, John 10:15. Therefore we can see that the Church and the nation state do not have the same criteria for what qualifies an individual for membership into their respective institutions. For membership in the nation state you need to do one of two things- be born in the nation, or if born outside of the nation's borders then you must be born to a member of that nation, or as a adult you can voluntarily become a member. To be a member in good standing it is required of the nation's citizens that they adhere to the nation's laws. This is a stark contrast to the means by which membership in the church is acquired. Membership in the church is not acquired by birth but is a given by God to a few and according to his own good pleasure - John 17:9.
As with the State, the church has some codes of conduct that are prescribed or prohibited for its members. Some of those behaviours which mandated of those who are members of the church are found in passages like- Mark 12:30, Rom. 12:9, Deuteronomy 27:10. Those who refuse to abide by the ordinances that are in the Bible are said to have no part in the church - Romans 1:26-32, Romans 6:12-13. In Romans 12:1-21 we have the instructions for how the followers of Christ must live their lives.
Notice that in vs. 2 of Romans 12 we are clearly instructed that members of the church are not to be conformed to the spirit of the world but that believers are to be transformed by renewing work arising out of their faith. Right now the spirit of the world is embracing same sex relationships but those kind of relationships are clearly forbidden by God - Romans 1:26-27, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, 1Timothy 1:10, 1Corinthians 6:9.
The other area of error that I see in Mr. Jason's letter is that of comparing acceptance of homosexuality with the disappearance of racist attitudes toward interracial marriages. Now in this situation the church clearly has Biblical teachings that forbid discrimination between fellow believers on any grounds related to race, wealth or societal status - Colossians 3:11, Galatians 3:28, Romans 3:29,
I Corinthians 12:13, Isaiah 60:3, Isaiah 2:3, Acts 10:34.
In conclusion it is the Biblical evidence that God's expectations of the members of His church centers on their behaviour in relationship to His commands. Human weaknesses are not taken into consideration as constituting grounds for the altering of His absolute commands. Therefore on this basis there can be no Biblical argument for legitimizing homosexuality amongst church members or by good and necessary inference can the church allow the ordination of homosexual pastors.
In the end there were two genders that were created - Genesis 2:7,22 - and not one. Outside of the sexual coming together of individuals from these two genders, there can be no future for the existence of the human race.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Election Time Bribery
Well once again we have another election to live through and the candidates are playing their old song which promises us money if we vote for them. Is it really fiscally sustainable that a promise of 1,000 tax and loan free per low income student per year should be made? What about promises of subsidized national daycare? Or the settlement of various and endless Native claims. When we are given election platforms that make promises like these we need to think about whose money is it that they are they promising to give to use? Are they promising to merely take my money away from me and then give it back? Is it my neighbor's money that is being taken from his/her family? And if it is then I need to ask "what right do I have to my neighbor's money?" Or is the money just the government's money that it can pull from whenever it likes?
When it comes to the question of whether or not it is the government's money that is being promised it would be good for all of us to remember that although the government may have money it has no wealth. The government may be the only agency that can print money but printing money cannot be equated with creating or possessing wealth. When it comes to "wealth creation" the demise of communism proved that governments are not capable of performing such a task. The truth of the matter is actually quite to the contrary. The only relationship that government has with wealth is that of consuming wealth as opposed to creating it. Now this does not make government inherently bad or parasitical. Government is truly needed by those who create wealth because government provides the environment in which the wealth creators can do what they do best, which is to apply their brain power and labour to fashioning the earth's resources into the products that improve the human condition. At election times it is a common error for the segments of our society who are the receivers of government transfers and the politicians who court them. To confuse activities like the printing and redistribution of money as constituting actual wealth creation instead of acknowledging what it truly is which is wealth consumption. This destructive nature exists because the recipients of government transfers, be they a business or a person, share one fundamental flaw, that of being poor financial and resource managers. The truth is that continued government transfers do not address this fundamental deficiency but actually serve to encourage it and therefore to assure the politicians an ideological and voting constituency.
So whose money is it that our politicians are promising to spend? First off we need to establish one fundamental fact about money which is that money really isn't worth the paper that it is printed on. Money is simply what the government says it is. In other words the government's argument is circular; money is what it is because the government says what it is. I think that a better way to pose the question, in light of the above paragraph, is to ask "whose wealth creating labour" is it that the politicians are using to fulfill their campaign promises? I believe that the first economic truism that should be established is that no one goes to work with the goal of giving away a portion of his/her work to someone other than him/herself or an immediate family member. Individuals work in expectation of reaping for themselves the reward that natural justice informs us should follow as a natural outcome of their agreement to exchange their labour with buyer. When the government steps in and by way of taxation breaks this natural association between an individual's work and the monetary rewards that he/she has come to associate with work and the greater is the disincentive to produce. The reciprocal of this outcome is that the drive to work is destroyed in the hearts of the ones who are the recipients of this government largess. Therefore any politician who promises to spend money on the seemingly laudable goal of giving low income post secondary students money to help fund their education is actually undermining the long term economic prospects for those same students by promising to take money from current capital accumulators who fund job creation and instead shift that capital to those who are its present consumers.
Additionally it must be stated that the twin government policies of progressive taxation and the accompanying government transfers of wealth are actually counter productive to the government's official stated goal of growing the economy. The reason for this is because progressive taxation penalizes those individuals and families who are able to accumulate wealth by transferring it to those who are not. Economies that wish to create jobs must encourage business investment. It is a necessary prerequisite to having business investment that there must be an accumulated pool of capital that the creators of wealth can access if they are to create the businesses that will provide future jobs. Governments too must have access to pools of capital if they are to sell the debt that they need in order to finance the building of the country's infrastructure.
So during this election season as we listen to the politicians deliver their respective party platforms we must keep in mind that government forced transfers of wealth is in the end inimical to any politician's stated goal of economic growth, job creation and poverty amelioration.
When it comes to the question of whether or not it is the government's money that is being promised it would be good for all of us to remember that although the government may have money it has no wealth. The government may be the only agency that can print money but printing money cannot be equated with creating or possessing wealth. When it comes to "wealth creation" the demise of communism proved that governments are not capable of performing such a task. The truth of the matter is actually quite to the contrary. The only relationship that government has with wealth is that of consuming wealth as opposed to creating it. Now this does not make government inherently bad or parasitical. Government is truly needed by those who create wealth because government provides the environment in which the wealth creators can do what they do best, which is to apply their brain power and labour to fashioning the earth's resources into the products that improve the human condition. At election times it is a common error for the segments of our society who are the receivers of government transfers and the politicians who court them. To confuse activities like the printing and redistribution of money as constituting actual wealth creation instead of acknowledging what it truly is which is wealth consumption. This destructive nature exists because the recipients of government transfers, be they a business or a person, share one fundamental flaw, that of being poor financial and resource managers. The truth is that continued government transfers do not address this fundamental deficiency but actually serve to encourage it and therefore to assure the politicians an ideological and voting constituency.
So whose money is it that our politicians are promising to spend? First off we need to establish one fundamental fact about money which is that money really isn't worth the paper that it is printed on. Money is simply what the government says it is. In other words the government's argument is circular; money is what it is because the government says what it is. I think that a better way to pose the question, in light of the above paragraph, is to ask "whose wealth creating labour" is it that the politicians are using to fulfill their campaign promises? I believe that the first economic truism that should be established is that no one goes to work with the goal of giving away a portion of his/her work to someone other than him/herself or an immediate family member. Individuals work in expectation of reaping for themselves the reward that natural justice informs us should follow as a natural outcome of their agreement to exchange their labour with buyer. When the government steps in and by way of taxation breaks this natural association between an individual's work and the monetary rewards that he/she has come to associate with work and the greater is the disincentive to produce. The reciprocal of this outcome is that the drive to work is destroyed in the hearts of the ones who are the recipients of this government largess. Therefore any politician who promises to spend money on the seemingly laudable goal of giving low income post secondary students money to help fund their education is actually undermining the long term economic prospects for those same students by promising to take money from current capital accumulators who fund job creation and instead shift that capital to those who are its present consumers.
Additionally it must be stated that the twin government policies of progressive taxation and the accompanying government transfers of wealth are actually counter productive to the government's official stated goal of growing the economy. The reason for this is because progressive taxation penalizes those individuals and families who are able to accumulate wealth by transferring it to those who are not. Economies that wish to create jobs must encourage business investment. It is a necessary prerequisite to having business investment that there must be an accumulated pool of capital that the creators of wealth can access if they are to create the businesses that will provide future jobs. Governments too must have access to pools of capital if they are to sell the debt that they need in order to finance the building of the country's infrastructure.
So during this election season as we listen to the politicians deliver their respective party platforms we must keep in mind that government forced transfers of wealth is in the end inimical to any politician's stated goal of economic growth, job creation and poverty amelioration.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
The U.N. Declaration on Indigenous Rights
After reading the U.N.‘s “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” I am convinced that President Barack Obama was wrong to sign this declaration because it is clearly a racist document which has as it is purpose the creation of a genetically based privileged segment of our democratic society, to whom dedicated protections are granted based solely on RACE. I believe that this statement can be proved successfully from the document itself.
Article 13 section 1 states that: Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.
Section 2 of this article talks about the obligations that article 1 imposes on sovereign states and reads: States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected and also to ensure that indigenous peoples can understand and be understood in political, legal and administrative proceedings, where necessary through the provision of interpretation or by other appropriate means.
When the these two sections of Article 13 are taken together what they are saying is that a “preliterate” culture has the right to be supported by a literate culture. In other words a society which requires of its citizens that they be able to read, if they are to advance, must cater to the cultural preliterate dimensions of the indigenous culture. Not only that but the literate culture must give the non literate culture the special privilege of providing guaranteed access to the political and judicial system at little to no costs. And this must assist the pre literate culture in its fight against the supporting culture.
There are many portions of this document that are very disturbing but probably one of the most disturbing is Article 31 which says:
Indigenous people have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games, and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.
Adoption of this document would have catastrophic implications for the advancement of medicinal research and intellectual debate surrounding native society and history. According to this article everything involving native society would first have to get the okay of the “protected” native society. When it comes to medicines and genetics this would amount to nothing less than an entrenched monetary “shakedown” of the non -native society, which is responsible for the creation of all of the nation’s wealth, without the native society having to make any contributions of its own.. When it comes to native genetics, literature, oral traditions etc. what we would have is the complete disappearance of any unbiased intellectual research surrounding these native issues and cultural history. This means that the native population will be able to create the history that they “want” us to “ know” and which serves to advance their economic and social agenda to the detriment of the non-native community. It becomes a matter of intellectual censorship which is not in conformity with our democratic history.
If we need any more proof as an argument against this declaration then we need look no further than Article 30 which says:
Military activities shall not take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples, unless justified by a relevant public interests or otherwise freely agreed with or requested by the indigenous peoples concerned.
Now the big question here is “what defines a relevant public interests” and who decides when such an interests exist? The weight of this document would seem to say that the final decision rest with the indigenous population. It would most likely be necessary that at least “permission” would have to be granted.
As citizens of Canada, or any other sovereign democratic state, we need to say a resounding “no” to any quasi governmental supra national body that would attempt to establish legislation that impacts upon our legislative process and thereby make a countries legislators accountable either in part or in whole, to anyone other than their own citizens. Remember also that none of the people who sit on the U.N. are elected by even the people of their own nation.
Before I close I would also add that the U.N. is one of the most corrupt organisations on earth and that it is dominated with anti Western countries who desire nothing more than to blame their own failures as nations on Western “imperialism”. The reality is that their cultures were already failures prior to contact with the West. Few of the countries which belong to the U.N. are democracies and those that have cultures and democracies like ours are even fewer in number. Of the European cultures and democracies that are like us none of them are faced with the prospect of having a minority group lay claim to all of their territory while at the same time contributing nothing of economic importance to the culture that has to pay the bill for the beneficiaries of this declaration.
Add to this the reality that the governments on the reserves are also corrupt, non-democratic and are run more like Third World banana republics and you set up the right conditions for the establishment of a minority privileged class that will forever live off of the non-native population.
In the end racism is racism. Racism is a belief system that can cut either for or against you, but it still smells even if the new beneficiary is the formerly disadvantaged. The U.N.‘s declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” merely switches the beneficiaries of racism around. Racially defined classes of privilege that were not legitimate when the white person benefited from them are not more legitimate because the Native population is the beneficiary. If our goal as a society is to eliminate the existence of a genetically privileged class than we need to face up to the fact that the Native population is the last ethnic group that lays claim to this sin as being their right.
I would like to encourage any one reading this letter to look up the U.N. Declaration of Indigenous Peoples on the Internet and read the whole document for him/herself and decide if this kind of dual class citizenship structure is what you want for yourself and your children and your country? Write your MP and MLA to tell them that YOU object to Canada adopting this piece of extortionist trash.
Article 13 section 1 states that: Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.
Section 2 of this article talks about the obligations that article 1 imposes on sovereign states and reads: States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected and also to ensure that indigenous peoples can understand and be understood in political, legal and administrative proceedings, where necessary through the provision of interpretation or by other appropriate means.
When the these two sections of Article 13 are taken together what they are saying is that a “preliterate” culture has the right to be supported by a literate culture. In other words a society which requires of its citizens that they be able to read, if they are to advance, must cater to the cultural preliterate dimensions of the indigenous culture. Not only that but the literate culture must give the non literate culture the special privilege of providing guaranteed access to the political and judicial system at little to no costs. And this must assist the pre literate culture in its fight against the supporting culture.
There are many portions of this document that are very disturbing but probably one of the most disturbing is Article 31 which says:
Indigenous people have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games, and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.
Adoption of this document would have catastrophic implications for the advancement of medicinal research and intellectual debate surrounding native society and history. According to this article everything involving native society would first have to get the okay of the “protected” native society. When it comes to medicines and genetics this would amount to nothing less than an entrenched monetary “shakedown” of the non -native society, which is responsible for the creation of all of the nation’s wealth, without the native society having to make any contributions of its own.. When it comes to native genetics, literature, oral traditions etc. what we would have is the complete disappearance of any unbiased intellectual research surrounding these native issues and cultural history. This means that the native population will be able to create the history that they “want” us to “ know” and which serves to advance their economic and social agenda to the detriment of the non-native community. It becomes a matter of intellectual censorship which is not in conformity with our democratic history.
If we need any more proof as an argument against this declaration then we need look no further than Article 30 which says:
Military activities shall not take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples, unless justified by a relevant public interests or otherwise freely agreed with or requested by the indigenous peoples concerned.
Now the big question here is “what defines a relevant public interests” and who decides when such an interests exist? The weight of this document would seem to say that the final decision rest with the indigenous population. It would most likely be necessary that at least “permission” would have to be granted.
As citizens of Canada, or any other sovereign democratic state, we need to say a resounding “no” to any quasi governmental supra national body that would attempt to establish legislation that impacts upon our legislative process and thereby make a countries legislators accountable either in part or in whole, to anyone other than their own citizens. Remember also that none of the people who sit on the U.N. are elected by even the people of their own nation.
Before I close I would also add that the U.N. is one of the most corrupt organisations on earth and that it is dominated with anti Western countries who desire nothing more than to blame their own failures as nations on Western “imperialism”. The reality is that their cultures were already failures prior to contact with the West. Few of the countries which belong to the U.N. are democracies and those that have cultures and democracies like ours are even fewer in number. Of the European cultures and democracies that are like us none of them are faced with the prospect of having a minority group lay claim to all of their territory while at the same time contributing nothing of economic importance to the culture that has to pay the bill for the beneficiaries of this declaration.
Add to this the reality that the governments on the reserves are also corrupt, non-democratic and are run more like Third World banana republics and you set up the right conditions for the establishment of a minority privileged class that will forever live off of the non-native population.
In the end racism is racism. Racism is a belief system that can cut either for or against you, but it still smells even if the new beneficiary is the formerly disadvantaged. The U.N.‘s declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” merely switches the beneficiaries of racism around. Racially defined classes of privilege that were not legitimate when the white person benefited from them are not more legitimate because the Native population is the beneficiary. If our goal as a society is to eliminate the existence of a genetically privileged class than we need to face up to the fact that the Native population is the last ethnic group that lays claim to this sin as being their right.
I would like to encourage any one reading this letter to look up the U.N. Declaration of Indigenous Peoples on the Internet and read the whole document for him/herself and decide if this kind of dual class citizenship structure is what you want for yourself and your children and your country? Write your MP and MLA to tell them that YOU object to Canada adopting this piece of extortionist trash.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)