Who am I?
Christian. Skeptic. Ponderer. Sold on Western Civilization. Background in engineering and software. Rational, but not rationalist.
I'm a Hugh-inspired, long-tail blogger.
I Value
Informs my values.
News
Blog Search
Posts On This Page:
Archives
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- February 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- October 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- April 2010
- May 2010
- July 2010
- February 2011
- April 2011
- May 2011
- February 2013
Look closer. Think harder. Choose the sound argument over the clever one.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Taxation Without Representation
Full disclosure: I'm pretty sure I'm part of that bottom 95%, though I didn't find the cut-off.
Kissing up to the rich is wrong (and against my faith).
But so is demonizing the rich. Particularly in light of this.
Corollary: Like it or not, you're beholden to the rich. They're your benefactors. (Don't like that? Then pay more taxes yourself.)
Think about the teenager who continuously bad-mouths his parents, except when he's holding out his hand for his allowance. Want to be like that?
Corollary: What happens to these richest 1% has a hugely disproportionate effect on the government's income revenue. There's no Magic Money Fountain, despite what you've been led to believe. (That's its own future post.)
"Markets" need to experience pain (as feedback), or they become dysfunctional, anemic. This tax arrangement is very anemic, and it will likely have consequences. People don't appreciate what they don't pay for. Even poker has an ante. Not good.
But doesn't James 2 claim that the rich are exploiting me? You could read it that way, but the balance of Scripture doesn't roundly condemn being rich. James lists specific immoral actions, like exploitation, unjust lawsuits and even slandering Christ's name. Like greed, none of these things are unique to the rich, or apply to everyone. (I'm also convinced real exploitation--historically and globally--bears little resemblance to what goes on in the United States.)
Via Instapundit
Update: Tom Maguire is irritated by how the original article presents things, with more discussion in the comments.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Evaluate this claim
You're a teacher. One of your students walks up to your desk, slaps down his last test, a D+ grade, and says, "you need to make this an A!"
You say, "Why?"
He says, "I got this D+ because you prayed to Satan against me. So change it."
You say, "No I didn't."
He says, "If you didn't do it consciously, you did it unconsciously. And this D+ is proof!"
Before you can answer, he pulls out a newspaper clipping and slaps it on your desk. It's a story about a teacher in your own state who claims to be a Satanist.
Then he pulls out a petition signed by many of the kids in his class, that states that they believe the same thing.
What do you say next, and why? How do you go about evaluating a claim like this?