Issue 289 Minicome!? March 11, 2014

A concept discussed by Krystal Ball of MSNBC's "The Cycle" it advocates that all welfare be terminated in favor of a mini-income or "minicome." Let's discuss.

How it works: For one, all other welfare programs would be eliminated to fund this minicome. The minicome itself would be a set dollar amount given to each individual instead of welfare. I believe that that set dollar amount would be equal to the poverty level of $20,000 a year adjusted for inflation. In addition, it would be made available to all non incarcerated adults. Basically, it gives everyone a paycheck from the government instead of traditional welfare. Mrs. Ball of MSNBC believes that it will not disincentives people from going out and finding a job as to get more they would need to go to work. Well, I disagree with this idea.

False hope: This idea is not the first of its kind. Milton Friedman came up with the negative income tax which worked in a similar fashion, but even he let that "thought exercise" go. Reason is that free money is and forever shall be a disincentive to work. And nothing will stop the more numerous masses from demanding more from their government. If any politician says they will increase the minicome, then they will get elected every single time. Eventually the system known as the minicome would collapse the financial ability of the government and the whole economic system of the country would collapse with it. What that minicome lacks is an understanding of how the human psyche works.

What they fail to realize: The reason for any system like the minicome causing destruction is simple and sad. It is because humans are and forever shall be animals. We seek the easy and safe path as much as possible and forget the long term consequences so long as we do not have to deal with them. In short, they will pass any problems onto the next generation. The minicome is the same with respect to human nature and its selfishness. Like all programs that give, but do not take back or make individuals uncomfortable relying on government, the system will simply feed the beast of humanities greed. As such, any and all systems that only give are doomed to fail. If human psychology is not taken into account then the system will be inherently doomed.

Conclusion: The problem with the welfare systems today is that people have become proud to be on them. They see welfare as a basic right (at least this is how I see it in my generation). Problem is people are foolish in many ways. They will take advantage of anything and everything. People must therefore be scorned for getting welfare. By scorning them, they will do everything they can to get off of it. Does it sound harsh? Well, yes it is harsh, but it is also the only feasible way right now. Until something that respects and understands the reality of human failings comes around, programs like the minicome are and forever shall be doomed to fail.

Issue 288 Minimum wage lie! March 10, 2014

There is a piece of information that many do not know about the minimum wage. It is cruel and it is racist fact that cannot be denied.

It's racism: The minimum wage was not designed to help the poor at all. In fact it was designed to do the exact opposite, to create poverty. Developed by people whose ideologies reside in Marxist thought and furthered by the Socialist and Fascist groups of the time period (the progressives), it was meant to force the undesirable elements out of the country by putting them in poverty. That is right, the minimum wage was enacted by the United States government to make more people jobless so that only the "desirable" elements of society could find work while the undesirables where forced to look elsewhere in other countries. This is the truth about the minimum wage. But how is it all accomplished through the minimum wage?

How it works: To accomplish the goal of removing the undesirables the minimum wage was instated to give everyone a base pay required by law. So no matter which job you worked, the starting salary would be what ever dollar amount the minimum wage is set to or greater. Innocent enough, but also sinister. The reason being is that it prevented businesses from expanding which would have resulted in more jobs. Every employee is a cost to the employer, as such employers hire the maximum number of people they can to accomplish their goals for their business without going over and putting the business at risk of failing. Setting the minimum wage costs the business money which in turn prevented the business from hiring more or else the business would not be able to function financially. Remember, the amount of money a business makes is not how much it takes in, but how much it keeps after expenses. As such, many small businesses who make up approximately 70% of the job producers in America today struggle to hire people as they have their finances squeezed the most by any cost increases, taxes and any other expenditure for that matter. As such the overall result is more unemployed people.

It did not turn out as expected: While the net result is that there is unemployment partly due to the minimum wage, the racist intentions backfired. Businesses hired low skill labor who did not require larger salaries to work (many of them being those undesirables). Also, the undesirables that the racists in America sought to remove ended up with jobs or stayed via welfare and charitable support. Overall, the minimum wage has instead stagnated people’s salaries and created a class of citizens made up of those racists' "desirables" and "undesirables" who are dependant on others for support.

Conclusion: The minimum wage is in fact a curse on our society. It has left us stagnant and has harmed the worker and business alike. But what is the alternative? Is there a way out of this mess? There is one possible solution. That solution requires two key factors, one, that the Federal government raises the value of the American dollar which in turn allows people to buy more with less money, and two, for people to negotiate with businesses to receive a smaller salary if they so choose. While the first part of the solution sounds reasonable, the second sounds nuts. But, there are people who are willing to be paid less if it meant getting a job and being able to afford to live in their desired community. If we can tolerate this action, as I expect people will reject it out of fear of being undercut for a job by someone who is willing to be paid less, then we might have a chance at increasing employment and fixing a percentage of the poverty/welfare dependence problem.

 

Issue 287 Curch of non-belief 2 March 7, 2014

Well a church of non-belief is about more than just marriage. In fact, the non-believers creating their own church per say gives them opportunities to organize and compete for "worshipers" against the faith based communities. But what would it look like?

United yet divided: Like faith based communities, there will be different groups of non-believers vying for popularity. So we may have the ones that believe that aliens created man kind versus Ayn Rand’s objectivist atheists. Basically, similar competition between various groups of Protestants, Catholics and Baptists. The only thing that would unite them is that they are non-believers in the same way believers can come together around a belief in God.

Moral compass/Ideology: In order to properly compete, the church of non-belief must develop a cohesive foundation that allows people to gather around it as a source of strength. So while one group may revolve around Objectivism, another may revolve around a combination of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism while removing the deity like aspects involved in each. Another may even develop a basis around nature and spirituality. All in all, each would develop a unique group or a single cohesive group based around ideologies and aspects of spiritualism to from the basic moral codes needed for them to compete against the faiths.

Everyday teachings: In addition to a moral compass and ideology to gather behind, the church of non-belief will need basic rules and teachings to follow. So the obvious no killing, steeling or violence against others is a given. However, other teachings will be needed like a ten commandments of logic, exceptions to the rules if any, and a source of punishment that will reinforce these teachings.

The source of punishment is key as if there are no penalties for bad behavior in everyday society then the church of non-belief will fail and so will society along with it. This is the weakness that non-believers have and coming up with the right kinds of punishments like shunning, boycotts and the like would do well to keep people in line with the non-faith. It is important as while faith based communities have God as the person deciding if we go to Heaven or not, there is no fear that can adequately keep non-believers from violating their own moral codes (especially if they beat out the faith based communities in respect to "worshipers").

Conclusion: I have been very disappointed in the non-faith organizations as they currently stand. They seem to attack the faith based communities rather than debate them, as they prefer humiliation and "put downs". In short, they look down on people of faith from my perspective and thus it shows in their advertisements. Meanwhile individual non-believers that I have met never attack, but in fact respect others who believe and do not believe alike. So I think it is a symptom of desiring power at the organized level rather than a blanket snub to all believers. As such, it would be best in my opinion for the non-believers to establish their own churches with masses that advocate humanity, civil rights and personal responsibility. Their gospels could be tales from Aesop's Fables, and Grimm's Fairy tails. Their readings could celebrate mans achievements like discussing how far we have come scientifically or socially by looking at art, science even psychology which would inspire hope for humanities future. They could even have guest speakers and debates by welcoming members of the faith based communities and other groups of non-believers so as to debate and discuss rather than hide or shun differing views. If the non-believers want to compete against the believers come at us by taking our worshipers by showing the merits of embracing non-belief rather than attacking the beliefs of others. I wish you luck and may the truth be ascertained by our competition.

Issue 286 Church of non-belief 1 March 6, 2014

You know, I always wondered why the non-believers in our society have not banded together to compete against the faith based groups in a more constructive way. For instance in marriage, faith groups will not marry certain people together. So why don't the non-believers create an institution that will marry these people themselves.

Who non-believers would marry others: Non-believers could marry gay couples together that the faith based community normally would not. Also, those believing in polygamy could also get married in this church of non-belief. Likewise non-believers could marry one another without worry. On top of this, the church of non-belief could marry people of different faiths that the mainstream faiths would not marry at all.

Solves some issues: For one, it would remove the need to have government to be involved in marriage.  This is due to the church of non-belief being able to fulfill the niche roles of marriage that faith based institutions either will not do, or are so small in number that there is simply not enough of these more progressive churches to go around. In essence, the government would no longer need a civil union anymore.

Gays would be able to marry in this church of non-belief eliminating the Federal government and the State governments from making laws changing the institution of marriage as they will be forced to accept the non-believers definitions of marriage in their churches. Reason being is that the Supreme Court has deemed those who do not believe in a faith to also be a form of faith as well.

This form of church will also give more options to the interfaith communities who normally would have limited access to being able to be married due to the lack of institutions that would marry interfaith couples outside of government.

Non-believers can be married in a church if they create their own church as well which would prevent any future backlash by faith based communities against them (I feel that this may be coming due to the growing conflict between believers and non-believers). Even polygamy (I don't agree with it) also has a chance of being recognized in a church of non-belief as well.

Workability: The Church of non-belief would mimic many of the support systems that a church has for married couples including but not limited to family counseling, therapy and support. It would support all groups that are not supported or are isolated by faith based groups in the institution of marriage and thus accommodate these niche groups primarily (which will also allow them to gather funds as well). So the only thing the non-believers have to do is to create a church of non-belief.

Conclusion: Workability is key. As such, non-believers must be willing to accept people of faith that are part of the gay community, the interfaith community and those in between as well as other non-believers without discrimination. If they can get passed this, then this concept may have a chance.

Issue 285 Do we need faith? March 5, 2014

Here is an inevitable question that man has been asking itself for a while, do we need faith? I personally believe we do, but we should at the very least evaluate it to see.

Reasons to keep the faith: Faith based texts provide moral teachings that have helped guide man thought-out the years of man existence. It has taught us relationships and courtship rituals with respect to monogamous relationships. We have gained laws such as our prohibitions against killing, steeling and adultery. Basic laws and discipline have been handed to us through faith.

In addition to laws and morality, faith has provided us with life examples on people to model our every day lives on. Jesus, Moses, and King Solomon have given us people to inspire and also to learn from as we see mistakes they made in life which continue to occur throughout mans history. Faith also gives us strength and a belief that what we do in life means something. That, the things we accomplish have some sort of impact to affect mankind and affect us in the afterlife. All in all, faith is a motivation, a teacher and a guide for mankind.

Non-belief: Non-belief can still read these texts and garner life lessons. A person without faith can read any religious text and get the same messages that a faith based person would. However, their is a weakness to the non-believers that the faithful do not have, reinforcement for each generation. Faith has reinforcement mechanisms built in to keep people from doing wrong things. But non-believers don't have the reinforcement mechanisms like a concept of being judged by God, or that personal actions have more consequences than just breaking the law. As such, with each passing generation of non-believers, the moral codes of society degrade to be governed by the continuously fluctuating societal norms. Since these norms fluctuate, their is no steady guide to society. I am not saying that a system could take faiths place in creating a foundation for society, but that one has yet to exist that would supplant faith.

Conclusion: Faith is a bedrock that continues to reinforce beliefs and morality in society. Non-belief has a weakness it has yet to overcome. I am not saying this as a person of faith as I am Catholic. Also, I am not saying it out of prejudice as some of my very good friends are non-believers. What I am saying is that the non-believers have no reinforcement mechanism to support society's moral condition and maintain it. They need something more than just an excuse that man creates laws and thus those moral conditions based on laws will remain in effect. I know all to well as a political science major that such write offs of things will not be fine because laws will not be enough as man with their own morality make those laws. Non-believers morality is based on societal codes which fluctuate and thus have no foundation which can lead to change from year to year. Therefore, laws and the moral reasoning behind them will fluctuate as well causing chaos. Once broken, a society without its foundation crumbles. So overall, faith is still a requirement to maintain a society from its inevitable collapse.

Issue 284 Father God March 4, 2014

I have wondered why man has been punished in the Bible so many times and then it hit me. God has been a parent to us all this time and we have not even realized it. You are probably wondering how I came to this conclusion, so let's talk about it.

Punishments: If you look at all the punishments in the Bible, man has been punished for ignoring Gods law. Noah's flood was to punish those who forgot God for worldly desires. Sodom and Gomorrah were again to punish sin. Each and every one of these disasters was to punish mans lack of personal responsibility, morality and lack of faith. Basically, corporal punishment for naughty children. All was to steer us in the right direction.

Guidance of an active to an inactive God: We also have instances where God led man by the nose like with Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt and the Ten Commandments. Finally, when God deemed we were old enough, he sent his son Jesus to teach us how to be individuals and govern ourselves. Jesus taught us how to be independent and thus earn our way to heaven as individuals rather than a collective. Basically, we became young adults in Jesus' time and God sent us off to find our own path. All this was a form of parental guidance from infant to adult (our at least naughty teenagers).

Reasoning: Based on the aforementioned examples we can see that God may be like a parent. However, we also have to look at it based on the creation stories in the bible as well. Eden may not have been on earth, but instead a womb. God may not be just a Father, but a mother as well. Depending on which version of the stories you read, Eden with the first humans sounds more like an infant in a mother’s womb rather than an actual paradise. Then following mans expulsion from the womb of God, we experienced harsh discipline and had to follow certain rules as laid out by God through natures law.

Conclusion: Well this is my reasoning. I cannot say it is sound reasoning, but it has a basis for truth. I did not go full into examples because this is an opinion piece that is designed to have people think, not to think for them. I want people to draw their own conclusions based on their own knowledge of their faith. I will not say that God killing all those people to punish them is not bad, but we have to conclude that those killed by natural means differ than those killed by man. Thus, those killed by God may have a second chance at repentance. But that is a topic for another time. I am always open to debate and I hope you enjoyed my small article.

Issue 283 Heavens Dictatorship March 3, 2014

You know, people often wondered what heaven will be like once we die. Will it be a democracy? Will it be run by us? Heavens no, for heaven is Gods domain and we must follow Gods rules. Hence it is a dictatorship. Let's discuss.

Why we will not be running heaven: First off, people are imperfect. We tend to create factions that divide us based on schools of thought, similar physical characteristics and other useless things. In short, we naturally divide ourselves into tribe like groups. Heaven on the other hand is not a place where factionalism is allowed. So basic human nature is not allowed. Hence why in paradise a single ruler (God) is the only one allowed. Humanity also tends to be violent due to divisions in beliefs and culture. As such, in heaven, we all will be exposed to one single truth, God is our ruler. As such, certain divisions shall be eliminated.

At one point, people thought heaven had a finite amount of space and that certain people were chosen by God to ascend to heaven in the afterlife. This caused strife even amongst members of the faiths as some created factions which started civil wars. So basically humanity is prone to violence which is why we are not allowed to rule.

Our benevolent dictator: God is the ruler because God created us. As our creator, God has say over the laws we follow while in heaven and our conduct to follow. I doubt freedom of thought will be suppressed as there are instances in the Bible and the Koran that God listened and accepted human reasoning. Therefore Thomas Jefferson's letter to his son stating that God prefers inspired questions to blind faith should hold true. Also, unlike man, God is what we define as a perfect being which leads us to believe that he knows the results of all choices we will make. As such, we may expect that God may continue to test our worth even in paradise for who knows if something lays beyond heaven.

Conclusion: A benevolent dictator is not a bad thing. This is especially so as that dictator is God. So don't expect a free ride while in heaven, or to indulge in passions that we enjoyed on earth. Life in heaven will follow a different set of rules that we have yet to know and understand. It may be a curse to live in interesting times while alive, but it may not be so while in heaven.