Words of the Unwise

We’re in a new atmosphere, post Dobbs, which reversed Roe and Casey. That didn’t, of course, abolish abortion; it returned the question to the individual states, where it could be argued and decided locally. And that means there are more arguments than ever. They’re getting wilder. But there’s a possibility that fallacious arguments will be fallen for. In my small effort to thwart that possibility, I’m going to declare that some of these relatively new pro-abortion arguments are wrong.

 

The Ultrasound Conspiracy Theory

Recently there was video of Stacey Abrams claiming that—well, here are her own words:

There is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks. It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body away from her.

Stacey Abrams, center, claiming ultrasound technicians invented the
sound of a baby's heartbeat in order to control women's bodies.
Screenshot from here.

The young people around her on this discussion panel were nodding in agreement, as though, “Yes, this makes sense,” which of course it doesn’t. In a discussion on the ACLJ broadcast, Jordan Sekulow summed up her assertion:

One, you have to believe the science— That there’s no heartbeat. Then you have to believe that the companies have manufactured a sound, and the sound is to convince people that then men can have a role in deciding, to take control of a woman’s body. So that we’ve manufactured the idea that this is a human life. Because, even to Stacey Abrams, she doesn’t really want to talk about killing an actual child with a heartbeat.

His brother Logan Sekulow added:

That somehow there’s a conspiracy theory within the creators of the ultrasound machines. Those people are inherently pro-life—which I don’t necessarily think is the case one way or the other; they’re just making the ultrasound machines—then detect a human heartbeat earlier and create a fake sound for you to hear to create this emotional response, which anyone who’s been through that moment knows, it is a very emotional moment to hear your child’s first heartbeat.

As the Sekulows are doing, let’s apply some logic here. Whatever the ultrasound machine is showing—visually, without sound—is a growing fetus. The addition of sound verifies the image. In every case, the visual and aural evidence confirms a pregnancy. What is a pregnancy? The offspring growing inside the womb of the female. Whatever species; let’s limit this to mammals, but ultrasound technology works pretty similarly on them all. What the ultrasound would show, in the case of pregnancy, is the growing fetus of the species of the pregnant female. If the pregnant female is human, the ultrasound shows the growing human fetus.

An ultrasound can be used to see other organs, other inside parts. Technicians know how to identify what they’re looking at. And as technology improves, it becomes easier and clearer for the technician to show anyone looking at a screen what the ultrasound is showing. When it shows a human fetus, you can identify head, spine, arms, feet—and heart, beating. It’s not some other organ. It’s not some non-living tissue. It’s certainly not some other species. It is a growing human baby, which, because of technology, we can see and hear within the womb.

If the technician cannot find a heartbeat at around 6-8 weeks, that isn’t definitive proof there’s no life there, but it’s concern that there isn’t. If pregnancy had been affirmed before the ultrasound, lack of heartbeat and movement could mean the baby has died. But if there is movement and heartbeat—a rhythmic beating in the location where you would expect the heart to be in a growing human—then it means the growth of that living baby is likely to continue. There is never a case of an ultrasound showing a human fetus's heartbeat that grows into something that isn't a human baby.

This technology, used for many purposes, is about getting a view inside. The idea that it was invented for the purpose of empowering men is ludicrous.

I’m interested in the suggestion that Abrams is making this argument as a way to deny that what is growing inside the pregnant woman is a human baby. Because to Abrams, still, killing an actual human baby with a heartbeat seems wrong, so she must proclaim the lie that it isn’t one.

 

The “God Is Pro-Choice” Fallacy

On the September 7 episode of Church and State, on EpochTV, Pastor Lucas Miles deals with the question, “Is God Pro-Choice?” As he says:

Since Roe has been overturned, I’ve seen a new line of thinking evolve that involves reasoning in support of abortion. And it’s a surprising one. Instead of science, logic, or even political pressure, the left is now using religion to attempt to win the abortion debate. And not just any religion. They’re turning to Christianity of all things, and the Bible itself, in an attempt to show that God is pro-choice.

He introduces the question first with an assertion by a supposed pro-choice Christian pastor, Rev. Traci Blackmon, a Universalist who has served as a Planned Parenthood board member. He paraphrases her viewpoint as laid out in an article in online indoctrination magazine Mic.com:

Because God is a god of free will, that He would therefore also be a god who is in favor of being pro-choice on the issue of abortion. Because God gave us free will and allows us to sin, and allows us to, you know, make mistakes, that He also would be pro-choice on this issue. She says that it’s smoke and mirrors that this is about the life of a child. She says, “Jesus didn’t say anything about abortion. But Jesus had a lot to say about love.”

Again, here’s the left basically telling us that they have a better understanding of love than do traditionally minded Christians, or biblically minded Christians. She says that this is the compassionate thing, that we have to have “a compassionate ear,” “a loving spirit,” and that as a pastor it’s her responsibility to accompany people in places that they choose to go. “If they’ve chosen abortion and want me to go with them, I go. If they choose to have a child, I stand with them in that.”

And so, we see, kind of, throughout this whole argument that the pro-choice perspective is the perspective of love; it’s the perspective of, you know, good theology. It’s the perspective of godliness and compassion.

Real Christians know better. But Miles finds this argument showing up elsewhere, such as a video on TikTok. While he deals rationally with this TikTok-er’s arguments, I will mention that she is smug, condescending, and sneering. There is nothing loving or compassionate about her. Here’s what she says:

TikTok-er claims God is pro-choice,
discussed by Lucas Miles
screenshot from here

TikTok: idissent  June 30, 2022: I am going to make this as clear and concise as possible. God is pro-choice. Pro-choice means supporting the right to choose. It does not mean that you support the choices that are made. It does mean that you support the right to choose. Ergo, God is pro-choice. If you can prove to me that God does not want us to have a choice, then I will concede the point. And, yes, you may use your Bibles. Show me where in the Bible God has taken away our choice.

Let me give you an example, because I want to be very clear on this. We do not have a choice between breathing air or breathing water. God did not want us to have a choice in that matter, and therefore He did not give us a choice. You have to breathe air. There is no breathing water, breathing air only. He was not pro-choice in that matter. If you can prove that God is not pro-choice when it comes to me and my body [italics mine], then I will concede the point. Again, you can use your Bibles.

Do not come back with, “He wants you to choose this”; “He wants you to choose that”; because it doesn’t matter what He wants you to choose. The fact is He wants you to choose. Prove to me He doesn’t, and I will concede the argument. And do not come back with, “OK, but if you make that choice, there are going to be consequences.” I know. Everybody is aware that, no matter what you do, your choices have consequences. We’re adults here. We get that. That will not back up your argument. My argument is God is pro-choice. Your argument has to be that He is not pro-choice. And as a Christian you know that you are supposed to be following the example of God. So, but if you cannot prove to me that God is not pro-choice, that means He is pro-choice, which means you have to be pro-choice too. That’s the rule.

This is relatively easy to fend off, and Lucas Miles dispatches her fallacies pretty swiftly. Here’s his main refutation:

It doesn’t mean that every choice should automatically be legal. In this video, just replace the word abortion with murder. Should we therefore assume that God is pro-choice on the issue of murder? Because He doesn’t, you know, ever stand in the way of someone’s free will, so therefore we should legalize murder? Because God wouldn’t stop murder, because He gives somebody free will and choice? So therefore we shouldn’t stop somebody from committing murder?

I’ll just follow up on that. It is a sleight-of-hand to use the term pro-choice, which has been co-opted by the pro-abortionists. If she had used the term pro-abortion, she couldn’t have said God is pro-abortion, yet that is what pro-choice means in the abortion context.

Once she equates the pro-abortion term pro-choice with the pre-co-opted meaning of the term, which is in favor of free will, she thinks she has us pinned. But she doesn’t. She’s making an additional leap from favoring free will to requiring the law to allow all acts of free will. We don’t. The murder example Lucas Miles uses is the most obvious: we do not allow murder. Just because it is possible for you to do something does not mean the law should allow it. Generally we have laws to protect people from doing harm to one another, and the law steps in well before murder, with laws against assault and theft. As the saying goes, "Your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins."*

How Many Lives?

That gets us to the question of how many lives are involved in an abortion. There’s the mother’s life. And indeed she is a mother from the moment she is pregnant—because there is another human being, with its own DNA, its own blood type, its own heart, and its own full potential, separate from her but within her. She has autonomy over her own body; she does not have autonomy over the life of the child, whom she invited into her womb by her actions (except in the very small percentage of pregnancies resulting from rape).

ultrasound of baby at 15 weeks gestation.
image found on this blog

So is it “smoke and mirrors” that this is about the life of a child? What is their evidence that the child within is not a human child? On our side, we have the ultrasound technology, blood tests, and eventually the visible movements that ripple across the mother’s belly, or that get felt with a kick in the rib cage from within. We’re supposed to believe that’s just a clump of cells up until the moment that clump of cells passes through the birth canal, and then suddenly turns into a living baby? 

All the evidence is on our side. All they have left is sophistry.

The reason these people are so against pro-life pregnancy resource centers is that they show evidence of the child. They offer an ultrasound, along with options such as adoption, or open adoption, or financial and medical aid to keep the child—choices. The other side offers only death of the child, hidden behind a pretense of compassion.

What is underneath the desire to kill babies is the desire to have sex without commitment: outside the protections—for both mother and child—of marriage. They want to pretend that killing a human being makes the consequences of sex without commitment disappear.

A few honest but ugly souls admit that it’s a baby, but they don’t care. But for most, they want to hide the fact of the baby’s humanness to make it easier for them to “choose” the killing of another human being for the sake of their own self-indulgence. They do child sacrifice in the long and ugly pagan tradition.

The other side tries to control the language. We can fight that by using absolute truth more accurately. It is a service to the otherwise confused when we can be fully clear and truthful—as God is.

_______________________

* first attributed to John B. Finch, who was the Chairman of the Prohibition National Committee during the 1880s.

Our Miraculous Constitution

This Saturday is the anniversary of our Constitution’s birthday, signed September 17, 1787. That’s 235 years ago. To celebrate, we’re going to look at whether our Constitution follows the principles that lead to freedom, prosperity, and civilization, which we outlined here in Monday’s post.

Howard Chandler Christy's "Scene at the Signing of the
Constitution of the United States"
image found on Wikipedia

The Constitution and the Political Sphere

·        The purpose of government is to protect and preserve the God-given rights to life, liberty, and property of each person individually and as a people within that government entity.

We might best see the direct wording from our Declaration of Independence, where the founders declared:

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—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

So that is the philosophical underpinning of our nationhood. Note that life, liberty, and property are rather poetically worded as “and the pursuit of happiness.” What we do with our life and liberty includes but is not limited to how we go about getting ourselves out of our poverty, how we acquire food, clothing, and shelter so that we can enjoy our lives.

Page 1 of the Constitution of the United States
image found on Wikipedia

Government isn’t about providing happiness; it is about protecting property, which is the product of our earning and acquiring more than the essentials for a day of life. Other than that protective role, government should get out of the way.

In the actual Constitution, in the Preamble, those protective purposes are laid out with just a bit more detail:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 The protective role includes laws and justice, officials such as police and judges who carry out the laws, a military to protect national borders, and whatever details are required to benefit all the people—things like monetary systems, weights and measures, and a few things to be enumerated. Which brings us to the next principle.

·        The government can do only those duties delegated to it by the people in written and binding law.

The Constitution includes enumerated powers—that is, the limited, listed powers granted in law. Beyond this list, all rights and privileges remain with the states and with the people—which got spelled out in the 9^th and 10^th Amendments, just in case later generations forgot what was understood at the time. Here are the enumerated powers, which Congress can legislate, the Executive can administer and carry out, and the Judiciary can adjudicate on:

1.     The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2.     To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3.     To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4.     To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5.     To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6.     To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7.     To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8.     To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9.     To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10.  To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11.  To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12.  To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13.  To provide and maintain a Navy;

14.  To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15.  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16.  To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17.  To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

18.  To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

These are all in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, listing the powers of Congress. The next section, Section 9, lists limitations that Congress cannot do, just in case tradition or someone getting a “bright idea” down the line thought such things could be construed as part of one of those enumerated powers.

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States

Then there are a few more added as amendments to the Constitution:

19.  Exercise governing authority over the District (Washington, DC, an area not exceeding 10 square miles) as the seat of the government of the United States.

20.  Exercise governing authority over places purchased (by consent of the legislature of the state in which located) for erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.

21.  Make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the US or in any department or officer thereof.

22.  Outlaw slavery and involuntary servitude (except as a punishment for crime), and enforcement of this prohibition.

23.  Sixteenth Amendment: Lay and collect taxes on income.

24.  Fifteenth, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments: Enforce equal voting rights laws across all the states.

·        The government can do only those duties delegated to it by the people in written and binding law.

Because government derives its “just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,” it is only reasonable that government cannot do something the people do not have the power to delegate to government. This would include that government cannot confiscate property owned by one person and bestow ownership of that property on another person. That is called theft when one person does it to another, so it is theft—and unconstitutional—if government does it. Any redistribution of wealth comes under this category. Even welfare for benevolent, “charitable” purposes is unconstitutional. Being generous with someone else’s money is theft, not charity. What we need is for government to get out of the way of churches and charitable organizations who freely choose to give to those in need.

The rest of these should go quicker, since we’ve covered so much already.

 

·        Governing should be done at the lowest level possible.

The Constitution—written and signed eleven years after the country’s birth in 1776—was designed to “form a more perfect Union.” It was a union prior to that, but a rather weak and disorderly one. The Constitution strengthens the union, while it spells out the laws that limit this central power, so that only those duties necessarily performed by the states altogether are given to that dangerous central government.

 

·        The government cannot cede power to any entity larger than the nation; international issues must be handled by diplomacy, preferably, or military defense when necessary.

The states forming the Union, and the people making up those states, do not grant the federal government the right to cede power to any other authority. The very idea of a One World government is unconstitutional—and treasonous in the very thought. We may have alliances with other nations—when that is in the interest of protecting our borders and our people and property. But any such alliances should be limited to those specified ends and must carefully protect our sovereignty as a guard against tyranny.

 

The Constitution and the Economic Sphere

·        The person who earned, accumulated, and owns wealth is the person who gets to decide how it is spent.

We covered this above, pointing out that welfare and charity cannot be justly done by government. Government’s don’t have feelings of charity, but only raw power. Coercing a person to give their wealth to another isn’t charity.

Penn Jillette (the magician, and a libertarian thinker) put it bluntly this way:

It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

·        Taxes are acceptable only when limited to funding the duties of government enumerated in written principle-abiding law. 

Ah, enumerated in law—if only our government would abide by the Constitution!

·        Government’s economic responsibility is limited to protecting property. (This can include the coining of money to be used as a form of exchange.)

Again, that’s what the enumerated powers limit government to.

 

·        Government must lawfully prevent monopoly or other economic tyranny, but otherwise must allow people the open exchange of legal goods and services.

Sometimes conservatives—and libertarians in particular—think private businesses can do just about anything they want. But a monopoly is not part of the free market; it prevents a free market. Therefore laws that prevent monopolies are appropriate.

 

·        Using the people’s money to achieve political aims goes against the proper role of government. 

   The proper role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. The ways to do that are the enumerated powers. Here’s a partial list of things clearly not granted to the federal government:

ü  Power to govern education.

ü  Power to offer charitable services (welfare).

ü  Power to force purchase of a service or product (such as health insurance).

ü  Power to require payment into a retirement supplement (Social Security).

ü  Power to interfere with commerce that doesn’t cross state lines.

ü  Power to redefine marriage in a way that is contrary to long-standing law and tradition, and to enforce acceptance of the new definition, even when it violates personal religious beliefs.

ü  Power to subsidize any industry (such as alternative “green” energy).

ü  Power to target industries in accordance with a social agenda (gun manufacturing, automobile manufacturing, nuclear energy, oil and gas, fast food or sugary drinks).

ü  Power to use taxpayer funds to support abortion.

ü  Power to subsidize or control (or forgive) student loans.

ü  Power to take over any industry (as when the Obama administration temporarily took over GM and banks).

ü  Power to favor or disfavor individuals or groups for hiring, educational opportunities, or other purposes based on their race or religion, or some invented ESG score.

 

The Ten Commandments,
at theTexas Capitol

The Constitution and the Social Sphere

·        Civilization requires a people who honor God, life, family, truth, and property ownership. (These are a summary of the Ten Commandments.)

The Constitution and the Ten Commandments are connected—both revealed by God, both as the law for the people. As an earlier prophet of my Church has said,

The Constitution of the United States of America is just as much from my Heavenly Father as the Ten Commandments.—George Albert Smith, General Conference, April 1948, p. 182.

There are only two options for the source of our rights: God or government. If it’s God, then those rights cannot be justly taken away by mere mortals, including those who make up government. If it’s government, then those rights are simply the whims of the governing power, and a capricious government can take them away as easily as allow them.

People who want to maintain their God-given rights must recognize God is the grantor of those rights. They must believe in God—a benevolent God. There’s plenty to say about this—and I’ve done that here—but for today let’s just reiterate John Adams, who said:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

 

·        While not all religious societies are civilized, all civilized societies are made up of a critical mass of religious people.

See above. And let’s add to that, this is an obvious reason the federal government was prevented from interfering in the free exercise of religion, the first right mentioned in the Bill of Rights, in the First Amendment.

 

·        The family is the basic unit of civilized society. Whatever threatens the family threatens civilization. Therefore, preserving and protecting the family is paramount in laws and social expectations in a civilized society.

I’ve written about this a lot, starting here. These are the first couple of paragraphs:

Civilized societies value family as the most important and basic unit of governance. Alternatively, a hallmark of totalitarian regimes, which are savage, is the replacement of the family with the state. Totalitarianism resents loyalty to any societal unit other than itself. And it is this absolute weakness that will always prevent a totalitarian state from offering true Civilization as you’d find it in a free strong-family society.

This is particularly important to know for people living in a sub-civilized society. As long as families are allowed to live among themselves (children are under the care of their own parents), it is possible to have a civilized society that is just one family in size. Then, if that family can find additional similarly civilized families to associate with, their society grows. If it could grow to the size of a village or township, all the better. The goal of the founding fathers was to have that civilization spread through the United States (and if that experiment worked, have other sovereign states adopt the plan). But a family doesn’t have to wait until the world changes; the family can live the laws of civilization and enjoy many of the benefits, at least within the walls of the home.

Families aren’t mentioned in the Constitution. The concept was so obvious—that family is the basic unit of civilization—that I believe it was considered self-evident. The Bill of Rights was to spell out some rights whose infringements the founders had experienced before. Some worried about including any, because later generations might consider them to be limiting the people to those rights. The Ninth Amendment specifically dispels that possibility:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Family rights—the right of parents to see to the care and upbringing of their children—are among those not mentioned but retained by the people.

There's Mr. Spherical Model with our boys,
pursuing some happiness, some years ago, while we were
involved in the care and upbringing of our children.

What is government’s role? To protect life, liberty, and property. And it is required to allow states, families, and individuals to go about pursuing their happiness.

The Constitution works every time it is tried. If only we would fully try it!

Who Should Have the Helm

I happened upon a video last night about political philosophy, different from what you might expect. The philosophy PhD, David Wood, who’s doing the Philosophy Underground video, talks about Plato’s suggestion that we ought to be ruled by philosophers. I don’t agree. Practically no one in Plato’s time or since fully agrees. And yet, there is an argument to be made. 

Wood describes an analogy Plato gives in Book 6 of The Republic. There is a ship on the high seas on which various people are fighting to take the helm. But none of the fighting men is a navigator. None of them has the skills to guide the ship where it needs to go, or to handle it in rough seas. What they are good at is fighting. So whoever is the best fighter wins the right to man the helm. But since this best fighter does not know how to navigate or steer, the ship is in dire straits, along with everyone on it. Then, of course, another fight ensues, until another fighter gets the chance to man the helm—a position for which he also has no skills.

pirates fighting for the helm
promotional image found here

The comparison is, in our world, the people who get to rule us—who get elected as our representatives in government—are not the people trained in running a country, or possibly even a large, complex organization; they are the people best at “fighting” a good campaign. They are skilled at talking people into voting for them.

Why would a philosopher, also untrained in how to run a country, be any better? The theory is that he would be better trained at thinking. He thinks about deeper meanings. For example, he sees a beautiful woman or a beautiful sunset, and he asks, “What is beauty?” Why, he wants to know, do certain things strike us as beautiful? How do we recognize beauty in the first place? And so on.

Plato's The Republic
image found here

If such a person were to recognize that something was either good or bad in a country, he would ask how we identify it as good or bad. And if it’s bad, what would need to be different to make it good? And so on, until he gets to a core principle somewhere deep within the problem. In Plato’s Republic, he gets to the bottom of these basic questions: What is justice? and Why is it better to be just than unjust?

And if you can get to a core principle—on something such as what it takes to make certain aspects of a country good to live in—you might get someone able to rule. Or at least someone who could teach a person the principles that would make for good rule.

It just so happens that the political philosophy that is the Spherical Model may supply those core principles.

Here are the principles, divided up into the three spheres: Political, Economic, and Social. Abiding by these principles will lead to freedom, prosperity, and civilization—instead of the ubiquitous alternatives of tyranny, poverty, and savagery.

 

Political Sphere:

·       The purpose of government is to protect and preserve the God-given rights to life, liberty, and property of each person individually and as a people within that government entity.

·       The government can do only those duties delegated to it by the people in written and binding law.

·       The government cannot have a right to do something that the people individually do not have the innate power to do, and therefore do not have the power to delegate to the government. Ex. 1: Government cannot confiscate property owned by one person and bestow ownership of that property on another person, because individuals do not have that right; it would be theft.  Ex. 2: Individuals have the right to defend their own lives and property, so they have the right to delegate that defense to government; delegating to government does not remove that right from individuals.

·       Governing should be done at the lowest level possible. Ex. 1: protecting local property should be done by local police. Ex. 2: protecting borders from foreign invasion should be done by the national government.

·       The government cannot cede power to any entity larger than the nation; international issues must be handled by diplomacy, preferably, or military defense when necessary.

These principles can be used by people when deciding on candidates to vote for, or on ballot propositions. The questions to ask candidates are found here. 

And the principles can be used by elected officials. The questions representatives ought to ask about policies are here. 

 

Economic Sphere:

·       The person who earned, accumulated, and owns wealth is the person who gets to decide how it is spent.

·       Taxes are acceptable only when limited to funding the duties of government enumerated in written principle-abiding law.

·       Government’s economic responsibility is limited to protecting property. (This can include the coining of money to be used as a form of exchange.)

·       Government must lawfully prevent monopoly or other economic tyranny, but otherwise must allow people the open exchange of legal goods and services.

·       Using the people’s money to achieve political aims goes against the proper role of government.       

Let’s add in a Spherical Model maxim related to that last one:

Whenever government attempts something beyond the proper role of government (protection of life, liberty, and property), it causes unintended consequences—usually exactly opposite to the stated goals of the interference.

Again, there are questions to ask a candidate to learn whether they understand the right economic principles. They can also be found here. 

 

Social Sphere:

·       Civilization requires a people who honor God, life, family, truth, and property ownership. (These are a summary of the Ten Commandments.)

·       While not all religious societies are civilized, all civilized societies are made up of a critical mass of religious people.

·       The family is the basic unit of civilized society. Whatever threatens the family threatens civilization. Therefore, preserving and protecting the family is paramount in laws and social expectations in a civilized society.

A few years ago I did a series on why honoring God, life, family, truth, and property ownership are necessary for civilization. You can read that series here:

·        Part I: Life 

·        Part II: Truth 

·        Part III: Property Ownership 

·        Part IV: God and Freedom of Religion 

·        Part V: Civilizing Religion  

·        Part VI: Repenting as a Civilization 

·        Part VII: Family Perpetuates Civilization 

·        Part VIII: Marriage 

There are also a few questions you can ask candidates concerning their understanding of civilization values, here. 

 

The US Constitution

It also just so happens that the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution were written by philosophers who had read and studied and worked their way down to the core principles on which to govern. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and others were thinkers who asked the questions that would lead to core principles.

Howard Chandler Christy's "Scene at the Signing
of the Constitution of the United States"
image found on Wikipedia

This coming Sunday, September 17, will mark 235 years since our Constitution was signed. So it would be worth celebrating with a post dedicated to how well that document aligns with the principles of freedom, prosperity, and civilization. Look for that later this week.