The Environment is a Value to Man (not the other way around)

A Blog for my Brother

                My brother claims that man should “be seen as valuable (to the environment) as long as we are valuable to it.”  The environment is not capable of valuing anything, and is not a value in and of itself.  Man is the only being that can pursue his values rationally.  Therefore, the environment becomes a value when man decides that he wishes to gain something from it.  If he wants oil, he has the right to dig it out of the ground.  If he wants to hunt and eat deer, there is no reason to stop him.  If he wants to clear land to live on, he should do that too. 

                Any argument to stop man from claiming the Earth is mysticism.  There is no rational or moral argument for environmentalism, biodiversity, or the cap and trade bill congress is considering.    The line is drawn when land has been claimed by another man, or if harm can be proved on an individual basis as a result of man’s actions.

                For instance, one plank of the Green movement is that carbon emissions should be regulated.  Factory smog is not a valid reason to regulate emissions.  Factories support every single modern economy.  To claim that they need to reduce productivity in the name of environmentalism is economic suicide.  If someone doesn’t want to live in a city with smog, he can move.  There’s plenty of space in rural America.  Only when harm can be proved on an individual basis is it legitimate to sue over pollution.  Man is the Supreme Being in the world, not the environment.

Is Capitalism Anti-Jesus?

In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Michael Moore talks about his new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story, and how capitalism is anti-Jesus. 

I am no fan of Moore’s political leanings, but he does make point worth debating.So, is capitalism anti-Jesus? 

Well, first let’s define terms.  Capitalism is “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”

Jesus states in Luke 22:18; “Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

And in Matthew 25:45; “I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”

But does this mean that Jesus would be against the economic system of capitalism?  I going to have to say no.  Under capitalism, individuals are free to give to whoever they please.  Jesus would be upset by the morality of individuals, not society as a whole.  Morality only exists on an individual basis.  When the ability to earn money is impeded, and wealth is redistributed by the state, there is no chance for individuals to act on their own moral standards.

I’m not religious, but I believe that Jesus would be more opposed to an economic system based on force; i.e. any system where one person’s effort does not directly translate into his own rewards.

p.s.

I think Moore is a very humorous fellow, and I plan on seeing his new movie.  I like how he dodges Wolf Blitzer’s question at 6:30 in the video.

Not Your Money, Not Your Life: Part 2

Obama has stated that he doesn’t want government to take over health care.  Instead, he wants something “uniquely American.”  That is, a public alternative, paid for with tax payers’ money.  If people want to, they can keep their own doctors and keep their former policies.  This public option will compete with private insurers and keep prices down all across the board.

Well, it sounds fantastic.  How could anyone oppose such a great piece of legislation?

This is how:  when the government starts a program, it doesn’t have to worry about turning a profit.  It just has to make the program seem like it’s working.  So when the government creates a “public option” for health care, you can bet it’s going to be cheap.  A lot of people are going to go along with it.  Obama says private companies will compete, but how can they compete with a program that has a seemingly endless flow of tax payers’ money?

Private insurance companies will start to drop employees and go out of business.  Hospitals and organizations will have to start paying their workers less.  Doctors will leave their jobs in search of something that pays better.  Eventually, the “public option” will be one of  the only options. 

We’ve seen that government run health care just doesn’t work.  When people have to pay little, or nothing at all, for medical care, they’re going to take advantage of it.  In Canada you can get lots of treatments for free.  The catch is you may be waiting for your treatment for a few days…or weeks…or months.  People who would have been able to afford treatment may have to wait for an indefinite period of time before they can be seen.

Private companies should be the only option for health care.  Competing companies allow for the best treatments at the lowest costs.  A government option seems like a great plan, but it’s really just wishful thinking.

France, A Muddled Country

There is a little bit of sense coming through the French Senate.  After all these strict policies that France has set in place, it looks like the ban on shopping on Sundays will be lifted after being in place since 1906.  A little bit of freedom is never something to take for granted.  Even if this step seems kind of miniscule, it is progress. 

Previously, some stores were allowed to open on Sundays while others were denied the privilege.  While this law doesn’t allow every store to open on Sundays, French legislators have designated 20 areas of commerce as permitted to do business.  This is a good step toward economic freedom. 

Now listen to the opposition’s argument; 

It will cause employers to force their workers to work on Sundays and it disrespects religious families and organizations because they cannot enjoy their day of rest.  

What a big-headed thing to say!  Many French workers have the belief that their employer is obligated to pay them exactly what they demand.  A little while ago, many employees were literally holding their bosses hostage. 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7170102&page=1

This idea is totally devoid of logic.  The employer is the most important person in a company.  He is the one with the ideas, he is the one creating the most wealth.  It is his decision how much he pays the workers and how long he wants them to work.  If employees are upset with his decisions, they may politely complain, or leave the company, but they do not have the right to forcibly demand anything of him. 

As for disrespecting religious practices; I see nothing wrong with allowing people to shop on Sundays.  The French government did not issue a mandate that people must shop.  Individuals are free to shop if they want to.  If one wants Sunday to be a day of rest, then he may have it as a day of rest.  Individuals have the right to lead their own lives, not the lives of others.  Many people in France don’t agree with me on that.  In fact, many people In America wouldn’t agree with me on that either.  

Many people think that if the majority of people feel a certain way, they can (and should) force others to bend to their wishes.  This is how democracy turns sour.  When individual rights are not protected, you get democratic socialism.  Dr. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute explains this better than me; 

“If we define the role of government as protecting individual rights, then no majority should ever be allowed to violate somebody’s rights…The whole idea of a right to property is an anti-democratic notion.  It says that 51% of the people can’t vote my property away from me.”- Dr. Yaron Brook 

An opinion poll has shown that just more than half of the population wants shopping available on Sundays.  It’s a shame that this is even open to debate, but progress is progress.

Not Your Money, Not Your Life

In order to raise more money for Obama’s extensive health-care system, Congress is planning on passing a bill that will fine Americans for not buying affordable medical coverage.  Individuals that don’t do what the government wishes will get a bill for over one thousand dollars.  Apparently, this idea is based on something that Massachusetts has already been doing.  It doesn’t make sense to me.  People should not be fined for refusing to get health insurance.  

Congress says that certain people will be exempt if they are too poor to get coverage, so anybody who has money will be required to get medical coverage or pay the fines.  Once again, the government thinks it’s being Robin Hood.  But Robin Hood didn’t steal money from those that had worked for it; he stole from those that had cheated and stolen money themselves.  When government takes from the rich and gives to the poor, they are righting wrongs that aren’t wrong at all.  Everyone deserves their own money.  Why should the poor take the money that the rich earned? 

Of course Obama is happy about this bill; he says it “reflects many of the principles I’ve laid out, such as reforms that will prohibit insurance companies from refusing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and the concept of insurance exchanges where individuals can find affordable coverage if they lose their jobs, move or get sick.” 

If insurance companies are forced to cover people that have pre-existing conditions, they are going to lose money.  They aren’t just denying sick people coverage because they don’t like them; they are trying to stay in business.  It’s unfortunate that people with pre-existing conditions have a tough time getting insurance, but it is not the government’s responsibility to step in.  Individuals should have the choice to help their fellow man or not.  I would certainly help out a friend of mine if he or she had a life-threatening condition, and I trust that this is the case for many other people.  However, man is not his brother’s keeper; he has no obligation to help people he hasn’t even met. 

This is a totalitarian action; big government is stepping into our lives.  Individuals should decide if they want coverage or not.  It is not the government’s place to come in and tell Americans how to live their lives.   Government is becoming more successful every day in convincing Americans that their money is actually our money. 

I see the contradiction.  I hope you do.  It is your money.  It is your life.

…And Then the Outrage

I wouldn’t have seen this if my girlfriend hadn’t looked it up.  Al Qaeda has threatened France because of that little thing Sarkozy said about burqas. 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/07/01/2009-07-01_french_president_nicholas_sarkozy_.html

Anyone could have predicted this.  Even I knew this would happen.  Read what I wrote on June 23rd. 

“Banning a Muslim tradition?  Won’t that create more tension between cultures?

http://sweetwaffles.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/sarkozys-modest-proposal/

I understand that Al Qaeda are responsible for their own actions, but when Sarkozy says something inflammatory like, “your culture will not be tolerated,” he is endangering his country.  Hopefully, France will get a good grip on reality because of the reactions to Sarkozy’s statement.  Maybe law-makers will let women have the right to wear what they want to wear.