A critique of Government

In some circles, I would be classified as liberal.

I believe in gender equality. I am against racism, prejudice, and discrimination of many different kinds. I believe in helping people, in doing good for the poor, in not fighting, etc. I am against killing people.

I happen to be vegetarian, though not for philosophical reasons. I'm in a band, and that makes me suspect right off. I believe that the future is bright, I believe in human progress, and I am an optimist. I don't believe that the world is ending anytime soon (although that's a different story).

But one point that I really differ with liberals on, is the role of government.

Liberals tend to view the government as the great savior of humanity. Human progress is seen as occurring through the intervention of government, and the UN and other major governmental entities are seem as the culmination of the movement towards the good. More unity, activity, and regulation by government are seen as the means by which society becomes more civilized. Some liberals hope for the UN to evolve into some kind of one-world government.

I disagree with this viewpoint. But this does not make me a conservative. A conservative wants a strong central government so that the military can be strong, and people can be punished for things like drug use, and not following the fire code.

By contrast, I see the government as the source of society's ills. Do major corporations deceive and swindle the general public? The government is the source of the issue in the first place - governments create corporations from thin air.

Why is government bad? Because government is purely and simply one thing: force.

Government has no ability to reason, to persuade, to compromise. It can only threaten, beat, or kill.

If you don't pay your taxes, it will lock you up, at gunpoint if necessary. If you don't believe in supporting some of the things it deems important, it will punish and eventually kill you. If you are on the wrong side of whatever ethnic division is currently popular, you will suffer.

If it tries to help you, it will do so by stealing from someone else. And it will only do so because it wants to look good, and secure its own future.

And in helping you, it will force you to become dependent on it. It will attach rules and regulations to everything it does for you, until you are its slave.

It is horribly inefficient. If it gives you a dollar for food, it had to take ten dollars from someone else just to do so. If it tries to provide a service like mail, food, or driving privileges, it will do so in the most people-unfriendly manner possible.

It does not care about you.

By contrast, real good in society occurs through organizations of individuals who have a purpose, and who have NO ability to shoot you for not participating. Children are fed and taken care of, poor villages are given livestock, our impact on the environment is lessened, and racial and gender equality is achieved through the work of individuals who believe in what they do.

The legitimate structures and organizations in society work through voluntary effort, compensation and cooperation, and a belief in humanity.

Government works through force and evil.

-micah

The Awe of an Atheist

Pedro, over at Way of The Mind (an atheist blog) gave a very insightful post about "awe". His perspective is that religion could have seized upon the advance of science to display an even more immense, complex God than had ever been imagined by ancient and medieval philosophy. Instead, religion rejected the advances of science, leaving atheistic science with a much bigger universe to be in awe of than is recognized by the religious community.

I see this in many cases, and the irony of it is profound. The sense of awe is built on comprehending something large and unfathomable, and this sense is not fed by holding a simplistic view of the cosmos. But for some reason, religion often does hold a simplistic view of the cosmos.

My own sense of awe at God is largely built upon a comprehension of just how large the universe is. When you think about the nature of things on the scale of 20 Billion Light Years, and realize how long a Light-Year really is, you begin to get a concept of God that is much more immense than the traditional "guy in the sky".

Of course, size is just scratching the surface. But Pedro's point is well taken. Cultivate an awareness (both scientific and experiential) of how big and complex the universe is, and you might begin to see God in a different light.

-micah

The Taming of the World - Why America is not a Modern Rome

I was considering today how much God has changed the world.

Consider the fact that today we have a significant minority of people who feel that capital punishment is WRONG, and feel strongly about it. Further, the majority of people in America feel that capital punishment should only be used in the most extreme cases.

Where did people get the idea that convicted killers, rapists, and thieves should be shown mercy?

Some people have lamented that America is becoming a modern Rome. But did Rome have people gathering around crucifixion sites to protest? Weren't they instead gathering around to enjoy the spectacle? To join in the fun of torturing others?

It doesn't matter how you feel about capital punishment. This shows a remarkable change; an enormous increase in human empathy, even if it is misdirected.

It also isn't saying that America or the rest of the modern world is perfect. We still have our spectacles; we still enjoy the downfall of others. But we're changing, very slowly, but surely.

It appears to me that since Jesus, God has begun to rule in a different way, from the bottom up, slowly changing people and society.

Could Jesus have been alluding to this when he used growth metaphors in describing the kingdom of God? When he compared the kingdom to yeast?

-micah