Fair Sharing

The idea that wealthy people should contribute a “fair share” is becoming ubiquitous nowadays. This morning a news anchor asked a Congresswoman what her idea of a “fair share” was, apparently trying to illustrate to her the point that this is an ephemeral concept; even lawmakers rarely give a definitive answer. This particular lawmaker did, however: She suggested an increase to 45% and 49% for the wealthiest Americans, a somewhat modest rate (in comparison to some) to ensure that they’re paying their “debt” to everyone else.

I think the point was lost in translation. Why should it be 45% or 49% or anything? Are we to run the tax code on the whim of a politician? Decide what is morally correct by committees of people in Congress? Even worse – let a majority determine what is just? The meaning of “fair” is not something that can be picked and chosen by human caprice. A tax rate does not become fair simply because people vote for it. The concept of “fair” is determined by reality; human beings can only discover it. In this case, it is simple: Impose a flat tax that is the same for every American citizen, with no loopholes or breaks or credits for anyone, whether family farms or corporations. And how do you determine the rate? By first enacting a proper government whose only role is to protect liberties (i.e., with armed forces, police, and courts). When you’ve done that, the tax rate is exactly and precisely how much you need to run that government, and no more. Voila: You have a tax rate that is determined by objective principle rather than the false legitimacy of a majority.

Critics are correct: The system we have now is completely unfair. But they have it backwards; it is unfairly biased against the wealthy, not the poor. The fact that people are poor is not because the government doesn’t help them enough. It helps them from the cradle to the grave! It gives them anything they need! if you can’t pay your bills in this country, there is no lack of government programs to transfer money from the pockets of others to you.

Furthermore, the problems of the “poor” are definitely not the fault of wealthy Americans. The rick owe us nothing. If anything, we owe them! Let’s talk about the “share” contributed by the wealthy. They create all the jobs. They give us all the products that we use to make our lives better and easier. They create wealth and whole new sectors of the market. They save people time and money by competition and cost-cutting. They already pay far more of the share of the government’s tax revenue than the rest of us. And to top it all off, they give far more money to charity than everyone else. Our entire way of life, including every single advance and amenity that we take for granted, is based around what billionaires and corporations have created for us.

So tell me, when was the last time a lower-or middle-class American did any of that? Tell me when a construction worker or janitor or sales clerk made that kind of contribution to society as a whole? Maybe the “poor” ought to be contributing more. Maybe middle-class Americans ought to be paying a “fairer” share.

But that wouldn’t be right. No one wants that. No one deserves special privileges or breaks. Take a small flat tax rate from everyone, rich or poor, and call it quits. Remove politicians, majorities, and busybodies completely from the business of deciding “fairness” based on opinion. That would be fair.

Bill Double-Oh-7 Reilly

Once I thought that Bill O’Reilly was simply a pandering populist trying to draw in the whining multitudes who still think that we live in the days of serfdom and need Papa Bear to protect them from corporations, but now I’m changing my mind. Bill O’Reilly is the Left’s biggest secret, their James Bond, their under-the-radar double agent.

Think about it. Every other day he manages to toss in some snippet about “Wall Street thugs” who ruined the economy and caused this great recession. The answer to this problem? More government regulation! Someone has to protect the “folks” from those horrible rich fat cats. (Never mind the fact that the housing bubble and subsequent crash was engendered, encouraged, and made worse by government intervention in the market – how about some “oversight” on the government?)

Then we have O’Reilly’s constant bashing of the oil companies and his use of words like “profiteering.” He supported raising the debt ceiling “one more time” and believes that we need to raise more revenue for the government to spend, including an added national sales tax to pay for Medicare.

Honestly, this stuff is right out of the playbook of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi! But it’s all a disguise, right? After all, just ask O’Reilly: He’s all for the free market – except when he’s not.

But then, perhaps I’m taking it too far. He differs from the Left on several issues. Bill O’Reilly never encountered an infringement of liberty he didn’t like. He supported carte blanche the PATRIOT act and every other single violation of the Bill of Rights that the Bush administration implemented. He’s called for people to be kicked out of their homes for having swingers’ parties, wants his religious beliefs to be taught in schools, and blasted the free speech of the Woodsborough Baptist protestors for daring to have a view that he didn’t like.

Okay, so O’Reilly is not a Leftist or a big-government liberal. There’s another name that I think is more fitting, the term for someone who wants their social and economic vision pushed on to everyone else and is willing to use the government to do it: a statist.

Wealth Disparity Whining

I’ve honestly never understood the wealth disparity argument. Nowadays, with the Occupy Wall Street movement bringing attention to the issue, it seems to be the rallying cry de jour. I heard a commentator on the news the other day saying that the Occupy movement has brought attention to this wealth disparity “problem” like nothing ever has.

What exactly is the problem with the wealth disparity in America? If you mean that the rich and corporations get welfare and tax credits and unfair breaks, you’re absolutely right. They do, and it’s unjust. We should all join together and change the tax code and the political system in Washington that allows our elected leaders to hand out goodies for reelection. We should also refrain from being hypocrites by saying that we ourselves deserve special breaks. We’re all equal. No one deserves preferential treatment, whether you’re an oil company or a family farm. Particularly when your preferential treatment comes at the expense of other Americans.

But if you mean that the wealthy have so much more money than the average person, so what? Why is it any of your business how much another private citizen earns? Unless he’s stealing from you, you ought to be congratulating him on his success instead. Furthermore, the wealthy have their money for a reason. They’re rich because they’ve succeeded at doing things that the average American doesn’t do. So what if these people control most of the wealth in this country – I’m glad they do! Should we instead confiscate all the wealth of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates and other CEOs and businessmen and hand it out to bums on the streets? What would they do with it? Buy smokes and a bottle of Night Train? What do you think would happen to the economy if the majority of the wealth was looted and controlled by the legions of average Americans, instead of the above-average brilliant innovators, leaders, inventors, and entrepreneurs?

There’s a reason why the poorest Americans today are better off than the millionaires of the nineteenth century and even the kings and queens of the previous centuries. There’s a reason why practically every American household has a TV, a microwave, a car; why we have computers and cell phones and dishwashers and every other modern convenience that we take for granted – and it’s not because of politicians looking out for us, nor unions, nor labor laws or minimum wage laws. It’s not because the government forced greedy rich people to share with everyone else. It’s because rich people were left alone to do what they do. Average Americans don’t add benefits to the economy as a whole; billionaire businessmen do, and we all take advantage of this. To be hones (and I mean this with all due respect), even wastrels like Kim Kardashian add more value to the economy as a whole than the average American.

We ought to be proud of the wealthy in this country, and show more appreciation for all that they’ve done for every single one of us. At the very least, let’s not demonize them. And if we want to put a stop to the political favors and tax breaks and crony capitalism, we ought to look to Washington, DC. I think the Occupy Wall Street movement would start a widespread and much-needed revolution if they were focusing on where the real problem lies: Washington, DC.

Deepak Chopra, Bill O’Reilly, and Richard Dawkins

The other day O’Reilly had Deepak Chopra as a guest to talk about a “backlash” against atheists for their attacks on religion. He never got around to mentioning any backlash, however, and instead simply commiserated with Chopra about how Richard Dawkins and his ilk are mean and arrogant and disrespectful toward people of faith. Funny that everyone always says that about Dawkins – but hardly anyone ever gets around to actually refuting his claims.

O’Reilly and Chopra didn’t even address them. Aside from pointing out that some very smart scientists believe in God (oh, well God must be real then!), Deepak Chopra’s entire argument for why God exists seems to be built around the “I Win by Default” argument. This is the most common bromide used by Christian apologists today, and I understand why: When you have no evidence for your position, your only alternative is to try to poke a hole in what you see as the opposing view. Chopra, like his intellectual comrade Dinesh D’Souza, asserts that since science cannot use the laws of physics to explain the lack of laws of physics before the Big Bang, then the alternative is “the heart.” Yes, apparently when science can’t explain something, that constitutes evidence that faith and feelings can. The question these apologists never answer is this: Even if you are right that reason fails at some level (and I’m certainly not saying that it does), what makes you think that your heart or faith or feelings are any better? Just because the intellect fails to grasp something doesn’t mean that feelings will do it any better. Drop the false dichotomy and provide some actual, positive evidence for your position.

But the false dichotomy is all they have. They hope to win by default, because they have no positive evidence. Their argument is exactly the same as the one utilized by a primitive caveman watching a volcano explode and thinking, “I can’t explain that, so it must be magic.” In fact, they often go whole-hog and say, “Not only can I not explain that, no one can explain that. It’s unknowable. So I have to feel it and pray on it.”

They deny the efficacy of their own minds – but why shouldn’t they? They have a sacred belief, and their minds can tell them nothing about it, so they are reduced to using the method of small children (emotional pleas) to affirm their position.

Religion vs. Science, Part 2

In a recent post I pointed out (mainly in response to fallacious clichés such as in the movie Angels and Demons) that science is responsible for feeding the world, and religion has contributed only to the good feelings of those using science. A comment left on the post reminded me that science is only a tool of man, with no volition of its own.

I thought that this went without saying. The only point I was trying to make is that science is an infinitely more powerful tool than religion. Science allows us to tap into reality and master nature to some degree. It also has allowed us to progress from hunter-gatherers with a 50% infant mortality rate and a life expectancy of 45 to modern civilization. It is necessary to elevate men above the level of animalistic brutes.

What has religion done? The person who left the comment pointed out that religious people are more likely to volunteer and give money to charity. My point remains. Where did they get the money to donate? What made it possible for them to have time to spare to volunteer? How effective at donating and volunteering do you think primitive hunter-gatherers were (and are)? They had (and have) religion – what are they missing? For that matter, imagine the average Christian in the Lower Middle Ages, without the benefits of modern science. How much of their time and income do you think they could devote to helping others?

Is the best you can say about your religion is that it encourages people to be nice to others? So what? So does Oprah. The better question to ask is why people need their religion to be nice. That sounds like a failing to me, not an advantage. Why should we need any excuse to be good, other than goodness itself?

Regardless, whether a belief of man leads them to be kind or not is irrelevant to the facts of reality. And reality says that prayers and good intentions will not put one crumb of food on your table or clothe your kids. Jesus’s message is utterly useless without the achievements of man (science; or better yet, reason) to back it up. Religion needs science; it is utterly dependent on it. The reverse is not true. All the wonders that man has wrought would get along just find if we shed our belief in burning bushes and a resurrected carpenter.

The “Fair” Share

With Obama and Warren Buffet beating the “fair share” drum so much lately, it brings up a lot of interesting questions about exactly how much Americans, whether rich or poor, should be contributing in taxes.

Let’s forget all the class warfare nonsense for a minute. Why should the “fair share” be determined by politicians, either Republican or Democrat? Why should it be subject to change depending on who happens to be in power at the moment? I don’t want Barack Obama or Michelle Bachman or anyone else having the power to make this determination. Instead of leaving it to the arbitrary whim of whoever’s in charge, let’s base it on a very objective measure. A simple, objective standard: A flat, set rate for every single American. Is this to the very essence of the word fair?

And how do we determine this rate? Must we return to the subjective opinion of whoever is in charge? No, we again use an objective standard: We lay out very simple and specific things that the government should be doing, find out how much it costs to do it, and tax accordingly. And the standard for determining what these government duties are? We’re supposed to already have one: the Constitution. To simplify it even more: The standard is liberty.

This idea sounds so simple, but I think it would require nothing less than a moral and intellectual revolution before we can implement anything like it. People don’t want objectivity. We’ve somehow got it in our heads that we should vote for and get whatever we are capable of obtaining. We take it for granted nowadays that politicians exist to serve the interests of groups rather than individuals. How can we possibly talk about notions such as “fair share” if we’ve degenerated into special interest groups competing and lobbying for favors, tax breaks, and pork projects? We’re not individuals with freedom anymore; we’re members of the Black Caucus, we’re concerned women for America, and so on and so forth, ad nauseam. We’re all lobbyists, and we all want something at someone else’s expense. Fair?

The question that must be asked is this: How can we even put the two terms “fair” and “share” together at all? What’s fair about owing a share at all? Is an individual worth anything, or is he subordinate to the “greater good”? Is a human being an end unto himself, or does he exist to serve some other end that others determine?

Atheists Afraid of Divine Judgment?

The Third most overused christian canard about atheists (after “atheism implies no meaning to life” and “atheism implies no moral standard”) is that atheists choose their position because we’re afraid of divine judgment. Now, I can’t speak intelligently about the minds of millions of other atheists (and neither can the Christians, like Dinesh D’Souza, who make this claim), but I can about my own mind, my own reason for why I’m an atheist.

I’m an atheist because I think that reason is man’s only tool for discovering what’s true and false about reality, and that reason has uncovered no evidence for the existence of God. In fact, I would say that philosophically, the entire idea of God is riddled with contradictions and is most likely an invalid concept. Regardless of whether you agree with me or not, if that is my position, then it makes no sense to say that I’m afraid of divine judgment, because I don’t think there is any such thing. I stopped being afraid of boogeyman stories when I was a child.

However, if I did consider the idea of the Christian God to be possible or likely, I would say that it is us mortals who should be doing the judging. I suspect that when atheists criticize this God, they are not secretly worried about divine judgment and trying to divert attention from their fear, as many of you Christians think. They, like me, simply find your God to be morally reprehensible. Some of the things He did in the Old Testament are not just questionable, they’re unequivocally awful. (And if I need to list them here, you’ve obviously never read the Old Testament.)

But even putting aside Yahweh’s antics, what bout the entire concept of a heaven reserved only for Christians? Why is belief in God a prerequisite for the ultimate reward? Why is worship a noble practice? A good general promotes troops who perform correctly, regardless of their personal feelings about the general himself. A good god should promote mortals who do well, regardless of whether they’re atheists, agnostics, or call him Shiva or Allah. This is the inherent problem in the idea of the Christian God’s divine judgment: He doesn’t seem to be a very good judge.

Praise does not earn you any morality points. God, supposedly the ultimate moral standard in the universe, should know better. A heaven full of sycophants is not a heaven worth attending. A god who demands praise is not a god worth praising.

Atheist Morality

Second on the list of the most ignorant Christian clichés about atheism (after “atheism implies no meaning to life”) is that atheism means no standard of morality – or at least no objective standard. Without God, they say, man is just randomly picking and choosing moral values, or basing it on consensus, or cultural mores, or using some other subjective method. Usually, their criticism falls on secular humanism, or as I call it, pure utilitarianism.

But atheism does not automatically or necessarily imply secular humanism. I am an atheist, and I agree with Christian apologists like Dinesh D’Souza in that secular humanism is incorrect and repugnant. Where these critics go wrong is thinking that there is no other alternative for an atheist. D’Souza said that “there is no secular basis” for human equality and individual rights.

On the contrary, here’s a secular basis for human equality: No one is more or less human than anyone else; therefore, it is irrational and morally wrong to treat any human being as anything less than equal to any other human being. And for individual rights: A human being requires the ability to think to support his life and freedom to keep what he produces to do so; therefore, he requires liberty and private ownership of his body and property to be a human being.

These are facts of reality. They do not come from revealed knowledge. They do not come from Jesus. they can be derived from the nature of man and his environment and logical deduction. From these simple points, the entire lexicon of liberty, individual rights, and free societies can be derived. They can tell you why theft and murder and all victimization is wrong, why freedom is good, why personal responsibility is necessary, why human life is valuable, why honesty and respect and friendship and love are important. And what’s more, they can do this all objectively, because they are based on an objective standard.

Furthermore, the notion of Christian morality (or any divine morality) is just as faulty as secular humanism in that regard. It makes no sense to say that God only does what is good, because that means God Himself follows an objective moral standard. And nor is it any better to say that whatever God does is good, because then you can say, for example, that killing a woman for turning around and looking at something is good, or conquering a tribe and taking the virginal teenage girls for your “wives” is good.

It seems that Christians are stuck in a quandary. If God only does what is good, then there is an objective moral standard higher than Him – and in this case we have no need of Him for morality because we’re all capable of following that standard. Or, if everything that God does is good, then the concept of “good” loses all meaning and even the vilest victimization becomes moral when God does it – this means morality is based on the whim of God and is nothing more than a much-venerated form of Might Makes Right.

So which is it? Atheist morality or Might Makes Right?

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Chinese?

The other day I heard Laura Ingraham talking about the impending date (maybe 5 years) when China’s economy overtakes that of America. It’s become os common for talking heads and politicians to trumpet this as some kind of approaching calamity. Oh my God, we have to stop China from sliding into the number one economic slot! The consequences for America will be dire!

This is ridiculous, and it’s blatant fear-mongering. China’s success does not take anything away from America, just like your neighbor getting rich doesn’t hurt you. China is creating wealth, not stealing it from America. In fact, an expanding Chinese economy can only help America, just as greater wealth anywhere in the world means more investments and bigger markets for Americans.

Now, if China surpasses us because we downslide beneath them, that would be bad. But that would be our fault. We ought to be worried about ourselves in that case, and not caring about who is going to overtake us. In fact, I daresay we ought to be applauding the success, encouraging more growth in China and lifting all trade restrictions with them.

I find it funny that often the same people who sound the Chinese Growth alarm use arguments that are similar to those of President Obama and other leftists. For whatever reason, they’re under the absurd impression that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the country (or the world) and when some gain lots and lots of it, the result is that others have less. Wealth is not a natural resource like oil. It’s created all the time. China is growing faster than America because they’re getting more things right economically. And if we lag behind in growth, it’s our own fault for not doing the same.

Atheist Meaning to Life

I recently read What’s So Great About Christianity, by Dinesh D’Souza and was not surprised to find a very tiresome bromide: “Atheism implies that life has no meaning.” Ho-hum.

Only the fawning, unimaginative and powerless would truly believe that life has no meaning without God. No, I’ll go further than that: It would damn near take a sociopath. And to be clear, I don’t think that most Christians really buy into this idea, regardless of how many times they repeat it. To test this hypothesis, I have a simple question for them: If you found out tomorrow that there was no god or afterlife, would you stop loving your kids?

In fact, putting love aside, I dare to say that we would still find meaning in a host of other things, from fulfilling work, careers, relationships, challenges, all the way down to simple hobbies and that first cup of coffee in the morning. The notion of no afterlife doesn’t automatically negate the meaning that each and every one of us creates for ourselves. All of you people of faith out there, wake up: Just because us atheists reject your idea of meaning doesn’t mean we don’t have our own. A moment’s glance around the world will tell you that all the millions of atheists out there are just as happy, productive, and moral as anyone else. Gee, how can that be, without your god to help? Here’s a secret: You need your god; we don’t.

Me, I question how God even gives meaning to life at all. The idea of God is merely a means to an end. It gives you what you already desire, as a human being. God grants you happiness, freedom, power, morality, love, etc. God is a one-stop shopping trip for everything that you are perfectly capable of earning on your own. god is a demonstration of man’s propensity for supplicating and a desire for the unearned. I heard this notion best demonstrated by the president of the Concerned Women for America a couple of weeks ago when she said: “There’s power on your knees.” It’s difficult for me to think of idea that is more repulsive than that one sentence. I will bow to you if you promise to make me strong. I will follow you without question for a reward.

Is that what the Christians mean, when they sneer at us atheists and claim that we care for nothing greater than ourselves? That is what they venerate as their greater meaning? There is nothing grand about such an idea, nothing noble or meaningful. It is not a greater cause, but a very old and quite ordinary one. The idea of God is not something that’s greater than man – it’s something that men use to try to make themselves greater.