Is Being a Libertarian and Working for the Government Hypocritical?

Hypocrisy is the act of saying one thing while doing the opposite. So, is being a libertarian at a public university hypocritical? The answer is no. Just because one does not believe that government should be involved in some activity does not mean that working for the government is hypocritical. It would be hypocritical if a libertarian urged others not to work for the government and then did but the mere act of being employed by the government is not a hypocritical act for the following reasons:

(1) Everyone is working for the government. You read that right. Everyone works for the government. We all are required to follow government mandates and pay taxes, so while some people are more directly working for the government, everyone works for the government in some fashion.

(2) Corporations are (almost as) every bit as much creatures of the state as are government agencies. After all, they get their charters from the government. The only difference is that they are not completely controlled in their actions by politicians: instead, private companies have limited flexibility to craft independent policies.

(3) There is a difference between advocating for a change in a rule and advocating actual breaking of a rule. I believe that we should eliminate the state income tax (income taxation is notoriously volatile so I want it eliminated on both efficiency and volitility grounds) but I still pay my state income taxes and urge all of my fellow state residents to do the same. This is not hypocritical because I do not believe that we should ever break the rules of a legitimiately formed government, even if I do not agree with the rules in the first place.

(4) I work for a state university but although I might prefer the university were privatized, I am not adverse to the state running a public university system because I do believe that there are significant positive externalities and that it is important to provide opportunities for all concerned. However, even if I worked at a private university, that university would be receiving a cash infusion from the state government. I oppose vehemently the Legislative Tuition Grant to private universities. After all, this only serves as a subsidy for private enterprise, which distorts the pricing mechanism that (still) exists in this country.

The Four Fundamental Errors of People Who Advocate for Steady-State Economics and the One Fundamental Error of Economists

Neo-Malthusians/Steady Staters are forever attacking economists for absolutely no good reason, mostly because they misunderstand the terms that are used in economics. I tried to educate several of them recently and was met with attack after attack simply because they are so ill-informed about our profession.

FUNDAMENTAL ERROR #1: MISUNDERSTANDING ECONOMIC GROWTH

Let us begin with a very simple definition, that of economic growth. Well, economic growth is simply an increase over time in Gross Domestic Product. Gross Domestic Product is a constant-dollar measurement of the monetary value of all final goods and services produced within the borders of a country. But what does that mean?

Well, final goods and services are goods and services that are sold to firms, consumers, or the government for any reason other than as a part of another good or service. Thus, goods and services that you and I consume or that companies use to produce goods and services are final goods but goods or services that are part of another good or service are not. Thus, my book, Modern State Intervention in the Era of Globalization, is a final good but the paper that makes up the book is not. This distinction is necessary to avoid double counting.

So far, so good. But doesn't that mean that the total amount of stuff has to increase for us to have economic growth? Not at all. This is why ecologists are simply wrong about economists and wrong to argue against economic growth.

What is necessary is that the value of goods and services increases, not necessarily the quantity. Higher quality goods are an example of an increase in the value of goods and services without increasing the quantity.

So long as we can figure out a better way of doing things, we can do this forever, even with the same amount of inputs and this is even part of their own admission! From the website of the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE):

"Myth

Technology and progress will grind to a halt in a steady state economy.

Reality

A strong incentive for technological progress exists in a steady state economy because of the drive for better goods and services. With stabilized material and energy inputs (as would occur in a steady state economy), technological progress becomes the main source of higher quality outputs."

Okay, wait a minute. Read the definition of economic growth as given by economists. "Higher quality output" with the same amount of output is economic growth because it represents higher valued output. Remember, you get economic growth either by growing the amount of "stuff" or the quality of "stuff" or both. If their argument is simply that there is a limit on the physical amount of "stuff" that we have, they will have absolutely no argument from anyone in the economics profession because economic growth is not about the sum total of physical goods, it is about the value of those goods (and also our services, which the steady-staters tend to ignore).

Yet, we can also theoretically grow the amount of "stuff" too, which brings me to their next error:

FUNDAMENTAL ERROR #2: NOT UNDERSTANDING INFINITE GROWTH DOES NOT NEGATE A CEILING ON GROWTH

Zeno's paradox of motion states that we cannot move because to move from location A to location B would require us to pass through the midpoint (C) but to pass through the midpoint would require us to pass through the midpoint between A and C (which will we call D) and to pass through that midpoint would require us to pass through the midpoint between A and D, etc. ad infinitum. Since we would be crossing an infinite number of midpoints, we cannot move. But, we can. Thus, the paradox.

This is similar to what steady-staters argue. They cannot understand that infinite growth can have a finite sum. I will state that again: infinite growth can have a finite sum.

Let us illustate how this works: What is the sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 + . . .?

The answer is 2.

Each time, we grow the sum closer and closer to the final point. Now if steady-staters want to argue that there is a theoretical limit, I have no issue with them. However, they are arguing for a practical limit to growth and that is just plain wrong.

Why they are wrong is instructive.

From the website of the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy: "Some economists think that, because a particular production process can become more efficient (more output per unit of natural capital), there is no limit to economic growth."

No, we don't think that. We know that. However, bear with me for a second and we will see the steady-state error.

Let's continue with their argument: "These economists and 'technology optimists' are disregarding the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy law, which tells us that we cannot achieve 100% efficiency in the economic production process."

Can't any of these steady-staters see the inherent contradiction in their position? Economists are not disregarding the second law of thermodynamics -- steady-staters are! Of course, we cannot achieve 100% efficiency in the economic production process. We can only get closer and closer to it. The irony is that we are dealing with the infinite sum problem. We approach the limit of growth but we do not reach it. Thus, by definition, we are still growing, even though they think we are in a steady state.

Yet, steady-staters persist in not understanding this basic concept. Here is their error in focus (from the CASSE website): "Thermodynamic laws also tell us that we cannot reach 100% efficiency. When the limits to efficiency have been reached, the only remaining way to grow the economy is by using more natural capital (including energy), which is limited in quantity." How exactly will we reach "the limits to efficiency"? I maintain that we cannot because efficiency will naturally not be reached due to human imperfection. Instead, what we can do is systematically keep reducing the waste that is due to human imperfection but we can only approach the limit, never actually reach it. There is always some more efficient way of doing everything. Indeed, not a single day goes by that I have not been able to find ways to reduce the amount of time that it takes for me to do various tasks. This increase in efficiency is a technical sort of efficient that can continue forever simply because there is no way for me to eliminate my imperfections. The problem that steady staters do not understand is that these imperfections are what is standing in the way of their nirvana of a limit to efficiency.

The error is that we economists are like Zeno in that we are talking about the movement from location to another, while the steady staters are arguing that we have already arrived. While that works fine with the motion paradox, it doesn't work with infinite sums. You see, the dirty little secret is that you do not reach the infinite sum until . . . infinity. You approach the limit but never reach it and, therefore, you can always have growth.

This brings us to the third error of the Steady-Staters:

FUNDAMENTAL ERROR #3: THE PROBLEM OF SERVICES

Goods, obviously, have physical limits. There is a physical limit that is countable on the number of iPads. However, services cannot be counted in that manner. Of course, one could use "man-hours" (or the more politically correct "person-hours") but that doesn't really get at what services are. Economic growth is mostly found in the service sector, which does not have resource issues that steady-staters rail against.

Total energy use in 2009, according to Lawrence Livermore Laboratories was lower than it was in 1997, yet economic activity was 30% greater. What is the cause? The answer is, of course, better energy usage but also a shift to services. More than 60% of GDP is simply services. What are services? Well, my teaching is a service. My fitness coach provides a service. My doctor when he sees me provides a service. If my doctor improves the speed at which he makes a diagnosis (and assuming that his quality of diagnosis does not go down), he gets paid the same amount but his hourly compensation increases since he is seeing more patients (if the quality of diagnosis declines, however, he might make less because fewer patients will want him for a doctor). If my fitness coach can get me to my wait loss goal quicker, I am willing to pay more per hour for that service. These are increases in the value of the service and thus represent real economic growth and yet they have absolutely nothing to do with energy consumption or other resource factors. Simply figuring out how to do things better generates economic growth. Indeed, if my doctor can see twice as many patients and cuts back his hours by 25%, the "physical input" (man-hours) actually declines while growth occurs. This type of economic growth can be sustained ad infinitum by the mere fact that we will never reach 100% efficiency but can only approach it (and we will always continue to approach it because we are constantly improving our techniques).

Finally, we have their fourth error, which serves as a misapplication of economic theory:

FUNDAMENTAL ERROR #4: MISUSE OF JEVONS' PARADOX

Jevons' paradox is used by steady-staters as an argument for why economic growth is unsustainable. It is a fundamental misuse of the paradox. The paradox states that technological improvements in efficiency tend to increase consumption by more than the technological improvement in efficiency. This is completely true for all normal goods and it really isn't a paradox. Instead, it is simple application of price theory. As price drops, revenue increases for all normal goods (those with a price elasticity greater than 1). From economic theory, we know that cutting the price in half will more than double consumption (thus insuring that revenue increases) for all normal goods and a technical improvement in efficiency is equivalent to a price cut because it represents a reduction in the overall input cost. That increase in consumption means that we will have greater demand for the input than we had before. So increasing energy efficiency fuels increased demand which can overrides the efficiency. I say can override because the increase in demand for fuel depends crucially on the percentage of the overall input cost that is represented by energy. Thus, if energy is 5% of the overall cost and energy consumption is cut by 50%, this represents only a 2.5% reduction in costs and it is unlikely to spur increases in consumption that would ultimately increase energy usage.

On the other hand, if energy is 50% of the overall cost and energy consumption is cut by 50%, that represents a 25% reduction in costs and that very well might cause increases in energy usage that exceed the original levels.

It should also be noted that Jevons Paradox may appear to be present when it is not. After all, suppose that we did not conserve energy at all but we still had an increase in demand for energy because of a growing population. That would be an increase in usage that had nothing to do with the Paradox. Now combine the two and you will see that we might get an increase in demand for energy due to a growing population rather than because of price reductions triggered by technical efficiency improvements.

But what happens when we limit the input absolutely? The answer is that you cannot surpass the limit! For example, suppose that I am making widgets and that each widget requires 1 gallon of fuel. I figure out a way to cut my fuel use in half and thus drive down the cost of producing widgets but suppose that I face an absolute limit on the amount of fuel that I can acquire. At that point, technical barriers limit growth and there is nothing I can do about it. Thus, if there is only 100 gallons of fuel in the market, I can never exceed the 100 gallons of fuel no matter how efficient I become in terms of reducing its use in my widgets. Indeed, at that point, Jevons Paradox cannot apply and increases in technical efficiency automatically translate into increases in output with no increases in inputs. Voila! The steady-state economy produces economic growth!

Now that I have conclusively demonstrated the errors of steady-staters, I now turn to the big error of the economics profession:

FUNDAMENTAL ERROR #5: ECONOMISTS ARE SLOPPY

Instead of listening to our definitions and attempting to take us on in our world, steady-staters want to have their own world with their own definitions. That is fine but they cannot have it both ways. They cannot argue that we are wrong in our analysis but then use their definitions for their debating points. According to the Center for the Study of the Steady State Economy, economic growth is: "an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services." That simply is an incorrect definition. Economic growth is the increase in GDP and, as we have seen already, GDP is the constant-dollar monetary value of goods and services, which could imply simply that goods and services are increasing in quality or that we are approach the limit, the two cases that I have already shown are consistent with steady-state economics and which are also completely consistent with neoclassical growth theory.

The problem is that too often economists use the term "an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services" as well. The sloppiness is that economists are not necessarily referring to the physical amount of goods and services when they state this. Indeed, they really mean the value of goods and services but simply omit those terms.

There is an additional issue in that economists oftentimes refer to economic growth as being "per capita economic growth" and, of course, with a rising population, that does mean more "stuff" in most cases. Yet, we have reached the demographic transition in many countries and population is actually falling in some. As population falls, we can have increases in per capita economic growth while maintaining the same overall amount of goods and services or even cutting those goods and services.

It is important to have these discussion and for both economists and steady-staters to be open-minded in their approaches. We can reach out across the aisle if steady-staters give up their inaccurate portrayals of economics and actually listen to us instead of merely trying to score debating points through straw-man arguments. Unless they understand economics, they should stop with their silly attacks and come to understand why economic growth can occur even in their steady states.

Indeed, if they would focus on exclusively limiting inputs instead of attempting to limit outputs, steady-staters would find that economists have no quarrels with them. It is their focus on output rather than input that has earned them the universal scorn and disdain of the economics profession and for good reason. Their preoccupation with the output belies their political and economic liberal orientation and their disdain for capitalism.

Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Economics &
Chair, Department of Economics and Finance
Winston-Salem State University

Why Allen Hunt Is WRONG About Islamic Immigration to the United States

Allen Hunt, a radio talk show host who claims to have the only radio program in America that deals with right versus wrong rather than right versus left is simply factually wrong on the notion that Islamic immigration to the United States is a problem that can be ended legislatively, either practically or legally. Moreover, he is morally wrong on the notion that Islamic immigration to the United States should be ended legislatively.

Mr. Hunt believes that any Muslim who is not a US citizen should be removed from this country (at least he understands that one cannot remove US citizens who are Muslim but that is of little comfort to those here who are Muslim but who are not citizens). His position with regard to those currently in the United States is, by itself, unconstitutional. Even during the period of the odious Chinese Exclusionary Act, those Chinese currently in the United States could not be removed simply on the basis of being Chinese.

There are two sections of the United States Constitution that, when operating together, prohibit Allen Hunt's desired result of kicking non-citizen Muslims out. The Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution prohibits states (and, according to more recent Supreme Court rulings, the federal government as well) from "denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws." The problem for the Allen Hunts of this world is that such a policy would run afoul of the notion that "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof" of a religion. Obviously, any law that targets non-citizen Muslims who are currently present in the United States is a law that prohibits the free exercise thereof of Islam (since such free exercise would subject them to deportation). This is clearly unconstitutional.

But what about those who wish to immigrate? Can they not be prohibited if they are Muslim? Such a policy would be completely unwise from the standpoint of strengthening the economy even if it might pass constitutional muster. After all, the first reaction from Muslim oil states would be to stop selling the US oil and our economy would crash and burn as a result. Furthermore, what would prevent terrorist Muslims from simply lying about their religion? Once the US makes it clear that it is waging war against Muslims as opposed to radical Muslims, it will simply drive Muslims underground. Besides, the last time a government waged a war against a religion it didn't turn out well for anyone concerned (World War II -- Hitler v. the Jews). In addition, there is that pesky religion clause in the US Constitution again, which probably would prohibit the type of immigration law that Mr. Hunt advocates.

Instead, a return to the national origins system would be more likely to pass muster constitutionally, but that too carries with it serious problems: it is likely that Muslim nations would react in a hostile manner to such an implementation and we would see a repeat of the oil crisis of the 1970s. Hardly a plan that helps our economy. Your policy is one of knee jerk reaction and is poorly thought out, Mr. Hunt.

So why does Mr. Hunt persist in his quixotic quest to quash Islam in America?

It is for the same reason that people like Robert Spencer do: he is an unrepentant bigot and needs to be called out on it.

Such individuals love to question why American Muslims don't take forceful steps to condemn terrorism. But we do! However, individuals such as Robert Spencer want their cake and eat it to (and I presume, though I am unaware if it is in fact the case, that Mr. Hunt is similar) in that when American Muslims condemn terrorism, we are then accused of Al-Taqiyya, which means that we are permitted to do the impermissible under certain circumstances. Mr. Spencer has characterized this is allowing (or even requiring) Muslims to lie about Islam and conceal their status as Muslims. He further states that Islam if fundamentally in disharmony with other religions and requires Muslims to make war (Jihad) against those of other faiths. Indeed, according to Mr. Spencer, Muslims who reject the principles of dhimmitude and holy war are not good Muslims.

This is a deliberate misinterpretation of Islam. It is not up to Mr. Spencer to judge whether I am a good Muslim based on their flawed understanding of my religion. It is up to me to judge it for myself truth or errancy under Islamic jurisprudence and for Allah to determine if my judgment is sound and in accordance with the faith.

Instead, what is the solution is what Daniel Pipes refers to as moderate Islam, which rejects the radical Islamic jihadist agenda. Yet banning Muslims from the United States would only strengthen radicalism by making it appear as though the US in uninterested in engaging and promoting moderate elements. Is it any wonder that Muslims choose not to speak up when they find themselves being lambasted by both radical Muslims and critics such as Mr. Spencer as being un-Islamic? Furthermore, if we are going to be accused of being deceitful when we denounce terrorism, why should we bother to denounce it at all even when we do not agree with it? It does us no good and could attract unwanted attention from the radical elements within our own religion.

Indeed, moderate Muslims have much to hate and fear about individuals such as bin Ladin. The number of Muslims killed by radical Muslim insurgents is far greater than the number of Christians killed by these individuals. When Christians ask "why don't Muslims condemn terrorism against Christians by radical Muslims?", moderate Muslims may just as well argue "why don't Christians condemn terrorism against moderate Muslims by radical Muslims?"

Yet, by denying moderate Muslims safe haven in places such as the United States, they force moderate Muslims into closer quarters with their radical brethren and thus place moderate Muslims in an untenable situation: radicalize or die. Now how can that be the right position, Mr. Hunt?

No, the solution is not unilateral and total bans on Islamic immigration. It is not to argue that all terrorists are Muslims so we need to screen out all Muslims (a blatant lie--according to the most recent National Counterterrorism Center Terrorism report [covering all of 2009] found at of the 14,971 deaths due to terrorism worldwide in that year, approximately 62% of all such deaths were caused by Islamic Extremist terrorists (those who use Islam as a cover for their terrorist actions) but 7% of all such deaths were caused by Christian Extremist terrorists (those who use Christianity as a cover for their terrorist actions). Another 14% were due to secular/political/anarchist terrorists. At the same time, however, if we were to examine those killed by such terrorists, the disparity between Muslims victims and Christian victims would be far greater. Ironically, a Christian American in the United States is probably more likely to be the victim of a terrorist who happens to be Christian than a Muslim terrorist (provided we take out the obvious exception of 9/11), whereas a Muslim in a Muslim-dominated country is far more likely to be the victim of a Muslim extremist terrorist.

Furthermore, given that the total number of Muslims in the world exceeds 1 billion and that those within the United States is around 5 million, it is clear that there is no reason to fear that Islam itself is a threat to our way of life. By encouraging secular and moderate Muslims and rewarding behavior that is characteristic of the same, we promote this element within Islamic society.

A Pox On ALL Thy Houses

I am an agnostic theist. There, I said it. I am agnostic, as any well reasoned individual must be because I truly do not know if there is a God or not. I certainly hope that there is and believe that there is and that is why I am also a theist, which means that I believe that there exists at least one god (or, if you really want to pin me down, I am a believer in one God but I will not go any further in this article as to my actual religious affiliation since it is not germane to this argument).

Recently, militant atheists have attempted to disprove God (Dawkins, Smith, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, etc.) and condemn religion. These attempts are doomed to failure for the same reasons that the various proofs of God are doomed to failure. God exists outside the system and thus cannot be proven from within it. While it may be possible to disprove a God that intercedes in the physical world at least in the here and now or who has left evidence of such tampering in the past (in the sense that He violates the laws of nature to cause action), it is logically impossible to disprove a God that does not.

Similarly, while it is possible to prove a God that intercedes in the physical world, no such proof has thus far been offered and, if it were offered and accepted, the very act of doing so would destroy faith. Since faith is necessary for the existence of religion, such an action would destroy religion as well.

More to the point, if there is a God (and if He has the attributes that we ascribe to Him), it is highly arrogant of us mere mortals to think that we will ever be able to find such proof at least in the sense that there is no other possible interpretation. Continuing with the assumption that God does exist, God may make Himself known but He has not done so in such a manner as to completely obviate all other possible conclusions. The skeptics will remains regardless of how many times and ways that we ascribe that we have found irrefutable proof.

Irrefutability, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder. Yet perhaps this too is all in God's plan (if God exists). The arrogance of man is to believe that God will show himself in such a manner. Yet while individual humans lack perfection and thus will eventually reveal their faults, if God is God as we have come to portray Him, then He has no such faults. As such, he can certainly cover any tracks that might be left to us. Since He is all-knowing and all-powerful, then He knows how to ensure that the Richard Dawkinses of the world will never find the "proof" that they seek.

So why would He do that? Why would He deny to the Richard Dawkinses of the world such a revelation. The answer lies in free will.

If God were to reveal Himself, there would be not only no faith but no free will either. Although free will is, to some extent, an illusion, it is a useful illusion only when there are those who do not believe. Since God knows what has happened and what will happen and since He is not bound by time, He knows what we will do in the future but since we are bound by time and do not know what will happen (or even completely what has happened), we make decisions using our free will that leads to our predestination.

Let me say that again: we make decisions using our free will that leads to our predestination.

We often think that these two concepts are polar opposites when, in fact, they are the logical outcome of all that exists. Our decision-making process is always and absolutely to do that which brings us what we believe at the time to be the course of actions that we most prefer to take. No one (except for those who like to be miserable) wakes up in the morning saying, "Gee, I want to mess up my life and make myself miserable. What can I do to mess up my life and make myself miserable?" Of course, in the case of those who like being miserable, well, since they like it, then they too make decisions that they most prefer to take!

Does this mean that we act always in ways that are in our best interests or that will lead to the conclusions that we desire? Of course not. People engage in all sorts of highly destructive behavior. Yet they engage in this behavior because they are trying to reach a result that they believe they will prefer (at the time of making the decision) over all other possible results that can foresee with other possible actions. Now that result might be very short-term (as in the person who wants to experience the "thrill" of a near-death action that could very possibly end their life) but it is still something that they prefer. Even the person who kills himself or herself has revealed a preference for death over the alternative.

By revealing Himself as God, God would take away this fiction. We would no longer be "free" to engage in our behavior because we would know that our lives are not our own. We would no longer have free will because we would be led in the course of our existence to a foregone conclusion. Thus, God requires faith, not because God needs it but because faith is fundamental to our ability to practice free will.

Proof that Science is a Religion

Zagros: Why is it that you don't accept intelligent design?

Scientist: We hold that all supernatural causes are not part of science.

Zagros: So, therefore, if something is supernatural, then it is not science, correct?

Scientist: That is correct.

Zagros: And, science holds, matter is neither created nor destroyed.

Scientist: That is an oversimplification because it has to be in a closed system and . . .

Zagros: Okay, but generally speaking, it is true, and if I am talking about the universe as a system, then can we accept it as a basic premise?

Scientist: Well, not exactly, it is the law of conservation of mass, not matter, they are different.

Zagros: I am a little confused.

Scientist: That is because you are not a physicist.

Zagros: Okay, fine, then mass is a universal constant.

Scientist: Well, in a closed system . . .

Zagros: What happens in an open system.

Scientist: Well, since energy can escape in an open system, we can lose mass.

Zagros: Wait a minute, I thought you were talking about mass, where did energy come about?

Scientist: I don't have time to explain it all but energy equals mass times the constant (speed of life) squared.

Zagros: Einstein's theory of relativity says that mass can be converted into energy.

Scientist: Well, actually it states that they are equivalent through this formula.

Zagros: Okay, now, then how about me? If mass is neither created nor destroyed, then the mass that is me has always existed, right, but I was born on . . .

Scientist: Okay, I see where you are going here. That is an incorrect assumption. Your mass was neither created nor will it be destroyed on your death, it is mere reconfigured.

Zagros: So, what you are are really saying is that everything that is me is something called mass that was reconfigured from somewhere else and then become me?

Scientist: Yes, you take in mass (food) and that mass is transformed into energy and that energy fuels your growth (mass)...

Zagros: But that implies that energy is not mass, so wasn't energy created by destroying mass. I'm a little confused.

Scientist: Well, in a closed system, energy may be converted to mass. It is documented in Einstein's Theory of Relativity: E=MC².

Zagros: Whatever. So what created mass?

Scientist: Excuse me?

Zagros: Yeah, what created mass. I mean it had to come from somewhere, right?

Scientist: No, it is neither created nor destroyed.

Zagros: So then mass is God.

Scientist: Where do you get that from?

Zagros: Well, it has always existed, right? It reconfigures into various stuff, right? Isn't that God?

Scientist: But God is a supremely intelligent being that configures the universe.

Zagros: So, you admit that there is a God.

Scientist: No, I am telling you what God is.

Zagros: That requires that you admit that God exists.

Scientist: No, I am telling you that the concept of God is such that . . .

Zagros: And this can be proven scientifically?

Scientist: No, this is the concept of God as given by religion . . .

Zagros: I don't accept that.

Scientist: What?

Zagros: I don't accept that. I only accept what science provides. I just defined God scientifically as the uncreated mass. I said nothing about intelligence -- you did.

Scientist: Fine, but every other person in the world . . .

Zagros: I am not every other person in the world. I am me and I say that the universe is God. After all, God is everywhere and in everything.

Scientist: How do you know that?

Zagros: God told me.

Scientist: How?

Zagros: Does it matter?

Scientist: Yes, it does, because I want to know . . .

Zagros: What? If I believe in the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Torah?

Scientist: Exactly.

Zagros: Why?

Scientist: So I can show you the error of your statement.

Zagros: How?

Scientist: By demonstrating to you that the Bible, the Qu'ran, etc. do not have a God like that.

Zagros: Oh really? So, give me an example of my error.

Scientist: Well, God grants prayers.

Zagros: Did I say that?

Scientist: But those books say that.

Zagros: Okay, define "granting a prayer".

Scientist: You ask and God causes something to happen that otherwise would not have happened.

Zagros: So, that would make me God then right? Because, through prayer, I can command God to . . .

Scientist: No! None of your books say that you can command God to do anything!

Zagros: Okay, so prayer is useless, so . . .

Scientist: No! Your books suggest that God answers some prayers . . .

Zagros: Oh, so God is picky and choosy about which prayers to answer. They answer my prayers but not yours, right?

Scientist: Whatever.

Zagros: How about God does answer all prayers? God answers 'yes' to some, 'no' to others, and 'you have got to be kidding' to the rest.

Scientist: Okay, that's fine.

Zagros: Then science says that a scientist prays to God and he grants them but he only grants some prayers to believers.

Scientist: What?!? Where the hell did you get that idea from! Scientists don't pray!

Zagros: Because you are atheists?

Scientist: No! Some of us are and some of us aren't . . .

Zagros: So some of you pray and others don't is what you are saying.

Scientist: Yes, and . . .

Zagros: So God grants the prayers of the scientists who are believers . . .

Scientist: No, scientists don't pray . . .

Zagros: But I thought you said they did.

Scientist: No! Scientists do not pray as scientists. They may pray as religious people but not as scientists.

Zagros: Okay, only the prayers offered by the atheistic and theistic scientists who are praying as scientists are answered and those offered by them as religious people are not.

Scientists: You aren't listening. We aren't praying as scientists!

Zagros: Oh really? What is a prayer?

Scientist: It is a request to God to do something.

Zagros: You mean, . . . like an experiment?

Scientist: No, you have to get down on your knees, close your eyes, and . . .

Zagros: I don't pray that way.

Scientist: Well, however, you do, you have to ask for divine intervention and . . .

Zagros: I don't pray that way.

Scientist: Well, then, how do you pray?

Zagros: I pray by doing things and God's will be done.

Scientist: No, your will be done.

Zagros: But God is everywhere and in everything, so God's will be done.

Scientist: But God is intelligent and . . .

Zagros: And you are saying that I am not?

Scientist: I have serious doubts. Wait a minute: are you saying that you are God?

Zagros: I didn't say that.

Scientist: Yes, you did. I can play your game too! You implied...

Zagros: I did not state. Your implication is that because I implied, I am.

Scientist: Okay, I will grant you that but . . .

Zagros: No buts. I am no more God than you are.

Scientist: So then I am God, you are saying, as well.

Zagros: I did not state that either. I am simply stating that you and I are expressions of God's will. After all, we were made by God and God knows everything, so therefore whatever God wills, will happen.

Scientist: But I thought we have free will.

Zagros: You do, as far as you are concerned but God knows in advance what you will do.

Scientist: So I do not have free will.

Zagros: No, you do.

Scientist: But God knows what I will do so...

Zagros: Hmm... let me use science to explain it to you.

Scientist: Huh?

Zagros: Yes, does a quantum have free will?

Scientist: Of course not.

Zagros: Okay but if I observe the quantum does it change its behavior?

Scientist: Yes, that is the observer effect in quantum mechanics.

Zagros: So, my will (action of observing) caused the quantum to change.

Scientist: I guess but that is a proof of determinism, not free will.

Zagros: So, my will be done. But how is it determinism?

Scientist: Because your will determined that it would change.

Zagros: So I determined where it would go, so I can determine where it will be in . . .

Scientist: No, you cannot. Quantum mechanics says that one cannot predict . . .

Zagros: Oh! So quantum have free will since the quantum determines . . .

Scientist: (sigh) What does this have to do with . . .

Zagros: So, quantums have free will in a deterministic system and scientists pray to God to get . . .

Scientist: Wait a minute. Scientists don't pray to God.

Zagros: But you said that some do . . .

Scientists: They don't pray to God as scientists!

Zagros: Yes, they do.

Scientist: No, they don't.

Zagros: Yes, they do.

Scientist: No, they don't. Look, you cannot prove anything through argumentum ad nauseum.

Zagros: I agree, but scientists do pray to God when they conduct experiments.

Scientists: No, they don't.

Zagros: They do through their actions, they are praying that the actions will occur....

Scientists: Stop right there. We know this to work because of cause and effect.

Zagros: And this is different from prayer, how?

Scientists: Well, it always happens, for one, provided all initial conditions are the same and the activity is replicated precisely.

Zagros: Okay, so when scientists pray, they have a ritualistic prayer (experiment) that must be precisely undertaken to generate the result (what they hope to achieve).

Scientist: It isn't a prayer!

Zagros: How so? Is the rain dance a prayer?

Scientist: Yes.

Zagros: Why is it undertaken?

Scientist: To get rain to fall.

Zagros: How does it work?

Scientist: It doesn't work. It is just a stupid superstition.

Zagros: So science maintains that prayers of all other religions are just stupid superstitions, while their prayers to their one true God (nature) are not.

Scientist: You are hopeless.

Zagros: Why thank you. Luckily science isn't according to you, since you obviously believe in it.

Scientist: The difference is that even if you don't believe, it happens.

Zagros: Wow! What a powerful prayer! Even a non-scientist can do it!

Scientist: It isn't prayer!

Zagros: Why do you say that?

Scientist: Because it isn't! Look, darn it! We don't have a God that rewards the good and punishes the wicked!

Zagros: Yes, you do.

Scientist: No, we don't.

Zagros: Sure, if you violate God's laws, you sin and you are punished, right?

Scientist: Finally, we are getting somewhere.

Zagros: So, when you violate a physical law, you are punished, right?

Scientist: You cannot violate a physical law.

Zagros: Wow! You do have a powerful God!

Scientist: Nature isn't a God!

Zagros: Okay, so when you ignore a physical law, you are punished. Like walking off a cliff, you are punished for attempting to disobey the law of gravity.

Scientist: You really are hopeless.

Zagros: And you really have a religion.

Would You Kill Your Mother?

For those who still do not understand morality, let me give you a classic problem for which I owe Professor Ralph Byrns of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill the credit for developing. My retelling of it will undoubtedly suffer in comparison to his exceptional original but I shall endeavor in any case:

"How many of you would not kill your mothers for any price?"

I go on to explain that I am actually Vlad the Impaler and if you do not kill your mother (via lethal injection--your mother will simply fall asleep and never wake up), I will kill her by this magificent torture device that slowly separates her limbs from her body with the most excrutiating pain imaginable and turns her into hamburger for my dogs.

You further know that not only am I capable of doing it and that I will do it but that there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it. Oh, and I will not stop at her. However, BEFORE I kill her, I will also kill your father, your sister, your brother, your spouse, your children and even your dog by the same device, all in front of you AND YOUR MOTHER AND I will force you both to watch. Then I will kill you with the same device and force her to watch. Then, and only then, will I kill her (using the same device).

How many of you will kill your mother?

The point is not to actually have you go kill your mother but to illustrate the powerful aspect of incentives and prices and I again thank Professor Byrns for this excellent example. All of us have a price we are willing to pay and it is rational to pay that price. This is, however, not a sacrifice.

Just as Jesus agreed to die on the cross, so too are you willing to die (or kill) to avoid certain consequences that you find more distasteful.

If Sacrifice is Morally Wrong, Is Christianity Evil?

In the previous post, I proved that Sacrifice was evil. But it comes at a cost since some may think that it implies that Christianity is evil. But it does not.

Even though me eating a hamburger is more important than your life that does not mean that I should not save your life. The point is that I should not be COMPELLED to save your life. Under ANY circumstances. You cannot point a gun to my head and demand money for your sick child and expect me to condone such behavior as moral. It is not. Your intentions or desires are immaterial to me. You must operate on the "trader principle", giving value for value. You work for me and I will pay you and, therefore, your work will save your own life. Notice what Paul said, "Those who do not work shall not eat." (2 Thess 3:10)

Giving value for value means that I will give you what you need willingly IN EXCHANGE FOR something I value. I will not sacrifice for you even my hamburger but I will trade you my $1 for your labor power and then you can go and get iodine for your child (or someone else's child).

Similarly, I may feel willing to give you the dollar out of compassion but this is a selfish motive that makes me feel better. Thus, I am giving you a dollar and IN EXCHANGE I am feeling better for myself for doing it.

Immorality comes from the theft. God Himself commands, "Thou shalt not steal". Yet, government taxation is theft when it is used to redistribute income. It is no different when the government takes my money to give to some poor person than if the poor person were to rob me directly. All involuntary income redistribution is similar and is immoral. Yet socialism and government funding of programs for the poor in society are nothing more than legalized theft.

Does this mean that the poor should not be assisted? Not at all! It merely means that forcing one group to pay for another is tantamount to theft. When they give it willingly, that is another story.

Christianity (and other great religions) tell us that we should help the poor. The emphasis, however, is that WE should do it. Not that we should DICTATE to others to do it. The problem with most Christians is that they forget that. They go beyond merely suggesting that it is a nice thing to assist the poor or that we ought to be PERSONALLY liable to help the poor and instead suggest that it is the GOVERNMENT'S reponsibility or SOCIETY'S responsibility to do it.

This is nonsensical. When government takes responsibility for something, it negates my personal responsibility. "I gave at the office" or "with my tax dollars" is a legitimate dodge to the question of giving charity. Indeed, the concept of charitable deductions is based on the notion that I can FORCE you to help contribute to the causes that I deem appropriate. Just as taxation is theft when it is used to redistribute income, so are tax deductible donations when they are used for charity. You are forcing ME to support your causes.

Since I do not support many of the causes that you support, your taking of tax deductions is theft. Yet it is legalized theft by the government. Just because it is made legal by government fiat, however, does not make it morally correct. The misuse in Christendom to justify such intervention is a wholesale repudiation of core Christian principles. Thus, it is not Christianity that is evil--it is those who seek to impose obligations on others who are.

Finally, let us deal with the notion of objective truth, for this is something that will no doubt arise. Surely there are things which are objectively better than others, you may ask.

There are. However, those things that are objectively better are always objectively better from the standpoint of the observer. Nothing else. It is objectively better for me to have a hamburger than not. It is objectively better for you to have a hamburger than not (assuming that you like hamburgers). Therefore, from my perspective, if there is only one hamburger, it is better for me to have it than you and better from your perspective to have it than me (assuming that neither of us are starving or otherwise have reason to pull on the heartstrings of the other). Notice that objectivity cannot dictate to whom the hamburger will be placed.

We can also the analogy for morality. If both of us need the hamburger to survive and only one can have it and the hamburger (for some unknown reason) cannot be divided, it is impossible to determine objectively with whom the hamburger should be placed, since both parties have an objective claim on it. This is different from moral relativism. I am not stating that morality differs from individual to individual. I am stating that morality is somewhat referential. The sole basis to settle this is to add another principle to the mix that most religions (including Christianity) support: the no theft rule.

Essentially, the "no theft rule" states that no one can use deception or force to take from another. All activities must occur based on the trader principle. The way we determine who gets the hamburger is not by violence or an impartial third party observer but rather by negotiation. There are actually some things for which I would be willing to give up my life and let you have the hamburger but if you fail to give those things to me, I am sorry, but there is no way I'm letting you eat (in this example). Now you may rightly argue that this means both of us will die if we do not negotiate to a solution. To that I would say, "So what?" There are some principles worth dying for including the one that you have no right to use force to take from me. I would rather die (provided I can ensure your death as well) than accept this as a principle (that does not mean that facing a gun I would not retreat from the position: I am not a fool since at that point I lose my life and the principle being defended is not upheld [and I can always get back at you later for your immorality through the jusdicial system--and I will]).

You would be incorrect, however, in suggesting that I would somehow not receive the benefits since, after all, I would be dead after giving you the hamburger. There are many things that would definitely outlive me that, if I could guarantee their outcome (perhaps by requiring you to transfer funds to my wife and children to ensure their longevity PRIOR to my allowing you to solely eat the hamburger) that would be sufficient for me to give up the hamburger.

However, as of right now, I do not see anyone making such an offer. So I will go and eat my hamburger now. Class dismissed.