Poverty, Crime, Welfare and Minimum wages, Is there a Correlation?

This man believes that there is.




And then there are the words of wisdom from the man who wrote these words. Are they the words of a man who would approve of a socialistic form of a way of life as so many are clamoring for?

"For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen?

On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners.

St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.

Excuse me, Messrs. the Public, if upon this interesting subject, I put you to the trouble of reading a little of my nonsense. I am sure I have lately read a great deal of yours; and therefore from you (at least from those of you who are writers) I deserve a little indulgence."

I am, your’s,
Ben Franklin

And we must not forget the words of Raul Castro;
"Cuba must stop being the only country in the world where it is not necessary to work.”

Liberalism, a Look at It as being in the Mode of the Enlightenment of the Founding Fathers

I have just spent some time viewing Dr. Hicks teachings of philosophy and what I have learned from these lectures was probably the most enlightening lectures that I have ever heard. The following video is but the first of this series of lectures. It is a series of lectures explaining the philosophy of Post- modernism. The most significant understanding I got from these lectures is the fact I hear these same arguments used and see them being utilized in the politics of today's world.

The one significant conclusion that I have come to is the idea of what a liberal sees himself as being identified and what a conservative sees himself as being identified. Both sees themselves in the mode of the founding fathers thus see the opposition in light of this perception of themselves. But in order to understand this we must first identify the fact that we live in the age of the philosophy of modernism or as it is more commonly thought of as living in a modern world as ushered in by the enlightenment era or the age of reason. And our nation is a foundational example of this new train of thought.

This then would identify the time prior to this age as the age of premodernism or the premodern world with any age after this as being the age of post-modernism or the post-modern world. The liberal sees himself in the mode of the founding fathers who were the innovators of the modern world movement in that the liberal today is the innovators of the post- modern movement. This contrast with the conservative who is attempting to conserve the modern world movement as the founding fathers ushered in.

In closing I can only say that I suggest that you should sit thru the whole series of videos and see how his lectures are being played out in this modern world and understand from a philosophical point of view what the conflicts of political viewpoints are. If you listen closely you'll hear the arguments of liberalism as they now are presented as well as being instituted in this society.

And you will understand why the liberal mindset is so critical of the way of life we have in this nation also. You will also understand how Marxism plays a part in this mindframe as well. I believe you will find that the time spent watching as well as listening to these lectures will be time well worth it.  I know I did. What say you?

The rest of the lectures can be found here, Dr. Hicks

A Government by Constitution or by Ideology, Which is Your Choice? (Part 3)

As grandpa looked at the person that shouted out the question he responded to him with these words.


“ My good friend, take a moment to ponder over the significance of an amendment such as this.

1. This amendment by itself will force each Supreme Justices to view the Constitution from a singular mindset in terms of federal powers versus State powers in the manner as illustrated in this post, The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States  and this post, The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States (Part III).  This in itself should produce far better decisions on the part of the Supreme Court. In fact I'll predict that it will result in many more decisions that were unanimous decisions rather than the biased 5-4 decisions which is known to be influenced by the divided interpretation of the Constitution now. And since they would be hearing cases that were primarily dealing with domestic issues they would be seen as an unbiased arbitrator of disputes once again.

2. This amendment, by itself, would force Congress to rethink their role in government and focus its entire attention on foreign affairs since all domestic affair would fall within the realm of the States.

3. This amendment, by itself would instantly heighten the status of the States in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of the federal government for it would force the federal government to treat each State of the union in the same manner as an independent State as they do every State in the world when it comes to domestic affairs of each State.

4. It would establish once and for all that the U.S. constitution was written to restrict the authority and powers of the federal government only.  And it would elevate the significance of State Constitutions as the only restriction upon the authority of State governments in terms of domestic affairs as intended.
5. One benefit of this amendment might be that, in time, Congress would not be a full time job as it is now because the work load would not be as great in regards to the need for legislation.

Does that answer your question, my friend?”

The man just nodded and said, “Thank you, you have given me food for thought.”

The crowd went silent and you could just hear the wheels turn in their heads heavy in thought as grandpa stood there awaiting more questions if any. After a few moments another voice spoke up in question as he asked this.

“That amendment was first purposed back in 1861 and its purpose was to prevent the secession of the Southern States because of the issue of slavery. Since the Civil war and the ratification of the 13th amendment solved these two issues of what use and purpose would this amendment have now?”

“Another good question, my friend.” said grandpa as he nodded to the man.

“As I stated earlier the purpose and intent of this amendment at the time of its passage in Congress may no longer be valid but that does not mean that its value as an explicit declaration of the intent of the founding fathers has diminished one iota. And that is the important issue that needs to be addressed in politics today if we want to have a government as intended by the founding fathers.

And to address an issue that is related to this I'll warn you right now that there will be some that will accuse you of trying to undo everything that has been accomplished in regards to race relations. They will even accuse you of trying to bring back the age of slavery. Well. Let's look at it from that point of view.

Whether or not it actually would is for lawyers to hash out between them and I am no lawyer. But I can speculate about how it would appear to bring back the age of slavery. From the wording of this amendment there might be an argument that in ratifying this amendment it will automatically repeal the 13th amendment. If this is true then by its very power it would also repeal the 14th and 15th amendment for the same reasons.

If in the end we find that this is not true then the argument is irrelevant, isn't it? It only can be said that it could be a problem if it is true. And if it is true then we have taken ourselves back to a time prior to the war and prior to the secession of the first State in a political sense, haven't we? This would be a time that we were still a union by consent and not by force.

Would the repeal of these three amendments be a problem? The answer is no. We do not live in a society where the people believe that the enslavement of their fellow man is a moral practice and the people as a whole do believe it should be illegal also. This is an entirely different mindset than the people had back in 1860 when they were divided on the morality of slavery.

We also have to remember that back in the 1800's there was 16 States that were considered as free States who had banned slavery on their own authority. Given the mindset of today there is no doubt that the other 34 States in this union would join those 16 States and ban the enslavement of another human being on the State level at the same time they were to ratify this amendment if they haven't done it already.

And when that happens it would only affirm the separation of powers as the founding fathers intended. It would also declare that we were once again a nation united by consent and by shared values. To me that would be the two greatest benefits of this process. For in doing so it will affirm the idea that we are a people of free will united by consent as this nation was founded and no longer a people united by force as we are now. And what better example of a government/people relationship for the world is there than that?

Now, I hope I have given you answers that you can use as defense of your position if you decide to accept this solution. For it is my belief that this is a solution to a problem that benefits persons of every political persuasion.

Are there any more questions?”

Marriage Laws and its Comparison to the Interracial Laws of Marriage in the Past

While grandpa and I were in in town on some errands that grandma had given to grandpa we ran into a couple of old friends who were arguing the pros and cons of the same sex marriage issue. And from the way they were arguing a person could see that each person were passionate about their side of the issue. Grandpa just stood there listening without taking part in the discussion for a few minutes. Once he had listened long enough to get the gist of what kind of argument was being used he whispered to me to stay there and listen while he went about doing the errands.

When grandpa had finished his errands and came back for me and we headed home. On the way he asked me this question,

“Boy, what did you learn from listening to our good friends?”

the question took me by surprise and I had to think for a few minutes before giving grandpa an answer.

“ Nothing really, grandpa. It seemed as if the both of them were so emotionally charged up in defending their side of the argument that neither of them realized just how illogical their argument was. They each was trying to win the argument by demeaning the other because of the position they took on the issue.”

Grandpa just smiled as he nodded. “Good observation, boy. Now, give me an argument on the issue based upon the basic premise used by our friends.”

I just look at grandpa and as he gave me a smile and wink I began.

“There are those that claim that one group in this nation is just seeking equal rights with another group when it comes to marriage. And in doing so use the emotional appeal of the fact that at one time interracial marriage was also banned in order to show that they are being treated in an unequal manner by the laws of marriage.

If this is true then the same reasoning must be used to show that this is a comparable basis. There were many arguments used in an attempt to justify the ban on interracial marriage and one of them was the argument for maintaining the purity of the races. The comparable argument then would be an argument for the maintaining the purity of the sexual orientation of a group of persons. Since this is an obvious fallacy then the comparison is also a fallacious comparison.

Another argument that was used was the argument that interracial marriage goes against the laws of nature. The laws of nature, in this case, deals with the laws of survival of the individual and the laws of survival of the species. These laws are interconnected. By this I mean that in the process of abiding by the one a person will abide by the other. This was an obvious fallacy of logic in relation to interracial marriage and science does not support this argument.

But in understanding the means that is to be applied to abide by these laws it can be said that same sex marriage does go against the laws of nature. Thus, it can be said that again we see an obvious fallacy of comparison. So, those that use this premise in order to show that the laws of marriage discriminates will come to an unconvincing and illogical conclusion except for those who would be convinced by the appeal to emotion.

Then there are those who will cite the fact of homosexual behavior has been found in other life forms also so as to imply that homosexual behavior is a natural act. This is a fallacious argument also because the argument I'm putting forth is whether or not it goes against the laws of nature. I am not putting forth an argument of whether or not it is a natural or learned act.

These are two different concepts as any scientist or philosopher will tell you. And while we can use one concept, the laws of nature, as evidence for the other. It is a fallacious argument to use the other as proof that persons are abiding by the laws of nature.

There are more arguments that are used to show a comparison between the two issues. Most of them being religious in content. These arguments will not be touched other than to declare that the religious establishment can be said as being united in their opposition to idea of the change in the definition of marriage. I will only say that in regards to the issue in question the charge of religious bigotry for those who rely on religious beliefs for their stance is an unjust charge.”

When I had finished my argument grandpa just had this to say,

“Well, boy, now that you have stated your case we'll see if someone who visits us can find a fallacy in your argument”

Racism, What I Have Learned (Conclusion)

First thing I’d like to say is that this series reflects a whole new perspective on the idea of racism for me. It also represents a whole new outlook about what this nation stands for too. And for this I must thank Ms. Deborah over at “My Brown-eyed View” for one of the finest discussion I have ever had on a issue. I would also say that I am most grateful to Ms. Sojourner over at “Sojourner's Place" for joining in and adding to the discussion.

When this nation was founded it was considered to be an experiment in how people were ruled. It meant forgetting old ideas and trying new ones. Trial and error was the means used in an attempt to formalize a nation where the people were guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and every citizen had an equal opportunity to be the President of this nation. A nation formed by the union of thirteen sovereign States and has grown to be a nation of fifty sovereign States. A nation where the central government was intended to be the subordinate state not the dominant state.

But along with this new form of government another phenomenon occurred. A society was created as never been had before, A society that reflects what the world is. A society where every nation of the world is represented among the citizens. A society where every race of the world can call this nation its homeland. A nation where every religion is practiced in tolerance for the beliefs of all of the other religions. It is this that is the formula for bias and prejudice within a nation.

And in spite of the problems that was to come as a natural result of the makeup of this nation, it is as it is today, the most powerful nation in the world. What made this possible? It was a contract that was written to be the foundation of this nation and the men elected to rule were willing to abide by their part of this contract. That contract is called the Constitution of the United States.

It was the individualistic attitude of the people seeking only to better their own lives and the lives of their families that made this nation as it is. It was this same individualistic attitude that brought men together as a collective to aid a fellow man only in his time of need, not by force but voluntarily. This was also a brand new experiment in regards to societies and how it saw itself.

Have we created the ideal form of government? The answer is no. have we created the ideal form of society? The answer is no. Is it still in its experimental stage? I'd say that the answer is yes. The problem lies in the belief of some that this was a failed experiment and they seek to completely change what this nation stood for.

And they are using the oldest trick in the book in order to achieve their goals, group identity. Once an individual is convinced to accept this group identity as their only identity then empathy is their weapon of choice to bring about the changes that they desire of society and government. The identity of the individual is the enemy, leaving only the identity of the collective. Once this has been achieved the people will accept being forced to act as a collective rather than as an individual.

It will be the person who taken on the identity of the collective that will promote the idea that groups have rights. It will be the person who taken on the identity of the collective that will promote the idea that groups are to seek equality. It will be the person who has taken on the identity of the collective that will no longer recognize those who seek to have the identity of an individual as one of their own. If you listen to the theme song of this blog you will hear this in the words of the small group in their attempt to degrade the individual.

We, as the people of this nation, have a choice to make and that choice is the choice of the perception of the possession of power or the reality of the choice of the possession of rights. If you seek the perception of power then take on the identity of the collective and lose your rights. If you seek the reality of rights then take on the identity of the individual and know your vulnerability as a result of the loss of the feeling of power.

It is the powerless that need rights and it must be the powerful that must respect the rights of the powerless. The individual is the least powerful of any society. We elect those who are called to be the powerful. That is the inevitable conclusion that our Constitution reveals as the formula of this experiment that we participate in.

In closing I will only say that the most important thing I have learned is that the term “individual rights” is a term of redundancy but the term “group rights” is a term of self-contradiction.

Racism, What I Have Learned (Part 3)

If we are to end racism in this nation then we cannot depend upon it just dying out. That will never happen. As long as people are willing to accuse others of racism it will be perpetuated. Racism is harmful to everyone but false accusations of racism is unjust.

Other than physical harm we must realize that the concept of harm done is a taught concept just as racist attitudes are taught. We must come to a point that just because someone says that something is harmful doesn't mean that they actually are harmed. There must come a time when individuals take full responsibility for their own feelings and thoughts.

We must also realize that as long as there is an opportunity for personal gain or political gain of some sorts the idea that racism will be perpetuated. And one means that will be used to perpetuate it is by redefining what constitutes an act of racism. As long as there are laws in regards to racism I will guarantee that racism will be perpetuated unjustly because the perception of it will still exist in some people's mind.

We are already seeing this. False accusations of racism are being made day in and day out with the lone purpose of political or personal gain. People are using it to unjustly stereotype a whole group of people and then demean anyone who is a member of that group or perceived as associated with that group. People will falsely use it to attack the integrity of others simply because they disagree with someone's ideas. Racism is being used falsely as a means to denounce laws which may affect a certain group of people more than others. And the only reason it may effect this certain group is the fact that this group is known to be the largest offenders in regards to the issue in question.

These are just a few ways that racism is being used. Are these the acts of a racist nation or are they the acts of those who are unjustly using racism as a tool for personal or political gain?

In closing I will say that we already have laws against the idea of physically harming another person and these laws do not need the accusation of racism to enforce them. It is only when the harm is other than physical that necessitates the accusation of racism in order to enforce the laws against racism. And we can declare that the perceived harm done is harm taught. And if it be harm learned then it it needs to be unlearned unless we are willing to tolerate unjust accusations.

I guess what I am saying is that we do not live in a perfect existence. Acts of racism will ever be committed by individuals in a multicultural community. By the same token false accusations of racism will ever be committed by individuals in a multicultural nation also. But we do not need to stereotype a whole nation based on these individual acts. We just need to stop thinking of ourselves and others strictly in terms of race alone. We need to think of ourselves as in terms of being individuals of which our race is but one attribute that helps us define our self as an individual of which we have no equal.

The Constitution says it best when it declares that we are a nation made up of people not a nation made up of many classes of people. It is time we begin to live up to that principle. And it is time that we demand that our government rule by that principle.

Racism, What I Have Learned (Part 2)

I’ll have to admit the more I get into the discussion of Racism the more interesting it becomes. I am beginning to come to some conclusions on the issue that I never thought I could have. I am reluctant to express those conclusions until I feel that those conclusions are the only conclusions that can be declared as valid in my mind.

If we are to end racism in this nation we first must agree that it will only be accomplished when we have eliminated the word “racist” from our personal vocabulary of use. Now, remember, I said vocabulary not the dictionary. This will only be accomplished when a person is willing to attribute any feelings of harm to something else other than race. The question becomes of how to accomplish this.

The first thing we must realize is the fact that racism is a group concept not a concept of individualism. While a person may act in some manner that can be implied as a racist act, We must further presume that the person would have acted in the same manner or a similar manner against any other member of that group under the same circumstances.  We must also recognize the fact that in order to call it a racist act we must presume that the person would not have acted in the same manner if the person who was harmed was a person of the same group he identifies with. 

There are problems with the above idea. The use of presumptions as an argument to come to a conclusion is considered as a fallacy of logic. Presumptions are often determined to be false also. We saw this in the Sherrod incident.  In other words, the presumption, itself, must be proven true in order to justifiably call the act as an act of racism.  What we do see in the above idea is the fact that two different beliefs must be governing the actions of the accused person

Furthermore, it goes against the whole concept of the meaning of justice as we declare we practice or believe in this nation. It is presuming that a person is guilty of racism and it is the responsibility of the accused to prove himself innocent of the accusation of racism. And this is an impossibility if for no other reason other than the idea of the credibility of the person which the accuser is not willing to trust. And as we saw in the Sherrod incident the credibility and reputation of a person can be instantly effected based solely upon the accusation.

This kind of thinking will not help bring an end to racism. It will only be fuel to declare that the problem still exist and perpetuate the idea that we still live in a racist society. And as we already know, the perpetuating of the existence of racism benefits no group who honestly wants a solution to the problem. It only benefits those who would use it for personal or political gain.

Another problem that comes to mind is how do we measure racism? For if there is no valid basis for the measurement of it how can we come to the conclusion that racism still exists or is no longer a valid basis for someone to use as a reason for someone else’s actions or words on an objective basis? The very fact that the idea of racism has evolved from one idea to another is proof that there is no effective means to measure it in reality.

If we are to bring an end to racism these are questions that need answers to. If there are no answers to these questions are we doomed as human beings?

Racism, What I Have Learned ( Part 1 )

I’ve participated in a very interesting discussion with a very good friend on the issue of racism. And I’ll admit that I have come out of that discussion with a whole new perspective of the issue. One reason the issue of racism was brought up has to do with the Sherrod incident.

One thing I have learned is that the idea of what constitutes racism has changed over the generations. With this change of generational attitude of racism we would have to say that the definition or the meaning of the word has changed also. This left me in a quandary of thought.

If the purpose of any discussion on the idea of racism is to find a solution then how can a solution to the issue ever be found if the ideas of it is keeps changing. For once we change our idea of what racism is then we only perpetuate the problem instead of solving it. And if there is a need to change its definition in order to perpetuate it then the issue of racism no longer exist under the prior definition.

When asked for a definition of racism I got this answer from my friend.

“ A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”

Now, if we look at that definition closely I’d think that we all could agree on the fact that this belief no longer exist in this nation. And if it does then the number of person’s with that belief are so few as to consider it an insignificant number just as we do in the case of those that still believe that the Earth is flat. If that be the case then it can be said that racism no longer exist in this nation based on that definition of racism.

Unfortunately the perception of racism still exists in the minds of many persons. The question must be Why, if the belief can be declared as no longer in existence in this nation? The only answer that can be found is that people are seeking some personal gain at the expense of others from it and perpetuating the myth by falsely accusing others of racism. The problem with this is that just denial of it is not enough for those who choose to believe the unjust accusation and since we are speaking of beliefs and attitude there is no way to prove any denial of it.

Another argument put forth is the fact that it can be known and proven through a person’s actions or responses. And I’ll admit that many see it from that point of view and is one of the reasons for the Sherrod incident. But as found out later it was a poor basis of judgment of her character and attitude in this particular situation. And it can be explained so as to show why it is a poor basis for judgment.

Our every action or response is nothing but the exposure of a inner decision ( a thought of action to be taken). And every decision we make is governed by a belief that we consider as a truth. .The problem lies in the fact that a particular response or action may be governed by more than a single belief. Our recognition of implications proves this. Our actions or response may imply a racist attitude and belief. We also know that any implication we may derive from a response or action can be incorrect and when that happens we know we were jumping to a false conclusion.

This brings us to the idea of intent. What was the belief that the person intended to reveal by his action or response? And as we saw we could find out the intent by listening to the whole speech of Ms Sherrod instead of just accepting just a snippet of it to come to a conclusion of what she believed.

If we are to end racism in this nation the first thing we need to do is bring false accusations of it to an end. That is the only way to measure racism without relying on implications of it. Next we must determine intent rather than relying on the feelings of others to ascertain the beliefs of people. This requires an open mind. It is only when we look at the actions and responses of others with an open mind that we will not fall prey to those who would perpetuate racism for their personal gain.