I suppose its hard to avoid these peculiar facts. http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/7856-8-numbers-obamas-administration-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
It appears there are some regressive tendencies in the Obama economy. First of which, and it should be on every politicians agenda, the student loan debt. There is no doubt that federal student loan debt has gone up under Obama. The underlying fact then remains, either school tuition is going up under this economy or family income is decreasing. For some its both!
Let's face it though, Romney's "business side of things" is exactly what the Obama administration is hammering out in its attack ads. He drove the state of Massachusetts in debt and implemented a failure of a socialized medicine system Looks like our situation is not gonna find an inoculating cure.
Momentarily, on student loans. This is the next bubble to burst. If the amount of student loan debt keeps going up while employment is impossible for these students, the debt is going to lay on the tax payers which will dig a recession of sorts. Yes, another recession. Who will pay back the debt! Well the cronies in Washington will just keep printing paper to ensure that they can pay it, "Loan Forgiveness". Let's be honest, a Loan has an objective moral value buried in it. A loan you can pay back. Its a duty of a person to pay back a loan. Loan Forgiveness is just a political tool, an oxymoron for the students, to gain power.
So, since its becoming impossible for many to pay back their loans, let's just wait for the bubble to burst.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Political/Moral Argument for God's Existence
A huge amount of my contemplation, research, and analysis of current events is being devoted to what I call the Political Argument for God's Existence. This, of course, sounds a bit obscure or perhaps silly. Rest assure, I believe there is a quite a MORAL argument to be made for God's existence through the eyes of a political thinker. Let me try to illustrate briefly the tenants of this argument, as it I believe it supports or supplements all current moral arguments for God's existence.
Premise (1): Political Philosophy is and has been synonymous with Moral Philosophy
Premise (2): All people understand totalitarian regimes to be an immoral form of government
Premise (3): Totalitarianism being seen as immoral is an objective ethical claim
Conclusion: Therefore, a higher being or government of sorts exists to create this ethical claim and to observe above all human institutions.
So far this is what I am developing. Some of this may dive into Montesquieu's balance of power theory (as also developed by St. Thomas Aquinas). What else could balance the forces? How can we observe a non-corrupt form of government if one does not objectively exist within the mind of an intelligent being. If there were no intelligent being to prescribe moral actions as moral, then any form of government is permissible.
I know first off that naturalists will attempt to illustrate how a free, democratic-republican government allows for the prolong existence of our species; or in other words, a specific form of government helps the human species to better itself.
Yet, this does not appear to be a satisfying answer. An objective value still exists. As Dr. David Bagget of Liberty University describes in his book Good God, evolutionary biologists and other atheists still have to acknowledge a sort of imbedded moral prescription that does not come from nature itself. If the principle itself did arise from nature, or from human beings coming to know through nature, it is still not a duty placed on human beings. But wait a second, these are duties the all accept. And that is also an enormous attribute of my argument. Governments constructing themselves to establish a sustaining society MUST not do so in a totalitarian way. For totalitarian governments are not GOOD for people. These are moral claims that people cling to and purport in their political philosophies. If they were not of an objective orientation then they would not be duties at all, but rather forms of government we choose to accept or don't. However, this is not the case, which leaves me asking where did this proper form of government come from. More on this matter in the coming months.
Premise (1): Political Philosophy is and has been synonymous with Moral Philosophy
Premise (2): All people understand totalitarian regimes to be an immoral form of government
Premise (3): Totalitarianism being seen as immoral is an objective ethical claim
Conclusion: Therefore, a higher being or government of sorts exists to create this ethical claim and to observe above all human institutions.
So far this is what I am developing. Some of this may dive into Montesquieu's balance of power theory (as also developed by St. Thomas Aquinas). What else could balance the forces? How can we observe a non-corrupt form of government if one does not objectively exist within the mind of an intelligent being. If there were no intelligent being to prescribe moral actions as moral, then any form of government is permissible.
I know first off that naturalists will attempt to illustrate how a free, democratic-republican government allows for the prolong existence of our species; or in other words, a specific form of government helps the human species to better itself.
Yet, this does not appear to be a satisfying answer. An objective value still exists. As Dr. David Bagget of Liberty University describes in his book Good God, evolutionary biologists and other atheists still have to acknowledge a sort of imbedded moral prescription that does not come from nature itself. If the principle itself did arise from nature, or from human beings coming to know through nature, it is still not a duty placed on human beings. But wait a second, these are duties the all accept. And that is also an enormous attribute of my argument. Governments constructing themselves to establish a sustaining society MUST not do so in a totalitarian way. For totalitarian governments are not GOOD for people. These are moral claims that people cling to and purport in their political philosophies. If they were not of an objective orientation then they would not be duties at all, but rather forms of government we choose to accept or don't. However, this is not the case, which leaves me asking where did this proper form of government come from. More on this matter in the coming months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)