Where does free speech end in a free society? A free society has to have laws to be free. A society where people can say literally anything is anarchy. Rule of law is vital not just for protecting property, but for protecting the people that own that property. That includes having laws against defamation or libel. So when someone prints or speaks malicious lies about someone, they are held accountable to the law. It also is what prevents someone from yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre. Such speech constitutes fraud, malicious intent, and putting people and their property in danger. The line is drawn at harm or coercion. When someone’s life, property, or liberty is threatened then that crosses a line in a free society.

With this line in mind, where does something like Wikileaks fit in? For months now, this lone website has sparked an international debate with many geopolitical implications. Billed as a whistle-blower site, Wikileaks posts confidential or classified information from governments and diplomatic cables. The posts for the most part aren’t outright lies. They’re mostly documents that governments and authorities would rather not be made public.

Some of the leaked documents don’t reveal anything that isn’t widely suspected. It is general knowledge that the Saudi Arabian government finances terror organizations like Al-Quida. It’s also not too startling that US diplomats don’t see Vladamir Putin in a very favorable light. Others are more in depth and do place many governments in a very embarrassing light.

For this reason, Wikileaks is associated with the man who cries “FIRE!” in a theater. The information revealed is said to put diplomatic and military operations in jeopardy. That’s why governments all over the world have fought to shut the site down, cutting off it’s access as well as it’s source of funding through venues like Pay-Pal. But does Wikileaks fit into that category?

It’s somewhat telling that the founder of website, Julian Assange, could only be arrested through unrelated charges. He does not stand accused of espionage, treason, or spying. His only charge at the moment is sexual assault. Serious a crime that may be, it shows the uncertainty and outright callousness of these governments when they have to use unrelated charges to stop someone that makes their operations difficult. It’s not unlike how the American government dealt with Al Capone. It was widely known he dealt in illegal liquor and murdered many in cold blood. But he wasn’t sent to jail for any of these crimes. He was jailed for tax evasion.

A more profound question might be why do governments like the United States have to keep secrets of this nature? Why does a supposedly free society put itself in position for revelations like these to be so damaging? Moreover, is it a good or bad thing when the adverse and utterly human incompetence of government is exposed?

Transparency is an important part of a free society. History has shown that secretive governments do not foster freedom. The governments of the Soviet Union and even modern North Korea did not use their secrecy to promote the freedom and well-being of the people. When transparency expands, these secretive and tyrannical governments cannot function. No government is perfect and transparency helps expose those imperfections. Wikileaks may not be an ideal tool for government transparency, but it’s the secretive and sometimes dishonest nature of government that makes it necessary.

Going back to the subject of free speech, is a site like Wikileaks protected? There is no clear answer because there may very well be information on the site that puts diplomats, agents, and other government personnel in serious danger. It may also make developing peaceful relations with certain countries more difficult. Yet in remembering these very legitimate dangers, it’s important to take several steps back and acknowledge the how and why these matters are in place to begin with. If countries didn’t spy on each other, keep secrets, or attempt to constantly deceive the public then sites like Wikileaks wouldn’t be necessary.

The damage done by Wikileaks is still settling. It won’t be until the dust settles that history can judge whether the revelations offered were for good or for ill. However, it has still taught a valuable lesson for freedom. When secrets and deception trump honesty and transparency, a free society cannot function.

It’s usually the case that when I write a response to an article on Townhall, it’s to counter a particularly dishonest position. There have been many occasions where I’ve read arguments that compel me to address them. It’s not often that I simply reference an article because I truly agree with it. On this occasion, I’ve found something that is truly deserving.

Most of the time when someone on Townhall discusses the topic of homosexuality it’s in a very caustic and negative manner. There are far more people on this site that condemn homosexuality than accept it. Steve Chapman is one of the few. In his latest article, he doesn’t lay out any long or elaborate arguments about the nature of homosexuality or the sensitive politics surrounding it. Instead, he tells a more personal story that details a shift from believing homosexuality was wrong to seeing homosexuals as people worthy of respect.

“I used to be a homophobe. I didn't dislike gays a little; I disliked them a lot. Growing up in Texas, I didn't know anyone who admitted to being gay, and I found the whole idea sick and repulsive.

On top of that, I was politically, religiously and socially conservative. So if you'd told me 40 years ago that in 2010, I'd be in favor of letting gays serve in the military and get married, I'd have thought you were on some bad acid.

But one day of my junior year in college, I came back from class to find a note on my desk. It was from my roommate, a friend since my freshman year, informing me that he was gay.

I was stunned and confused. It had never once crossed my mind that he wasn't a fellow heterosexual, and I didn't know what to do. Having a friend who was gay was disturbing enough, but a roommate?

I discussed it with him. I discussed it with my pastor. I lay awake nights. I gave it a lot of thought. If I decided not to move out, would I be able to deal with being in close proximity with a homosexual? If I broke off the friendship, would I be doing him an injustice? I faced a dilemma, and I hated it.

In the end, I was forced to conclude, not without apprehension, that the revelation didn't change anything. We were good friends before, and we would stay good friends. And 35 years later, we still are.”

Up From Homophobia

Mr. Chapman’s sentiment demonstrates a profound aspect to the debate over homosexuality. It relates to the age-old notion that those who don’t understand something are more inclined to fear it. Homosexuals make up only a small part of the population. By most estimates only about three percent of the population is homosexual. Even though that three percent shows up in pretty much every culture and every society regardless of how that society views homosexuals, it is not unusual for people to live their lives without ever knowing one.

This makes homosexuality different from race in a major way. Race is not easy to conceal. Someone of a difference race will stand out in a society more than a homosexual. It is difficult to tell just by looking at someone whether or not they’re attracted to the same gender. Unless someone reveals that as was the case in Chapman’s article, this revelation may never come to light. In societies where sexuality of all kinds is taboo and there are social pressures reinforcing certain stigmas, that’s understandably common.

Chapman demonstrated something important. He demonstrated the perspective he gained when he came to know someone who was homosexual on a personal level. In this case it was his college roommate. When perspective is added to a view it becomes more difficult to hold dogmatic sentiment towards it. This is because that issue now has a human face and since most people have a sense of empathy, attacking it in the same way becomes more disconcerting.

In a society that is open where meeting new people is accessible there are opportunities to foster such understanding. In the modern age we have a globalized society. Social networking, the internet, and global media have made it possible to get to know people across cultural, geographic, and religious barriers. This is a relatively new phenomenon. Throughout human history, most societies were fairly closed. It wasn’t by choice. It simply wasn’t possible to communicate. People only knew what they obtained from their surroundings so if those surroundings included an anti-gay sentiment, there was little resources with which to question it. Now most people have information literally at their fingertips with smart phones and computers. So when a priest or politician makes irrational claims about homosexuals, the average person can check their facts if they’re so inclined to do so.

The problem is that some people aren’t inclined. Some don’t experience what Mr. Chapman experienced. They don’t get to know a homosexual on a personal level so they don’t have any motivation to understand them. The only exposure to homosexuals they get are from the most vocal segment of the crowd, who tend to respond in such a ways because the people attacking them are just as vocal. It’s a self-reinforcing cycle that’s difficult to break.

All the logic and reason surrounding the arguments regarding homosexuality won’t make a difference if people keep clinging to their dogma. A personal experience that furthers understanding is one way to loosen the grip of that dogma. Steve Chapman was able to do this. If more were able to follow then there would be far less fear regarding homosexuality and much greater understanding.

Death is one of the few constants all human beings share. Regardless of race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, or socio-economic status everybody faces the same fate eventually. The means may not always be similar, but the end result is the same. People die. Given this universal and inescapable end, it’s only natural for people to fear it. Everyone has to confront their own mortality at some point so it’s only natural for perfectly rational people to imagine some way to make it more acceptable. That’s where religion comes in.

Nearly every major religion in the world deals with it in some way. Believers are promised that if they adhere to their doctrine, their death will not be the end. The sense of self and persona (or soul as many call it) that is at the heart of human consciousness will endure, sometimes to a higher plane of existence or sometimes to some paradise realm where all the toils of the mortal world are left behind. It’s very enticing. For those who genuinely fear death, it’s comforting. It also provides a very strong motivation to adhere to the religious doctrines that promise this fate and this is the flaw.

First and foremost, no religion is correct on any assertions regarding life after death. They all can’t be right, but they all can be wrong and they are. It’s perfectly reasonable to say they are because nobody has ever died completely (death being the complete destruction of the human brain) and come back to describe in detail what’s on the other side. No one knows and nobody really can know. The danger is that religion for some reason is given the benefit of the doubt and this is exploited in many horrendous and inhumane ways.

Take for instance the Judeo-Christian tradition. While Judaism does not detail a heaven or hell, it does describe the believer as transcending their physical body after death. Christianity takes it a step further, saying that the soul actually rises to go to heaven or falls into the pit of hell to be punished eternally for mere finite transgressions. The entire basis for sin and redemption of those sins revolves around the promise of heaven and the fear of hell. Since everybody dies at one point, it is something everyone can relate to. One of the reasons Christianity became so popular and prosperous was because it promised this heaven for everybody. Even if that promise is completely empty, those fearful of death are willing to give it a chance out of sheer hope that death isn’t the end.

Even if believers are completely sincere, all the hope and promise in the world doesn’t change what actually happens when people die. Yet religions like Christianity exploit this unknowable concept to entice people into their ranks. Since the fear of death is so powerful, it easy to get believers to not think about what the doctrine is teaching. So when Christian leaders claiming to have the attention of their deity say that people should stone homosexuals, burn witches at the stake, invade and massacre nearby countries, or oppress non-believers they won’t question it. To do so may be against doctrine and if they break that, their death will be full of eternal torment.

It’s a sick and unjust cycle. It provides a basis for perfectly rational human beings to do something they know to be wrong yet they do it anyway out of fear and ignorance. There’s a word for those who do things they know to be wrong without remorse. It’s being a sociopath. Sociopaths are defined by their ability to do things they know are wrong and not feel any guilt about it. Religions like Christianity allow people to become sociopaths and nobody dares to question it because it may mean they won’t get their shot at eternal life.

Christianity isn’t alone either. Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are just as guilty. Even though the concepts of death differ greatly between these faiths, the flaw is the same. There is promise of something greater after death and that gets people to do things that are understandably wrong and allows them to do it without guilt.

Now this is not to imply that all religious people are sociopaths. Most religious rituals are harmless acts of solidarity and community. They neither do harm nor good. There’s little question that religious people do wonderful things. Religious organizations have been active in providing charity to those most in need. However, the underlying potential is there and history shows that when intuitions are granted excessive power it leads to serious abuse. This is how groups like the Taliban, the mullahs of Iran, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Westboro Baptist Church inflict untold suffering on humanity and get away with it.

This poses an important question. There is little doubt that most people who are religious are sincere and decent. So what would happen if these religious people were suddenly told by their priests and mullahs that there is no life after death? That there is no heaven or hell? When people die, they just die and that’s it. What happens to serial killers is the same thing that happens to that nice old lady down the street. Would these people still be good? Does the promise of heaven really factor that heavily into their morality?

It may be the case that most would still be good. For those who think twice about all the charity and good will they’ve been giving, it poses another question. If people adhere to these doctrines and principles purely for the promise of heaven, is that really good? Is that really moral? If religion is about making moral people, then why should it have to rely on the promise of heaven to motivate people? It’s tantamount to a scare tactic. It works the same way the mafia works, threatening physical harm in exchange for money or service. What does it say about the actual substance of religion when this is what they must resort to?

People are still good even if they don’t take religion seriously. That says a lot about the human condition. It also says that religion may not be as necessary for morality as everybody claims. It won’t change the fact that sooner or later, everybody dies. However, it will make life all the more precious because if everyone only has one life to live that’s all the more reason to make it count.

Every so often an article on Townhall is so incendiary I feel compelled to address it. This past week Bill Murchison had the gall to call atheism a joke in an article that basically rants about some recent comments by Stephen Hawkings. As a non-believer who has absolutely no respect for religion, this struck me personally. I’ve been attacked before for not believing in Bronze Age mythology. I don’t doubt I’ll be attacked again. But Murchison’s attack was more a joke than anything he wrote in his article.

Bill Murchison: Atheism What A Joke

His beef started when Stephen Hawkings said in his new book ironically titled “The Grand Design” that there was no need for a creator. The universe can create itself with what we now know about physics and science. It’s not an unreasonable position. Science has made a lot of progress since the Bronze Age when people assumed everything was poofed into being by magic. The current inflation model that Stephen Hawkings himself has contributed a great deal to along with new theories like multiverse theory, string theory, and M-theory offer compelling reasons for which the universe can exist without a creator providing the initial spark. Unlike the supernatural sky gods of the ancients, these theories are backed up with mathematics and equations and tests in particle accelerators.

Murchison takes this as an attack on religion, namely Christianity. Never mind the fact that Hawkings never explicitly mentions a religion. It seems any knock on Bronze Age mythology is an affront to Christianity in the imaginary world Murchison resides. He goes on the offensive the way many arrogant creationists so often do. He asks the question “Was Hawking there with his camera?” Of course not, Hawkings never claimed that. But again, neither was Murchison. Unlike Murchison, Hawkings has studied this his whole life and he has equations, reason, and the scientific process backing him up. That beats out Bronze Age mythology and assuming magic by default.

Murchison continued to show a complete ignorance of science. It’s doubtful he’s ever read a science text book that wasn’t penned by the Christian Right. He asks “The vast variety of life -- that was spontaneous, too? The human organism -- the brain, the eye, the ear, the digestive tract -- just sort of, you know, happened? The sky, the seas, the seasons, not to mention human reproduction -- those things, too?”

No, that didn’t just happen. That’s a product of evolution and abiogenesis, two other theories that Hawkings has no specialty in. He’s a physicist, not a biologist. It’s doubtful Murchison knows the difference. Also, evolution and abiogenesis have a great deal of evidence to back them up. They don’t evoke magic. They don’t rely on Bronze Age mythology. They offer reasonable and testable measures as to how life began. There was nothing spontaneous about it either. It was a process. Any sixth grader who took biology would know that. Apparently, Murchison slept through that class.

Not stopping at showing a pitiful knowledge of science, he goes onto say “There is a poignancy to the atheist fixation on showing up God. What's wrong with these people?” There’s nothing wrong with atheists and they’re not trying to show up any god. They’re simply explaining away the mystique that was once reserved for god before men knew what made the universe tick. It’s called knowledge. It allows us to have better and more useful explanations besides “a supernatural deity did it with magic.” The problem non-believers like myself have is that god is routinely lauded as being a moral thing to believe in despite the fact there’s no evidence for it. Atheists don’t have a problem with belief. It’s when those believers think they’re somehow more enlightened than non-believers for assuming Bronze Age mythology is true.

Murchison plays the sarcasm card as well, using appeal to ridicule rather than actually addressing the substance of Hawkings assertion. He rants “Such as instruct the whole of human history to get off this God thing and start believing in spontaneous creation.” There’s a major shortcoming here among the many he already made. Hawkings isn’t preaching a religion or yelling at people to believe this under the threat of eternal punishment. He’s presenting this as an argument and offering evidence with which to back it up. He’s not evoking magic. He’s not evoking divine revelation. He’s making a claim and supporting it. That’s more than any religion has ever done in the history of mankind.

As if Murchison’s ridicule somehow demeans Hawkings, his attitude only shows how limited he is in measuring up against a man like Stephen Hawkings. This man who doesn’t seem to even understand grade-level science thinks he can lecture a man who has dedicated decades of his life (despite a crippling disease) to researching and advancing the knowledge of mankind. It would be the equivalent of a five-year-old pee-wee football playing trying to beat Peyton Manning in a football game. If sarcasm and ridicule is all a man has, then he hasn’t got anything of substance to begin with.

Bill Murchison undoubtedly fears the assertions of men like Hawkings as do many still stuck in the mindset of Bronze Age mythology. As science and reason progresses, the domain of the supernatural wanes. Mankind now understands what the sky is, what the stars are, and how they work. Mankind understand it’s own biology, where it came from, and what systems go into it. Things like shooting stars, solar eclipses, and volcanoes are no longer seen as manifestations of a god. They are understood to be natural forces from a natural world. Now it’s getting to a point where even the very basic of questions like how did it all began and why are we here are getting addressed. And once again, we need no magic to explain it.

There was once a time when sickness was believed to be the result of demons and evil spirits. The Judeo-Christian philosophy that men like Murchison ascribe to supported this. It’s even in the bible. The treatment for these aliments was prayer and exorcism. This didn’t work too well because he life expectancy of most humans throughout the ages was barely beyond 40. Then science came along and revealed the true cause of disease. It helped double life-expectancy, saved millions if not billions of life, and evoked no magic to do it.

All the prayers and faith of billions of people throughout the ages was no match for simple godless reason. That more than anything shows just how limited and feeble religion is as a concept. It deserves no respect and men like Bill Murchison deserve no credibility in these matters. Stephen Hawkings has contributed a great deal to science and the advancement of mankind. His work will live on long after he is gone.  The article that Bill Murchison wrote will have no effect on the well-being of mankind. No matter how much men like him despise Hawkings, they are stuck with the inevitability that Bronze Age dogma will never measure up to true knowledge.

Religion has often connected people and people often connect with their religion. As an institution and a social force, it’s difficult to discern religious tenants form the identity of those that believe them. So when those of conflicting religions or no religion at all question the believers, the questioning is easily interpreted as a personal attack. Thus begins the mind-numbing frustration often involved with resolving religious disputes.

This past week the Pope visited England and incited a healthy dose of outrage when he compared atheists to Nazis. This is a somewhat ironic comparison because it’s fairly well documented that Hitler was a Catholic himself (albeit not a very devoted one) and the Vatican did not even bother to condemn the holocaust while it was going on. Yet it has got people riled up.

USA Today: Pope's Visit Draws Protest in England

Protests and famous atheists like Richard Dawkins are going on the offensive, protesting the Pope’s visit and treating him like a war criminal. They point to the Vatican’s many dark misdeeds and some are legitimate. The Vatican still has the shadows of sex abuse scandals looming over him. There is also the horrendous damage done that has been done to Africa due to the AIDS pandemic that the Vatican has only made worse with their policy on condoms. However, as legitimate as those concerns may be, the attacks on the Pope and the Catholic Church are making a crucial mistake. They’re not separating the people from the religion.

Richard Dawkins Speaks Out Against Pope

As entwined certain beliefs may be with an identity, it’s easy for non-believers to look down on believers when they think their beliefs are so foolish. The way in which these beliefs are attacked is very confrontational. Men like Dawkins don’t always make the effort to respect the person while confronting the religion. So it shouldn’t came as a surprise to anyone that the believers, be they Christian or otherwise, get very defensive. It’s a confrontation that spurs more confrontation and resolves nothing.

At the heart of every religious debate are the people behind it. It’s easy to forget that regardless of what a person may or may not believe, that does not by make them a bad person. Just as a non-believer can be good despite not having a religion, a believer can be just as good despite having irrational beliefs that are demonstrably false. It’s the beliefs that deserve the attack, not the people.

There are and always will be cases where religion will turn a normal person into a true monster. Islamic terrorists, the Westboro Baptist Church, and the Branch Davidians are all cases where religion was used to make otherwise good people into the irrational bullies that cause other people serious harm. However, they are the minority. Most people who ascribe to a religion are good because most people in general are good. It’s not often that it’s purely because of religion. It’s more often that it’s in spite of religion.

This is because for most people, religion is something imposed on them by a society. Children born in Muslim countries have their religion imposed on them. The same is true to a lesser extent for Christians. People are brought up in their faith and conditioned not to question it because religion by it’s very nature abhors questioning and doubt. It preys on the natural tendency of people seek answers for the unknown, even when in some cases it’s completely unknowable. It also preys upon people’s inclinations to trust what their parents and authority figures tell them from a young age. Yet in spite of all this, people are still good.

This speaks volumes to the capacity of human beings to be moral. That is why the human beings themselves deserve to be respected. By attacking men like the Pope personally or men like Jerry Farwell, Reverend Wright, or the Imams seeking to build a Mosque near Ground Zero there is little resolution that can emerge. People tend not to compromise when they’re attacked. People tend not to understand or even try to understand opposing viewpoints. That’s the greatest danger of attacking just the person because it limits the ability for both sides to understand. Without understanding, there can only be more fear and hatred.

Religion does not deserve respect. Only people deserve respect. Religion deserves to be treated the same way a dangerous weapon is to be treated. Nobody should whip it out and wave it around in public, nor should they shove it down a child’s throat and use it to keep them in line. Religion as a concept deserves more condemnation than admiration, which is why it’s important to separate the people from the dogma. The people are good. The religion is not and can often be an affront to that goodness.

So for non-believers and believers of differing faiths, true discourse requires an important rule of thumb. Respect the person, not the religion.

The world is a complicated place. Society, religion, morality, and economics are all so complicated there are entire courses in major universities dedicated to studying them. They're complicated because people are complicated and all these subjects are driven by people. Throughout history it's been a trend that as societies get more complicated then the forces governing them must become more complicated as well. Great empires like Rome, India, China, and England rose and fell with their ability or inability to adapt and govern. It makes intuitive sense. The more society grows the more the governing forces should grow. Intuitive it may be, there is an unseen cost that often gets lost in the discussion.

While there are many governing forces in society, there are four primary means through which all forces stem from. They include government, religion, economics, and culture. These four areas do a great deal to shape the lives of the individuals of a society. A deeply religious person in a very regulated society with a controlled economy and strict culture will carry out their lives very differently than one in a secular, more liberal society with a free economy and looser cultural norms. Many of these attributes are imposed from the top down by authorities. Many such as religion and culture stem through tradition while those such as government and economy stem through public policy. Whatever the source the one thing they often share in common is the way in which they become complicated as societies grow.

The emergence of the free society in many ways was a counter-intuitive manifestation. It goes against that concept that there needs to be regulation to protect people from other people or groups of people or possible groups of people. The idea that freedom should trump order is a very difficult concept in a philosophic sense. It assumes that people are good enough from the bottom up to establish order on their own accord. That’s a lofty assumption, but one that has manifested in major ways.

In many ways the American Republic is the best manifestation of this assumption. In the early days of the American Republic the Founding Fathers had largely a blank slate to work with. They could have created an oligarchy or even a second royal crown. It would have made a lot more sense for the rich, landowning men that made up the founding fathers. In many ways they weren’t acting completely in a noble manner. They sought to protect their wealth and power like any other, but unlike the kings and oligarchs of the past they were willing to take a chance on new ideas of reason and liberty. They came to realize that trying to impose order would lead to the same problems they rebelled against. That’s why they settled on a constitutional republic, one that took what was only touched on briefly in Ancient Rome and incorporated the philosophy of freedom and liberty.

It wasn’t perfect by far. That freedom and liberty did not extend to Africans or Native Americans. It also did not extend to non-Christians. At the very least, it established the idea that a simple set of rules that defined freedom by law and the limits the government could impose. The whole constitution is less than 8,000 words long and it’s simplicity helped build America and made it prosper.

Along with this idea of a simple government came the idea of a simple economy. There was no need for a royal seal of approval on land and goods. They could be exchanged freely provided fraud or theft wasn’t involved. While never defined explicitly in the constitution, this was the practice of the time. In retrospect, that was probably a mistake on the founders part to assume that the economy would always be free.

In terms of religion, the principles of the establishment clause and the omission of a state religion simplified the debates that had sent Europe into countless wars. Instead of toiling over countless theological debates over what religion would best suit the state, America took a position of complete neutrality (at least in principle). Even though most of the country and most of the founding fathers were Christian, they did not explicitly state that Christianity held any special prestige. This was sometimes ignored in practical terms with religion often guiding public and legal precedent, but it still established the concept and has allowed for a limit on what religion can do in a society.

The last issue of culture is the most difficult because culture cannot easily be dictated. Culture is a complex means in which certain groups of people find meaning in the world around them. Culture can’t be legally imposed. It can’t be bought and sold either. It comes from the people and this can cause problems. There have been cultures that are steeped in slavery and in the moral superiority of one group over the other for reasons that are completely arbitrary. Culture is among the most complex of the three governing forces because it’s so intangible. It follows the logic that since everyone has tone X then X must be right. There are any number of complicated justifications for X. The more there are, the more X propagates. The only way X can ever be overruled is if the people question and reason away the merits of X so that it no longer becomes acceptable.

For government, religion, economics, and culture there is always room for corruption and the best way to feed that corruption is through complications. For government, it’s passing new a bevy of new laws and regulations. They’re often well-intended, but they’re often stifling and completely unnecessary as well. Why does there need to be fifteen-thousand pages of laws dictating who can do what and how it must be done? Why do these laws have to be so endlessly complicated and difficult for anyone not versed in law to understand? These complications make it easier for government to become corrupt because if people don’t understand the law, they can’t fight it.

Religion does the same with it’s myths, legends, rituals, and sacrifices. The Christian bible is over 700,000 words of texts written in three different languages over a period of thousands of years by many different authors, most of them unknown. Ancient Hindu texts are even longer and even more esoteric. Some religions like Shinto don’t even have holy books and are guided by the complex whims of oral tradition. There are countless depictions and pet peeves of the holy ones. If someone doesn’t marry the right person, perform the proper sexual roles, eat the right food, or say the right prayers they will suffer eternally at the ends of an invisible divinity that can not be proven or expressed. Unlike government, fighting these traditions is often considered an egregious sin. The massive amount of complicated traditions and texts make it easy for the corrupt and the bigoted to find reasons to impose tyranny and hatred on others for reasons that are entirely arbitrary.

Economics is just as complicated, but often grows as an extension of government. When an economy is based on simple farming it’s easy to regulate on a small scale. There aren’t a lot of laws necessary except for fraud and theft. When the economy grows and the pool of wealth grows, the supposed need for regulation grows. That’s when states create endless seas of red tape for those looking to start a business and attain some of that wealth. Often greed becomes a factor. The larger private entities seek to stifle competition by either influencing those who make the regulations or trying to do the regulating themselves either through licensing or safety rules. With these complications comes more corruption and more greed, leading to exploitation and an overall parity of wealth for which those that have it make sure others don’t get it.

Since culture is so arbitrary, it naturally thrives on complications. It’s chief driving force is tradition. People often do what they are socially conditioned to do and taught to accept it even if it may be detrimental or in some cases devious. There can be cultures that foster good societies and cultures that foster bad societies. Prisons have their own culture and so does the mafia and religious extremists. They all require a complex set of reasons to justify these traditions. It goes back to the whole doing X because the society has always done X or at least used to when times were thought to be better. It makes it very difficult for positive cultural practices to thrive and negative practices to wane.

Following the logic of what is flawed and what is corrupt with religion, government, culture, and economics it stands to reason that the solutions should be built around simplicity. It’s a concept that is easy to entertain and difficult to implement. It makes intuitive sense while also sounding so daunting. But Henry David Thoreau put it best with three simple words:

Simplify…Simplify…Simplify

How can this work? For the sake of avoiding such complicated details, here are the steps for government.

1.    Protect the individual rights and property
2.    Instead of passing new laws, simply enforce simple laws that prohibit coercion, theft, fraud, and war
3.    Err on the side of freedom over order
4.    Limit the power and authority of the state

There’s no need for complicated bureaucracy. There’s no need for 900 page bills either. Simply protect individual rights and favor freedom over order.

This same logic works for the economy as well. In many ways it stems from the simplicity of government. The steps are similar.

1.    Protect producers and consumers from theft or fraud
2.    Hold accountable producers and consumers who lie and cheat
3.    Allow producers and costumers to produce and consume as they see fit
4.    Prohibit producers and consumers from using government force to their advantage or to the detriment of their competition

Again, the regulation is not needed. Allow freedom to trump order so that those that act accordingly thrive and those that don’t go out of business. It also indirectly implies that the government should have no business running the economy. That should be left up to producers and consumers with the producers not getting government to do their business for them.

Religion becomes a little trickier because most every major religion shares the same notion that there is some supernatural element to existence. This element is often tied to the morality and social norms of those who practice it. Since there’s no way to objectively verify if a religion is true or false, the only way for religion to become simplified is to render those complex books, legends, fables, and holy texts as secondary to the chief principle. This may be very difficult if not blasphemous for some, but it closes the window on corruption. The simple rules for religion can only cover every angle by rejecting the fundamentalist and literalist interpretations of a faith and limiting it to the individual believer.

1.    Nobody knows and can possibly know what supernatural forces exist or verify if the claims of any religion are accurate
2.    It is up to the believer to determine what to have faith in
3.    No faith is inherently superior to any other

Culture often extends from religion in that it often guides the morality and the sense of right and wrong for a people. In a ways the cultural element ties religion, government, and economics together because it’s so inextricably linked to the lives of every individual. With this in mind, culture is what needs to be simplified the most. It can best be summed up in two simple steps.

1.    Try not to hurt anybody
2.    Try to be nice to people

That’s it. That’s a practice in simplicity. In all things that cannot be labeled with a simple truth or false, the simplest explanation tends to be the most practical and moral. It often requires those immersed in the complications of culture, religion, government, and economics to re-think and question even that which they hold most dear. However, it is important to question and doubt all things including the very notion of questioning and doubting itself. No society in history thrived by obsessing over maintaining order at the expense of freedom. It’s a losing battle and one humanity continues to struggle against regardless of the many lessons learned. There are always going to be chances for a society to make itself better and it should start with one simple concept.

Simplicity equals freedom and it is only through freedom that humanity can thrive.

On December 10th, 1948, the recently created United Nations General Assembly adopted the universal declaration of human rights. This document, which has been translated into 375 languages and voted for by 48 countries outlined a framework for human rights and the defense of those rights. It set a standard for every nation and state to follow with respect to how individuals of all nationalities should be treated. It contains 30 articles and they all sound so good. They’re great talking points for any public figure who wants to be seen as a champion of what’s good and decent. Each article is listed below and it’s hard to disagree with many of them.

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11
1.    Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2.    No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13
1.    Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2.    Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country.
Article 14
1.    Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2.    This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15
1.    Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2.    No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16
1.    Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2.    Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3.    The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17
1.    Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2.    No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20
1.    Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2.    No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21
1.    Everyone has the right to take part in the government of their country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2.    Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in their country.
3.    The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organisation and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23
1.    Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2.    Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3.    Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4.    Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25
1.    Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2.    Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26
1.    Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2.    Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3.    Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27
1.    Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2.    Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realised.
Article 29
1.    Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2.    In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3.    These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

But like so many things in political matters, what sounds good on paper doesn’t always translate to real life. First of all, this declaration is unbinding. That means that it’s all for show. Pretty much any nation can break these articles and suffer no consequences whatsoever. And they do. Since the adoption of this declaration, countries like the USSR, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cambodia, China, Venezuela, Mexico, India, and much of Africa have gotten away with horrendous human rights abuses that include slavery, genocide, discrimination, and persecution. Since there are not courts or authorities to enforce these laws, there are no consequences. But it’s not just the unfriendly nations that get away with it. Even countries like America are guilty of breaking this seemingly universal declaration.

When this document was signed, widespread racial discrimination was still rampant throughout America. The coercive forces of religion and government had no problems getting around these issues. Among the countries that oppose this declaration are those in Islamic countries. Some of these tenants go against their religion, especially when it comes to issues regarding race and gender. Human rights mean nothing in the face of traditions no matter how draconian they may be. Even some non-Islamic countries like those in the former Soviet Union are highly critical and not all their criticisms are invalid.

Those such as Karl Marx stated with reasonable assertions that these rights in practiced were reserved only for those deemed part of “civil society.” For those who were outside this society, which he called the proletariat but in many respects it could apply to any oppressed minority, these rights did not apply. These rights were a tool of the privileged class to keep their state in society and protect themselves from the minorities. Decades of social progress has rendered some of Marx’s concerns invalid, but at the time his reasoning did have some merit.

Even earlier figures in history had a critical view of attempts to define human rights. One of those figures was Alexander Hamilton, who was very influential in the early days of the American Republic. He was one of the founding fathers who was against the idea of submitting a Bill of Rights. His reasoning wasn’t completely flawed. He stated that simply asserting that the government could not infringe upon a right implied that the government has the authority to grant that right to begin with. So it was an indirect means of granting the government power.

More recently a critique by Charles Blattberg in his essay “The Ironic Tragedy of Human Rights” that these rights are too abstract. They’re basically fancy words on paper that are good talking points, but not tangibly measurable in a societies that don’t have certain legal traditions. Others like Alasdair MacIntyre criticize the notion that the mere act of being human enabling rights was illogical for the same reason that being human enables us access to food even if noting was done to earn it.

It’s hard to argue against human rights, but the very principle is at the core of liberty. Human rights, however they are defined, reflect the concept of individual liberty. The problem is defining what that liberty entails. The UN Declaration is not a comprehensive list. It does not have a provision that reserves rights for people that are not explicitly stated such as the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution does. It also makes no mention of sexual orientation as a minority class. This is because in 1948 homosexuality was still considered a mental illness. That has changed and this document hasn’t been changed with it. This is because the prevailing forces of religion and tradition push back against such redefinitions. In many non-Western countries it is still illegal to be homosexual and in some of those countries it is a capital offense.

Another problem with this list is it makes a lot of what are known as positive rights. These are rights that are believed to be exerted by the states. The right to schooling and social security are among these rights. The problem with positive rights are that in order to grant them, the state is required to usurp another right in order to pay for them. The state needs to tax people in order to grant these rights, which involves taking the rightly earned property of other individuals.

Positive rights are also ambiguous as to limits on government. In the legal traditions of the USSR and China, the source of all rights come from the state. That means the state has the power to dispense those rights as it pleases with little regard as to limits on doing so. They can give a right and take one away on the whims of whoever is running the state. It presents all sorts of legal challenges because if the state is the source of rights then what protects the individuals from the rights the state usurps?

In the history of histories, human rights have emerged only when the forces of tradition, religion, and government are limited. Movements like the American Revolution, the Protestant Reformation, Secularism, the Civil Rights movement, the Abolitionist movement, and the Enlightenment were all key in that they fought to limit the authority of a higher state-like entity. The concept revolves around overly powerful entities trying to protect that power by infringing upon the life, liberty, and property of other individuals. So historically speaking, it’s the limits of power and authorities that maximize the freedoms of human beings.

To make a right more tangible, it needs to include something tangible. One of aspect of all liberal legal traditions is the importance of property defense. Property is one of the only rights that can be physically measured. Property extends to both life and liberty in the sense that someone owns their own body as property and they have the liberty to do with that property whatever they wish so long as it does not damage the property of another. So what rights can be drawn from these traditions?

As an experiment, I encourage people to come up with their own declaration of human rights. Here’s my tentative list:

1.    No state or institution, religious or secular, shall infringe upon or harm an individual’s person or justly acquired property.

2.    No state or institution, religious or secular, shall infringe upon or hinder the freedom and liberty of an individual to do with their property as they see fit provided that action does not directly or indirectly harm the property of another individual.

3.    No state or institution, religious or secular, shall deny any individual equal protection under the law from any infringement or harm against their person or justly acquired property.

4.    No state or institution, religious or secular, shall deny an individual the ability to acquire property provided the acquisition is done justly without theft or fraud.

5.    Any expression or conduct through an individual or their property that not specified in this declaration, provided such actions do cause direct or indirect harm to other individuals and their property, shall not be infringed upon or usurped by any state or institution, religious or secular.

Everybody loves a quick fix. It’s natural for people to lean towards the simplest and least time-consuming way to solve a problem. Politicians are in the business of making it sound as though they have the simple, easy solutions to social ills. They don’t. Anyone who claims they do can’t without an inkling of dishonesty even if they believe whole-heartedly that they’re right.

TV and radio talk show hosts do the same thing. Glenn Beck is one of them. He’s made a comfortable living pointing out problems with the government and proposing seemingly simple solutions that his followers gravitate towards. On August 28th he gave a speech in downtown Washington DC on the anniversary of the famous Martin Luther King Jr. “I have a dream” speech.

Fox News: Glenn Beck's Speech in Washington DC

In it he went over his classic talking points that included, but are not restricted to the following:

-    Liberals are damaging America
-    Politicians aren’t representing the people
-    The Founding Fathers would be ashamed
-    The country is heading for disaster
-    Barack Obama is a dangerous left-wing liberal
-    The real America is not being represented
-    The news is full of liberal bias and liberal agenda
-    The next generation of America is in for a rough time
-    Traditional values are eroding rapidly
-    Modern culture is perverse and corrupt

None of this is new. People have been droning on about this for decades going all the way back to the earliest days of the American republic. Every generation has lamented how the country is declining. Every generation ends up being wrong. However, that’s not the key point that Beck emphasizes. In it he emphasizes one point that he seems to imply is the answer to all of these ills. In order to fix these vastly complicated problems he obviously doesn’t understand (because nobody truly does) America must get back to god. He doesn’t go into specifics. He simply says god should be at the center of America and by god he’s not referring to all concepts of god. He’s referring to the Christian god that many of America’s founders worshiped.

Ignoring for a second how grossly offensive this is to Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Shinto, and atheists Beck essentially uses a tactic from the very people he claims to be so evil. He’s offering a quick fix. It sounds so nice on the surface. The masses cheered this as if it actually had any substance behind it. His audience acts as though this is the key that will make everything better. It’s simple. Nobody has to think about it. Nobody has to do any research on it. Nobody even has to take time out of their busy schedule to go out, get their hands dirty, and actually work to correct these problems.

It should be an insult to anyone’s intelligence. Just get back to god? That’s not a solution. That’s not even a viable position. It’s just one of those feel-good messages that sounds nice to those who believe it. Nothing changes when someone believes in god. The only thing that changes is a slight variation in the workings of the brain. Believing in god doesn’t make politicians less corrupt. It doesn’t stop people from cheating in business and politics. It doesn’t reduce the crime rate or make the American military run more efficiently. It doesn’t even make people smarter. If anything, it makes them ignorant and dumber because it gives the impression that belief somehow changes something when it clearly doesn’t.

The vast majority of Americans believe in a god. Throughout history the vast majority of Americans have held this belief and it hasn’t had much effect on the behavior of the country. America still got caught up in bloody wars. Americans still indulged in excess drugs, violence, and corruption. Politicians still acted with brazen dishonesty and incompetence. Even if they prayed every day for every little thing, it didn’t change the big picture. In fact, the big picture shows the opposite. Studies have shown that as the country has become less religious, crime and overall deviance has gone down. The citizens of America today are a lot less deviant than they were 50 years ago during the falsely sought after “Leave it to Beaver” era and even less deviant than they were 100 years ago before the age of this so-called corrupt modern culture.

A Study on Deviance and Trends

The last thing America needs is to turn back to some intangible concept like god. The notion of god being a solution to problems is akin to huddling in a cave to avoid all contact with the outside world. The Judeo-Christian god is certainly not the answer. This is a god that is very much opposed to the principles of America. It says a lot about how Christian the country is when only two of the Ten Commandments are actual crimes. The Judeo-Christian god that’s described in the bible espouses prejudice, bigotry, ignorance, and violence. Those are not the values of a free society. Those are the values of an authoritarian tyranny. That concept does not fall in line with America. Even the Christian founding fathers were smart enough to know that mixing god and politics was a bad idea.

The biggest tragedy is that rallies like Beck work in the sense that it gets people worked up. However, it doesn’t put them in a position to do anything useful. It won’t get anyone to block the doors of Congress so they can’t make any more useless laws. It won’t get people to petition for real reform like term limits, a balanced budget amendment, tax reform, auditing the Federal Reserve, limitations on the length of bills, tort reform, ending the drug war, ending the war on poverty, privatizing government services, and changing election procedures so that it doesn’t favor incumbents. All those reforms require a lot of work and public outpouring. Believing in god requires absolutely nothing. People can go back to their cozy lives feeling better about themselves without having done anything whatsoever.

People like Beck most likely believe in their heart of hearts that what they’re doing is right. However, it’s all too easy for them to fall into the trap of offering a quick fix. Because of Beck and people like him, they’re not bringing change to America. They’re fostering more complacency.

Centuries ago, the vast majority of people believed that the Earth was flat and was the center of the universe. For most of human history the vast majority believed that women were inferior to men whose sole function was to bear children and submit to her husband. A few hundred years ago a vast majority of people believed that African’s were an inferior race. Within the 20th century, a majority of people believed that black Americans did not deserve equal rights. It wasn’t until 1967 that laws banning interracial marriage were finally overturned in Loving vs. Virginia. At the time a majority of people still held firm that race mixing was immoral. If left to popular vote, these beliefs and norms would have never been overturned and the rights of minorities never would have been protected. Each of these instances are a classic example of a tyranny of the majority.

English philosopher, John Stuart Mill, wrote in his famous essay entitled “On Liberty” that a major threat to liberty is inherent in all democracies. He called this the tyranny of the majority. The nature of this flaw stems from the inescapable notion that within a representative democracy an aspiring politician need only gain the favor of the majority and with their support, they can pass any laws or impose any standard upon society that they deem fit.

“Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant - society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it - its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism. - On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.7.”

It is this kind of tyranny that allows men like Adolph Hitler to come to power. There is little stopping the majority at large from using their voting authority to usurp liberty and impose tyranny. The protection of rights is not equal. Only the majority has those rights and ironically the democratic system allows them to vote away those rights if the majority is swayed. It is another form of statism that grants special privileges to one group while oppressing another.

It is because of this capacity for tyranny that men like John Stuart Mill stressed government’s emphasizing individual liberties and not group liberties. The logic follows that a group is completely and utterly arbitrary. It’s not possible to touch a group in the same way it’s not possible to touch a forest. However, it is possible to touch an individual the same way it’s possible to touch a tree. It is individuals that make up groups just as individual trees make up forests. For liberty to thrive, the individual has to be the focus and not any group even if it is a 99.99 percent majority.

This concept is best illustrated in the recent debate over California’s recent overturning of Proposition 8, which was a law forged in democracy where the majority of a voting population stripped homosexuals a right that non-homosexuals have access to. In this case the majority of people imposed their will on a minority that like African Americans, Jews, and countless others before them was by definition tyrannical. The majority stood up and told homosexuals that they do not have a right to marry the person of their choosing. This act is a direct affront to liberty because it has one group imposing on another, thus overshadowing the liberty of the individual.

So when Proposition 8 was overturned by a California judge, which was an example of the true function of a republic. A republic, in stark contrast to a democracy, does not cater to the whims of the majority. A republic by definition is rule by law and in America, the primary laws of the constitution are meant to protect the rights of individuals. In this case the individual homosexuals were being denied a right that other individuals who weren’t homosexuals had. The 14th amendment of the Untied States was clear on this. No state can deprive an individual citizen of life, liberty, and property or equal protection under the law. The key word in this amendment is the word individual. The majority, no matter how much support they have, cannot act to usurp the rights of the individual.

This is why democratic principles inevitably fail in the long run. The public is subject to change in influence. A society may be very open to individual liberties and equal protection under the law, but over time that can change. This is especially true in times of economic hardship where people are often willing to vote away their liberties in exchange for government aid, never minding the unintended consequences that inevitably follow.

In a republic the law is fixed. The founding father’s set up the government so that democracy was only used to elect officials to enforce the law. This was seen as a way of holding the state accountable. If an official didn’t do a good job of upholding the law, they would not get re-elected. However, over time this notion has given way to politicians using their authority to pander to the voting majority. The limits of the constitution are simply an obstacle that is often circumvented, often without recourse. That is how America and other republics end up as bloated welfare states with corrupt and ineffective political bodies that are low on accountability on high on waste.

Even within the American republic, it is the democratic process which panders to majorities that makes abuses of individual rights possible. It is majority whims that allow the government to legislate tastes on issues like censorship, homosexuality, race relations, and religious issues. It is a tyranny like any other that the constitution is supposed to guard against. It is for that reason why founding fathers like James Madison and Ben Franklin looked at democracy with contempt and thought voting should be restricted. However, now that so many American’s have a voice they are subject to the whims of those who pander to the majority. Even if their intentions are good (and they often are), it is still an affront to the very concept of liberty.

Liberty knows no groups. It has no majorities. It makes no exceptions. Liberty for an individual that is part of the majority is the same as liberty for another individual who is part of a minority. The state in a free society is supposed to uphold that liberty. When democracy is allowed to run unhindered that liberty is at it’s most vulnerable.

In the course of human affairs, there is often a conflicting struggle between freedom and order. Both concepts are important for a stable and just society. Without order there is chaos and without freedom there is tyranny. Yet both are necessary and throughout human history these conflicting forces are constantly manifesting in different ways. Most societies favor order. A powerful state will impose such order from the top down, seeking to protect resources and ensure the continuation of the society by whatever means is deemed necessary. Time and again the inherent problem of what is necessary tends to weaken and strain the state. This is because it's virtually impossible for any top-down authority to fulfill all the needs of the society while constantly adjusting to an ever-changing set of circumstances. Every time a state fails, another authority takes it's place hoping to learn from the mistakes of the past and do things right. Unfortunately, the same tactics often lead to the same results. States and authorities keep trying though because it seems so logical. If there is to be order in a society, then surely it must come from the top-down, right?

This is where freedom enters the challenge. Freedom acts in stark contrast to the top-down order imposed by states and allows for bottom-up order. The way society governs itself comes from individuals making free decisions regarding their own self-interests and that of their freely chosen peers. The only role the state plays is protecting that freedom that includes freedom from harm, freedom from fraud, freedom of trade, freedom of contract, and freedom of conduct. It doesn't make inherent sense to limit the authority, but in the rare instances of history where freedom is utilized it has been shown to work.

The most notable instances of freedom come from the Greeks and Romans. The Greeks actually invented the word freedom and utilized the early forms of democracy that limited the power of state authorities and relied on the people to instill order. This had it's drawbacks as it democracy often led to mob rule and a tyranny of the majority. Then Rome took it a step further with the Roman Republic. It was under a fixed body of laws from which the Romans were free to produce and become prosperous. It was only when that freedom was undermined with excessive authority that it became a tyrannical empire that eventually fell.

Hundreds of years later America picked up the mantel. After the American Revolution, the founding fathers could have put in place any kind of government. It seemed intuitive for some sort of higher order, but through reason and discourse they settled on freedom. They settled on limited government to protect the rights of the people, leaving them free to associate and produce as they saw fit. In time it made America prosperous and one of the most powerful nations in history.

Even with America's success, the battle between freedom and order continues. As government grows, the ability for the state to impose from the top-down what it deems necessary grows as well. Those necessities are often full of good intentions, but as is the case throughout history they are wrought with unintended consequences that end up crushing freedom and expanding tyranny. Current debates over issues like welfare programs, abortion, national defense, gay marriage, gun rights, the drug war, censorship, and religion all have some element of the freedom vs. order struggle. Both sides of any debate have valid points, but if society is truly to be free then the side of freedom should always take favor.

Take gay marriage, an issue that has been thrust into the spotlight after the California Supreme Court ruled that the ban on gay marriage from Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. It has many here on Townhall lamenting over the potential damage to society that this could bring, even if they're rarely clear on specifics. But setting aside the damage aspect for a moment, where does freedom and order fit in? The side of order deems that marriages have to remain a certain way (namely between a man and a woman) for the benefit of society and the state should not recognize any other kind of marriage. The side of freedom deems that the state has no business in favoring one kind of marriage over another. If two individuals of the opposite gender are allowed to marry, then two individuals of the same gender should be allowed to as well. Otherwise it would not be free. Now are there still legitimate points to be made by the other side? Yes, but if this is to be a free society then freedom must take priority over order.

Along with gay marriage, religion enters the conversation. This is a special case because freedom of religion is a key part of freedom. However, it's impossible to have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. One religious practice cannot take priority over the other, nor can it be favored by states and people in a position over authority. To do so would be to undermine the freedom of individuals who don't share the same religious views. This means that people of faith will have to contend with aspects of society that are directly opposed to what they deem to be moral. They have no power to stop such aspects or exert any authority onto others they don't agree with. To do so would violate the tenants of freedom.

History has often been a strong guide and when it comes to making a strong and prosperous society, freedom has been the key ingredient. Freedom works. Allowing order to come from the bottom up, a product of free individuals, does the job much better than any well-intentioned state. There will certainly be some drawbacks. Freedom does have consequences and there will be those who do not like what society has wrought. However, compared to the alternative freedom remains the best course of action for society and governments alike.

On the eve of Independence Day, it seems only fitting that the Supreme Court would rule on a case that echoes an issue that goes back to the American Revolution. A quick glance at history and anyone would agree that this country was forged in the gunfire of war and rebellion. The very nature of American liberty stems from the idea of self-preservation and self-defense. Guns and gun ownership has been a big part of idea. It isn’t just tradition that Americans arm themselves. It was often a necessity for their own liberty. As society has changed, the right to bear arms has become a political tool that runs on the emotional appeals of those adverse to violence and deviance. In a sense it is unavoidable because it’s only natural that human beings seek to avoid these things.

So if being armed was never an issue before, why did it become an issue in the 20th century? In this a little context is required. Back during the time of the revolution, weapons were pretty primitive by modern standards. Most guns were rifles and single-shot pistols. They were deadly, but also clumsy. Their destructive potential was fairly minimal and because of that people having these arms was not seen as too big a deal. But around the late 19th and early 20th century, technology added new layers of complexity. Now there were guns that could be fired multiple times without reloading and the bullets they fired were far more lethal than anyone had seen before. A modern handgun with a modern bullet has far more killing power than a dozen revolution era muskets. Further refinements made it possible for guns to be accurate, lethal, and powerful at long ranges and that has led to some horrific acts of violence.

On August 1st, 1966, a man named Charles Whitman barricaded himself in the University of Austin’s tower and used his sharp-shooting skills to kill 14 people. On April 20th, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold stormed Columbine High School and used guns that were legally purchased to kill 13 people and then themselves. On April 16th, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho used two 9mm pistols to kill 33 people at Virginia Tech University. All of these events have been engrained in the American public’s consciousness and have also been used as an indictment of firearms. For some, it’s more serious than others.

I can personally claim that connection. I was at Virginia Tech the day of the massacre. While I was not near where the shooting took place, I was there to witness the sheer terror and loss that so many felt that day and still feel to this day. Some of the most vivid memories anybody will ever have of that event are the gunshots that echoed throughout the campus. Because of this, it’s the guns that take the blame and not the shooter. This is where the debate begins.

Guns take lives. They kill. Unlike cars or accidents or tobacco that kills far more people, guns are manufactured with the specific purpose to inflict harm. Who wouldn’t be frightened by the notion of people having these guns on hand? We’re not talking about muskets anymore. We’re talking about guns that can with one shot and are so simple to use that even a child can do it (which they have to tragic effects). It seems only natural that well-intended lawmakers and advocates would want to regulate these products if not ban them outright. But as is often the case, good intentions can have serious consequences.

Enter the handgun ban, which cities like Chicago and Washington DC have introduced as a means to curb gun violence. These laws don’t just regulate guns. They remove them from private citizens, reserving them for authority figures only. Not even a law biding citizen can carry a firearm. They’re expected to rely solely on the state to protect them. It seems so noble for the state to take on that responsibility, but what happens when they fail? Do private citizens not have a right to take the matter into their own hands? That would be a debate that could rage for decades were it not for the second amendment, which despite being crafted in the time of muskets is still pertinent to this debate.

The text of the second amendment is as follows:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Those words are pretty clear. The people have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. In the context of the times it made a lot of sense. These people just got done fighting a war against a tyrannical state. There was a chance they would have to do that again and if the state started meddling in the peoples’ ability to carry their own arms, which could leave the entire country vulnerable. The founders also understood that an armed public stood as an extra limitation against government power. If the people were armed, they could rise up and fight a government that they felt was usurping their rights. A state needed to have that fear or else the reigns of power were free for corruption.

Now even though times have changed, the general concept of that idea is still valid. An armed public is a means of deterring crime from both private citizens and the government. It’s no longer likely that people will rise up with arms and overthrow the state, but the idea of self-preservation still holds true. People have a right to defend themselves and guns are an important means of doing so. It’s an imperfect world full of imperfect people and not everybody is equipped to defend themselves with their bear hands. A gun is an equalizer. An old woman with a frail physique can just as easily stop a young 200 pound man with a handgun as another man of similar stature. It doesn’t matter how strong or fit an aggressor may be, they are all equally vulnerable to a bullet fired from a gun. In a sense such equality is reflective of people being equal under the law. The strong cannot oppress the weak if the weak are armed.

However, if handguns are banned then that equality is gone and it shows in the crime rates of areas with gun laws. It shows in the statistics.

Gun Bans and Crime Statistics

DC and Chicago had murder rates far higher than cities that didn’t have gun bans. It makes sense too because criminals by their own nature don’t obey the law. So when law biding citizens can’t have guns, they’re left vulnerable. In addition, the guns don’t stop flowing into the city. They just go underground the same way drugs and prostitution have so they’re controlled by criminals, thus making it even more dangerous.

The constitutionality of these bans has been questioned many times before, but it took decades for the Supreme Court to confront this issue. They were understandably hesitant to set legal precedence regarding guns laws. But it could not be avoided. Two years ago in the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller, the court struck down DC’s gun laws. On June 28th 2010, the court ruled on McDonald vs. City of Chicago to debate Chicago’s gun laws. Just as the case in DC, the court ruled against the gun bans and upheld the second amendment. It was a close 5-4 decision, but one that was very appropriate for this time when the country is celebrating it’s independence.

Supreme Court Ruling for McDonald vs. City of Chicago

So what does this mean? Will people be able to buy assault rifles at Wal Mart from now on? Some fear-mongering is sure to arise. More guns will make some people in groups very wary. But the debate over assault weapons and deadly arms can at least take place in the proper scope. While the court ruled that the state cannot ban guns, it does not mean states cannot regulate their sale as they see fit. That would fall under the 10th amendment that delegates these localized issues to the states. If some areas want to limit these weapons, they can. What works for one area may not work for another. That’s where the workings of federalism take over.

At the end of the day it’s not the guns that are responsible. It is the people that use them. When someone commits a horrific act of violence, it is they who must be held accountable and not the gun. Any weapon in and of itself is not deadly until someone wields it. That is the person who deserves to be held responsible. Does it take away the pain families feel who are victims of gun tragedy? It most certainly doesn’t, but lashing out at the guns is nothing more than scapegoating.

This Independence day America does have something to celebrate. There may be many other big issues that haven’t been resolved, but this is one that deserves to be praised. The government may have utterly ignored other amendments like the first amendment, the ninth amendment, and the fourteenth amendment, but for once they got an amendment right. They upheld the second amendment and for that the Supreme Court deserves some praise. It won’t stop tragedies like Virginia Tech from happening, but it upholds an important liberty that no citizen in a free society should take for granted.

In his movie “Religulous” comedian Bill Maher makes a number of jokes about how religion is akin to a neurological disorder. It’s been the joke of many comedians and aggressive atheists looking to discredit religion and those who believe it. It’s easy to stand on the outside and judge those who seem so arrogant to believe what is in every sense impossible and completely without any evidentiary support. Where many atheists often fail is that the religious experience itself is not completely based on simplistic notions of gullible people believing in strange things.

It’s typical of two opposing sides to demonize one another. Ardent believers have often made arguments that atheists are without morals and in rebellion against the truth (or at least what they are convinced is the truth). Ardent atheists often make the same mistake, arguing that devout believers are deluded and relish in their delusion. Neither side really takes time to go into the research surrounding such beliefs. It’s understandable because that research is easy to miss. To make sense of this debate requires some empathic understanding between the two sides.

No successful religion in history ever became successful without religious experiences. It isn’t enough to just throw together a set of beliefs and pitch them to the masses. That only goes so far. For people of many walks of life to accept these beliefs, there needs to be an experience involved. That experience often involves an individual seeking to communicate or envision spiritual feelings. They do this through prayer, study, or sometimes it happens by sheer accident by someone in a cave or someone who happens to be in the right place at the right time. In these experiences there is a powerful rush, a feeling of extending the self beyond the body and experiencing a new transcendental presence. Even to a skeptical mind, it would be a powerful motivator for any religious devotion. But what exactly is the nature of this experience? Is it truly people communicating with the divine or is it something more mundane?

Science has just started to unravel this phenomenon and as new evidence is uncovered the truth seems to be on the side of the mundane. Much of the research is done in the field of neurobiology, a field most people don’t know the first thing about let alone understand what it has to do with religious experiences. Neurobiology is the study of the brain and how it functions. The brain is the center of all experience and it is how people make sense of their world. If these religious experiences were coming from a supernatural force, then there shouldn’t be any biological basis for this phenomenon. But new revelations in neuroscience haven’t just uncovered a biological basis. They’ve gone so far as to locate a portion of the brain that may be responsible for all spiritual experiences.

Enter the God Helmet, an appropriately named device that’s at the center of research being done by Doctor Michael Persinger. With this device, which consists of a modified motorcycle helmet, he can induce a spiritual experience using magnets, a dark room, and a machine. It works by stimulating an area of the brain called the temporal lobe. This area is responsible for special awareness and an understanding of self-identification. It is this part of the brain that helps human beings become aware of themselves. If any part of the brain is going to induce a religious experience, it’s this one because this vital collections of neurons influences perceptions and awareness. If stimulated in the right way, anybody could experience something that may not really be happening and may seem like it’s outside their own body. Dr. Persinger takes this a step further and artificially induces this state using mechanisms that are completely natural and not divine.

Dr. Michale Persinger's Research In Brain Activity of Religious Experiences

This discovery has extraordinary implications. With it he’s been able to induce all sorts of religious experiences in people. Participants have been documented as seeing Jesus, god, the devil, aliens, and dead relatives. That makes sense considering the temporal lobes are also close to the hippocampus region of the brain, which is responsible for memories. So these experiences will often draw from whatever memories the individual may have. If their memories include beliefs in Jesus, aliens, or ghosts then that’s what they’ll see. It also means that if these experiences can be induced then there’s nothing supernatural about them. They aren’t neurological disorders as Bill Maher claims. They are simply products of the human brain. A more appropriate joke would be something along the lines of “It’s all in their heads.”

So what does this mean for the vast majority of religious experiences humans have had throughout the ages? Well it means for the ardent atheist that it wasn’t just gullible people making stuff up as is often claimed. It means that people really did have intense spiritual experiences. They simply didn’t know that it was a result of brain functions just as they didn’t know that the Earth was round and orbited the sun which is just one of billions in a galaxy among billions. To them it was real. In a ways it was because perceptions often dictate reality. However, truth is independent of perceptions and that’s where the implications for the believers come in.

Take for instance the prophets of the Old Testament. Is it really possible that they were communicating with spirits or is it more likely that their brains were playing tricks on them. Dr. Persinger’s research further indicates that the stimulations he’s simulated in his lab can occur naturally, especially in regions with strong magnetic fields. Typically, these fields emerge around seismically active regions. The land around Israel is a major earthquake zone so it’s not unreasonable to hypothesize that strong magnetic fields played a part. There’s also the influence of drugs. The experiences Persinger induced often resembled a reaction to opiates in the brain, which is a common effect many drugs induce. A Hebrew University researcher, Professor Benny Sharon, takes it a step further. He claims that the experiences of the prophets were the result of hallucinogenic mushrooms creating the same brain reactions that Persinger has documented. This is not unreasonable because it has been documented that psychotropic materials do occur in the region of Sinai. Anyone under the influence of these substances would certainly be prone to such experiences.

Hebrew University: Moses May Have Been on Shrooms

It has happened before throughout history. Science has uncovered a non-supernatural explanation for experiences once thought to be spiritual in nature. Science discovered the lightning was not a tool of the gods, that the sun was not a fiery chariot racing across the sky, and that disease was not caused by evil spirits. Now it explains the very experiences that so much of religion depends on. Again, there’s nothing supernatural about it. Repeatable tests have proven that a religious experience is just another process of the brain. That isn’t likely to dissuade any believers because experiences are strong motivators. They shape the very notion of what someone believes to be reality. It’s very difficult to question that reality.

An important conclusion to draw from this is that regardless of where these religious experiences come from, people still believe them in their heart of hearts. It’s not because of gullibility or foolishness or ignorance. It’s because they feel genuinely real and that’s not something that can be easily debated. Yet at the same time, it takes a leap of faith to assume that these experiences are supernatural in nature and aren’t just a product of the brain. The objective truth in this case may never be able to supplant subjective truth because when it comes to religion, subjective truth is all it takes. Being subjective is just so easy and intuitive. Being objective is difficult if not impossible at times. At the same time, that’s what makes it so important in making sense of things that are so difficult to understand.

It seems a month can hardly go by in this country without the whole marriage debate coming up. In terms of the culture wars it has always been very hot button and like other major social issues concerning abortion and gay rights it’s not going to be settled because each side is so entrenched. One side believes it’s a civil rights issue. The other side believes it’s a moral issue. They’ll hold protests in the streets and condemn each other to Hell at least once a day, throwing words like ‘un-American’ and ‘wicked’ around like it’ll make the other side go away.

It goes without saying that marriage is a very touchy issue. On the side of the morality police they want to restrict marriage to one idealized form that reflects the sitcoms of the 1950s. That is to say they just want it to be between one man and one woman with no divorce, no kinky experimentation, and no variation. On the civil rights side the more progressive wing wants a more flexible kind of marriage that allows for more than just one man and one woman. Not only do they want it to be flexible, they want the government to support these marriages the same way it supports the idealized marriage that the morality crusaders love so much. The debate is always heated and the politics of each side can be a big factor in elections. Their question seems to be should the government support other kinds of marriage? It seems like such an important issue, but in a ways both sides are asking the wrong question. A better question might be should the government be supporting marriage to begin with?

Contrary to popular belief, marriage wasn’t always an institution of the state. In fact, it wasn’t until the Earl of Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1754 that England began the tradition of state regulation of marriage. This tradition was carried over to the colonies, who had courts and magistrates carry out marital contracts. Because of this the state had the power to shape marriage according to political whims. This is what allowed issues like no-fault divorce and gay marriage to become issues and to this day they still are. So long as the state has this kind of power to dish out special treatment to their one version of married couples people are going to bicker over whom gets that treatment.

Little attention is paid to the greater history of marriage. Before the state got involved, marriage was primarily a religious institution and one that was handled on a community level. What worked for some communities didn’t always work for others. The marriage within heavy agrarian communities may have different methods of dealing with property and land than those handled in cities or more nomadic cultures. It makes sense that every society is different so why should there be a one-size-fits all for an institution like marriage?

This argument is almost never put into the debate. It’s often referred to as the privatization of marriage. Only libertarian politicians like Ron Paul brought it up in his 2008 campaign and it received almost no attention. But what exactly does marriage privatization entail? Well it doesn’t completely remove the state from the marriage business. What it does it turn marriage into another form of contract. Instead of the state crafting the nature of the agreement between two people, the parties themselves arrange the details just as they would any other contract. From there the state approves the contract and enforces it like any other, holding the parties accountable for the details and obligations it entails. As for the ceremony itself, that is handled by whatever religious or non-religious institution the parties choose to use. It can be a regular Christian church or it could just be a private non-religious ceremony. The contract they signed still has the same weight of law just as any other.

This solves a number of the issues the two sides bicker over. For one, it leaves religious institutions free to uphold whatever form of marriage they deem to be appropriate. If a church does not want to sanction or recognize a marriage between two homosexuals, they are free to do so. If another church is okay with homosexual unions, they can do this too. The only major limitations would be the same of anyone entering into a binding contract. The individuals involved would have to be legal adults and the contract they enter must be of their own free will and not coerced. Details such as grounds for divorce, inheritance, hospital visits, and child custody would be arranged based on what the two parties negotiate.

Now this would still leave room for details some morality crusaders wouldn’t like. If marriage is a private contract then that does mean groups they don’t approve of like homosexuals and those who practice polygamy would be able to consider themselves married. This contract could also leave room for open marriages or one that has special obligations for one party over the other. It may not sit well with those who have that 1950s idealized marriage in mind. This also means they cannot appeal to the state to stop these unions. Since it’s a private contract, the state has no authority to change something two people voluntarily enter into. Those same morality crusaders would have to take their concerns to the churches or private institutions that sanction these unions. They can protest all they want, but they can’t protest the idea that a private contract entered between two parties cannot be upheld by the courts.

There’s no question that marriage is an important institution. When two people enter into a union of matrimony, it has profound social and personal impact. It is for that reason that the state should not have the power to use marriage as a tool of social engineering. If legislators and bureaucrats can dictate who to give special treatment to, then that renders the notion of a free and just society meaningless. To give preferred people special treatment over others goes against the very notion of life, liberty, and property that the constitution fundamentally grants to each citizen.

It’s painfully clear that the two sides on the marriage debate are never going to agree. So instead of debating on who should get the sanction of the state, get the state out of the equation so the debate doesn’t continue to be such a burden on American politics. Part of being in a free society is allowing individuals to govern their own affairs so long as it’s voluntary and peaceful. Why should marriage be any different?

Privatize Marriage.org

Whenever I talk to a Christian or any religious believer personally, I often get asked a lot of questions. The most common include statements like “How can you not believe in God?” or “What if you’re wrong and there is a god that you have to face when you die?” or “Don’t you realize how flawed and misguided you are?” I’m always on the defensive. It’s not completely without merit because atheists are a minority in a country where over 80 percent of the country believes in some sort of deity (depending on which survey is used). Without question, America is a religious country and religion has been a part of history. But with any kind of power and prestige, there comes a touch of arrogance.

Religion, by it’s own nature, has one inescapable kind of arrogance that every believer must accept. It asserts that one certain doctrine or deity knows the answer and all others are wrong or misguided. There are times when a religion will blatantly assume things that can never be proven or disproven and yet they’re presented with the same certainty as the most basic of knowledge such as one plus one equals two. Religion blurs the line between belief and knowledge. They are not the same thing and never were. Knowledge is based on truth and falsehoods. They can be proven or disproven. Religion by it’s own design is based on beliefs and beliefs can’t be proven or disproven. If they could then they wouldn’t be beliefs.

Whenever I debate religious people, this is always the greatest roadblock. I cannot seem to get dogmatic believers to understand that believing in something and knowing in something is not the same thing. With this in mind I post a list of questions for religious believers and Christians everywhere since they’re the ones with the power and influence in this country. They all center along one line of reasoning that asks “Who are you to say?”

Who are you to say your god is any more real than the countless religions that have emerged throughout human history?

Who are you to say the people who follow your religion are better than anyone else?

Who are you to say that those who don’t believe are somehow flawed or misguided?

Who are you to say that non-believers are simply that way because they are in rebellion against whatever god they don’t believe?

Who are you to say that there is a god and that god looks upon you with favor?

Who are you to say that your holy scriptures are somehow more scared than the countless other holy texts?

Who are you to say that because you can’t contemplate a universe without a creator then somehow there has to be one?

Who are you to say that you can reject real science like evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang just because they conflict with your dogma?

Who are you to say that the supposed holy figures of your faith were no more than regular fallible men or complete myths?

Who are you to say that your beliefs make you a better person and not having them makes people worse?

Who are you to say that you can judge others by one standard but never judge yourself by the same standard?

Who are you to say your version of morality is more righteous than anyone else’s?

Who are you to say that your interpretation of history is more valid than anyone else’s?

Who are you to say that something happens after you die?

Who are you to say that atheists and non-believers are a threat that must be dealt with through ostracism and scorn?

Who are you to say that your love for your fellow man means anything more because you believe in something that others don’t?

Who are you to say that you’re excused of the same burden of proof that every other rational claim must face in the process of reason?

Who are you to say that your holy scriptures can justify acts of prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry?

Who are you to say that the holy men and prophets of your faith were not wrong, misguided, or lying when they made claims of their supposed revelations?

Who are you to say that you have all the answers and everyone else is wrong?

These are questions that every believer must face. To avoid them is to be beyond arrogant. It is to be inhumane. Nobody is above criticism and nobody is above scrutiny. There’s no belief sacred enough that it can never be questioned. There’s no tradition strong enough that it can never be changed. Every religious belief in the world cannot be right, but they all can be wrong.

As a non-believer, I’ve always tried to maintain perspective. I understand that I am a fallible human being. I don’t have all the answers. I don’t have the capacity to understand what is known about everything either. That’s why I try to be honest with myself and my peers. If only the dogmatic religious believers claiming special exemption from these most basic of concepts would do the same. Until then, I will keep asking these questions and hope that one day someone is humble enough to give an answer that is not blinded by arrogant faith.

In his State of the Union address in 2005, President Bush proposed a bold plan to fix the looming social security crisis. He described a plan he called “partial privatization” that would allow workers of a certain age to set aside a certain portion of their payroll taxes into private accounts. This would mean the government took in less money for social security, but people would be able to better control more of their money and how it was spent. It caused a major outcry. Labor unions, the AARP, and most of the Democratic Party denounced the plan on the basis that it would destroy social security even quicker. Their main sticking point was that privatization was not nearly as reliable as a government funded system. That, however, assumed the government funded system was better to begin with.

It wasn’t difficult to beat this proposal. Whenever the world privatization is thrown around, it often conjures up negative connotations within the media and the public. It’s not entirely unreasonable. Privatization by it’s own nature doesn’t conjure a rosy image. The idea of some greedy profit-driven entity delivering services doesn’t seem as noble as a government entity that is democratically elected by the people and expected to serve the public. Those against privatization argue that the services delivered by private entities result in the loss of jobs, a loss in accountability, and unequal concentrations of wealth. All are valid concerns, but do they outweigh the benefits?

To answer this question another must be asked. Are there certain services that can only be effective to the public as a government entity? Some industries such as producing and distributing energy, running schools, and operating roads seem too big to be left in the hands of private companies. But can this assumption be wrong? History does offer some cases where services once deemed too important for privatization became more successful when they were released from government control.

Most people of the current generation don’t remember what phone service was like before the 1980s. For much of the 20th century, the telecommunications industry was a government controlled monopoly under AT&T. The government didn’t directly run it, but public utilities on the state and local level regulated the systems and the FCC regulated everything else across state lines. These governing bodies controlled the rates AT&T could charge, the services they could provide, and the equipment they could offer. There was no competition. Nobody had their choice of phones or service plans. Nearly every aspect of the industry was controlled by a single entity. Phones were lumped together with services like water and electricity as being too important for private industry.

That all changed on January 8, 1982, when the case United States vs. AT&T was settled and AT&T’s operations were split into seven independent companies. Over time AT&T lost much of the market to other newcomers like MCI and Sprint. Unlike before their rates weren’t subject to the whims of government bodies and they could sell their own equipment. Eventually that lead to phones becoming more sophisticated and advanced. Now there are a dizzying array of cell phones with countless functions and plans to fit every lifestyle. Unlike the old days, it doesn’t take court cases or government hearings to determine whether or not these services should be implemented. The companies are free to provide it to their customers and charge what they feel will make them the best profit. Both sides win.

The research and personal experiences since 1982 are fairly conclusive. The phone companies became more efficient and service improved. The public came to enjoy having so many choices with their phones. There is no longer even a debate on whether the phone companies should have been privatized. The results speak for themselves. But why did privatization work? Why couldn’t AT&T provide the kind of diverse services that companies were able to provide in the years that followed?

The issue goes back to that nasty word called profit. While it may not have a positive connotation among the general public, it generally is a much better motivating factor than the whims of government service. People often assume erroneously that when a company makes a big profit, they’re somehow losing something. That’s not necessarily the case. The private companies don’t force people to give them their money the way governments do with taxation. They have to persuade people to give them their money in exchange for a service. The phone companies get our money and in exchange we get a service that allows us to communicate with one another. Both sides win.

Because of this motivation, companies have to constantly work to satisfy customers or they won’t get their business. That’s not the case with government entities. With monopolies like the phone company, there’s an added step between the company and the customers. That’s the bureaucrats. In order to make any change the company has to consult with elected officials and they have to make the determination. Naturally, this slows things down and costs money. That cost eventually gets passed onto the consumer because for every moment they’re not getting a service, they’re losing out and so is the company. That’s not to say the bureaucrats do this intentionally. Most public servants sincerely want to do good and instinctively think that adding a step of regulation helps prevent corruption and unfair practices. Ideally, that would be true. But this is the real world and that extra step causes all sorts of unintended consequences.

Even though public officials are elected, they’re still prone to corruption. Because government officials have the force of law, they can give companies like AT&T an unfair advantage over competition. They can force people to do things a certain way and buy certain services. Even if they don’t throw people in jail for not using them, that still deprives people of a service that a private entity is equipped to provide but can’t. Elected officials also have to be concerned with being reelected. That means companies can provide money to these officials to obtain benefits, thus increasing the disparity. This isn’t necessarily a government run monopoly. It’s crony capitalism and in many ways that’s worst because it’s giving private individuals the power of force and law. In a free society, any entity that has that power can become an agent of tyranny and that’s why limited government is necessary to combat that tyranny.

This isn’t to say that privatization is without it’s faults. It certainly has a number of drawbacks that are not politically popular. Private companies often cut jobs and spending, which is rare with a government program. Whenever cuts are made, it does affect people negatively. However, this often helps improve the service and the efficiency of the organization so that more customers benefit. There is also plenty of corruption in private companies as well and there can be some pretty unequal distributions of wealth. This is what happens in capitalism. There are winners, losers, and crooks. But by and large, privatization does more good than harm.

A number of studies have shown the benefits of privatization. If conditions are right (and that isn’t always the case in countries rampant with corruption) it can help an economy and provide for greater welfare of the public at large. Private services are often more efficient and of a greater quality than what similar government bodies provide and benefit more people in a greater way.

World Bank Privatization Study

A Survey of Studies Done on Effects of Privatization

Going back to what Bush proposed back in 2005, is it possible that privatization could work for social security the same way it did for the phone companies? It may not be politically viable at the moment, but history does show that it isn’t impossible. Chile privatized their pension system decades ago and by most measures it has been a success. It isn’t without it’s faults, but it is in nowhere near the danger social security is in.

Study and Assessment of Chile Pension System

As is often the case, it’s difficult to accept something that seems so counter-intuitive. Privatization as a whole just doesn’t sound like a good thing when it’s laid out in it’s most basic form. It doesn’t seem as noble or generous, yet it has been shown to work better and function more efficiently. It’s an important concept to grasp because if people remain adverse to privatization, then the alternatives for fixing inefficient public services are limited. Their intentions may be good. Who wouldn’t want to create something that has only winners? But history has shown that it’s impossible for any system to make everybody a winner. It is possible, however, to make everybody a loser. Whether it’s intentional or accidental, government entities are not capable of operating on the same level as a private entity. That’s why privatization needs to remain on the table in these debates. Nobody can ever be certain they will fail unless they’re given a chance to succeed.