When sin entered into the world it carried with it certain partners in crime. Death, first among them, followed directly on sin's heels with it's big, scary scythe. Also with it came a world of scarcity and hardship. This scarcity was coupled with something we humans had even before the fall, which was infinite desire. This is how we now understand economics as the decisions made by individuals in a world of scarce resources and infinite desires.
If there were no scarcity there would be no need for economics for all would have just what they wanted. This is the proposition upon which my reasoning shall rest, before the fall of man there was no lack of anything for man and therefore little or no reason for an economy. Thereby economics, while not evil or sinful, is a product of a sinful world.
Economics as an idea has no sin within it. It simply states a truth, people act the way they do because they want something in a world with a limited number of things. People can use either good or bad economics for evil purposes to do things which would normally be illegal. For instance, some taxes do what is called redistribution. That is, take from one group of people and give to another group. It could be the group receiving the money is in legitimate crises and without the money provided by the tax would either disburse or suffer. Yet, as Bastiat once said, what special immunity does the government have which protect them from prosecution of simple burglary? If a man were to go to the houses of the rich, plunder them for their jewels and money, and spread the resources among the poor and needy then he would still be prosecuted for committing an illegal act.
Some would argue that this is indeed not illegal yet perhaps it is merely convenient to do so when you appear to be in the altruistic position and you are not harmed by the transaction. It seems a bit funny that many of the people who argue this way are by no means rich or simply have constituents who are not rich. I digress, back to the point. An office of government which has legitimate use and purpose in a society of rarity and sin is by no means immune from corruption. Many of them cause actions like unto the example previously given.
It is in this way that taxes, which have many useful purposes, can be twisted to the purpose of those who claim to protect the interests of the people yet are in actuality merely using popular ideas to promote their own position. For sin is common to men and with sin come greed, pride, and deceit. As in every field of this world full of conflict politics and taxes is filled with goodness and evil alike. And just as in every situation when power and influence are injected in the people within the situation tend to show their pride by craving more and abusing what they have been given. As a famous saying describes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The question which remains is, is there not a better way in which to have a government of accountability and of effectiveness within the society by which it stands?
Dt
If there were no scarcity there would be no need for economics for all would have just what they wanted. This is the proposition upon which my reasoning shall rest, before the fall of man there was no lack of anything for man and therefore little or no reason for an economy. Thereby economics, while not evil or sinful, is a product of a sinful world.
Economics as an idea has no sin within it. It simply states a truth, people act the way they do because they want something in a world with a limited number of things. People can use either good or bad economics for evil purposes to do things which would normally be illegal. For instance, some taxes do what is called redistribution. That is, take from one group of people and give to another group. It could be the group receiving the money is in legitimate crises and without the money provided by the tax would either disburse or suffer. Yet, as Bastiat once said, what special immunity does the government have which protect them from prosecution of simple burglary? If a man were to go to the houses of the rich, plunder them for their jewels and money, and spread the resources among the poor and needy then he would still be prosecuted for committing an illegal act.
Some would argue that this is indeed not illegal yet perhaps it is merely convenient to do so when you appear to be in the altruistic position and you are not harmed by the transaction. It seems a bit funny that many of the people who argue this way are by no means rich or simply have constituents who are not rich. I digress, back to the point. An office of government which has legitimate use and purpose in a society of rarity and sin is by no means immune from corruption. Many of them cause actions like unto the example previously given.
It is in this way that taxes, which have many useful purposes, can be twisted to the purpose of those who claim to protect the interests of the people yet are in actuality merely using popular ideas to promote their own position. For sin is common to men and with sin come greed, pride, and deceit. As in every field of this world full of conflict politics and taxes is filled with goodness and evil alike. And just as in every situation when power and influence are injected in the people within the situation tend to show their pride by craving more and abusing what they have been given. As a famous saying describes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The question which remains is, is there not a better way in which to have a government of accountability and of effectiveness within the society by which it stands?
Dt
2 comments:
I think the Founding Fathers' idea of systems that balance each other is wonderful, but we are not currently experiencing that idea. It seems our branches of government are fighting to gain power, not just keeping each other in check. A heavy emphasis on local government may help to keep power hungry individuals out of power, but not entirely. Also, I would argue that humanitarian efforts are not the responsibility of the government, but the church, and it saddens and angers me that the church has failed to uphold that responsibility. As a side note, I am reading yet another novel on Robin Hood, and am rather amused at the timing of your post :-)
Well said Shananamae. This is a historical approach as those who laid down our constitution took a great deal more interest in the election of their senators and governor than their president.
Post a Comment