In the Breaking Free studies by Beth Moore, she mentions looking into past history to identify areas where the "who we are" are actually areas of bondage from which Christ wants to set us free. Then upon recognizing those areas, God has to work. The rebellious child chooses avenues of escape because the work is painful. I posted this here because of the discussion re. support groups etc related to this topic. I especially thought points 3 & 6 were relevant and the related verses in Isaiah 30.
3. prefers pleasant illusions over truth (Is 30:10-11).
Is 30:10 They say to the seers,
"See no more visions!"
and to the prophets,
"Give us no more visions of what is right!
Tell us pleasant things,
prophesy illusions.
11 Leave this way,
get off this path,
and stop confronting us
with the Holy One of Israel!"
6. runs from the real answers (Is 30:15-17).
Is 30: 15 This is what the Sovereign LORD, the Holy One of Israel, says:
"In repentance and rest is your salvation,
in quietness and trust is your strength,
but you would have none of it.
16 You said, 'No, we will flee on horses.'
Therefore you will flee!
You said, 'We will ride off on swift horses.'
Therefore your pursuers will be swift!
17 A thousand will flee
at the threat of one;
at the threat of five
you will all flee away,
till you are left
like a flagstaff on a mountaintop,
like a banner on a hill."
No I had not read the essay, but I just did.
'...The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society's legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed. I, Pencil, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith, as practical as the sun, the rain, a cedar tree, the good earth." Leonard E. Read (1898-1983)
'... it takes the knowledge of countless people to produce a single pencil. No newcomer to economics who reads "I, Pencil" can fail to have a simplistic belief in the superiority of central planning or regulation deeply shaken. ...' —DONALD J. BOUDREAUX
With regard to Beth Moore.....Amen. I agree.
With regard to I, Pencil, I hope no one mistakes the Invisilble Hand, with George's Giant Hand. The Invisible Hand is an economic concept, NOT a metaphysical reference!
The idea of the invisible hand in economics is that free people, in a free market band together in unimaginable ways to produce goods and services, which are driven by the quest for mutual benefit. You want an warm house, and I sell heaters. Someone else makes the heater, using raw materials made by others, mined by others, shipped by others, etc. This occurs most effectively when there is no central planning or regulation.
A great modern day example of this would be the Internet. Contrary to what Al Gore said, no one person invented the web. It sprang up as a result of the unhindered, unregulated creativity of many thousands of people. It is absolutely amazing.
Contrast this unregulated, unplanned miracle with the highly regulated, highly planned institution of Medicare, or ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITY.
While the Internet gets faster, better and more efficient every day, the government gets slower, with increasingly worse service and more waste....every day.
I hope more people read the article, and search around and read some other great minds, like Von Mises.
Here's where I'm going with all of this:
the problem we have with poverty is like any other economic problem in that it is in EVERYONE'S best interest to reduce the number of people who live in poverty. Do we allow free, inregulated people to work on this issue with the same efficiency used to produce pencils and the Internet, or do we give the task to a corrupt, bloated, woefully inefficient federal government? I guess it depends on what our motivation is, and the results we hope to see.
If we are motivated to solving the problem, no sane person can argue that free people and free markets will do less to eliminate poverty than centralized government. However, people who want to get their hands on other people's money, and make their living by "doing good," with what other people produced....these people will try to get as much government involvement as they can. The next step is to get as many poor people as possible, in order to grow the new industry. More people can be employed in the "Robin Hood," do-good war on poverty, and more poor people keeps feeding the fire.
Anyone can see that sooner or later this whole notion will result in collapse. The lazy people who choose not to work are part of the problem. However, the bigger part of the problem are those who encourage this type of behavior. In doing so, they appeal to the baser human nature and will reap a bitter harvest.
Dan mentioned that he doesn't mind paying taxes in order to see welfare keep these people afloat. I say that he would still be able to give as much as he wanted to, to any poor person he chose, without the tax.
Government in it's simplest form, is inefficient when it comes to wealth re-redistribution, because it is a middle man. It is more efficient for me to give a person 100 dollars than for me to mail the money to the East Coast, and have them mail it back to the West Coast. In order to do that it costs .76 in stamps, and perhaps .04 in envelopes. It might also take another 2.00 in labor.
Just by getting the government invovled my 100 dollar donation is reduced to 97.20. Of course, in reality it is actually reduced to less than 20.00. That is amazingly , shockingly, spectacularly inefficient! It's criminal to support this, IMO.
Brent
