...on being under water

Being wise about buying a house was undoubtedly the stupidest thing we've ever done. We bought in the fall of 2007, right before the housing market plunged into the abyss, never to be heard from again. After years of "throwing our money away" renting, we decided to be "wise" and buy. Of course we paid top dollar for a town house that we figured we'd be in for 2-3 years. And of course we figured we'd take the equity and roll it over into the next, bigger house. And of course, thanks to the housing bubble bursting and an undisclosed, pending lawsuit between our HOA and the builder we're now about $100K+ underwater.

But our wisdom didn't end with buying a house at the worst possible time in history. Oh no! The stupidity really kicked into high gear when we "wisely" chose to live within our means and buy a house we could (and tragically still can) afford. The down side of buying an affordable house in the Seattle area is that it's going to be small--really small. And the kicker is we bought willingly*, knowing that we wanted more kids (we had one at the time).

Buying a house we could afford....idiot!!! Had we leveraged ourselves to the max (or better yet, beyond) like so many others, YOU, gentle reader, would be paying our mortgage now. We'd have been bailed out by the government! But no! Instead, we're not only still paying our own mortgage, but our rising taxes are paying the mortgages of all the "unwise" people who got in over their heads.

Sure, we could just walk away and let the bank foreclose (it will take us far longer to get back above water on our house than it would to repair our credit), but that would be dishonest. Boy have honestly and morals come back to bite us. Those without them...yea, we're paying their mortgages too.

Had we only only known in 2007 that a socialist government would aggressively reward stupidity on the wise man's dime, we'd have acted differently. Instead, we acted "wisely." And now wise has become stupid and stupid wise.

Lest you think that I'm implying that wisdom no longer pays, I'm not. Wisdom, it turns out, pays for itself and everybody else. It pays and pays and pays. And that's just stupid.

*It was only after we bought the house that we discovered that the seller had failed to disclose known and major damages that were, and still are, at the heart of a lawsuit between the HOA and the builder. So even if we were willing to sell at a huge loss we can't because no bank will issue a loan on any house in our community until the lawsuit settles.

...on being a virtuous capitalist

"When people don't spend their own money, they don't care what health care costs." -John Stossel

Capitalism is not perfect. Sir Winston Churchill described it as, "the unequal sharing of blessings." But Churchill's portrayal of socialism as, "the equal sharing of miseries" not only hits the mark but, in my mind, makes capitalism the better option.

To understand this, one must understand the essence of government. I've said this before, but it bears repeating that the history of government can be boiled down to the taking of money from one group and giving it to another group. In other words, wealth redistribution.

The principal I would put forth here is that those who do the work should enjoy the fruits of their labors. If this is moral, then it is not virtuous for the government to take away one man's hard earned money and give it to another man. Sure, this will lead to inequalities. In the free market, competition is king and those who can deliver high-value goods and services will be rewarded far more handsomely than those who cannot.

The onus, then, is on each individual to prepare themselves to be able to provide the goods and services that the market demands. The end results, though unequal, are a product of individual choice--the opportunity being generally equal. And equal opportunity is virtuous. Guaranteed equality of result is not virtuous because it overwrites choice and consequence by forcefully taking from one person and giving to another.

Imagine the 100 meter dash. All eight runners line up side by side and start at the same time. That's equal opportunity. By mid-race, the runners begin to separate, as some take the lead and others fall behind. This separation usually increases until the race ends with the runners crossing the finish line at different times, one through eight. The top finishers are rewarded and given medals. The late finishers are not. This is inequality of result, it's overtly fair and it's exactly what socialism seeks to overcome and undo.

I realize that there are and should be exceptions in all this. Mentally or physically disabled individuals, for example, may not be able to compete with those without disabilities. But such exceptions are just that--exceptions. The principal underlying the free market remains sound. It does so because it is based on free agency. Those who choose to work hard, educate themselves, take risks and find innovative ways to satisfy market demands deserve to be rewarded. The converse is also true.

Socialism exists because, simply put, everybody wants to be handsomely rewarded, but not everybody is willing to pay the price necessary to earn that reward. In a free market, the lazy, unskilled and uneducated will be financially punished because their goods and services are generally not valued highly.

Enter government. In a democracy, everybody gets one vote. And while school and ingenuity are difficult, electing representatives who will take the financial rewards from the hard working educated man and give it to the lazy, under-skilled man is easy. So, what socialism lacks in virtue it makes up in popularity.

Unfortunately, where the free market is ruthlessly efficient at wealth distribution, government--which takes a huge cut off the top to pay for its own bureaucrats and politicians--is horribly inefficient at income redistribution. And the bigger government gets, the more expensive and less efficient it becomes. Forced income redistribution is immoral; being forced to pay for the lackeys who are redistributing your income is pathetically immoral.

In the end, "pathetic" and "immoral" are perhaps the two words that best describe socialism. Whether you agree or not depends, I suspect, on where you've chosen to fall in the free market system of rewards and punishments. If you're reasonably well rewarded, then you probably view capitalism favorably. And if you're not well rewarded, you probably view socialism favorably.

But if you fall into the latter category, I have one question for you: Why do you think you deserve my money?


Post Script: I realize that native intelligence and talent have a lot to do with success in a free market economy. This highlights the need for gratitude, empathy and charity (none of which can or aught to be legislated). That the wealthy should be intelligently charitable with their largess is both practical and virtuous. Failure to do so not only offends the Giver of intelligence and talent, it exacerbates market inequalities and increases the chances that socialist governments will come to power and attempt to legislate equality of result.

So, even though we should never be required to give, we must give nonetheless. In the immortal words of John Milton, "Our voluntary service God requires."

...on being crutchless

I recently listened to a radio interview of a prominent atheist (in Seattle, it's not easy to be a prominent atheist). As with so many modern atheists, this one was intent on stirring up controversy by depicting religionists, and especially Christians, as naive, misguided sheep. Such is the fashion of the day.

But this atheist, who spoke in calm, self-assured tones, went a step further. He took several occasions to accuse believers of being immoral, and gave several examples. He also underhandedly complemented the interviewer (a practicing Christian) on "rising above the crutch of religion to a more humanistic morality."

What struck me was that this man rejected God, the Bible and theistic religion, but insisted on maintaining the the notion of morality--of right and wrong. And he clearly relished holding the moral high ground via what he called secular humanism.

So I looked up humanism to get a high level understanding of what makes it such an enlightened path. Turns out that humanism is a "life stance" that is deeply concerned with truth, ethics and morality. Sounds a lot like religion. Except that religion is bad and humanism is good.

A basic tenant of humanism holds that, "right and wrong must be based on the individual and common good." Which begs the question, which is it? Does the individual determine what's right or does the group? The answer to this question, no matter what it is, begs many, many more questions.

If the individual is the source of truth, then we've got a mammoth problem on our hands, because individuals inevitably have opinions that contrast with the opinions and ideas of other individuals. Get a few billion individuals together on a planet and you've got one, two three, four......well, a lot of versions of the truth. So who's right and who's wrong?

This, I'm guessing, is where group morality enters the picture. But is the common good ever really common (much less good)? It's not hard to find a group of individuals who share common views, but driving global consent is a bit like herding cats. Billions of cats. In all of mortality, there will never be unanimous consent when it comes to right or wrong. That's my opinion. And if you disagree, you're proving my point. Besides, I've got all of history on my side.

So what happens next? Does morality become democratic? Do we leave it to the majority to decide right and wrong? If so, then right and wrong are bound to change, then change again.

The problem with all this is that there is not, nor indeed can there be, an absolute in the equation without a God. Atheists will recoil at this suggestion, but I defy them to show otherwise. The only alternative is that right and wrong, moral and immoral are purely relative. Such a notion gives way to nihilism and chaos.

One might declare that murder is wrong.
To which I would ask, why?
Because everybody knows it is.
Everybody?
Well, most people.
So right and wrong is determined by majority rule?
No.
Well then, what determines it? Why is murder wrong?
Because murder is contrary to the common good, that's why.
And who decides what is commonly good?
The people. The community.
All of the people, or just a majority?
Look, not killing people helps preserve society.
So it's a simple matter of preservation? In that case, is it wrong to kill murderers?

The slippery slope is obvious. Almost embarrassingly obvious. With secular humanism, right and wrong are forever subjective. There is no anchor holding the ship in place, only a lively debate on deck as to the proper course. And even if an unlikely consensus is reached that the ship ought to travel north, everyone's compass is pointing a slightly different direction, making north impossible to identify.

Does organized religion have a similar problem? Yes, with so many religions, doctrines and denominations, it's impossible to argue that all who believe in God also understand and follow His doctrine. And yet, there are some common principals and ideals, foremost of which is the idea of one God with one set of objective, immutable truths.

To the believer, this is the anchor. God is the basis of right and wrong, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical. And to the non-believer, the idea of God must be recognized for what it (at the very least) is: The best and only chance to rise above the shifting sands of philosophy and find truth.