On Human Nature

I promise this isn't a bad joke.

What specific belief does an agnostic, a former Catholic-turned-atheist, a baptist, and a scientist all share in common?

Stumped?

Apparently they all believe that man is fundamentally good. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, really. Today it seems that most people believe man is fundamentally good. For example, just Google "is man fundamentally good" and read some of the first results from Yahoo!Answers. Or, if you're too lazy I've copy-and-pasted some below:

Yahoo! user “Naguru” believes that humans are good and as proof likens us to … animals?
“Good and evil are part of nature. It is for the individual to choose, select and adopt. Humans are fundamentally good. I do not agree humans are evil. You see in circus, even wild animals are trained to behave properly. Why humans cannot learn to behave properly.” (Author Edit: Hey Naguru, try this out for size for that last sentence – “Why can’t humans learn to behave properly?” See how that just rolls out the mouth a little easier?)

Well, maybe “Naguru” thinks humans are “fundamentally good,” but that didn’t help him pass his 1st grade Grammar & Composition class. On a more serious note, did Naguru really just compare us to animals in order to prove that we are fundamentally good? Lets see … in the animal kingdom when animals are left to themselves (and therefore are the closest to their unaltered nature), gorillas fight and maim for control and domination, tigers eat their young, and most male mammals maintain a healthy harem of female mates. (I’m sure that would fly in the human world, right?) Oh, lets not forget housecats. What can be wrong with cute little furry felines, you ask? Well consider this: Ferrell (wild) male housecats will hunt down a mother cat so that they can kill her newly born kittens in order to make her go into heat again so that they can mate with her again. Yeah, that sounds civilized, or rather, “fundamentally good.”

On the other hand, we have Yahoo! users “Mountain Dweller” and “Irony Man,” who both believe that human nature is in a state of neutrality and that each person chooses their own destiny:
“Good and evil are terms that apply to behavior. They are a choice. So human nature is neither. There is no original sin or original blessing. Child are innocent because they have yet to act and don't have a reasonable understanding of their own behavior.”
“All human nature are fundamentally neutral. Good and evil depends on their habits. Some people have the the habits of doing good while others have the habits of doing evil.”

Ok so clearly we shouldn’t go to Yahoo! to find the best grammaticians, because my eyes are starting to hurt and I’ve only read three entries. On the other hand, I love it when people claim that children are “innocent” because there is just SO much fodder to use as evidence to the contrary. My favorite: a story about me! So I’m one and a half. Well maybe two. Basically same as me now, only 180 pounds lighter and quite a few inches shorter. I’m holding myself up in the standing position and right in front of me is one of my mom’s crystal figurines from Japan. As I reach out to grab it, Mom says, “Ryan don’t touch that!” I look at her slightly surprised, my hand frozen in mid-air. My eyes lock with hers. I know it’s on. So does she. Without once breaking her gaze or even so much as letting loose a simple blink of the eyelid, I stretch my hand out further towards the crystal statuette. “Ryaaaaannn!!!!” comes my mother’s threatening tone. But I don’t back down. Oh no, I’m much too stubborn for that. I slowly stick out one chunky, grubby baby finger and slowly, slowly … sloowwwllyyy … I touched the figurine.

Then I got a spanking.

Like I said, basically the same as me now, only a lot smaller.

Or we could talk about the time I broke a lamp and blamed it on the cat, or the time I let caterpillars loose in the house and insisted it wasn’t me, or the time I beat our dog with a rock, or the countless times I stole candy from the closet and never admitted to taking it. Before I continue, I will grant that infants do not have the mental powers required to delineate the personal responsibility connected to their wrongful actions. However, the point here is that even children are not innocent. They know that right and wrong exists and they know that they can commit wrongful actions as well as right ones.

And this is just a part of my overall argument that, contrary to popular opinion, people are not fundamentally good. For the most part, people are rotten, wicked, and evil. For the most part, people cannot be trusted – not with money or possessions, not with time or resources, and especially not with feelings and relationships. I say “for the most part” because yes, I admit that trustworthy people exist. However, they do not exemplify the default which human nature resorts too.

In conclusion, dear readers, do not assume I am a pessimist. In fact it’s quite the opposite. I am a realist – firmly planted in reality of our world, recognizing the supreme depravity of man and expecting him to operate within his nature. And therefore, by expecting the worse from him I can be pleasantly satisfied when, on a rare occasion, I see a human committing some good. Incidentally (or not so incidentally), witnessing the rare act of goodness from a human being reminds me from whence all goodness comes – only from our kind, loving and gracious God, and certainly not from the “fundamental nature” of a depraved human race.

Shout Out

No, don't get too excited.

I'm not ready to post again. I've barely been reading anything at all recently.

This is just a short note to tell you all that my Mom started a blog (well, had a blog started for her ::cough::) and I wanted to pass on the URL for all of you. She plans on posting her favorite stories from their many new experiences in Italy, which should make for very fun reading.

So, in the interest of our common benefit, drop a line over on her site real quick to encourage her to post up =)

(= linky =)

Running the Good Race, According to Cicero and St. Paul

Well as promised, this post will get away from politics for a little while and cover some of Cicero's "On a Life Well Spent." In all honesty, I've really been too busy to do much reading at all. Life seems to have a way (sometimes) of keeping you on a treadmill. I've come to the conclusion that the treadmill lifestyle can be both good and bad. It's good in that one does stay busy and avoids the consequences of that age-old adage that "Idle hands are the devil's tools." But, on the other hand, a treadmill lifestyle can fail to provide a goal at the end of the road - a light at the end of the tunnel, if you will. Instead you feel somewhat akin to a hamster on a wheel - constantly running yet getting nowhere. For me, I try to maintain a more positive outlook and anytime I feel like a hamster I just remind myself that I'm not small, fuzzy, incapable of controlling my urinary tract, or focused entirely on food.

Well.

Ok.

I may be focused entirely on food, but my point here is that I am happier being busy, even I don't feel right now like there is a grander end-goal in sight.

Anyway, after that lovely introduction (can't you tell I'm in more of a philosophy-motivated mood?), lets dive into my good friend Cicero's rather pagan concept of A Life Well Spent.

"...For a calm contemplative Life, or a Life well and virtuously spent in the just Discharge of one's immediate Duty in any Station, will ever be attended with a Serenity of Mind in Old Age: Such a Life as we learn Plato led, who died at his Studies in the Eighty-first Year of his Age: Such as that of Isocrates, who is said to have wrote his Oration, called the Panathenaic, in his Ninety-fourth Year, and to have lived Five Years after; whose Master, Gorgias of Leontium, lived One Hundred and Seven Years, and till his Death never left off his Studies. This Man being asked, how at such an Age he could think Life desirable, answered , Because he had no Reason to complain of Life, nor did he feel any really Inconveniency from Age: An Answer truly noble, and worthy of a great and learned Soul."

For those of you who may be unfamiliar with this book, it is styled in the Roman fashion of a conversation. Cicero advises two young men, Laelius and Scipio, on the fundamental truth behind happiness in old age. In this selection, Cicero's essential advice to these two young Romans is "Do your absolute best in whatever job or calling you have, no matter what station of life you are in." I have two fundamental reactions to this selection of Cicero's advice.

First, I find his words extremely short-sighted. As a Christian, I naturally have an eternal focus as a fundamental component to my worldview. I don't see an eternal vision in Cicero's words. Instead, I find Cicero's words focused on only one's individual, singular existence. There is no consideration of the "bigger picture" of life, or the impact that one can have on his surroundings. I tend to believe that when I get old and wrinkly, I will have two main concerns: Preparing myself to meet my Creator and considering the Legacy I leave behind. When people in the future think "Ryan Zick," what will come to mind? To a large extent, that legacy is something that I will concern myself with for my entire life. You really can not start to think about your legacy at age 85, or you will simply be too late.

On the other hand, however, I find an element of Christian spirituality in Cicero's advice. As I said before, Cicero's fundamental instruction states "In everything you do, do it to the best of your ability. It doesn't matter what your calling happens to be, or what position in life you find yourself in, spend your life virtuously discharging your immediate duty." I find a striking similarity here to Paul's words when he speaks of "running the good race in such a way as you may be the one to receive the prize" (1 Corinthians 9:24-27) or in the Book of Hebrews where the author exhorts the Christian to "lay aside temptation and sin and run with patience the race that is set before us" (Hebrews 12:1-4).

In conclusion, I'd like to tie my last paragraph back to my first. I am happy being busy (even though I don't really see a grander end-goal) because I know that I am running the race that God has called me to run, and I intend to run that race to the best of my ability. In everything I am called to do I will virtuously discharge my immediate duty to to the glory and honor of the One who has called me to Him - my Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Scripture Selection of the Day (henceforth referred to as the SSD):

James 5:7-18 --

7 Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain. 8 You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. 9 Do not grumble against one another, brethren, lest you be condemned. Behold, the Judge is standing at the door! 10 My brethren, take the prophets, who spoke in the name of the Lord, as an example of suffering and patience. 11 Indeed we count them blessed who endure. You have heard of the perseverance of Job and seen the end intended by the Lord--that the Lord is very compassionate and merciful. 12 But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your "Yes" be "Yes," and your "No," "No," lest you fall into judgment. 13 Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much. 17 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain; and it did not rain on the land for three years and six months. 18 And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth produced its fruit.

Until next time...

Soli Deo Gloria,
HRZ

The Birthplace of Liberal Fascism

Dear Readers,

Needless to say, a pleasant surprise awaited me in the comments section of my last post. I had little idea that such a small amount of advertisement would yield the results that it did, and I'm quite happy each of you found some value in my "humble musings."

Today Mr. Goldberg reveals the birthplace of modern liberal fascism. If you couldn't tell by the photo I chose for this post, the French Revolution birthed the modern liberal movement, as Mr. Goldberg explains. Of course before I can dive into some discussion, I'll present you with today's selection, found on page 13...

"...But what truly makes the French Revolution the first fascist revolution was its effort to turn politics into a religion. (In this the revolutionaries were inspired by Rousseau, whose concept of the general will divinized the people while rendering the person an after-thought.) Accordingly, they declared war on Christianity, attempting to purge it from society and replace it with a "secular" faith whose tenets were synonymous with the Jacobin agenda. Hundreds of pagan-themed festivals were launched across the country celebrating Nation, Reason, Brotherhood, Liberty, and other abstractions in order to bathe the state and the general will in an aura of sanctity. As we shall see, the Nazis emulated the Jacobins in minute detail. It is no longer controversial to say that the French Revolution was disastrous and cruel. But it is deeply controversial to say that it was fascist, because the French Revolution is the fons et origo of the left and the "revolutionary tradition." The American right and classical liberals look fondly on the American Revolution, which was essentially conservative, while shuddering at the horrors and follies of Jacobinism. But if the French Revolution was fascist, then its heirs would have to be seen as the fruit of this poisoned tree, and fascism itself would finally and correctly be place where it belongs in the story of the left. This would cause seismic disorder in the leftist worldview; so instead, leftists embrace cognitive dissonance and terminological sleight of hand."

I believe this to be both a very interesting and educational selection from Mr. Goldberg's book. First of all, it illustrates the fact that there truly existed divergent interests behind the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Oftentimes in many modern history classes, these two important historical events get lumped into the "same" category -- the oppressed beating off the oppressors. However, as Mr. Goldberg points out, each Revolution fathered two very separate movements. How can this be, if the two Revolutions were in fact, the same fight? The answer presents itself within the selection. What was the philosophical foundation behind the two Revolutions? For the French, Rousseau and his theory of the "general will" which introduced a new 'Relgion' (that of The State) drove the bloodbath that was the French Revolution. So, Rousseau's thinking gave birth to the French Revolution, which in turn (as well as other sociological developments) gave grounds for the movement called Social Darwinism and it's supporters, such as Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner. These thinkers then laid the framework for the international Fascist movement. But we hastily jump ahead of ourselves. What of the American Revolution? As for America and her Revolution against Britain, she found a higher calling. The philosophical writings of John Locke and the economics of Adam Smith provided the revolutionary engine for John Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock and other famous American revolutionaries. Therein lies the fundamental difference, then, between the French and American Revolutions and how two similar historical events were truly motivated by entirely different philosophies and thus created two fundamentally separate movements: liberal and conservative.

I mentioned I had a second point, and I've not yet forget her. This selection also inspired me to discuss the definitions of liberals and conservatives. While you may believe this to be a relatively straight-forward and simple discussion, more intrigue exists behind the definitions than you may be aware. For instance, did you know that conservatives used to be liberals, and vice versa? It's true. Also, you may not be aware of the fact there are two separate forms of liberalism. Let me see if I can break this down.
First, there is classical liberalism. Classical liberalism includes the ideologies of John Locke and Adam Smith. Locke, a great liberal thinker, argued that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and property and that no one can rule over anyone without the consent of the governed. Furthermore, Locke believed that any government which violates our "civil rights" releases us from any obligation to obey it and entitles us with the right to overthrow it and establish a new government. Adam Smith composed the economic half of Locke's political theory by introducing the concept of a free market, liberated from the Government's control. This is often referred to as "laissez-faire economics."
Second, there is modern liberalism, which many agree has its philosophical roots in the writings of T.H. Green. Green believed that liberalism requires an active government to ensure and promote individual liberty. Green's beliefs laid the foundation for the modern liberal movement and the creation of "welfare liberalism."
Finally, we have conservatism, which includes the ideas of classical liberalism (Locke and Smith), as well as Burkean traditional conservatism, but not modern liberalism. Burkean traditional conservatism upholds the need to support traditional morality. Conservatism as a whole, then, sometimes takes divergent paths with the classical liberals in one camp and the strict Burkeans in another camp. (A good example of modern Burkean thinkers would be the likes of our dearly beloved Dr. Jerry Falwell [please note the sarcasm]. The left calls Burkeans "the extreme right.")

So there we go. Now you know what Mr. Goldberg meant when he wrote towards the end of my selection "the American right and classical liberals," and you also know probably more than you ever wanted to about the foundation of American politics. However, I believe this type of an education is necessary if one is to understand the movement of modern politics and how utterly insane it is that the liberals are calling the conservatives fascist when the entire leftist movement is founded upon the earliest and strongest tenets of fascism. Truly the left has mastered what Mr. Goldberg calls a "terminological sleight of hand."

Soli Deo Gloria,
HRZ

*PS, I promise that my next post will get away from politics for a little while and cover some of Cicero's "On a Life Well Spent." Until next time...

Liberal Fascism

Hello all (or none),

Almost six months now since I started this blog, and I'm finally actually getting around to writing something. The past six months, however, have been extremely busy and so I don't really blame myself for not getting much into this blog. In all truthfulness, I started this blog to try and drive my attentions to something a little more intellectual and away from the TV and the ever-present Facebook. I hope whatever friends I find on here might encourage me in that endeavor. I am a Political Sciences major at the University of Maryland, College Park, and I hope that this blog may be an avenue for me to share ideas and flush through the instruction I receive in lecture.

Anyway, down to business. At my Dad's suggestion, I have recently begun reading Jonah Goldberg's book 'Liberal Fascism,' and that book will most likely provide the fuel for my intellectual fire throughout the next month and half or so. Also, you may see a little snippet here and there of another book I recently purchased -- Cicero's 'On a Life Well Spent,' which has an amazing preface written by Benjamin Franklin. I'd like to say more on that book, but unfortunately, I haven't made it past the preface. Oh, and don't be surprised if every now and then a little religion and theology (they are very different) get thrown into political mix.

With that said, I'd like to dive in to the first few pages of 'Liberal Fascism.' On pages 7 and 8, Mr. Goldberg writes:

"Certain quarters of the left assert that "Zionism equals racism" and that Israelis are equivalent to Nazis. As invidious and problematic as those comparisons are, why aren't we hearing similar denunciations of group ranging from the National Council of La Raza - that is, "The Race" -- to the radical Hispanic group MEChA, whose motto -- "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada." -- means "Everything for the race, nothing outside the race"? Why is it that when a white man spouts such sentiments it's "objectively" fascist, but when a person of color says the same thing it's merely an expression of fashionable multiculturalism? The most important priority for the left is not to offer any answer at all to such questions. They would much prefer to maintain Orwell's definition of fascism as "anything not desirable," thus excluding their own fascistic proclivities from inquiring eyes. When they are forced to answer, however, the response is usually more instinctive, visceral, or dismissively mocking than rational or principled. Their logic seems to be that multiculturalism, the Peace Corps, and such are good things -- things that liberal approve of -- and good things can't be fascist by simple virtue of the fact that liberal approve of them. Indeed, this seems to be the irreducible argument of countless writers who glibly use the word "fascist" to describe the "bad guys" based on no other criteria than that liberals think they are bad. Fidel Castro, one could argue, is a textbook fascist. But because the left approves of his resistance to U.S. "imperialism" -- and because he use the abracadabra words of Marxism -- it's not just wrong but objectively stupid to call him a fascist. Meanwhile, calling Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani, and other conservatives fascists is simply what right-thinking, sophisticated people do."

I would apologize for the long-ish quote if the content were of any less quality, but in my mind the value behind Mr. Goldberg's words justifies the lengthy selection. (In other words, deal with it.) In this selection, Mr. Goldberg places so eloquently into words what I've been feeling, and occasionally witnessing, for some time now. Liberals call it multiculturalism. I call it an extreme response to racism, or "extreme anti-racism." Whatever name the movement be dubbed, the net effect remains the same. There exists in America a political movement to support racial pride, as long as the race consists of some color besides white. One can sit and watch an entire episode of 'Scrubs,' where the majority of the 30-minute show centers around Carla Espinosa's "pride" in her Hispanic culture and heritage, or J.D.'s jealousy of Turk being black ("I wish I was black, Brown Bear," is obviously a paraphrased quote, but that sentiment exists consistently throughout the show). In today's world, it's cool to have color. Multiculturalism, or pride in one's heritage, ends up creating what I see to be a racist sentiment against white people. On campus at UM, we proudly support Black History Month, Hispanic Pride Day (or month, I can't remember), and other celebrations of "minority" groups that no longer seem to be in the minority. I would love to see the reaction on people's faces if someone were to suggest any kind of White Pride Month. Needless to say, such a person would be run out of the room post-haste amidst cries of "Nazi Supremist!" Apparently, because I'm not black or Hispanic, I can't have an Italian, German, or Irish Pride Month to celebrate my unique heritage. Is my heritage less important because my skin is a lighter tint than others?

Less even I be confused for Nazi white-supremist of some kind, I'm not advocating racial cleansing, a "One-Race" movement, or anything of the sort. However, I am arguing that the anti-Racism movement of the left has swung the 'Race Pendulum' too far and, as Mr. Goldberg points out, into the realm of the fascist.

Ultimately, the true fascist of today rests his head not in the camp of the conservative but in the bed of the liberal movement.

Soli Deo Gloria,
HRZ

Introductions

Hello All, whoever may read this.

I am developing a blog that I would like to use to discuss political ideas. I come from a libertarian point of view on many issues. While I advocate small, limited government that places a high value on individual rights, I also recognize the need and importance of a (well-managed and controlled) federal government. This view, among others, will affect how I approach the topics I discuss here. I love debate and welcome intellectual comments that breed healthy discussion.