Two Golden Questions

The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen is a simple, yet thorough, explanation of the principles of freedom understood by the amazing statesmen at the time of our nation’s founding.  The public must understand these principles if liberty is to be maintained.  Without them, we are bound to slide toward tyranny or anarchy.

There are many great points made in this book, and I don’t want to bore everyone with a huge paper/review after reading it; therefore, I decided to make smaller posts on some of the ideas that catch my attention or touch my heart.

Today’s concept comes from Part I of the book.  This section dispels some of the modern misunderstandings resulting from the creation of political parties and the increasing animosity between the different political groups.

Skousen reminds us that the Founding Fathers differed vehemently on many subjects, but in the end, they were in accord on the basic principles of sound government.  Today, we focus on the differences and fight for the peculiarities of our beliefs.  We would do well to learn from the Founders that underneath those differences in political ideology exists the truth that government is created to protect life, liberty, and property.

It seems that much of contemporary legislation is based on one party’s desire to secure a foothold for their specific issue.  Worse, when “both sides of the aisle” come together, the public burden expands under bigger deficits, expanding bureaucracy, or “legalized” violations of individual liberty (IE: Patriot Act, NDAA).

Skousen identifies two wings of the government: the problem-solving wing and the conservation wing.  The problem-solving wing consists of those compassionate individuals who see unmet needs and seek out solutions to those problems.  The conservation wing consists of those individuals who are tasked with conserving the nation’s resources and freedom.  Their duty is to analyze the plans of the problem-solving wing and determine if they are appropriate.  To do this requires asking only two questions:

1)      Can we afford it?

2)      What will it do to the rights and individual freedom of the people?

If only our legislators asked these two questions about any bill or amendment in their hands!  The current trends of growing the government on a dangerously enormous deficit would turn around.  The ever-increasingly aggressive and unapologetic Police State would shrink back to its primary duty and sole role of protecting individual liberty by defending the Constitution.

Review: Hondo

Hondo by Louis L’Amour
My rating: 4 of 5 stars  (For me this one gets more like a 4.5/5 stars, but that’s not an option on Goodreads.)

One of my weaknesses as a student of the classics is my short attention span. I long for the ability to immerse myself deeply into difficult, but relevant texts. I want to be the type of student that enjoys spending hours at a time reading, studying, thinking, making connections, and writing my discoveries.

I’m not there yet.

I have been alternating my reading between a serious or more difficult read with something I read for entertainment. The last few days I have alternated between John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism and Louis L’Amour’s Hondo. I have found that I am able to stay engaged for a longer amount of time.

Tonight, I finished Hondo. I loved it. Maybe it’s the Arizona boy in me, but I’ve always liked Westerns. Last year I read Louis L’Amour’s autobiographical Education of a Wandering Man. It was excellent. I think it created a positive bias toward L’Amour. Not that the story doesn’t have its own merit.

The setting of the book is rich in accurate detail. Having grown up in the desert, I developed a love for her harsh beauty and hidden secrets. L’Amour captures these aspects perfectly. He also delves into the universal themes of life such as love, ethics, the nature of man, etc.
What I love about L’Amour’s style is how he can hit the core of these themes in relatively few words. There is intelligence in his writing that runs under the surface, always present, but there is also a lot of heart. You feel what his characters experience. You connect with that human struggle. You feel what it means to live well, learn from life, and learn from mistakes – developing the character to make a stand for what is right.

Hondo is a true cowboy: rough around the edges, in tune with the harsh environment, content with hard work, yet compassionate and fair. He prefers to be on friendly terms with both the Apache Indians and the white men in the region, but if anyone crosses him, he meets that threat with ferocity and proficiency as a warrior. He is a man’s man and proves it in the end by dedicating his manliness to a family.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book and recommend it to anyone who enjoys westerns.

View all my reviews

Review: The Second Treatise of Government & A Letter Concerning Toleration

The Second Treatise of Government & A Letter Concerning Toleration by John Locke
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Of all the great scientists, philosophers, religious leaders, and political theorists we studied this past semester, John Locke is my favorite.

In my oral final, I was asked to summarize each political philosopher with one sentence. My sentence for John Locke was, “Jefferson, you’re welcome!” The more I read of Locke, the more I saw Jefferson and I loved it!

At some point in my reading this book, I scrawled in the cover the following: “Locke stokes the flames of rebellion, fueled by the embers of righteous self-preservation.” I thoroughly enjoyed his systematic explanation of the origin of rights and governmental power and authority.

Necessarily, it starts with the individual. God gives life, and with that gift comes great responsibility to honor, preserve, and improve that life. In order to accomplish this sacred duty, one must be free to exercise his will to that end, and he must be able to retain ownership of the fruits of his efforts. The sacred duty to preserve self is not the same as selfishness. It’s more akin to the safety instructions given on a plane shortly after boarding that in case of an emergency depressurizing the cabin, one should put the oxygen mask first on oneself before helping others put their masks on.

Because property plays an important role in our stewardship, people tend to want to protect their property. In a state of nature, the effort to protect one’s things potentially consumes excessive amounts of time and resources; consequently, people have a natural tendency to aggregate and form governments explicitly to protect their life, liberty, and property. The effort to protect is delegated to representatives, and this frees the people to pursue more productive endeavors.

Locke’s analysis of proper government is spot on in so many ways. My book looks like one of my kids’ coloring books, because I underlined, circled, hi-lighted, and scribbled so many notes in it. I’ll share just a few of the rules he points out.

“…no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”

All men are born equal. There is no reasonable or rational claim to the divine right of kings.

He who would threaten my life, liberty, or property puts himself in a state of war against me, and as long as I am under threat of force from him, I am justified (if not duty bound) to resist him, even to his destruction.

“Without law there is no liberty.” But the law must apply to all equally. If the law or the government demands or prohibits something that violates the inalienable rights of man, it violates its sole purpose for existing.

“…the first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society, and… of every person in it.”

Legislative power: 1) cannot be arbitrary/cannot exceed natural rights. 2) Cannot become a power in itself-it, too, is ruled by the law. 3) Cannot take a man’s property without his consent. 4) Cannot delegate law-making to any other power.

The people have a responsibility to defend their life, liberty, and property-even from their own legislators.

The Executive is subordinate to the Legislature. The Executive must always be “in being”, whereas the Legislature should only convene from time to time, because laws should not need to be made continuously, but they must be constantly enforced.

I’ll do a longer post dedicated on Locke’s discussion of prerogative later. For now, know that laws and constitutions set limits, not minimums – especially concerning punishment of crimes. The offender may be punished, but that does not mean he should or must be punished. Locke says, “This power to act according to discretion for the public good, without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it, is that which is called prerogative.”

I struggled with some of Locke’s ideas about education, but I may explore them more in another post.

Finally, I enjoyed Locke’s letter on toleration. He was ahead of his time. He also impressed me with some of his comments that I found profoundly in tune with the Spirit of Christ. He basically called for the separation of Church and State, and not in the cheap way that phrase is tossed around today, but with a conviction that worship and faith is essential to a moral people and a sound government; however, using either physical or legal force to obligate or influence another to be faithful is not only ineffective, it is offensive to God.

“Whatsoever is not done with that assurance of faith is neither well in itself, nor can it be acceptable to God. To impose such things, therefore, upon any people, contrary to their own judgment, is in effect to command them to offend God, which, considering that the end of all religion is to please him, and that liberty is essentially necessary to that end, appears to be absurd beyond expression.”

I feel I have made this post much too long. Yet, I have barely scratched the surface of the many great things Locke observed and explained. I am excited to reread this and find other writings of Locke. I can see why he was so influential on our Founding Fathers.

View all my reviews

Review: The Nature of Life

The Nature of Life by Waddington, C.H.
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This book is based on a series of lectures given at the University College of the West Indies in Jamaica in 1960. Faculty and outside experts gave speeches about their specialty. The intent was to increase the awareness and understanding of the faculty of various fields to different areas of study; consequently, the material shared needed to be basic enough for those unfamiliar with the topic, while giving enough fresh material to include those who were familiar with it in varying degrees.

Waddington hit the nail on the head. This book is a very capable introduction to the major trends in the scientific community – specifically biology.

Waddington shares the advances provided by revolutionary theories, like Darwin’s evolution and Mendel’s genetics. He clearly demonstrates the value of those contributions, but he also clearly shows where those theories fell short. This is not to discredit the brilliant work of these men.

The accomplishments of Darwin and Mendel are amazing considering the times in which they developed. Many of the shortcomings later identified were a direct result of the ideas being so far ahead of their time. They identified key principles of heredity, development, and adaptation through intense experimentation and observation, without the benefit of tools like gene-mapping.

We wouldn’t have such advancements either, if not for their ideas.

One of the points made by Waddington that impressed me most was the value of scientific models. He explains that even if the theories and models are imperfect or flat-out wrong, they are a point of reference for additional discovery. Whether the model is refuted or proven (even partially) is irrelevant in regards to the advancement of scientific knowledge. The key is that questions are being asked, ideas explored, and empirical data analyzed, sorted, and applied to other models, thereby illuminating truth.

Another valuable aspect of this book is that it walks the reader through some of those processes that connect older scientific progress to current work and by extension the future.

I struggled with the decision to give the book 3 or 4 stars out of 5. The main point that kept me from giving the book 4 stars was the final chapter called Biology and Man. Waddington points out that the human mind seems unlikely to be defined adequately by chemical and physical means alone. Sure, an electrical impulse recalls a memory, but that memory is an image, smell, or sound. It has emotional attachment. It is a part of a greater whole that may include components of personality, ethics, self-awareness, etc. It’s more than a flash of electricity, or a chemical compound moving between receptors.

Ironically, while pointing out the inadequacy of a purely chemical or electrical approach to explaining free will, memory, personality, and self-awareness, Waddington seems to believe that these are the true explanation, but we are currently unable to measure, therefore explain, these phenomena. He even expresses doubt that we will ever be able to explain them.

In conclusion, Waddington’s discourse is valuable to the student of science and philosophy. He attempts to address opposing sides of major debates that continue over decades, but he fails to do so objectively. He is critical of the inability of religion to give empirical evidence of its efforts to refute or qualify the theory of evolution. He basically says that religions lack of empirical contribution makes it a nearly irrelevant part of the overall scientific discussion, but after saying this, he basically offers ideas equally void of empirical proof, but chalks it up as mere limitations in scientific tools.

The more I learn about science, and the more I participate in philosophical discussions, the less convinced I am that anyone has it just right. I feel impatient with those who attempt to discredit a theory in whole, because the theory doesn’t fit their agenda or world-view. This goes both ways. Ironically, belief in many scientific models requires every bit as much faith as believing in a Divine Intelligent Creator. I am disturbed that scientific models, most of which are still theories, are taught as absolute truth. I am equally frustrated by those blinded by devotion to religious ideas that fail to offer adequate answers to important, relevant questions.

I’m also a little disturbed at my own ease in hopping on a soapbox about this when I am so inexperienced and ignorant.

View all my reviews

Waddington’s Definition and Process of Science

For my biology class, I am currently reading The Nature of Life by C.H. Waddington.  I’m only about 10 pages in so far, but every paragraph is packed with succinct insight about scientific development and culture.

For my sake, I wish to record Waddington’s definition of science and the four steps that scientific discovery must follow.

Waddington writes: “I suggest that science can be defined simply as the application, to questions concerning the external world, of all the major faculties which man is capable of exercising.”

He then explains that any complete scientific work follows four steps.

The first step is a relevant question or idea

“It starts by asking a relevant question… Or [it] may start from some new imaginative idea; ideas, for instance, like that of the quantum of energy, of indeterminacy, or lack of parity, or of a unit of biological heredity…and so on…”

Waddington warns the reader that these ideas often seem illogical or abstract, but they lead to the development of scientific models that one can work with, question, test, and ultimately prove or disprove fully or in part.  Either way, new knowledge becomes available, and science advances.

The second step is ratiocination and repeatability

Ratiocination is a fancy word for “a reasoned train of thought.”  In other words, the idea or question must be formulated in mathematical or logical terms, making the theory well-defined and available for others to work with it.

The third step is experimentation

Because really… what is science without experiments?  The theory must be manipulated, picked apart, and held up to the light of past discoveries and future possibility.  Regardless of the theory’s ultimate fate, the fruits of experimentation is data – information that may be applied to a modification of the theory or to other scientific models independent of the primary idea being tested.

The fourth step is humility

Waddington says it beautifully:

In his logical analysis and manipulative experimentation, the scientist is behaving somewhat arrogantly towards nature, trying to force her into his categories of thought or to trick her into doing what he wants.  But finally, he has to be humble.  He has, a T.H. Huxley put it a century ago, to sit down before the fact like a little child.  He has to take his intuition, his logical theory and his manipulative skill to the bar of Nature and see whether she answers yes or no; and he has to abide by the result.

According to Waddington, the rapid increase in useful and accurate scientific advancement is the direct result of a scientific community cooperatively working this four-step process.

It makes sense to me.  I look forward to the rest of the book and hope to share more lessons I learn from Mr. Waddington.

Review: The Prince

The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This was my second time reading Machiavelli’s The Prince. I enjoyed it much more the second time.

The stories he shares to demonstrate effective usurpation tainted my first experience. That was almost all I could see at the time, but this time through I felt more strongly that Machiavelli wasn’t evil, he was pragmatic.

For example, he states several times that it is best to be virtuous, unless doing the right thing weakens your leadership. Consequently, appearance of virtue becomes the most important rule, allowing the leader to do what needs to be done without damaging public appearance.

This brings me to the major rule that I observed throughout the book. Machiavelli often repeats the advice to not allow oneself to be hated by the people. He points out that it is impossible to avoid offending some, but one ought to attempt to not become hated by all, and especially not to be hated by the most powerful.

It is better to be feared than to be love (if you must choose exclusively between the two); however, it is imperative that one not be hated while being feared.

He states that the fastest way to become hated is to take the people’s private property or their women.

There are many other bits of advice for the prince who wants to retain power, but I also found gems of wisdom regarding a people who wishes to be free.

“And he who becomes master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it, for in rebellion it has always the watchword of liberty and its ancient privileges as a rallying point, which neither time nor benefits will ever cause it to forget. And whatever you may do or provide against, they never forget that name or their privileges unless they are disunited or dispersed, but at every chance they immediately rally to them…” (From Chapter V, 3rd paragraph)

This quote made me think of the amazing legacy we have in the United States. We have a legacy of liberty, opportunity for prosperity, and of sound government. The only way that can be taken from us is if we relinquish it. Sadly, the second half of the quote applies as well. We have relinquished much of the legacy of liberty bestowed on us by our founding fathers. One of the major vehicles of this loss of liberty is the disuniting force of partisan politics. We have become too engaged in beating the other guy and too removed from the process of learning true principles and historical cycles that warn against the enslaving influence of such bickering and infighting.

A huge part of the solution to our current disunity is education. We need to spend time studying the principles that form the foundation of proper government. Freedom and prosperity cannot exist without it.

Enough with the soapbox for now. I think I’ll have to return to this book for some additional essays in the future.

View all my reviews

Review: Tales of the Fish Patrol

Tales of the Fish Patrol by Jack London
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This is a book that I read on my Kindle to the kids at bedtime. It’s taken quite a while, because their mom usually reads to them at bedtime. I enjoyed this book, but the kids received it with mixed reviews. When we finished tonight, Braedi asked if there was a second book, and Dyllan cheered that it was finally over.

One thing I enjoyed about the book is that it is believable. There’s just enough detail that you can immerse yourself in the setting, but no too much to overwhelm you with the detail. We learned about different kinds of ships, different forms of fishing, and different geographical formations, like a bight.

The book is a series of short stories about a young man who works with the fish patrol capturing poachers. He has several scary run ins with shady characters, some of which wanted to take his life for interfering in their illegal fishing. Throughout, the theme of justice prevails, and especially in the second to last story we get to see a nice dose of mercy mixed in.

My rating of 3 stars likely shows how much I was affected by the kids’ mixed reception. I really enjoyed the stories and plan to read more of London’s books this summer.

View all my reviews