Jul
18
2010
By Richard Okelberry, July 18th, 2010 – Here is an excerpt from a conversation that I have been participating in response to an essay written by Gary Kunkel titled, “The Madness of King Coal.” While there are plenty of people who are critical of our current dependence on dirty fuels like coal and petroleum, at some point we have to start talking about viable options to such fuels. The following details one possible way of converting our system from a gasoline based transportation system to one that runs on Compressed Natural Gas and eventual Hydrogen.
Brewski,
“So what does this tell us? If you want people to carpool, use public transportation, use more efficient cars, buy solar panels, cool their AC to 78 and not 72 and all those holy grails of policy outcomes, then make not doing so really expensive…” – Brewski
You are dead on about higher prices causing major changes in the habits of consumers. The problem is; that is the exactly the opposite direction we need to go in. First, having the government artificially drive up the cost of living is not going to sit well with voters and it will only lead to the government using the new found revenue to expand its operations. Remember, government rarely goes through a major downsizing, so whatever we add to the farm, we have to feed. Second, artificially ramping up the price of fuel and electricity to spur conservation will ultimately have a huge detrimental effect on our economy.
While Republicans and Democrats like to each blame the other side when the economy falls on its face, historically major recessions have all been tied directly to the availability of natural resources. With the exception of the Great Depression which was tied to a super drought and dust bowl which put agricultural workers (the largest employment sector of its day) out of work, every other major recession since has been tied to an energy crisis. While it is true that each of these periods of spiked energy costs helped to encourage conservation, it did so by creating havoc in family budgets which ultimately caused people to stop consuming which ultimately brought the economy to a halt. We have to be very careful when we talk about crafting energy policy based too heavily on restricting energy to force less consumption. Additionally, higher fuel prices leads to inflation since energy costs are built into most every product or service. So consumers have less to spend and things end up costing more. It is a vicious cycle that is difficult to get on top of.
As much as many of us conservatives would like to see a small, less intrusive government, we have to understand that energy represents a natural monopoly as do most natural resources. As such, the government has a legitimate role in the production and distribution of energy as a mechanism of maintaining a stable economy. In fact, it is one of the only areas where government can have a positive effect on the direction and overall growth of an economy.
Here is one plan that I believe would work for helping to maintain a healthy economy while serving the need to remove our dependence on dirty fuels. (I wish I could say that I came up with this. Unfortunately, I cannot remember who did because they certainly are deserving of credit.)
First, the federal government needs to begin converting its entire fleet of vehicles to natural gas. If we begin doing this with the postal service, it will give fueling points at every post office. This will allow the state governments to use these fueling depots to then convert all of their vehicles which will also lead to the state government building their own fuel depots. It’s all about distribution here and by phasing in natural gas use in vehicles it will allow production and distribution of natural gas to gradually ramp up and won’t cause a run on the resource which will run its price up too quickly. At the same time that this is going on the Fed begins giving serious incentives in the form of tax credits to those that bear some of the expense of converting their own vehicles and gives industry similar incentives to companies for expanding production of natural gas ready vehicles.
Second, because natural gas is cleaner than gasoline but not completely clean, the government then begins working towards doing the same conversion and providing the same distribution with hydrogen fueled vehicles. Keep in mind that at every step through the process, anyone who has either a gas or hydrogen vehicle will be allowed to use any government fuel depot to fill up their car and any private distributor will have access to the distribution network. By expanding our use of Hydrogen we will also be expanding our production of hydrogen and advancing safe storage techniques. Once these techniques are perfected, wind and solar will both become more viable methods of producing electricity because hydrogen can be used as a storage medium for excess power that can be later reconverted at times when wind and solar are not able to meet demand.
Of course, nuclear and geothermal energy will likely need to play a primary role in our eventual conversion to hydrogen fuels, if we are going to be expected to meet the demands for hydrogen that will occur if every vehicle will eventually use it as its primary fuel source. (We should also consider how certain areas that are rich in geothermal activity may see a sort of gold rush during this era of conversions. Utah would be one of those states.)
This process will likely take 30 years to complete, but it is a plan that would eventually lead to a nation free from fossil fuel dependency. We also need to consider that as America goes, so does the rest of the world. As cheap natural gas, then hydrogen fueled vehicles cars begin to out pace traditional gasoline vehicles in production, the cost of these vehicles will drop below the price of their older siblings. This cost shift will translate into a global shift in the primary fuel source used for transportation.
For any plan to succeed, it will have to be something that can be widely accepted by many people of varying political backgrounds. I believe that this plan is one that both sides of the isle can get behind because it takes into account the need to reduce harmful emissions while being simultaneously concerned for economic growth. Ultimately, we need to worry less about how many SUVs people are driving and more about how to provide those SUVs to the public that use a cleaner fuel.
For those interested in using Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or interested in getting involved in promoting CNG, here is a useful web site.
Jul
6
2010
By Richard Okelberry, July 6th, 2010 -
I’ve been giving some thought to the various theories regarding the expansion of the universe.
While we have known since Edwin Hubble first made his observations using the Doppler effect that the universe is expanding in all directions, it was not until 1998 when scientists where observing a Type la Supernovae that they discovered that the universe is not just expanding but also accelerating in all directions. This came as a big surprise to most in the scientific community since it was long believed that the pull of gravity would eventually slow things down following the Big Bang; causing all matter in the universe to fall back on it’s self.
While there are many theories that have attempted to explain this phenomenon, perhaps the most popular is a theory that some hypothetical “dark energy” is providing the motivation for this unexplained acceleration of the expansion of the universe. I want to propose instead that it might be a gravitational Doppler Effect that is the culprit.
The Doppler Effect occurs when frequency of light or sound or any other electromagnetic radiation coming from a moving object is compressed on the bow side of the object and expanded on the aft side. This can be most commonly experienced as a train passes by while blowing it horn. As the train approaches, the sound has an increased pitch as the sound waves are compressed. As the train passes, the pitch suddenly drops to a lower pitch as the waves are stretched out behind the now receding train. The same thing happens with light. In fact, if your eyes were sensitive enough you would see the train turn slightly red (blue shift) as it approaches you then turn slightly red (red shift) as it moves away from you.
I want to propose that the force of gravity, which was predicted by Einstein and confirmed in 1993 by physicist Sergei Kopeikin to be limited by the speed of light and as such is also believed to propagate in waves, is perhaps subject to the same Doppler Effect.
While gravitational waves have yet to be detected, if gravity does travel in waves then intuitively it would mean that when a large gravitational object like a star is moving in a given direction, the gravity in front of that star would be slightly greater in the direction of its movement and slightly less in its wake due to the Doppler Effect. Essentially, the star would be propagating in front of it a more compact stack of gravity waves which should in turn cause a slightly greater curve in the space/time at its bow.
This “gravitational bow wave” in front of an object like a star in motion, might it’s self be a sort of self perpetuating accelerator. Because the gravity well in front of a moving object is deeper than the gravity well behind it, the object would seem to be perpetually falling into its own gravity well. It would be like constantly digging a hole in front of a ball rolling across the ground. Of course, this argument is predicated on the idea that the frequency of a given gravitational force wave has an effect on the overall depth of a given gravity well by compressing waves of a given amplitude into a tighter space.
Additionally, if the strength or Amplitude of gravity waves diminishes over time the way that other waves passing through a medium lose strength by imparting energy into the medium, we should also be able to predict that the red shifted gravitation waves propagating to the aft of a star should travel farther then their blue shifted counterparts on the bow of the star. This would essentially mean that the gravity left in the wake of a moving star would be stronger at a greater distance than it’s red shifted counterparts.
Essentially, stars and galaxies at a greater distance from the center of the universe would appear heavier and have a stronger gravitational pull on stars near the center. Because the lower frequency waves travel farther, much like the low frequency bass at a concert can be heard at much greater distances than the high frequency treble, the objects in the outer universe should be pulling with slightly greater force than those at the center. This should cause a net gain in acceleration, at least near the center of the universe. A measure of the rate of acceleration for objects near the center of the universe versus the rate of acceleration for those objects at the distance reaches of the universe should show whether this theory is at all plausable.
For certain, the study of gravitational waves will for sometime be at the heart of our attempts to understand what is perhaps, the least understood primal force known to man, Gravity. We are now only beginning to ponder how gravity affects the fabric of space as it propagates around the universe, not as a smooth interconnecting force as once thought, but as a complex interplay of an elemental force moving in waves through a fabric made of the union between space and time.
While I will say again that I am certainly no physicist, we should all remember that great discoveries are regularly found by amateurs in various fields. For now this essay is nothing more than a series of questions pointing to one of many possible hypothetical answers. In the world of Theoretical Physics, while few of us have the mathematical background of the professionals, we should all remember the words of Albert Einstein who said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”
And one more quote…
“A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new…” – Albert Einstein
Jun
20
2010
There May Be No SINGULARITY!
By Richard Okelberry, June 20th, 2010 - This morning I woke up and decided that I was going to depart from my regular political rants and instead I was going to challenge Einstein and one of his long standing, widely held ideas concerning black holes.
You see, Einstein predicted that inside a black hole, there would be so much mass concentrated down into a space so small that at this single point; both mass and gravity would become infinite. Einstein called this point the Singularity. For some time now I have been batting around in my head two problems regarding the existence of such a single point of infinite mass and gravity.
First, it is important to stress that I am NOT a physicist. I am however a thinker that loves to twist ideas from various sources around in my head. As such, I am going to present the following ideas to several physicists so that they may shoot them down. You see, I am under no delusion that what I am about to say has not already been considered by the scientific community and expect fully to be summarily dismissed for whatever reason. Still, you like me may find this idea interesting.
Problem 1: Gravity and Time
I am going to claim that Einstein’s idea of a singularity at the center of every black hole cannot exist. My reason for this is simple and has to do with time. Any physicist will tell you that gravity effects time. The more massive an object is, the more it slows time down; even to the point that time almost stops completely.
I am proposing that much like time becomes the “protector” of the speed of light, so does it protect the very fabric of space by insuring that a singularity never forms within a super massive object. In a recent new television program “Into the Universe with Steven Hawking” the renowned physicist, Steven Hawking gave a great description for how time is able to place a speed (of light) limit on every object. While I have heard this concept described in many different ways, Mr. Hawking’s description is simple and straight forward.
Mr. Hawking proposed that we imagine a train traveling at as close to the speed of light as possible, 99.9% the speed of light. He then asked us to imagine what would happen if one of the passengers, a small girl sitting at the back of the train in this case, got up from her seat and ran down the isle towards the front of the train. Basic intuition tells us that if the train is travelling just shy of the speed of light and the girl gets up and runs forward, her new forward speed should be added to the speed of the train and thus the little girl should be traveling faster than the speed of light. While this may sound logical, it simply is not what physicists like Mr. Hawking tell us would happen. Instead Mr. Hawking goes on to describe how the girl is never able to reach and surpass the speed of light because as she attempt to move forward, time slows down for her relative to her forward progress. As she attempts to run faster and faster, time continues to limit her by slowing down even more, thus insuring that she will never be able to actually reach or exceed the speed of light.
I believe that something similar may be happening within super massive objects like black holes. As matter falls towards a potential gravitational singularity at the center of a black hole, the closer it gets to the center, the longer it takes to get there; at least from our perspective as observers. Essentially, I am proposing that the time it takes for something to join a potential singularity keeps doubling infinitely and therefore the mass never joins with the potential singularity because it takes an infinite amount of time to get there. In essence, it is not gravity that becomes infinite in a black hole but time.
Physicists tell us that this journey towards a singularity only appears to take forever from the perspective of an observer on the outside, while the journey in “real time” for someone actually falling into a black hole only takes mere seconds after passing the Event Horizon. I would argue that it may be the singularity that is the mathematical illusion and only exists as a potential in all cases.
To prove this, I have constructed a possible experiment to prove what is actually happening at or near the speed of light and in or near a singularity. To conduct this experiment we need a few exotic things. We need a pair of quantum entanglements, a particle accelerator and a nearby Black Hole.
For those not familiar with quantum entanglements, they are two particles linked together in the same quantum mechanical state. When you observe one of these particles, you can always be certain that the other particle is in the opposite state. These two possible states are often referred to as their spin but it is easier to think of them as being either positive or negative.
A great way to describe this would be to imagine two quarters on a table. You use your magic quantum mechanics wand and forever join each coin to the other by some magical force. Now your friend takes one of the coins and carries it to a distant planet. If you both flip your coin into the air at the same time, catch it and reveal the result on the back of your hands, you each will reveal the opposite result. If you see heads, you can be absolutely certain that your friend’s coin toss came out tails. No matter how many times you do this, your friend will get the opposite result as you regardless of the distance between you. You get tails and he gets heads. You get heads three times in a row and he will get three tails in a row. Einstein called this phenomenon, “spooky action at a distance.” Needless to say, Einstein was not a fan of it, because it implied that there was some kind of faster than light communication.
So now imagine we have a pair of these entanglements. We keep one in our lab and stick the other in a particle accelerator. As we send or separated quantum entanglement around in circles through the accelerator and continue to check the state (flip the coin) of its pair in our lab, intuition tells us that something strange should happen as our particle in the accelerator approached 99.9% the speed of light. Time for this super fact entangled particle should begin to radically slow down and even nearly stop. As time for our super fast particle comes to a near stop, its “spin” should also come to a near halt. If this is the case then every time we observe its entangled pair in the lab, we should get the exact same result. If the spinning coin in the accelerator stops spinning in time and get’s stuck on say heads, then so should our lab coin repeatedly give us the result of heads.
Now if we perform this same experience but instead send one of our quantum entangled coins into a black hole we should observe one of two phenomenons. Either our lab coin once again gets stuck on heads as our black hole coin get stuck in time or our lab coin continues to flip normally as our ill fated black hole coin meets its fate at the singularity.
If our entangled black hole coin does get “stuck” in forever freefall it should indicate that the problem for physicists where black holes seem to destroy the laws of physics as both gravity and mass become infinite simply, does not exist because the source of their problem never occurs and can only be described as a “potential singularity.”
Problem 2: Newton’s Shell Theorem
Another problem that continues to challenge my understanding of black holes has to do with Sir Isaac Newton’s Shell Theorem. Among other applications, in short the Shell Theorem shows us that at the center of any massive body like the earth or the sun, the gravitational pull is zero. Well, it’s not truly zero; it’s just pulling in the opposite direction.
The concept is rather simple. If you are standing on the earth, you have the entire mass of the earth pulling on you beneath your feet. Now say you could take an elevator to the center of the earth. As you travel downward, you begin to notice that there is an increasing large amount of the earth not just below your feet but above your head as well. Of course this mass above you is pulling on you gravitationally in the same way that the mass of the earth below you is.
As you get closer to the center of the earth, you begin to experience something very curious. You are getting lighter and lighter as more and more of the mass of the earth is no longer below you but above you. Once you reach the center of the earth you become perfectly weightless, as all of the earth is around you in every direction. It’s not that gravity is no longer pulling on you, it just that gravity is pulling equally on you in all directions cancelling it’s self out.
By now you have probably guessed that I am now going to apply this same principle to black holes. While black holes are truly far more massive than the earth or even the sun for that matter, the same principals outlined in Newton’s Shell Theorem should also be applicable to black holes.
According to the Shell Theorem, at the center of a black hole there should be ZERO gravity! Of course this notion flies in the face of the common belief by physicists that gravity becomes infinite at a single point (the singularity) in the center of a black hole. I would argue that this may not be the case because once again the singularity is never able to actually form since no matter how hard you try, there will always be more matter behind you the closer you get to the absolute center of the black hole. I believe that this is safe to say because even at the forming of a black hole, when a massive star runs out of enough energy to hold it’s self up against its own gravity and collapses, there is already an area of zero gravity at the center of the collapsing star. As the mass of the star moves in on its self towards the center to form a black hole, any matter towards the center would be pulled on by the matter at the exterior and vice versa. This should lead to a kind of stasis or balance between the interior gravitational forces and the exterior gravitational forces.
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license.
If this turns out to be true, it would mean that while truly massive, a black hole is far from a tear in the fabric of space and time but merely a huge massive object that simply prevents light and other radiation from escaping (besides Hawking’s radiation that is). Rather than the mass of a black hole being concentrated down to an infinitely small point, it is likely just a swirling mass of varying densities, much like a star whose light and radiation are forever trapped in its gravitational field.
Conclusion:
I have no doubt that each of the hypotheses have been considered in detail by scientists and summarily discounted. Still, in my long standing quest to better understand the strange phenomenon surrounding a black hole, I want to invite anyone to challenge these assertions. As I’ve said, I certainly am no scientist. I am just an inquisitive mind struggling to understand some of the more abstract notions that science and the universe have to offer.
Mar
21
2010
By Richard Okelberry, March 21st, 2010 - This essay is written in response to a statement by Richard Warnick, a writer for the political discussion site OneUtah.org. While the conversation surround a posting by Dwight Sheldon titled, “JAT #3: Capitalists Don’t Understand Labeling Theory (Or Just Abuse It, Like Everything Else)” is certainly interesting to read, at one point Mr. Warnick made several comments out of thin air about the compatibility of Christianity and Capitalism/Democracy.
Michael Moore’s movie about capitalism is out on DVD now. Well worth seeing. He points out the truth, which is that capitalism is utterly antithetical to both democracy and Christianity.”
“Capitalism vs. Christianity (short version) For most of its 2,000 year history, Christianity not only frowned on capitalism, but banned it outright.” – Richard Warnick
First, it is wrong to assume that all Christians interpret Biblical teachings in the same manner. While there certainly are denominations like this small sect which only boasts a traditional membership of 2013 full time members, it is simply inaccurate to hold up their stance on Christianity and Capitalism as a theological standard. Considering that this Church is also based in Florida, it is also unlikely that Mr. Warnick is a member of this Church and likely does not even share their interpretation of scripture. As such, it is completely conceivable that Mr. Warnick simply did a quick Google search on the subject looking for someone to support his position, rather than giving serious consideration to the validity of this particular denominations interpretation of scripture.
Perhaps if he would have used a slightly larger sampling of Christian doctrine he would have found that his position is certainly in the minority and we would not even have to be having this conversation.
While Mr. Warnick’s link above does trace back to an unconfirmed position by The United Catholic Church, (an apparent, independent inter-denominational sect based on Catholicism that is not directly affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church) it certainly is not indicative of the way that a large portion of Christianity view Capitalism. In fact, to make their argument, the United Catholic Church apparently crafted their own definition of Capitalism. (I should also note that Mr. Warnick’s reference is being published on a political election site for someone named Rob Bowman.)
Capitalism is making money with money. Interest, capital gains, investment income — everything we call “unearned income” — these are the lifeblood of capitalism.” – http://www.rmbowman.com/catholic/econom2.htm
Of course anyone who has taken a basic economics class knows that the true definition of Capitalism has to do with the private vs. public ownership of the means of production and the distribution of wealth from that production.
Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital and land, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), are privately owned; labor, goods and resources are traded in markets; and profit, after taxes, is distributed to the owners or invested in technologies and, industries.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
In making their case which Mr. Warnick used to support his assertion, this church focuses almost exclusively on quotes from the Bible regarding the practice of charging interest when lending money. Of course, Capitalism can exist without such lending practices. Even then, the quotes used from the Bible do not deal with capital lending (lending to those that are NOT in dire need) but the immorality of predatory lending practices where money is lent to those in dire need or desperation. This type of lending is considered a form of theft. In these cases the Bible tells us that if money is lent to these desperate individuals, (though pure charity is preferred if possible) the money should be repaid without interest and forgiven completely every seven years.
Ultimately, the act of lending money should not lead to destitution for the individual. This type of lending is most often conducted through black market trading and is more often known as loan-sharking. Modern Capitalistic systems have long built in systems to help curb such lending practices. Also, it is clear that Christians can participate in Capitalism while never having to engage in such practices.
Another Biblical argument made by denominations like this against Capitalism argue that because Capitalism produces wealth and wealthy people are prevented from entering heaven, Capitalism it’s self is also wrong. To support this theological position, such denominations (as this one did) will almost always quote the famous Biblical passage, Matthew 19:23-24 taken from the story about the “Rich Young Man.”
“Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
To most this sounds very cut and dry. If you are rich you will not go to heaven, right? Of course being rich is certainly a relative thing. When we Americans think of being rich or wealthy we think of the guy living in the mansion on the hill. Of course to someone living in a cardboard box in South America or a hut in Africa, some of the poorest in the United States are still rich simply because they are able to enjoy indoor plumbing and rarely if ever go hungry. Of course Jesus was not speaking here about the evil nature of wealth it’s self but the inability of man to achieve salvation of his own works or deeds. It is VERY important here to read the entire passage to understand what Jesus was teaching.
“16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”
18“Which ones?” the man inquired. Jesus replied, ” ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother, and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.”
20“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
27Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”
28Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.
30But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.” – Matthew 19:16-30
First, we must recognize that the wealthy young man that Jesus was addressing here was in denial about his sin. He believed that he already had lived a life in accordance with the law, so Jesus was illustrating to him that he was mistaken by showing his own attachment to wealth. Also, notice here that immediately after Jesus said, “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God,” his disciples then asked, “who then can be saved?” The disciples immediately understood that what Jesus was saying could be applied to almost anyone. So Jesus clarified his point saying, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
You see, Jesus was not saying that wealth in it’s self is evil but our attachment to worldly things and our sinful tendency to put them before God is. This lesson is a lesson about both worshiping worldly things before God, which is a violation of the 1st Commandment, and the inability of man to achieve salvation on his own. It is not a lesson about the “evil nature” of Capitalism as some might suggest.
Of course the few Christians and Christian detractors that like to use this passage to show a division between Christianity and Capitalism always seem to forget to address the one parable, the “Parable of the Talents” given by Jesus that most directly addresses the issue of whether Christianity and Capitalism are compatible. This parable appears only 6 chapters after the above passage in Matthew 25.
“The Parable of the Talents
14“Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19“After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’
21“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
22“The man with the two talents also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.’
23“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
24“Then the man who had received the one talent came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’
26“His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
28” ‘Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” – Matthew 25:14-30 NIV
This passage not only discredit the theory that Christianity and Capitalism are incompatible but it even reinforces the fact that it is perfectly ok for Christians to earn interest on an investment (a primary definition of Capitalism used by Mr. Warnick’s reference above), “you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.”
If Capitalism is so “Evil,” no doubt Jesus would have chosen a completely different metaphor. For years Leftists have been arguing that Jesus promoted Communism through his teachings. This simply is NOT TRUE. The reality is that Socialism and Communism both eventually destroy religion because Socialism and Communism both seek to consolidate power from the many onto the few. When this happens, anything that might have sway or control over a people, including religion, must be eradicated if power and control is to be maintained.
This is the reason why there has not been a single major nation that has adopted full blown Socialism/Communism that has also allowed the free expression of religion. Also, considered that the free expression of religion goes hand and hand with the concept of free speech; another right that is largely “discouraged” by the types of regimes that find Socialism/Communism as an economic model preferable.
While the Bible does regularly discourage excess and encourages voluntary (not institutionalized) care for the poor, it tempers such discouragement with the warning that such devotion to wealth can lead one astray and blind individuals to their ultimate purpose as devoted followers of Christ. Ultimately a person of great wealth can do great things for those in need, if they are able to resist the hold that such wealth can have on the individual. This is not a condemnation of Capitalism but a clear recommendation that we be moderate and charitable in our lives.
As is common, this conversation has come about by a misconception that is created by the failure to take Biblical Scripture as a whole. While the tendency to pick and pull individual quotes from the Bible may serve the political agendas of individuals, it does not create a clear and accurate understanding of what the Bible is trying to teach us about our relationship to God and each other.
The Influence of Christianity on Modern Democracy.
Now, for those that believe the other half of Mr. Warnick’s argument that Christianity and Democracy are incompatible consider this:
Our very Democratic Republic here in the United States was directly the result of the Protestant Reformation. (In fact many economists and sociologists believe that the Protestant Reformation was also responsible for our current Capitalist system also. See: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber, 1905.)
As “Reformers” like Dr. Martin Luther broke away from the Roman Catholic Church they were left looking for a new way to govern their new church. After all, for generations the Roman Catholic Church had a Pope that acted as the final authority in all matters of theology and many matters in politics; as most of the governing aristocracies of the day were heavily influenced by the Papacy who could call for even Kings and Queens to be removed from power if they were seen by the Papacy to be acting against the Church.
These new churches decided on a democratic form of leadership. These early Protestants were all too aware of how consolidated power could corrupt even the most holy of men, even the Pope. They felt that corrupting a large body of individuals would be far more difficult and chose Democracy as the preferred way of managing the new Church. Now when you consider that the vast majority of our founding fathers were some variant of Protestant, it isn’t a huge leap to understand how when they went looking for a new form of governance in America that they would turn to a system that had worked very well for many of the fledgling Protestant Churches that populated the new world.
Ultimately, it is completely ridiculous to suggest that Christianity and Democracy are incompatible when the very form of Democracy we enjoy here in the U.S. today was first adopted by early Protestant Churches seeking to limit the authority of the Church.
Many Protestant Churches today (not all) still use this system of governance which looks something like this:
Voter’s Assembly (the Electorate)
Elected Council (the Congress)
Elected President and Vice President (Administration)
Elders (the Judiciary).
Mar
12
2010
by Richard Okelberry, March 12th, 2010 - Throughout our current debate over current efforts to “reform” our healthcare system one of the core points of contention has been over the definition of Socialism. Opponents to the current reform efforts of President Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders have properly pointed out that the current proposed reforms would ultimately result in the advancement of Socialism here in the U.S. In response, those that support the current reform effort often point to the fact that few who oppose the current reforms have made any efforts in opposing or eliminating our Medicare system. These proponents see little difference between what is currently being offered and our current Medicare system. They argue that if you are not raising objections about Socialism regarding Medicare then you have no business doing so with the current reforms. Of course this “hypocrisy argument” might be sound if only it were true that there were no difference between the current proposals to essentially nationalize our healthcare system and Medicare. The reality is that there is a major deference between Medicare and the current reform proposals.
What is Socialism?
First, it must be understood that every government program is NOT an example of Socialism. For the term Socialism to be applied to a government program we must ask ourselves whether that program is providing a service that could otherwise be provided by the private sector and our free-market system. Examples of these services that generally cannot or would not be effectively provided by the private sector are: core infrastructure needs, parks, police/fire services, roads, utility delivery (easements), the space program, military and defense, etc…
To test weather a particular government program is an example of Socialism or not we must ask several basic questions; does the particular product or service form a Natural Monopoly and does the needed product or service have the potential for generating a profit? Essentially, if there is no profit in it, the free market will not provide it regardless of how needed it is.
Medicare not an example of Socialism!
If we apply these tests to Medicare it becomes readily apparent that Medicare is not an example of Socialism because it is a needed product or service that would not generally be profitable to private industry. While some would may argue that providing end of life medical coverage to the elderly is not a “needed” program, I will take the stance that it is needed because one of the measures by which any modern civilization is it’s willingness to care for those that have contributed so much to our society throughout their lifetime. In my mind, caring for the elderly is little different than caring for our veterans whose service has helped to guarantee our democratic freedoms. It is an obligation that we take on as a society to the benefit of society.
Medicare was initially design to be a form of medical insurance for the elderly. Ultimately, as we age we ALL inevitably incur an ever increasing number of medical problems and expenses as a simple result of aging. In addition, this happens at a time in our lives when we are no longer earning an income and the ability to pay for medical insurance is greatly reduced.
Private insurance is based on the idea that a group collectively pays into a policy so that there is a pool of funds to pay for the medical expenses incurred by the few. In the case of geriatric medical insurance, the number of people needing to draw from that cash pool to pay expenses quickly outpaces the ability for the cash pool to be replenished. In essence, those in need of geriatric medical insurance would in the long run be better off paying for their own medical expenses out of pocket as the premiums for such insurance would become too great. There simply is no profit to be found in providing private geriatric medical insurance. As such, Medicare as it was originally conceived simply cannot be considered a classical form of Socialism because it provides a service that would not be provided by the free market.
Private industry or business would simply not provide geriatric insurance. Even if they did, the premiums would be well beyond the ability of those individuals covered by those policies to pay and the extra load of covering those individuals would have to be placed on the younger generation. This would ultimately make medical insurance simply to costly for many employers to provide for their employees. Because the care of our elderly through private insurance is simply not economically viable Medicare was invented as a program where individuals would essentially pay their Medicare premiums throughout their life, rather than waiting until they were no longer working and unable to afford it.
Medicare does not work without free-markets.
Of course any discussion about the viability of Medicare must include the inevitable fact that Medicare relies heavily on the private medical system. As such it is arguable that the current proposed National Healthcare System would remove the few remaining free-market incentives in health care that help keep costs relatively low. As our private health care system becomes less profitable under government intrusion into the free-market it is foreseeable that Medicare would suffer greatly as the cost to the government to provide geriatric medical coverage would rapidly increase. Ultimately, the very proposed healthcare reform that is supposed to help reduce health costs will likely cause more bureaucratic inefficiencies.
Such government pressure on any free market system usually leads to the formation of monopolies as free market competition is often replaced with governmental regulation. Over the years we have seen a similar consolidation in companies that provide military hardware to the U.S. government. Where once there were many, now there are only a few huge providers with ever expanding costs. In many cases the economic success of these government contractors is tied more to their political connections and political influence than governed by their economic efficiency and ability to produce the best product at the lowest price. Ultimately, the move by the U.S. government towards a single payer heath care system, which is the stated goal of both President Obama and many Democratic leaders, could ultimately cause the cost of Medicare to consume an even greater portion of our national budget as fewer private health care providers are able to compete and free-market competition is replaced with a “political-market” system.
Addendum:
As one final note, I want to point out that if this discussion about Medicare and Socialism teaches us anything, it is that contrary to what many Conservatives and even some Liberals think; not all “social” programs are examples of Socialism. Many “social” programs would be better classified at Social Engineering Projects. Even our public welfare system is not a service that would otherwise be provided by the free-market. While many would argue that it is an unnecessary entitlement, I would argue that welfare in its various forms, while currently inefficient and mired in bureaucracy, provides a vital service to society. Like Social Security, beyond making us simply feel good about caring for the elderly, poor or destitute in society, welfare is ultimately the nation’s insurance policy against revolt and revolution. While this may sound cynical, historically people are far less willing to take up arms against their own nation when their children are fed. Also, there is a clear economic advantage to having an economic safety net that keeps people from falling into destitution and keeps them acting as viable players in the free-market system.
While it is true that Socialism often does lead to in increase in the number of Social Engineering reforms which ultimately erode personal liberty, we all should remain aware that the term Socialism describes a shift from private control of industry to government control of industry. In this respect, the purchase of a controlling share in General Motors is a prime example of Socialism while having the government provide a valuable service like Medicare that either would or could not be provided by private industry is not.
Even Adam Smith, the recognized father of modern Capitalism would seem to agree that there is a legitimate roll for government in Capitalism.
“Smith specifically stresses three things that government should do in a society of natural liberty. First, it should protect that society against “the violence and invasion of other societies. Second, it should provide an “exact administration of justice” for all citizens. And third, government has the duty of “erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works which may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society,” but which “are of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals.”
Put into today’s language, Smith explicitly recognizes the usefulness of public investment for projects that cannot be undertaken by the private sector — he mentions roads and education as two examples.” Adam Smith and the Origin of Capitalism – PBS