Social Welfare, Helping the Butterfly

Our Pastor opened this morning's Sunday School lesson with a story of a boy that found a butterfly that was just getting out of its cocoon and it was struggling. This boy had a heart of gold. He thought that he could go inside and get a pair of siscors and cut the cocoon so the butterfly would have an easier time of getting out. So he did. But he came to find out latter that he had just cursed this butterfly to a life without flight. Because of this charity, the butterfly never had to struggle to come out of the cocoon which just happened to be way that the butterfly gained strength and bloodflow to help him develop the large beautiful wings that carry it in such majestic manner. So this loving boy with the big heart unwittingly changed the fate of this butterfly from a creature that helps nature, continues to pro-create and most of all, brings a beauty to nature that is not always there, into a creature that most likely became toad food within a few minutes of falling from the tree.

The Pastor here went off on Ephisians 5:15-16 and my mind, like always, went in a totally different tangent. My tangent is the affect of the Great Society on the people this program was supposed to help, the poor. In the "Does One Great Man Out Weight 1000 Criminals" post I did a few weeks ago, I tried to show that in the end, I believe that the great society had more to do with the high crime rates starting from the mid 1960s. And now I also want to state that it is also the cause of many other issues that have arisen since, such as the perpetual poverty, high illigitamace rates, and continued racial issues.

This is a repeat of the Boy and the Butterfly. In the 1960s after the long battle to help racial equality our leaders felt this good intentioned need to cut the cocoon and create an assistance to help the poor. Believing that the poor needed help to climb out of poverty, LBJ and congress created a program that gave money to the poor and they magically would become middle classed by having a steady income. But what happened was the "Butterfly" never flew. The checks came and nothing changed. Many problems developed from this. One problem was that the program was setup as an assistance to un-wed mothers only. So the incentive for having legitamite children was gone. Sure they have three squares, but little else. The childern grew up with little hope for the future, boy's had little leadership from fathers and so they replaced that with leadership from the men of the gangs. The rise of gangs caused a rise in crime and as can be seen in the middle of the 1960s on, crime rate increase corrolates directly to the begining of this "Great Society".

So what went wrong with this Great Society? I believe that the premise that it was created with was the problem. I think the framers had seen the great strives in the Civil Rights and wanted to continue it to better the plight of the lower income blacks. They used the tool that they believed to be the best to do this, Government. I don't think they realized that government was not what gave them the victories in the Civil Right fights, it was the Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and all the people that followed them. It was the struggles to get out of the cocoon that created this great change, not government. So what do we do now? Most importantly we restore hope. With all the government assistance, people never had something to look forward to except a check. Cool, we can live one more week. But what can they look forward too? I think we as a society need most is to give hope to the needy. The problem is that the government can't give hope. Hope only comes in knowing that things will get better. Only then do people stop being angry. Only then do they start looking at how they to better there life. I believe that only the Churches, Mosques, and Synogoues can start the revival of Hope. It's time to return this issues back to where it belongs, the people that give hope not just money. Let us give each American the vision and hope that Martin Luther King gave in his "I have a Dream" Speech;

"...I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together..."

And the butterfly takes flight!!

Does One Great Man Out Weigh 1000 Criminals

I read a book called Freakanomics and in it was a statement that the drop in crime rates in the mid-1990s was a direct correlation to the Roe-v-Wade decision 20 years earlier. In this train of thought the unwanted children, that had been forced to be carried by the mothers that did not want them, were now off the streets and not there to commit the crimes so there was a drastic drop in crime. In the world of facts and figures without contemplation, this might be a good explanation, but under scrutiny this does not hold much water. If we take 20 years before the peak crime era in the late 1980s, we see that it is true Abortion was illegal in most states. It is also true that a number of poor childern were born to poor and unready mothers. And some of these childern became criminals. But if his theory was correct then would not crime rate always been high when abortion was illegal and hard to get? It happen that crime rates had started to spike in the late 1960s and slowly increased until 1993. Before that the crime rates were 1/3th of what they were in the 1990s after the so-called effect of abortion. A better theory if this author wants to try and explain the fall in crime, or better explain the initial rise in crime is look at the effect of the "Great Society" on crime. I see a better corrilation to the beginning and the reduction of crime to the beginning of "Welfare" and the "Welfare Reform" in the middle 1990's.

At this point I want to ask another question. What is effect of Abortion on Society? If you think thru this questions you would have to say that a good number of criminals do comeout of the poor or unready mothers giving birth, but that is not all that comes out of these situations. Some of the greatest men in our nation's history have come from very difficult situations. What if these men were not born? Let us use an active history look at Andrew Jackson.

Andrew Jackson was born in rural Carolina just months after his father had died and his mother was living on the charity of others. Today a mother in this situation would be suggested to have an abortion. "You can't raise this child, he will not have a happy life. He will be nothing in society" If this happened what would this country look like? For one the Indian Wars in Alabama could of ended much differently. Jackson would not of been in the position to expell the English in Mobile months before they landed in New Orleans. The commander of the garrison at New Orleans would not have the volunteers from Tennessee and Kentucky nor would they of had the Pirates of the Cajun such as Jean Lafitte. They also would have had a commander that was a Bureaucrat not a fighting general. And most likely the city would have fallen without a shot. England would have held New Orleans and most of the Gulf coast and we would have had no way to regain it. Without Jackson we also would not have been there to stop Spain from ceding Florida to England. This would not end here.

If there was no Jacksonian Presidency then many more betterments would never have happened. The populous movement would never have had the strong figurehead it needed. He stopped the first secession of a state. He first showed the strength of the bully pulpit that the President has. He was also the founding force of the modern Democratic Party. (Nobody's Perfect) He fought the corrupt banking system and won. And due to Jackson's support of the Texan revolution and the underhand support of this adventure by Sam Houston, Texas would have stayed part of Mexico and because of this, California, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico would never have become part of the United States and we would have a narrow path to the Pacific Ocean.

With the lost of one poor orphaned child, with no money or status, we as a country would have been harmed enourmously. How does a society balance one great man? One Criminal, 10, 100, 1000, 1,000,000? How many lives did Andrew Jackson change for the better? The Population of the country and all the posterity. The worth of one man conqurering adversisty is far in excess of millions of possible criminals.

Plato's Republic

After church one day, I spoke to a friend and I brought up a thought I had during the service about David and Solomon being the first Philosopher Kings. Everything I heard about Plato’s Philosopher kings was that he led by great wisdom. I started to think if Plato used Solomon as the cornerstone of his work “The Republic”? Solomon, being the wisest man the world has known, brought great wealth and power to Israel and the people were at peace. He would have been the perfect person to base a great leader on. Plus Plato lived in the 4th Century BC. Plus he traveled greatly during the time including a trip to Judea before writing this Classic. This peaked my interest, that perhaps the great Philosopher King that the earthly world is clamoring for is based on Solomon? I had to do more research. I had read many accounts of “The Republic” but I had never read the Dialogue, so I read the work and here is what I found.

The Dialogues of Plato are written almost as plays, that places his old mentor Socrates as the central character. Plato seems to explain his thoughts through the interaction of Socrates with the other characters in the story. The Republic starts as Socrates and a few friends going to a festival and they start talking about philosophy of a just man, then move into a story of the best government for the people and who should lead it. All through this Dialogue he uses Socrates’ questioning style to maneuver the other characters into his line of thought. He speaks about leaders and being a just ruler by stating that a just ruler does thing for the weak the same way that a Doctor does things for the sick and not the healthy, and the same way a captain does things for the good of the crew not what is good for him.

Then he goes on and describes justice and praises the just man. Socrates’ friend gives a description of the purely unjust man and shows how a perfectly unjust man will seam like the most just man of all. They state that the truly unjust man will go about it in the truly right way and gets away with it. The one that is not perfectly unjust will gets caught and is considered incompetent and is not the perfectly unjust, since perfect injustice consists of appearing just when you are not. The perfectly unjust man will have reputation of being the most just man. Then we need to contrast him with the “truly” just man. He is a simple and honorable man that does not appear to be just. We must deprive him of the appearance of justice because the appearance of justice will bring him recognition and rewards and then it will not be clear if his motive for justice was a desire for justice or a desire for the rewards and the recognition. This I disagree with completely, that a perfectly just man will not care of the view of others. He will do what is just and leave it at that, not boasting or using this deed. Plato contends that we must strip him of everything but justice. He must have the worst possible reputation for injustice but truly being just, and have this reputation until his death. This description almost makes me think that Plato has a premonition of the only truly just man. Does not Christ meet every aspect of the truly just man listed above? Was he not given a criminal’s death when he was completely just? They then talk of the life that awaits them both here on earth. The unjust man would ask to rule cities because he has the reputation of justice. He can marry who he likes and make contract and partnership with who he wants. He finds it easy to make himself a rich man because he has no compunction about acting unjustly. And the just man is nothing of the sort. He just receives a cross to bear (These are my words).

Socrates defends the just man. And he gives the just man three elements to being just; Courage, Wisdom, Temperance or Self-discipline. First Socrates changes the subject to a just city but intends to describe the just man with the description of the just city. They start with the origin of a city. He starts stating that the origin of a city is because not one of us is self sufficient and need others. He starts talking about how a city is formed and what makes a just city and come to conclusion that a just city is just because of its rulers are just. At this point, he explains that citizens should be classified into four types, the Gold, the Silver, the Bronze and Iron. Gold should be the ruling class and would be the best of the people. They should be trained to be the most just and wise. They should also be removed from the need for money and therefore not be restrained by greed. They should learn the needs of the people and learn what is best for the people. The Silver would be the warrior class and the other lesser important leader roles like doctors and such. And next would be the Bronze and lower classes. These are the common people that need leaders.

The guardian class or Gold class would live communally and would need for nothing except the needs of their people. They would learn from an early life the philosophy and manager skills to run a city. Socrates finally states that these leaders should be Philosophy Kings, for only the Philosopher can have the wisdom to run such a city. He states that these rulers should do whatever is needed to better the lives of the people. Then a question on the women and the children come up, and he comes to say that the families for the ruling class should be in common, that women should be treated the same as the guardian men, each man with knowledge of each women and not knowing his children. With children he states, that the best class should reproduce and have many children and with the lower classes it would only be best that the embryos never see the light of day. This is also the view of any deformed children; only the best people should be born, not the lesser people.

After defining the just city he returns to the just man and states that the just man would be one that does what he is best suited to do; a hunter being a hunter, a farmer being a farmer, a bronze man being a bronze man and a ruler being a ruler. A hunter should not be a ruler because he does not have the skills to be a ruler. Only one trained to rule should rule.
All in all I came from this book with a greater understanding of the liberal view of today’s society. The leaders of the liberal view feel that they are Philosopher Kings in charge of a great just city, and they are the great defender of this city. These are the same liberals that called for free love and communal living in the 60‘s. They force abortion on the lower classes and try to destroy the common people’s society by degrading the value of marriage. All of this thought came not just from Plato, but also from Rousseau and Voltaire. Rousseau and Voltaire shouted “let us make a heaven here on earth and forget about God. Let us rely on reason and human understanding.” These are the same people that attempted at trying to have Enlighten Despots in many European nations, that would rule a nation like these Philosopher Kings of Plato and Socrates, but they all failed with huge amounts of bloodshed; with the French Revolution the bloodiest of all.

In all of these descriptions of the just man I saw one thing. The just man that they described is the perfectly unjust man of the first part of the story. "...The truly unjust man goes about it in the truly right way and gets away with it. The one that gets caught is considered incompetent since perfect injustice consists of appearing just when you are not. They will have the reputation of being the most just man..." They gave this statement when describing the unjust man. Does the Just man in the second part of the story not sound like he will have the gone about it in the right way? This just man lies to his people because “The end justifies the means” and ends up doing what is not just for all the people; only the ruling class. He does all of this in the guise of making the best choices for the society.

Plato tried to introduce his great leader as a man that uses his great human reasoning ability. He believed that man’s wisdom could create a society that was perfectly just, but he did not want to admit that man could never be perfectly just. That ingrained into him was something that would always move to the evil inside of his spirit. Since he lived only a couple hundred years after the greatest part of Israel‘s history, Plato must of known of the story of how David and Solomon ruled with great wisdom and created a great and just nation. He must have known that with this great wisdom that each man ended up doing unjust things after failing to follow God’s guidance. So in the end even Solomon, whom was considered the wisest man ever to live, that had great courage, and was very self-disciplined, ended up becoming unjust to his people and led them astray.

I will say that at the same time of the Enlightenment and the attempts of Philosopher Kings in Europe, a group of castaways in the new world created a different republic that was not formed in the image of Plato’s Republic, but in the theory that each individual is as great as another and getting representatives from all the people would create a truly just nation. They based there nation on something different then man’s wisdom; God’s wisdom. Thomas Jefferson, who admired the French enlightened leaders as a Deist, still spent many a line on the importance of God in society. As is written in a Memorial dedicated to this man are these words.
God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just. That his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between Master and Slave is Despotism. Nothing is more written in the book of fate then that these people are to be free.

This Book of Plato’s does give good information, but not of the proper enlightened government, but of the folly of man’s justice. As Solomon has shown us, man can rule justly, as long as he follows the guidance of the truly just man, Jesus Christ.