Monday quote

Self-righteousness can feed upon doctrines, as well as upon good works; and a man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature and the riches of free grace.

John Newton

Proposed tax changes

I have been asked about my thoughts on the proposed tax changes in New Zealand. Currently New Zealand has a progressive income tax structure and a sales tax. Individual income tax is

Income	Rate
Less $14,000	12.5%
$14,001–$48,000	21%
$48,001–$70,000	33%
More $70,000	38%

There is a 1.7% insurance rate that is taken at the same time. Companies are taxed at 30%. Sales tax (Goods and Services Tax) is 12.5%.

The system is actually more complicated than that with student loans being processed by the tax department, other special tax codes for some jobs, year to year income equalisation schemes for fluctuating income such as farmers may experience, charity donation rebates, child care rebates, family support,.... Sales tax is exempt from financial transactions, residential housing, mining precious metals, charities, and some other situations.

The proposal is to keep the tax take the same but alter the structure. Essentially the top tax rate would disappear and sales tax would increase to 15%, though there are other changes concerning property.

So what do I think? My ideas concerning tax are shaped partly by pragmatics, how does the system work in practice and what are the effects of different laws, but also on my perceptions of what is intrinsically fair. The latter takes priority. Some of these ideas are

• High tax leads to avoidance behaviour, both legal and illegal.
• High tax inhibits economic growth.
• Complex laws leave loopholes which are preferentially exploited by those who can afford accountants and lawyers.
• Exemptions for certain companies mean they pay less than others who are taxed more, yet they may still use the infrastructure tax pays for.
• People who earn more money pay more income tax anyway because tax is a percentage rate.
• Progressive tax favours both spouses working over one spouse earning all the income.
• Government should spend less and concern itself less in human affairs.

In light of these ideas I think the proposals are a step in the right direction. It is a move toward a flat rate for income tax. Further, by having the maximum individual rate close to the company rate decreases the incentive to use creative accounting to minimise tax. Sales tax affects all people similarly. Sales tax can be said to be a tax on consumption (partly true), rather than income tax which is more of a tax on production. This may encourage people to save rather than spend their discretionary money, a good thing.

Ideally there would be no tax. If there has to be tax I think the government should slowly divest itself of many of its expenditures and concentrate on core responsibilities, though that is another post. In terms of tax, the maximum rate should be the same as the company rate and be decreased until there is a single rate for all people in all occupations and all companies. An exemption on the first $20,000 income for all would limit the effect of tax on those with low incomes. A rate of about 20% for income tax and sales tax would be a starting point with a plan to decrease both to 10% (or less) over time as economic growth increases tax take and government decreases expenditures.

Such a system would be simple, less likely to be abused by both companies and the tax department, and be generally fair with consideration for the poorer members of society. It would led to economic growth and would mean higher employment. With more take home pay the demand for pay rises may decrease in some occupations.

Monday quote

Progressive income tax... is the functional equivalent of socialist expropriation. It offers the remarkable advantage of being annually renewable—at least, in the case of those it has not bled dry the previous year.

Peter Sloterdijk

Right wing, left wing

The terms right and left applied to politics can be difficult to interpret. Right tends to mean conservatism and left progressivism, but concerning what? Political or social or economic?

People on one wing with regard to social issues may be more likely to be on the same side economically, but there is no reason why someone cannot reside in the other camp. 2 dimensional proposals place economic and state control on orthogonal axes: a totalitarian to libertarian range and a managed-market to free-market range. Of course the dimensions can be expanded resulting in several horizontal axes covering different topics, each with a left and right position.

Dictionary definitions of the terms from The Free Dictionary

• left wing: those who support varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare
• right wing: those who support political or social or economic conservatism; those who believe that things are better left unchanged

The first suggests the reason for change but the latter is deficient for why things are best unchanged. What is perceived as beneficial about a system that change is not desired?

The less than reliable (and left wing!) wikipedia describe the left wing seeking to

reform or abolish existing social hierarchies and promote a more equal distribution of wealth and privilege

which is a moderately reasonable definition, though right wing may oppose what they consider unjust privilege or favouritism. The right wing article does not provide a helpful definition and suffers from including corporatism and fascism within the grouping.

I thought the definition provided by Jonah Goldberg in "Obama’s Playbook, in Paperback: Liberal Fascism and its critics" was useful

Left-wing

• statist
• collectivist
• egalitarian (within a defined group, be it based on class, race, or nationality)
• enamored of the Romantic spiritualization of the political
• hostile to tradition,
• hostile to religious orthodoxy
• hostile to natural rights,
• hostile to Lockean individualism

Right-wing (particularly within the Anglo-American tradition)

• pro-market
• favoring limited government
• respectful of religion and tradition
• protective of the individual and his rights

I will leave it to the leftists to comment on whether they fit into this definition, but I favour all 4 right wing positions, though what I accept as rights are limited and negative rights.

Labels can be useful, but if they hinder, it is better just to debate the pros and cons of a specific issue.

Schooley's thoughts on Romans 9

I came across a series of posts a couple of years ago that I had meant to link to. JC_Freak reminded me of them when he mentioned them in a comment here late last year. So here is Keith Schooley's series "The New Perspective and Romans 9" from 2006

1. Introduction
2. Isaac and Jacob
3. Pharaoh
4. The Potter and the Clay
5. Conclusion

It includes such gems as

In verse 7, Paul quotes Genesis 21:12 to explain that, even before Isaac was born, God had determined that Abraham’s offspring would be “reckoned” through Isaac—in other words, that the covenant people would pass through the line of Isaac rather than that of Ishmael. The original context of this passage, incidentally, makes it clear not only that Isaac is to be chosen, but that Ishmael is to be rejected in favor of Isaac. Yet God makes it clear that Ishmael is to be rejected by Abraham, so that the covenant line is clearly through Isaac; nevertheless, He reassures Abraham in the very next verse (Gen. 21:13) that “I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring.” In the following verses we read that “God heard the boy [Ishmael] crying …. ‘I will make him into a great nation’ …. God was with the boy as he grew up” (Gen. 21:17-18, 20). In other words, God has a positive plan for Ishmael and his descendants as well as for Isaac and his descendants; it is only as a member of the covenant nation that Ishmael is rejected.

Paul, significantly, interprets the quotation by stating that “it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring” (v. 8). He is subtly doing here what he does clearly in Galatians 4:21-31: he identifies ethnic Israel with the children of Hagar, as opposed to those of Sarah. Since ethnic Israel is depending on natural descent from Abraham, they are analogous to Ishmael, who was Abraham’s descendant (not to mention the firstborn) by purely natural means. The Christians, trusting that “those who believe are children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7), are analogous to Isaac, the child of promise. In Romans 9:8, Paul quotes Genesis 18:10, 14 to establish that the promise had indeed occurred before Isaac’s conception.

Paul’s use of Isaac and Ishmael, then, is primarily intended neither to be a statement of their individual eternal election, nor to be typical of the elect and reprobate. It rather establishes that the Jewish people have no reason to trust in their descent from Abraham to guarantee their inclusion in the covenant. If they could, the descendants of Ishmael would have just as much right to claim God’s promises as could the descendants of Isaac.

Monday quote

There are very few of us who are not in the pay of someone, and no one is entirely reputable.

Theodore Dalrymple

Monday quote

“Is—is he a man?” asked Lucy. “Aslan a man!” said Mr. Beaver sternly. “Certainly not. I tell you he is the King of wood and the son of the great Emperor-Beyond-the-Sea. Don't you know who is the King of the Beasts? Aslan is a lion—the Lion, the great Lion.” “Ooh,” said Susan, “I thought he was a man. Is he—quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.” “That you will, dearie, and make no mistake,” said Mrs. Beaver, “if there's anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they're either braver than most or else silly.” “Then he isn't safe?” said Lucy. “Safe?” said Mr. Beaver, “don't you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you.”

C. S. Lewis. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

Atheists just as ethical as churchgoers?

The telegraph recently had an article about the morality of atheists.

Atheists are just as ethical and have as strong a moral compass as churchgoers, new research shows.

People who have no religion know right from wrong just as well as regular worshippers, according to the study.

There is no source, as seems increasingly common these days. Newspaper articles appear link to their sources less than bloggers. I think the study may be "The origins of religion : evolved adaptation or by-product?" (doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.12.007).

The Telegraph article goes on to state

But people who did not have a religious background still appeared to have intuitive judgments of right and wrong in common with believers, according to the findings, published in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

If I am correct about the source article, this may be in reference to this moral evaluator which the article links to. This looks at difficult, artificial, unlikely moral dilemmas, what to do when faced with competing loss of life, and the issue of double effect. It does not ask which type of behaviours are right or wrong.

Of course knowledge of right behaviour does not equate to practice of right behaviour. But is this information surprising? Christianity teaches all men know about God's requirements.

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1)

Study author Hauser states

The research suggests that intuitive judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit religious commitments.

While one would hope that Christians exhibit better moral praxis than atheists, Christianity does not require or specify that atheists only perform immoral actions. What Christianity argues is that atheism as a philosophy offers no reason for morality to exist at all. It is not primarily whether atheism makes people eumoral or immoral—though that is also a point, one I do not think the study adequately addresses—rather it is that atheism logically implies that all actions are amoral. There is no ought, only preferences.

Monday quote

Bad decisions make good stories.

Scope and intent in biblical interpretation

There are several aspects to good biblical interpretation. Some are obvious such as authorial intent, and the specific overriding the general. But there are some considerations that are more subtle. Two that I would like to consider here are breadth of scope and underlying intent.

Much debate can arise over Scripture when people agree about what is basically being said, but disagree about the scope to which it should be applied. Consider Ephesians 5:21

Submit one to another out of reverence for Christ.

Is this all people to all people, or some people to some people? Both are possible interpretations. I think the context of the verse, and the subsequent examples answer this question, nevertheless there is disagreement between those who advocate all Christians should submit to all other Christians, and those who advocate that Christians are to continue to submit appropriately to others over them.

Or consider the Sermon on the Mount. Some advocate that Jesus is teaching a new way of acting for all men and institutions: abandoning ideas like retaliation and justice and replacing them forgiveness and mercy. Others suggest this is directed at individuals and therefore is inapplicable to the state. Still others may specify that the sermon is even more limited being directed to Jesus' followers. A broad interpretation leads to quite different ideas about the role and extent of government than a narrow interpretation; both camps arguing for contradictory things yet both appealing to Scripture.

Underlying intent is even more subtle, yet very important, and probably open to more disagreement. It is important to establish what kind of situation the Bible is talking to, what are the underlying elements, the foundational concepts. For example the Bible talks a lot about orphans and widows. It seems very natural to extend this to modern orphans and widows, however one should also address why God talks about orphans and widows the way he does: what was the reason for God's concern, and are those concerns applicable to contemporary orphans and widows? They may be, or they may still apply to orphans but not widows, or there may be other categories of people these concerns also apply to.

While there may be valid debate around the breadth of meaning and the underlying intent, getting these wrong may still lead to error, and a key to right meaning is correct focus.

Monday quote

Between two evils, choose neither; between two goods, choose both.

Tyron Edwards

Christian libertarianism

I read with interest Young Mr Brown's post Is libertarianism compatible with Christianity? and Mike T's posts on Problems facing a "Christian Libertarianism" part 1 and part 2.

I have increasingly developing libertarian tendencies, perhaps in part because of the increasing role the state in the West wishes to assume, though I am possibly better described as a minarchist.

The opposition of Christians to libertarianism may be due to several things, including the idea that governments should be socialist, or at least promote social justice (whatever that is). Young Mr Brown highlights another reason that is worth exploring. Firstly his definition of libertarianism

The philosophy that holds that the ultimate political value is the freedom of the individual, and that the most effective way to uphold that freedom is to limit the scope of the state to those activities which directly defend that freedom.

And the complaint

A lot of libertarians speak about "self-ownership" being the basic principle of libertarianism, though I find that philosophically problematic, and don't accept it.

To which I concur. Mike T identifies the same issue

For libertarianism, the highest good is liberty and human autonomy. For Christianity, the highest good is summarized in the first commandment which is to love Lord with all of one's strength, above all things, and render obedience to the same.

And goes on in his 2 posts to discuss the problems this raises.

While I think that libertarianism is compatible with Christianity, the reason Christians hold to it differs quite fundamentally from many who hold to freedom and autonomy.

Firstly, I think Christianity does value liberty, at least in thought, but also in action. Freedom to think and hence act in ways that God approves is foundational. To force a man to act against his conscience is damnable. God calls us to obey him buts gives us the freedom to do this. So our freedom is not the freedom of a libertine, but that of a bondservant; one who enters into a relationship freely, but is constrained within such relationship.

Secondly, the Christian recognises that man is fallen. We are broken and we rebel against the good. Without God we choose our own way. But even belonging to God we battle the sinful desires of the flesh. So a free person will not naturally choose good paths. Fathers, community elders, and national governors are required to punish errant people, especially when they infringe on their fellow man—the libertarian position.

So the Christian values liberty in order that man can serve God, and the Christian knows that men will choose evil, at least in this current age. Neither of these positions may necessarily be held by an unbeliever.

Returning to autonomy and self-ownership we note that the Christian denies self-ownership. We do not own ourselves. God is our creator and he has claim on us

The heavens are yours; the earth also is yours;/
the world and all that is in it, you have founded them. (Psalm 89)

This claim means that we are answerable to God for our behaviour. Despite denying self-ownership, the Christian does hold to autonomy, or at least a variant of such. Autonomy  is defined as the right to self-government whereas the Christian subscribes to the responsibility of self-government. It is not defending the right of men to do what they want, but the realisation that we are answerable to God for the responsibilities we are given, one of which is the governance we choose to have over our minds and bodies. This is not to say that we bear 100% of the blame for all our choices, but ultimately each man is answerable to God for how he acts. Nor does it mean that we are only responsible for ourselves, we bear some blame if we encourage others in rebellion against God; and we may have added responsibilities as a father, an employer, or as a politician.

If the greatest commandments are loving God, then loving man, then freedom to do so is important. And these acts are voluntary, they mean nothing if done under compulsion. Thus liberty to do so seems consistent with Christianity.

But just as the responsibility of self-government points toward liberty, the fallen nature of man points away from excessive state control.

There can be little doubt that while good leaders have done good for their people, evil leaders have done much damage. Open wickedness may be obviously wrong, but excessive control is frequently harmful. Further, if we allow for a large state when we approve of our leaders, the same state can do proportionally more damage when bad men come into power.

Further, even if leaders don't seem overtly evil, our fallen nature affects our reason. So  government that seeks to interfere in the lives of men will frequently do so in the wrong way. Policy that seems kind may lack justice. Provisions that alleviate suffering short term may exacerbate it long term. Laws that give men positive "rights" may severely restrict others' negative rights. Basically the detrimental effect of the fall on the ability to reason means that men can and do reason wrongly. And even if they reason rightly they may lack the will to do right. By restricting the role of the government to that of justice, and in that to punish wrong rather than to create good, the fallen man is limited in his ability to do evil. Given that probably far more people have died at the hands of government than have died at the hand of bandits throughout history, restricting leaders seems more essential than restricting citizens.

Dragonfly aerodynamics

It has been questioned why dragonflies have 2 sets of wings. 2 pairs of wings add nothing to lift, it is thought the second pair decreases lift, nor manoeuvrability. Instead of an second set of wings, flies have halteres which function as gyroscopes and give them significant manoeuvrability. Dragonflies are still highly manoeuvrable—they can appear stationery from the vantage of their moving prey—they may just use a different mechanism to flies.

Modelling of dragonfly flight suggests that 2 sets of wings can decrease energy requirements if they beat out of phase.

Despite efforts at understanding the implications of flapping flight with two pairs of wings, previous studies have generally painted a rather disappointing picture: interaction between fore and hind wings reduces the lift compared with two pairs of wings operating in isolation. Here, we demonstrate with a mechanical model dragonfly that, despite presenting no advantage in terms of lift, flying with two pairs of wings can be highly effective at improving aerodynamic efficiency. This is achieved by recovering energy from the wake wasted as swirl in a manner analogous to coaxial contra-rotating helicopter rotors. With the appropriate fore–hind wing phasing, aerodynamic power requirements can be reduced up to 22 per cent compared with a single pair of wings, indicating one advantage of four-winged flying that may apply to... dragonflies...

So a second pair of wings decreases the energy requirements of dragonflies by a significant amount. A useful design feature and seen elsewhere in the biosphere—V formation bird flight decreases energy requirements by half by decreasing drag.

Monday quote

Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

George Orwell

Fraud and forgery in paleoanthropology

The fraud surrounding Piltdown man is well documented. In a recent article from the Answers Research Journal Jerry Bergman notes that not only fraud, but also abysmal science, infects the historical science of paleoanthropology.

Abstract

A review of the history of paleoanthropology leads to the conclusion that the discipline is far less objective than that for physics, chemistry, or even biology. The field is rife with controversy and fraud, including outright faking. Classic examples include Piltdown man and Hesperopithecus, but many other less well-known examples exist that are reviewed in this paper. Several well-documented examples are cited in some detail to illustrate the types of problems encountered, and the results of fraud in paleoanthropology.

The article is interesting not only for documenting the sorry state of alleged human evolution but also raging controversy arising from the hubris and self-aggrandisement of the players in this field. Bergman concludes,

In a field based on little empirical evidence, many assumptions, and strong personalities, the bone wars illustrate the conflicts common among scientists in this area. The unprofessional and at times even fraudulent behavior of the leading participants is far from what one would expect from highly trained professionals.