Volume 12, Issue 2: Anvil
Imagine There's No Rapine in the FICA Taxes, It's Easy if You Try
Let's assume something, and even if it doesn't happen, and it probably won't, we will still have had some profitable mental exercise.
Let's assume that Social Security will still be functioning, or some kind of solvent, by the time we hit retirement age, and that, as a result of this, the government begins offering us checks. What to do?
In our resistance to our government's rampant nannyism, we need to learn how to refuse the benefits first. Too often we chafe at the taxes but cheer when the disbursements come round. We should quit that.
So how does all this apply to that grand Ponzi scheme that we like to call Social Security? A Ponzi scheme is a scam whereby earlier investors are paid off with later investments, and the game goes on in a grand fashion until the supply of later investors dries up, as it inevitably does. Then, according to the drill, the gentlemen running the operation skip town. If any private insurance corporation handled their funds the way the government does, the board of directors would all be in chokey.
Nevertheless (for some mysterious reason), the SSA does keep track of all the payments you have made into the system, and those figures are available. We should consider retirement age as that point when the government has agreed, in a plea bargain, to start making restitution. We should therefore gladly receive the checks, cashing them all, until the amount we paid into the system (plus twenty percent) is fully restored to us. At that point, we should compose a letter thanking them for the restitution, and begin mailing back the checks.
Now this should be done because any money you receive after that point will have been painfully extracted from some poor working stiff with a gun at his head. It will be money that you have no legitimate claim to. It is not yours, you didn't work for it, someone else did, and they were robbed.
The government has authority from God to tax us in order to perform those functions of government which God assigned to it. Buying cool stuff for us with someone else's cash is not part of that divine mandate. Unlike most Ponzi set-ups, the government has the power to force people into the system. If we receive payments past a certain point, we become responsible to some extent for our collusion in the extortion.
Of course, lots of stuff can happen between now and that day. Let's hope that it does. The system might be privatized, or the system might have all four hooves pointed toward the heavens.
But if such things do not happen, and you get to that age, you might get all your money back. But keep the larceny out of your heart, and prepare yourself for the strangest lawsuit the world, where the feds go to court in order to make you take the money.
The Future of Intelligent Design
By Douglas Jones
We needn't be purists about apologetics. I'm in favor of using just about anything decent to shake up the other side. But we've got to be realists about where arguments end up over time.
The burgeoning Intelligent Design (ID) movement challenging Darwinian natural selection is doing a grand job of messing with many evolutionists' heads. It has provoked national media attention on numerous fronts and has seen some of its best books coming out of "respectable" secular publishing houses. All sorts of evolutionary priests are spluttering their denunciations in defense of their sacred moths.
But ID also seems to nourish a quiet tension in its bosom. On the one hand it denounces neutrality; on the other, it delights in it. As a short term tactic, this can be fun. But over time, this sort of unnoticed commitment will certainly undo everything they have worked for.
ID has made a mark for itself in exposing the implicit naturalism and materialism in contemporary science that still parades as neutrality. The scientific establishment wants to count only natural causes in explanation. This automatically excludes nonmaterialistic causes. ID advocate Paul Nelson observes that "Design is ruled out not because it has been shown false but because science itself has been defined as applied materialistic philosophy" (CT,5/22).
At the same time, though, ID advocates still insist on playing by the same "neutral" method as their opponents. ID proponents simply grant that the laboratory determines knowledge. Sure, they want a little broader lab, but it's a lab all the same. For both sides, the ultimate court of appeal is empirical science.
But until we have the courage to mock this Enlightenment assumption, the naturalists can't lose. They get to keep a lock on a very narrow definition of truth. Most of the important realities in life can't pass laboratory constraints. So why grant them such a thin view of reality and knowledge?
Abraham would have given away the entire store if he had reasoned solely in terms of a neutral lab. Instead, he had to understand his experience in submission to the Highest name. Science and our senses have important places, but ultimately we're dedicated to the claim-Let God be true, though every laboratory a liar (Rom. 3:4). Of course, both naturalism and ID are terrified by that sort of claim. It's not "respectable." Because of that, ID has already given up the long fight.