Ben Carson is an Idiot and Hypocrite

I just finished a post on gun ownership that I will not release for awhile, at least not until the discussion of the multiple recent school shootings has died down and people are ready to actually think, rather than take presupposed positions, again. This discussion is not about gun ownership, it is about the hypocrisy and or lunacy of Ben Carson, Republican candidate for President.

Ben Carson would outlaw abortion and let just about everyone own machine guns. Is that rational or consistent? He would outlaw abortions because it kills people and what, let everyone own guns because they don't? Does that make any sense? I freely admit I am a pacifist; but, I would allow people to own guns to hunt for food or protect their families. I might not allow people to own nuclear bombs; but, just because I am a pacifist does not mean I would prevent people from owning tools, like guns, for lawful purposes. I am also not a vegetarian; but, I find I don't have to kill animals to get meat for myself. I am also not for killing animals for sport if the meat will not be eaten. It seems wasteful to me and unnecessary. That is not a good steward.

I had a friend, I don't know that we are friends anymore as I no longer trust him to do the right thing. He went fishing in Alaska and brought back more fish than he and his family could eat before it spoiled, a lot more. I was talking to him and he asked me to take some of the fish. I did. I said I would take enough for a meal, there were just two of us at the time. He insisted on giving me more than I could eat before it spoiled and still had more than he and all his friends could eat before it spoiled. I had one meal of it, the rest was eventually disposed of as I could not sell it or even give it away lawfully. Why did he catch more than he could ever use? How did that benefit society?

Here is a question for Mr. Carson. Should men and women be allowed to sterilize themselves? The Catholic church has said no in the past, would he side with them on this issue? I am against abortion in concept and have said so many times in the past. I am also against slavery and controlling others bodies. I would not outlaw suicide and I am against that too. Would Mr. Carson outlaw old people with terminal illnesses killing themselves or being assisted in doing so if they were not insane?

Did you know that technically, if you tried to commit suicide by jumping off a building and you survived because you landed on someone else and they died instead, you could be given the death penalty? Does that make sense? If not, why should crazy people be allowed to own machine guns? No matter what law we pass, we cannot stop abortions, there are too many pills and products that can induce an abortion or allow one to kill themselves. If you cannot stop someone from killing themselves then you cannot prevent abortions, the is just a fact. Oh, you might be able to induce a coma in people who are pregnant or suicidal and keep them in that state; but, would you actually be in favor of that?

I also want to know if Ben Carson is in favor of the death penalty. I can actually tell you why abortion is worse than the death penalty. Abortion kills the innocent and presumably some that will be guilty in the future, the death penalty does not kill as many innocents. Both kill innocents; but, the death penalty is more targeted to the guilty. With the thousands of people who have been killed in mass murders in the last decade alone, some of them had criminal records and some of them were bad people, I would bet money on that, not all of them were angels. If mass murderers kill as many innocents as abortion, they are as random, why would he support everyone owning a machine gun and be against abortion. Both are as likely to be used to kill innocents.

If Mr. Carson is against all murder then I would assume he would limit gun ownership to people who kill animals for food and not self protection. Your reasons must be consistent with your laws or you are a hypocrite. Perhaps, if Mr. Carson relies on the bible there is another passage or commandment that allows for the killing of others in the New Testament. Remember the adulterer that was to be stoned and Jesus stopped her stoning. Adultery is in the ten commandments, it made the top ten. If Mr. Carson is willing to allow insane people access to guns because things happen, would he allow adulterers to be stoned to death? Would you, I don't believe in murder so I would not.

Here is the biggest question for Mr. Carson. Who should be able to kill others, in groups or alone. If the answer is nobody, why should be have a military? If there are reasons why one should be allowed to kill others, what should the rules be? If the answer is because God said it, then do you believe in Jesus because he said we had to love our neighbor as ourselves and stopped the stoning of an adulterer. The answers to these questions may be completely different for Atheists and I am okay with that. I am not however for someone claiming biblical authority to ignore the bible when it calls for the tough answers and that is why I believe Mr. Carson is a weasel and a hypocrite.

Merit or Inherited Wealth Based Opportunity.

I read an article recently on how income inequality wasn't the real issue and that poverty was. I apologize for not having a link. I think I read it in the Huffington Post. I found the article interesting and agreed partially; but, I think it missed the second half of the equation.

Income inequality is not in of itself a bad thing. We should reward people for their contributions and the more you contribute, the more you should benefit. I think all capitalists and socialist would agree with that. It is only Communists that would disagree. Communism claims that we should take from each according to his abilities and give to each according to his needs. It sort of defeats the purpose of putting a lot of effort into anything. Unrestricted capitalism is a sort of everyman for himself philosophy where there is no room for working as a society.

Not very long ago we used to live in a world controlled and owned by kings and queens. It was a horrible world for most people and the monarchies could do whatever they wanted while the rest of the people had no rights and were constructively slaves. In England you could actually kill your wife for adultery and not go to jail; but, if you stole you would be killed. The same was true in many countries and is still true in parts of the Arab world. I guess it is all a matter of priorities. It was also a bigger crime to abuse your animals then your children or wife. In America you could own slaves, rape, beat and kill them and that wasn't that long ago. It was just capitalism at work.

Lets get back to my point. The two problems I see with where we are headed is the creation of extreme poverty which gives the disadvantaged practically no chance at improving their lot based on effort and the second problem is that those with certain advantages are not put under the same rules. The second part has to do with fairness. It is that all men are created equal concept and that everyone should have the right to pursue improving their life, everyone.

Every society decides how opportunities are given out and that aspect is more important than how money is distributed. Not everyone can become a doctor or a lawyer or even a scientist. Who gets to pursue those careers and who gets into college to learn those skills is determined in a limited number of ways. We can distribute those opportunities based on a lottery approach; but, I think that is foolishness. We can distribute it based on who can pay the most or even family lineage; but, that doesn't really serve any societal benefit and doesn't really seem fair or in keeping with our concept of democracy. We can also distribute based on merit. Merit includes more than just scoring high on tests, it would also look at how likely you were to benefit society if you were allowed those opportunities.