Jackie Chan
1. I am a big fan of Jackie Chan's comedic-action movies.
But let’s face it, the guy basically cannot sing.
Yet there are a few songs Jackie Chan sings surprisingly well.
Ask Me ("問我") is one of those few songs.
2. Ask Me is a light-hearted inspirational song that is suited for many occasions.
This song was originally a sub-theme song of the 1976 Hong Kong movie Jumping Ash ("跳灰").
"跳灰" is a Chinese phrase specific to Hong Kong meaning trafficking in heroine.
Although Josephine Siao appeared to sing this song in the movie, it was actually lip-synch by Chan Lai-Sze.
Ask Me was also the sub-theme song of the 1996 Hong Kong movie Feel 100% (1) and was sang by Sammi Cheng.
Ask Me has been covered by many artists since 1976.
3. Jackie Chan singing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikkq7e5_O4w
But even with a cheat sheet, Jackie Chan still make a mistake with the lyrics at the 2:37 minutes mark. : - )
4. The original singer of Ask Me was Chan Lai-Sze:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPAYlJrsz8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8AAKStSeA0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXzSzR-piEQ
The scale of this song is quite difficult for the female voice.
5. Josephine Siao appeared to "sing" Ask Me in the movie Jumping Ash (1976):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFvfzdApMA
Josephine Siao was one of the "Seven Princess" of Hong Kong cinema in the 1960s and 1970s.
6. Ask Me sang by the late James Wong, the incomparable lyricist who also wrote the lyrics for this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_uG0igrNhc
Two persons commented in YouTube that James Wong's singing remind them of Louis Armstrong.
7. Sammi Cheng singing Ask Me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YDi_K7mu40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLIW18fF84Y
8. Sammi Cheng and Ivana Wong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p_mKX_EHzc
Sammi Cheng sings this song much better in later years.
The song started at the 2:25 minutes mark.
9. Sammi Cheng and Gigi Leung - the first of two songs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecCr_gGDbMI
10. Sammi Cheng and Sheren Tang:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLNuf01E3b8
11. Ask Me as covered by Sandra Lang in concert:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hcDDnz1cHs
Sandra Lang is a very talented singer whom started her career in the 1960s.
12. A cover by the talented singer Donald Cheung Wai-Man:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmZu8ovZl3A
His last name is "Cheung".
His English name is "Donald".
The English transliteration of his Chinese name is "Cheung Wai-Man".
In typical Hong Kong's creative fashion, Cheung's name is presented in English as "Donald Cheung Wai-Man".
13. Harmony by Robynn and Kendy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBynPIpIOko
14. The Lyrics in Traditional Chinese:
問我 -- 陳麗斯
* 問我歡呼聲有幾多 問我悲哭聲有幾多
我如何能夠一一去數清楚
問我點解會高興 究竟點解要苦楚
我笑住回答 講一聲 我係我
# 無論我有百般對 或者千般錯 全心去承受結果
面對世界一切 那怕會如何
全心保存真的我
問我得失有幾多 其實得失不必清楚
我但求能夠一一去數清楚
願我一生去到終結 無論歷盡幾許風波
我仍然能夠 講一聲 我係我
Repeat #, *
笑住回答 講一聲 我係我
笑住回答 講一聲 我係我
15. The Lyrics in Simplified Chinese:
问我 -- 陈丽斯
* 问我欢呼声有几多 问我悲哭声有几多
我如何能够一一去数清楚
问我点解会高兴 究竟点解要苦楚
我笑住回答 讲一声 我系我
# 无论我有百般对 或者千般错 全心去承受结果
面对世界一切 那怕会如何
全心保存真的我
问我得失有几多 其实得失不必清楚
我但求能够一一去数清楚
愿我一生去到终结 无论历尽几许风波
我仍然能够 讲一声 我系我
Repeat #, *
笑住回答 讲一声 我系我
笑住回答 讲一声 我系我
16. Names, Words and Phrases:
Jackie Chan (Traditional Chinese: 成龍; Simplified Chinese: 成龙).
Chan Lai-Sze (Traditional: 陳麗斯; Simplified: 陈丽斯).
Donald Cheung Wai-Man (張偉文; Simplified: 张伟文).
Feel 100% (Traditional: 百分百感覺; Simplified: 百分百感觉).
Gigi Leung (Traditional: 梁詠琪; Simplified: 梁咏琪).
Ivana Wong (Traditional: 王菀之; Simplified: 王菀之).
James Wong (Traditional: 黃霑; Simplified: 黄沾).
Josephine Siao (Traditional: 蕭芳芳; Simplified: 萧芳芳).
Jumping Ash (Traditional: 跳灰; Simplified: 跳灰).
Sammi Cheng (Traditional: 鄭秀文; Simplified: 郑秀文).
Sandra Lang (Traditional: 仙杜拉; Simplified: 仙杜拉).
Sheren Tang (Traditional: 鄧萃雯; Simplified: 邓萃雯).
References:
"Feel 100%", Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feel_100%25
(accessed 2012-12-21).
"Jackie Chan", Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Chan
(accessed 2012-12-21).
"成龍", Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia,
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%88%90%E9%BE%8D
(accessed 2012-12-21).
"跳灰", Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia,
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%B7%B3%E7%81%B0
(accessed 2012-12-21).
End.
1. Chinese Poem of the Day:
毛澤東 (1893 - 1976)
人民解放軍佔領南京
鐘山風雨起蒼黃，百萬雄師過大江。
虎踞龍盤今勝昔，天翻地覆慨而慷。
宜將勝勇追窮寇，不可沽名學霸王。
天若有情天亦老，人間正道是滄桑。
2. The following are five groups of theses on ethics and morality that I live by.
I believe each of the theses is derived from and conform to the Bible.
Since fully explaining and defending these five groups of theses will take more space than an ordinary blog entry, I am content just to state the theses (leaving out many qualifications), elaborate on them somewhat, and illustrate them briefly from the Bible.
(a) Responsibility is logically based on prior obligation.
We are responsible to do what we are obligated to do.
But we are also obligated to do what we are responsible to do.
(b) We are responsible for what we ought to do.
We ought to obey all the laws of God.
Therefore, we are responsible to obey all the laws of God.
(c) We are responsible to obey all the laws of God.
Our responsibility to obey all the laws of God is not limit by our knowledge of all the laws of God.
Therefore, whether we know or do not know about all the laws of God we are responsible to obey all the laws of God.
(d) We are responsible to obey all the laws of God.
Our responsibility to obey all the laws of God is not limit by our ability to carry out all the laws of God.
Therefore, whether we are able or unable to carry out all the laws of God we are responsible to obey all the laws of God.
(e) We are responsible to obey all the laws of God.
Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God. (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 14)
God has promised in the Bible to forgive our sins if we repent and confess our sins to him.
Therefore, if we sinned, then we should repent and confess our sins to God.
3. Ethics and morality are normative and concern with such notions as what is obligatory, optional, impermissible, permissible and omissible.
A moral framework will divided or parse actions into these categories.
For the purpose of this blog entry, I assume the Traditional Threefold Classification of these categories is true.
The Traditional Threefold Classification of these notions looks like this (McNamara 2010):
Thus:
(a) One ought to act on what is obligatory to act.
(b) One is forbidden to act on what is impermissible to act.
(c) One is permitted to act on what is obligatory or optional to act.
(d) One can omit to act on what is optional or impermissible to act.
(e) Obligatory and omissible are contradictory concepts:
One could not omit to act on what is obligatory to act.
One could not be obligated to act on what is omissible to act.
An act must be either obligatory or omissible but could not be both.
(f) Permissible and impermissible are also contradictory concepts:
If an action is permissible, then it could not at the same time be impermissible.
If an action is impermissible, then it could not at the same time be permissible.
An act must be either permissible or impermissible but could not be both.
4. Some elaborations of the group 1 theses:
There are three theses in group 1:
(a) Responsibility is logically based on prior obligation.
(b) We are responsible to do what we are obligated to do.
(c) But we are also obligated to do what we are responsible to do.
Obligation and responsibility are related but different concepts.
Responsibility is definable in terms of accountability:
(a) One is responsible for an action when there is someone who can hold us accountable for that action.
(b) One is not responsible for an action when there is no one who can hold us accountable for that action.
Gordon H. Clark ([1932] 1992, 45): "Let us call a man responsible, then, when he may be justly rewarded or punished for his deeds. That is, the man must be answerable to someone, to God, for responsibility implies a superior authority who punishes or rewards."
Obligation is a "deeper" concept than responsibility.
Obligation is what we are bound to do.
An illustration of the difference between the two concepts:
(a) When one signed a contract to buy a house from a seller, one has bound oneself to the terms and conditions of the contract and in doing so created an obligation to carry out the contract.
(b) One is responsible to carry out the contract because the seller can hold us accountable to the terms and conditions of the contract by going to the courts.
5. Some elaborations of the group 2 theses:
The theses of group 2 are in the form of an argument:
(a) We are responsible for what we ought to do.
(b) We ought to obey all the laws of God.
(c) Therefore, we are responsible to obey all the laws of God.
Who or what can bind us to any moral obligations?
In the Bible, God as God and God as our Creator can bind us by his commandments.
The Ten Commandments began with "I am the LORD your God" (Exodus 20:2a ESV).
God as God and God as our Creator can bind us by his commandments by virtue of his being our God and Creator.
And (Exodus 34:6-8 ESV): "The LORD passed before him [Moses] and proclaimed, 'The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.' And Moses quickly bowed his head toward the earth and worshiped."
God as God and God as our Creator can hold us responsible for our motives and actions by accounting our motives and actions in conformity to his laws.
Gordon H. Clark ([1973b] 1992, 180): "Christianity, of course, bases responsibility on the imposition of the Creator's commands."
Therefore, I subscribe to a form of Divine Command Ethics.
In the Bible, what is our responsibility and what is our obligation converge because God gave us laws to obey and God will also hold us accountable to obeying his laws.
Nevertheless, responsibility is logically based on prior obligation.
There can be no responsibility without obligation.
Although extensionally, obligation and responsibility have the same scope in Christian ethics (God gave us laws and hold us accountable to those laws), responsibility is logically based on prior obligation.
Thus, from a theoretical point of view, the following argument although true by virtue of the same extensionality of obligation and responsibility, gets the logical priority of the two concepts wrong:
(a) We are obligated to do what we are responsible to do.
(b) We are responsible to obey all the laws of God.
(c) Therefore, we are obligated to obey all the laws of God.
6. Some elaborations of the group 3 theses:
The theses of group 3 are in the form of an argument:
(a) We are responsible to obey all the laws of God.
(b) Our responsibility to obey all the laws of God is not limit by our knowledge of all the laws of God.
(c) Therefore, whether we know or do not know about all the laws of God we are responsible to obey all the laws of God.
The legal principle that " 'ignorance of the law does not excuse' or 'ignorance of the law excuses no one' is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content." ("Ignorantia juris non excusat ", Wikipedia)
"The concept comes from Roman law, and is expressed in the brocard ignorantia legis non excusat." ("Ignorantia juris non excusat", Wikipedia)
Although Wikipedia attributed this principle to Roman law, the principle "ignorance of the law does not excuse" has deep roots in the Bible and Judeo-Christian traditions too.
(Leviticus 5:17 ESV): “If anyone sins, doing any of the things that by the LORD's commandments ought not to be done, though he did not know it, then realizes his guilt, he shall bear his iniquity."
Sin is "doing any of the things that by the LORD's commandments ought not to be done".
And one is guilty of sin even "though he did not know it".
And one shall "bear his iniquity" when he "realizes his guilt".
This principle and its applications are repeated many times in (Leviticus 4:1 - 6:7).
The claim that "whether we know or do not know about the laws of God we are responsible to obey all the laws of God" may seem harsh and excessive, but it is soften by the fact that the Bible says the laws of God are written in our hearts.
(Romans 2:14-16 ESV): "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus."
Merriam-Webster defines "conscience" thus:
(a) The sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good.
(b) A faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts.
Using an analogy from computer programming: God has created us with a hardware faculty called "conscience" and his moral laws are hard-wired into the functioning of this conscience faculty.
If we do not override our conscience but let it functions properly, then even those who have not read the Bible and knows the laws of God explicitly will "by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law."
And this shows that "the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them ".
7. Some elaborations of the group 4 theses:
The theses of group 4 are in the form of an argument:
(a) We are responsible to obey all the laws of God.
(b) Our responsibility to obey all the laws of God is not limit by our ability to carry out all the laws of God.
(c) Therefore, whether we are able or unable to carry out all the laws of God we are responsible to obey all the laws of God.
The principle that our responsibility to obey all the laws of God are not limit by our ability to carry out all the laws of God is one that is foreign to the modern mind.
Yet the Bible does not make sense if this principle is false.
Ever since the Enlightenment, western man has been influenced by Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804).
One of Kant's famous ethical principle is "ought implies can".
Wikipedia states the principle this way: "if an agent is morally obliged to perform a certain action he must logically be able to perform it." ("Ought implies can", Wikipedia)
The contrapositive of this principle is "cannot implies not ought".
Since contraposition is a truth-preserving inference, if ought implies can, then cannot implies not ought.
If the principle that cannot imply not ought is true, then the whole argument of the Letter of Paul to the Romans in the New Testament collapses.
For the argument of the Letter of Paul to the Romans crucially depends on the premise that our responsibility to obey all the laws of God is not limit by our ability to carry out all the laws of God.
(Romans 2: 12-13 ESV): "For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified."
(Romans 3:21-26 ESV): "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
(Romans 5:12 ESV): "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned".
One argument in the Letter of Paul to the Romans is that:
(a) All persons are obligated to obey all the laws of God.
(b) A person who is able to obey all the laws of God is righteous before God.
(c) A person who violates one law of God is a sinner before God.
(d) The wages of sin is death.
(e) No one is able to obey all the laws of God (with the exception of Jesus Christ).
(f) That no one is able to obey all the laws of God is demonstrated by the fact that all persons died.
Thus, it is false that in the Bible ought implies can.
If cannot implies not ought, then does it not follow that since no one (except Jesus Christ) is able to obey all the laws of God, therefore no one is obligated to obey all the laws of God?
One can even be more particular and claims that any laws of God we are not able to obey we are not obligated to obey.
Yet according to the Bible, we are obligated to obey all the laws of God irrespective of our abilities.
Christians are righteous before God not because we are able to obey all the laws of God, but that we receive forgiveness for our sins when the righteousness of Jesus Christ has been imputed to us when we believe in his name.
Gordon H. Clark has provided a correction to Kant (Clark [1932] 2002, 43): "But is there nothing in Kant's dictum, If I ought, I can? As stated by Kant and the Catholics it leads immediately to salvation by works. The motive which prompted this incorrect principle can, however, be better stated and so save what of truth it contains. If all ought, at least one can. If all ought to be honest, then some can and are. If all ought perfectly to satisfy divine justice, at least One has done so."
8. Some elaborations of the group 5 theses:
The theses of group 5 are in the form of an argument:
(a) We are responsible to obey all the laws of God.
(b) Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God. (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 14)
(c) God has promised in the Bible to forgive our sins if we repent and confess our sins to him.
(d) Therefore, if we sinned, then we should repent and confess our sins to God.
(1 John 1:5-10 ESV): "This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."
Since the New Testament says Christians sin and sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God, therefore Christians in the New Testament are bound by and must obey some laws.
But what Biblical laws must the Christians obey?
Must Christians obey all the laws of the Old Testament?
Some theologians have divided the Old Testament laws into three categories: moral law, civil law, and ceremonial law.
One theory says that:
(a) Christians are still bound by the moral law of the Old Testament, preeminent of which are the Ten Commandments.
(b) The civil law of the Old Testament still applies in New Testament times through the legal concept of "equity".
(c) Christians in New Testament times are not bound by the ceremonial law of the Old Testament.
I have no settled opinion on this subject but the above theory is my tentative position.
But one thing is certain, while as Christians we are still bound by some Old Testament laws, we do not obey the laws in order to merit our salvation.
Legalism or salvation by works is "the theory that man could completely or partially merit salvation by obeying the law; faith was then not the sole means of justification." (Clark [1973a] 1992, 6)
The New Testament denies legalism or salvation by works.
References:
Clark, Gordon H. [1932] 1992. Determinism and Responsibility. Reprinted in Essays on Ethics and Politics, ed. John W. Robbins, 37-48. Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation.
Clark, Gordon H. [1973a] 1992. Calvinistic Ethics. Reprinted in Essays on Ethics and Politics, ed. John W. Robbins, 3-6. Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation.
Clark, Gordon H. [1973b] 1992. Responsibility. Reprinted in Essays on Ethics and Politics, ed. John W. Robbins, 180-81. Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation.
McNamara, Paul. 2010. Deontic Logic. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-deontic/
(accessed 2012-12-19).
"Conscience", Merriam-Webster,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conscience
(accessed 2012-12-19).
"Ignorantia juris non excusat", Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
(accessed 2012-12-19).
"Ought implies can", Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ought_implies_can
(accessed 2012- 12-19).
"毛泽东", Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia,
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%AF%9B%E6%BE%A4%E6%9D%B1
(accessed 2012-12-19).
End.
Note:
I wrote the following in March, 2009 as a post to an internet discussion group.
I am blogging my old post here unchanged.
My basic view has not changed:
(1) Man is created in the image of God which means man intrinsically possesses freedom and liberty.
(2) Man has fallen in sin and therefore his sinful dispositions and actions need to be restrained.
(3) Government should minimize laws and regulations to promote freedom and liberty.
(4) Government should also maximize laws and regulations to restrain man's sinful dispositions and actions.
(5) How many laws and regulations a government should enact requires wisdom to balance these two basic oppositional constraints.
(6) But after what happened in the financial crisis of 2007–2008, I find those who advocate an unrestrained free-market to have little credibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Among contemporary non-Christian political philosophy, I have the most sympathy for Libertarianism: the valuing of individual liberty, free markets, private properties, and limited government.
2. These values are interrelated and tend to reinforce each other.
Individual liberty leads Classical economists to postulate the existence of "economic man": economic agents that only act in his own rational self-interest.
The doctrine of the "invisible hand" justifies the existence of free markets under the constrain of economic man: "in a free market, an individual pursuing his own self-interest tends to also promote the good of his community as a whole." ("Invisible hand", Wikipedia)
Private property rights is a precondition for the existence for a free market - i.e. without private property rights, a free market would not exist.
A property is a "private property" if the owner of the property has: "(1) the right to exclude others so that he alone may decide on its use, (2) the right to extract exclusive income from its use, and (3) the right to transfer the property (including labor) to or to exchange with anyone he sees fit." (Steven N.S. Cheung)
A market exists whenever one or more persons exchange goods or services of value.
And in order for a market to function freely and efficiently, there should be a minimum of interferences by civil government in the operation of markets.
3. I was struck by Alan Greenspan's testimony before the U.S. Congress last October: "As I wrote last March: those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."
It seems economic man is not that rational after all.
Economic man seems to be willing to sacrifice his long-term interest for short-term gain.
And in doing so, economic man has acted to the detriment of the community as a whole - contrary to the doctrine of the Invisible Hand.
And government has failed to restrain economic man by providing the needed regulations.
4. The current economics crisis that originated in the U.S. may be viewed as a failure:
(a) of the doctrine of the invisible hand, and
(b) of the government to regulate the markets.
5. I too value individual liberty.
I believe individual liberty is a gift from God.
So consequently, I too value free markets, private property rights, and limited government.
But I differ from the Libertarian in that I also belief in the reality of sin.
From the Bible I learned that man has fallen into sin and therefore possesses a sinful nature.
Therefore, I believe that:
(a) man is not always rational, and
(b) civil government is necessary to regulate the affairs of man in order to restrain sin.
6. Gordon H. Clark, "Human Nature and Political Theory" (circa 1970) reprinted in [Essays on Ethics and Politics (1992)], pp.122-3:
The result of Adam's sin is the total depravity of the human race. Instead of loving and obeying God, men naturally hate God. Instead of always acting rationally, they often act irrationally.
...
Therefore, civil government, though it be an evil in that it restricts men's liberty, is a necessary evil because men at liberty are dangerous. The Old Testament too says that God ordained civil government for the good of sinful men. The New Testament specifically upholds the government's power of taxation and of waging war and executing criminals.
But there is one tremendous difference between Christian and pagan politics. The pagan theories are totalitarian. The State is supreme. But King Ahab in the Old Testament was condemned by God for stealing private property. The King did not make the law, nor could he change it. Theft and murder are condemned by the laws of God. Therefore in Christian theory there are some things a State ought not to do.
This is, of course, consistent with the view that all men are totally depraved. Government is necessary because anarchy with evil men is intolerable. But the rulers also are evil and need to be restrained. Power always tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Civil government is not God's only method of restraining sin. ...
7. I believe in liberty for human persons because liberty is a gift from God.
I believe in limited liberty for human persons because human persons are sinful.
Therefore, I believe in maximizing liberty for human persons subject to the constraint of the reality of sin.
8. I believe in free markets because I believe in liberty.
I believe in civil government regulating markets because I believe in the reality of sin.
Therefore, I believe in minimizing civil government regulating markets subject to the constraint of the reality of sin.
9. Government is instituted by God to restrain sin.
Government is itself make up of human persons who are themselves sinful.
Therefore, I believe in minimizing the functions and size of government subject to the constraint of the reality of sin.
End.
