Our Holy Cause

Traveling ...

2010-07-18T08:00:00.000+01:00

To my faithful readers - sorry I have not been writing for a few weeks. The reason is that I have been on the road for several weeks. The good side is that I have been able to visit (with family) several interesting places, including Craters of the Moon National Park in Idaho, and Olympic National Park in Washington State. Olympic, especially the Northern portions, is a place of real beauty.

I'll be back as soon as possible with more, including the conclusion of my "Jim Wallis" series. But likely not this week, due to the opportunity to spend quality time with family.

What’s the Main Thing Wrong with Government?

2010-06-11T10:40:00.001+01:00

Those involved in it are just too intent on governing. From The Washington Times:

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) leaders are attempting to distance themselves from controversial proposals published in a May 24 working paper on “reinventing” the media. The report presents a suite of options through which government could step in and supposedly rescue journalism, most notably by imposing taxes. A fee could be levied on websites such as the Drudge Report that link to the best news of the day, or a tax could be imposed on consumer electronics such as iPads, laptops and Kindles. Funds collected would be redistributed to traditional media outlets.

And they are quite fine with lying about it … (of course we shouldn’t really use the word “lie” concerning such polite company, it is really frowned upon and is very upsetting to them.)

FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz torpedoed the device tax in testimony Wednesday before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, saying, “I think that's a terrible idea.”

… Passing the buck is a classic bureaucratic dodge. The FTC claims that the well-developed proposals released last month were simply an enumeration of options suggested in “public comments.” In fact, the agency's Federal Register announcement for the proceeding questioned the propriety of news-aggregator websites that “do not pay for content” – this document was filed long before public hearings were held.

The report's views also happen to match positions Mr. Leibowitz has held in the past. Before joining the FTC, he was vice president of the Motion Picture Association of America, an organization that defends an extreme view of copyright law in order to prop up Hollywood's increasingly obsolete business model. At a December workshop, Mr. Leibowitz complained that online news readers get a “free ride instead of paying the full value – or in fact paying anything – for what they're consuming.”

… and they don’t understand freedom … and they think they can regularly “reinvent” our lives … and they don’t understand the market … and they believe they have an almighty hand, through which they can save the world … and they believe in the (supposed) goodness of taxes and redistribution … and …

Blog Name Change

2010-06-11T10:13:00.001+01:00

Today I changed the name of the blog from “The Holy Cause” to “Our Holy Cause.” This was done for the simple and logical reason that it matches the URL; the thrust of the blog is unchanged.

Jim Wallis on libertarianism – Part 3

2010-06-11T03:04:00.001+01:00

This is part 3 of a multi-part series addressing the concerns Jim Wallis recently expressed regarding libertarianism. Part 1 was largely introductory, and Part 2 considered the first of the “shortcomings” in libertarianism as declared by Rev. Wallis. In this article we will be considering the second of the five “shortcomings” to determine whether it stands up to the tests of truth, historical evidence, and scriptures.

As in the previous, unless stated otherwise, all indented text in this articles is a quote from Wallis, and all other text is mine. Here is the complete text from Rev. Wallis’ second point:

2. An anti-government ideology just isn't biblical. In Romans 13, the apostle Paul (not the Kentucky Senate candidate) describes the role and vocation of government; in addition to the church, government also plays a role in God's plan and purposes. Preserving the social order, punishing evil and rewarding good, and protecting the common good are all prescribed; we are even instructed to pay taxes for those purposes! Sorry, Tea Party. Of course, debating the size and role of government is always a fair and good discussion, and most of us would prefer smart and effective to "big" or "small" government.

Revelation 13 depicts the state as a totalitarian beast – a metaphor for Rome, which was persecuting the Christians. This passage serves as a clear warning about the abuse of governmental power. But a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice. To disparage government per se – to see government as the central problem in society – is simply not a biblical position.

It is my contention is that Wallis has made several significant errors in the above text, including the following:

Misrepresentation of libertarians as universally anti-government – part 1
A limited and pro-state understanding of Romans 13
An overly rosy view of government
Misrepresentation of libertarians as universally anti-government – part 2

Misrepresentation of libertarians as universally anti-government – part 1

An anti-government ideology just isn't biblical. In Romans 13, the apostle Paul (not the Kentucky Senate candidate) describes the role and vocation of government; in addition to the church, government also plays a role in God's plan and purposes.

Wallis’ argument is a straw man; not all of libertarianism is “anti-government.” For example, the Libertarian Party by definition cannot be truly anti-government, since they wish to participate in the government. Likewise those who self-identify as constitutionalists, as do many libertarians, are not anti-government. Desiring or striving for a smaller or strictly-defined government is not anti-government – how could it be? That is like saying that favoring a small car for its efficiency means one is anti-automobile, which of course makes no sense. Craig Carter states it this way:

It is not anti-government for libertarians to want government to stick to core functions of enforcing justice and national defense rather than intruding into every area of life and replacing the family as the main provider of income to most citizens. Libertarians are not anti-government; they just have a different view of its proper function than Wallis does.

A limited and pro-state understanding of Romans 13

Wallis seems to have a very limited viewpoint regarding who the “authorities” are in Romans 13, and what our response to them should be. These authorities do not have to be the state, nor do we need to obey them without question. Others have made good cases for this, see for example:

Romans 13 and Anarcho-Capitalism, by Jim Fedako
New Testament Theology of the State, Part 2, by Norman Horne
Romans Chapter 13, by Chuck Baldwin

An overly rosy view of government

Wallis claims that “government also plays a role in God's plan and purposes”; I think most Christian libertarians would agree with this. Whereas God is sovereign, He uses all things (including government) to work out His plan. For example, Romans 8:28 makes this truth very clear regarding the life of a believer; even government can and will be used by God to do His will on Earth and in our lives. Going from this to the concept that government has inherent goodness is a huge jump which is supported neither by scripture nor by history.

Preserving the social order, punishing evil and rewarding good, and protecting the common good are all prescribed; we are even instructed to pay taxes for those purposes! Sorry, Tea Party.

Frankly, if the government were limited to the above-limited functions, and taxes being collected were only used to accomplish those functions, there would be no Tea Party and not very many libertarians. Most people wouldn’t find it worth the bother, even if they had a libertarian bent. But the government we now have, and that which Wallis seems to desire more of, is much more imposing than what he has described. Wallis continues:

Of course, debating the size and role of government is always a fair and good discussion, and most of us would prefer smart and effective to "big" or "small" government.

Though Wallis claims that “debating the size of government is always fair and good”, he immediately poo-poos the whole idea of judging a government by size. Unlike Wallis, I am not amongst those who want a “smart and effective” government. Generally, I consider government so evil that I hope for debilitating ineffectiveness. What sane person (other than a member of a gang) would want a gang to be “smart and effective?” Barry Goldwater put it this way:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwanted financial burden. . . . And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

Big government is bad, because it destroys liberty, prosperity, progress, harmony, and morality. It is a source of astonishing evil. Wallis agrees with this, stating:

Revelation 13 depicts the state as a totalitarian beast – a metaphor for Rome, which was persecuting the Christians. This passage serves as a clear warning about the abuse of governmental power.

If Wallis would have stopped there, it would have been better, but alas he did not. By putting the word “abuse” in the second sentence, he gives himself a way out. Here it is:

But a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice.

How can Wallis say that with a straight face? Throughout history, how many governments have not been power-hungry? How many have not continually grown into greater and greater tyranny? Isn’t it abundantly clear that non-power-hungry governments are the aberration, with power-hungry ones being the norm? Which governments have voluntarily (without citizen activism) limited themselves to their “proper role” of “protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice?” As I previously said, if governments truly limited themselves to this, there would be no Tea Party movement, and few libertarians.

Misrepresentation of libertarians as universally anti-government – part 2

To disparage government per se – to see government as the central problem in society – is simply not a biblical position.

Wallis is clearly talking to Christians, as evidenced by his appeal to the Bible. As a minister he desires to persuade Christians of the supposed error of libertarianism. Unfortunately, in order to do that he chooses to misconstrue and overstate what libertarians believe concerning government. Each person is different, of course, but generally libertarians do not “see government as the central problem in society.” Libertarians generally do not care whether evil (murder, for example) is committed by an individual or by a government; evil is evil. It is mostly because governments are so efficient at doing such evil that libertarians are so strongly against big and powerful governments. Thomas Jefferson described the problem and the solution as follows:

In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

So, from a Christian libertarian point of view, I agree with Wallis that government is not the major evil in our world. Governments can and do accomplish good.

The real problem is sin; man is fallen, and has a sinful and deceitful nature. Since sin is the problem, should we not attempt to minimize the impact of sin on our lives and on God’s world, by tying it down, as Thomas Jefferson suggested?

Or is empowering some men to rule over us the biblically proscribed method for dealing with sin? I do not see this idea scripture, and history has clearly demonstrated the folly of that method through such examples as Hitler, Stalin, Bush, Obama, and others. Smaller, with less power, clearly is better than bigger and powerful. That is what libertarians are trying to accomplish, and they have biblically sound reasons for doing so, despite the claims of Rev. Wallis.

Conclusion

I conclude therefore that Wallis’ second contention against libertarianism falls short due to his misrepresentation of libertarianism, his pro-state understanding of Romans 13, and his overly rosy view of government. God can and will work through and despite government, regardless of its form. But does that negate our right and responsibility to guide government into a better form, or to abolish it altogether should it not serve our understanding of God’s purposes? I submit that it does not, despite the claims of Rev Wallis.

Check back again soon for discussion of Rev Wallis’ third contention, that “the Libertarians' supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin.”

Live free, regardless.

Recommended: The Cult of the Presidency

2010-06-08T19:02:00.001+01:00

I am not actually recommending the book, “The Cult of the Presidency”, as I haven’t read it yet. What I am recommending though, is that you get an electronic copy while it is still online at Cato for free. And, yes, it is the updated version!

So, How does the Nobel Committee Feel about that Prize Now?

2010-06-06T22:00:00.001+01:00

You know, I actually believed that Obama was going to be more peaceful than President Bush was. Silly me. Of course we knew the error of this thinking fairly quickly after he took office.

Anyway, here is the latest from the Washington Post:

Beneath its commitment to soft-spoken diplomacy and beyond the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret U.S. war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups, according to senior military and administration officials.

Special Operations forces have grown both in number and budget, and are deployed in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year. In addition to units that have spent years in the Philippines and Colombia, teams are operating in Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia.

…. One advantage of using "secret" forces for such missions is that they rarely discuss their operations in public. For a Democratic president such as Obama, who is criticized from either side of the political spectrum for too much or too little aggression, the unacknowledged CIA drone attacks in Pakistan, along with unilateral U.S. raids in Somalia and joint operations in Yemen, provide politically useful tools.

Obama, one senior military official said, has allowed "things that the previous administration did not."

…. The Obama administration has rejected the constitutional executive authority claimed by Bush and has based its lethal operations on the authority Congress gave the president in 2001 to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" he determines "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks.

Many of those currently being targeted, Bellinger said, "particularly in places outside Afghanistan," had nothing to do with the 2001 attacks.

Read the whole thing here.

Live free, regardless.

Jim Wallis on libertarianism – Part 2

2010-06-06T00:50:00.001+01:00

In my first response to Jim Wallis’ recent article, How Christian Is Tea Party Libertarianism?, I briefly presented the five “shortcomings” which Rev. Wallis condemned in libertarianism. Please refer back to either my article or Wallis’ if you wish to see the five of them together. Today I would like to consider the first of the five “shortcomings”, the remainder will weighed in subsequent articles. (Throughout this article, unless stated otherwise, all text in blockquotes is a quote from Wallis, and all other text is mine.)

1. The Libertarian enshrinement of individual choice is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue. Emphasizing individual rights at the expense of others violates the common good, a central Christian teaching and tradition. The Christian answer to the question "Are we our brother's keeper?" is decidedly "Yes." Jesus tells us that the greatest commandment is to love God and love our neighbor. Loving your neighbor is a better Christian response than telling your neighbor to leave you alone. Both compassion and social justice are fundamental Christian commitments, and while the Christian community is responsible for living out both, government is also held accountable to the requirements of justice and mercy. Both Christians on the Right and the Left have raised questions about Libertarian abandonment of the most vulnerable -- whether that means unborn lives or the poor.

Just look at the biblical prophets in their condemnation of injustice to the poor, and how they frequently follow those statements by requiring the king (the government) to act justly (these requirements applied both to the kings of Israel and to foreign potentates). Jeremiah, speaking of King Josiah, said, "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well."(Jeremiah 22:16). Amos instructs the courts (the government) to "Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts" (Amos 5:15). The prophets hold kings, rulers, judges, and employers accountable to the demands of justice and mercy.

It is my contention is that Wallis has made several significant errors in the above text, including the following:

Misrepresentation of the central concept of libertarianism.
Ignoring similarities between libertarianism and the teachings of Jesus and the Church
Abuse of scripture

Misrepresentation of the central concept of libertarianism

Wallis begins with an inaccurate statement:

The Libertarian enshrinement of individual choice is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue.

Libertarians generally do not “enshrine” individual choice. If one were to go to 100 libertarians and ask them to describe the fundamental rule of libertarianism, most of the most passionate would state some form of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). This, not individual choice, is what libertarians can correctly be said to enshrine, if anything.

Ignoring similarities between libertarianism and the teachings of Jesus and the Church

Rev. Wallis takes his erroneous understanding of libertarianism, and confidently declares that it is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue. Well, duh! What does Jesus say is the pre-eminent Christian virtue? Actually, when asked that question, Jesus gives two of them together (Matthew 22:37-40):

And he [Jesus] said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

The first pre-eminent virtue is to love the Lord. I will grant that libertarians as a whole do not embrace that, but one could say that neither does Rev. Wallis, who skips over it in his discussion. I suppose the reason is that Wallis is reluctant to legislate “the great and first commandment”, and for good reason – it is not possible to mandate love. (He is willing, however, to try to legislate other Christian virtues, such as compassion.) So from a legal / governmental viewpoint, all that can be properly done in regards to the first commandment is to ensure religious freedom, which is, incidentally, a very libertarian value.

But what about the second commandment, which Jesus says is like the first – to “love your neighbor as yourself”? It is noteworthy that Jesus repeats this concept in many contexts, such as the story of Good Samaritan (Luke 10:28-37), the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12), and elsewhere. The Apostle Paul as well teaches the concept in his teachings (Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14), as does James (James 2:8).

How does the second great commandment line up with libertarianism? Very well actually; the non-aggression principle can be said to be foundational to the practical implementation of loving our neighbors as ourselves, for if we act against our neighbor in aggression, how could we claim to be loving them?

Emphasizing individual rights at the expense of others violates the common good, a central Christian teaching and tradition.

But does emphasizing or exercising rights necessarily result in another’s harm? Wallis implies that it does, but in reality most of the time it does not. In those cases where it does, a Christian has to fall back on the teachings of scriptures, by considering others in addition to himself. This is, of course, an option in libertarianism, as it is for those who subscribe to the right wing and the left. But can it be legislated? I contend that it cannot be, as true morality comes from the heart, not from the law.

Wallis then considers some of the very same passages I have brought up above, but with a very different twist:

The Christian answer to the question “Are we our brother's keeper?” is decidedly “Yes.” Jesus tells us that the greatest commandment is to love God and love our neighbor. Loving your neighbor is a better Christian response than telling your neighbor to leave you alone.

I agree that “Loving your neighbor is a better Christian response than telling your neighbor to leave you alone.” And one of the best ways of loving my neighbor is to treat him as I would want to be treated, as Jesus said. That puts the burden on me to learn to treat my neighbor with love, while respecting his right to be left alone as he desires. This is very compatible with Christian libertarianism.

Both compassion and social justice are fundamental Christian commitments, and while the Christian community is responsible for living out both, government is also held accountable to the requirements of justice and mercy.

Social justice is vague term, meaning whatever the speaker wishes it to mean. For that reason, I will not grant that is it a “Christian commitment”, and won’t waste any time discussing it.

Compassion, however, is certainly a Christian virtue, as Wallis stated. Compassion can only exist in the context of choice, the choice of acting compassionately or not. Suppose the government could somehow eliminate poverty – if it does that, do I somehow gain compassion credits? No, because I had no choice in the matter.

Supposing that I did have a choice within a governmental context, and exercised it, say through a democratic process. For example, everyone gets together and votes on a solution to poverty, which will cost each of us 10% of our income. If the resolution is passed at less than 100%, there was at least one person who was opposed to it. So would we not then be acting uncompassionately to that person, by stealing 10% of his income in order to be “compassionate” to another? But can one be legitimately compassionate with another’s resources? The Godly response is voluntary compassion, which is a great libertarian principle!

Regarding Wallis’ claim of governments being held accountable, scripture is very clear that individuals are held accountable for their actions (Hebrews 9:27). Governments are made up of individuals, how are they held accountable except as individuals? How are they supposed to express their compassion, except as individuals? I will grant that there is scriptural evidence of societies being judged (consider the Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Nineveh, for example), but I see little evidence of governments being judged by God.

Both Christians on the Right and the Left have raised questions about Libertarian abandonment of the most vulnerable – whether that means unborn lives or the poor.

I know I am starting to sound like a broken record, but whereas his “problems” remain much the same, the solution likewise remains the same – a Christian must love his neighbor, and thereby not abandon the vulnerable. The solution is not to be found in either a “right” or “left” government, but in the freedom to act as a Christian should.

Abuse of Scripture

In the second paragraph, Wallis continues:

Just look at the biblical prophets in their condemnation of injustice to the poor, and how they frequently follow those statements by requiring the king (the government) to act justly (these requirements applied both to the kings of Israel and to foreign potentates). Jeremiah, speaking of King Josiah, said, “He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well.” (Jeremiah 22:16). Amos instructs the courts (the government) to “Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts” (Amos 5:15). The prophets hold kings, rulers, judges, and employers accountable to the demands of justice and mercy.

Frankly, I don’t understand why Wallis wrote the above; it seems a deviation from his argument, and puts him on very shaky ground scripturally. Amos 5:15, which Wallis so readily applies to “government”, is actually directed to the people of Israel (according to Amos 5:1), not to the king. Additionally Wallis’ choice of the NIV translation is interesting, because virtually all English translations translate the word as “gates” rather than “courts”. They are not the same concept, Smith’s Bible dictionary describes the gates as follows:

The gate and gateways of eastern cities anciently held and still hold an important part, not only in the defense, but in the public economy of the place. They are thus sometimes taken as representing the city itself. (Genesis 22:17; Genesis 24:60; Deuteronomy 12:12; Judges 5:8; Ruth 4:10; Psalms 87:2; Psalms 122:2). Among the special purposes for which they were used may be mentioned.

1. As places of public resort. (Genesis 19:1; Genesis 23:10; Genesis 34:20; Genesis 34:24; 1 Samuel 4:18, etc.)
2. Places for public deliberation, administration of Justice, or of audience for kings and rulers or ambassadors. (Deuteronomy 16:18; Deuteronomy 21:19; Deuteronomy 25:7; Joshua 20:4; Judges 9:35, etc.)
3. Public markets. (2 Kings 7:1)

So, at the time of Amos’ prophecy, the gates of the city did indeed function as a court, where both formal (criminal) and informal (civil, family disputes, etc.) proceedings took place. But, more than that, it was a representative of society as a whole; the prophet is simply directing the people to hate evil, love good, and be just. These are certainly libertarian values. It again boils down to treating a neighbor as one would like to be treated. This does not support Wallis’ contention against individual rights, in fact doesn’t it suggest just the opposite?

Regarding Rev. Wallis’ use of Jeremiah 22:16, let’s look at that in context as well. Jeremiah 22:13-17 says:

Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness, and his upper rooms by injustice, who makes his neighbor serve him for nothing and does not give him his wages, who says, “I will build myself a great house with spacious upper rooms,” who cuts out windows for it, paneling it with cedar and painting it with vermilion. Do you think you are a king because you compete in cedar? Did not your father eat and drink and do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me? declares the LORD. But you have eyes and heart only for your dishonest gain, for shedding innocent blood, and for practicing oppression and violence.

Isn’t the intent of this passage clearly a strong condemnation of the king? By selectively choosing a short “positive” text in the middle of the passage, Wallis turns its meaning on its head. In context, however, it is clear that the above verses more readily state the opposite of what Wallis is contending. Justice requires that one be treated fairly, unlike the actions of the king, “who makes his neighbor serve him for nothing and does not give him his wages.” Isn’t this Biblical teaching fully compatible to what libertarians believe? The condemnation of the evils of tyranny is both a libertarian and Christian value.

In conclusion, it is very clear that Rev Wallis first “shortcoming” does not stand up to analysis. His misconstrual of the central concepts of libertarianism, his ignoring of the similarities between libertarian concepts and the teachings of Jesus and the Church, and his subsequent abuse of scripture in order to support his viewpoint, is intellectually and morally inexcusable.

Discussion, refutation and correction are welcome in the comments.

Live free, regardless.

Mega-Church Bus

2010-06-03T21:59:00.001+01:00

HT the Sacred Sandwich. And a commenter, “My how things have changed. The church in Jerusalem just had that one Accord.”

An Unrepentant George Bush in Grand Rapids

2010-06-03T20:30:00.001+01:00

From the Grand Rapids Press:

“Yeah, we water-boarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,” Bush said of the terrorist who master-minded the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. He said that event shaped his presidency and convinced him the nation was in a war against terror.

“I'd do it again to save lives.”

Well yeah, we guessed as much. Tell me again, how many lives were saved by this torture?

Bush underlined the role religion played in his life in the White House, saying prayer gave him strength to go forward.

“I prayed a lot. I really did. I prayed before every major speech. I prayed before debates. It was a very important experience.”

President Bush, how were those prayers an “important experience”? Did they help you to discern and act according to God’s will? Or did they just help you to feel better about what you had already decided to do?

I would expect both of these quotes to have gained a good reception in Grand Rapids, a bastion of the Christian right. Its a very sad reflection the Church when we don’t condemn such evil amongst us.

Live free, regardless.

Memorial Day Video

2010-05-31T14:27:00.001+01:00

Following the “tradition” started last year, below is an scene from the movie, “The Americanization of Emily.” It is shared out of great appreciation of its strong anti-war message.

Update: corrected video link, the previous did not work.

Recommended: Would Jesus Celebrate Memorial Day?

2010-05-31T11:35:00.001+01:00

From Kevin Craig:

Would Jesus Celebrate Memorial Day?

The United States has three holidays which honor those who chose war over peace: Veterans' Day (those who fought and lived); Memorial Day (those who fought and died) and Independence Day (those who took up arms to abolish their government). ("Armed Forces Day" is a runner-up.)

Shouldn't a Christian nation like America have a day to honor those who withstood the temptation to violence and vengeance and chose peace instead of choosing war?

Read the rest here, or a longer version here.

On Saturday, I participated in a Memorial Day picnic at the US Embassy. The usual speeches were given honoring those who paid the ultimate price “for our freedom.” I cringed within, because though many have indeed paid a severe price in the many US wars, their loss did not aid my freedom in any measurable sense.

However, I do wish to express my condolences to those who have lost loved ones in this evil that we call “war.” May we, by God’s grace, find the way to no longer participate in the horror, and thereby make one more real step towards freedom. What better way can there be to honor those who have fallen?

Live free, regardless.

Jim Wallis on libertarianism

2010-05-30T20:59:00.001+01:00

At the Huffington Post, Jim Wallis asks, “How Christian Is Tea Party Libertarianism?”

The insurgent Tea Party and its Libertarian philosophy is a political phenomenon, not a religious one. Like the Democratic and Republican parties it seeks to challenge, it is a secular movement, not a Christian one. As with both major political parties, people who regard themselves as Christians may be involved in, or sympathetic to, the new Tea Party; but that doesn't make it “Christian.” But like the philosophies and policies of the major political parties, the Tea Party can legitimately be examined on the basis of Christian principles -- and it should be.

Since the Tea Party is getting such national attention, our God's Politics blog is going to begin a dialogue on this question: Just how Christian is the Tea Party Movement -- and the Libertarian political philosophy that lies behind it? Let me start the dialogue here. And please join in. [OK, I will do just that, and thank you for bringing it up.]

Rev. Wallis did not waste any time before leaping headlong into error, the first of which is found in in his first sentence. Unlike his claim to the contrary, the Tea Party and libertarianism are very different beasts, and cannot be summarily equated in the way Wallis does. The Tea Party is a new phenomenon which involves a significantly “broader” (and generally more statist) political spectrum than libertarianism. Most of those who self-identify as libertarians are much more radical than the Tea Party activists. These are general statements, of course, not addressing any particular individual in either movement.

There is a reason for this not-so-subtle false association – although most Tea Partiers are not libertarians, if Wallis can convince them that 1) libertarianism is evil, and 2) the Tea Party is libertarian, maybe he can convince the Christians amongst them to lay off of his favorite president, thus allowing him to advance his agenda unhindered. It is worth a try anyway.

Throughout the discussion following here and in subsequent postings on the same subject, I will be only defending libertarianism, not the Tea Party movement, except where specifically stated otherwise. I am not in any way involved in the Tea Party movement; I am a Christian libertarian, and that is what I will be defending.

Back to Wallis’ article. Wallis then follows his opening statements with a brief and mostly adequate description of libertarianism, but with a couple of shots taken at Rand Paul thrown in for good measure. Wallis then asks the following question:

Is such a philosophy Christian? In several major aspects of biblical ethics, I would suggest that Libertarianism falls short.

He then gives five “shortcomings”, which he believes demonstrates the non-Christian nature of libertarianism. They are (briefly):

The Libertarian enshrinement of individual choice is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue.
An anti-government ideology just isn't biblical.
The Libertarians' supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin.
The Libertarian preference for the strong over the weak is decidedly un-Christian.
There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white.

Live free, regardless.

An Example of Free Action Working

2010-05-29T08:02:00.001+01:00

Yahoo News today featured an article about the risk of head injury to baseball pitchers from line drives. The writer, Steve Henson tells a compelling story of Matt Hiserman of the University of San Francisco, who has twice been seriously injured with line drives to the head. Henson continues:

What a pitcher can and cannot control regarding his personal safety is being examined more closely than ever before. No pitcher can predict whether a line drive will make a beeline for his noggin. But experts say anyone who takes the mound can minimize the chance of injury by wearing a protective helmet. Doing so is unthinkable in the pro ranks but is slowly gaining acceptance at the grass-roots level.

Hiserman has moved in the direction of protection, working with a sports equipment company to create an unobtrusive shield that fits under his cap and cover his temples and forehead. And helmets that shield a pitcher’s skull are gaining momentum in a handful of youth and high school leagues, primarily in communities traumatized by a severe head injury to a local pitcher.

What I find interesting is that most of the solutions suggested in the article dealing with the perceived problem of head injuries to pitchers are being promoted in the free market of ideas, not by compulsion. For example:

A year ago, the parents and friends of Cole Schlesner, a 14-year-old from Loveland, Ohio, struck in the top of the head by a line drive, started a nonprofit organization that recently donated 1,000 batting helmets for pitchers to wear in youth leagues across four states.

The elite club organization Schlesner played for, the Cincinnati Stix, now strongly encourages pitchers to wear the protective helmets from ages 9 and up. Almost all pitchers wear them, and on some teams, all infielders wear them.

“Having every player at every position wear them at the youngest age creates an acceptance,” said Scott Schlesner, Cole’s father and a club coach. “As they get older, they won’t feel strange wearing them.”

The article mentions research made into the development of helmets, companies working to market helmets which might gain better acceptance amongst players, the above-mentioned foundation which is giving away helmets, schools and leagues deciding what is best for their players, etc. – but nothing about Congressional hearings and government committees. Assuming this is a real and serious problem, its solution can be determined by individuals, teams, schools, and leagues; meanwhile companies are lining up develop and provide them with the equipment they want. There is a free-market solution, as long as the market remains truly free.

Live free, regardless.

Classic Reprint: What Samuel Said About Solomon

2010-05-28T19:50:00.001+01:00

The following is from the September 1956 Faith and Freedom journal, by Frank Chodorov. It is presented as part of the Classic Reprints series here at The Holy Cause, and it is shared because it brings a somewhat unique view of the early kings of the state of Israel.

When the Old Testament monarchs sate upon their gilded diazes rich in purple panoply, and enslaved lovely maidens, the people murmured, lost their tempers, and made a form of government called tyranny-tempered-by-assassination. Now we would vote the rascals out. But the guilt lies not with our “kings” but in worshiping the office, in bowing to the state.

“In those days,” we are told in Judges 17:6, “there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”

To be able to do that which is right in one's own eyes is to be free, and freedom was the way of life among the Israelites before the coming of the kings. Yet, they were not without government; they were not lacking in those social controls that are the essence of government. The economy of the tribesmen demanded of the individual that he adjust himself to cooperative and regularized procedures; a man who indulged his caprice when the tribe was on the march in search of grazing land would be courting disaster; it was a case of hold together or die.

Tradition supplemented necessity in the orderly arrangement of life, for the tradition grew out of experience by the trial-and-error method and had proved itself beneficial. The laws of custom were sanctified because violation of them carried its own penalties, not only to the individual, but also to the group.

It was a conservative society; adherence to proven principles was the only way by which the pursuit of happiness could be furthered. That which was "right" in the tribesman's eyes was “right” by custom, tradition and the laws of Yahweh, to the enumeration of which the Old Testament, before the Book of Joshua, devoted much space. Freedom is not license.

Nor was there lack of leadership before the coming of the kings. Someone had to plan strategy and improvise tactics for the wars the tribesmen engaged in during their march to the Promised Land, and someone had to adjudicate disputes so as to prevent the chaos of internecine struggles. So came the judges, men esteemed for their wisdom and integrity, the “sports” provided by nature for the instruction of the rank and file.

The evidence leads to the conclusion that these judges ruled by natural selection and common consent, much like the chiefs of American Indian tribes. It was agreed that the authority of the judges was sanctified by God, but the proof of their anointment was the manner in which they exercised authority. They were leaders by virtue of their proven gift of leadership.

The important thing about the rule of the judges is that their office was not endowed with the power of coercion. “Every man did that which was right in his own eyes” meant that no man was compelled to do otherwise; and, since “in those days there was no king in Israel,” it must be presumed that there was no constabulary to enforce rules of behavior. The sole enforcement agency upon which the authority of the judges rested was public opinion. “So said Yahweh” had the force of “so say we all.”

According to one computation, this kind of government lasted about four centuries – a period, incidentally, comparable to the duration of the Roman republic. The manner of its termination is recorded in the Book of Samuel, where it is told that the elders of the tribes came to the last of the judges and demanded that he set a king over them. The background of this agitation for a basic constitutional reform is worth noting.

The nomads had by this time settled down in the hills surrounding Canaan, sheep herding was giving way to agriculture, land tenure had achieved an importance it did not have during the migrations. Trading, capital accumulations and financial transactions had entered their way of life.

Their economy had changed. To add to their new outlook was the vision of great wealth in the valleys; there, the pomp and circumstance of Baal worship in glittering temples compared favorably in their eyes with the austerity that Yahweh imposed on them, and there, all manner of private and public problems were settled out of hand by omniscient and omnipotent royal establishments, relieving the populace of rigorous self-discipline. It all looked good.

The immediate occasion for the revolutionary demand was what we would today call an emergency. In fact, there were two emergencies. In foreign affairs things were going badly for Israel; the Philistines had not only beaten them roundly in battle, but also made off with the sacred ark of the covenant.

On the domestic front, they had lost faith in their leadership. The two sons of Samuel, whom he had appointed as assistants, did not live up to the high standards of their office; they had “turned aside after lucre, and took bribes and perverted judgment.”

Samuel seems to have been a political scientist of the first water, all the more remarkable in that he had no books to go by, but only his wisdom and his observation of kingship in operation. So that, when the elders said “make us a king to judge us like all the nations,” he was displeased. The story says that he took the matter up with Yahweh, who assured him that nothing could be done about saving the Israelites from themselves, since they had given up on first principles.

It was because they had forsaken the rigorous tradition of their forefathers, with its insistence on self-reliance and personal integrity, that they had lost the victorious touch which carried them from Egypt to the outskirts of the Promised Land. The breakdown of the judge system could be traced to the same lack of self-discipline. Therefore, said Yahweh, give them what they ask for, but as a parting shot you might “show them the manner of the king that shall rule over them”; and tell them also that when they realize their mistake, it will be too late to regain freedom: “The Lord will not hear you in that day.”

Ye Shall Be Servants

So Samuel outlined the order of things under a king. First, there will be conscription, replacing the system of voluntarism which had served the tribesmen well throughout their peregrinations, and the conscription will not be confined to military service but will include service in the king's household. What's more, women too will be subject to involuntary servitude. Then, “he will appoint his captains over thousands and captains over fifties.”

The term “captain” is ambiguous, referring sometimes to men of war, sometimes to what we would call a nobility, sometimes (by the kind of work assigned to them) to bureaucrats; it was in the reigns of David and Solomon that “captain” took on many meanings.

And, continued Samuel, the king will take from you the best of your lands “and give them to his officers and to his servants,” thus establishing a landed aristocracy, which the laws of Moses clearly forbade. What's more, for the upkeep of his establishment “he will take a tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards”; apparently, compulsory taxation was new among the Israelites. To top it all off, “ye shall be his servants.”

Death to the Defier

But the elders were obdurate in their demand for political authority. One could go behind the returns and make out a case against these revolutionists; perhaps they constituted a newly-risen landowning class, and hoped to solidify their position under a kingship. More likely, fear had entered their hearts, as is usually the case when a people accustomed to success are faced with adversity, and they were quite willing to swap freedom for the promise of security under subservience.

In any event, Samuel anointed Saul. From the very beginning of the royal establishment, the troubles of Israel multiplied. There was the usual spate of wars with the Philistines, with varying degrees of success, and internal dissension, which was rare in the experience of the tribesmen, became common. Some followed Saul, others revolted against his rule; more exactly, they resisted the establishment of those institutions which Samuel had warned them would come with a king.

But, as Samuel said, there was no way of regaining freedom once the state had made its appearance, and the judge was soon on the lookout for a new deliverer. He sought out David, but it is significant that the new king, though anointed by Samuel, had to fight his way to power; he came to the throne on the wings of what we would call a revolution. The struggle for power, embellished with moral platitudes and social-sounding whereases, had seeped into the Israelite way of life.

There is a story within the story of David’s accession that is indeed a lesson in political science. The story is that a young soldier who brought David the news of Saul's death – hoping that this would be pleasing to David, whose life Saul had been after – confessed that he had had a part in dispatching the king, and that for his pains David had the soldier put to death. His reason for the execution was that the soldier had defied the office of kingship; it was a crime for an individual citizen to lay hands on the anointed.

It Took 40 Years

It is the way of political power to become in itself, regardless of the person who wields it, a shrine for public worship. In modern times, we are quick to “throw the rascals out,” but it never occurs to us that rascality is imbedded in the office or that the power invested in it might make a rascal of an honest man.

Though the people of Israel had asked for a king, the spirit of freedom did not depart from them immediately upon the granting of their wish, and Saul never really set the kingship on a solid basis. It takes time for the myth of authority to gain general acceptance. David, the second king, did better, for he had forty years in which to get the tribesmen in line with the new institution; a second generation had come to maturity during his reign and to them the exploits of royalty were “modern,” real and vibrant, while the freedom of their forefathers sank into the limbo of a fairy tale.

Even so, something of the past hung on, and David had to contend with frequent insurrections and, at the end, with a war of succession. He did succeed, as we learn from the Second Book of Samuel, in setting up the necessary framework for the functioning of a successful state, that is, in surrounding the kingship with a supporting caste of “mighty men,” analogous to what we would today call a privileged class, and with a group of efficient “servants” whose functions correspond with those of latter-day bureaucrats. In that way he facilitated the consolidation of power under Solomon.

The Saul-David-Solomon story is illustrative of the gestation of the state. At first, an aspiring chieftain fights his way to ascendancy as a lone wolf, knocking off rivals and concentrates in himself all the power he can lay his hands on. This method has merit only in so far as the area of his sovereignty is limited to personal supervision. Beyond that, it proves to be quite inefficacious, even quite precarious.

As his quest for power reaches beyond his purview, as it always does, he finds it necessary to delegate some of his power to, and share his prerogatives with, a supporting oligarchy-military, ecclesiastical (or intellectual) and, in time, commercial or industrial groups which lend themselves to his purpose in return for the special privileges he grants them. They serve as a moat to his castle.

In addition to these favored blocs, he must surround his citadel with a class of well-paid “servants” skilled in taking care of the details of his sovereignty, so that it can function with the least amount of friction.

The state is not, as most political scientists would make it, an inanimate thing; it consists of people, human beings, each of whom operates under an inner compulsion to get the most out of life with the least expenditure of labor. They differ from other human beings only in the fact that they have chosen (because they believe it to be easier) the political or predatory means of satisfying their desires, rather than the economic or productive means. The fiction that the state is an impersonal institution, something society constructs for its own benefit, serves to hide, even from its members, the nature of its composition.

Hyram and The WPA

The wisdom of Solomon was demonstrated in his capacity for consolidating state power. In the first place, the underpinning of his reign was soundly constructed, for we are told that his captains and his princes and his priests and servants, the privileged classes, “lacked nothing.”

He bought off possible opposition. Then he avoided to a considerable degree the costly and disruptive wars of his predecessors, and resorted to diplomatic bribery to bring under his sway the petty and potentially troublesome kings on the perimeter of his domain. His principal concern was in the management of internal affairs, in getting a good hold on his people by embellishing the myth of authority. The temple he built was a stroke of political genius, for it covered the kingship with an aura of omnipotence; so did the walled cities and the navy he built.

These programs brought him much public acclaim and accomplished the primary political purpose, that of giving the state the character of a doer of great social things. This is the prerequisite of maintaining power over the people.

These public works projects were financed on credit advanced by Hyram, King of Tyre, who incidentally did the work and employed slaves. (This form of exploitation was applicable under Hebrew law to foreigners only.) There is also a hint that Solomon exacted tribute from neighboring princes. But, as to taxation, we learn nothing until we come to Chronicles (chapter 10), which deals with the coronation of his son, Reheboam.

There it is told that “all Israel” pleaded with the new king thus: “Thy father made our yoke grievous; now therefore ease thou the grievous servitude of thy father, and the heavy yoke that he put on us, and we will serve thee.”

It was, then, by heavy taxes that the State of Israel attained the apex of its glory under Solomon. Its opulence reflected the poverty of the people. And so it must be. Society, it should be kept in mind, is a group of people who cooperate with one another in order that they may severally and individually improve their circumstances, and the techniques by which society achieves its purpose are production and exchange.

There is no other way by which society can thrive. Whatever deprives the members of society of the fruits of their labors is a deterrent of the human purpose that brought them together; it is a desocializing force. And among the devices that men have invented to defeat the ends of society, none is more devastating than compulsory taxation, because it is a constant drain of their property, tending to increase as they show more and more enterprise.

The state, on the other hand, thrives on what it can exact of society; its temples are built with taxes. Its bureaucracy or enforcement agency grows in size and arrogance by the same means. And it is with taxes that the state buys the support of those who might otherwise turn against it. The more taxes, the richer the state and the poorer the people; the more taxes, the stronger the state and the weaker the people. The interests of the two institutions are diametrically in opposition.

The Yoke Is Heavy

Resistance to the state diminishes in the degree of its confiscations, and ultimately, when the tax load becomes a yoke, subservience to the state becomes the necessary way of life. The designation of taxation as a yoke is a nice piece of biblical directness. A yoke is worn by an ox, a beast of burden, which by nature is incapable of claiming a property right in the products of its labor.

It follows that when a human being is deprived of that right, his status approximates that of an ox, and if taxation takes all he produces beyond that needed to sustain life (the wages of an ox), it can rightly be called a yoke. The Israelites who pleaded with Reheboam to lower the tax load which Solomon (the state) had put on them were quite literal. The story goes on to say that Reheboam rejected the plea of “all Israel,” that he in fact promised them an increase in taxes. Then it tells of a revolt against taxes by the people of Judah, a political subdivision that periodically rejected the suzerainty of Jerusalem: when Hadoram, Reheboam's chief collector of tribute, made his rounds among them, they “so stoned him with stones, that he died."

The incident points up an other lesson in political science, namely, that the state never achieves complete ascendancy over society (if it did, society would disintegrate and the state would collapse from lack of nutrition), and that there are always critics and rebels. There were many kings after Solomon in Israel, and all of them were plagued with prophets who called upon the people to return to first principles. In Chronicles it says: “Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day.”

Rationing of Healthcare is the Little Problem

2010-05-26T21:12:00.001+01:00

Worse than rationing, will we see more and more forced healthcare, and non-freedom in healthcare decisions, as exhibited in other countries with ~~universal~~ socialized healthcare?

Doctors given permission to use force to operate on cancer patient

Doctors have been given permission to use force if necessary to operate on a cancer sufferer in a decision by the head of the High Court Family Division.

Sir Nicholas Wall, sitting in the Court of Protection, said the 55-year-old woman identified only as PS lacks the capacity to make decisions about her own healthcare.

He said doctors at an NHS Foundation Trust are convinced she needs an operation to remove her ovaries and fallopian tubes or she will die.

… He [Wall] said: ''I am entirely satisfied that it was right to make the declarations sought by the trust, and although the application is unusual and may involve the use of force, I am nonetheless impressed by the care and thought which have gone into ensuring that PS receives the treatment which she plainly needs and which it is plainly in her interests to have.' [emphasis added]

The judge said he was handing down his anonymised ruling in open court because such decisions should be in the public domain to help others ''who may be faced with a similar dilemma''.

Keep in mind, this is an adult, making an adult decision about her own life, and it is violently being overruled by doctors and a judge; this is not a case children being untreated due to parental decisions or anything of the like. And if she dies in surgery? Or is permanently handicapped?

Not only are the drugs we take going to be regulated (as they are now), and the food we eat to be controlled (as it is now), but the healthcare we receive will soon be decided by the all-wise masters of the universe. May God help us.

Live free, regardless.

Classic Reprint: Live a New Kind of Life

2010-05-26T19:58:00.001+01:00

The following article, by Reverend Edmund A. Opitz, is reprinted from the February 1955 Faith and Freedom journal. It is presented as part of the Classic Reprints series here at The Holy Cause, and was chosen because of Opitz’s compelling case against the welfare state being somehow modeled after the teachings of Jesus Christ. Opitz demonstrates for us that the opposite is true – the welfare state and altruism are, by their very nature, contrary to simple obedience of those commands which our Lord described as the most important.

Live a New Kind of Life

Does Christianity teach altruism, the doctrine of putting the interests of others above the interests of yourself? Or does it teach saving your own soul first? Is this a doctrine of selfishness? These questions long have clouded the issues for many Christians. The Reverend Edmund A. Opitz attempts to throw some light on this question: “Socialist” Christianity? Or “individualist” Christianity?

“The churches and their ministers have helped us succeed,” said Clement Attlee, speaking of the “significant” aid to the Socialist Party given by British churchmen.

Americans now see this in many of their own churches: a highly articulate body of churchmen has grown up for whom a Christian social order means nothing less than socialism. Many of these theologians hailed the religious significance of Karl Marx; one of them said of Marxism that it “will provide the only possible property system compatible with the necessities of a technical age.”

Other churchmen, frightened by the materialism of Marx, sailed a middle course down the river between the extreme shores of capitalism and socialism. This midstream course is thought of as welfare statism. It is a downstream course – toward the falls.

These men believe they find welfare statism in the teachings of Jesus. They say Jesus’ ethics cannot work for men except in a Socialist (or statist) commonwealth. If true, all men desiring Jesus’ ethics to prevail are obligated to work toward a collectivist society. But on the other hand, what if the force inherent in a Socialist society would necessarily nullify the ethics of Jesus? Then the believers in that ethic are constrained to work toward the establishment of a non-Socialist alternative whose institutions would be more compatible with Jesus’ ethics.

The choice we make concerns the means more than the goal. Every man of good will, whether he calls himself a Socialist or a Capitalist, a Collectivist or an Individualist, desires the well-being of his fellowmen.

The means boils down to two alternatives. We can give some men all the power necessary to order the lives of all men in society, controlling their activities so as to meet the production quotas and other goals set by government. Or we can put our reliance on freely cooperating individuals, while hiring policemen with conditional powers to defend lives and property. In making a choice between these two means, which side of the scales is weighted with the ethical teaching of Jesus?

That Ye May Have Life

Even atheists agree that Jesus shouldn't be called merely a social reformer. He emphasized the transformation of individual life. By means of transforming themselves first, individuals could reform institutions. Jesus frequently referred to his mission in terms of raising the pitch of excellence of individual life. I am come that ye may have life, He said, and have it more abundantly. This more abundant life meant qualitative change in the individual. In two startling metaphors Jesus spoke of the necessity of being born again, and he likened the individual transformation to a passage from death into life.

The idea of qualitative change enters into the concept of eternal life which so often engaged the attention of Jesus and excited the interest of his listeners. One of these asked him, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus' reply paraphrased the question “If you would get into life, keep the commands.” He was concerned with awakening in men a more intense vitality and a heightening of faculties. He wanted to arouse them to the need for a new direction, outreach, and orientation of personal life.

The creator and sustainer of human life, Jesus knew, beckons also as a Being in Whom individual life finds its fulfillment. To experience eternal life, to be reborn, to become a Son of God, means the realization – deeper than mere intellectual awareness – of one's utter dependence on a Reality which stands at once beyond phenomena and yet somehow comes “closer than breathing, nearer than hands and feet.”

Love Yourself and Your Neighbor, Too

Jesus laid down the great and first commandment for those who wish to respond to this Reality and seek guidance: Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Foremost in conflict with this commandment is the tendency in each man to construct a system of meanings with no relation to eternal truth. That truth is fixed outside of man's experience of it. A truth which he can neither buy, bribe, tamper with or control, pompous man cannot accept. That the individual can find his true life only in conformity with the movement and purpose of this truth outside, is a further deflation of man's pomposity.

But man depends on this truth, according to Jesus, for man's principle of existence was not created by man, but by God. Man is given stewardship of a gift of life, and will be judged on his stewardship – not by men, but by God. And frequently, He said, “that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.”

What will man do with that which he has been lent? Each man must decide personally. The consequences of this decision no man can escape. The servant in the parable who wrapped his talent in a napkin and hid it in the ground, was deprived of that talent. It was given to him whose record of stewardship stood up best.

The second commandment, said Jesus, is like the first: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” We are enjoined first of all to love God with our whole being; any interpretation of the second commandment must take this into account. Notice that the second commandment does not tell us simply to love our neighbor, but to love our neighbor as ourselves.

This commandment contains no suggestion that we ought to be our brother's keeper; nor is the brother's keeper idea contained in any part of Biblical teaching. Nor should this second commandment be confused with that disguised power complex for which Auguste Comte more than a century ago coined the word “altruism.”

The order in which the two great commandments are given suggest that true neighborliness and genuine community follow the individual's discovery of his real self in relation to God. Without an understanding of the aim and purpose of personal life given in the first commandment, the man-to-man relationship becomes a confusedly self-conscious effort to sacrifice what is thought to be a personal good for the intended benefit of another man.

The determination to “do good” to our fellow man betrays us into smugness on the one side and resentment on the other; the intended benefit rarely materializes.

True neighborliness recognizes an obligation to respect the rights of one's fellow man because he, like one's self, is included in the purposes of the Eternal, and hence counts as a creature of infinite worth and dignity. We need no other warrant for refusing to impose our will on another, and for resisting the imposition of an alien will over our own.

Altruism In The Welfare State

How do these two great commandments square with the mechanics of a Socialist order? When collectivist measures are urged on the basis of their Christian motivation, their proponents speak of them in terms of human welfare.

In practice, a minority secures the passage of laws which force reluctant citizens to participate in these schemes against their wills or suffer penalties for refusing. The motivating minority is prepared to use legal violence where necessary to penalize dissenters. The dissenter becomes a lawbreaker unless he is persuaded that the state's socialistic means should be used to obtain social advance and individual betterment. Not to support the state in all its actions is deemed a crime.

Consider the case of a housing project. Who doesn't regard better housing for all people as a desirable goal to work for? But the welfare stater decides that his government should undertake the building of houses. Houses cannot be built without money, even by government, so the welfare stater must invoke the coercive powers of government to get it. The money is obtained under duress by taxation which deprives people of their property for purposes most of them cannot endorse. Not to pay the tax is deemed “evasion,” a crime.

Good people can be forced to do what they cannot be persuaded to do. Thus the welfare stater (like the Socialist) when he puts his schemes into operation, inevitably hurts some people in his efforts to help other people.

A scheme which is supposed to help some, and does it by hurting others, grossly perverts Jesus' summary of the Law. This perversion can promote neither love for God nor for neighbor.

Welfare statism and socialism supposedly stem from the emotion of altruism, which is thought to be more commendable than egoism. But in point of fact, altruism offers a deadlier form of what is now called egoism. It encourages men to play God – to seek self-esteem through exercising power over others.

True neighborliness, as Jesus conceived it, was an overflow from the fullness of life consequent upon the personal quest for God. True self-fulfillment results in men whose efforts produce a by-product which benefits their fellows without injuring them. John Bunyan, for example, made no pretense of writing his Pilgrim's Progress for the benefit of his fellows. In the Apology for the work, he wrote, “. .. nor did I undertake thereby to please my neighbor; no, not I. I did it mine own self to gratify.” But he created a masterpiece which still enriches human life.

Jesus did not come to introduce a new set of rules, but to live a new kind of life. He provided a living example of it. By showing all men what self-fulfillment meant to Him, He showed what it could mean for them.

Priming the Comments – What do you think?

2010-05-25T22:48:00.001+01:00

A couple of days ago I posted Classic Reprint: Riddle You This, which I thought would result in discussion in the comments of that article.

Surprisingly, there was nothing.

I think it poses a really interesting dilemma, so I have jumped first by posting my thoughts, and will look forward to hearing a few others’.

Advertising at The Holy Cause

2010-05-25T22:10:00.001+01:00

Today I implemented bid-based ads at The Holy Cause. Immediately following the first post on a page, there is an advertising block, the left side of which has a Google Adsense ad, and the right side has ads open for bid. There are three ad zones, two 125x125 buttons, and one 234x60 half banner, as illustrated on the left.

The ads are managed by Project Wonderful, simply click on the link below the ads for details. And, yes if the link says “Your ad here, right now: $0”, you can really have the ad zone for free.

All first-time advertisers require my approval (which will normally take less than 24 hours), and I will only allow family-friendly ads. Like-minded blogs and websites are especially welcome.

Gary North: The 1099 Tsunami

2010-05-25T07:06:00.001+01:00

Gary North writes concerning a little-known provision in the healthcare reform bill, which has a huge impact on business, and no positive impact on healthcare (imagine that).

Earlier this year, some staffer in some office on Capitol Hill dutifully inserted a provision into the health insurance bill that will force businesses to file 1099 forms on every transaction with another business for over $600. Buy a $601 used car for your business? You must file a 1099. The Cato Institute describes this law.

Basically, businesses will have to issue 1099s whenever they do more than $600 of business with another entity in a year. For the $14 trillion U.S. economy, that's a hell of a lot of 1099s. When a business buys a $1,000 used car, it will have to gather information on the seller and mail 1099s to the seller and the IRS. When a small shop owner pays her rent, she will have to send a 1099 to the landlord and IRS. Recipients of the vast flood of these forms will have to match them with existing accounting records. There will be huge numbers of errors and mismatches, which will probably generate many costly battles with the IRS. Tax CPA Chris Hesse of LeMaster Daniels tells me:

Under the health legislation, the IRS could be receiving billions of more documents. Under current law, businesses send Forms 1099 for payments of rent, interest, dividends, and non-employee services when such payments are to entities other than corporations. Under the new law, businesses will be required to send a 1099 to other businesses for virtually all purchases. And for the first time, 1099s are to be sent to corporations. This is a huge new imposition on American business, costing the private economy much more than any additional tax that the IRS might collect as a result.

(Read the rest here.)

Mr. North’s proposal for combating this? “Give them what they ask for: Paper!” If all businesses (and presumably individuals) refrained from filing electronically, hand wrote all correspondences and forms, and contested all unfavorable tax decisions, the IRS would be unable to contend with the flood of paperwork.

This is all perfectly legal and moral, of course; nobody is condoning breaking any laws. Let’s just turn them on their heads.

Some who would argue, “But that would just make the government even less efficient than it is today!” My response, “Bring it on!” Having no interest in helping those who would take from my sustenance more efficient in doing so, I greatly prefer to put as many roadblocks in their way as I can. Every little bit helps.

Next year – it is a handwritten paper tax return for me!

Classic Reprint: Riddle You This

2010-05-23T21:28:00.001+01:00

The following is a reprint from the February 1955 Faith and Freedom journal. The unnamed author, by taking an (almost) fundamental idea of libertarianism and carrying it to its seemingly logical end, leaves us with a surprising question on the morality of punishment.

Your thoughts are both welcomed and encouraged in the comments.

Libertarians agree pretty well on this: All rights exercised by government were handed over to government by individuals. You have a right to defend yourself, your family and your property; therefore, you have a right to hire a cop, or appoint an agent to defend you, your family and your property. The whole concept of “delegated powers” gets its meaning from this simple fact. Government has no rights, of itself.

Leonard Read, President of the Foundation for Economic Education and publisher of The Freeman magazine, stated it in a more scholarly way:

When delegating only defensive functions to government, we grant no collective rights that are not the prior rights of individuals; for the collective cannot logically or morally exercise rights which are not inherent in persons who organize the collective.

The Reverend Edmund A. Opitz restated the same idea a little differently:

Whatever is wrong for one person to do to another is wrong for any combination of persons, any majority, any governments to do to any person or combination of persons; the same moral law judges a man whether he acts privately or as government, or as the agent of government.

R.C. Hailes, president of Freedom Newspapers, Inc puts it more simply still:

The government has no right to do any thing which is immoral for an individual to do.

Beat Him Off

The poser we wish to toss out here concerns whether an individual has a right to punish. Thought up by James C. Ingebretsen, president of Spiritual Mobilization, it made us scratch our heads sheepishly. We had never thought of it before.

That I have a right to defend myself, to repel anybody who initiates force against me, is not questioned here. For the sake of this riddle, let's agree that if a robber enters my home I have a right to fight him off, to use physical force against him to defend my life and the lives of my loved ones.

But where does this right end? Suppose I succeed in beating him off; suppose I throw the robber out of my house and off of my land? Where does the right of self-defense end and punishment begin?

Put You In My Private Jail

Suppose you rob my house in my absence when I had no opportunity to defend it? Suppose you steal $100 from me? Before I catch up with you, you spend the money. Have I, as an individual, the right to make you my prisoner for a week or a month or ten years? Do I as an individual have a right to cut off your hand? Do I as an individual have a right to kill you if you resist my attempt to lock you up in my private prison or if you try to escape?

If I don't have this right as an individual, the above quotations by Messrs. Read, Opitz,and Hailes, would seem to imply that I cannot delegate a right I don't have to government. Then, where does government get its right to punish?

Assuming that government has no right to do anything which is immoral for an individual to do, the riddle is: Is it the moral right of an individual to punish those who rob him by locking them up for a day or a month or a year?

Thankfully Obama Was Very Specific With His (Broken) Promises

2010-05-22T22:02:00.001+01:00

… so now we can call him out on them, and he has no wiggle room.

So, now that we are at the 16 month mark – How many combat brigades have been pulled out of Iraq?

(Hat tip J.H. Huebert at Lew Rockwell)

Ron Paul – Judged by a Higher Standard

2010-05-21T22:15:00.001+01:00

I’m sure you have heard of people being judged by the company they keep, but what about people being judged by the company they don’t keep? The company they have publicly denounced, years ago? Apparently that is appropriate in the case of Congressman Ron Paul.

The headline at The Huffington Post (Ben Cohen’s blog) screams “Former Ron Paul Aide Sends me Vicious Comments”! But as absolutely horrifying(!) as that may sound, this cat has no claws. Ben Cohen writes:

Eric Dondero, a blogger and hardcore libertarian from Texas didn't take too kindly to what I had to say on the idiocy of libertarian economics. He writes in: [sic]

What a truly disgusting human being you are. That deli owner should have smashed a corn beef sandwich in your face, and thrown you out into the alley-way.

Hey jerkoff, we Libertarians not only support the Free Market cause it's the most practical and most effective economic system ever invented, we support it cause it is the MOST MORAL.

Taxation is theft. Government is coercion, when you get right down to it. What right does the government have to put a gun to my head and steal from me to support some moocher who wants to sit on their damn couch all day long, munch on Cheetos and watch Oprah Winfrey?

We will defeat you. You all Commie Bastards days are numbered.

Eric Dondero, Publisher
Libertarian Republican

I thought the comments were pretty funny and insightful into the kind of people who militantly believe in the purity of markets etc, but I googled his name and found some surprising details on the 47 year old Navy vet.

Mr. Cohen continues, describing Mr. Dondero as an abusive person, providing quotes and links to prove his point. Some build his case, and some detract from it. For example, consider the following:

So I'll leave him to his basement where he is no doubt planning the removal of the illegitimate Muslim President (you'll find Mr Dondero ranting in the comments section, again).

Here is a suggestion for you – follow that illegitimate Muslim President link, and try to find Dondero’s “ranting.” Try to find the words “illegitimate” or “Muslim” there as well. (Hint – if you can’t find those words, or anything a reasonable person would describe as Dondero ranting, you pass; they are not there.) Mr. Cohen could have done much better had he taken more than 5 minutes to research his article, and maybe even read what he is linking to.

I am neither defending Eric Dondero, nor opposing him here – frankly I don’t pay any attention to him, like I imagine he pays no attention to me. My contention is – Why did Mr. Cohen feel the need to to bring Ron Paul into this? It is quite clear, from both Mr. Dondero and from Dr. Paul that they parted ways a long time ago. Mr. Cohen knows this and says as much in his article. But that is immaterial to his point I guess, so he skips right over that to this:

I've always found Ron Paul to be a decent man and I have a ton of respect for him given his opposition to the war, opposition to the banking bail out and opposition to infringements on civil liberties. However, I'm slightly stunned that he had a working relationship with Dondero for almost 20 years and wonder what other character he has working for the cause of unfettered free market capitalism. If Dondero is anything to go by, I think Paul should probably do a little investigating as to who is marching to his drum beat.

…. the fact that Dondero actually worked for a main stream [sic] political candidate (for President, no less), is actually quite disturbing …

As a side note – I suspect this was the first, and likely will be the last, time for Mr. Cohen to call Dr. Paul “a main stream [sic] political candidate.”

Could Mr. Cohen really believe that Dr. Paul is guilty by association with people he has publicly disassociated from, many years ago? Is this the new standard that libertarians are going to be held to, that we are responsible for every association we have ever made, including those that that we have denounced, for years to come?

Walter Williams on Drugs, Economics, and Liberty

2010-05-20T20:34:00.001+01:00

From the brilliant mind of Walter Williams:

Only a few people would dispute that narcotics can harm people, whether that harm is in the form of damage to the body, mental and physical dependency, or threats to social relationships. However, there is not nearly as much consensus as to what the correct public response to narcotics use and sales is. Ideas range from decriminalization to the current outright prohibition.

Let’s start by acknowledging that there is no question whatsoever that the sale and use of narcotics in our country could be virtually eliminated. It could be accomplished at a monetary cost far less than the hundreds of billions spent so far in the nation’s “war on drugs.” We could suspend habeas corpus and constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches to more easily gather evidence on people who use or sell drugs. We could make those arrested bear the burden of proof of innocence and on conviction summarily execute them. Countries with far less wealth and far fewer police resources than ours have used that strategy to reduce drug use, and so could we. Thankfully, I think most Americans would, and should, recoil in disgust at that kind of drug-war strategy. So we have to examine less draconian measures. A few thoughts on the economics of drug trade might give us guidance.

Read the rest here.

Self-Ownership is Self-Evident

2010-05-20T20:12:00.001+01:00

From Skyler Collins at the Mises Forum:

“Does anyone else own you?”

“No.”

“Then you own yourself.” Hence, self-ownership is self-evident.

Short and simple - I like it.

Of course, Skyler was discussing this with a secular audience. Spiritually speaking, I think Skyler would agree that we have been “bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 1 Corinthians 7:23), for which reason we must never become slaves of men. So it is Biblically evident as well.

Classic Reprint: Peace on Earth

2010-05-20T14:32:00.001+01:00

The article below is a reprint in its entirety from Faith and Freedom, March 1951, by Frederic W. Overesch. Mr. Overesch is the author of “Foundation For Protest: A Father's Letters to His Grown-Up Children”, in which he wrote:

The foundation for my protest is based on past experience and the mistakes of past generations recorded in 4,000 years of history. Consequently, my protests are not against those in the Establishment who fail to solve our current problems, but against the members of the Establishment who continue to repeat the mistakes of the past – which caused the problems in the first place . . . .

From all the years of recorded history, it seems self-evident that the greatest miracle of Creation is that human beings were born to be free. And in all the Laws of Creation which accompanied the orderly nature of Creation some were designed to govern the behavior of human beings so they could be free to fulfill their purpose in this great universe.

Once we stop violating the Laws of Creation – once we start working in harmony with those Laws, we shall make the same kind of progress in the improvement of human behavior as we have in the field of science.

It is noteworthy that the issues that Overesch condemned nearly 60 years ago remain largely unchanged, while those which have changed have taken a turn mostly for the worse. Ironically, Overesch himself seems to fall into the very error he is condemning, that of “[continuing] to repeat the mistakes of the past” – in his case by his belief in the very possibility of good government, despite that government has “caused the problems in the first place.”

However, I found his defense of Natural Rights compelling in its simplicity, and recommend to you the reprint following.

Peace on Earth

Nineteen hundred and fifty years ago, Christ brought to a dispirited world the doctrine of human dignity – the dignity of every individual. And with this doctrine came the promise of peace on earth.

His lesson is still to be learned.

How can there be peace when mankind still has not learned that an individual cannot make war by himself; that wars are made only by men who have power over the people – power, through the coercive force of government, that was either given to or taken by those men?

Wars are made by men who use the coercive force of government to destroy the justice which government is supposed to maintain; to destroy the rights it is supposed to protect. How can there be peace when, all over the world today, governments are so deeply immoral; when governments give special privileges to some at the expense of others?

How can there be justice when governments, through taxes, take away the earnings of some and give them to others; when government, through legalized stealing, can do what the individual himself cannot do without committing crime or sin?

How can there be peace when government is used as a weapon of injustice instead of checking injustice? How can there be peace on earth until there are more men of good will, and until, even with good will, those men understand the purpose of government?

Natural Right

Every individual, in receiving the gift of life from God, is given the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting that gift. So every person is given individuality – different faculties, different and various amounts of talent with which to assume the responsibility for his own existence.

Every individual is endowed by his Creator with liberty to use his God-given faculties for their intended purpose – and through the free use of those faculties to acquire property. Every individual also has a natural right, from God, to protect his God-given life, liberty, and property from the interference of any other individual. These three gifts of God precede all man-made laws and are superior to them.

Therefore, in order not to interfere with God's intended purpose, all individuals must have equal political rights and equal political duties. One group cannot claim certain rights for itself, while placing the duties on others.

The purpose of government must be to equally protect every individual’s life, liberty, and property from the interference of any other individual, and from government itself.

When a government fails to accomplish this, does it not become immoral?

How can there be justice when government attempts to change your God-given individuality into the various personal ideas of man-made equality? How can there be justice when government destroys the God-given liberty of so many people, by giving special privileges to some businessmen, farmers, labor leaders, and political officials? How can there be justice when government takes away the earnings, the property of some people, and gives them to others – property that has been acquired through work, through the use of the God-given faculties of man?

How can America help bring peace to the world when we have allowed our own government to become so definitely immoral; when both Democrats and Republicans have passed laws which destroy your gifts of God; when these laws have curtailed individual freedom and the right to enjoy the fruits of your labor, and conversely to suffer the evil results of your errors?

How can representatives of a group of nations bring peace when all of their respective governments have constantly destroyed the God-given liberty and human dignity of their people?

Discover and Resolve

We will have peace on earth only when the people of all nations discover and use God’s purpose for government: to equally protect every individual’s person, liberty, and property from the interference of any other person.

Only then can the real spirit of Christ be cultivated in the hearts of men.

This takes more than wishing. It might take years to achieve. But a start can be made now by every American with good will in his heart. Let's resolve to take a vital interest in seeing that our own government becomes a moral one.