An Unquiet Voice

Razing Hell is Heavenly

Doug — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 02:12:42 +0000

Sharon Baker, who is a professor of theology at Messiah College, just published a new book, Razing Hell: Rethinking Everything You’ve Been Taught About God’s Wrath and Judgment. I bought it due to Brian McLaren‘s endorsement, thinking it would be a good follow-up to his book, The Last Word and the Word after That, and because I’ve always been interested in the subject of the afterlife and how it integrates into the thinking and evangelistic style of Christians. Even Christians who believe in a literal hell (a.k.a. “eternal conscious torment” for the unbeliever), hell is a confounding and frustrating doctrine. As Baker’s friend writes to her, “We don’t seem to think about how horrible it makes God look.” So it is certainly no easy task for Baker to address the issues.

The book is divided into three parts. The first part reviewing the landscape of the traditional view of hell, God’s wrath, and judgment (and believe me, she makes it known that there is way more to this doctrine than who goes where when they die!). The second part offers an alternative viewpoint of hell, God’s wrath, and judgment, while the third part offers what she titles a “New View of Hell.” While I’m only finished with the first part, what strikes me about her writing is the way she weaves personal conversations with her students and her friends. It’s a casual-yet-serious discussion about the nature of God and the problems that the eternal conscious torment theology bring to the table. Not one to get off on tangents to every possible objection raised early in the book, she cleverly “teases” the reader with brief answers while promising a fuller explanation to come. While it might sound like an odd description for a non-fiction book, in a weird way I feel like I’m reading a Daniel Silva spy novel, on the edge of my seat, not wanting to put it down (except to write this blog post)!

What I enjoy most about Razing Hell is the honest and oftentimes frustrating questions about God, justice, love, and forgiveness. She isn’t so much declaring “here’s what the Bible says” (though she certainly has opinions about what the Bible says) as she is openly questioning and critically wrestling with the traditional view. She even assures us (though she keeps teasing us by leaving the details for a future chapter) that she is not trying to “take hell away from us.” Whether I agree with her conclusions or not, I can’t wait to see how this plays out!

I wrote my Master’s Thesis paper on the afterlife, and having read dozens of articles and books on the topic, I can already say that Baker’s contribution to this heated topic will remain a major player for honest inquisitors. Even those who would not agree with her conclusions have some wrestling to do.

Breaking Free from Paradigms

Doug — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 02:16:32 +0000

Breaking free from a paradigm of thought generally takes quite a bit of time. Prior to 2003 my spiritual belief structure was dramatically different from what it is today. I can personally attest that it isn’t easy to “break free” from cherished schools of thought, especially as they begin to erode one by one. Everybody’s path is different, but whatever the trajectory of the journey, unless we are willing to embrace an often frustrating quest for truth, we probably aren’t willing to find the it, but rather settle for that which is easiest to believe. For most of us, shifting paradigms is difficult. And time consuming. And at the beginning, it looks perilous.

One such paradigm most of us are familiar with is the left-right/liberal-conservative spectrum of thought (both politically and theologically). We could imagine it as a line being drawn in the sand, and on one end is the liberal left, and on the other end is the conservative right. When asked where we stand on a particular issue or system of beliefs, most of us place ourselves somewhere along that line. We also picture others somewhere along that line in relationship to our own “point” on it. We say things like, “He’s a little more liberal than I am.” Or, “She’s a little too far to the right politically for my tastes.”

But what if we take the line in the sand, and instead of picturing people along a spectrum of left/liberal or right/conservative, we begin thinking a bit more three-dimensional. What if a better position were somewhere hovering above the line, suspended midair, in a way that defies the traditional dualistic tendency? What if we began thinking in ways that didn’t place people on a line that allowed us to assume so many things about them based on where we place them? What if we thought more deeply about the way we understand theology and politics, and instead of trying to find a “middle ground” that made sense or was a decent compromise, we searched for a higher place that accurately described what it is we are all about?

Those familiar with Brian McLaren’s book A New Kind of Christian will notice that I used the same illustration as he does to describe how we think in a duality, and how this can be limiting to our view of the world. While McLaren used that illustration to talk about new conceptions in faith and Christianity, the same analogy works for the political paradigm of thought. This became apparent to me about three years ago when I became quite interested in the implications for Christ-followers to carry out social justice as part of the gospel message. I read books like God’s Politics by Jim Wallis. I read articles by Tony Campolo, Brian McLaren, and others calling Christians to stop thinking only about the afterlife and begin living out Jesus’ mission to transform society. Christ’s life-changing movement was to change how we interact socially with one another. If Christianity was about anything, it was about revolutionizing the world with the love of Jesus, which started with the poor, downtrodden, and outcasts in society. So from a theological perspective, this all sounded great. I’m on board. But the practical solutions being proposed by these same people didn’t feel right to me. Something didn’t seem completely justifiable in the way they were going about how to accomplish their ends. Question upon question kept piling up in my mind, and soon it became clear to me that the bulk of the answers I needed could be found in economics.

So while I was still in seminary, with plenty to read, write, and dialogue with, I went to search for some economic texts that would help me on my quest. For most folks, economics sounds terribly boring (and some of it is). But I discovered early on that economics has less to do with gibberish we hear from financial gurus on TV and more to do with how human beings act and interact with one another. Yes, there’s the financial aspect to economic theory, but at its core, I found that economic study is about human action. The great economist seeks to understand how the world works. So if I wanted to change the world as a Christian, I needed to know how the world works, so my commitment to social justice would be ethical and effective.

What I found incredible about economic philosophy, particularly from the Austrian school of economic thought, was that it felt like I was emerging from the left-right line in the sand, and finding a higher place of understanding. Not only were these explanations about life more invigorating, and made an immense amount of common sense, the practical critique in contemporary politics was the same: politics and the social order today are very messed up, and there are better answers out there.

Every paradigm is imperfect, and every explanation of paradigms is imperfect. But in a fallen world it is imperative for us to remember that all ways of describing the world are imperfect and in constant need of revision. Hence the need to revise the duality of liberal/conservative. And even the three-dimensional explanation of life will not always be the best, and others will be proposed.

But whatever the illustration we use, there is a freshness and vitality to breaking free from the liberal/conservative paradigm that plagues our political dialogue. If we can break free from thinking in a dualistic fashion, there’s a fresh new air to breathe above the ground. It might actually help us think more clearly!

Website Design of Robert P. Murphy

Doug — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:00:06 +0000

The very first economics book that I read was The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Robert P. Murphy. It was short by the standards of economics book, yet it was enough to pique my interest in economics. I had started the journey because much of my seminary training focused on larger issues of social justice rather than just getting individuals “saved and on their way to heaven,” and I had this inner nudge that if I wanted to understand how to change the world, I had to understand how the world worked. For those of you who cringe at the thought of learning a bit of economics, keep in mind that it is more about learning the causes and effects of human action and interaction than it is about numbers, graphs, and gibberish about the monetary base and inflationary spending.

I won’t recount my journey here, since that is not the point of this. But the short of it is that from Bob Murphy’s book I jumped to Thomas Sowell, then finally I read some Ron Paul, and from there found some very enthralling reading at the site of Lew Rockwell, who is the founder of the Mises Institute, where Bob Murphy is adjunct scholar. So I began subscribing to the RSS feeds of the above sites, as well as Tom Woods’ and Bob Murphy‘s. Along with the Capitalism book, Bob has written many many articles at mises.org, and has written a short book called Chaos Theory [PDF], a book that—if you’re willing to consider the unimaginable—will change the way you think about a peaceful existence in society (if you don’t think you’re ready for that, try Butler Shaffer’s Boundaries of Order). I even posted a response on my blog to some spiritual thoughts he had on his.

Anyway, earlier this year Bob mentioned in a post on his blog that he wanted to switch from Blogger to WordPress some day, and wanted to revamp his site a little bit, but didn’t want to spend like a drunken politician. As a WordPress fanatic myself, and one who could manage a little bit of web design as a hobby, I made him an offer, and he accepted.

Now his website has been migrated to WordPress. The site was not a complete redesign, though I do think the new layout is less clunky and is “cleaner.” A few glitches along the way taught me a few things, both about web design and about dealing with famous people. Bob has been incredibly patient and gracious throughout the whole process (I don’t want to sound like I was a total screwup, we just had a few minor unforeseeable glitches), and has been a pleasure to work with. It was really weird talking on the phone with somebody whose voice I’ve heard in dozens of lectures over the past few years.

I do have to mention, though, that without a very good friend, Jonathan Ober, I could not have done as well as the site has turned out. Jon is a true friend and spent plenty of time showing me a few things I hadn’t yet learned about WordPress and the particular theme I chose for Bob’s site. While I managed to get quite a bit done on my own, Jon was a true godsend for those times where I was scratching my head.

So yes… I can do some web design, but I’m not a coder or an engineer. My friend Jon was that side of things for me, when I needed it. And Jon does freelance design as a full time job… my level of interest in websites is just a hobby to make a little extra money.

Books on Deck (1)
Does Jesus Negate Economics? (1)

My Census Experience

Doug — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 17:32:24 +0000

After reading several accounts on LRC and other blogs about the belligerent Census workers traipsing up to our door and demanding unconstitutional information from citizens, I was a bit disappointed today when the Census worker came to my door (yes, on a Sunday afternoon!). My wife answered the door while I was on the phone, then came up and asked me to talk to her, since I had looked forward to such an encounter and have rehearsed in my head some of the things I would have to say to a Census worker if they came to my house and demanded things from me.

As I descended down the stairs I heard my wife say, “Be nice!” Okay, I’ll try, I thought. To my surprise, this lady wasn’t rude, wasn’t belligerent, and was actually rather friendly. She said she was sent because there was “missing information” on my Census form. I informed her that I filled out all that I was comfortable filling out (which, by the way was the number of people living here and our first names). She asked what that information was, and I told her. She attempted to ask me several other questions, and I said I was uncomfortable giving that information to her, and she didn’t pursue the issue any further!

There was something ironic about her presence at my front door. There was no vehicle present that she travelled in. I asked her where her car was, and she said that they are asked not to park in homeowner’s driveways out of respect for their property (I don’t think she actually used the word “property,” but it was implied in her answer). I thought this was a bit strange, and I wanted to rhetorically ask, “So they want you to ask me questions about my life and home information, but they won’t let you park in my driveway out of respect?! Isn’t that kind of a twisted sense of respect?” But I only made a passing sarcastic remark about how silly such a rule really was. She laughed with me, then offered me the phone number of the local bureau. While I declined, saying I could look it up if I needed it, I glanced at the paper she was offering, with the phone number written on it. I did a double take, and asked to see the number again so I could memorize it.

Guess what the first three digits were… 666

Not joking whatsoever.

Random Posts

The Passion of the Christ (Review) (0)
Responding to the Da Vinci Responses (0)
Why we were made for freedom (0)
In a Different Light (0)
Political Leanings (2)

Three Ways to Get Money

Doug — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:59:14 +0000

Method #1: Inherit Money

This method is probably the one that is least likely to happen to most of us, and is the most likely to require little work in order to do so. While some inheritances are given after much work and provenance, inheritances are typically looked at as “gifts,” and they often are gifts.

Method #2: Work

This method is the toughest, because in a free exchange economy, it is difficult to “get what you want” when you are required to trade with others who are willing to engage in trading with you. In a free market, I don’t have the right or the ability to make you buy something from (i.e. trade with) me. In order for you to want what I have to offer, I have to be creative, innovative, or otherwise emulate and improve upon what already exists. Ask any businessman, and he’ll tell you that while he may be gifted in entrepreneurship, it’s a long road of hard knocks and failures upon failures. But after succeeding in providing goods and services others want, profit is earned, and often enjoyed, even shared.

Method #3: Thievery

While it’s certainly not the easiest of the three methods, and could potentially be more work than entrepreneurship, it’s certainly the immoral choice. Even if we acquire money through thievery at one point in our lives—perhaps by stealing at a convenience store or other vendor—it isn’t how we build a livelihood. Most of us choose to work hard and earn money that way.

What is amazing to me is the twisted and contorted explanations that are offered to us that justify Method #3. While taxation may be justifiable as a “necessary evil” (I don’t know if I agree with that, but it’s certainly not an unreasonable explanation), it is also abused frequently and to a massive extent. Yet if we think about the simplicity of how somebody (or some group) can acquire money, the only method the State has at its disposal is Method #3. On a personal level, we know exactly what method is most praiseworthy and respectable. Why not apply those same morals to collectives such as the government?

Christianity and Libertarianism, Part 4: Humility

Doug — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 02:19:28 +0000

[God] has shown all you people what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8, (TNIV)

One of the more beautiful compatibilities between libertarian social theory and Christian faith is that Christian faith is called to honor and respect those with whom we disagree. We don’t have specific formulas for people to follow, nor do we expect others to choose to live as we do. It’s actually quite simple: live and let live. Contrast that with progressives who have plans for everyone, regardless of their input or consent. Libertarians, if they are consistent, will not require nor seek ways to require everybody to live by their personal standards. In short, libertarians respect the personal beliefs and ethics of other people. What’s even more profound about this standard is that it advocates an equal respect to all persons, regardless of class, race, religion, or sexual orientation. Nobody gets to live above the law, no matter how popular or how powerful they may become.

If you think about it, nobody really likes to be told how to live, how to act, what to eat, what to drink, who to be friends with, or who to marry. When we are in smaller social settings, we don’t declare to people that they ought not wear a certain dress because we think it’s too immodest, or drink certain liquids because of their sugar content. At most we can publicly criticize smokers, but even then we admit their right to smoke.

In some sense we all live the way we do because we believe it is the right way to live. Whether we think we’ve figured it out or not, we’d like others to think and live somewhat similarly to how we live. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that. It’s part of human nature. We can even go an extra step forward and converse with others and encourage them to live as we do, join our cause, or believe our beliefs. Every friend in the world ought to encourage and challenge others in a way that is productive and that does not debase or take away somebody’s dignity.

Christians are notorious in name for being a group of people who have everything “right” and need to impress upon the world the behaviors that everybody ought to live by. Church history is filled with institutional prejudice, tyranny, and downright injustice. Whenever the Church and the State get in bed with each other, bloodshed is soon to follow. But the Christian faith is not about such violence and coercion. The Christian faith is about peace, respect, and love for one’s neighbor.

Libertarians are notorious for being being a group that is selfish and do not think about the common good. Oftentimes the public face of libertarianism is like the public face of Christianity: there’s a lot to be lacking, and a lot to be criticized. But the fundamental feature of libertarianism is peace. Peace is a principle that is often misapplied. Bringing “peace to the Middle East” through war is certainly misapplied. But truly following a principle of peace means that we acknowledge that others deserve the same peaceful action that we demand for ourselves. It requires that we give up our “right” to act as we please, and respect the rights of others whose peace we might disrupt. In other words, it requires us to humble ourselves in accordance with the respect we believe all others deserve.

In a nutshell, libertarianism and Christianity intersect in a very interesting way. Christian faith teaches us to respect and love others. It also teaches us to be humble and to consider others as better than ourselves. Libertarianism, rightly understood, advocates a very similar teaching; that is, we must respect others as their rights are equal to ours.

Society Based on Non-Aggression?

Doug — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:18:13 +0000

If people aren’t open-minded enough to even consider an alternative view, they’re their own worst problem.

—Doug Casey

While I realize that sometimes simplicity is overrated, the principles by which this video presents how screwed up our world is are worth considering. (HT2 RPM)

Click here for the video.

Blog News and Updates

Doug — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:57:24 +0000

Hey folks, just wanted to share briefly a few new items to the blog.

First off, we have a new Resources Page, which will be ever-expanding. These include books, podcasts, and websites that have been helpful to me along my spiritual journey.

Second, there’s a FAQ page that deals with personal questions, theological questions, and political questions. It’s just got a few right now, but will include more over time.

Third, there will be more book-blogging series, starting with Brian McLaren’s latest book, A New Kind of Christianity. I will be blogging through each of the “10 Questions that are Transforming the Faith” (the subtitle of his book), as well as the intro material.

New feed method. As I mentioned before, I am now using Feedburner to run the feeds. This way I can track (and you can see on the right-hand side of the page) how many others are following this feed. Click here to change the feed.

Email subscriptions. This is a really cool feature provided by Feedburner, so click here if you’d rather receive email updates.

Random Posts

Blog Update: Now Using Feedburner

Doug — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:36:04 +0000

For those of you who have been using my RSS feed, please change it to Feeburner’s feed by clicking and subscribing here. If you really want to, you can subscribe by email as well.

Random Posts

Truth-telling about Government Schools

Doug — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:27:41 +0000

I just finished reading this inspiring piece. If I weren’t sitting at work on my lunch break, I’d feel the freedom to shed many tears. My son is almost three, which means in fewer than two years we will have to make a painful decision: put him in a government-run compulsory education prison school, or put him in a non-government institution that has passed the government’s compulsory requirements for being open for business. I suppose we could home-school him, and maybe we will. But I don’t really want to make this decision.

Erica Goldson graduated as valedictorian at Coxsackie-Athens High School on June 25, 2010, and delivered the speech at her graduation ceremony. Her principal and superintendents must have been wetting their pants.

Here’s a taste:

I am now accomplishing that goal. I am graduating. I should look at this as a positive experience, especially being at the top of my class. However, in retrospect, I cannot say that I am any more intelligent than my peers. I can attest that I am only the best at doing what I am told and working the system. Yet, here I stand, and I am supposed to be proud that I have completed this period of indoctrination. I will leave in the fall to go on to the next phase expected of me, in order to receive a paper document that certifies that I am capable of work. But I contend that I am a human being, a thinker, an adventurer – not a worker. A worker is someone who is trapped within repetition – a slave of the system set up before him. But now, I have successfully shown that I was the best slave. I did what I was told to the extreme. While others sat in class and doodled to later become great artists, I sat in class to take notes and become a great test-taker. While others would come to class without their homework done because they were reading about an interest of theirs, I never missed an assignment. While others were creating music and writing lyrics, I decided to do extra credit, even though I never needed it. So, I wonder, why did I even want this position? Sure, I earned it, but what will come of it? When I leave educational institutionalism, will I be successful or forever lost? I have no clue about what I want to do with my life; I have no interests because I saw every subject of study as work, and I excelled at every subject just for the purpose of excelling, not learning. And quite frankly, now I’m scared.

Books on Deck

Doug — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 03:00:47 +0000

In no particular order, here’s what I plan to read in the next few months. I’ve got a few ePub books on my iPad that aren’t no this list.

The Justice Project, ed. by Brian McLaren Elise Padilla, and Ashley Bunting Seeber

Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal (The Politically Incorrect Guides) by Robert P. Murphy

Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision by N.T. Wright

A New Kind of Christianity by Brian McLaren

The Rembrandt Affair by Daniel Silva

The Naked Anabaptist by Stuart Murray

Disabling America: The Unintended Consequences of the Government’s Protection of the Handicapped by Greg Perry

Latent Pseudo-religion

Doug — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 02:52:46 +0000

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

In a personal correspondence with my friend Norman Horn from LCC, Norman wrote something incredibly profound. It has been something I’ve felt for quite a while, but haven’t put into the poignant words he wrote (emphasis mine):

“There is a latent pseudo-religion that lingers in all of us before we make the jump to being anti-state. It was inculcated in us as children, was cultivated by parental examples, and is reinforced through media and public figures on a daily basis. This “statolatry” even walks alongside our REAL religion and co-opts its theology for its own benefit (cf. Religious Right). In general, we can call it the front line for Christians in the “war of ideas.” It is our ultimate enemy in this war, because the battle is fought both internally and externally. We have to be merciful about it, because at one time we too were caught in the trap, but just like we never back down in calling sin by its name so should we never back down in revealing this evil for what it is.”

Though I cannot speak for Norman, a little bit of background on me might help. My “jump to being anti-state” is certainly not complete. And it might be helpful to say that being anti-state does not mean being anti-government, especially anti-governance. Law and order must exist. Rule of law (rather than the rule of whimsical men) is necessary and proper for social order. But as a Christian it seems as though our calling is to name evil for what it is, and stand up against it. I would say this is especially true when evil is infiltrating our faith and our philosophies. While it is always true that our man-made conceptions of faith and philosophy are always subject to incompleteness, it is the responsibility of every Christian to call out that which doesn’t coincide with the ethics of the Kingdom of God.

It is that principle that Norman and I are indelibly committed.

Christianity and Libertarianism, Part 3: Antiwar

Doug — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:48:30 +0000

While some Christians might find it difficult to believe, a christianity is not a pro-war faith. In fact, Christians ought to be at the forefront of advocating for peace, rather than being in the position of advocating some war abroad or justifying the murdering of others with whom we have disagreements. Some Christians even go so far as to advocate or justify torture, ironic because our faith is built upon the nonviolent resistance of Jesus, who himself was tortured to the worst degree.

Libertarians are not always antiwar, but the principles of libertarianism, as we saw in part one, were that of nonaggression and peaceful behavior. By its very nature, libertarians believe that war is immoral, with the exception of self defense. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been a war in American history that could justifiably fall under that category (unless you consider the Confederate States fighting in self-defense).

Contrast this belief that war is wrong to that of progressives and conservatives who believe that war is a legitimate when it suits a political agenda such as filling the coffers of your rich buddies, or perhaps to justify increasing government spending to “stimulate” an economy. Libertarians are the most consistent when they say war is wrong. Secular libertarian websites such as AntiWar.com are calling out why the wars the United States government is carrying out is immoral and wrong. This is fundamentally an issue of justice, something Christians ought to be committed to.

Yes, I realize that there are “just war” theories, and perhaps there is merit to those arguments. Maybe they are theologically correct. But ask yourself the question (as Paul Green does), “How many innocent people would you be willing to kill – purely to defend yourself?” Because even if you advocate for a just war, there are always innocent victims. And if you think reading the Old Testament gets you off the hook being “pro-war,” try reading this article by Paul Green.

So while many Christians justify war for this reason or that, this coinciding principle of peace stands at the heart of every libertarian, and ought to be an easy embrace for any follower of Christ.

Talking Freedom in Montauk

Doug — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 21:28:11 +0000

Today we flew the Skylane to Montauk, Long Island, with two friends for the day. Right now we are stuck in a coffee shop waiting out a storm. But we had a great conversation with one of our friends who was born and grew up in a Muslim country. He has lived in North America for quite some time, and he was commenting on how within 300 years of being inhabited by immigrants from western Europe, we’ve been able to subdue the land and cultivate it and use it to prosper, whereas in 7,000 years his nation has been unable or unwilling to cultivate the entire land for use.

The key, he said, was that freedom invites creativity, encourages people to innovate and pursue their own destiny, and what results is prosperity when those values are ingrained in a society.

He warned, however, that Americans seem to take freedom for granted because we have had it for so long an it seems to be a forgotten value.

We talked about so much more, but I wanted to share briefly our little chat.

Christianity and Libertarianism, Part 2: Service

Doug — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 02:01:07 +0000

Another thing that I absolutely love about free markets is that in order to succeed, you have to actually do something for your neighbor that your neighbor wants you to do! Think about that for a moment. If nobody is required by coercion (laws) to buy something from you or hire you to perform a service, guess what you have to do: serve your neighbor!

The word “serve” is often used synonymously with things like “sacrifice” to imply that you cannot receive any reward for whatever act of service you have done. But service is a much broader term. We have departments in companies called “customer service,” and the “service desk” is a place where we can get help at the hardware store. “Quality service” is a mantra that many businesses use because if they live up to it that may mean more revenue (gasp!). My parents and grandparents used to call the place where we refuel our cars “service stations.” Why? Because they paid for a service performed, namely the filling up of a car and/or the checking of oil or washing of a windshield. I can assure you that the men who did this work on my father’s SUV were not doing it for charity. They were doing it because they wanted to earn money. But it did not diminish the quality of the service itself.

A Christian theology of community emphasizes the value and need for social connection and social cooperation. Church life, if it works well at all, is predominantly built upon social values of love and sacrifice. It is only since Western Christianity that we’ve valued individuality at the expense of the community. While individualism is excellent when placed in the context of human rights and boundaries of order, it is only one part of the equation in society. Community is necessary for vibrancy in personhood and the social order. Cooperation in market exchanges represent one method of community. When people are free to exchange as they see fit, they will be required to make decisions about who they will trade with. In short, they will cooperate with some people and ignore others. Whoever serves others’ needs and wants in the most desired way succeeds.

But what does cooperation have to do with service? In order to cooperate with somebody, we must give up something of our own. We all start with different resources available to us, whether we were rich or poor. Most of us have the ability to work and provide labor for somebody else. It all starts here. I willingly offer my labor to a company who will pay me. I’d rather not do it. I’d rather the company just give me the money. I’d rather stay at home and watch TV or read books or play on my iPad. I’d rather go fly a Piper Cub. But in order to do any of those things (all of which, by the way, are luxuries and not necessities), I have to serve somebody who considers what I have to offer worthy of wages. I have to give up something of mine. Once that occurs, I’ve earned my wages, and now I want food. I’d prefer that the grocer just give me food. (By the way, those of you reading who think health care is a human right, why isn’t food a human right? And why not the public outrage that we actually have to pay for the food we eat?) But I can’t just take the food. I have to give up something for it. Indirectly, I’ve had to serve somebody in society for that food.

Service is a broad concept, especially when we think about the way in which we interact with people every day. Our lives are filled with millions of choices, many of which are minor, but many that require us to sacrifice something. Today I went out to eat with some co-workers. I had to decide whether the $5+tip was worth more to me than the food I was potentially going to buy. The restaurant owner(s) had to decide whether or not it was worth it to spend ahead of time—before they had any idea I might want to eat at their restaurant—enough human labor and capital (read: freezers, fridges, food storage, grills, and dinnerware, to name a few), both of which cost them a lot of money. Each on the end of the transaction made a decision to sacrifice something in order to gain what the other had.

I marvel every time I go to Starbucks or the grocery store and the cashier says, “Thank you.” Huh? Why are they thanking me? I’m the one who got the product, right? All they got was a lousy green piece of paper with a dead mans face and a bunch of weird symbols on it. Yet the reality is that we both gained from the transaction. Even if the cashier wasn’t the owner, she has gained because I’ve been a small part of what keeps her employed at a place she apparently has chosen to work (yes, I realize that some people aren’t at their favorite jobs; but nobody is forced to work anywhere specific unless you’re a child under 16 and you must work at the local government school—but that’s another issue!). Both of us are better off after the transaction (or at least we have acted as such).

Cooperation is a beautiful thing. Progressives talk about it all the time, yet they seem to miss the point because they advocate for coercive methods in order to achieve their “social cooperation.” Libertarians advocate for freedom of association and freedom of exchange, which by definition requires people to serve another if they want to get ahead in life. Not only does this facilitate cooperation, it is a huge mechanism to thwart greed, which is a social and personal problem that the anti-capitalists blame on free markets. But that will have to wait for another post.

Ron Paul on the Morality of Markets

Doug — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 01:10:45 +0000

One of the biggest lies coming from the progressive movement regarding free market advocates is that we are not very “morality-based” in our economics. Instead of focusing on economic policies that have moral outcomes, they say we focus on the amoral and perhaps immoral economic outcomes, regardless of their moral.

While nothing could be further from the truth, Ron Paul has some great audio from his recent meetings with the Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke. You can sense the moral pleading in his voice, asking the Fed Chairman to reconsider his views that are harming the poor and hurting the nation.

A Few Quick Thoughts

Doug — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:06:05 +0000

I’m working on Part 2 of why Christianity is compatible with libertarianism, but in the meantime, I’d like to share a few links, just for those of you with nothing to do but follow my links:

Libertarian Christians – Norman has spent a tremendous amount of time writing and modifying the LCC website, and has quite a following and great excellent content. His writings are generally more thorough than my own, and he has plenty more material devoted to what I’m just now starting to write more about. If I can write like he does in a year, I’d be very proud of myself.
Mises Academy – I’m indebted tremendously to the Mises Institute for its superb and scholarly contribution to the world of economics and philosophy. Ludwig von Mises wrote the most profound and scholarly book on economics and social philosophy, Human Action (and it isn’t boring!). Murray Rothbard likewise has written prolifically about human cooperation and the social order. But what I appreciate most about the Mises Institute is its ongoing commitment to and support of progress by way of education. Not only do they give away so much for free (Human Action is a free download for e-readers and as a PDF), they provide it willingly and generously because they believe that the truth will set us free. The reason I’m posting this link is because their new Mises Academy is hosting a few classes this summer, and a few more in the Fall, and I will be taking one of the classes beginning in September. I’m not sure which, but probably Bob Murphy’s Principles of Economics. While I’ve studied basic economics for the last 2-3 years, I’ve not taken a formal class on it.
A New Kind of Christianity – Brian McLaren is a hero of the faith for me. If it were not for him, I’d likely be burnt out of my faith, or possibly have abandoned it. I’m indebted gratefully to him for helping me think through exactly what it is I believe about Jesus, God, religion, and how to share our faith with others. I bought his latest book the day it was released, and I’ve read about 30% of it, and then I stopped. I decided to enjoy the book with a friend instead, but that won’t begin until August or September. I’m posting it here because I might likely blog thru the 10 Questions he asks. So far I’m very impressed with the book.

Christianity and Libertarianism, Part 1: Non-Aggression

Doug — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 02:12:41 +0000

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock

Progressives absolutely love to tell those in power about their expertise in how the world ought to run. Progressive Christians, opportunists they are, jump at offering their better and more enlightened ethics of the kingdom into this political arrangement. Compassionately and with good intentions, they seek to change the world through changing the structures of power to lean their way, so that the goals, outcomes, and real-world arrangements of society look like they believe it ought to look. Justice will reign, they say, when the right legislation is passed, the right regulations are placed on commerce and exchange, and the right leaders are in place. (We need to forget for the moment that, by definition, the “right legislation, regulations, and leaders” would lead to whatever ideal society they are looking for. But such shows the arrogance of progressives.)

What Progressive Christians especially forget is the key ingredient to the outcome of social justice. The idea of freedom, or liberty, is essential to life, and—yes—justice. And here is where I believe libertarianism offers an incredible insight into the ethics of social interaction. This insight is the foundational principle of libertarians, and is quite obviously very compatible with the Christian faith.

This cornerstone principle is called the “non-aggression axiom,” which states that no person has the right to aggress the property or person of another person, with exception of self-defense. So unless you have previously been aggressed upon, you should not, under any circumstances, do unto another something they do not wish that you do.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this arrangement sounds very Christian to me. Would Jesus approve of our aggressing another to do what we would have him do? Would Jesus approve of our enforcement upon another a belief with which he did not agree? I doubt it. In fact, I believe Jesus would probably go one step further, and disregard the “defense” exception of the axiom, since he tells us to “turn the other cheek” if someone aggresses us, and to pray for those who persecute us. But that doesn’t exclude the non-aggression principle.

What most people don’t think about is the flip side of this argument. While I’ll address the so-called “selfish” components of libertarianism in another post, I should briefly point out that this principle means we passionately defend other people’s right to not be aggressed upon. It’s definitely easy to say “Don’t bother me,” and point out the inherent selfishness in that statement. But we ought not forget the converse, which means, “Leave them alone, too!” “Them” is our neighbor, the poor person, the downtrodden, the widow and orphan. But that is not, as it might be misconstrued, a call to leave people to fend for themselves. It’s akin to saying, “Don’t harm them!”

So at the start, Christianity is indeed compatible with libertarianism’s foundational principle. Both seek to respect one’s neighbor. Both defend everyone’s right to life and liberty. And both share at least half of Jesus’ principle of peace, though of course Jesus would probably go further.

Can a Christian be a Libertarian?

Doug — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 02:28:37 +0000

Three years ago I became immensely interested in the issues surrounding the theological and moral notion of “social justice.” I was growing increasingly aware and agreed with the idea that the gospel of Jesus Christ was not primarily about our individual salvation, our personal relationship with Jesus Christ, or how individuals can “go to heaven when they die.” Those questions are all important, but they reflect a contextualized segment of the gospel. Jesus came as part of an endeavor by the Creator-god to rescue the creation from its fallen state. Jesus was the catalyst for global change through his life message, his stated mission, and his death and resurrection. Jesus, in just about every important way, was the starting point for a whole new way of life, for individuals, for social groups, for the world. In short, Jesus changes everything. With a few exceptions, anybody who has claimed to have an encounter with Jesus will say their lives were radically affected in a positive way.

So when it became obvious to me that this radical, life-changing Jesus had a more holistic message than the go-to-heaven-when-you-die message (which, by the way, he never said), my Christian faith and living took on a whole new meaning and relevance. The life message of Jesus was nonviolence, concern for the outcasts and poor in society, and an unequivocal choice by his followers to engage the world as he did. His stated mission, a restatement of a prophecy from the Old Testament about the Messiah, was to “preach good news to the poor,” “proclaim freedom to prisoners,” and “set the oppressed free” (Luke 4:18). And his death revealed a passionate commitment to nonviolence, nonaggression, and loving sacrifice. His resurrection, the cornerstone to the whole movement, meant (among many things) that death was not powerful enough to stop his mission and message, and was a foretaste of the redemption that was to happen to the entire cosmos. Participants in this new kingdom were to be part of a building toward this future hope, a peaceful society in which social justice was to reign. Nobody would be oppressed. Everybody would be free. The world would be “put to rights,” as N.T. Wright says.

Ask any libertarian, and those goals sound like a libertarian fantasy world! Yet those who advocate and promote social justice believe that libertarian philosophy is based on worldly and unbiblical ideas. My very own salvation has been questioned by others who simply can’t understand why I advocate for libertarian social ethics.

It is an absurd myth to believe that embracing liberty and believing in the mission of Jesus are incompatible. If you are a Christian (especially a “progressive Christian”), the message of Jesus is not only compatible with libertarian social philosophy, it thrives within it!

Their compatibility, however, does not mean the two are identical value systems. It is one thing for a social system to be permissive in nature while one’s personal (and even social) value system is greatly different. Even the story of God, Adam, and Eve reveals that simply because God permitted Adam and Eve to choose a painfully wicked choice, it does not automatically follow that God endorsed their actual choice.

I could be completely rude and say that social justice Christians are highly judgmental, self-righteous, narrow-minded, and are concerned not about others but about their own gratification in seeing society manipulated to suit their ends. But that wouldn’t be nice of me. Instead I’ll just chalk it up to sloppy analysis and an ignorance or unwillingness to understand and process the value system of libertarian thought. It’s patently unfair to compare one’s unquestionably moral and well-intentioned commitments to compassion, service, and justice to the subpar examples of outcomes of misapplied libertarian thought. In short, you don’t compare your best to others’ worst.

And let’s be honest, there is a lot that’s unappealing to the attitudes and actions of those who claim to love individual freedom. The “leave me alone” message does seem selfish, and it certainly appeals to the self-centered nature in each of us. For those who don’t understand it, it will likely leave a distasteful flavor in their mouths, and can stifle any true interest in libertarian principles.

But at its core, libertarian thought isn’t about being “left alone.” It isn’t about ignoring social needs. It isn’t about worshiping the free market, or abolishing the federal government. At its core, the message is consistent and radical embracing of nonaggression. Last I checked, that core principle is profoundly compatible with the Christian faith.

But just comparing this axiom to the Christian faith doesn’t make a philosophy or lifestyle necessarily Christian. To be sure, libertarians worldwide would be rather adamant that their principles aren’t based in Scripture, don’t stem from Jesus Christ, nor do they require a religious basis to be worthy of value. What is necessary to show that libertarianism is not only compatible with Christianity, it is the most compatible social philosophy for Christians to embrace.

In the next few posts, I will share my thoughts on why I believe this to be the case.

Review: “Lies the Government Told You”

Doug — Mon, 31 May 2010 12:56:28 +0000

I’ve listened to Freedom Watch for about a year, and I’ve skimmed through several books written by Judge Andrew Napolitano (no relationship to Big Sister), and after reading Lies the Government Told You I think many of Napolitano’s books are very alike: story after story of how the United States Government has gone awry, and how natural rights and liberty are necessary for a peaceful society.

Starting with topics such as voting, the value of black persons, and the right to bear arms, Napolitano recounts story after story about how the federal government lied, mislead, or otherwise provided a mythical zeitgeist regarding how life works in the United States. Both conservatives and progressives alike have lessons to learn in this book, if indeed they are awake and willing to learn and repent. Napolitano shows us how American history, as we have been taught it, has been recounted by the mainstream in such a way that these stories do not fit within. For example, when they say “every vote counts,” Napolitano shows how special interest politicians (pretty much all of them) rig the system so well that we would never really know if our votes count anyway. Further, the so-called “two party system” (which Napolitano sees as a single party—the Big Government Party) is constructed to prevent the emergence of a third party into the system.

Overall, I think the book is worth reading due to the storytelling nature of the book, with some attention given to basic philosophy and principles of liberty. Since the chapters don’t flow like a novel, it’s easy to jump around from chapter to chapter, reading whatever suits one’s fancy. The title is a bit misleading, because it isn’t about “lies,” but more about the mythology throughout American history. But if Napolitano’s goal was to raise cognizance among readers about the truth about American history, he’s given us a great taste of how the truth has been suppressed or ignored.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookSneeze.com <http://BookSneeze.com> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255

The Rest of the Book: Final Thoughts

Doug — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 02:45:55 +0000

Since committed to write a response to every chapter in Jim Wallis’s book, Rediscovering Values, I’ve become very busy and need to devote more attention to those things in my life. But I wanted to finish the book and share my thoughts on the rest of it. I skimmed through some major sections of the book, and while I wish I could get into more detail on each one, let me comment a few times on some disagreements Jim Wallis and I have:

Clean Energy Economies

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with “green energy” per se. While it is important to steward the environment properly, Wallis comes at it from a collectivist standpoint, explains “green jobs” in a way that sounds wonderful an appealing, but doesn’t deal with all of the unseen consequences. He praises President Obama for increasing the standards of fuel economy, clear evidence that he doesn’t understand that unforeseen and unseen consequences occur when you arbitrarily enforce regulations such as fuel standards.

Free Market Canards and Straw Men

Canards, for those of you like me who recently discovered the word, are unfounded rumors or stories. Straw men are artificially-erected arguments made in order to easily tear them down. Wallis has perpetuated many economic fallacies in this book, but the following is most disconcerting:

To hear some zealots of the free market talk, you would think they believe in a sinless market, where no regulations are allowed, no limitations accepted, no restraints needed, and no accountability required. In other words, the market is beyond sin and shortcomings. The logic goes that, left to its own devices, the market will behave in a perfect or sinless fashion and, in fact, only it can provide the moral framework in which everything else should operate. (pg 190)

I’ve read hundreds of articles online, and thousands of pages of books by those who would be self-avowed “zealots” of the free market. Let me make this clear: NOT ONE OF THEM HAS CLAIMED ANY SUCH THINGS! Wallis is simply not listening, or refuses to comprehend, that free market advocates do not believe in a “sinless” market, because the market is simply a metaphor for free persons exchanging and interacting with one another. So when Wallis follows up the above paragraph with, “In light of the Great Recession, can we still hold on to that bad theology?” I want to scream. Literally! Wallis is apparently blind to the obvious non-free market nature of our economy, which caused this crisis on the first place.

Twenty Moral Exercises

Wallis ends the book with 20 moral exercises for the reader to implement in his life. To be honest, if you want to read this book, go to the book store, read this chapter, and you’ll benefit greatly. It will save you twenty bucks and give you twenty life practices to work on personally.

Final Thoughts

Wallis and I disagree on a lot, but we also agree on a lot. While on the one hand I think Wallis goes too far by presenting straw men and false dichotomies, on the other hand many of his solutions do not go far enough. Wallis is a big believer in the inherent goodness of government, and believes that it must be there to thwart evil and keep markets in check. At the very most, I’m a believer that government is a necessary evil, and must be utilized in a minimalist role, but in a very specific one. My biggest complaint with Jim Wallis is that his vision for social justice cannot work without lots of guns: the only mechanism for enforcing the laws and regulations setup by the state is weapons.

While this book is fraught with economic half-truths, misleading explanations, and sometimes an incoherent ignorance with regards to some basic economic principles, if you ask me if you should read this book, I’d say yes, because Wallis is insightful, even prophetic at times, when it comes to admonishing personal responsibility and Christian social awareness for those who have long since forgotten the values upon which we ought to stand.

The Way Out: An Analysis

Doug — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 02:01:45 +0000

In his book, Rediscovering Values, Jim Wallis’s blames what he calls the Great Recession on three philosophies that we as a society have bought into: “Greed is Good,” “It’s All About Me,” and “I Want It Now.” While ignoring a great opportunity to discuss what about the institutional structures of our society promote such excessive greediness (the Federal Reserve System), and what facilitates such artificial booms that create the illusion that “I want it now” can be facilitated (again, the Fed), Wallis ignores all this and places the blame on greedy people making decisions on Wall Street. While I believe that Wallis is hitting the target on most fronts, it would be better if he could take better aim and hit the bulls eye. The target is good, and needs to be shot at, but the bulls eye is still seemingly out of focus for Wallis.

So when he gets to Part 4, “The Way Out,” he spends three chapters (which will be condensed for review here instead of each chapter as a post) countering the above three philosophies with the following three:

Enough is Enough
We’re In It Together
The Seventh-Generation Mindset

Enough is Enough

When somebody tells me they believe individuals ought to live economically with a philosophy that “enough is enough,” and not be driven by consuming more and more in order to find happiness, I would gladly be behind them shouting the same message. It is indeed the case that we often live with more than we need, whether we do so to fill a void or just out of a habit. It’s a damaging to live by the “I need more to make me happy” mentality, and so trading it for being satisfied with whatever it is that we have (especially those of us with much) is a good thing.

As far as this goes, Wallis is fine. But Wallis often speaks from the perspective of a collectivist, and so uses some quotes from many centuries ago to get the reader into believing the myth that when some people have more, other people have less because of it. While this may have been true in mercantilist and pre-mercantilist societies, in a market economy this isn’t the case. Unfortunately our country has shifted back toward some getting rich at the expense of others, but Wallis misses yet again the opportunity to explain to us what institution makes this possible.

We’re In It Together

Generosity goes a long way, especially when it is shared generosity. This is essentially Wallis’s point in this chapter, where we shed ourselves of an “It’s All About Me” attitude. Using examples of local and community banks that did not make unethical loans, and are doing well during this recession, Wallis comes very close to what I’ve been looking for in this entire book:

Markets will always have ups and downs, bubbles will build and burst, business cycles will swing up and back down.

What? Markets will always have ups and downs? Bubbles will burst? Excellent admission. But here’s my question: isn’t this a great opportunity to go (even briefly) into explaining that it doesn’t have to be this way, that economic growth can be steady and stable on a gold standard without a central bank? You’d think, since Wallis is very much against “societal evils” (which he decries in Part 1). Unfortunately, here’s all we’ll hear from Wallis about business cycles:

It is beyond the scope of this book to delve into the difficult issues of who gets bailed out and who doesn’t or the nature of business cycles, but it is clear that we must continue to ask questions about the [I'll Be Gone] “business as usual” mentality.

So if “business as usual” must be questioned (and I wholeheartedly agree), and “business as usual” is what got us into this mess, THEN WHY ON GOD’S GREEN EARTH DOES YOU BOOK NOT HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO TALK ABOUT BUSINESS CYCLES AND THE CENTRAL BANKING SYSTEM!?!?

The Seventh-Generation Mindset

Long-term thinking has always been a wise choice for businesses, and it is generally a wise choice for individuals and other organizations and groups. Long-term thinking and planning often plays an important part in economic growth, personal growth, and spiritual growth. And while short-term thinking, with CEOs and their golden parachutes “winning” and most of us on Main Street “losing” (by way of reduced investment fund values) has caused a tremendous problem for our economy, Wallis returns to one of the fundamentals of the Christian faith: ethical stewardship of resources. Reminding us of the Genesis 2:15 “tend and keep” command, Wallis implores us to think about stewardship as not only about the environment, but as an initiative to ensure that poor people have enough, and that future generations have enough.

Not to beat a dead horse, but maybe it would be helpful to ask the question, “What makes such short-term thinking profitable for businesses? What could eliminate such unsustainable decision making?” And while we’re asking the question, “How will this affect us seven generations from now?” how about we question the warfare/welfare state’s massive debt accumulation that will not be repayable for at least that number of generations at the current rate.

Redistribution

Doug — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:35:24 +0000

Jim Wallis gets much of his social justice theory and policies from the prophets in the Old Testament. He considers himself a modern-day prophet, and is oftentimes criticizing political antics for their missing moral component. In the spirit and fervor of the OT prophets, Wallis often brings up biblical concepts such as redistribution of wealth when it is an opportune time (in his opinion).

Chapter 7 in his book, Rediscovering Values, Wallis takes the opportunity to point out that if we did to the Bible with verses on social justice what Jefferson did to the Bible on supernatural occurrences, we would find ourselves with a very tattered and skimpy Scriptures. In other words, the entire Bible is chock full of social justice theology.

That is all well and good, Jim, but what about the people who don’t share the values of the New Testament, let alone the Old Testament? What about the moral and ethical atheists out there who despise the Scriptures and do not wish to be held accountable to your interpretation of the Scriptures? How do we respect individuals and their freedom of religion or freedom from religion if they so choose? It’s one thing to advocate social justice in the manner of the Scriptures. It’s quite another to advocate national policy implementing one’s concept of social justice. The context of the Old Testament prophets was a calling to repentance those who were called the people of God. While YHWH may have chastised the other nations, the people of Israel were in covenant with the Lord, and had violated that covenant. America today is not in covenant with God. To imply that “we” ought to return to those principles on a national political level is to confuse categories of ego-boundaries and geographical boundaries.

To be honest, I don’t really care if some poor people get some of my income to help them. I don’t really care if some of my wealth is given to those who have very little or nothing in order to help them “catch up,” so to speak. It is one thing to advocate that the rich and the poor ought not to have too much disparity in material wealth. It’s quite another to insist that your subjective values and preferences are superior to that of others.

Where’s Wallis?

Doug — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 04:45:27 +0000

For those (probably only one of you) who are wondering where I’ve been on my Jim Wallis posts lately, just a quick reminder that I’m still reading the book, and have finished the next chapter but am delayed in responding intelligently because I’m tied up in some other books, namely Brian McLaren‘s A New Kind of Christianity, which is simply blowing my mind right now, and John and Stasi Eldredge’s Love and War: Finding the Marriage You’ve Dreamed Of (which I’ve only barely started). I’ve also come up on some serious deadlines for a church campaign project that take a lot of my time. And I’ve got two kids and a wife who is writing her dissertation.

So I hope to be back to Wallis, since I’m thoroughly enjoying what he has to say. The chapter I just finished has lots of stuff in it worthy of responding to, so I want to give it a proper treatment.

Breaking Free from Paradigms (0)
The Rest of the Book: Final Thoughts (3)
The Way Out: An Analysis (1)
Redistribution (2)
Is There an Equality Gap? (0)

Does Jesus Negate Economics?

Doug — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 04:28:34 +0000

Bob Murphy, an anarcho-capitalist economist who is also a Christian, is a daily blogger who writes about economics from various angles, some of which I can’t even pretend to follow, others which are more philosophical in nature (which is where I’m most interested in human action and economic analysis). On Sundays, however, he writes a single post with a few “spiritual” thoughts unrelated to economics, though once in a while he connects the dots between the Christian worldview (at least from his perspective) and his economics worldview.

Today Bob (I hope I can get away with calling him by his first name since he’s never corrected me in an Email) posted an entry called “Economics, Selfishness, and the Gospel,” which was a follow-up entry to “Does Economics Require Selfishness?” While I didn’t follow the commenters on the first entry, it appears as though the first half of this second entry funnels into a religious comment about following Jesus. This sentence is worth pointing out:

If everyone really followed the commands of Jesus, it’s entirely possible that society would be so incredibly transformed that humans would live on a different plane of existence.

For many Christians disgruntled with what they falsely believe are the inherent dangers of capitalism and the free market, it’s very difficult to read these words coming from a self-profclaimed anarcho-capitalist who has written two essays in market anarchy [PDF] defending a likely success of private law and private defense. Anybody who has listened to the free audiobook of Chaos Theory and not been interested in giving the argument a fair shake would be aghast at his suggestions.

But I don’t find them difficult to swallow in the least because when the imagination is let loose and put to action through ingenuity and determination, there is practically no limit to the benefits in store for those who pursue such ends morally and ethically. Murphy—who has apparently gone out of his way to describe the possibilities of a stateless society (read: no government)—humbly offers that we can barely conceive of a world where everybody would actually follow the teachings of Jesus. Though offering a few suggestions, such as people not knowing what it was like to be last in a game of tag (but somebody would be last, right?), or not knowing what fiat money or the military draft were, I think Murphy in some ways is simply describing what it would be like if the world were perfect. Given that Jesus’ commands were difficult to follow by those who witnessed the miracles and were hugged by the Messiah himself, I’ll give Murphy the benefit of the doubt that he was hypothesizing on this “plane of existence.” I would disagree, however, “that the writings of free-market economists would seem naive or very limited.” No, I believe they would be very helpful in understanding human nature. Even in a world where people mostly followed Jesus’ commands, economics—as the study of human action—would be a vital science for social progress.

As a seminary-trained Christian highly interested in philosophical economics, it seems to me that in a world where people mostly followed Jesus, economists would spend more time describing the actions and interactions of human beings rather than both describing what they observe and prescribing policies for how things ought to be. What irks me the most about Christians who are hell-bent against the free market is that they tend to blame it for all sorts of social ills, but they will never admit that ideally, people ought to be free. “You need to take into account sin nature.” they say. “People are selfish, greedy, and sinful,” is supposedly a “proof” that we need a centralized authority telling people how they ought to behave, as if for some reason defending equal freedom for everyone without exception does not inherently account for a provision for such sinfulness. No, their solution is to put corrupt and sinful people into positions of absolute authority with the power of weaponry behind them. Doesn’t sound very “Christian” to me. But even on other blogs, I’ve had my faith questioned because I’ve defended the ideal of a free society, one without coercion and threat of violence from a monopoly institution.

If everyone agreed that choosing to follow the life and teachings of Jesus would create a better society, and we all agreed that we’d try very hard at doing so, and even if we largely succeeded in doing so, the world would certainly be an utterly different experience from how it is today. But I don’t think that would negate the need to study human action. If anything, it would be a demonstration of and make us appreciate the amazing progress that is made by people cooperating and trading at each other’s benefits.

The Power of Story (6)
Capitalism, the Kingdom, and Just Money (2)
Breaking Free from Paradigms (0)
Website Design of Robert P. Murphy (0)
Books on Deck (1)

The Voice of Psalms: Ancient but Fresh

Doug — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 04:15:33 +0000

Bible translations are a dime a dozen, especially when one is familiar with many of the Scriptures early in life. While I’m often skeptical of new translations delivering on their promises, I had some previous exposure to The Voice project’s New Testament “translation,” so I was very interested in reading a poetic and artistic rendition of the The Voice of Psalms. After all, what more appropriate book to be rendered by artists and poets than a book originally written by them?

Instantly upon receiving the book, it was apparent that the entire project—from type to touch—was crafted by artists. The beautiful full-color background and typeface invites the reader into the world of the ancient authors. Unlike other translations promising freshness, to my surprise and delight this one truly delivers. Psalms are by-and-large emotional poems, and this translation captures the depth and accuracy of the emotional fervor of the Hebrew text while maintaining a contemporary voice. The words don’t feel ancient, yet the writing was transcendent, as if I were reading a contemporary-yet-ancient expression of passionate and heart-felt musings. It also contains reflective “devotional” annotations on just about every page.

While I am not a scholar who can comment on the translation accuracy of The Voice of Psalms, I wholeheartedly recommend this artistic rendition of the psalms for its refined, poignant, and expressive value to any reader. It is certainly well worth the investment.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookSneeze.com <http://BookSneeze.com> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Random Posts

Cross Country (0)
The Way Out: An Analysis (1)
Higher Taxes in a Nutshell (0)
Is God a Totalitarian Tyrant? (3)
Thomas Sowell on the Financial Bail-out (0)

Is There an Equality Gap?

Doug — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:38:10 +0000

(This is the seventh in a series of posts analyzing each chapter in Jim Wallis’s new book, Rediscovering Values.)

Every time I began a chapter of Wallis’s book, Rediscovering Values, I expected to find quite a bit that I disagreed with. Perhaps it was my general experience of being at odds with Wallis’s politics, but so far I’ve been rather impressed with the points he’s been making. While I’ve been rather critical of certain missed opportunities and failed explanations, in general Wallis is preaching a great message of a return to what he calls “the new old values.”

Then I read the chapter about income gaps. Citing the prophets and biblical archeological finds that report that when wealth equality in ancient Israel existed, prophets did not, and when inequality existed, the prophets were calling Israel back to equality. Wallis is unclear about what kind of inequality he’s talking about, but it is clear that he doesn’t like the “gap” between the rich and the poor. When the gap becomes greater (again, we must ask, by what measure?), economic turmoil is on the horizon.

The rest of the chapter is a diatribe about how back in the “good ole’ days” when Wallis grew up, the income gap between CEOs and the average worker was much less than it is today, and how today the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Citing various statistics that supposedly prove his point, he uses large numbers like the billion dollar salaries of employees to arouse our emotional anger. And if that were not enough to arouse our anger, he cites Reagan tax cut revolution, as if they were the source of the income inequality that has occurred over the past 30 years! (He ignores the fact that the government taxing wealth actually squelches productivity, wages, and social progress, not to mention its ethical considerations.)

I’m not economist, but I have learned a few things that Wallis would be better off knowing:

In a market economy free from coercion (and when people are protected from it), wealth is not “distributed,” but is created
The categories of “rich” and “poor” are not only relative categories, they are fluid; in other words, the same people who qualify as “poor” are by and large not poor given a certain amount of time, nor are the rich
Anybody can cite a statistic and say, “Aha!” to prove their point
A free market does not create “winners” and “losers” in the same way the government does

William Anderson, a Christian economist who has written about economic inequality, points out that inequality can be and is often created by the government more often than from a free market.

If there are dark economic clouds on the horizon, they have been placed there by the state. Violent government intervention into peaceful exchange and production can never result in production of more wealth. Instead, government creates winners and losers and changes the system of incentives. Where once people had to be inventive and creative in order to create products that others wished to purchase, now they must pay off their respective politician who will then attempt to change the structure of property rights in order to transfer wealth from productive to non-productive people….

Then there is the Federal Reserve System, which inflates the currency and creates its own set of winners and losers. Of course, as the Austrian Economists have demonstrated, an economic boom fed by currency expansion cannot sustain itself for long, and when the inevitable bust occurs, many economic opportunities are lost.

Art Carden, another Christian economist, deals with the question of how to measure inequality, and that many measurements are misleading and used only to supposedly “prove” a particular political side of the argument. He says that “[o]ur measurements of income and income inequality don’t account for the true differences, or lack thereof, between the sets of goods that the rich and the poor are able to consume. While income figures suggest that the gap between the rich and the poor is expanding, these figures may be misleading.” He argues that it may be better “to think of ‘inequality’ in terms of our ability to substitute the goods available to the poor for the goods available to the rich.”

There are many articles that deal with the eagerness by many political pundits to use the arguments about inequality to support agendas of wealth redistribution (though distribution may be the more accurate term). Walter Williams ponders the question, “Are the poor getting poorer?” here. Thomas Sowell deals with inequality here and here.

Do I fault Wallis for railing against inequality? Not really. He’s merely pointing out something that may be harmful. And while he does write that “the gap was the deliberate result of public policy and political decisions made to benefit one group over another” (pg. 87), he is content to blame the Reagan revolution for such deliberateness, rather than explain the economics of central banking and its very own creation of winners and losers through its wealth distribution program for the politically well-connected.

Breaking Free from Paradigms (0)
The Rest of the Book: Final Thoughts (3)
Redistribution (2)
The “I want it now!” society (0)
“It’s All About Me” (0)

The “I want it now!” society

Doug — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:41:56 +0000

(This is the sixth in a series of posts analyzing each chapter in Jim Wallis’s new book, Rediscovering Values.)

According to Jim Wallis, the three symptoms that drove our society to the Great Recession are greed is good, it’s all about me, and I want it now. That was the thrust of this section of his book, Rediscovering Values. In a biting critique of our instant gratification society, Wallis points out how cheap credit and easy money drive us all to believe that we can have what we want at any time with no thought for whether or not we actually have the money to buy what it is that we want. What used to be unthinkable—buying things on credit that were not investments into our future—is now the norm.

It makes sense, really, when you think about it. After high school, not only are many banks willing to loan for education, the government is willing to back those loans. No need to “earn” money for college tuition: the job at the end of the education will pay it back… eventually. Buying a car is easy… just put no money down, and get the car you want. If it’s a new one, it’ll last longer, even though you’re paying more. Need to buy a house? No need to save and put a nice down payment; just go into a bank and they’ll figure out a way to lend the money. Need an iPhone? Put it on the credit card and pay it off in installments. It’s become so crazy that the Garfield cartoon short where heating something for a single second in the microwave is becoming incredibly too lengthy a process for us.

Any reader of this chapter can “feel the heat” when reading about such instant gratification. Most of us have iPhones or some piece of technology that gives us instant gratification, and when we don’t have access to it our lives quickly turn to shambles (or we’re scrambling to ensure that it won’t).

Decrying unnecessary debt and easy money, Wallis nevertheless misses a perfect opportunity to point out that easy money and cheap credit are merely symptoms of an institutional problem. Nobody can drink too much alcohol if the alcohol was being served freely and without much discretion. Money doesn’t grow on trees in the natural world, yet printing money as if it did is exactly the reason cheap credit and instant gratification are obliged and rewarded in the I-want-it-now society. Wallis could have taken this opportunity to explain how the virtue of savings provides the proper basis for ethical and productive borrowing by businesses at the higher order ends of production. He could have pointed out that price-setting the interest rate distorts the business cycle, producing errors in judgment. Coupled with an endless supply of money from a central bank willing to insure the vast majority of the loans through federal lending programs, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster.

But blaming such personal and societal vices such as greed and selfishness are easy targets. They are easy explanations that nobody could retort aren’t actually issues, because they obviously are. Yet blaming excessive greed and selfishness is like blaming gravity on a plane crash. In the absence of gravity, of course a plane wouldn’t crash. But why wasn’t the gravity of greed kept in check by other dynamic forces that keep the aircraft stable? The fact of the matter is, no matter how much we decry personal and societal vices, the source (or sources) of the problem is left unchecked. Ignoring them won’t make them go away.

I’m sure I sound like a broken record, yet it seems as if there are numerous opportunities for Wallis to point out a major societal enabler is the source of the problem. Yes, it is true that greed, selfishness, and impatience are societal problems that we must repent of. Yes, we need to return to values that are not harmful to ourselves and to society. There is no argument with those things. The issue is, how exactly do we promote common good and virtuous behavior when the foundation of our entire economy is in stark contrast to those principles?

Wallis concludes the chapter with remarks about efficiency and social costs, blaming deregulation (which was pursued for the sake of “efficiency”) for harmful results such as deaths from peanut butter and lead paint in children’s toys. What’s amazing is not that Wallis wants safer foods at the expense of efficiency, but that he believes that a single institution ought to have a monopoly over the safety of our food and drug distribution, let alone is capable of of protecting us. Instead of promoting responsibility and social cooperation to achieve a better way to keep us safe, he instead advocates that we trust a single agency to keep us safe. But unlike other firms which fail to provide what they promise (and what we pay them to deliver), when the FDA fails to keep us safe, the “solution” to the problem is that it needs more funding! Further, he praises the efforts of state legislatures to outlaw texting-while-driving, a law that is inconsistent at best and unsuccessful at worst. He also explains the environmental damages done by the activities of those who wish to have what they want, when they want it, with no regard for the environment. But these are minor quibbles, so I needn’t go into defending the abolition of the FDA or our right to texting-while-driving, but should point Wallis to Butler Shaffer’s book, Boundaries of Order.

The bulk of this chapter provides an appropriate admonishment that new values ought to be embraced in place of the socially dangerous “values” of greed, narcissism, and impatience.

“It’s All About Me” (0)
Is There an Equality Gap? (0)
The Rest of the Book: Final Thoughts (3)
Redistribution (2)
Is Greed Good? (0)

“It’s All About Me”

Doug — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:13:24 +0000

(This is the fifth in a series of posts analyzing each chapter in Jim Wallis’s new book, Rediscovering Values.)

As I’ve said before in other places, Jim Wallis has a prophetic ability to point out what adjustments ought to be made by those who are otherwise behaving in ways that are dangerous and self-defeating. This chapter, titled, “It’s All About Me,” named after one of the three things that “got us here” [into the Great Recession], is an insightful yet critical assessment of the attitudes that pervaded the American people, from the Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, to Wall Street, and to Main Street.

Jim Wallis doesn’t like the idea of a free market self-regulating because it doesn’t result in the kind of things he wishes for society. He never uses the term “free market” because he cannot get away with calling it “free” (though why he is prevented from doing so begs the question, “What is keeping it from being free?”). While acknowledging that self-interest “often does do its job” (pg. 54), he warns that basic self-interst can turn into self-obsession, narcissism, and dangerous pride.

The rest of the chapter is essentially examples of how our society has become narcissistic and now leans toward extreme individualism, and providing the antidotes of humility and community. Wallis calls Greenspan the “high priest” of the economy in recent years, who said that the principles of self-interest would govern the economy and keep it from faltering. Wallis would do well in his prophetic and critical role to point out in more depth than merely calling Greenspan the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain. It is a perfect opportunity to explain the fatal conceit of believing that a central banking institution whose sole purpose is to cushion the blow of excessive self-interest and greed could actually purport to keep the economy in check.

If you are looking for a great examination of the attitudes that caused our recession, Wallis provides great insight into the dangerous and deceptive path of excessive greed and self-interest. But Wallis does not go far enough in his criticism of the Fed. It appears as though if he were to advocate anything (though this section of the book is about the causes and not the cures), he would explain how it is important that in a free market, self-interest is inherently limited by a natural standard of wealth that cannot be artificially manipulated by a central banking cartel approved by the federal government.

Free Book

Doug — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:00:10 +0000

I recently became part of the BookSneeze site, and chose “Free Book” as my first book to review. It’s worth the time reading, especially if you or somebody you know struggles with the idea of freedom in Christ. Some reviewers on Amazon.com were put off by Tome’s free spiritedness, but I found it not only refreshing but provocative (which I’m always a fan of).

Here’s my official review:

Brian Tome delivers a deliberately provocative and hard-hitting book about the importance of freedom to be who we are in God’s eyes without fear. Those who live by fear are not free, says Tome, and he provides the reader not only with glimpses of his own journey, but also shares the journeyings and exodus of others’ spiritual and emotional slavery. From explaining the value and importance of freedom to suggesting and provoking ways to be released from bondage, Tome leads the reader on an inner journey of self-reflection and deliverance.

At first, this book seemed to be the same-old, same-old stuff I’ve heard as I began to develop in my faith: God wants us to live in relationship with him, in freedom, and love him. Not only have I heard that before, I’ve been through that “stage” in the journey. Yet I kept reading, and discovered a deliberate and digestible path to receiving this freedom as a gift. What started out as a potential cliché and trite diatribe about a fundamental of the faith became an active journey toward that which the book was about: freedom.

An Unquiet Voice

Razing Hell is Heavenly

Related Posts

Breaking Free from Paradigms

Related Posts

Website Design of Robert P. Murphy

Related Posts

My Census Experience

Random Posts

Three Ways to Get Money

Method #1: Inherit Money

Method #2: Work

Method #3: Thievery

Related Posts

Christianity and Libertarianism, Part 4: Humility

Related Posts

Society Based on Non-Aggression?

Related Posts

Blog News and Updates

Random Posts

Blog Update: Now Using Feedburner

Random Posts

Truth-telling about Government Schools

Related Posts

Books on Deck

Related Posts

Latent Pseudo-religion

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

Related Posts

Christianity and Libertarianism, Part 3: Antiwar

Related Posts

Talking Freedom in Montauk

Related Posts

Christianity and Libertarianism, Part 2: Service

Related Posts

Ron Paul on the Morality of Markets

Related Posts

A Few Quick Thoughts

Related Posts

Christianity and Libertarianism, Part 1: Non-Aggression

Related Posts

Can a Christian be a Libertarian?

Related Posts

Review: “Lies the Government Told You”

Related Posts

The Rest of the Book: Final Thoughts

Related Posts

The Way Out: An Analysis

Related Posts

Redistribution

Related Posts

Where’s Wallis?

Related Posts

Does Jesus Negate Economics?

Related Posts

The Voice of Psalms: Ancient but Fresh

Random Posts

Is There an Equality Gap?

Related Posts

The “I want it now!” society

Related Posts

“It’s All About Me”

Related Posts

Free Book

Random Posts