Nathanael D Snow

Just finished another book. This one was assigned reading for a course I am taking next term, Marcoeconomics. The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade nd Protectionism, by Russel Roberts, was a quick read, probably more so for mebecause of my familiarity with the concepts and terms it expounded. In the story English Economist David Ricardo returns to 1960's America a la the angel Clarence in It's A Wonderful Life. He comes down to prevent a minor political speech that may turn America into a protectionist nation. The surrounding economics, especially the Theory of Competitve Advantage, which Roberts renames the Roundabout Way to Wealth, are explored using the socratic method as Ricardo and the invented protagonist, Ed Johnson, a television manufacturer, discuss consequences of vairous government trade actions. Ricardo convinces Johnson that free trade benefits all in the long run, and puts some opaque economic theories into slightly less opaque vernacular. There are no graphs a...

I just finished reading The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek. I think I will need to read it again someday. I get the general idea, and took extensive notes. It definately inspired some thought. These are some of the things I wrote in the margins: Do we want freedom from men or from responsibility? This seems to be the question of every teenager. Do I want free from Dad? Then i must face responsibility and provide for myself. Do I want to be free from responsibility? Then I must go back home and live by Dad's rules. No wonder dictators paint themselves as fathers. Trouble is, too many peoples are content to remain children rather than mature into free men. "The systematic study of the forms of legal institutions which will amke the competitive system work efficiently has been sadly neglected." This is something I want to look into more, through studying the development of common law. There are a couple of books on my shelf that I hope will increase my understa...

I'm reading a couple of books right now. I'm listening to 1776 by David McCollough on Audio book on my way to and from work every day. That's pretty cool. I had read John Adams, by the same author, and enjoyed it, but the length of his books led me to try listening instead. Of course, it is still the unabbridged version. I'm also reading The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek, the Austrian economist. It's a hard read, or at least the part I'm in right now is, but I am determined to finish it before school starts back up, and to start something new: The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. Iwonder how many Economics majors have never read this book? How many Economics PROFESSORS have never read this book! I'm all into original sources, though. Oh, I'm also reading The Cost of Discipleship by Bonhoeffer. It's great. When I finish that I want to read Performing the Faith, by Stanley Hauerwas, which is about Bonhoeffer. I recently listened to A Loo...

I added a post to cafehayek.com in a discussion about immigration yesterday. My first semster back at school was hard, yet quite rewarding. I have registered for 15 hours next semester, quite a load, but I think the course work will be a little bit easier, and quite within my abilities. I hope to write more regularly and to give the only other person reding this something to respond to at some point. Thanks for checking in with me.

Here's another attempt at my Blame God stance, as submitted to world magazine in response to a colunmn by John Piper, a worthwhile read, at http://www.worldmag.com/johnpiper/ In response to John Piper's September 17th column, I propose a slightly different angle. Whereas Piper is careful to show how inappropriate it is for humans to attempt to hold God accountable, there is yet a more dangerous form of blame occurring in relation to Hurricane Katrina, blaming of government. Attribution for the scope of the disaster is repeatedly and emphatically cast upon a federal system that did not cause it and was never intended to be a response team to any kind of disaster save international invasion. What has happened in the minds of Americans is that we so much do not believe in God, and we so much have pledged our allegiance to our government, that we no longer blame God for what He alone could have done - or prevented. Popular concepts of...

Whom is to blame for the disaster after Katrina? I think it is ironic, and wrong, that so many are blaming the government rather than blaming God. It is as if people don't believe in God SO MUCH that they don't even cry out to Him when something goes wrong! Who do they cry out to? Their new god, government. Few would recognize government as their god, but that's how they treat it. Who is responsible to feed, clothe, water, house, educate, protect, and clean up after us? The government. Anathema! God is responsible or He is not soverign! We try so hard to make God a loving God that we rob Him of His divinity. What good does it do Him to be God if He can't act like it every now and then!?! I have also noticed many, and many Christians among them, asking what the government is going to do about... you fill in the blank. Wrong! The question is: what is the church going to do about it? When we ask the government to do our job we cease to be salt and light.

Okay, if you are reading this blog, more than likely it is because you are one of my friends, and I gave you the address to this website on a little blue sticky note, or sent it to you in an e-mail. I want you to read my blog. More importantly, I need your help with my blog. I need for you to read the stuff I post here and comment on it. I'd really like it if you would argue with me. Or at least point out weaknesses in my arguements. I want this to be a learning exercise, especially for me, but also for you, hopefully. I think my posts are a little long, so I'll try to be less wordy in the future. Thanks y'all! Nathan (JN)

Part of the idea behind this blog was for me to practice my writing. I've been neglecting that. The constitution, I said in "Judge Rant 1," was a document creating a government to house common law. I don't think that there's anything magic about the Constitution. It's a good document, for what it tries to do. I've heard people talk about it as though it were Holy writ. That's just not true. Scripture is scripture, it is Revelation. The Constitution was just a human theory on the best way to restrain government. Now, what is interesting about the Constitution is that it does seek to restrain government. Americans inherited distrust of government from England. England had several particularly bad governments, and perhaps that is why they invented Constitutional Law, viz. the Magna Carta. That document was a list of things the aristocracy didn't want the King to do anymore. It limited government. The Declaration of Independance was a list ...

Illegal immigration is an issue that the church doesn’t handle very well. Almost all Americans have ancestry that includes immigrants. Why do we want to close our borders now? Interesting note I picked up from a friend recently, but it’s in the Declaration of Independence: One of the complaints against King George was that he wouldn’t allow emigration from England to America. I would challenge anyone to prove to me that open immigration in principle is a bad idea. Every argument I have ever heard against such a policy is based on myth, prejudice, or assumption that the current set of laws surrounding the issue are good laws. First, the myths. The most prevailing myth that I have experienced is the concept that Americans will lose jobs if we allow more immigration. This myth contains what Thomas Sowell calls “zero-sum” thought. It operates out of a belief that there is a limited amount of wealth in the economy, and that more people sharing that wealth takes away from each individual...

Some thoughts: Confessing our sins to one another is a great equalizer. Sometimes we think we are talking to one of God's children when we are really talking to God. -John Young Natural needs are never satisfied. Spiritual needs have already been satisfied. Worship God. You don't have anything better to do!

I will comment on Scripture regularly on this site. I am not a fundamentalist, although I am an evangelical. Since learning about Economics and Law I have read the Scriptures quite differently. Enjoy 2 Sam. 15 Absalom returns to Jerusalem and sets himself up as a judge. He sits at the city gate and invites the people to bring their disputes to him. He recognizes the source of respected government to be in the ability to judge. Before he attempts to usurp the kingdom he tries to gain a foothold by judging in favor of certain politically influential people, viz. Ahithophel. All throughout scripture we can recognize a pattern of judges preceeding kings or other legislators. Exceptions to this rule highlight the differences in these roles.

First and foremost I must give credit to Richard Mayburry for the title of my blog. Juris Naturalist is a phrase he coined to describe his political viewpoint. JN means natural law. I will be writing a lot about natural law and its place in today's politics.

I have been thinking about government some lately, especially the recent nomination of a new Supreme Court justice. I used to think the Founders made a mistake by including the Judiciary in the government instead of leaving it independent. After some consideration I have arrived at a new conclusion. The founders really didn't want any government at all. They had seen the inefficient and often deadly effects of government firsthand, and wanted as little to do with them as possible. What they recognized as valuable however was law, the Common Law, the scientifically discovered truths of nature and nature's God regarding law. They valued good judges as researchers in this scientific inquiry. Indeed, the only aspect of government they held in value at all was the Judiciary! So, in a sense, the Founders were not trying to develop a government that was held on check by the Judiciary. Rather, desiring a safe future for justice, and an expectation of better relations...