Nathanael D Snow

I have adopted the phrase "Will Hunting Smart." You should too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymsHLkB8u3s

Bad news, I've moved. You can now read me here. Or type in http://jurisnaturalist.failuretorefrain.com/ I hope you'll add me to your list server there. Jeff and I have started a radio show called "Failure to Refrain," as in President George Bush has failed to refrain from comparing Iraq to Vietnam. Anyway, I continue to do battle at God's Politics as jurisnaturalist. We're still on immigration... And school has started again. This semester I'm reading... a lot... no, really, a LOT. So, come on over and read what's new.

Megan has a post explaining why NYC will always get Republican mayors. The gist is that the Democrats, having such a majority in NYC, will always nominate a candidate too liberal to win the general election. Instead a liberal Republican will get the job. This would be interesting to test. If it is true, then Democracy is an effective check on extremist groups, but not against moderate statists. Maybe this book will have something to say about it.

Patronization Kills

go duke! Hat tip, Struttin' Wolf

As a member of the next generation of economists, I was glad to receive a short education in econometrics earlier today, which previous generations will certainly be familiar with, to the point of it being a cliche. Now the problem reveals itself to be related directly to the quantity of upper extreme appendages normally attached to upright biped inspectors of dismal occurances. Gavel bang to Mankiw .

This article at Christianity Today gives some of the history of the principle of sanctuary, and perhaps hints at a legitimate role for the church against statism. But it falls short of understanding fundamental subtleties on law. "As a product of a time when justice was rough and crude," law professor Wayne Logan summarized in a 2003 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review article, "sanctuary served the vital purpose of staving off immediate blood revenge." If the church could be convinced that the sanctuary seeker's life was not in danger, it would turn him over. "The church, in short, played a foremost role as intercessor," Logan writes. Fugitives in medieval English sanctuaries, about 1,000 a year, were able to negotiate financial compensation or a punishment like scourging or exile. So the church plays the role of the judiciary by providing a recourse to violence. Justice would be served through a trial process instead of through violenc...

I have little or no pity for the roofers, drywallers, textile workers, etc., who have lost their jobs to immigrants. Why should they be protected from competition? According to what principle? Let's say two individuals make widgets. Joe and Larry. Who should you buy a widget from? Let's assume they are of equal quality. Then you buy from whomever sells for less, let's say Joe. Why? Because it shows that Joe's next best alternative is worse than Larry's next best alternative. He has a lower opportunity cost. If Larry can make widgets at a cost of $4 or whatsits at a cost of $5, these are his two options. If Joe can make widgets for $4 or whatsits at a cost of $6, these are his two options. Who should do what? Let's say we want ten of each. If Larry makes whatsits and Joe makes widgets our economy uses $90. If they switch roles the economy uses $100. Everyone is better off if they allocate their energies according to what their next best alternative would be. This...

and fast in some places. This table shows growth rates which are very positive. Why the benefits now? What has changed?

This story got me thinking. If taxi drivers in Russia and the Ukraine don't wear seatbelts as way of signaling ( a la Cowen ) to passengers that they are safe drivers, perhaps we ought to make teenagers drive without seatbelts for a while. Or maybe all drivers should go without seatbelts. I've got it! Give them each a dune buggy, minus seat belts, and let 'em loose! Or maybe this only applies in places where you have to be somewhat insane to be driving at all. Hat tip: Casnocha

What is central to the question of Anarcho-Capitalism and Christianity is the role, source, and execution of law. Christianity is wholly consistent with a Natural Rights understanding of the scope of law. It is also especially consistent with a Common Law process for derivation of law. Finally, Christianity is peculiarly inconsistent with a legislative process for derivation of law. The only legitimate role of government from the Christian perspective is Judicial. The Judges were to read, interpret and, rule using the revealed law as delivered to Moses. The book of Deuteronomy consists primarily of the case law up to the time of Joshua. The courts were to try cases, and anyone not willing to come under the ruling of the Judges was considered an outlaw, outside the protection of the law. The costs incurred in the judicial process were to be born by the individuals involved in the case. Insomuch as anarcho-capitalism attempts to make the judicial a private function it may or may n...

Some people really are scared of militant Muslims. They think that there are tens of millions of these enemies out there whose ultimate desire is world domination under Islam. They want to build giant walls around America, but with only a fraction of the military force behind those walls, with the rest parading about the world. They want to close off whatever trade they can and regulate the rest. They are afraid. But what has actually happened to these individuals personally to make them so frightful? Many of them were in NY or DC on 9-11. Many more knew people killed or directly impacted by this event. Many have lost their jobs to outsorcing. Others have been underbid by immigrant workers. These people have legitimate concerns. They are reasonable concerns. But I think they are wrong to be afraid, and I think their reactions to those things which frighten them merely cause more problems. Protectionism slows trade down, increasing the likelihood that jobs in export industries or in com...

Unregenerate humans are self-interested. Capitalism attempts to channel this aspect of human nature most productively by offering compelling incentives for action. Christians can overcome self-interest by responding to the call of Christ and obeying His commands. The response to Christ does not guarantee positive social or personal outcomes! Rather, we are promised persecution and trials, in short the cross of Christ, for our decision. The enemy of both systems is power, or the use of force. The use of force removes the restraint on self-interest which permits individuals from realizing mutual gains from exchange. The use of force likewise corrupts the message of the cross. Christians ought to work first to eliminate force from their own habits. Second they should work to protect the victims of the use of force. Third they ought to work to restrain the use of force. Only Christians are capable of acting out of conscious virtue in imitation of Christ in the renunciation of, protection f...

I attended Colorado Christian University from Fall of '94 to Spring of '95. Just one year. Long enough to get drunk for the first time in my life, start and break off three romantic relationships, smell my first pot, and get my first full time job. Long enough to rack up a lot of student loans and to discover I didn't belong there. I got into a fight with then University President over tuition increases of 13% and turned my back to him in protest in front of the entire student body. Two Presidents later, we get this story , which is not too different from a scandal while I was there involving the dismissal of an ancient languages scholar for being too liberal. I was mad about that, too. And, if my memory is right CCU is also home to our beloved K-Love . You know: positive, encouraging, sappy-enough-to-make-you-vomit K-Love. Where they play 20 different versions of "I Could Sing of Your Love Forever..." But the new issue here is interesting to me for differ...

Acton Institute is a liberty and Catholicism thinktank that welcomes all Christians into their discussion about Religion and Liberty. Today they quote Bonhoeffer, "Do not try to make the church relevant." Ouch. What do these guys make of that quote? The point is that most young adults quit church by the time they are 25. Why? And what about the churches and Christian organizations on campus? Maybe they all ought to read some Bonhoeffer . Especially Grace Church (whom I support) might want to read this book , which states "Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace."

The NY Times does something like news reporting here , with a great video about the Nashi movement in Russia: Putin-Youth. They make some good points, these youths. Russia's economy has improved, the standard of living is better. But some scary ideas are involved also, especially the make-babies-for-Putin and Russia thinking. Give teenagers a free camp, with lots of coeds, tell them to make babies, and hate America, and we get what is known by every state as mere good education. How are American schools any different?

Gareth Higgens manages to make a movie review for Once into a screed about Greyhound. He rightly identifies the problem, but fails to understand the solution. (If a government program isn't working, all we need is more government programs, right?) The problem with Greyhound is its monopoly. But how did they get a monopoly and what is holding it up? A firm can only get monopoly power if they charge a low enough price that new competitors can't make a profit by entering the market. This should be good for the consumer because they are enjoying the lowest possible prices. This situation would be called a natural monopoly, but there are few instances of these, and none of them represent an economic injustice. Greyhound is the other kind of monopoly, the kind subsidized by the state. Some portion of every greyhound ticket is already paid for before a customer walks up to the counter. These subsidies artificially create the availability of low-ish prices. Also, they provide servi...

Randal Holcombe has an essay at Cato Unbound for the Anarchists to take it easy. I met Dr. Holcombe at the epicenter of anarcho-capitalism at the Ludwig von Mises Institute's Austrian Scholar's Conference last March, and he is at least 1/2 the reason I'm applying to FSU for grad school. (Bruce Benson is the other half.) His most important point is, "there are a number of libertarian anarchists who argue for the complete elimination of government. Their arguments are based on two complementary lines of reasoning. One is that anarchy would work better than government (Leeson’s essay is along those lines, although he doesn’t make claims quite that strong), and the other is that the coercion that underlies all government activity is immoral. I have no quarrel with people who make those arguments, but from a policy perspective they are irrelevant." Now this centers down on what economics is, and reveals the importance of the discussion concerning methodology. If econ...

The state is not my daddy. Who's your daddy? Should thinking about breaking the law be illegal? If a father disciplines for foolish rules then he is provoking his children to anger. We call that child abuse. The state has extended its sphere of influence too far. I'm angry, and I know you are too. What does "backing it up with force" represent? Under a rule of law all participants agree not to encroach on others' rights. If anyone violates this non-aggression principle, they step out from under the protection of the law and they are outlaws. They enjoy neither protection of their life their property or their liberty. The criminal in this case may make an appeal to the court to come back under the protection of the law by paying restitution to the injured party. Thus they are restored. This and the enforcement of voluntarily agreed upon contracts is the full extent of the law. If once the law has been perverted in such a way that it allows one person, or agency, to...

Okay, so the zero-state solution won't happen. Ever. But what position should Christians take? If we are dealing with two nation-states fighting over territory to the detriment of individuals on both sides, where should our allegiance lie? Dispensationalists, per the previous thread, have eschatological reasons for favoring the nation-state of Israel , and for supporting nation-states in general. This perspective is ultimately manichean, and must be rejected. While searching for historical consistency is to be highly regarded, when ethical consistency is sacrificed in order to make things work out right, we must reject these conclusions. If we give ethics a higher priority, we must place individual sovereignty first and accept a principle of non-aggression. This disallows support for a state which imposes arbitrary standards on non-aggressive innocents. Instead we are guided by Christ’s example to minister to individuals with both the physical sub...

Japan did thus and such to China, Germany did so and so to Russia, Russia did you know what to Japan, and China did the same to the Manchurians. This is the way the world works under statism. All the different centralized governments fight and scrape like wolves over the sheep. Only a few nations with limited governments were able to restrain themselves from this empire-building tendency. America was one of them, for a while. What one nation does to another is no justification for a third to intervene. Doing so requires alliance with one of the evils. Better to let the wolves fight each other than to send our labrador in to mitigate. The innocents are the final concern. I believe we should be rescuing innocents and relocating them into our homes, as Christians. This requires extending our necks a little individually, and personal sacrifice in the the face of others who will do nothing for the innocents. Doing so is the loudest proclamation of the gospel and demonstration of our p...

Whilst contractors and engineers and politicians have many incentives to cut corners when producing public works which will not be consumed at any kind of margin, but "freely", private entities have the incentive to make their infrastructure double strong and of higher quality in order to produce a superior product, while meeting costs precisely at the margin. That said, my physics professor waxed eloquent on the marvels of science, engineering, and the human mind in a way that would make Ayn Rand gush. Bridges and buildings are a wondrous thing, and the more I travel and stare at them the more I marvel. Oh, what things man hath wrong out of rock and sand! What a reflection of the mind of the creator in man's creations.

Those who can do math and those who can't. Hat tip to Political Calculations.

I look forward to someday having my name on a list like this one . Oh, wait, I'm already on there. Who is this Nathaniel Baum-Snow guy at Brown and why doesn't he spell his name wrong like I do?

This is old hat. I had the thought and then looked it up and there are plenty of papers explaining why athletes would dope even given anti-doping rules. Here's one . Basically, 1. The number of individuals capable of winning an event are small. 2. If Joe wants to be competitive he either has to be one of these people, or dope. 3. If Joe does not dope he will not even be competitive, and he will not gain sponsorship (the importance of this element might be a new paper) and will not be able to afford to compete. 4. Even if Joe does not win, he still gets to compete when he dopes. 5. If Joe does not win he is less likely to be scrutinized for doping. 6. Because Joe is doping, the capable athletes face greater competition. 7. Some of these athletes may feel threatened enough to fool around with doping. 8. These are the guys who get caught. (This also might be a paper. How many of the athletes caught doping, really are the best at what they do - like Barry Bonds -and they on...

I went to an IHS seminar earlier this summer, where Tom Bell wrote a nifty little ditty, and I played along on guitar. But Sasha Volok has outdone us a bit : (To the tune of Surfing USA) We're doing battle with statists Across the USA, 'Cause everybody's reading Hayek, The man from Austri-ay -- In spontaneous order We let the market play, With the writer Fred Hayek, H-A-Y-E-K. We use the signals of prices And then we'll be O.K., 'Cause no one knows what's efficient Unless they have to pay; If we replace that with planning Like once in Russ-i-ay, [pronounced "Rush-Eye-Ay"] We'll take the road to serfdom -- Serfdom USA. [Backup singers should at this point start singing, "Serfdom, serfdom USA, Friedrich H-A-Y-E-K."] We still have government bureaus, Just like the FDA, [replace with three-letter agency of your choice ending in A] But the welfare state mindset Will soon become passe. Ayn Rand said he was evil, Which makes him A-O.K. -- Friedr...

Are you going to be in West Virginia this weekend? If so, go see Sam's Show in Morgantown. Here's a preview .

Dr. Hocking, I have been receiving your newsletter for some time, and was happy to get your latest in the mail today. I believe God has a special place for the people of Israel, as He always had. I believe He will fulfill all of His promises to that people, and even is doing so now. But I must contend with your support of the state of Israel. God never gives support to this centralized government in scripture. Indeed He laments Israel’s desire for the establishment of centralized government from the start, rightly identifying this form of tyranny as pagan in origin. God established his higher law and Judges over Israel, not an arbitrary human law-giver. Jesus demonstrated the proper ethic in regards to the state, admonishing His disciples to care for the least of these. The role of the state in Romans 13 is strictly Judicial, and has nothing to do with foreign diplomacy, or social welfare. Israel was to be a loose federation of tribes, where each man was free to ...

The list of questions alerted to me by The Friendly Atheist , who lifts them in preparation for the first Great American God-Out . My responses: 1. Say there is no god, would you no longer love your family, friends, children, pets or significant others? Why or why not? I would love them much more selfishly. Right now I love my wife and am committed to her unconditionally. If she were hurt so that I had to care for her the rest of her life with no return, or if she cheated on me, I would stay with her and continue to love her. If there were no God, I would only be capable of loving her for what she does for me. 2. Say there is no god, would you stop hoping for a cure for cancer? Why or why not? No, I would not, but I wouldn't contribute to cancer research charities (my current favorites are AFLAC's Children's cancer and the Jimmy V foundation) unless I thought I would benefit from them. Since I have no history of cancer in 3 generations of my family, I don't smo...

Some people apparently take offense at the way citizens of the(se) United States call themselves Americans as opposed to United Statesians. My response to the Latin Americans among these would be to say, "You had your chance, but decided to act French, instead." Also, Americans had a strong tradition in identifying themselves with the particular State they lived in, often calling themselves Carolinian, or Virginian, or New Mexican, or Texan. This attachment was nostalgic, and focused on smaller communities with more peculiar cultures. Only now, some 4 or 5 generation after the Civil War, are these notions beginning to subside, along with ease and frequency of emigration. I, personally, prefer to identify myself as a New Mexican, though I was born in New England and have lived in North Carolina for 10 years now.

Your mind must be free.

Gareth at God's Politics gave a bad review of Die Hard. What was he thinking? Geez, somebody buy Gareth a copy of Wild at Heart, please! Look, I'm anti-statist, and a strong advocate of the non-aggression principle, but I LOVE Die Hard! I went to see Hostage a few years ago hoping it would be Die Hard 4 and was sore disappointed. But Live Free or Die Hard was exactly what I wanted to see. I almost stood up in my seat cheering when that fire hydrant blew. A couple of points on principal though: 1. This was an attack on individuals, and private property, on American soil. If you can't defend that we are in trouble. 2. The attack was unprovoked, and completely malicious. 3. The US Government did everything wrong they possibly could have. Perfectly in line with the truth, eh, Katrina? 4. McClaine is attacked first. He is actively defending not just an innocent, but a criminal, trying to bring him to justice. Guantanamo? 5. Wall Street. This was the scariest scene ...

This issue simply does not work out unless the innocents are considered. I have proposed volunteers evacuating them to the United States and assuming responsibility for helping them get started here. Most people dismiss this solution outright. They say it isn’t practical. It’s too expensive. I say nonsense. Today the cost of the war stands at $442 billion according to costofwar.com. There are 27 million Iraqis. That’s $16,370 per Iraqi. Easily enough to move them here and provide some high density housing. And that’s if ALL of them move. I doubt it would take more than half of the population emigrating to communicate to powerseekers that the current mode was not working. Fearmongers will gripe that the Muslims will murder us all if we do this. That the terrorists will come, too, and start blowing us up. Especially if volunteers demonstrate the love of Christ so compassionately as to welcome strangers into our homes… Especially if we leave their homeland ...

The NAACP had a funeral for the word "Nigger." Which is fine. But, as my friend Anthony Bradley has it, they should have made a bigger hole. My favorites from the list : (1) “Bitch” (2) “Ho” and “pimp” (3) “My baby’s daddy (or mama)” or “I take care of all my kids, I buy them what they need” ***(10) “The government will save us” (11) “All blacks must think like white, liberal elitist democrats” (13) “I don’t need a man, I can take care of myself” (14) “Sports (and Entertainment) is my only way out” (17) “My car needs rims now” (20) “Open up ya mouth, ya grill gleamin” And, for those of us from Durham: (21) “What’s wrong with strippin’?”

We are all evil people. Even Western culture, despite our Constantinian heritage. What makes Radical Islam a threat is its marriage of religion to the state. It sanctions the use of force as a means for achieving religious solidarity. The Western tradition finally rid itself of this same fault in the adoption of constitutional limited governments with reliable sensible laws. The pinnacle was reached in Blackstone’s Commentary on the English Common Law which was read by enough Americans that de Toqueville would say later, “The Americans are all lawyers.” The Anabaptist and Leveller traditions brought over from Europe separated Church from State in such a way that liberty reigned. Radical Islam is not capable of conquering the world. It imposes economic structures which limit the capacity for growth and sustenance. There is a reason many societies governed by Sharia law have low productivity and concentrated wealth. The rest of the world also lives according to a pagan concept of time...

“ Israel ” can mean many different things. It can mean the Jewish people, wherever they might live. It can mean Jewish Christians and gentile Christians, in an allegorical sense. It can mean the political Nation-State currently exercising jurisdiction over Palestine , or Caanan, or whatever you want to call it. It might also refer to the Jewish people living in said land, not necessarily its government. Of these the only one I can’t support is the political entity. God never intended for Israel to have a centralized government, let alone a secular one with the power to write arbitrary laws. God intended for Israel to be a loose federation of cooperating tribes, welcoming to strangers, and united under a single rule of law interpreted and enforced by judges. If your eschatology is dependent upon a political entity utilizing force to harm innocents I have to question whether you can mesh it neatly with the non – aggression principle implicit in the Christian ethic. I ...

This promises to be worthwhile:

I’d rather the church were stuck in the issues of theology, practice, and practice than out and out paganism and Gnosticism, which is where we are today. Salvation is a union between God and man, the church is a covenant relationship among believers under the blood of Christ. It gives every believer a claim on his brother via their personal relationships with Christ. I believe you know a great deal about the Scriptures, I , too, am a student of the Book, and a seeker of truth. I also believe in faith and practice, lave and trust, but I ‘m not sure what you mean by these terms, or what your point is. It is about the end result: that Christ be glorified, not that we love and are loved. The love is mercy, and adds to His glory. I could go all-out Piper here, but I’ll stop. It’s not so much that I “trust” the private sphere. I recognize the self-interestedness of man, and that the market system best takes advantage of this quality and turns it to the most ...

P and I go back and forth on the God's Politics blog: Him: (In this P is "Me" and I am "You", a little hard to follow, but you get it. Nathan(a)el said: I have no quarrel with this form of government. I don't believe it requires central organization, but it is clearly Biblical. It does not, however, assign to the state the responsibility of caring for the least of these. Rather than calling this a "good" which the state performs, I prefer to look at it as a "harm" which it prevents. Me: You can call it whatever you like because you are still ignoring other aspects of the old testament law where the state was assigned the duty to feed the people. Take for instance the laying aside of parts of land, they were untilled so that strangers could pick their share and eat. That came from God to a centralized unified Israelite government where each tribe was called to set aside land for food usage. That's still governmental welfare for a se...

There's a bitty discussion between Payshun and I over at God's Politics. Chris Meyers Asch advocates the liberal Christan support of a new Service Academy . I think its a bad idea: I also doubt the usefulness of a PSA. 1. Many public universities already offer similar programs. 2. It is unclear to me what the specific set of skills necessary for effective public administration and service are. If I were to take a guess, they would include: Follow orders. Follow regulations. Cover yourself. Blackmail. Evade feedback. Courtesianship and confucianism are not modes of behavior we want to encourage in our institutions. 3. The Christian element here is fuzzy. Why should Christians support the creation of an institution which absolves individuals of more responsibility by creating a new "priestly" class of bureaucrats to handle the "least of these" for us? I should think that Christians would further strengthen their support for Christian universities which...

Why has immigration become more of a problem in the last few decades? I would argue that some of it, at least, has to do with increased wealth among those who would emigrate. It is not easy to drop the few possessions and relationships you have to embark on a journey to an unknown land far away in hopes of a better life. The least mobile are always the most poor. We see this to be the case at all levels. Within our cities, the middle class are infinitely better placed for upward mobility than anyone on welfare. In accord with my thesis, they are also more likely to take a new job in another locale. Often new employers help to pay for such a move. A potential employee has to promise a marginal productivity equivalent to the combined compensation of wages and moving costs. The more productive the individual the more sought after they become in the jobs market, and the more likely they will move. Mexican immigrants promise a high level of marginal productivity to thos...

Check out this dude. He's CEO of his own company at 19, and very successful. Tell me kids shouldn't be working...

I was looking at this map , when I decided to play with some numbers. If you placed 40 people per acre (an acre is a little smaller than an American football field) then you could fit the entire population of the world inside of Texas. Malthus was wrong.

Russ Roberts, author of The Choice, a story which helps readers to understand Comparative Advantage has an online radio show, EconTalk . Today he interviews Bryan Caplan, author of Myth of The Rational Voter, and recent speaker at an IHS conference I attended. Bryan, having a great exposure to and understanding of the Austrian School of Economics I have great sympathies towards, persuaded me to reconsider buying into the Austrian story wholesale. Here's Robert's blog plug with link to the interview due to broadcast June 25.

Greg Mankiw discusses The Limits of Pigou. What consists of a nuisance which can be considered encroachment, and what is merely bad taste to be ignored? or as he put it: " When does correcting externalities start to offend principles of liberty?" My response: A line seems clearly to be drawn at whether the externality is ignorable or not. But how to deal with the nuisance is a more interesting question. Why employ the state and empower it when individuals can assume responsibility themselves? If your neighbor presents a nuisance, they should be confronted, personally, and tactfully. Allow the Coase proposition to work. Make a deal. Initiate a transaction whereby gains from trade might be captured, and contracts might be established so that property rights are reinforced. By introducing coercion and employing the state we make the assumption that the state ultimately owns all the property and we forfeit our sovereignty. Bad idea. Apply the golden rule.

I got a letter today from Rudi Gulianni. Came through the Jerusalem Post. He wants me to send him money since he's such a good friend of Israel. I like the J-Post. They have some good columnists, and I'm interested in Rabbinical teaching, which they link to. But I gave up Zionism a few years ago. It was a gradual process, but it is inextricable tied to my beliefs about the state. You see, I ardently believe the Scripture where God tells Abraham, "I will bless those that bless you and curse those that curse you," regarding the Jews. I believe the Holocaust was a heinous crime, and that it did occur. But I don't believe God ever intended for there to be a strong centralized state called "Israel." I don't believe Jews were justified in taking land from Palestinians by force in the war which created the nation-State. I think Christians are wrong to support the state of Israel, just as they are wrong to support the United States Government. We ha...

I have heard many recent stories about poor service on airlines lately. I was just at the IHS conference and there was a whole list of horror stories resulting from participant's travel problems. If 10% of travelers are having nightmarish experiences there must be some explanation. Here's the one I offered to my fellow IHS friends: The airlines have appealed more and more to the Federal Government for assistance over the last few years, and this is the kind of service we get. They are insulated from customers because they have artificially low prices due to subsidies. So they poo-poo on us, and we take it, along with the cheap rates. Question: do we prefer the cheap rates, or would we rather have higher quality service? In other words: How much more would you pay to insure a seat on the flight you planned to take with a guarantee that your luggage and belongings will be there waiting for you when you get to your destination unharmed? Does the state have a responsibility to in...

Hello, Jonah Well, hello, Jonah! And - whaddya' know? - I see Geppetto and Pinnochio! It's gettin' crowded, from head to tail. Guess we're all livin' in the belly of the whale. At least it's cozy, and nice and warm. And it gives us shelter from the ragin' storm, N' though I smell trouble, I can say at least, I'm not deeper in the belly of the beast. Refrain: We stumble through this world of darkness, pain and doubt We suffer in this prison, we struggle to get out. With strivin' strength, and study, we might finally find a way. To flee this night and reach the light of day. Verse 2: Hey, now, Gepetto, what's that you've got? As ideas go - hah! - I'd say that's hot. Count me in! I like you're plan, To burn the belly of leviathan Thank you, Jonah, I liked your prayer. But will you now please get over here. You've got to labor, and not just wish. To get out of the belly of the fish. Verse 3: Hurray, brothers! We're fina...

"if we all accept that, then we have to allow that a competent pragmatism might look very different from National Socialism." Exactly, but Mises proved long ago that central planning is always inept. It can never be practical to everyone, it can only be practical to the one making the decision, who is operating without the necessary information. No one can have all the necessary information because it is always changing and it is tied up in all of the various individuals in the society. This is Hayek's argument in The Use of Knowledge in Society. (I'm actually NOT that big a fan of Hayek's, I've just been reading him lately for a conference...) "It has always been understood that applying natural law leads toward a harmonious and prosperous society. That is to say, natural law is pragmatic." Agreed, but the argument presented to me had the direction of causality reversed. It does not flow both ways in the short run. It might in the long run, if chang...

Pragmatism, aka fascism, has as its philosophy "Do whatever seems necessary." Hitler did this, and kept doing it, and kept doing it, until he was a totalitarian dictator, democratically elected. If we do not step outside of what seems necessary and focus on natural rights and incentives, theory, we will make the same mistakes. This was Hayek's argument in The Road To Serfdom, and he was right. As believers we do not practice our ethic because it is practical. We do not abstain from fornication or adultery because it is practical. It is anything but. We do so because we have adopted a peculiar ethic in imitation of Christ. No other reason. Sometimes there are fair consequences for following Christ, sometimes there are dire consequences, according to His decree. We do not look at the consequences, we look at the command to follow Him. The world has no rational ethical imperative for caring for the poor. Some people are altruistic, but this is merely a residual of the imago ...

“Every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” “neither place saying whether or not God saw this as a good thing. Seems a stretch to assume He did.” Seems a stretch to assume He didn’t. The entire context of Judges has the Israelites chasing after pagan gods. Statism was the ultimate form of paganism. Most of the time they WERE following the Lord’s law, living peacefully and doing well. It was the exception when they turned aside to worship idols. If you count the years, of the 400 covered in Judges, only about 25% of the time is there trouble. I agree that human nature is evil, but I believe that during the peaceful times the Israelites were following God’s law and doing well with no other government than the judges. Jesus doesn’t condemn governments? He rejects the political mechanism at every turn. He refuses to become a secular king. He demonstrates the wickedness of government. He insists that his disciples follow him in another way. All governme...

I, also, am opposed to Capital Punishment, but on different grounds. With Capital Punishment there is no opportunity for retribution. Say Joe kills Tom. Tom’s wife, Mary, is now destitute and has no support for her and her children. If we execute Joe, Mary remains in her current condition. If, however, we make Joe pay retribution to Mary, she is relieved, Joe’s dignity is improved, and there more productive individuals participating in society. Now, as Christians, we are in the unique and peculiar position to be able to offer forgiveness, even unconditionally, but this is a new law only for those whom have experienced regeneration, and we ought not to expect or demand this ethic of the world. Moderatelad, True forgiveness does not have to be asked for, “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us.” Indeed the perpetrator is unable to ask for forgiveness until they are already forgiven. The act of forgiveness is done as self-sacrifice in imitation of Christ, ...