Nathanael D Snow

“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, ...

and so are you.

Governments don't define our rights, they restrict them. They take them away. They define the boundaries within which they will allow us to exercise our rights. In social contract theory we say that we exchange the exercise of some of our rights for the protection of the rest. I think that's bogus too. In practice most people do accept the premise that the state defines their rights. Wherever this is the prevalent mindset people will find their rights even further encroached upon. We must learn that the state doesn't charge taxes to pay for programs, but that the state creates programs as an excuse to tax. Again, I contend that freedom of speech is not a right in and of itself. Your question has to do with a poor person without any property upon which to protest. Who cares? Why should I care whether a poor person is poor? Why should I care if they have a right to protest? Why should I give a skinny rat's ass? If he cannot afford any property upon which to protest then ...

Speech is tricky in this way. I can only think of it like this: You offer your words, but your friend may reject them. How often do we do this in our relationships? Our parents offer us constant advice, but we reject much of it. Someone offers us evidence to prove their argument, and if we agree we say, "I'll buy that." We have the right to our labor, to offer our words as a product of our though-work. We do not have an entitlement to be heard. A protester is on the street corner shouting about the evils of big business. If the news services do not report their protest, have the protester's rights been violated? One might say that their right to free speech has. But this is unworkable. If everyone had the right to have their protests published, the newspaper would be full of nothing else until the newspaper were run out of business. You are including emotions as a measure of the market in your example. In other words you are assuming that I give a damn about what yo...

Property is the fruit of one's labor. You work, what you earn is your property. You have a right to the fruit of your labor, to keep it or to exchange it. Even if one does not own land, even in the economic sense, one still owns their labor. These are consistent with and dependent on one's ownership of one's self. Hence we demonstrate that life, liberty (labor), and property are consistent with one another and with themselves. If we attempt to add another value, such as speech per above, or more commonly (and disastrously) equality, we erode the others and the result is an inconsistency. Our natural rights are those few which have been demonstrated to be consistent with one another and with the nature of man. By understanding equality and freedom of speech to be values we speak of them as economic goods - having "value". The natural rights are not economic goods, where they are treated as such we violate the nature of man and the result is unworkable. By treating ...

I'd like to think that there are certain consistencies within the nature of man, which upon careful examination, can help to determine under what circumstances man is most likely to flourish. Enlightenment writers were attempting to perform this examination. Each society, in fact, does the same. The differences we observe from one group to another reflect the differences in methodology used to approach the question. We might say that some societies have certainly come closer to full discovery than others as evidenced by the degree of dignity reflected in the men of that group. We may continue to compare the various circumstantial and historical narratives which have brought various societies to their current positions, but this leaves us without a first cause. We must examine the nature of man and decide what he is. I submit the Misesian story: man is first and foremost an actor.

I don't follow Christ because he promises abundance here or later. I follow Him because I accepted His call to follow Him. I don't expect anything out of the deal except the cross to bear which is required of His disciples. Efficiency arguments in favor of Christianity are devoid of virtue. If it turns out that there are favorable utilitarian consequences to following Christ these are mere fringe benefits and they are not guaranteed. For example: When we tell kids to abstain from premarital sex because it keeps them safe from STDs and unwanted pregnancy we destroy the celebration and sacrament of sex and construct an artificial and easily undermined reason for abstinence. If we rather declare that we abstain in order to demonstrate the peculiar ethic given to us by Christ, and in recognition of the symbol that sex is, a reflection of the relationship between Christ and ourselves, then every decision to abstain becomes pregnant with meaning. The deci...

Why does radio suck? Why are we only offered the same 200 or so songs everyday. I used to think that my day would be incomplete if I did not hear Wilson-Phillips "It's Gonna Be Alright". Now every time I get into my car to drive to school I hear a song by AC/DC. And somehow, I find that refreshing. Probably because I never listened to AC/DC before. Well, once again, we have the government to thank. Why are there gaps between radio stations? Why does my dial scan from 88.1 to 89.7 without stopping somewhere in between? Why are all the signals on odd decimal numbers? What if you saw the same phenomenon on a city block? There's a house at 102, but lots 104-112 are empty, until you get to 114. First of all, we haven't built ANY houses across the street! Secondly, we only see this sort of thing in two places: 1. Cary, 2. Durham. In Cary new houses are being built, so the emptiness of the lots is temporary. They are owned and slated for development. In Durha...

I've been writing a good bit lately, just not here. Try me over at: Anthony Bradley God's Politics Newmark's Door The College Guy Facebook and Branjawn http://branjawn.wordpress.com/ where we've been having a great discussion about immigration.