Nathanael D Snow

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 ...