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...