Market musings

I was celebrating my grandparents' 50th wedding anniversary with a stint in Vancouver, Canada, and a cruise of the Alaskan coastline.

As I am prone to do when in cities, I walked around downtown Vancouver every night I was there. I was astonished at how many homeless people lived there. Every time I turned a corner it seemed like I saw a couple more homeless people. I have been to NYC and Chicago and I noticed homeless people there, but nothing nearly on the scale of this phenomenon in British Columbia. Austin has a significant homeless population as well, but even our numbers were dwarfed. Some cities become havens for homeless people, who move from city to city, exploring the various agencies that will feed and clothe them. Then I found a clue:



If you can't make it out, the title on the door reads "The Ministry of Employment and Economic Assistance." Vancouver seems just as interested in Orwellian terms as is our own government, with our own latest hits including the PATRIOT Act and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. I also thought the anteroom looked like something out of Kafka's parable, Vor dem Gesetz.

It would be a mistake to assume that I oppose the results of government assistance organizations. I do question, however, that assumption that the government is doing the best job of helping homeless people out, and if in fact it is not hurting job opportunities for individuals. These sorts of bureaucratic organizations are stopgaps at best, and there are only so many stopgaps that a government can afford (even when it's taxing its taxpayers through the eyes).

Lew Rockwell wrote a nice article about the first month of liberty, a thirty-day transition to a free market economy. Check it out here.

I am gearing up for graduate courses which start Wednesday. I won't be taking any Modern European courses, but I have purchased a few books on the Weimar Republic at a professor's recommendation. We all know that this welfare state crumbled under the weight of the oppressive Treaty of Versailles; but it should be interesting to explore some of the other economic areas as well. I just bought von Mises' Human Action, Socialism, and The Anti-Capitalist Mentality, so it should be nice to read them in conjunction.

I might be more active on the blog as school gets going and the gears get turning; frankly I'm suprised I managed to post after a 10 day vacation . . . from vacation. I'm taking a course on Demonology and Witchcraft (seriously, and I just started reading the Harry Potter series), so hopefully you'll pick up some musings on that as well.

The Human Side of Austrian Economics

Jim Fedako has a great post Forgotten at the Door on the Mises blog. He does a great job explaining the importance of recognizing individuals the way Austrian economists and libertarians do. For all the statist's talk about helping people, he is only helping one imagined group and hurting everyone else. As Ron Paul explains, we need not be concerned with women's rights, gay rights, or minority rights. There should only be individual rights for real individuals, not collective rights for imagined groups.

In addition to writing for Mises.org, Jim Fedako has an excellent blog of his own, Anti-Positivist. I have taken the liberty of adding it to the links list.

Thoughts and Quotations

I'm not sure if Stephen and Ben have felt similarly, but I've wanted to post some thoughts, or perhaps quotations, but they weren't developed into an essay, much like our traditional posts have been. I'll wager they have, though, and I'll start the trend. In true Pensées style, I'll even number them.

1. The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the most important categories for understanding how human beings should relate. Our Triune God exists as one fully unified entity, yet existing in three eternal and distinct, operating in perfect harmony. If we adopted this platform as the basis for our human interactions, we would guard against both evils hyper-individualism and extreme collectivism. Much like splitting the atom, erring in either direction would release two mushrooms in the styles of polytheism or Mormonesque monotheism.

2. I do not know whether the doctrine of the Trinity is more important than the Gospel for relating to others, but I am inclined to that belief, because the Trinity is the source of the Gospel itself. I don't think many would argue that the Gospel created the Trinity.

3. "It is not possible to collapse tastes or time schedules onto one curve and call it consumer preference. Why? Because economic value is subjective to the individual." - Lew Rockwell, in "Why Austrian Economics Matters".

4. "Grant that somehow the government can spot a market failure, the burden of proof is still on the government to demostrate that it can perform the task more efficiently than the market. Austrians [meaning, the economic perspective] would refocus the energy that goes into finding market failures to understanding more about government failures." - ibid.

5. "Far from increasing total welfare, redistributionism diminshes it. By making property and its value less secure, income transfers lessen the benefits of ownership and production, and thus lower the incentives to both." - ibid.

6. "Austrians would eliminate deposit insurance, and not only allow bank runs to occur, but appreciate their potential as a necessary check. There would be no lender of last resort that is, the taxpayer in an Austrian monetary regrime, to bail out bankrupt and illiquid institutions." - ibid.

Exercising Liturgical Resistance

I met Steven Wedgeworth at RUF's Summer Conference in 2004. I was a freshman and he was on track to graduate in a year. Through the years we've kept in touch, and he is currently at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, pursuing Masters of Divinity studies. If Cerberus had a list of heat-seekers, he'd be charted for sure. He also blogs at Wedgewords, and you'll find the link on the sidebar. Steven wrote a guest article on a topic related to some of the political discussion here, and I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

“Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God.” - Never has a motto so stirred emotion and instilled action among conservative Christians. This slogan, combined with the Huguenot political tract Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, was highly influential in both the American war for independence from Great Britain and the second war for independence against the dreaded North.

Ok, that second title is a little tongue-in-cheek, but it is undeniable that both major wars on America’s soil were deeply connected to religious as well as political though. The interesting, perhaps surprising fact, however, is that the slogan “Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God” finds its origin not in Calvin and Knox, but rather Jefferson and Franklin. Indeed, when one inspects Calvin’s political thought a very different conclusion is reached.

Vehemently anti-democratic, Calvin affirms a conservative theocratic position that states that the magistrate, regardless of personal piety or justice, has been instilled with genuine authority from God. Citing Romans 13:1, 2 and 1 Peter 2:13, Calvin soundly declares that the King is a minister of God. In the face of protest, Calvin has this to say:

It may, however, be objected here and said, that kings and magistrates often abuse their power, and exercise tyrannical cruelty rather than justice. Such were almost all the magistrates, when this Epistle was written. To this I answer, that tyrants and those like them, do not produce such effects by their abuse, but that the ordinance of God ever remains in force, as the institution of marriage is not subverted though the wife and the husband were to act in a way not becoming them. However, therefore, men may go astray, yet the end fixed by God cannot be changed. (Commentary on 1 Peter 2:13)

On the other hand, Calvin was no mere absolutist, and he likewise turns the Scriptures back on the King to assert that since he is a minister of God, he is bound to God’s law. The State’s highest goal is to protect the proper worship of God and promote the justice and peace so that the gospel may be freely preached. Calvin was no secularist.

In Calvin’s political theory, the individual citizen expresses dissent primarily through prayer. He is not free to rebel or to engage in civil disobedience, however, he can bring imprecations against oppressive rulers. The fact that some may find this inadequate today perhaps says as much about the contemporary low view of prayer and worship as it does about Calvin’s failure of nerve.

He did, however, allow for the so-called “lesser magistrates” to defend the rights of the oppressed. This concept was picked up again by Samuel Rutherford in the 17th century when he wrote his apology for Scotland’s defensive wars against England, Lex Rex. Writing at the dawn the social-contract theories, Rutherford insisted that the King is in covenant with God, and thus upon violation of the terms of the covenant, the King forfeits his authority.
It is to be noted, though, that Rutherford does not simply call for citizen revolt, but rather he insists that the local officials have the right to enforce the law upon the King. Civilians are allowed the right of self-defense and are free to refuse religious coercion, but they are not given license to break the law.

Perhaps as we move to America we can gain a little perspective as to how rebellion was received. Political theory had advanced since Calvin’s day, and the very structure of society was undergoing major change. The colonies viewed themselves as having their own lesser magistrates, and thus as the King broke covenant, they were just in enforcing negative sanctions. The South was certainly of this mind in the 19th century, as each state understood itself to possess sovereignty.

The question of civil disobedience today, however, usually concerns individuals. In this regard we must emphasize Calvin’s seeming aristocratic disdain as actually quite in keeping with the Biblical concept of submission. As Peter’s first epistle shows, submitting to civil officers follows the same pattern of slaves submitting to masters and wives submitting to husbands (sorry for the context ladies! 1 Peter 3:1). To put a more positive emphasis on this, submission ought to be grounded in the Trinity, as the Son freely submits to the Father. This is not a question of ontology, but rather of order. So likewise our respective submitting and ruling ought to be characterized by love. This, of course, finds great difficulty in godless states.

When the magistrate is not ruling out of love, we are still to submit. We are always allowed the right of self-defense and religious dissent, but in the civil realm we are not to seize authority.

America’s governmental system provides us some assistant of course, and for this we can be thankful. In many respects, democracy makes the individual a type of lesser magistrate. He carries out his vengeance in the voting booth and even in those, often very effective, James Dobson mailing lists.

I would like to return to Calvin’s suggestion of prayer though and go further in expounding the theme of liturgical warfare, perhaps adding a little more “muscle” to our concept of spiritual resistance.

In order to find the notion of prayer as resistance satisfactory to our activist cravings, we should consider the way in which God grants vengeance (Rom. 12:19, Rev. 6:10). Paul, quoting Solomon, says that when we feed our enemies, we heap burning coals on their heads (Rom. 12: 20). What are we to make of this? Is this “spiritual talk”?

As one studies the Hebraic background for this, he quickly understands just how “earthy” this concept is. Psalm 3: 7 speaks of Yahweh breaking the teeth of the ungodly. Psalm 10: 2 asks God to cause the wicked men’s plots to backfire. Psalm 21 pleas for multigenerational judgment. Psalm 109: 6 even asks that Satan be set up as the wicked’s judge.

As we read the Revelation of St. John with this Hebraic understanding of liturgical warfare, we see that all heaven breaks loose when the saints bring their prayers before the Lord. The cosmos is engaged in warfare, and vengeance- real vengeance- is the Lord’s.

It is certainly true that good citizens are well within their rights to engage in lawful activism. We can make petitions, write congressman, even hold public gatherings, but when it comes to violent resistance against the government, Christians should conduct this sort of warfare in the Spirit. Our weapons are not carnal swords and guns. They are actually much more devastating. The Church holds the power over generations, and is entrusted with the baptism of the nations. It is not a political entity, but neither is it a-political. The Psalter is a great place to begin, and the congregation of the faithful is always marching are the Church militant on earth. Our message is more than political. It is cosmic.

There is another king, Jesus.

Constitutional Limitation of Alabama's Government

Alabama residents should find this particularly interesting.

Article I, Section 35 of the Constitution of Alabama states, "That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression."

Endgames

The major topic of the 2008 Presidential Elections seems to be the war in Iraq, or issues related to that overarching argument, whether it's torture, the PATRIOT Act, or the concept of wire-tapping. Only two of the candidates for the Republican and Democrat parties voted against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, with individuals like Barack Obama not having served in the legislature at the time of the vote. Nearly everyone else has openly supported the war at some point in their careers, and many continue to support it still.

There are a variety of endgames which could occur, depending on which candidate is elected.

If a mainstream Republican wins, the war will most likely continue with a blue legislature demanding benchmarks. An unlikely event would involve an invasion of Iran. As much as the mainstreamers hate Iran, if they're mainstream they hopefully have enough political savvy to realize we all might riot at that point. If a mainstreamer wins, I'm going to practice tying bandanas on my face. Humor aside, this second option would almost guarantee that the Republican party would become unelectable for a time.

Mainstream Democrats are a bit harder to call. One pundit, and I forget who it was, suggested three ending scenarios for Democrats and Iraq. The second is that Democrat is elected on a withdrawal platform, and faced with all of the information about Iraq, switches positions and uses the benchmarks idea, but keeps our troops in the area (and perhaps even surges). This could really gum up the party, and it would be interesting to see what would happen to our blue friends as a result.

The second possibility is that a Democrat withdraws the troops and permits Iraq to have a civil war (and we just don't see enough of those these days). If troops are withdrawn, we can certainly expect this to happen. The resulting conflict would then be blamed on Democrats for withdrawing, not for Bush's invasion, and that would be a credible assessment. This would render the Democrats, like any Iran-invading Republicans, in a supremely unelectable position.

The third option, if I remember it correctly, is that Democrats would withdraw and Iraq would get it together. Since we've established a democracy (an irony in itself), it is highly unlikely that Iraqis would get behind a political tradition almost completely foreign to their regional history.

Other possibilities would involve breaking Iraq up into three districts for Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia Muslims. Dennis Kucinich, the other Congressman in the running, also has a somewhat detailed plan for withdrawing.

When it comes to the war, I have a harder time accepting Ron Paul's approach than any of his other ideas. He advocates a quick troop withdrawal. He thinks that our military presence keeps lesser extremists in check, but at the same time it keeps Iraqi politicians from taking steps towards independence or even decent responsibility. If we withdraw, Paul suggests, the Iraqis will have to govern themselves because of the grizzly alternative. I'm not sure that this concept is present in the minds of the Iraqi public. Between dictatorial rule for a couple of decades and Islamic traditions that usually have monarchic/theocratic rule, I doubt self-interest will enter into the equation for your average Iraqi citizen.

In short, I'm still not sold on any Iraq war plan. I don't like the idea of staying there, but there are a lot of risks involved in leaving. I do think we invaded a sovereign nation under false allegations, or failing those WMD-charges, poor rationale. While the functional history might judge George W. Bush as a decent president for offing a dictator, ideological types like myself will still be nauseated for quite some time.

Dangerous History

"The gospel narratives are historical." - Yes, but in what sense do they offer us history? While seeming to be historical, they take on a very religious character as well. One might think that they offer us history as a backdrop for the religious meanings merely; one might think alternatively that that the gospel narratives offer us history merely, leaving the religious meanings as colossal hostages to fortune. So in what sense do the gospel narratives offer us history? Because this question, in our society at least, is bound up with questions of how they offer us religious meanings, we perhaps can see that the two questions can share one and the same answer. Or perhaps not. But I wish that the following be construed, not as an answer to either question or even to both, but as an answer based on one question that can be asked in two different ways. That question may or may not bet he same for everyone.

The gospels do not offer us history in the way that a window offers a view. Looking out at the window next to me I can see a green field with tall trees growing in an beside, and across the street there are more trees on one side, and buildings on the other. The trees are moving in the wind, especially the younger ones. It is easy -- in fact, I did this without at first realizing what I was doing -- to take this scene as a template for my own scene: I fill in details such as temperature, humidity, and the mood of the human members of the scene with my own ideals. Depending on which details I supply and how I supply them, the scene can be anywhere on the spectrum from idyllic to unattractive. But whatever I do, I turn the view from the window into something only like the experience I would have were I actually outside in the sweltering heat and amid the fumes of automobiles. There is nothing particularly wrong in this instance with projecting myself onto the scene in this way (it can even enhance ones enjoyment of particular aspects of the scene, such as the swaying of the trees in the wind, for example), as long as I refrain from insisting that my friend imagine the scene his eyes bring him to be a certain temperature, while he prefers to imagine another. But the gospels do not offer us history in this way, in the way a window offers us a view of a scene.

I have heard a man remark that one can turn philosophy into the study of the (mere) history of philosophy, thereby removing its "fangs". To be sure there are pictures of fangs, but nothing that bites. This surely is an accurate picture of what might happen when we study someone like Moses Maimonides or Avicenna. Even the study of figures who still have great influence today can be defanged -- read an encyclopedia article on , say, Muhammad or Wittgenstein. It is possible even to produce a story of Jesus that is thus without the potential to "bite" us. But the gospel narratives do not offer us history in this way, in the way that defangs events by making them mere history.

How then do the gospels offer us history? What are the "fangs" of the events, the details of the scene that we cannot get from a window-view? The non-windowish way in which the gospels narratives offer us history is the way they offer us more than a picture of the political and cultural affairs of first-century Palestine: in some way this is also our story, these are our affairs. They reach out and sink their teeth into us by immersing all history, previous and subsequent, in their meaning. These are ancient events, but they are contemporary, more relevant to the present than the present itself. History they are, happening in space and time, but they do not stay as merely such, ready to be interpreted in whatever way strikes our fancy (as with the window-scene). They sink their teeth into our flesh by sinking our heart, mind, soul and strength into the event and its meaning -- and its Meaner. It is in this that they have significance religious and historical at the same time: they offer us themselves, and by so doing they offer us the Messiah.