A Horribly Misguided Christian Justification for War

2012-03-22 By 2 Comments

To all the Christians who justify modern war by citing the fact that God commanded Israel to fight wars, there is a significant difference between God giving a direct command to his people for a specific purpose, and a secular government choosing to pursue war for its own interests. God has the right to exact revenge and to bring judgment on nations. It is a very dangerous idea to claim that we have the authority to do what God has unequivocally claimed for himself. If you want to find a justification for modern war, this is one of the the weakest arguments you could make as a Christian.

Share via email
Filed Under: Radical Cooperation Tagged With: , ,

Why Not Santorum? Because He’d Be Bush’s Fourth Term.

2012-02-08 By Leave a Comment

Coming on the heels of Rick Santorum’s recent wins in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado, Gene Edward Veith asks “Why not Santorum?“  I greatly enjoyed the response of commenter “Cincinnatus”.  Take a look.

Hold up. Few honest observers now deny that Bush and Obama have governed in dramatically similar ways. Both pursued bailouts, both pursued various landmark big-government social program, both pursued interventionist foreign policies in the Middle East and elsewhere. Both have issued controversial executive orders that consolidate their own power. Both deeply politicized the Justice Department. Both kow-towed to big business and the financial sector. Both attempted to bend the Supreme Court to their will. We can quibble about the details in emphasis, etc., but the point is that the two are largely similar in terms of the governing philosophies.

Meanwhile, Santorum was clearly one of Bush’s strongest allies during his tenure. Indeed, he’s still dancing to the “invade the world” tune. Assuming that I’m right about Obama/Bush–and I’ve yet to see convincing evidence that I’m not–then why am I to believe that Santorum would govern in a way dramatically different from Bush. The story of the Presidency for the past three decades has been a story of the accretion and consolidation of executive power. This is bad no matter which party sits in the White House. Why should I welcome Santorum, obviously a Hamiltonian in terms of his embrace of kingly executive authority, but reject Obama?

Share via email
Filed Under: Radical Cooperation Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Your Christian Conservatism Isn’t

2012-01-02 By 1 Comment

On the way home from the the coffee shop tonight (when your wife is out of the country, you find a lot of ways to kill time), I was listening to The Janet Mefferd Show, a Christian political radio talk show.  The show seems to be on during my commute almost every day, so I’ve had plenty of opportunities to hear it, and I’ve found that this show is a disappointing yet all too common representation of how Christians should not conduct themselves when it comes to politics.  The Bible with which I’m familiar instructs Christians to love their enemies (Matt 5:44, Prov 24:17, Prov 25:21, Rom 12:14-21, Luke 6:27-36, need I go on?).  On the contrary, the typical “Christian conservative” pundit mocks his enemies, attributes to them the most sadistic of motives, and seems to make no effort to understand or accurately depict any viewpoint rather than their own (what’s that about not bearing false witness?).

The problem, I believe, is that too many conservative Christians have so married their faith with their politics that they parrot Republican talking points and somehow delude themselves into thinking that they’re actually expressing Christian doctrine.  They conveniently overlook the fact that conservative politicians are still politicians, and are just as guilty of twisting the truth and manipulating facts for political gain.  They quickly jump from believing that Christians should behave in a certain way to believing that Christians should take control of government to coerce everyone into living a righteous life.  Janet and others like her seem to have confused Sarah Palin for St. Paul.

Note: it is unfortunate that so many people can think in only two dimensions, and therefore it is necessary to point out that I am neither a political liberal nor a Democrat, that I am theologically conservative, that I do not think that any and every lifestyle is “ok”, etc.  I simply do not believe that God has called his followers to use force to make the world in his image.  Christians would do well to test their political beliefs against the Bible, not against Fox News.

Share via email
Filed Under: Radical Cooperation Tagged With: , , , ,

Happy Bill of Rights Day!

2011-12-15 By Leave a Comment

Today, December 15th, is Bill of Rights Day. Too bad our rulers have run that document through the shredder. The Cato Institute has put together a short video showing how our rights are being casually disposed of by those in power.

Bill of Rights Day Video

For more specifics on the loss of our liberties, see the following articles posted today on some other libertarian websites of note:

“Today is Bill of Rights Day” (Cato Institute)

“Bill of Rights. FTW!” (Tenth Amendment Center)

“The Bill of Rights vs the FDA and the NDAA” (Tenth Amendment Center)

“Happy Bill of Rights Day” (Mercatus Center)

Share via email
Filed Under: Radical Cooperation Tagged With: , , , , , ,

On Libertarianism: Answering the Objections

2011-11-30 By Leave a Comment

I’m a libertarian.  Talk to my brother, though, and he’ll tell you about the time I was a hard-core right-winger and told him that libertarians were stupid.  My, how things change.  Over the years, I’ve learned that many of my old objections to libertarianism were either invalid or completely irrelevant, and below you’ll find some handy links that answer nearly any objection you can think of.

“The Mother Lode: 100 Objections to Libertarianism with Libertarian Answers and Rebuttals” (The Humble Libertarian)

Short Answers to the Tough Questions by Mary Ruwart (Advocates for Self Government)

“Myth and Truth About Libertarianism” by Murray Rothbard (Ludwig von Mises Institute)

The most important summary of libertarianism I have found is taken from that last article by Rothbard, and I feel that an understanding of this one point would serve to answer most objections that arise:

The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life.

Share via email
Filed Under: Radical Cooperation Tagged With: , , , , ,

If You Don’t Have Anything Honest to Say, Don’t Do Economics At All

2011-11-28 By Leave a Comment

Once again, economist Brad DeLong conveniently cuts off a quote mid-thought in an attempt to “prove” how crazy/dishonest those kooky Austrians are (for those not aware, “Austrian” is shorthand for a more capital-based school of economics than that of the mainstream).  DeLong uses this half quote to claim that Ludwig von Mises held an absurd cost-of-production theory of value and believed that increased gold production would end a depression while increased paper money would not.  Thankfully, the brilliant Bob Murphy was paying close attention and was able to reveal the rest of the story to show that if anyone is crazy/dishonest, it’s not the Austrians.

Delong’s portion of the quote:

If gold production had been considerably greater than it actually was in recent years, then the drop in prices would have been moderated or perhaps even prevented from appearing.

The full quote:

If gold production had been considerably greater than it actually was in recent years, then the drop in prices would have been moderated or perhaps even prevented from appearing. It would be wrong, however, to assume that the phenomenon of the crisis would not then have occurred.

Looks pretty clear to me.  DeLong’s error is in his assumption that falling prices (deflation) necessarily mean trouble for an economy.  With that assumption in place, it would then be a logical jump to claim that Mises’ view was that anything preventing deflation is therefore a cure for economic depression (that is, if Mises did not specifically state otherwise in the very next sentence).  On the contrary, Austrian economists do not believe that falling prices are necessarily a bad thing in all cases.  Therefore, money production in and of itself (whether paper or commodity-backed) and its resulting increase of prices (inflation) is not viewed by Austrians as a panacea for economic troubles, and no responsible academic would pretend that it was.  Internet libertarians can and have been guilty of similar tactics at times, but I would expect a professional economist like DeLong to be better than that.

For those interested in this sort of thing, Murphy’s blog is always an entertaining read (and his sparring with neo-monetarist Scott Sumner may be of interest to my co-blogger Thomas Schminke).

Share via email
Filed Under: Radical Cooperation Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Why Politicians and the Media Shouldn’t Be Given the Benefit of the Doubt

2011-11-21 By Leave a Comment

One news outlet reports that something may have happened, and before long, the general consensus is that something definitely happened, and that it was worse than initially thought.  Whether it’s WMD in Iraq, swine flu, or Presidential claims that someone is a terrorist, the responsible citizen will question everything and never give politicians and the mainstream media a free pass.

Telephone: MSM Edition

Share via email
Filed Under: Radical Cooperation Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Left and Right: Supporters of Pillage, Enemies of Freedom

2011-10-15 By 2 Comments

You don’t have to be a leftist to see something wrong with the way government bails out its cronies in banking and Big Business.  When you hear mainstream conservatives talking about “free markets”, they’re probably referring to no such thing, but instead describing something more like what is depicted in the cartoon below.

I’m a libertarian because I recognize the truth in economist Walter Williams’ quote:

Liberals believe government should take people’s earnings to give to poor people.  Conservatives disagree.  They think government should confiscate people’s earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one’s property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage.

I’d prefer to live in a society in which pillage is no longer tolerated.

Share via email
Filed Under: Radical Cooperation Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts