A public school system, in itself, is indeed of enormous benefit to the race. But it is of benefit only if it is kept healthy at every moment by the absolutely free possibility of the competition of private schools. A public school system, if it means the providing of free education for those who desire it, is a noteworthy and beneficient achievement of modern times; but when once it becomes monopolistic it is the most perfect instrument of tyranny which has yet been devised. Freedom of thought in the middle ages was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far more effective. Place the lives of children in their formative years, despite the convictions of their parents, under the intimate control of experts appointed by the state, force them to attend schools where the higher aspirations of humanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with the materialism of the day, and it is difficult to see how even the remnants of liberty can subsist.\
… but the signs of the times are all contrary to the maintenance of this halfway position; liberty is certainly held by but a precarious tenure when once its underlying principles have been lost. For a time it looked as though the utilitarianism which came into vogue in the middle of the nineteenth century would be a purely academic matter, without influence upon daily life. But such appearances have proved to be deceptive. The dominant tendency, even in a country like America, which formerly prided itself on its freedom from bureaucratic regulation of the details of life, is toward a drab utilitarianism in which all higher aspirations are to be lost.
Bill Nye recently toured the Ark Encounter, the new exhibit created by Answers in Genesis as part of the Creation Museum. Unsurprisingly, Nye’s evaluation was unfavorable.
Nye’s position is that the exhibit is unscientific. He believes it to be a tool of brainwashing that is hindering the progress of scientific education in our country, particularly as it pertains to combating climate change.
As an atheist, Nye’s worldview is full of holes, logical contradiction, and truths borrowed from the Christian worldview which he seeks to debunk. He can give no rational assurance to himself or anyone else why the claims of science or even his own senses or reason are to be trusted without begging the question. Such is always the case of one who believes that we evolved by random chance through undirected scientific processes over billions of years.
So it is hardly worth our time rebutting him. There is some value in it, but there is danger as well.
But for the sake of our thinking, what are we to say about his claim that the Ark Encounter is unscientific?
Well this all depends on what you mean by scientific.
Answers in Genesis founder and president Ken Ham has poured a great deal of effort into advancing the distinction between Observable science and historical science. This was the crux of his position in the 2014 debate against Nye.
The argument, which has a high degree of merit and yet has not been addressed by Nye or any other critics of creationism, goes that you simply can’t apply modern scientific methods to testing historical claims because they are claims about one-time events that happened in the distant past. You simply can’t use the scientific method here. You can’t conduct an experiment to try to reproduce it in a lab. You can’t peer review the Bible.
Of course here’s the point. The Bible doesn’t need to be peer reviewed. It wasn’t written to be peer reviewed. Because God doesn’t have any peers!
So Ham’s argument is that when Nye and others say that the Bible is unscientific, they are expecting it to meet the same rigors as claims about the efficacy of new drugs, or the physics of gravity/the general theory of relativity, or biology, or chemistry, or any other of the hard sciences we have today.
But because history – not just biblical history – doesn’t work that way, we can’t apply those same rigors. Sure we can do archeology, and we can examine manuscripts. But that usually creates more questions than answers. It certainly leaves large gaps, and what we fill those gaps with is determined more by our presuppositions than hard science.
Nye would probably object that he fills in the gap with hard science. In one sense this is reasonable, but there’s an unprovable presupposition there that this is always appropriate. More to the point, he has to presuppose that the particular facts he imports from hard science are the appropriate ones and are arranged in the appropriate way.
So when it comes to whether the claims of the Bible are true, they simply can’t be tested with the scientific rigor Nye wants them to be.
Should we expect them to be? Here’s what bothers me a bit about creation science. The flood is not only an historical event that took place thousands of years ago, it was a divinely orchestrated event.
The Scriptures are full of things like this. They tell of everything being created from nothing in six days. They tell of a catastrophic worldwide flood. They tell of fire from heaven destroying a city, of the waters of the Red Sea being parted so the Hebrews could cross on dry ground, of the sun standing still, of a man living in the belly of a fish for three days and nights, and of a multitude of people being raised from the dead.
These are not claims of science. They are the mighty acts of the God given to display his transcendent power over the natural world which he created and scientists study . This is the God who made the laws that scientists rely on. He therefore can suspend or change them when he wishes.
These claims require no scientific proof, not that any could ever be forthcoming.
This is not to say that the evidence of science cannot be arranged in a way that demonstrates how it does not actually contradict these claims, as is so often and vociferously argued by Nye and his ilk.
[As an aside…. My own criticism of the Creation Museum was that I wish they would do more of this, or at least would make a more prominent feature of their museum. When I went through it felt like I was walking through a life size diorama of Sunday School illustrations. There are some science bits, but they were tucked off to the side and I had to go looking for them intentionally.
[They also spent a lot of time trying to make it look like atheists are this big conspiracy out to try to attack God and his people. While we know that such a conspiracy is true in one sense – the enemy who has darkened their understanding certainly wages war against God and his people! – individual scientists aren’t necessarily consciously trying to do this. Are they contributing to that war? Sure, but they don’t realize it and wouldn’t claim to be doing that. They are as much victims of it as they are participants in it, and when you accuse them like this, it constitutes an ad hominem or a poisoning of the well. That does sort of put a toe into the brainwashing territory. At the very least in undermines credibility. But I digress.]
But let us not think that by showing how the claims of the Bible are not debunked by science we are somehow proving God’s existence. He doesn’t need us to, and it would be impossible anyway.
That’s not because he doesn’t exist, but because trying to prove God by scientific means is a rigged game and the house always wins.
When we engage in attempts to prove God’s existence to an atheist by scientific means, we enter his home turf and of necessity must employ means that he controls. We must present him with evidence he would consider compelling, but since he is the arbiter of what is compelling, he is going to set that standard such that it is impossible for us to meet.
Better to defend his attacks by showing how he begs the question in trying to disprove God.
Better still to try to deconstruct his worldview to show that it is inherently self-contradictory and relies on the worldview he seeks to debunk in order to make his arguments.
Best of all to love him in Christ, live the light of the gospel out before him, preach the good news to him whenever possible, and pray that God would open his eyes of faith.
Recent events have troubled me, as they should trouble us all. It seems that the hits just keep on coming, and now they’re coming rapid fire. Three incidents in one week!? That’s crazy.
Between Philandor Castile, Alton Sterling, and the Dallas shooting, there’s so much to cover. I’m not here to cover the facts of those case. What can be know, can be learned elsewhere, and there is still much that hasn’t come out yet.
But regardless of the facts of the case, what we are left with is seven men who are no longer among the living and a sickening feeling in our stomachs. Do you feel it? I sure do. All seven of these deaths are, from what I can gather, senseless and unjustified. I don’t know, maybe facts will come out to change that, but I always start with this presumption.
It doesn’t matter the situation. Death is never the ideal outcome. Aggression is never the prescribed course of action. De-escalation is always to be preferred to escalation. These situations all went seriously wrong at some point when someone chose to act with aggression and escalate the situation, and the result was death. Death for an innocent or death for the guilty? We may never know, and if we can know, only time will tell. In any case, I’m left sickened.
But there’s another feeling deep inside me, and that is a feeling that I need to address. It’s the feeling that things are happening. The stuff is hitting the fan, so to speak. I can’t help but feeling that this shooting in Dallas may be a signal of history repeating itself. Could this be the next Lexington and Concord?
It could very well be. Only time will tell, but we may be witnessing history unfold before our eyes. Certainly if the government wants a civil war, they can pretty much guarantee it by their response here. And it would be just what you expect. They will use this as reason to beef up the police state, sowing the seeds of future conflicts with citizens. They will even point to this as justification for the pre-existing police state, ignoring all cause and effect that lead up to it.
How will the State respond to this shooting? Will they escalate? Will they come for guns? Will they enter homes? Will they institute martial law? Will they further militarize police? Willthey involve the police/national guard?
If they do all that, how will Americans respond? In short, is America gonna America?
I can’t help but feel like history is repeating itself, and that a civil war is coming. Maybe not this year, maybe not in the next five years. But can this current conflict go on and continue to escalate without blowing up? I say no. It can’t.
So I find it necessary to clarify that I in no way condone the actions of the sniper. This was a horrible, despicable act of violence that should never be tolerated in civil society. However I may sympathize with his motivations (I don’t know those motivations for certain, not having spoken to him), this is not the way you go about making your point.
These cops were not your enemy. There’s a deep problem in the system. There’s a lot of disagreement about what exactly that problem is or where it comes from, but it cannot be denied that there’s a deep problem in the system. And some cops are part of the problem.
But these cops were not. In fact, they were part of the solution.
I find it necessary to clarify this because many might assume that I’m on his side. I’m not exactly pro-cop. Many people take me for anti-cop. I’m neither. I’m anti-aggression no matter who is involved. A lot of what earns me the “anti-cop” moniker is the way I try to point out that the problems with the system come from even having a system at all. This, naturally, causes people to say, “well then if the problem is with the system itself, then everyone in the system is automatically a part of the problem.”
In one sense you’re right. But in another very important sense, you’re wrong. Dead wrong.
Yes, it’d be awesome if the good guy cops would stand up to the State’s unjust laws and refuse to enforce them, like the midwives in Egypt. It’d be awesome if they would report the misdeeds of their fellow officers to internal affairs and if internal affairs would actually investigate them thoroughly to fully resolve the matter rather than sweeping them under the rug.
In this way, the fact that good cops don’t hold each other or the system accountable is unfortunate, and in one sense could be said to be a part of the problem.
But the problem is much deeper than them. It still lies with the State and the departments they are employed by. I insist that 99.9% of cops out there are among the most upstanding individuals you can find in society who joined the police force out of a genuine desire to bring justice to those who harm the innocent. This is to be commended and honored. Are there bad apples in the bunch? Sure. But it doesn’t mean that the rest are all bad too.
But that doesn’t mean that the system they work for is good. It doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem with the State itself and the departments these officers are forced to work for because of the monopolies maintained by the State.
Good cops are in bad situations because of bad laws.
These officers who were gunned down in Dallas were examples of those good cops. They were stellar examples to boot.
They were shot while on duty serving peacefully to help protect protestors at a demonstration that was being held to protest the police.
Think about that sentence and let it soak in. These were the best of the best, guys. I need to have a word with the shooter here. What do you think you accomplished by shooting these men? What justice do you think was served?
I’m all for justice being served. But this. isn’t. it.
These cops were not the ones who shot Philandro Castile. They didn’t shoot Alton Sterling. They didn’t kill Tamir Rice or Eric Garner. But they were to helping protect the people who were protesting them! And you gunned them down. How shameful and cowardly of you.
And to all you liberty minded folks out there who might be tempted to applaud this, remember: our revolution cannot be waged on any battle field. Our battle cannot be won by force of arms. Why? For two reasons.
The first is that our fundamental principle is Non-Aggression, and War is the exact opposite. We can’t advance the cause of liberty through aggressive means. There’s something to be said for defending ourselves when attacked, but initiating conflict is never to be done, encouraged, or applauded.
Second, cops are not the problem, as I’ve already said. They are not our enemy. The system that uses them as its enforcers is, but that system will use them as front lines of any war we might try to wage. The result would be a catastrophic loss of innocent life on both sides.
Yeah, you’d hope the cops would never go along with the State’s orders, but you gotta remember how strongly they believe in the goodness of the State, and how hard it would be for them to question anything the State says. All the State has to do is call us terrorists or whatever, and that will be all the justification they ever need. Because why would the State ever lie about that? We know they would. Cops, unfortunately, don’t believe that.
Cops are not our enemy. They are a crucially important servant in our society who exists to bring criminals to justice. Except for the handful of bad ones out there, cops generally want to do that job well.
No, cops aren’t the problem. The State is. But what is the State really? I mean, where does it get its power? How does it keep getting away with these attrocities? Because there are far too many people out there who refuse to question the State. The vast majority of people believe that these heinous atrocities committed by the State are somehow justified and necessary.
I mean there’s a lot of outrage that Castile and Sterling were killed. But where’s the outrage about the drug war that imprisons plenty of men and women who weren’t killed. Society is plenty fine with lesser aggressions, because they believe the States’ justifications for them. They’re plenty fine with bombing children in other countries because they’re the enemy.
No the State is not even really the problem. The State is a tiny entity compared to its people. If we simply seceded and withdrew our support from the State, there would be nothing they could do about it.
The problem is the people. Ordinary every day Americans who think that the State is this benevolent agency that only does good things. I mean, we don’t like it when the other party is in power, but even what they do is better than not having a State at all. I mean, who would build the roads, right?
So here’s the point. If Cops aren’t the enemy, but people who continue to believe in the State are, and we’re going to go shoot the enemy, who are you going to shoot? Are you going to shoot your neighbor who’s voting for Hillary? What about the guy who works down the hall who’s voting for Trump?
This is not the way!
No, our “war”, our “revolution”, if it is to succeed, must be won by persuasion. We must peacefully spread the ideas of liberty to those around us. Then, and only then, would the peoples’ support for the State evaporate, and then, and only then, will society find a better way.
This, of course, all casts the best of motives on the shooter. Who knows? Maybe he was just a terrorist? Maybe he was in ISIS? Maybe he was in the mod or from the drug cartel? Who knows?
But it doesn’t matter, because even in the best of cases, we should decry this as senseless and heinous. Also, the result will be the same, nonetheless. The State will likely use this as an excuse to further beef up the Police State. To what extent? We shall see. What will happen as a result? Time will tell.
Was this another Lexington and Concord? Was this a shot heard round the world? I seriously hope not. I would love to live in a truly free society, but war is not the way to achieve that. Plus there’s no guarantee we wouldn’t end up with a Robespierre on the other side.
I would rather these matters can be resolved peacefully. I would rather people come to realize that the State is unnecessary and simply withdraw their consent wherever and however peacefully possible. But I have a strong feeling that the pieces are already in motion, and I think it wise to begin to gird our minds for the coming conflict.
So what should our mindset be as Christians? Which side should we be on here? If there is a war, what should we do? Should we join in on either side?
I say no. We should not choose either side. This is not our war. Our battle is not against flesh and blood. For us, all of this is secondary to our great commission to make disciples. Peter calls us to live as free men, and so we will no matter what.
There’s definitely a common interest between the gospel mission and the liberty revolution, which is why I am a Reformed Libertarian. There’s also a common interest between the gospel and the peace that can be had in society when criminals are brought to justice, as the police, ideally, do. We cannot favor one side or another of this coming conflict. We owe allegiance to neither. Our allegiance belongs to Jesus Christ alone, and his kingdom is not of this world.
While we’re here in the world, though, what should we be doing? Making disciples. Liberty would give us the freedom to that in peace, a privilege we have enjoyed for a long time in this country.
Many have sensed a change in the winds, and as long as the State remains unchecked, those winds will continue to change. So what do we do? Do we make it our mission to check the State? I say no. Our obedience to our great commission is not dependent upon favorable conditions. We are called to faithfulness no matter what.
Further, our battle is not against flesh and blood. We are called to honor the emperor (1 Peter 2) and be subject to his authority (Romans 13).
But let us never confuse this with an obligation to capitulate to his demand that we call evil good and call good evil. We must, as the pillar and buttress of the truth, reserve the right to speak the truth. And when his evils cause the weak to be oppressed around us, shall we remain silent? I say no.
So as long as we have latitude to do so, I say we must proclaim the cause of liberty. It is secondary to the gospel, but it is critically important nonetheless. The two go hand in hand, I believe, for where Christ is regarded as King, allegiance to earthly kings ought rightly to subside.
Our message must begin and end with Jesus as Lord and Savior. But in the middle what are we saying? Are we calling good good and evil evil? I do hope so.
Be wise and vigilant.
It seems to me that the Theonomist argument can be boiled down to the following Syllogism:
P1) God does not change.
P2) If the Law has been abrogated, then God has changed.
C) The Law has not been abrogated.
The Reformed Libertarian objection is with P2. This is not necessarily true. If the purpose for giving the law in the first place was so that it would be a typological and eschatological foreshadow of things to come with the intention all along that it would be abrogated when those things came to fulfillment, then it is not a matter of God changing for him to abrogate the law now that those things have come to be. Rather it is a symptom of God NOT changing that he would be faithful to fulfill that plan.
For example, when Israel committed the sin of the golden calf at Mount Sinai and God was going to wipe them out, Moses interceded for them. He reminded God of his promises, and God appears to change his mind. It almost looks like God is a nearly unhinged human person who Moses talks sense to until he calms down. It even uses a word that is very similar to “repent” for what God does here.
So did God change? Certainly his course of action did! Does this mean he is no longer immutable? No longer simple?
Of course not. It meant that his purpose all along was to evoke this intercessory ministry from Moses. He never really intended to destroy Israel because he knew and sovereignly ordained what would happen. One major reason for this was because it gives us an amazing picture of Jesus’ intercessory work for us.
The same idea or pattern holds here. The judicial/civil Mosaic Law for Israel was meant, in large part, to foreshadow the coming greater Kingdom of Christ. That Kingdom is now here in a different sense, and that sense clearly does not involve using the sword against outsiders (1 Corinthians 5).
So the theonomist argument is not proven by this syllogism. Rather it begs the question of whether God’s purpose was for the law to be a type/foreshadow or whether it was intended to be set in stone for all ages.
And the answer to that question will inform our interpretation of what Jesus means by what he says in Matthew 5:17-18.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
What is meant here by these words “abolish”, “fulfill” and “accomplish”? What we understand the original purpose of the Law to be will inform the definition of those terms, won’t it? It will lead us to a certain view about whether and to what extent Christ’s life, death and resurrection fulfilled and accomplished some or all of it.
The Reformed Libertarian position, from considering the whole of Scripture and especially the whole of the New Testament, is that yes the Law is typological. It has indeed NOT been abolished, but has been, in large part, fulfilled and accomplished by Christ and the New Covenant which it was foreshadowing. There are nuances to this view, but the overall point is the same: The New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace, the Old Covenant (including Abraham’s) were all Covenants of Works with Grace coming retroactively from the New as a foreshadow. All the preceding Covenants were typological of the New and all must be interpreted in light of that typology, including elements like the Law of Moses.
No the Law has not been abolished. Certainly the moral principles of the Law (the standard of God’s holiness it sets forth for all people and especially his covenant people) is very much the same today as it was then, and the Law is inestimably valuable at teaching it to us, for it is God’s holy, infallible, inerrant, and sufficient revelation of it.
Yet it’s application to the New Covenant must take into account the ways in which Christ has fulfilled and accomplished the typology of the way it was applied in the Old Covenant. Therefore the practical application will of necessity look different today (1 Corinthians 5 gives us a hint of this).
And whatever else we believe about baptism or sabbath keeping or the second commandment or whatever…. One thing is crystal clear to us Reformed Libertarians: the standards of the Law are no longer to be enforced in exhaustive detail with the sword by the civil magistrate. For God’s covenant community no longer takes the form of a civil nation. Instead, the purpose of the sword bearing magistrate is to defend the life, person and property of those who “do good” (Romans 13).
This is a cross post from Facebook, but I thought I would preserve it. Somebody asked me for the Theological Reasoning Behind Reformed Libertarianism. So here it is:
1) Man was made in the image of God, the primary characteristic of this being the dominion mandate, meaning that God has given men a stewardship responsibility over their lives and the portion of creation under their control. We are to exercise this dominion in accordance with God’s law and for his glory.(Gen 1, Matt 25)
2) Since other men are conspicuously absent from the rather exhaustive list of things man is to have dominion over, and seeing as how men are to consider the lives (Gen 6:9, Ex 20:13) and property (Ex 20:15,17) of other men to be off-limits, and since God holds each person individually accountable (Matt 25, Ezek 18, 2 Cor 5), it can therefore be concluded that the dominion mandate falls on each person individually.
Therefore each person has the individual responsibility of self-stewardship (which the secularists call self-ownership). This grants each person the duty and human right to exercise the authority incumbent in the dominion mandate over his own life, person and property. To restrict a man’s dominion over such is to offend against the image of God in him, which is really to offend against God. (psst: this is the Non-aggression Principle)
Because sinful men love to offend against God and therefore have no respect for their neighbors, God communicated these standards, first in seed form as part of the Noahic Covenant (Gen 9:6) and later in fuller detail in Exodus 20-24 (though they were clearly in force by the first generation after the fall (Gen 4) though we have no inspired record of them being communicated).
In doing so, God set forth a principle of justice for this fallen world that those who do wrong to their neighbor should be harmed in equal measure to the harm they caused (Ex 21:23-25).
Thus property rights are to be seen as the foundational principle on which the apparatus of justice in a civil society is to be constructed, and by which justice in a civil society is to be measured and evaluated.
As part of that apparatus, God has instituted the role of magistrate in society. The magistrate is anyone who serves other men by bearing the sword against those who wrong their neighbor. (Romans 13:3-4). In doing so, he is not to be “a terror to good conduct”, meaning he is only to bear the sword against those who do evil, as God has defined his role.
Thus, the very maximum any government has theological authorization to do is to serve citizens by aiding them in defending their life, liberty and property and bringing vengeance upon those who agress against them.
Any government that uses its power to break God’s law is a corrupt and invalid government in God’s eyes. Any government that abuses its position to take away the rights of those who’s rights it is tasked with protecting, is no true government at all, but a criminal organization.
We Christians are still called to be ordered under such a government (even Nero), but that does not make such government valid. And in as much as we have influence in the government, as officials or as voters, we ought to use our influence to direct government to follow God’s standard.
The only governments God considers morally valid are the ones who use their sword against wrong doers and only against wrong doers.
Ultimately the only government that will prefectly meet that qualification is King Jesus.
Justice under the sun is always going to be imperfect. However that should not stop us from upholding the perfect standard as the target we are aiming for in our political action.
Now, as stated here, this is a very broad tent under which many forms of government might fit including certain forms of theonomy and a constitutionally limited republic (provided that the constitution is actually founded on these principals and the republic is actually limited by such constitution.)
I believe further logical and exegetical analysis would swing the balance around to favor anarcho-capitalism much more strongly, but I’ll save that for a future post.
For now, it is not so much my aim to convince the world to be Anarcho-Capitalists, though I would love it if that were so. For the time being, it would be sufficient if everyone could simply agree to the founding theological framework I have described here as the grounding for all analysis of government. I think MOST Christians, certainly Reformed ones, DO agree to this, though many have not fully thought through the logical implications of it, and thus are not Anarcho-Capitalists. I think the primary reason for that is a lack of knowledge and clarity about what Anarcho-Capitalism actually IS and what it is not. See Al Mohler for an example of such confusion.
This video is rather old, but it came across my news feed again today, and I figured it warranted comment.
With the hard charge of Bernie Sanders in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, it would seem that this idea of inequality is becoming increasingly more popular.
There’s a major problem with it, though, and that’s that they are looking only at one side of the financial ledger to measure wealth solely by dollar income.
This isn’t all that surprising given that the cultural understanding of economy centers entirely around the government and their attempts to manipulate things through the income tax.
Never mind that the effect of the income tax pales in comparison to the damage done by the Federal Reserve. That really doesn’t matter to most people who remain blissfully unaware of all but what the news media talks about.
So to most people the economy is all about how much is the rich people’s money the government takes to help the poor. Republicans, of course, counter the Democrats’ desire to take it all (Democrats are no true socialists by the way, but that’s off topic), by saying that doing so would stifle the economy.
Why is this bad? To them is because the money won’t trickle down in the form of jobs. So really both sides ultimately measure the health of the economy by how much of the dollar wealth finds its way into the pockets of poor people.
(Kind ironic then, isn’t it, that this is the same government that encourages those poor people to spend their little hearts out by disincentivizing savings while at the same time sapping the purchasing power of what dollars they do have to spend…. But that’s another digression).
So what’s the proper economic analysis here? Is there a problem with this distribution? It certainly seems unfair, doesn’t it? But is it?
No. It’s not. Why not? Because of that whole idea of trickle down.
Of course any time a fiscal conservative mentions the trickle down, the progressives are always quick to point out that the trickle down doesn’t work.
Is that true? No way! The fact is that the trickle down has already worked and this distribution is the proof.
Now that sounds backwards, right? If the trickle down worked, this graph would even out, wouldn’t it?
Well it certainly seems like it would, and that’s what the progressives say world happen. But that’s only because they are incorrectly measuring wealth in terms of income or dollars in a bank account instead of standard of living.
If you look at standard of living and then compare those poorest Americans with people in, say, Rwanda, it’ll put things into proper perspective pretty quickly.
All of this of course begs the question of why any one person has any greater claim than another to any given unit of wealth.
The videographer’s bias (and the one growing increasingly common) is that at a certain point someone has enough and someone else has a greater claim to his excess, because… fairness.
The root of this idea has to do with need. Why does the top 1% NEED all that cash? Certainly if we distributed a chunk of that to the bottom 10% that would significantly increase their standard of living, right?
Or would it?
This whole thing seems to forget what money and income really are. Money is the measure of how much you have enriched the lives of to those around you.
It’s easy to understand when we break it down. If I give you a gallon of milk, and you give me $3, that $3 I have been enriched is roughly equivalent to the amount I have enriched you. My wealth has improved by $3. Yours has improved by $3 worth of milk.
Then suppose I buy a cow and sell all the milk I get from it to not just you but all my other neighbors. Every gallon I sell enriches someone else by $3 worth of milk and enriches me by $3 worth of currency.
Now after a while that currency will start to pile up. Except for the amount I have to spend feeding and keeping my cow healthy, and except for the amount I have to spend on consumable goods and services for my own well-being, that cash is all going to accumulate into a nice pile of dough.
And since that wealth comes from a multitude of sources, if you compare me to any one of my customers, it will appear as though I have a great advantage over them. But that is merely because I serve more people than just that one. To be fair, you would have to compare me to the whole community, and you would have to count all the milk I’ve produced in the balance on their side.
These guys in the top 1% got there because in one way or another they have directly or indirectly enriched the lives of millions of people.
Suppose $1 of every Star Wars ticket found its way into JJ Abrams’ pocket. If a million people went to see the movie, that would be $1 million to Mr Abrams.
It wouldn’t be fair for my neighbors to gang up on me and demand I distribute my pile of cash among them. Why do I owe them anything? I gave them milk.
Similarly, it’s not fair for society to gang up on rich people and demand they redistribute their wealth. Why should they redistribute it?
They gave us Star Wars and iPhones and Facebook and well-stocked grocery stores and cars and loans when we needed to buy a house or pay for college and so on and so forth.
Don’t look at this graph and think only about how much cash is at the top without realizing that that cash got to the top because the guys at the top are responsible for the fact that the guys at the bottom live better than kings did 400 years ago.
The wealth has already trickled down – not in the form of cash, but in the form of standard of living.
Don’t believe me, just look around you! The poor in this country are not that bad off. Some people are truly suffering, but there are almost always circumstances surrounding that, and even the worst of of them are doing pretty well actually.
Again, compare them to people living in Rwanda or the Philippines or Myanmar.
With relatively few exceptions, the poor in the United States (and most of the so called “first world”) have food, clothing and even cell phones and tvs.
But more to the point, because if the efforts of guys at the top, even the poorest in this country have indoor plumbing, electricity, refrigeration, forced air central heating, air conditioning, some firm of automotive transportation, telephones, access to a computer with Internet access, and a thousand other things poor Americans take the granted every day that simply did not exist or at least were not available to the poorest of people even as recently as 100 years ago.
All of these comforts enjoyed by everyone in our society that came about because of the hard work of those at the top.
Sure there’s always going to be a certain handful of exceptions to every rule. But by and large, the pattern is that the guys at the top, though they have indeed amassed a vastly greater sum of cash than everyone else in this country, have done so by serving others.
The implication – or rather the outright statement of this video maker – that the rest of the people are suffering as a result of all this hoarding is patently false. In fact quite the opposite is the truth, because how did these guys amass all this wealth?
They did it by enriching the lives of millions of other people which has drastically improved the standard of living for those who seem to have less.
I apologize for my hiatus. I have been extremely busy on a project for work that has consumed about 75% or more of my time lately. I appreciate you, my faithful readers, sticking with me.
If you’re a fan of economics, you won’t be disappointed today. In response to the news of Martin Shkreli buying the patent to produce the AIDS medication, Daraprim and promptly jacking up the price, I was asked by a friend on Facebook to comment from a Libertarian perspective.
I immediately identified the problem as being the patent. The fact that the government allows this guy to operate a monopoly is what allows him to get away with this.
If there was no patent and the price rose this high naturally, then that would be an indication that there was a shortage of supply in the market. This would signal producers to create more supply. In this particular case, some other pharmaceutical company would create their own version of the drug and compete with this guy, thus eating his lunch if he tries to stubbornly keep his prices higher. Even then, the price might still stay naturally high if demand continues to outweigh supply until more and more companies produce more of the drug and the price eventually comes down.
Of course that cannot happen in this case, because the government has created artificial barriers to enter this market in the form of the patent which makes actually it illegal to produce more of the same thing and FDA screening which requires a lengthy and expensive red tape process to get your product approved by the government before it can be deployed to the market.
So the true bad actor here is the government. Shkreli himself may indeed be a bad actor, but he’s only able to succeed at acting badly because of the environment that the government created, much the same way that Al Capone was only able to succeed at his bad acting because of prohibition.
The funny thing is, when I posted this analysis, my friend objected. His objection?
Don’t get me wrong- intellectual property (and especially copyright) policy in the U.S. is obscene as is… But it also exists for a reason.
Without it… Joe spends years of his life and millions of dollars researching the production and effects of a chemical that solves a particular problem.
I then, nearly overnight, buy a single quantity of this chemical, analyze and replicate it. My costs being significantly lower, I sell it at a fraction of the price, forcing him out of business (in order to compete, he has to eat his development costs, and may never be able to turn a profit at all).
The overhead in creating something is ALWAYS higher than the overhead in copying it…
The irony here is that his objection to my analysis that the government causes this problem by outlawing the practice of poaching products (I’m not sure if that’s a real economic term or not, but I will use it for this article and define it to mean the act of reverse engineering a product for the purpose of bringing an alternate to the market as competition) – which clearly needs to happen in this case – is that without patents, products would be poached!
Despite several attempts to explain that this is a good thing by going over sound economic praxeological analysis of this issue including what prices actually are (in which I tried to dispel the notion that prices are determined by production cost and argue that patents shield innovators from risk causing them to make bad investments in things that may not actually be viable products) he remained firm in his faith that
Price may be set by the market, but if the price is lower than the cost, the product won’t ever get made in the first place.
The cost, in the case of drugs, is cost of development PLUS cost of manufacture. Cost of development is MASSIVE, but only has to be paid by whoever does it first.
With patents, the developer has a massive advantage, because he doesn’t have to worry about competition for a year or few.
Without them, that advantage moves from the developer to EVERYONE BUT the developer…
Without patents, the price will always be lower than the cost, thus, successful businessmen will NEVER innovate, because it’s NEVER worth it, in the cost-benefit analysis.
Thus, your free market stagnates.
Patents exist to provide an extra benefit that might temporarily outweigh that cost. Stripping them away doesn’t free up entrepreneurs to innovate at will… it takes away one of the few reasons to invest (unless they can afford to throw money away on a guaranteed loser, and are doing it for feel-good reasons).
So what do I say to this? Is he right? Would poor old Hypothetical Joe be at the mercy of the sharks in the market if he didn’t have a patent to protect him?
I have written much on this blog and have expounded on many topics and in many ways. My usual mode is to respond to objections to Libertarianism I come across online or in discussions with people. This can be good, but I think what is better is to look to the Scriptures. The Word of God is thrown around quite a lot and can be made to say whatever you want it to say. Like any evidence, it can be interpreted through a bias of presuppositions that lead to error. So I really dislike argumentation that says “Well the Bible says <insert systematic doctrine without proof text.>”.
I’m well aware that I do the same thing. We either do this as an attempt to shoehorn the Bible into the discussion as a lazy appeal to authority, or we are simply trying to be direct and avoid verbosity. Whatever our intentions, at some point these systematic doctrines must be put to the test of Biblical Exegesis. We must be noble Bereans who search the Scriptures to know what it does and does not say so that when we promote some teaching and say it’s from the Bible, we are accurately representing it.
This is my aim. I want to cut through the clutter and the chaff and get to the text. I want to throw out Systematic Theology for a bit and dig into some Biblical Exegesis. This way we can see what the Scriptures actually teach. This way we will know whether a given claim really is from Scripture.
For this reason, I embark on a trek through the Word. I plan to exegete a list of passages that have application to this topic of Civil Government. I’ve already sort of started this with Romans 13, and I think it would be helpful to go through other texts as well. I have a selection of passages that are relevant to the topic that I plan to deal with. If you have any suggestions, I would love to add them to my list.
I will try to keep these brief, and they will in no way be exhaustive. I do not aim to write full dissertations, or even full sermons on each. I do not want to get bogged down into the Greek and Hebrew any more than is necessary. I don’t believe it is all that necessary for the most part. I intend to use the grammatical-historical method to observe what the text says and to draw applications for the arena of Political Philosophy from it. By Political Philosophy, I mean the ethics of human interaction and how society is most justly to be ordered. Some of these may be direct. Others may be indirect.
So let’s dig in and start with Genesis 1:26-28
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
So God created man in his own image
In the image of God he created him;
Male and female he created them.
And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
You might be asking, “What does this have to do with politics?” Quite a lot actually. We see here taught a few key truths about the nature of man that are critical to our discussion. But let’s set aside the question for now. Let’s simply let the text speak plainly to us.
Here on Day 6 of creation, God steps back for a second, looks around at his good creation and says, “Let’s kick this up a notch.” So he creates man and the result is that the creation goes from “good” to “very good”. What’s so special about man? Well, there’s both an ontological and a teleological difference between man and the rest of creation. Ontology deals with the nature of things. Teleology deals with the purpose of things. God reveals both in his statement “Let us make man in our own image.”
But the question is, “what does it mean to be made in the image of God?” There are a lot of ways of trying to answer that question. Many people say “free will”, others say “reason”. But there’s a more foundational reality here that must be the bedrock of any answer we give: Man is God’s self-portrait within the tapestry of his creation. This sets him apart from the rest of creation. Ontologically, man is different from the rest of creation because he bears the likeness of God. Teleologically, man is different from the rest of creation because he has a specific purpose: to bear God’s image.
In what way does man bear God’s image? I find most attempts to answer this question overlook the obvious answer from the text. Man images God by having dominion over creation.
The dominion mandate is given twice in this text. The second time, it comes in the form of a command spoken directly to the man after his creation. But the first time, it is a purpose statement that God speaks to his Triune self while planning the creation of Man. In this purpose statement, he says that man will be made in God’s image and that he will have dominion over the rest of creation. These are not two separate realities. They are inextricably linked. The most basic and direct meaning of being made in God’s image is that we have dominion! This makes sense doesn’t it? God is revealed throughout Scripture as the Sovereign King of all the Universe. Indeed, he created the universe and all that is in it and rules over it all (Psalm 103:19).
So this text reveals man’s primary duty. It is stewardship. Man, in order to glorify God by accurately representing him to his creation, rules over creation on God’s behalf. Man’s dominion over creation does not replace God’s authority over it, but is and ought to be an act of worship and service to God.
The other interpretations of how man images God are valid, but I maintain that these are merely supportive of the primary goal. God rules his creation in wisdom, so man is given wisdom. God has a will, so man is given the power to choose.
Another key aspect is this idea of reproduction. This passage reveals that reproduction is part of this image bearing nature of man. Right in the middle of this discussion of image bearing and dominion, God reveals that he made man male and female. Then he tells man to “be fruitful and multiply.”
Much can be said about this in other respects, but its impact on the dominion mandate is that man would fill the earth in order to subdue it. The procreative act of childbearing is both an imaging of God’s creative power and a means to the end of having dominion over creation. This is a large earth, and no one man can subdue all of it, even in the pre-fall state. So he needs the help of other men so they can divide and conquer. Thus the purpose for procreation is bound up in man’s Ontological nature and Teleological responsibility to image God.
There are several implications of this dominion mandate.
First, the earth and all that is in it, while being God’s property as his creation (Psalm 24:1), is also available for man to treat as his property. Indeed it truly belongs to God, but man’s duty as God’s steward is to subdue and dominate it. More than being just permission for man to take property from the earth, this is a commandment.
Second, since the property is ultimately God’s and man’s dominion authority over this creation is a stewardship of the property for God, then our dominion must be exercised according to God’s wishes. We must rule creation the way God would rule creation and follow his laws if we are to image him appropriately. If we rule creation in a way that is contrary to God’s wishes, then we are in effect telling a lie about who God is. Much can be said about how God wants us to subdue creation, but that is beyond the scope of this analysis.
Third, mankind is conspicuously absent from the list of things dominated. God lists what we are to dominate: the earth itself, fish, birds, and land animals. Nowhere in this does it list dominating other men. This is because mankind is separate from the rest of creation. He is not a thing to be dominated. He dominates.
So what does this have to do with Political Philosophy?
Many have interpreted the dominion mandate as a pre-fall institution of government. I can only agree to this if we accept a certain definition of government. If government is broadly defined as the act of exercising dominion, then okay. But if we limit our definition of government to the exercise of dominion over other men, then I have to disagree. I don’t see that in this passage. It may be objected that we need government to organize a society so we can cooperate to subdue this large planet, but that’s not even remotely true.
First, it doesn’t say that here. Anyone who says this is eisegeting the presuppositions that government schooling has indoctrinated into them. Second, are we really to believe that, before the fall, men with no sin nature and a common language could not have voluntarily and peacefully organized to dominate an earth that was not plagued by the curse without dominating each other? Even the voluntary association of fallen men at Babel was so effective when they had a common language that God himself said, “nothing they purpose to do will be impossible for them.”
I will get into Babel in a later post. For now, I want to confine myself to this text, and I do not any institution of civil government in it. I define “civil government” as men having dominion over other men. We may try to move the goalposts and redefine government. As mentioned, I can agree to government if we define it as having dominion over creation. But I cannot agree to government that includes dominion over other men. In the interest of clarity, I will constrain my use of the term to the act of having dominion over men for now.
A civil government may or may not be a Biblical institution. We will see whether it is in future study. We can’t know that from this passage. But one thing is clear to me. If civil government is a Biblical institution, then it is a post-fall institution. It’s purpose is to deal with the realities of the fact that man is now sinful and the creation is now cursed. We will discuss what those realities are and the ways in which civil government deals with them later.
This is the final implication of Imagio-Dei: Since each man bears God’s image and since men are not, by created natural order, under the dominion of other men, then each man must be left free to carry out his own part in the dominion mandate as his own conscience dictates. We have a duty to respect God’s image in our neighbor. He has a right to life because he receives this from God. He has a right to liberty because he is God’s steward who answers only to God. Even if civil government is a Biblical institution, it ought not violate these rights. As we will see, its very purpose is to uphold these. When we leave men free like this, they will use this freedom to sin. That is unavoidable. He will answer to God for this. What are we to do about it? Is there no space for civil government to restrain such sin? We will see in future studies.