tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37268780946074992152024-03-14T01:21:32.171-07:00Letter of Liberty: A Blog on Libertarian Christian ThoughtAnand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.comBlogger265125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-43297426621626994812014-09-12T09:39:00.003-07:002014-09-15T10:06:39.728-07:00Anand Venigalla at LibertyFest NYC!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Letter of Liberty's host, Anand Venigalla, will be speaking at the <a href="http://lfnyc.com/">LibertyFest</a> in New York City!<br>
<br>
He will discuss on how he, a homeschooled teen, went from a conservative Christian to an anarcho-capitalist Christian, the ideological ups and downs he faced, and how he learned to reconcile his faith with his libertarianism.<br>
<br>
Discount Code is VENIGALLA. Registration is <a href="https://www.eventbrite.com/e/libertyfest-nyc-5-tickets-10326427623">here</a>.<br>
<br>
The event takes place at <a href="http://warsawconcerts.com/">Warsaw Hall</a> in Brooklyn, NY. The host is Ian Cioffi, and speakers would include Tom Woods, Jeffrey Tucker, Robert Murphy, Tatiana Moroz, Derrick Broze, Marcel Fontaine, Stephan Kinsella, Gary Johnson, Scott Horton, Kevin Gutzman and others.<br>
<br></div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-82747999097795948862014-07-17T20:06:00.001-07:002014-07-17T20:16:13.280-07:00For the Love of God, STOP Standing with Israel<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>by Jeff Godley</b></div>
<br />
My Facebook feed has been inundated in the last week with posts expressing support for Israel.<br />
<br />
Of all the well-intentioned-yet-hopelessly-misguided political sentiments out there, "Stand with Israel" is among the worst. Westerners should not be standing with Israel; nor should they should be standing with Palestine. Westerners should be staying out of this conflict altogether and stop trying to impose their own will on affairs in the Middle East. <br />
<br />
Here are a few reasons why you should stop "Standing with Israel."<br />
<br />
<b>1. It makes the situation worse. </b><br />
<br />
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Israel <i>really is </i>"the good guy" and Palestine <i>really is </i>"the bad guy." If Palestine really is committing unprovoked aggression against Israeli civilians, is having leaders from all the most powerful nations publicly state that they stand against Palestine likely to make the Palestinians see reason? Or is it more likely that this will simply make them desperate and lead them to redouble their efforts? This is hardly a fair question; a dangerous animal when cornered is more dangerous still - so why are we in such a rush to force Palestine into a corner?<br />
<br />
<b>2. It promotes entangling alliances</b><br />
<br />
Idle words and political posturing are bad enough on their own. However, if recent history is any indication, expressions of political commitment may all-too-easily escalate to military commitment. Politicians who trumpet that they "Stand with Israel" may soon have their bluff called and asked to put their troops where their mouth is.<br />
<br />
The conflict between over the Holy Land has been ongoing since the 7th Century. Do we truly believe that <i>this time</i> if we just send some people with guns into the region we will achieve lasting peace? Every time the West marches into the Middle East to "keep peace" they create more chaos and bloodshed. Even if our motives were pure each time, at what point will learn from our mistakes and admit that maybe, just maybe, our presence in the region will NOT make the situation any better?<br />
<br />
<b>3. It decreases security at home </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Westerners have been sold the bald-faced lie that terrorist attacks against Western nations are because terrorists "hate us for our freedoms." The truth is, terrorism is retaliation for the West's decades-long political and military intervention into the Middle East. Indeed, such "hippie" "peacenik" organizations as the CIA and the 9/11 commission have identified "blowback" (the politically correct way of saying "they hate us because we won't leave them alone") as a primary cause of the attacks of September 11th.<br />
<br />
If China decided that it wanted to install a leader in Canada who was "friendly to the East" or if Russia invaded the U.S to "make the world safe for dictatorship," I imagine the idea would not sit entirely well with the citizens of those countries. But that is precisely what the Western world has done in the Middle East for the better part of a century. They hate us because we try to rule their countries in a way that best suits us. And we wonder why they attack us.<br />
<br />
Intervening in the Middle East does not make Israel safe, and it certainly doesn't make us safe either.<br />
<br />
<b>4. It is bad for Christians in Palestine</b><br />
<br />
Many of those who are "standing with Israel" are professing Christians, who invoke the idea that the Jews are "God's people" to justify their support of Israel. If so, what about God's "other" people - the many Christians in the Middle East?<br />
<br />
Fact: there are far more Palestinian Christians than their are Israeli Christians. Fact: Palestinian Christians are not well-treated. Fact: every time conflict between Israel and Palestine breaks out in earnest, Christians are persecuted even more heavily. By "standing with Israel" Christians are choosing to stand against their brothers and sisters in Palestine.<br />
<br />
<b>The better path: non-intervention. </b><br />
<br />
As long as Western nations continue choosing sides in border disputes that do not involve them, war will be the daily reality for countless millions of people. If we truly take pity on the victims of war, we must accept responsibility for our own part in creating that reality - by interfering in international disputes we provoke war, we make war worse and we keep wars going.<br />
<br />
Ron Paul said it best: the West serves foreign nations best when it stops inserting itself into their affairs. Be friends to other nations, trade freely with them, take no sides in any of their conflicts, and set an example of peace. That is how we ought to treat Palestine. If we won't stop provoking other nations, why should they? </div>
Jeff Godleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030812278817351445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-89000140751996218472014-07-09T10:45:00.002-07:002014-07-23T08:00:07.860-07:00The Problem of Depravity: Why Human Evil is Not a Case for Minarchism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b><i>Anand, the proprietor of this blog, is on a hiatus from writing. In his absence, he has agreed to allow me, Jeff Godley, to continue writing content of my own. </i></b><br />
<br />
In one sense, the gap between libertarian minarchism and libertarian anarchism is negligible: both groups generally agree on major policy issues, such as ending the wars, ending the Fed, stopping the drug war, and getting the government out of education and healthcare.<br />
<br />
Yet the way the two groups communicate, in another sense they are very far apart, indeed.<br />
<br />
I don't intend this to be yet another "anarchists are right, minarchists are wrong" post. Time enough for that later. My goal here is to help the two camps debate in good faith, and to ensure both groups are making the strongest case possible for their positions. If our goal is the pursuit of truth, neither anarchist nor minarchist will be well served by endlessly repeating bad arguments.<br />
<br />
To that end, I want to take a look at a common minarchist objection to an anarchist society: the problem of depravity. It usually takes this form:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Anarchism may work in theory, but it is not for the real world; men are not angels. Some form of government is necessary to maintain order among people, stop invading armies, and apprehend violent criminals. Government is a necessary evil. </blockquote>
The problem with this argument is not it's inaccurate portrayal of humankind - no anarchist, after all, denies that men are not angels - but rather that its application is completely arbitrary. It takes a true statement ("men are not angels") and uses it to object to anarchism while ignoring the fact that the same argument is just as true of their own position. <br />
<br />
When an anarchist challenges the minarchist, arguing that the "men are not angels" standard applies to those who are in government, the minarchist typically replies along these lines:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
That is why the citizens must exercise eternal vigilance over the government; that is why we need to elect good leaders; that is why we have checks and balances; that is why we have need to follow the Constitution. </blockquote>
Perhaps that is true; but the minarchist is arbitrarily choosing not to apply the "men are not angels" standard here. "Men are not angels" is supposedly anarchism's kryptonite - but only because minarchists fail to apply the standard consistently to their own position. If these sinful men are not be fit to govern themselves, how is it that they are fit to keep watch over government, judge who is a "good" leader, institute and uphold checks and balances and write and enforce constitutions?<br />
<br />
If we accept the minarchist standard as applied to anarchism, we have to say that - since there is no ultimate guarantee that men can or will exercise any of these duties faithfully - men are just as unfit to be part of a minarchist order as they are to be part of an anarchist one.<br />
<br />
The point is this: human depravity is a problem for <i>every</i> legal system. Every time Person A devises a system of legal order, whether it is centralized or polycentric, forced or voluntary, Person B can (quite correctly), raise the objection "how do we know that the people providing the order will do so properly?!?" So Person A devises a mechanism by which the legal consumers can ensure the best quality from the legal producers. Then Person B can object, "how do we know that the people responsible for this mechanism will do so properly?!?" So then Person A......<br />
<br />
This kind of <i>reductio ad infinitum </i>is possible no matter what legal system one argues. Pointing it out is not a good argument, since it applies equally well to both sides of the debate. As long as the human will is involved in your legal system, there is the strong possibility it will fail, and fail miserably. There exist no iron-clad guarantees of perfection in any legal system. The point is not "men are not angels; therefore minarchism." Neither is the point "men are not angels; therefore anarchism." Rather, men are not angels; therefore... nothing at all.<br />
<br />
Anarchists and minarchists need not always agree, and debate between the two camps helps clarify what we believe about government - a necessary and inevitable evil? a boon to humanity? or a destructive parasite with no justification? This is a valid question and one worth debating.<br />
<br />
But in this debate not all arguments are created equal. Minarchists do not help their case by applying an arbitrary standard of human depravity. They should take care, lest they fall into their own trap.<br />
<br /></div>
Jeff Godleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030812278817351445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-6865089794139915032014-05-31T08:03:00.000-07:002014-06-02T07:15:41.582-07:00On Sarah Palin's Waterboarding Statement<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Recently, conservative Christian and former GOP presidential candidate Sarah Palin recently made a joke regarding waterboarding. She <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/palin-tells-nra-members-waterboarding-how">said to the National Rifle Association (NRA)</a>, "<span style="background-color: white; color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 15px;">[W]aterboarding is how we [would] baptize terrorists.”</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">And not everyone greeted it kindly. Many of us in the libertarian blogosphere condemned it as blasphemous and immoral of her to make a horrendous joke. And others also joined us in the (deserved) condemnation party. However, her fans were trying to argue that such condemnation was resembling of political correctness, that her statement was really a joke, and that we condemners are all just stupid for saying such. The great William N. Grigg rightfully referred to her as <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/nuremberg-barbies-blasphemous-punchline/">"Nuremberg Barbie"</a>.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">However, I believe that Sarah Palin's awful joke is not only representative of Palin herself, but her defenders are reflective of a pretty big chunk of the evangelical Christian population, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html">most of whom believe that torture by the U.S. government against terrorist suspects is acceptable in some or all circumstances</a>. It is representative of the hypocrisy of believing in limited government and limitation on power except with regard to those whom the government suspects as being enemies and terrorists. It is also representative of a seriously blasphemous joke in comparing water-torture used against suspects to the sign of regeneration that all Christians have participated in. In some ways, it represents the darker spirit of modern day conservatism and especially religious-right conservatism, the desire to use control for grand purposes. Such motive is bound to failure and often is rooted in selfish purposes and desires.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>The Real Danger of the Statement</b></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><br /></b></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The statement itself, even if it were a joke, is very wrong, because it jokingly refers to what is essentially an act of torture (or "enhanced interrogation," for those desensitized enough to call it such) as a sign of regeneration that is only for Christians. It views torture as a sign of purification for the torture victim. And it represents a sign of gung-ho American nationalist statism which has pervaded much of modern conservatism—especially in some of the more grassroots elements of conservatism, especially in the Tea Party.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px;">First, waterboarding itself is torture. Yes, it may be "helpful" in obtaining information, but it's still essentially torture. Laurence Vance <a href="http://archive.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance172.html">says of torture</a>:</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;">Rather than saving American lives, the torture of Muslim prisoners serves as a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist organizations. Yes, the crimes of terrorists are many. But why give them reasons to commit more of them? "If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable in situations of grave or imminent danger, we drive those undecideds into the arms of the enemy," says former commandant of the Marine Corps </span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602395.html" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; text-decoration: none;">Charles C. Krulak</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;">.</span></blockquote>
Second, this statement reeks of a belief that torturing a terrorist suspect in order to get information is justified and moral. This view was held by a majority of conservative and neoconservative Christians (though some neocons did say that waterboarding was torture). Some would even say that it isn't "torture" because we are doing it for right reasons and right purposes. However, this was held as torture when other nation-states like imperial Japan and Soviet Russia exercised such actions. Why should it be different when Israel, U.S.A., or Great Britain does it?<br />
<br />
Third, I believe that even if Sarah Palin was joking (as her defenders would argue) and that her detractors are all wooly-hearted pinkos, I still don't believe that that justifies her statement. It's still wrong, and it still reflects a darker trend in much of conservatism that has existed since the history of conservatism: the state, while imperfect, is the locus of social order, and thus almost any means are justified in keeping order. That includes waterboarding, torture, or any thing that is deemed "strong" enough for the state to exercise and assert its power. However, the danger of this is summed up in Lord Acton's statement: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." If the State has the power to exercise torture against those deemed "bad," then it can be used to exercise it against those who are innocent but whom the state deems as enemies. Also, as Murray Rothbard argues in <i><a href="http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twelve.asp">The Ethics of Liberty</a></i>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">In every crime, in every invasion of rights, from the most negligible breach of contract up to murder, there are always two parties (or sets of parties) involved: the victim (the plaintiff) and the alleged criminal (the defendant). The purpose of every judicial proceeding is to find, as best we can, </span><em style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">who</em><span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"> the criminal is or is not in any given case. Generally, these judicial rules make for the most widely acceptable means of finding out who the criminals may be. But the libertarian has one overriding </span><em style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">caveat</em><span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"> on these procedures: no force may be used against non-criminals. For any physical force used against a non-criminal is an invasion of that innocent person’s rights, and is therefore itself criminal and impermissible. Take, for example, the police practice of beating and torturing suspects—or, at least, of tapping their wires. People who object to these practices are invariably accused by conservatives of “coddling criminals.” But the whole point is that we </span><em style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">don’t know</em><span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"> if these are criminals or not, and until convicted, they must be presumed not to be criminals and to enjoy all the rights of the innocent: in the words of the famous phrase, “they are innocent until proven guilty.” (The only exception would be a victim exerting self-defense on the spot against an aggressor, for he </span><em style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">knows</em><span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"> that the criminal is invading his home.) “Coddling criminals” then becomes, in actuality, making sure that police do not criminally invade the rights of self-ownership of presumptive innocents whom they suspect of crime. In that case, the “coddler,” and the restrainer of the police, proves to be far more of a genuine defender of property rights than is the conservative.</span></blockquote>
This means that preventing torture is not "coddling" the terrorist but rather being careful in the use of force and coercion. Opposing waterboarding and other state exercises of violence against terrorist suspects is not equivalent to coddling criminals or supporting terrorism, despite what some conservative extremists would have you believe. It is an upholding of the Bill of Rights, of libertarian rights, and of good morality and values. Terrorism, however heinous and politically motivated, can't be compared to the act of invasive warfare from another State or army. Terrorists usually act on grievances and are often individuals not connected with a State. They may be celebrated by a certain State, but that doesn't necessarily make them State-endorsed. They often act independently of any state apparatus. Thus, terrorism isn't an act of war and shouldn't be treated as such. And that includes wiretapping, which is a criminal invasion of property rights.<br />
<br />
Sarah Palin's statement rejects this, and her bad joke is a reflection on it.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Feel free to leave your comments at the comment section. They are welcome.</b></i></div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-26234726331445854562014-05-31T07:30:00.001-07:002014-05-31T08:05:12.492-07:00A Definition of Freedom<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
My <a href="https://www.facebook.com/anand.venigalla/posts/1424192007857023">newest FB post</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The definition of freedom is the absence of invasion against a man's person or property. This is the libertarian definition of freedom—not FDR's Second Bill of Rights, not a "right to healthcare," not fiscal conservatism/social liberalism (like some libertarians have mistakenly defined liberty, and not even lawlessness. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The only limit on the liberty of mankind is that man doesn't initiate force/aggress against other person's life, liberty or property. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Violence is only compatible with liberty in (1) self defense, (2) defense of other's person and property, (3) retribution proportionate to the crime committed (if someone stole something from you, you would have the right to forcibly take it back from them), and (4) resistance against entrenched aggression and exploitation. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The libertarian definition of liberty is represented by the nonaggression principle/axiom (NAP), which means that no man has the right to commit aggression against the life, liberty and property of another person. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The NAP is not so much a holistic guide on life (like Christianity, Epicureanism, Stoicism, etc.) as it is a political ethic dealing with the use of force in society. It is a basic human rule of which its violation would require special justification.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>As for "absolute" freedom, the libertarian definition doesn't necessarily allow for freedom from all rules; it argues for freedom from invasion and aggression. This negative freedom is and should be absolute.</i></blockquote>
I would also add that positive freedom—the right to something—doesn't count. Positive freedom usually includes a right to a job, a right not to be mocked, a right to healthcare, a right to a house, and such things. However, this would have to lead to the initiation of force through taxation and violence in order to grant these positive liberties. Negative liberty—libertarian freedom—avoids these problems. Negative liberty simply allows for the person to freely pursue whatever goals he desires provided that he doesn't initiate force and violate others' rights in the process of doing so. That doesn't mean his goals are entirely noble or worthy of emulation, but as long as those goals don't involve the initation of force/aggression, then the pursuit of such should not be punished with force.<br />
<br />
This is not intended to be a scholarly post, but a little post describing the libertarian meaning of freedom in order to clarify why libertarians believe what they believe.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Feel free to leave your comments at the comment section. They are welcome.</b></i></div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-11601817552071505822014-05-30T20:08:00.001-07:002014-05-31T08:25:35.119-07:00A Biblical Case for Libertarianism (Part 1) - Law, Ethics, Morality and the Bible<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A word from C. Jay Engel, a good friend and a Christian anarcho-capitalist: <span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><i><b>Very good job Anand. [Y]ou are becoming more articulate and understanding the arguments much better. </b></i></span><i style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><b>Overall, I think it is a fine piece. And you have done well in looking to define your terms. This is always beneficial. Not enough people, libertarians included, do this. Kinsella is very good at this too.</b></i><br />
<div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">
It has come upon me that I should write something to make the biblical case for libertarianism, arguing that (1) libertarianism is the most consistent with biblical Christianity, (2) other political philosophies contradict the Christian faith in many ways, (3) libertarianism isn't contradictory to a biblical understanding of human nature but can compliment it nicely and (4) non-coercive methods of social reform are more fruitful than legislative power "legislating morality."<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I will deal with how libertarian law relates to the Bible, how libertarian foreign policy is compatible with the Bible, and how libertarianism is the <i>most biblical</i> political philosophy.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The first part will deal with law, morality and ethics, libertarianism and how the Scripture deals with such issues.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Libertarian Law</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The first section will deal with what libertarian law is. And for that, we must define what libertarianism is.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Libertarianism is based off the nonaggression principle/axiom (NAP), the belief that no man has any right to commit aggression/initiate force against another man's life, liberty or property. Libertarianism applies this otherwise widely held belief consistently, meaning that no government has the right to do this, not even if it labels aggression by any other name. Basically, under this principle, aggression by any other name is still aggression.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Violence is prohibited by the NAP, except when it is exercised in defense of life, liberty or property. Defensive violence can be exercised through self-defense, retaliation against prior aggression, or responsive violence to entrenched aggressors. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The libertarian law code upholds this non-aggression principle in its system. Vices that do not aggress against others are permitted under this system but crimes such as murder, rape, theft, fraud, and other aggression are condemned and prohibited. Vice, while immoral, doesn't violate the NAP, for most vices don't commit aggression against anyone. Crime, however, does this job, and thus there is a distinction between vice and crime in libertarian law code.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Libertarian lawyer and theorist Stephan Kinsella <a href="http://mises.org/daily/3660">aptly says</a>:</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The libertarian says that each person is the full owner of his body: he has the right to control his body, to decide whether or not he ingests narcotics, joins an army, and so on. Those various nonlibertarians who endorse any such state prohibitions, however, necessarily maintain that the state, or society, is at least a partial owner of the body of those subject to such laws — or even a complete owner in the case of conscriptees or nonaggressor "criminals" incarcerated for life. Libertarians believe in <span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">self</span>-ownership. Nonlibertarians — statists — of all stripes advocate some form of slave.</span></blockquote>
The great Murray Rothbard (one of the most important libertarian theorists and philosophers in history) also says of the central core of libertarianism (in his classic book <i><a href="http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp">For A New Liberty</a></i>, p. 23):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; line-height: 21px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom." "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.</span></span></blockquote>
And libertarian philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe, an ideological descendant of Murray Rothbard, says in his <a href="http://mises.org/document/431"><i>A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism</i></a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">If … an action is performed that uninvitedly invades or changes the physical integrity of another person's body and puts this body to a use that is not to this very person's own liking, this action … is called </span><em style="border: 0px; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">aggression</em><span style="line-height: 18px;"> … Next to the concept of action, </span><em style="border: 0px; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">property</em><span style="line-height: 18px;"> is the most basic category in the social sciences. As a matter of fact, all other concepts to be introduced in this chapter — aggression, contract, capitalism and socialism — are definable in terms of property: </span><em style="border: 0px; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">aggression</em><span style="line-height: 18px;"> being aggression against property, </span><em style="border: 0px; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">contract </em><span style="line-height: 18px;">being a nonaggressive relationship between property owners, </span><em style="border: 0px; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">socialism</em><span style="line-height: 18px;"> being an institutionalized policy of aggression against property, and </span><em style="border: 0px; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">capitalism</em><span style="line-height: 18px;"> being an institutionalized policy of the recognition of property and contractualism.</span></span></span></blockquote>
These three statements define the central core of libertarianism. They don't mean "fiscal/economic conservatism and social liberalism," despite what some libertarians believe. It is the consistent application of the non-aggression principle dealing with the role of force in society.<br />
<br />
And property is derived when one justly homesteads and transforms unowned land into one's use; this makes him the absolute owner of that parcel of property which he homesteads. This gives him the right to use it in any way he pleases so long as he doesn't aggress against anyone's property or rights in doing so. And he also has the right to exchange it and charge rent for it, as it is his just property.<br />
<br />
Again Kinsella says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-top: 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 1.5em;">As in the case with bodies, humans need to be able to use external objects as means to achieve various ends. Because these things are scarce, there is also the potential for conflict. And, as in the case with bodies, libertarians favor assigning property rights so as to permit the peaceful, conflict-free, productive use of such resources. Thus, as in the case with bodies, property is assigned to the person with the best claim or link to a given scarce resource — with the "best claim" standard based on the goals of permitting peaceful, conflict-free human interaction and use of resources.</span><span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-top: 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Unlike human bodies, however, external objects are not parts of one's identity, are not directly controlled by one's will, and — significantly — they are</span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> </span><em style="border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">initially unowned</em><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">. </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Here, the libertarian realizes that the relevant objective link is</span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> </span><em style="border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">appropriation</em><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">— the transformation or embordering of a previously unowned resource, Lockean homesteading, the first use or possession of the thing. </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Under this approach, the first (prior) user of a previously unowned thing has a</span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> </span><em style="border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">prima facie</em><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">better claim than a second (later) claimant, solely by virtue of his being earlier</span></span></blockquote>
The libertarian applies this rule consistently; it doesn't depend on a might-makes-right principle, nor does it depend on what government declares is just or unjust. It depends on whether someone appropriated unowned land for his own use and made it an extension of his own self, which makes it his property. And also, if anyone enslaves a person on his property, than that property goes to the slave, for since the slave homesteaded the land and was forcefully held against his will, it is only just that the land revert back to the slave, the person who used the land and mixed his labor with it.<br />
<br />
<b>Libertarian Law and Morality</b><br />
<br />
Now that we have discussed libertarian law and the non-aggression principle, let us deal with how libertarian law will deal with issues of <i>vice</i> and <i>crime</i>.<br />
<br />
<i>Vice</i> can be defined as that which is immoral and harmful not only to oneself but also to all the parties involved. A biblical and Christian definition of this could fall under the term <i>sin</i>, which means "missing the mark." The Christian believes that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and that man is marked with a sinful nature that prevents him from fellowshipping with God. And thus, the unsaved would often depend on other means to find fulfillment, and vices are one of those means. These would include acts like the use of narcotics, sexual promiscuity, prostitution, alcohol abuse, lying and overall being negligent of one's duties to God and to man. However, the majority of these vices don't commit aggression against anyone. It is true that they can be <i>harmful</i>, but they are not <i>aggressive</i>. Thus, the libertarian law code won't prescribe any forceful action against such actions.<br />
<br />
<i>Crime</i>, on the other hand, is duly condemned and forbidden in libertarian law. It can be called by any other names—<i>aggression</i>, <i>coercion</i>, <i>initiation of force</i>—but the term <i>crime</i> is more generally suitable. It can be defined as breaking the law, or more correctly violating other's rights, specifically their right to life, liberty and property. Actions under this category include rape (a forceful use of a woman's body against her will), murder (killing another man against his will), theft (taking of another man's property against his will), fraud (implied theft), kidnapping (holding a person against his will), and involuntary servitude (forcing a man to serve against his will). Crime is not crime because the State declares in a piece of paper that it is crime. It is so because it violates the God-given natural rights of man.<br />
<br />
Thus, it is not only individuals that can be guilty of crime, but the State can also be guilty of it. It often has been too—the Holocaust, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the massacres of Joseph Stalin and the Soviet dictators are several examples. They were done with musings and pretentious pleas, but ultimately they can be considered crimes, for they committed aggression against non-aggressive civilians and persons. Crime by another name is still crime. It doesn't matter if the state exercises it—it is still crime.<br />
<br />
Vices, on the other hand, don't fit the requirements for forceful action against the actor, for the sinner often doesn't commit aggression in his sin. Yes, his actions may be hurtful, but they are not aggressive. Stephan Kinsella <a href="http://archive.mises.org/11263/aggression-versus-harm-in-libertarianism/">argues</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #111111; line-height: 21.993999481201172px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Libertarians often condemn “harming” others, and this is fine so far as it goes, if it is kept in mind that “harm” here is loosely meant as a synonym for aggression. But “harm” is really a broader category. Libertarianism says that only aggression may be countered with force, that aggression is the only way to violate rights so that a forceful response is justified. Other rightful behavior, even if it is immoral or “bad,” is rightful so long as it is not aggression. (See my <a href="http://mises.org/daily/3660" style="color: #2361a1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">What Libertarianism Is</a>, esp. notes 9-11 and accompanying text.)<span id="more-11263" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></span>“Committing harm” can also be rightful. Think of harm as a broader category that includes both harm-by-aggression, and other types of harm. This latter category is not an empty set. There are all sorts of ways you can “harm” someone that do not violate their rights. Competing with someone and “taking” his business, “stealing” his girl, beating him in a race–all may be viewed as harming him. But it’s permissible to do this as it does not invade the physical integrity of his property–it does not commit aggression. It does not violate his rights. As can be seen in the blackmail debate above, by resorting to sloppy, fuzzy terms like “harm” all sorts of non-aggressive actions could be prohibited (such as blackmail, defamation, etc.). It thus leads to advocacy of unlibertarian laws.</span></blockquote>
<div>
This means that even the most "harmful" vice doesn't fit the requirement to be a crime. Thus, these "harmful" vices should not be interfered with by the State, nor should those who practice such be locked in jail. For example, the seller of harmful narcotics shouldn't be put behind bars, as long as he didn't use fraud in his sales. And the seller of pornographic images shouldn't be put behind bars, for the buyer and seller of pornographic images entered into a mutual and voluntary exchange; cracking down on such an exchange, however moral it may seem, would be a violation of the principles of free markets and voluntary exchange. It is true that such exchanges may be "harmful" but they aren't in any way rights-violating. It can be corrected through persuasion and other voluntary means, but coercive force is not one of them.<br />
<br />
Thus, when one argues against "legislating morality," he is not saying that laws have no moral basis, but rather he is arguing that force should not be used when dealing with vice, for not only is force disproportionate with regards to vices, but force is often ineffective in solving social and moral problems. And often, freedom is essential in choosing moral choices. If that is denied and violated, then man has no freedom to choose morals and thus morality is no longer truly moral.<br />
<br />
<b>Why Libertarian Law Is Not Incompatible with the Bible</b><br />
<br />
Now that I have discussed libertarian law and how it deals with moral issues, I will address this crucial question: is libertarian law incompatible with the Bible?<br />
<br />
I believe this question should be addressed, as this is very troubling to many Christians of the libertarian and/or anarcho-capitalist persuasion. Their intellectual opponents argue that libertarianism is an unbiblical political ethic, since libertarianism rejects the use of force with regard to moral issues, while they believe the Bible precisely advocates force in such moral areas. After all, does not Romans 13 and all those passages in Scripture mandate that the government enforce moral codes, thus logically leading to regulating personal behaviors, however uncomfortable it may be?<br />
<br />
My argument is that libertarian law is not only not incompatible with the Bible, but it is the most compatible with the Scriptures. It most closely reflects the non-forceful and persuasive nature of the Christian faith with regards to the political ethic—the Golden Rule applied in the negative sense ("don't molest other's life, liberty, or property").<br />
<br />
1. <i>Christianity rejects coercion and force unto salvation and true morality</i>. One of the major characteristics of the Christian faith is that it doesn't depend on the use of force in order to bring one to salvation, unlike some other faiths. It depends on the power of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13-14, Acts 2:38, Epehsians 1:13), the power of evangelism, and the power of God's saving grace. None of these involve the use of force against those who reject the Gospel; all of them rely on God's grace and persuasion. Simiarly, it would be consistent if Christians rejected the use of force against sinners when dealing with problems like sexual immorality, drug abuse, alcoholism, and other sins. After all, did not Jesus and the apostles reject the use of force in dealing with these deep problems, especially those regarding the soul? In fact, in the famous instance of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11), Jesus refused to stone the adulteress. Tom Mullen comments on this in <a href="http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig11/mullen-t2.1.1.html">an article of his</a>:<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-spacing: 5px;"> </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">It is important to recognize that Jesus does not condone the sin that the anonymous woman has committed. When he has shamed away the mob who would have stoned her, Jesus commands her to sin no more. Neither does he insinuate that her behavior might not have consequences for her soul. With flawless libertarian reasoning, Jesus teaches us the true meaning of freedom: that God grants us the liberty to do as we wish, even to reject him and his laws, but that we also bear the full consequences of our actions. If we harm another person, then we are subject to the laws of men. However, it is for each individual to determine the will of God according to his conscience and to choose whether to act accordingly or not. There never has been nor can there ever be any body of corruptible men who can save an individual’s soul.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span><span style="font-size: small;">This is by no means the only place in the gospels that Jesus teaches us this lesson. His entire public ministry was one admonishment of the hypocritical, socially conservative theocracy after another. Indeed, it is the Jewish state that is Jesus’ chief antagonist throughout the gospels. He is noticeably disinterested in the more secular Roman government, despite its tyranny over his people. While he certainly doesn’t approve of the Romans, he has no interest in political revolution. As Jesus tells Pilate, “my kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18:36). However, his own government does not merely commit secular, political oppression against its people. It usurps the authority of God and attempts to judge in his place. For this, Jesus constantly lets loose his most venomous admonishments.</span></span></blockquote>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">So this would mean that Jesus' way is not the use of force unto morals but the spreading of the Gospel here. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Later on, Mullen argues:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; display: inline !important; float: none; line-height: 20px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Jesus was very clear about his views on what would lead to salvation and what would not. Jesus condemned many behaviors, like adultery, that social conservatives likewise condemn. He also said that “no one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) However, he does not go on to say, “Therefore, if your brother does not come to me willingly, then draw your sword and force him.” Salvation must be chosen; God did not create a race of slaves. </span></span></blockquote>
2. <i>Laws against themselves can be called unethical and aggressive</i>. Another factor that should be considered when analyzing "moral laws" or "victimless crime laws" is how they are enforced. These laws in effect interfere with the property rights and individual freedoms of people, as cracking down on a certain vice would require the violation of one's property rights in order to enforce the law. For example, if a police officer wanted to crack down on promiscuous sexual activity, it would often break into someone's house and property and may sometimes use wiretapping or other forms of invasive activity to punish the activity. This would require an invasion of property rights and freedom, thus making "legislating morality" unethical and a violation of property rights.<br />
<br />
Murray Rothbard <a href="http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp">said of the troubling issue of pornography and the law that can be applied to all laws "legislating morality"</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 21px;">To the libertarian, the arguments between conservatives and liberals over laws prohibiting pornography are distressingly beside the point. The conservative position tends to hold that pornography is debasing and immoral and therefore should be outlawed. Liberals tend to counter that sex is good and healthy and that therefore pornography will only have good effects, and that depictions of violence — say on television, in movies, or in comic books — should be outlawed instead. Neither side deals with the crucial point: that the good, bad, or indifferent consequences [p. 104] of pornography, while perhaps an interesting problem in its own right, is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not it should be outlawed. The libertarian holds that it is not the business of the law — the use of retaliatory violence — to enforce anyone's conception of morality. It is not the business of the law — even if this were practically possible, which is, of course, most unlikely — to make anyone good or reverent or moral or clean or upright. This is for each individual to decide for himself. It is only the business of legal violence to defend people against the use of violence, to defend them from violent invasions of their person or property. But if the government presumes to outlaw pornography, it <em style="border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">itself</em> becomes the genuine outlaw — for it is invading the property rights of people to produce, sell, buy, or possess pornographic material.</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Palatino; font-size: 11px; margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 16px;"></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Another reason why</span><span style="font-family: Lucida Grande; font-size: medium;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">such laws can be called unethical is that it fails to recognize that true morality has the essential component of the free choice of man. Without such free choice, no true morality can exist; only artificial morality can exist. Which is better: true morality chosen by freedom of choice, or artificial morality coerced through interference with non-criminal immorality? The answer seems to be clear here.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">3. <i>The Old Testament's covenant was fulfilled, leading to the New Covenant; this means that the era of freedom and grace are now in</i>. My final point in this post regards the issue of the Old Covenant and its transition to the New Covenant, which I believe will fulfill a very important case for libertarianism from a biblical standpoint. My perspective, based on my view of the Bible, is that once Christ died and rose from the dead, the Old Covenant was fulfilled and the New Covenant has come in. Thus, the civil, legal, and ceremonial codes were done away with and were not necessary anymore. They were a sign to the Jewish race, but God works through the New Covenant of grace, now that Christ has already finished His work on the cross.</span></div>
<br />
The new covenant is spoken of many times in the Scriptures, both in Old and New Testaments. Jeremiah 31:31-33 is the major OT passage describing the new covenant. It says (in the KJV):<br />
<div class="passage version-KJV result-text-style-normal text-html" style="background-color: white;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="text Jer-31-31" id="en-KJV-19723"><span class="versenum" style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">31 </span>Behold, the days come, saith the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span>, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:</span><span class="text Jer-31-32" id="en-KJV-19724"><span class="versenum" style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">32 </span>Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span>:</span><span class="text Jer-31-33" id="en-KJV-19725"><span class="versenum" style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">33 </span>But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span>, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The New Testament also teaches likewise.</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Now that we are no longer under the dispensation/period of the law, we are under the period/dispensation of grace, which we can receive freely through Jesus Christ our Lord (Ephesians 2:8-9). Hebrews 9:15 states wonderfully</span><br />
<div class="passage version-KJV result-text-style-normal text-html">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="text Heb-9-15" id="en-KJV-30121" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="versenum" style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">15 </span>And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.</span></blockquote>
<div>
<span class="text Heb-9-15" style="font-family: inherit;">This means that while we still are under moral law, we are not under the civil, ceremonial, and legal boundaries that the ancient Hebrews lived under in the Old Covenant.<br /><br />But how does this relate to libertarianism? First, it shows that as the law was once there to convict us, now the grace of God forgives and restores. Second, the grace of God freed us from the bondage of sin and the law. And finally, the freedom we now have in Christ is best reflected in a libertarian political order, where no one's person or property is invaded by aggression. </span><br />
<span class="text Heb-9-15" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span class="text Heb-9-15" style="font-family: inherit;">In such an order, the property rights of every man is respected, no one is placed in jail if he does something immoral (provided that he hasn't committed aggression), and social cooperation exists among different groups without the state's interference. Violence isn't institutionalized in the form of the State, removing one major group of institutionalized aggression from society. In the libertarian society, every man has the freedom of association and discrimination, meaning he has the right to associate with whomever he pleases, and he also has the right to discriminate and disassociate with those he doesn't like. Also, he has the right to defend his person and property against aggressors, and he has the right to hire another person to defend him. He would have the right to defend others as well from his own free will, and he would have the right to form companies and institutions dedicating to providing defense and security services for not only himself but for others who participate in the services. No one would be taxed against his will to support something, but everyone would surely provide of their own will. Justice would be provided more efficiently, peacefully, and without monopoly. And trade flourishes peacefully without the use of monopolies, tariffs, and economic regulations. </span><br />
<br />
Sin is dealt with through the use of persuasion and other voluntary methods rather than the use of coercion and aggression against the sinner, allowing for not only a better solution to the problem but also for a more peaceful solution that doesn't end up hurting one in the long run.<br />
<br />
Who wouldn't want to support a society like that?<br />
<br />
<i><b>Feel free to leave your comments at the comment section. They are welcome.</b></i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-77456829197249511352014-05-30T13:56:00.001-07:002014-05-30T13:56:58.181-07:00Christian: Guns Scare Me<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It turns out that a Christian author <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2014/may/america-locked-and-loaded.html?paging=off">is frightened by the possibility of citizens arming themselves</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
After all, gun rights advocates are being too harsh on the feels of the victims' families, and with an armed America, hurting feelings will become even more prevalent and we will have chaos and deaths and whatnot if we have guns, or so the writer wants us to believe.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I am of the honest belief that those Christians who support gun control have (1) a deep misunderstanding of the role of government and force, (2) the meaning of self-defense and why gun rights are important, and (3) the rightness of allowing people to defend themselves with whatever means they choose.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The author (and other gun-control supporters) probably should read John Lott, Stephen Halbrook, and other great authors on gun control and gun rights. Also, <a href="http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp?dispid=310&pid=65463">Tom Woods interviewed John Lott refuting some of the gun-control nonsense out there</a>.<br /><br />I would also argue that my basis for gun rights is that (1) people have the natural and God-given right to defend themselves against aggression, which is codified by the Second Amendment and (2) owning weapons doesn't constitute an act of aggression, and thus the ownership of any weapon, even a fully automatic rifle, should be legal and not interfered with.<br />
<br />
The reason I believe that more guns equals less crime is that when the noncriminal has a gun to defend himself and others, the criminal is deterred from initiating force against innocent civilians. And also, the ability of the people to bear arms can serve as a deterrent to tyrannical government, in part the reason why many of the early Americans adopted a Second Amendment in the first place.<br /><br />I don't care to especially refute this article, as many others have ably refuted much of the mythology present in the gun-control debate. However, I would like to comment what I personally feel about Christians who support gun control. Gun control is essentially the prevention of peaceful exchange, of self-defense, of private property rights, and <a href="http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/gun-control-is-violence/">is itself an act of aggression against noncriminals</a>. I believe that Christians—even pacifists who find all forms of violence immoral (of which I am not)—should oppose gun control.<br />
<br />
Some may argue that guns might make it easier for certain crimes to be committed, but even so, the vast majority of persons are noncriminals who are very careful with weapons, and so the overall effect of guns can't be judged on the negative effect it has on the few (same goes with video games and other scapegoats of the right-wing and left-wing statists).<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-27201320280106995902014-05-29T14:49:00.003-07:002014-05-29T14:49:46.966-07:00Stefan Molyneux's New Video About Elliot Rodger<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I have heard about the tragedy of the Santa Barbara shootings, of the deaths of 13 people (boys and girls), caused by Elliot Rodger.<br />
<br />
The media has focused extensively on this, and in his "Retribution" video, Elliot Rodger complains about hot ladies rejecting him and going for other guys. So he decides to kill many of these girls as well as the boys that these girls dated. Some may call this an "entitlement" mentality, and this is a plausible cause for Rodger's actions.<br />
<br />
Stefan Molyneux's new video on the whole situation, however, looks at other factors as well, including his disturbed persona, his broken home and all the other things based on Rodger's lengthy manifesto. It's worth a watch, and like most of his videos, Molyneux gets it.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/oybAUKZhaMA" width="560"></iframe><br /></div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-88457728039666290442014-05-28T06:03:00.002-07:002014-05-28T06:04:39.955-07:00Greenwald to publish list of U.S. citizens NSA spied on<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It turns out that award-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald—one of the best out there today—is going to publish the list of those on whom the NSA spied on.<br />
<br />
The Washington TImes <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/26/glenn-greenwald-publish-list-us-citizens-nsa-spied/">reports</a>:<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/glenn-greenwald/" style="color: #164a6e; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 2px; padding-top: 2px; text-decoration: none;">Glenn Greenwald</a>, one of the reporters who chronicled the document dump by <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/national-security-agency/" style="color: #164a6e; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 2px; padding-top: 2px; text-decoration: none;">National Security Agency</a> leaker <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/edward-snowden/" style="color: #164a6e; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 2px; padding-top: 2px; text-decoration: none;">Edward Snowden</a> via the U.K. press, now said he’s set to publish his most dramatic piece yet: The names of those in the United States targeted by the <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/national-security-agency/" style="color: #164a6e; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 2px; padding-top: 2px; text-decoration: none;">NSA</a> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">“One of the big questions when is comes to domestic spying is, ‘Who have been the <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/national-security-agency/" style="color: #164a6e; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 2px; padding-top: 2px; text-decoration: none;">NSA</a>’s specific targets?’ Are they political critics and dissidents and activists? Are they genuinely people we’d regard as terrorists? What are the metrics and calculations that go into choosing those targets and what is done with the surveillance that is conducted? Those are the kinds of questions that I want to still answer,”<a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/glenn-greenwald/" style="color: #164a6e; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 2px; padding-top: 2px; text-decoration: none;">Mr. Greenwald</a> told The Sunday Times of London.</span></blockquote>
Be on the lookout for this. I certainly will. And let's hope the list gets out—I'm looking forward to it personally (if only to know who the NSA spied on).<br />
<br /></div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-85912399505714669362014-05-26T14:00:00.001-07:002014-05-27T12:05:56.885-07:00Some Thoughts for Memorial Day<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Today is Memorial Day, where everyone commemorates our "heroes" who "died for us" to "protect our liberty and freedom." Many believe that celebrating and commemorating the troops is a legitimate way of expressing thankfulness.<br />
<br />
However, for many libertarians and freedom lovers out there, Memorial Day is a sad day that celebrates not only militarism, the police state and everything wrong with America's system, but also celebrates the wars that have hurt us in the long run. It is also a sad remembrance of the lives that were needlessly lost, of the lives who died for lies, and for the lives who are forever damaged for no good reason (think of the PTSD many soldiers suffer today as a result of their fighting in unjust wars).<br />
<br />
Here are some thoughts that I have collected with regard to why Memorial Day shouldn't be celebrated conventionally.<br />
<br />
1. The troops do not defend our freedoms. Rather, they work for the State to fight in unjust and often unconstitutional wars that result in the deaths of innocent civilians, chaos, and terror. The Iraq War <a href="http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2014/01/05/iraq-the-liberation-neocons-would-rather-forget/">resulted in al-Qaeda entering the area and chaos reigning</a>. The<a href="http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/04/01/two-invasions-and-one-truth/"> Afghanistan War resulted in more deaths of non-combatants and civilians</a>. The <a href="http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=164">Vietnam War allowed for massacres from the troops and was unjust from the start</a>. And almost none of the wars the American government has fought were just. That includes <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/09/laurence-m-vance/rethinking-the-good-war/">WWII</a>, where the abominable bombings of <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=hiroshima+site%3Amises.org&hl=en&gbv=2&oq=hiroshima+site%3Amises.org&gs_l=heirloom-serp.3...1926.5380.0.6380.24.21.3.0.0.6.171.1960.15j6.21.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-serp..24.0.0.CsGUaK2qEHs">Hiroshima, Nagasaki</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/anand.venigalla/posts/1421707848105439">Dresden</a>, and other areas by the Allies abounded. The lesson here is that contrary to what we are told, the <a href="http://archive.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger187.html">troops don't defend our freedoms</a>. Some in the military have that intention indeed, but by and large this is not the case with what actually happens.<br />
<br />
2. War is the health of the state, and that's a bad thing. As the great anti-war activist Randolph Bourne once wisely stated, "War is the health of the state." it is, indeed. Without war, the state can't exactly survive and grow. It is often in war situations that the state would use propaganda and force to increase its own size, largess and power. And after the war is over, there is little to no return to the pre-war conditions in the sense that the state has already increased. Robert Higgs calls this the "ratchet effect." This was the case with WWI and WWII. With WWI, the government increased in size and stayed that way, even during the post-WWI period. And with WWII, the national-security state and the military-industrial complex were both cemented and our wars have become more and more unconstitutional since that point.<br />
<br />
3. All American wars can thus be considered unjust themselves. Considering that most of these wars I mentioned consisted of the initiation of force—aggression—against civilians, most of these wars would thus be considered unjust. For an illustration, let's turn to Murray Rothbard's essay "<a href="http://mises.org/rothbard/warpeace.asp">War, Peace and the State</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 21px;">Let us set aside the more complex problem of the State for awhile and consider simply relations between "private" individuals. Jones finds that he or his property is being invaded, aggressed against, by Smith. It is legitimate for Jones, as we have seen, to repel this invasion by defensive violence of his own. But now we come to a more knotty question: is it within the right of Jones to commit violence against innocent third parties as a corollary to his legitimate defense against Smith? To the libertarian, the answer must be clearly, no. Remember that the rule prohibiting violence against the persons or property of innocent men is absolute: it holds regardless of the subjective <em style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-style: italic; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">motives</em> for the aggression. It is wrong and criminal to violate the property or person of another, even if one is a Robin Hood, or starving, or is doing it to save one's relatives, <em style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-style: italic; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">or</em> is defending oneself against a third man's attack. We may understand and sympathize with the motives in many of these cases and extreme situations. We may later mitigate the guilt if the criminal comes to trial for punishment, but we cannot evade the judgment that this aggression is still a criminal act, and one which the victim has every right to repel, by violence if necessary. In short, A aggresses against B because C is threatening, or aggressing against, A. We may understand C's "higher" culpability in this whole procedure; but we must still label this aggression as a criminal act which B has the right to repel by violence.</span> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 21px;"></span>To be more concrete, if Jones finds that his property is being stolen by Smith, he has the right to repel him and try to catch him; but he has <em style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-style: italic; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">no</em> right to repel him by bombing a building and murdering innocent people or to catch him by spraying machine gun fire into an innocent crowd. If he does this, he is as much (or more of) a criminal aggressor as Smith is.</span></blockquote>
Most wars, especially American wars, have violated this rule not to harm innocents, either through deliberate intention or carelessness on the part of those who took part in the war (either could be true). Notice I am not talking about the unintentional and inevitable deaths of some civilians, as sometimes that may happen accidentally. What I am talking about is the deliberate or careless bombings of areas which innocent civilians populate, involving the use of disproportionate force. This was the case with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bombings of Dresden, and the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan in our era. The soldiers who participated in these wars, in their attempt to "get the bad guys," often used disproportionate force that killed non-aggressive innocents. If it's not justified for civilians to practice self-defense in such a manner, neither is it appropriate for the State to do such.<br />
<br />
4. Sometimes even leftists can be right about war. Conservatives who read this post may assume that I am taking sides with the leftists in my condemnation of warfare statism. I will respond by conceding that sometimes leftists may be right about war. Yes, I don't agree with them when it comes to political correctness and the state, but even they can be right about the warfare state. Just because they are wrong on other areas doesn't discount when they are right, even when it is uncomfortable to admit such. In fact, some of the best anti-war work out there is done by leftists with whom I would depart company with on most other issues. Now, the leftist and the libertarian oppose war from differing vantage points, the leftist from the anti-corporate viewpoint and the libertarian from a anti-statist (or limited-government) viewpoint. And leftists can sometimes be inconsistent as to how anti-war they are; for example, many leftists who rightly opposed GWB's warfare statism either ignored or gleefully cheered on the actions of Obama that bear striking resemblance to Bush's actions. Libertarians are generally far more consistent and clear in their opposition to the anti-war views, but I find nothing bad about agreeing with the left at times.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
This Memorial Day I am of the belief that the troops are not defending our freedoms, our freedom doesn't come because of the government and the military, statism is not the answer to anything, it's OK to agree with leftists on anti-war stuff, and that in the end, the warfare state is only hurting us, not helping us. If one is to celebrate Memorial Day, one should celebrate it as a call for non-interventionism, peace, and a rejection of militarism and statism in all its forms.<br />
<br />
<b>N.B.</b>: The only just wars in American history were the American Revolution and the Southern secession in 1861, the former because it was a libertarian revolution against British imperialism and statism and the latter because it was a separation from a pro-tariff Northern region. Yes, there were impure motives in both "wars," and the Southern Confederacy did have slavery as a main reason for their secession. Murray Rothbard, in his speech "<a href="http://mises.org/daily/5943/Just-War">Just War</a>," says of the American Revolution:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #222222; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">In making their revolution, then, the Americans cast their lot, permanently, with a contractual theory or justification for government. Government is not something imposed from above, by some divine act of conferring sovereignty; but contractual, from below, by "consent of the governed." That means that American polities inevitably become republics, not monarchies. What happened, in fact, is that the American Revolution resulted in something new on earth. The people of each of the 13 colonies formed new, separate, contractual, republican governments. Based on libertarian doctrines and on republican models, the people of the 13 colonies each set up independent sovereign states: with powers of each government strictly limited, with most rights and powers reserved to the people, and with checks, balances, and written constitutions severely limiting state power.</span></blockquote>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #222222; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px;"></span><br />
<div>
He also says on the Southern War for Independence (also called the War of Northern Aggression):</div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #222222; line-height: 17px;"></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #222222; line-height: 17px;">One of the central grievances of the South, too, was the tariff that Northerners imposed on Southerners whose major income came from exporting cotton abroad. The tariff at one and the same time drove up prices of manufactured goods, forced Southerners and other Americans to pay more for such goods, and threatened to cut down Southern exports. The first great constitutional crisis with the South came when South Carolina battled against the well named Tariff of Abomination of 1828. As a result of South Carolina's resistance, the North was forced to reduce the tariff, and finally, the Polk administration adopted a two-decade long policy of virtual free trade.</span></blockquote>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #222222; line-height: 17px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">In both cases, the respective states that the Southern seceders and the American revolutionaries opposed were on the side of injustice here, and in the Southern case, it was the United States government that was on the unjust side (though the Confederate government did have its share of injustices). So it's fair to say that in these two "just wars," the American government didn't fight them but rather those who rebelled agianst the State. With the American revolutionaries, it was a national-liberation movement agianst British imperialism—in essence, it was a "people's war." And with the Southern secession, it was a separation from Northern/Union statism. </span><br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
</span><br />
<br /></div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-83860207625937030242014-05-19T14:15:00.000-07:002014-05-22T05:13:33.395-07:00Abortion and the Non-Aggression Principle: A Reply to A Pro-Life
Libertarian<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="p1"><span class="s1"><b>By Jeff Godley</b></span></div><div class="p1"><span class="s1"><br></span></div><div class="p1"><span class="s1">Brandon Craig is the creator of a Facebook page entitled “Non-Aggression Principle Against Abortion” (NAPAA). The page is intended to persuade that abortion is an act of aggression against an unborn human being, and therefore is not permissible according to libertarianism. <br>
<br>
I think this is an admirable effort; as libertarians, our opinion on all issues must be informed by the non-aggression principle (hereafter "NAP") - or else we are not really libertarians. And Mr. Craig’s claim, if true, is certainly a slam-dunk case against abortion. If abortion <i>ipso facto</i> violates the NAP, than no further discussion of the legitimacy of abortion is needed among libertarian circles. <br>
<br>
However, in a recent post at the NAPAA page, Mr. Craig made his argument against a competing attempt to reconcile the NAP and abortion - evictionism (view the whole post <a href="https://www.facebook.com/NonAggressionPrincipleAgainstAbortion/posts/500740720053439">here</a>). Mr. Craig objections to evictionism and positive case for his own views reveal what I believe to be several flaws in his reasoning, which I would like to address over the course of several posts. <br>
<br>
In this first entry, I want to show that Mr. Craig is not being consistent in his appeal to the NAP when he argues against eviction. He states his thesis on evictionism as follows: “I do not even think eviction is morally permissible.” This subtle change in criteria casts some doubt on his argument. His initial claim is that abortion violates the non-aggression principle, yet he is now seeking to prove that eviction immoral. These two claims are vastly different in scope. <br><b><br>
</b></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">The NAP is but a small subset of morality. It is one thing to say "abortion is immoral". But if abortion is immoral, that does not in any way imply that it violates the NAP. It is possible even to be a wretched, immoral monster and NOT violate the NAP. </span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">People have the legal right (i.e. a negative right derived from the NAP) to shoot up with heroin and pay other people for sex. That does not mean that these actions are moral, or that anyone should condone them. It does however, means that our response to them cannot be one of force. </span>That is all the NAP ever implies. </div>
<div class="p1">
<br></div>
<div class="p1">
The NAP does not address whether you should or should not shoot someone who breaks into your home. It only tells you that you have a legal right to do so - or, more to the point, that no one ought to force you NOT to shoot the intruder. Similarly, the NAP does not address whether you should or should not get an abortion. It only specifies what the legal ramifications ought to be if you make the decision to abort. </div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">This is not a semantic difference. It is fundamental to libertarian philosophy that we keep crystal-clear the distinction between the strict negative legal rights implied by the NAP, and all other positive obligations which may be placed on us by other aspects of moral theory. </span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Yet Mr. Craig cannot seem to maintain this fundamental distinction in his argument. To respond to the common evictionist analogy of trespassing, he offers this counter-analogy: “Imagine it is winter time and it is 0 degrees outside. Now lets say I am paralyzed from the waste down and you invite me over to your house. You wheel me in and then once I am there you tell me to leave. Since I am not able to leave, I do not move. You tell me I am trespassing and I still do not move because I am not capable of it….For the eviction argument all you do is wheel me out into the 0 degree weather and I freeze to death. That would be what eviction is like.” <br>
<br>
As an evictionist, I do not quibble with this analogy. I do not need to, because in the analogy the person wheeling the cripple into the cold <i>has not violated the NAP!</i> Trespass has nothing to do with the intent of the trespasser, nor with their ability to leave. It has to do with the will of the person who owns the property. If a person is not welcome, they are by definition a trespasser. Their reason for being there is irrelevant; the owner’s reason for wanting them gone is also irrelevant. Most of all, the trespasser’s ability to leave or the difficulties they may have once they do are not relevant as far the NAP is concerned. </span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><br>
In this analogy, Mr. Craig is not appealing to the NAP at all - he is simply appealing to our moral outrage at the monster who would cast a person into certain death. Monster though they may be, according to the NAP this person is not a criminal; they have committed no aggression, they have merely revoked permission for another person’s use of their property, as is their right. There is nothing invalid about the analogy; it simply does not imply was Mr. Craig believes it does. </span></div>
<div class="p2">
<br></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">In abandoning his thesis that “abortion violates the NAP” in favour of the argument that “abortion is immoral”, Mr. Craig has ceased to argue as a libertarian and instead argued as an ethicist. In that regard, I support his efforts. I too have ethical problems with abortion; I too believe life begins at conception, and that every life, no matter how small, ought to be preserved. <br>
<br>
But as a libertarian, I cannot condone the confusion of making an immoral choice, even one that harms another, with violating the NAP. The first in no way implies the second. Mr. Craig does a disservice both to liberty and to his own pro-life views by his imprecision. I urge him to do better. </span></div>
<div>
<br>
[<b>Note from Anand: I think Jeff Godley has made an interesting and well-written case for the "evictionist" position, which means evicting the pre-birth fetus without killing it. While I am personally more inclined to the pro-life position, I believe Jeff thoughtfully reconciled the argument that abortion is morally impermissible and that it doesn't violate the non-aggression principle. I believe that one can hold the "evictionist" position without believing that abortion is moral, for evictionism makes no moral statement about the abortion itself; it only argues that abortion doesn't violate rights and thus shouldn't be criminalized).</b></div>
</div>
Jeff Godleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030812278817351445noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-32572653657511006212014-05-17T08:24:00.005-07:002014-05-23T06:45:53.799-07:00Follow Me On Medium.com<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Now, your host, Anand Venigalla, is now posting on <a href="http://medium.com/">Medium.com</a> as well as his very own blog.<br />
<br />
Here is my profile on that page: <a href="https://medium.com/@ajvenigalla">https://medium.com/@ajvenigalla</a><br />
<br />
Also, check out one of my favorite authors, <a href="https://medium.com/@DanSanchezV">Dan Sanchez</a>, on Medium.com as well.</div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-69379140093373336092014-05-14T12:07:00.001-07:002014-05-14T12:07:58.846-07:00Christian Post Report: "Massachusetts High Court Upholds 'Under God' in Pledge of Allegiance as Constitutional" (Including My Own Thoughts on the Pledge)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Christian Post reporter Anugrah Kumar <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/massachusetts-high-court-upholds-under-god-in-pledge-of-allegiance-as-constitutional-119532/">reports</a> that the Massachusetts High Court upholds the constitutionality of the "under God" clause in the Pledge of Allegiance:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.3s ease 0s; background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.88em; line-height: 22.527999877929688px; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
Atheist parents and students wanted the Pledge of Allegiance banned in schools in Massachusetts because it contains the phrase "under God," but the state's highest court has ruled that reciting it does not violate the commonwealth's constitution or laws.<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.3s ease 0s; background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.88em; line-height: 22.527999877929688px; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
"We hold that the recitation of the pledge, which is entirely voluntary, violates neither the Constitution nor the statute [which prohibits discrimination in Massachusetts public school education] ...," the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said Friday in <em style="-webkit-transition: all 0.3s ease 0s; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">Doe v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District</em>.<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.3s ease 0s; background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.88em; line-height: 22.527999877929688px; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;">
"Simply being offended by something does not make it a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution," said Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco of Alliance Defending Freedom. "As we argued in our brief and as the Supreme Judicial Court found, the recitation is completely voluntary, and listening to the words 'under God' does not violate anyone's constitutional freedoms."</blockquote>
I agree that the term "under God" may not be unconstitutional per se, and neither does a mere inclusion of the phrase into the pledge violate any First Amendment restrictions on the government. However, I am of the personal conviction that the Pledge of Allegiance should not be recited and should be scrapped as a whole, as it is a statist pledge that argues for pledging allegiance to a flag that represents a bloated State, and the "under God" phrase doesn't help that much either. Laurence Vance <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/11/laurence-m-vance/should-christians-recite-the-pledge-of-allegiance/">says</a> of that phrase:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
...just because the phrase “under God” in the Pledge doesn’t violate the Constitution doesn’t mean that it belongs in the Pledge or, more importantly, that Christians should recite the Pledge.<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
One reason why Christians should not recite the Pledge is a simple one, and one that has nothing to do with patriotism or religion.<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The United States is not a nation “under God.”</blockquote>
<div>
Later on, Vance argues against those who would say that "it is not worshipping anything other than God." He argues?</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Only a madman would say that the United States is a nation “under God.”<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Oh, but the Pledge is just some words, some say, the reciting of which doesn’t really mean anything.<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Then why say it? If the Pledge is just some words that don’t really mean anything, then it makes more sense not to say it than to say it.<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The Pledge doesn’t say that the United States used to be one nation under God. It doesn’t say that the United States should be one nation under God. It says that the United States is one nation under God.<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
That is a lie.</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Christians are not supposed to lie:<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds (Colossians 3:9)<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another (Ephesians 4:25)<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Thou shalt not bear false witness (Romans 13:9)<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Is it unpatriotic to not say the Pledge? It may be. But it is certainly right, Christian, and biblical not to.</blockquote>
And not only that, the Pledge can be said to be un-American as well. As Benedict D. LaRosa <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/09/benedict-d-larosa/a-federated-republic-or-one-nation/">points out</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
To Americans of the late 19th century, “allegiance” was a feudal concept denoting subservience to a master. Americans considered themselves sovereigns, not subjects. They feared that the natural supremacy of the individual over his government, as reflected by the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed in the constitutions of the United States and of the several states, might eventually be overturned by the ideas expressed in the Pledge. They, unlike so many Americans today, understood that those who exercise the instruments of government – public servants – feel more comfortable ruling than serving.<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The Pledge’s words also smacked of nationalism, which Americans of that period considered, well, un-American. Their objection to nationalism seems strange today, but to Americans of 1892 it was a dangerous concept.</blockquote>
<div>
And not only that:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Although [the Americans] saw themselves as separate and distinct from foreign peoples and powers, internally they considered themselves a collection of independent states united by a compact called the Constitution of the United States. “One nation” implied that the states were merely subdivisions of a national government, which Americans of that era knew was not the case. Pledging allegiance to one nation, they knew, would undermine the concept of federalism and threaten constitutional government.<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Their suspicions were justified, for the intent of the Pledge’s author, a socialist named Francis Bellamy, was to support the secular education of the public-school system and efforts by the National Education Association (NEA) to counter the growing influence – especially among immigrants – of the Catholic Church’s parochial schools. Bellamy and the NEA felt that inculcating a sense of nationalism into America’s children would serve their purposes.</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
And last, I would also add that the decision of whether to recite the pledge or not <a href="http://www.khou.com/news/local/Boy-punished-at-school-for-refusing-to-stand-for-Pledge-of-Allegiance-258402211.html">is not always voluntary</a>.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, what it all comes down to is that I oppose the Pledge and feel it not only lies about America and glorifies the State but that it isn't even truly American (but then again, sometimes what is "American" can be interpreted subjectively). Thus, I honestly don't care that much regarding the phrase "under God," nor do I support the recitation of it. Despite what some proponents would argue, the Pledge doesn't describe an ideal world but presents itself as a telling of what is. And America's government isn't exactly a promoter of liberty and justice, despite what the Pledge implies. It constantly erodes these two through wiretapping, warrantless spying, police statism, economic regulation, national-security statism, warmongering, and all these.</div>
</div>
</div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-49635708157246290522014-05-14T09:20:00.002-07:002014-05-14T09:22:00.167-07:00New Comments<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I just received several new comments on this blog, and I want to post about it, notifying everyone.<br />
<br />
1. Marc Clair's comment on <a href="http://letterofliberty.blogspot.com/2014/04/in-defense-of-lew-rockwell-part-1.html#.U3OWnnfvbTQ">In Defense of Lew Rockwell, Part 1</a>:<br />
<br />
<header style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #777777; display: block; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 3px; padding-right: 46px;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="post-byline" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="author publisher-anchor-color" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;"><a data-action="profile" data-role="username" data-user="51482105" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&disqus_version=e47e38fa&f=letteroflibertyablogonchristianlibertarianthought&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fletterofliberty.blogspot.com%2F2014%2F04%2Fin-defense-of-lew-rockwell-part-1.html&t_d=%0ALetter%20of%20Liberty%3A%20A%20Blog%20on%20Libertarian%20Christian%20Thought%0A&t_t=%0ALetter%20of%20Liberty%3A%20A%20Blog%20on%20Libertarian%20Christian%20Thought%0A&s_o=desc#" style="-webkit-transition-delay: initial; -webkit-transition-duration: 0.1s; -webkit-transition-property: color; -webkit-transition-timing-function: linear; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(34, 136, 187) !important; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 700; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Marc Clair</a></span></span> <span class="post-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block;"><span aria-hidden="true" class="bullet time-ago-bullet" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; font-size: 10px; line-height: 1.4; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 4px; padding-right: 4px; padding-top: 0px;">•</span> <a class="time-ago" data-role="relative-time" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&disqus_version=e47e38fa&f=letteroflibertyablogonchristianlibertarianthought&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fletterofliberty.blogspot.com%2F2014%2F04%2Fin-defense-of-lew-rockwell-part-1.html&t_d=%0ALetter%20of%20Liberty%3A%20A%20Blog%20on%20Libertarian%20Christian%20Thought%0A&t_t=%0ALetter%20of%20Liberty%3A%20A%20Blog%20on%20Libertarian%20Christian%20Thought%0A&s_o=desc#comment-1384869161" style="-webkit-transition-delay: initial; -webkit-transition-duration: 0.1s; -webkit-transition-property: color; -webkit-transition-timing-function: linear; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgba(0, 39, 59, 0.496094); font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;" title="Wednesday, May 14 2014 11:59 AM">15 minutes ago</a> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Great perspective here and keep up the great work!</blockquote>
</header><br />
<footer style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: rgba(29, 47, 58, 0.597656); display: block; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 4px;"><menu style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"></menu></footer><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #3f4549; line-height: 15px;"><div class="post-body-inner" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message-container" data-role="message-container" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; position: relative; width: 510px; zoom: 1;">
<div class="publisher-anchor-color" data-role="message-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message " data-role="message" dir="auto" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 21px;">
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">2. Henry Moore: "<a href="http://letterofliberty.blogspot.com/2014/05/in-defense-of-lew-rockwell-part-2.html#.U3OW3nfvbTQ">In Defense of Lew Rockwell, Part 2</a>"</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px;"><header style="box-sizing: border-box; display: block; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 3px; padding-right: 46px;"><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: #777777; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span class="post-byline" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="author publisher-anchor-color" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;"><a data-action="profile" data-role="username" data-user="95550787" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&disqus_version=e47e38fa&f=letteroflibertyablogonchristianlibertarianthought&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fletterofliberty.blogspot.com%2F2014%2F05%2Fin-defense-of-lew-rockwell-part-2.html&t_d=%0ALetter%20of%20Liberty%3A%20A%20Blog%20on%20Libertarian%20Christian%20Thought%0A&t_t=%0ALetter%20of%20Liberty%3A%20A%20Blog%20on%20Libertarian%20Christian%20Thought%0A&s_o=desc#" style="-webkit-transition-delay: initial; -webkit-transition-duration: 0.1s; -webkit-transition-property: color; -webkit-transition-timing-function: linear; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(34, 136, 187) !important; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 700; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Henry J. Moore</a></span></span> <span class="post-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block;"><span aria-hidden="true" class="bullet time-ago-bullet" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; font-size: 10px; line-height: 1.4; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 4px; padding-right: 4px; padding-top: 0px;">•</span> <a class="time-ago" data-role="relative-time" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&disqus_version=e47e38fa&f=letteroflibertyablogonchristianlibertarianthought&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fletterofliberty.blogspot.com%2F2014%2F05%2Fin-defense-of-lew-rockwell-part-2.html&t_d=%0ALetter%20of%20Liberty%3A%20A%20Blog%20on%20Libertarian%20Christian%20Thought%0A&t_t=%0ALetter%20of%20Liberty%3A%20A%20Blog%20on%20Libertarian%20Christian%20Thought%0A&s_o=desc#comment-1383899996" style="-webkit-transition-delay: initial; -webkit-transition-duration: 0.1s; -webkit-transition-property: color; -webkit-transition-timing-function: linear; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgba(0, 39, 59, 0.496094); font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;" title="Tuesday, May 13 2014 9:49 PM">14 hours ago</a></span>: Another sound defense of Mr. Rockwell, Anand. The main group of people he (and many other LRC and Mises associates) seems to have a grudge against are beltway "libertarians" who are generally weak on the anti-war issue (and plenty of other key issues) and all too willing to compromise with politicians on this or that. These same "libertarians" have no problem attacking "purists," but when they are on the receiving end of criticism, you'll hear plenty of whining.</blockquote>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">3. Aaron Catlin Styles on the same article:</span></header></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #3f4549; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 15px;"><header style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #777777; display: block; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 3px; padding-right: 46px;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="post-byline" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="author publisher-anchor-color" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;"><a data-action="profile" data-role="username" data-user="106960298" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&disqus_version=e47e38fa&f=letteroflibertyablogonchristianlibertarianthought&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fletterofliberty.blogspot.com%2F2014%2F05%2Fin-defense-of-lew-rockwell-part-2.html&t_d=%0ALetter%20of%20Liberty%3A%20A%20Blog%20on%20Libertarian%20Christian%20Thought%0A&t_t=%0ALetter%20of%20Liberty%3A%20A%20Blog%20on%20Libertarian%20Christian%20Thought%0A&s_o=desc#" style="-webkit-transition-delay: initial; -webkit-transition-duration: 0.1s; -webkit-transition-property: color; -webkit-transition-timing-function: linear; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(34, 136, 187) !important; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 700; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Aaron Catlin Styles</a></span></span> <span class="post-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block;"><span aria-hidden="true" class="bullet time-ago-bullet" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; font-size: 10px; line-height: 1.4; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 4px; padding-right: 4px; padding-top: 0px;">•</span> <a class="time-ago" data-role="relative-time" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&disqus_version=e47e38fa&f=letteroflibertyablogonchristianlibertarianthought&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fletterofliberty.blogspot.com%2F2014%2F05%2Fin-defense-of-lew-rockwell-part-2.html&t_d=%0ALetter%20of%20Liberty%3A%20A%20Blog%20on%20Libertarian%20Christian%20Thought%0A&t_t=%0ALetter%20of%20Liberty%3A%20A%20Blog%20on%20Libertarian%20Christian%20Thought%0A&s_o=desc#comment-1384475744" style="-webkit-transition-delay: initial; -webkit-transition-duration: 0.1s; -webkit-transition-property: color; -webkit-transition-timing-function: linear; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgba(0, 39, 59, 0.496094); font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;" title="Wednesday, May 14 2014 9:22 AM">3 hours ago</a></span>: The "adding to libertarianism" crowd is making a fatal mistake. They are under the delusion that this tactic will draw in "new blood" to the liberty movement. In reality they will push more away since the ideas/philosophies they wish to add are the same flawed ideas and philosophies that drove most of us to libertarianism in the first place. Libertarianism finds it strength in its very basic, widely acceptable, core principles. Lew Rockwell knows this is the case and that is why he is such a integral part of our community. You have defended him wonderfully. Keep up the great work, Anand!</blockquote>
</header></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px;"><header style="box-sizing: border-box; display: block; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 3px; padding-right: 46px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">There are many more comments here on the site, including on "Explaining Anarcho-Capitalism," and I will regularly post when I get new comments. </span></header></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #3f4549; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 15px;"><div class="post-body-inner" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message-container" data-role="message-container" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; position: relative; width: 510px; zoom: 1;">
<div class="publisher-anchor-color" data-role="message-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<span class="post-media" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></span><br />
<ul data-role="post-media-list" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1; list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: initial; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"></ul>
<span class="post-media" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<footer style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: rgba(29, 47, 58, 0.597656); display: block; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 4px;"><menu style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"></menu></footer></span></div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-2058098947423107492014-05-13T05:25:00.000-07:002014-07-17T07:52:53.571-07:00In Defense of Lew Rockwell (Part 2)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In <a href="http://letterofliberty.blogspot.com/2014/04/in-defense-of-lew-rockwell-part-1.html">my first post</a>, I responded to two major criticisms of Lew Rockwell that have surfaced in the libertarian movement, in part due to his alleged "racism" and his extreme radicalism.<br />
<br />
And in my second post on Lew Rockwell, I intend to address several other criticisms regarding his libertarianism and his strategy. I intend to defend Lew again against certain attacks that have surfaced against his work in some libertarian circles, particularly in left-libertarian (or "cosmopolitan libertarian") circles.<br />
<br />
1. <i><b>Lew Rockwell's strategy is too hostile to libertarians that are not in perfect agreement with either Rothbard or Rockwell—in short, Lew Rockwell doesn't welcome disagreements very well</b></i>. Many libertarians who disagree with Rockwell or Rothbard on certain issues often argue that Rockwell doesn't welcome them very well and harbors personal resentment against such libertarians. They see Rockwell as a bitter and cranky man that can't agree to disagree. So they often dismiss him and his work because they see him as not worth spending time with.<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
However, I think this is somewhat far-fetched. It is true that Lew Rockwell disagrees with several libertarians on many issues. For example, he is a culturally conservative Catholic himself while some of the folks at the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI) (Roderick Long, for example) hold to different cultural and social values. However, he has respected them and welcomed them into his institute. Also, he disagrees with Ron Paul with regards to the State (Lew Rockwell is an anarcho-capitalist while Ron Paul is a minarchist-constitutionalist), but Lew has been known to be very good friends with Ron Paul and has often praised Ron's work. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
And even when he diverges from what some libertarian would believe, he doesn't deny that they are libertarians. Far from it, he acknowledges that they are libertarians. However, Rockwell is clear that his strategy would be different from those other libertarians who hold different cultural and social values from him. He himself says in <a href="http://mises.org/daily/2557/Libertarianism-is-a-Revolutionary-Movement">a 2006 interview</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #222222; line-height: 21px;">I've noticed a general tendency here. When the right is in control, the left looks better to libertarians. When the left is in control, the right looks better. We are all generally drawn to the merits of the people who are not in power! So it is hardly surprising to see a rise of "left libertarians" in a time when the chief threat to liberty comes from the right, that is, from the red-state fascists who celebrate militarism and see no downside to every form of human-rights violation. Right now, it seems as if most of the intelligent non-libertarians are on the left. I would only caution that the left is beset with as many problems as the right. They want freedom without markets, peace without free trade, civil liberties without property rights. This can't work.</span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
So while he does welcome some disagreements well, he doesn't welcome compromise on essential libertarian principles. And while it can get counterproductive at times (mostly because left-libertarians can huff and puff at that), I think that is a respectable position to hold.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
2. <i><b>Lew Rockwell promotes dangerous conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism, and all that crazy stuff</b></i>. Another major criticism of Rockwell is with regards to his alleged promotion of conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism/anti-Israel stuff, racism, and most politically incorrect ideologies that many of his detractors despise. They argue that since the general public dislikes such stuff, Lew Rockwell's work is then a hindrance to the liberty movement, not a boon. However, I don't think that such things are harmful to the liberty movement. Yes, such stuff can be counterproductive, but I don't believe it is half as bad as the detractors make it out to be. I believe the conspiracy theories don't go to the extremes of Infowars.com (though Lew himself admires Alex Jones), and most of the "anti-Semitic" stuff is mainly rational, logical thought that refuses to look at the Israel issue with emotionally-charged eyes. As a dispensational premillennialist who believes that God still has a plan for the Jewish people, I don't exactly support much of what the neocon and Israel lobby spouts—they often support war-mongering in the name of national security, economic sanctions on "rogue" nations, and the use of statism/force in furthering their goals. I also believe that it could be argued that <a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/war-guilt-in-the-middle-east/">the Palestinian people can have a better claim to the land on propertarian/property-rights grounds and that the Zionists' actions in 1948 can be called aggression and initiation of force against civilians</a>. And at the end of the day, I would like to close with this statement of Rockwell's himself:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Lew strives to present a diverse daily selection of interesting articles from our writers and other sites, but he does not necessarily endorse every view expressed. He does, however, believe that each piece will repay your reading.</span></blockquote>
<div>
That means that Rockwell doesn't endorse everything he publishes on the site. So keep that in mind whenever you see some "wacky" article on <a href="http://lewrockwell.com/">LRC</a>. And sometimes the "wacky" stuff may not be so bad after all—maybe the reaction to it might not be due to the wackiness of the content <i>per se</i>; it may be because of the over-sensitivity of the reactor. And even the revisionist history from LRC and Mises.org (two of my favorite sites) is very eye-opening and thoughtful. It invites deeper thought and smashes long-established myths that have been taught to us about history, regarding hot topics like Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War, WWI, the national-security state apparatus, WWII, the Vietnam War, and even certain aspects of the Founding. Such revisionism and history is necessary to understand the motivations of the "power elite."<br />
<br />
Murray Rothbard argued long ago in an <a href="http://mises.org/daily/1541">article on revisionism</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #222222; line-height: 21px;">Revisionism is an historical discipline made necessary by the fact that all States are governed by a ruling class that is a minority of the population, and which subsists as a parasitic and exploitative burden upon the rest of society. Since its rule is exploitative and parasitic, the State must purchase the alliance of a group of "Court Intellectuals," whose task is to bamboozle the public into accepting and celebrating the rule of its particular State. The Court Intellectuals have their work cut out for them. In exchange for their continuing work of apologetics and bamboozlement, the Court Intellectuals win their place as junior partners in the power, prestige, and loot extracted by the State apparatus from the deluded public.</span> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #222222; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;"></span>The noble task of Revisionism is to de-bamboozle: to penetrate the fog of lies and deception of the State and its Court Intellectuals, and to present to the public the true history of the motivation, the nature, and the consequences of State activity. By working past the fog of State deception to penetrate to the truth, to the reality behind the false appearances, the Revisionist works to delegitimate, to desanctify, the State in the eyes of the previously deceived public. By doing so, the Revisionist, even if he is not a libertarian personally, performs a vitally important libertarian service.</blockquote>
Thus, revisionism is actually far more noble than its detractors, libertarian or otherwise, would like to believe. And Lew Rockwell's resources—<a href="http://mises.org/">Mises.org</a>, <a href="http://lewrockwell.com/">LewRockwell.com</a>, and the other stuff—do that brilliantly. They shine light and promote liberty, and they do a fine job at that.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #222222; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px;"></span></span></div>
<ul class="list-links" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 15px; list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: initial; list-style-type: disc; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 30px; margin-right: 28px !important; margin-top: 20px !important; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"></ul>
</div>
</div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-66992916954638158742014-05-02T08:45:00.000-07:002014-05-02T08:45:01.711-07:00A Christian's Perspective on Santa Claus<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Santa Claus is a divisive issue among many Christians. Some Christians see Santa Claus as harmless fun for children. Some see him as a fabrication of Satan used to deceive little ones away from the truth. And still some say that while there is nothing wrong <i>per se </i>with having Santa Claus appear at a party and ask children about what they want for gifts, there should be clarification as to whether Santa Claus is real or not.<br />
<br />
My view of this is that while children should recognize that Santa Claus is not a real character, there is nothing sinful about enjoying his depiction in cinema, literature, TV, or in any other area. There is also nothing sinful about dressing up as Santa Claus or inviting a fake Santa over to one's Christmas party or event.<br />
<br />
But still, we must keep in mind that we ought to be telling the truth (Colossians 3:9), for if we lie, and if we don't clarify it, then kids might be deceived into thinking Santa Claus is real when he is not (though I will submit that there is room for debate among Christians as to whether letting kids believe in Santa is a deadly lie or not).<br />
<br />
Having said that, however, we could do well by looking into how the Santa Claus stories came to be, that in fact they were ultimately based off a real person in a real setting.<br />
<br />
<b>Saint Nicholas: The "Original Santa Claus"</b><br />
<br />
Many have noted that Santa Claus's possible origins might lie in the Greek bishop Saint Nicholas (270-343), who was the Bishop of Myra in Lycia. He was known for many things, including his famed miracles attributed to his intercessions, the most iconic trait of his was his secret gift-giving. Many have gone into further detail about his great acts and his childhood, so I will not do this here. But I will note his most famous act. A poor man had three daughters, and he lacked the proper dowry for a wedding. This would mean that due to their poverty, the daughters might resort to prostitution to receive money. So Nicholas saw this and wanted to help them. However, due to the fact that the poor man might be humiliated at the thought of receiving charity and that Nicholas didn't want to look like one drawing attention onto oneself (Matthew 6:1), he decided to give secretly (Matthew 6:3-4), and in the night he threw three purses of gold coins through the window of the house. There are many variations of this tale, but one thing remains clear: the secret charity of St. Nicholas was so memorable that later it influenced other depictions of Santa Claus either indirectly or directly.<br />
<br />
<b>How Did Santa Claus Come About?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
But since we had the original St. Nicholas, why couldn't we have him? Why did we choose Santa Claus? The reason is a little bit complicated. Let us turn to Mark Driscoll and see <a href="http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/mark_driscoll/2010/12/what_we_tell_our_kids_about_santa.html">how he explains this</a>:<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="color: red;">During the Reformation, however, Nicholas fell out of favor with Protestants, who did not approve of canonizing certain people as saints and venerating them with holidays. His holiday was not celebrated in any Protestant country except Holland, where his legend as Sinterklass lived on. In Germany, Martin Luther replaced him with the Christ child as the object of holiday celebration, or, in German, Christkindl. Over time, the celebration of the Christ child was simply pronounced Kris Kringle and oddly became just another name for Santa Claus.</span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">And then again, the common tale of Santa Claus might have originated from folk tales from various cultures (some of which came from the legends of Saint Nicholas) that have been brought to America by Dutch immigrants. While there are commonly held legends, there is not one official interpretation of Santa Claus (though some could count <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Life_and_Adventures_of_Santa_Claus">L. Frank Baum's rendition of the Santa Claus story</a> to be a definitive version of the American Santa Claus we all know and love). There are many varieties of this character, such as Father Christmas from England, Sinterklaas and other variations. However, these traditions all center around one jolly old man who brings joy throughout the Christmas season (or winter holidays).</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><b>What Should The Christian Think About All This?</b></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><b><br /></b></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">I have given a historical perspective on St. Nicholas and Santa Claus, and now I will explore how Christians should react to it.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">I said before that Christians should not be dishonest in dealing with this issue, especially when it comes to children. However, as long as Santa Claus does not replace Jesus Christ as the center of Christmas, there is nothing wrong with enjoying this tradition. And it would be helpful in telling the story of St. Nicholas and how it relates to Christianity and to Santa Claus.</span></span></div>
</div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-6767172905952435872014-04-27T06:09:00.000-07:002014-07-17T07:51:34.965-07:00In Defense of Lew Rockwell (Part 1)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Recently, Lew Rockwell announced that he was writing a new book — <i>Against the State: An Anarcho-Capitalist Manifesto</i>. However, <span style="background-color: white; line-height: 21.559999465942383px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Eglė Markevičiūtė, member of the International Executive Board for Students for Liberty (SFL), decided <a href="https://www.facebook.com/markeviciuteegle/posts/10152377078755987?stream_ref=10">to attack Lew Rockwell</a>. Robert Wenzel responded to <a href="http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/04/bizarre-attack-on-lew-rockwell.html">her quite well</a>. However, <a href="http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/04/note-to-libertarian-bloggers-how-to.html">he also suggested that one can increase one's blog traffic by speaking in favor of Lew Rockwell and libertarian purity</a>. I will embark upon this attempt to defend Lew Rockwell and his libertarian work against certain criticisms that he has received from some libertarians, not just to increase the blog traffic but also because I want to clear up some misinformation that has been spread about this man.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 21.559999465942383px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 21.559999465942383px;">My personal views on Rockwell are this: while he is not a flawless man and while he is human, I think Rockwell is a boon to the liberty movement, a tireless and fearless defender of liberty, not afraid to ruffle a few feathers (even among libertarians), and he is always willing and able to stand fast to the liberty message.</span><br /><br /><span style="line-height: 21.559999465942383px;">However, some libertarians don't share as fond a view of Rockwell that I do (his work has been instrumental in my becoming a libertarian). Many see him as a bitter egomaniac and a right-wing racist who is bad for the liberty movement, often because of Rockwell's controversial views on certain things (federalism, Lincoln, etc.). I intend to respond to a few criticisms of Rockwell that I have encountered among some libertarians and clear up certain misconceptions that I have found.</span><br /><br /><span style="line-height: 21.559999465942383px;">1. </span><b style="line-height: 21.559999465942383px;"><i>Lew Rockwell is a racist who was responsible for the Ron Paul newsletters and isn't man enough to admit it</i></b><span style="line-height: 21.559999465942383px;">. This is one of the most interesting criticisms of Lew Rockwell that I have encountered, as it recollects to the controversial Ron Paul newsletters that the mainstream media dug up in light of the Ron Paul revolution of 2008 and 2012. Some libertarians have suggested that Lew Rockwell, a friend of Ron Paul and the late Murray Rothbard, was responsible for writing the newsletters and that he should come clean about it. Particularly notable is the libertarian magazine </span><i style="line-height: 21.559999465942383px;">Reason's</i> <a href="http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html" style="line-height: 21.559999465942383px;">coverage</a><span style="line-height: 21.559999465942383px;"> of the issue, which pinned the whole thing on Lew Rockwell and the "paleo-libertarian" strategy that Rockwell and Rothbard advocated in the 1990s.</span><br /><br /><span style="line-height: 21.559999465942383px;">However, Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com addresses this issue very ably in </span><a href="http://takimag.com/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul" style="line-height: 21.559999465942383px;">his column</a><span style="line-height: 21.559999465942383px;"> for </span><i style="line-height: 21.559999465942383px;">Taki's Magazine</i><span style="line-height: 21.559999465942383px;"> on the issue. He points out that the so-called "racist" statements are actually far from racism and that those statements are actually not anti-libertarian or a stumbling block to libertarianism. He said this of Ron Paul that can be safely applied to Lew Rockwell:</span></span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit; line-height: 18.001798629760742px; text-align: justify;">It’s no mystery, really: Ron Paul is, in many ways, the exact opposite of the Beltway fake-“libertarians.” He’s a populist: they suck up to power, he challenges the powers-that-be; they go along to get along – he has never gone along with the conventional wisdom as defined by the arbiters of political correctness, Left and Right. And most of all, he’s an avowed enemy of the neoconservatives, whom he constantly names as the main danger to peace and liberty – while the Beltway’s tame “libertarians” are in bed with them, often literally as well as figuratively.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 18.001798629760742px;">2. <i><b>Lew Rockwell's political incorrectness, radicalism and right-wing extremism are dangerous for libertarianism</b></i>. Another corollary criticism of Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute is that regarding Lew Rockwell's politically incorrect ideas, radical interpretation of libertarianism and culturally conservative views, as well as Rockwell's own rejection of leftist values and political correctness. Left-libertarians and culturally liberal libertarians often protest that Lew Rockwell's "backwards" values will hinder the liberty movement from growing and will ultimately hinder libertarianism.<br /><br />One author <a href="http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/9253-ron-paul-must-repudiate-lew-rockwell-not-ready">argues</a>:</span></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; text-align: center;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="color: #444444; line-height: 21.503999710083008px;">Mentioned in Weigel and Sanchez’s piece was another libertarian giant, Murray Rothbard, who was mostly an advocate of what is known as “</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchocapitalism" style="color: #134088; line-height: 21.503999710083008px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">anarcho-capitalism</a><span style="color: #444444; line-height: 21.503999710083008px;">.” This is what libertarians are typically branded with by those on the right and left, that we want to create a world where there is no government, where everything is handled by private companies (including courts, fire departments, police, </span><a href="http://mises.org/daily/3416" style="color: #134088; line-height: 21.503999710083008px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">highways</a><span style="color: #444444; line-height: 21.503999710083008px;">, you name it, it’s private.) While I feel that anarcho-capitalism does get a bum rap, most libertarians do not espouse this position. Most of us instead believe a minimal government is ideal, even some of us (myself included) may be “</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_anarchism" style="color: #134088; line-height: 21.503999710083008px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">philosophical anarchists</a><span style="color: #444444; line-height: 21.503999710083008px;">,” that it would be nice to have anarchy, that it would be a great ideal, but it’s just that—an ideal, something that will not work in the real world.</span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #444444; line-height: 21.503999710083008px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Ah, just more "anarcho-capitalism is great in theory but bad in practice." However, even if most libertarians are not anarchists, I believe that the non-anarchist is being somewhat naive in believing that there is such a thing as limited government, for the State doesn't limit itself but in fact will use what is intended as a limit to expand its own power. For example, certain phrases in the Constitution that could be interpreted as limited government platitudes by one group can then be interpreted as statist platitudes in one instance. Murray Rothbard himself said in "<a href="http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp">Anatomy of the State</a>":</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5em;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1.5em;">Certainly the most ambitious attempt to impose limits on the State has been the Bill of Rights and other restrictive parts of the American Constitution, in which written limits on government became the fundamental law to be interpreted by a judiciary supposedly independent of the other branches of government. All Americans are familiar with the process by which the construction of limits in the Constitution has been inexorably broadened over the last century. But few have been as keen as Professor Charles Black to see that the State has, in the process, largely transformed judicial review itself from a limiting device to yet another instrument for furnishing ideological legitimacy to the government's actions. For if a judicial decree of "unconstitutional" is a mighty check to government power, an implicit or explicit verdict of "constitutional" is a mighty weapon for fostering public acceptance of ever-greater government power.</span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1.5em;">
</span></div>
<br />
<div>
So basically, the "great in theory but bad in practice" can truly be applied to the belief in "limited government" rather than anarcho-capitalism.<br />
<br />
And as to Rockwell's political incorrectness and right-wing leanings, I would like to give extended comment. In many of Rockwell's writings, I haven't noticed any attempt to claim that his "right-wing values" are libertarianism, whereas in many of his left-wing detractors' writings, I have noticed attempts to merge libertarianism and culturally leftist values into one holistic philosophy. Yes, Lew Rockwell probably believes his views fit more nicely with libertarianism, but that does not mean he wants to incorporate it into a "holistic" libertarianism; in fact, he is a "thin" libertarian who believes that libertarianism is only a political philosophy dealing with the non-aggression principle/axiom and the use of force in society. In his recent article "<a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/lew-rockwell/what-libertarianism-is-and-isnt/">What Libertarianism Is, And Isn't</a>," Rockwell rightly says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #2b1b17; font-family: inherit; line-height: 20px;">Libertarianism is concerned with the use of violence in society. That is all. It is not anything else. It is not feminism. It is not egalitarianism (except in a functional sense: everyone equally lacks the authority to aggress against anyone else). It has nothing to say about aesthetics. It has nothing to say about religion or race or nationality or sexual orientation. It has nothing to do with left-wing campaigns against “white privilege,” unless that privilege is state-supplied.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #2b1b17; font-family: inherit; line-height: 20px;">Let me repeat: the only “privilege” that matters to a libertarian </span><i style="border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; font-family: inherit; line-height: 20px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">qua </i><span style="background-color: white; color: #2b1b17; font-family: inherit; line-height: 20px;">libertarian is the kind that comes from the barrel of the state’s gun. Disagree with this statement if you like, but in that case you will have to substitute some word other than libertarian to describe your philosophy.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #2b1b17; font-family: inherit; line-height: 20px;">Libertarians are of course free to concern themselves with issues like feminism and egalitarianism. But their interest in those issues has nothing to do with, and is not required by or a necessary feature of, their libertarianism. Accordingly, they may not impose these preferences on other libertarians, or portray themselves as fuller, more consistent, or more complete libertarians. We have seen enough of our words twisted and appropriated by others. We do not mean to let them have </span><span style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; font-family: inherit; line-height: 20px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #2b1b17; font-style: italic;">libertarian.</span></span></blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 15px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #2b1b17;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">So this should put to rest some concerns that Rockwell is trying to make libertarianism right-wing. And if by right-wing it is meant consistency and purity in libertarianism, then I am all for it, as it is not an attempt to insert cultural values into libertarianism.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #2b1b17;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">Logan Albright also </span><a href="http://mises.ca/posts/blog/what-libertarianism-is-not/" style="line-height: 20px;">notes</a><span style="line-height: 20px;">:</span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #2b1b17;"><span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 21px;">The trouble is that by attempting to redefine a narrow political philosophy to encompass all things that we like and think are nice – like non-discrimination, like treating people as ends rather than means – we dilute its power and simplicity. We destroy what makes it great. Once we proceed down the road of declaring everything we think is good to be “libertarian,” we will quickly find that libertarianism suddenly has no meaning at all.</span></span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #2b1b17;"><span style="line-height: 21px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So I have noticed that many of Rockwell's detractors have often criticized him for not being "thick" enough, for being too strict and all that.<br /><br />However, this strictness is what keeps libertarianism from being convoluted, and I am all for that.<br /><br /><i>Next up: Part 2, where I deal with more criticisms of Lew Rockwell and his strategies for liberty.</i></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<span style="color: #2b1b17;">
</span></div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-39594917933459572082014-04-23T12:05:00.001-07:002014-05-02T09:03:53.637-07:00What Should Christians Think About Taxes?: Part 2 - "Thou Shalt Not Steal"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In my <a href="http://letterofliberty.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-should-christians-think-about.html">first post</a> on the subject of Christians and taxes, I argued that the "render unto Caesar" and "pay your taxes" passages in the New Testament does not make taxes themselves moral. In this post, I will argue that taxes are a form of theft, and that they violate the Ten Commandments, especially the command to not steal and the command to have no other gods before God.<br />
<br />
<b>"Thou Shalt Not Steal" - Exodus 20:15</b><br />
<br />
The Ten Commandments i the great moral bedrock of moral and ethical law by which Jews and Christians abide by. They have endured in the hearts and souls of many throughout all of history, and they have enriched the hearts of all who abide by them (and they receive their fullest recognition in Christ Jesus).<br />
<br />
However, even so, there is one passage that most people don't seem to grasp as fully as I believe they should and that is the sixth commandment. "You shall not steal." (Exodus 20:15).<br />
<br />
Most people recognize that this commandment is a condemnation of theft, and many also believe that it protects the sanctity of private property rights, as the majority of property titles are obtained and earned justly (through "homesteading" and/or through voluntary exchange). However, when one condemns taxation as a violation of this commandment, most Christians will recoil and argue that since taxes are commanded in the Scripture elsewhere, then taxes cannot be theft.<br />
<br />
However, such a dismissal not only misunderstands the nature of taxes but also the nature of theft and how it doesn't suddenly become something else when it is made legal or labeled by another name.<br />
<br />
First, let us look at what taxes are. Essentially, they are the forcible taking of earnings and fruits of one's labor by the State for the use of the State. They are done without the consent of the taxed person, and often the person who refuses to pay taxes is sent a paper, and if he resists further, he is dragged to court (or immediately jailed, depending on the society one lives in) and if he resists even more, he will probably be killed in the process. These are not mere dues that one pays for living in society; they are forcible takings of one's goods and services for the benefit of the State.<br />
<br />
Murray Rothbard says of the state and taxes in <a href="http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp"><i>For A New Liberty</i></a>:<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">At first, of course, it is startling for someone to consider taxation as robbery, and therefore government as a band of robbers. But anyone who persists in thinking of taxation as in some sense a "voluntary" payment can see what happens if he chooses not to pay. The great economist Joseph Schumpeter, himself by no means a libertarian, wrote that "the state has been living on a revenue which was being produced in the private sphere for private purposes and had to be deflected from these purposes by political force. The theory which construes taxes on the analogy of club dues or of the purchase of the services of, say, a doctor only proves how far removed this part of the social sciences is from scientific habits of mind."</span><sup style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.5em; line-height: 0; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -0.5em;"><a href="http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#note3.4" id="return3.4" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); border: 0px; color: #1765bc; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">4</a></sup><span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"> The eminent Viennese "legal positivist" Hans Kelsen attempted...</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">to establish a political theory and justification of the State, on a strictly "scientific" and value-free basis. What happened is that early in the book, he came to the crucial sticking-point, the </span><em style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">pons asinorum</em><span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"> of political philosophy: </span><em style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">What</em><span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"> distinguishes the edicts of the State from the commands of a bandit gang? Kelsen's answer was simply to say that the decrees of the State are "valid," and to proceed happily from there, without bothering to define or explain this concept of "validity." Indeed, it would be a useful exercise for nonlibertarians to ponder this question: </span><em style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">How</em><span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"> can you define taxation in a way which makes it different from robbery?</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 21px;">And the very existence of the State creates two classes, the <i>taxpayers</i> and the <i>tax consumers</i>. The late philosopher John C. Calhoun said in his <i><a href="http://www.constitution.org/jcc/disq_gov.htm">Disquisition on Government</a></i>:</span></span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0.5em 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
The necessary result, then, of the unequal fiscal action of the government is to divide the community into two great classes: one consisting of those who, in reality, pay the taxes and, of course, bear exclusively the burden of supporting the government; and the other, of those who are the recipients of their proceeds through disbursements, and who are, in fact, supported by the government; or, in fewer words, to divide it into tax-payers and tax-consumers.<span style="line-height: 1.5em; text-align: center;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
But the effect of this is to place them in antagonistic relations in reference to the fiscal action of the government — and the entire course of policy therewith connected. For the greater the taxes and disbursements, the greater the gain of the one and the loss of the other, and vice versa . . . . The effect, then, of every increase is to enrich and strengthen the one, and impoverish and weaken the other.</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0.5em 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Another reason that makes taxation a worse form of theft is that it is legitimized by its defenders as being a necessity for society, without which none of us can survive and without which we would all become selfish pricks without concern for morality or justice. However, this is definitely not the case at all, and I believe the tax defenders are misunderstood. Fees may be asked of by private (non-state) communities in the anarcho-capitalist society, but even then they won't be forced on the non-consenting parties, like taxation is. Just because one doesn't actively kill a tax collector to prevent being taxed doesn't mean that consensual transferring of wealth has occurred. Theft is theft.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>"Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me" - Exodus 20:3</b><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />Another important consideration when dealing with taxes is the issue of who is God. Often taxes are collected by the State in an attempt to make itself godlike and powerful. Many times, as others noted elsewhere, the State charges even more than God Himself commanded His people to pay (State tax rates are often higher than the 10% tithe God commands His people to pay).<br /><br />C. Jay Engel, a Reformed Baptist anarcho-capitalist, <a href="http://reformedlibertarian.com/articles/politics/the-messianic-propensity-of-the-state/">says of this</a>:</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Beyond the realm of goods and services, the State has stolen the messianic mindset. For in its massive taxation of the people, what has the State really claimed, but that it is the ultimate owner of whatever revenue the individual makes for himself? This soon becomes a knowledge issue. By its decrees and by its own calculation, the State assumes the ability to determine exactly how much money an individual “needs” and how much is good for him. And when by licensing and certifying business to provide services for each other, the State has set up itself as Society’s sovereign institution, making it plain that, by only the grace of itself can the economy operate.</span></span></blockquote>
<div>
This is indeed true. By taxing the people, the State asserts that it has the right to take part of the capital of its own subjects/people. It asserts that its own well-being is more valuable to the people than if the people merely kept their earnings and capital and allocated them elsewhere in more productive suits. It takes resources and money that would arguably be allocated more justly in the private sector and wastes it in the public sector, often <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/irs-spent-50-million-of-taxpayers-money-on-hotels-star-trek-videos-squirting-toys-97458/">on things that have no worth and meaning</a>. With the exception of inflation and money-creation that occurs in the fractional-reserve/central-bank system that now exists in America, taxation is one of the most powerful and deadly uses of state power. As the famous statement opines: "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Indeed. Without taxation, not only would the State be unable to do major damage, but the very structure of the State would disappear, as it should (in my view, but more on that later).<br />
<br />
And how does this all relate to idolatry? In many ways it does. While taxation is indeed forced upon the people, oftentimes some people see their taxes as offerings to the state. Why is the State's taxation idolatrous? Because it takes money that rightly belongs to God and to man (to man because man often earns his wealth justly) and expropriates it for itself. It assumes that since it is the chief unifying force of society without which society would collapse, it assumes the right to forcibly take money from its citizens and use it for its own purposes (and also other services that are done in the name of the people, when in fact, those services can be provided better in the free market by individuals).<br />
<br />
<b>The Fundamental Question: What Right Has The State To Tax Us?</b></div>
<br />
It all comes down to this: what right has the State to tax us? Some may say that Romans 13 approves the State as an institution and thus taxes are a legitimate and godly thing, provided they are not excessive. However, I would argue that Romans 13's ideas don't endorse the exploitative institution known as the State and that the command to pay taxes was not a legitimizing of the tax system but rather a command of Christians to pay in order to avoid persecution (as at the time the corrupt Roman bureaucracy would severely persecute tax resistors).<br />
<br />
Another factor to consider is how the State originates itself. I argue that it is rooted in exploitation and aggressive force; it is not voluntary governance that everyone agrees to, but rather it is an institution that lives off of force and taxes. This is what is called the Rothbardian theory, the anarcho-capitalist theory, or the conquest theory of the state. C. Jay Engel <a href="http://reformedlibertarian.com/articles/philosophy/the-origination-of-the-state/">says</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px;">The origination of the State is in conquest. Whereas many Statists will attempt to show that the State is a grassroots or “bottom-up” phenomenon (an interesting claim, as those who today write the political narrative generally despise “bottom-up” approaches), the so-called “Austro-libertarian” theory is that the State forces itself onto the people it claims to “represent.” There is interests of wealth, money, and economics on one hand, and also a general disposition to be in charge and to rule over others. The State, therefore, is alien to the people, its victims.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.5px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">What should the Christian think of this though? Is the conquest theory really incompatible with the Bible? Or is there something more? Engel says:</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px none; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; list-style: none; outline: none; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
They believe that the origination of the State is to be found in God’s ordination. God ordains the existence of the State. Therefore, it is a reality because He seeks to accomplish some aim by means of this State. Try to stay with me here. Many Christians will then say: “Therefore, the State is good.” But that is absurd. Doesn’t God ordain evil? Why would we ever take the position of: “God ordained the existence of Satan, therefore Satan’s existence is good”? That is not a Biblical logic. More importantly, consider <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&c=2&t=ESV#s=1020023" style="-webkit-transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out; border: 0px none; color: black; list-style: none; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out;" target="_blank" title="http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&c=2&t=ESV#s=1020023">Acts 2:23</a>: “this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” The gravity of understanding that the death of Jesus Christ was planned, ordained, from eternity past should be emphasized. Is not the murder of the God-man Christ Jesus the most horrific crime in all of history? Is there any better way of demonstrating the depravity of mankind? And yet, it was ordained by God Himself. Yes, God ordains evil. God ordains all things. So the assumption that the State is good because it was ordained by God is a poor assumption if that is the only reason given.<span style="text-align: center;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
(This is, of course, setting aside the discussion of the goodness of some agency, perhaps on the free market, which plays the role of “punisher,” or “government.” And I assume that by now the reader is familiar with the distinction that I find useful of separating the <em style="border: 0px none; list-style: none; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px;">State</em> as a monopoly institution and the <em style="border: 0px none; list-style: none; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px;">government</em> as a role in civil society. One can be provided on the free market and the other requires the initiation of force. Whether or not the State should be accepted as a civil good is a different conversation, but I do want to point out the coercive nature that is core to its character.)</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 1.5em;">It is clearer now that the conquest theory of the State—that the State lives off of conquest and is born in such—is not exactly contrary to the view that God "ordains" the State, since God can "ordain" bad things and He can permit them to happen. And often, history testifies to the fact that States are formed in conquest and aggression, ranging from the conquests against other nations that occur against other nations or even <a href="http://archive.lewrockwell.com/nock/nock17.1.html">the (gasp) somewhat secretive nature in which our constitutional system was formed</a>. And not even "democracy" can legitimize the State, for as <a href="http://lewrockwell.com/nock/nock10.html">the late Albert J. Nock noted in <i>The American Mercury</i></a>:</span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: black; line-height: normal; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, Times, serif; font-size: small;"></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">...the idea that the procedure of the "democratic" State is any less criminal than that of the State under any other fancy name, is rubbish. The country is now being surfeited with journalistic garbage about our great sister democracy, England, its fine democratic government, its vast beneficent gift for ruling subject peoples, and so on; but does anyone ever look up the criminal record of the British State? The bombardment of Copenhagen; the Boer War; the Sepoy Rebellion; the starvation of Germans by the post-Armistice blockade; the massacre of natives in India, Afghanistan, Jamaica; the employment of Hessians to kill off American colonists. What is the difference, moral or actual, between Kitchener's democratic concentration camps and the totalitarian concentration camps maintained by Herr Hitler? The totalitarian general Badoglio is a pretty hard-boiled brother, if you like, but how about the democratic general O'Dwyer and Governor Eyre? Any of the three stands up pretty well beside our own democratic virtuoso, Hell Roaring Jake Smith,<sup></sup> in his treatment of the Filipinos; and you can't say fairer than that.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">The conclusion that I take here is that not only are taxes a form of stealing and that they are somewhat of an idolatrous thing, but they have no legitimacy, not even when it is democratic or plastered with Christian symbols. Even while taxes should be paid by the Christian, that does not mean that taxes are pre se legitimate. One can fully support Christians paying their taxes while at the same time supporting any call for the abolition or (at the very least) reduction of any taxes, and one can even support the abolition of taxes and the state itself with a clear conscience.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 1.5em;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-43555929594294437682014-04-20T05:46:00.001-07:002014-04-30T09:40:51.222-07:00Film Review: THE SEARCHERS (1956)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i><b>The Searchers</b></i> (1956)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwTbLrcIsmap3p1C0BoYlblJz5fcZHRnRs00WfBv52WgORXWt-wKu2cvACxeQK9tn8Z9ax3oin3U6NTLeCpfHjX79zjuJyLD6hH68C6BH2FGDCJB0EwgUVmKfikHLgNz3cgbfweEveOgiZ/s1600/The+Searchers+theatrical+poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwTbLrcIsmap3p1C0BoYlblJz5fcZHRnRs00WfBv52WgORXWt-wKu2cvACxeQK9tn8Z9ax3oin3U6NTLeCpfHjX79zjuJyLD6hH68C6BH2FGDCJB0EwgUVmKfikHLgNz3cgbfweEveOgiZ/s1600/The+Searchers+theatrical+poster.jpg" height="400" width="247" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><u>Director</u></b>: John Ford</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><u>Producer</u></b>: Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<u><b>Story/Screenplay</b></u>: Frank S. Nugent; based on <i>The Searchers</i> by Alan Le May</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><u>Music</u></b>: Max Steiner; Stan Jones (title song, "The Searchers")</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><u>Cinematography</u></b>: Winton C. Hoch</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><u>Editing</u></b>; Jack Murray</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><u>Starring</u></b>: John Wayne, Jeffrey Hunter, Vera Miles, Ward Bond, Natalie Wood, Hank Worden</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>MPAA Rating</b>: NR</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><u>Studio</u></b>: Warner Bros. Pictures</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>***** (5/5)</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>"That'll be the day." — Ethan Edwards, <i>The Searchers</i></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<i>The Searchers</i> is a truly popular film, even as it is 58 years old to date (in 2016 it will be its 60th anniversary). The American Film Institute named it the greatest Western of all time in 2008, one of the top 100 greatest American movies ever made in 2007 and 1998, and held by critics, fans of Western movies, cinephiles and almost everyone as not only one of the greatest Westerns of all time (and maybe THE greatest Western) but also one of the all-time great movies. Despite it not receiving major Oscar nominations upon its release, it was a commercial success and ultimately a popular and critical success, not only then but also now. This is especially important, as Westerns are often written off by most serious folks as being mindless exercises in violence and racism and nationalistic jingoism. Often that is true, especially among some of the older B-westerns and even in some acclaimed Westerns. However, even many who normally don't think very highly of Westerns per se are very fond of <i>The Searchers</i>, mainly in part due to the cinematic qualities that Ford and all involved placed in the film, and also how it manages to not succumb to the typical problems that plagued most Western films before this film came out. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
For example, whereas racism was often viewed lightly and even condoned in previous Western films, <i>The Searchers</i> departed from this route, even as it was still a classical American Western movie. Yes, it did not take a politically correct view of the Native Americans or the Comanche, but neither did it subscribe to the gung-ho Manifest Destiny doctrine that many a Western would subscribe to before.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
And I was very impressed by the film, considering that this was the first Western I have watched. I was impressed not only by the depth and filmmaking quality of this movie but also its many other merits. But I will get to that later on.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<i>The Searchers</i> centers around the story of former Confederate war hero Ethan Edwards (John Wayne), who returns back to Texas three years after the Civil War ended. He returns to his brother Aaron Edwards's (Walter Coy) home, as well as to his wife Martha (Dorothy Jordan) (whom many consider to have had a previous relation with John Wayne's character). And his character is established as a racist who doesn't like Indians—this is established when he mocks his young relative Martin Pawley (Jeffrey Hunter)—and who is a wanderer that has no stable place to settle. Later on, it turns out that the Comanche Indians raided the cattle of Lars Jorgensen (John Qualen), and eventually it is found that the whole thing was a decoy for the parties involved to leave their homes undefended and prone to Indian attacks.</div>
<br />
And it turns out that Indians do attack the homes (led by war chief Scar (Henry Brandon)), and especially Aaron's house. His wife Martha is dead (even raped, which is definitely not depicted on-screen but surely implied). However, Debbie (Lana Wood) and Lucy (Pippa Scott), Ethan's two nieces, come with him, as well as Mose Harper (Hank Worden), Captain Samuel Clayton (Ward Bond), Martin, and Lars's son Brad Jorgensen (Harry Carey, Jr.) (who had some romantic relations with Lucy). But due to certain events, the rest of them leave the journey, with Ethan, Martin and Brad alone to continue the journey. However, it turns out that Lucy, one of the girls, was raped and killed by the Comanche kidnappers and left out there. Brad, grieved by this, runs out and is killed as a result by the Indians.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This leaves Ethan and Martin now to find Debbie; however, through the span of five years, many interesting events happen, including one with Laurie Jorgensen (Vera Miles), who desperately wants to fall in love and has her eye set on Martin. However, Martin's adventures hinder him from responding to Laurie's claims, which anger her even more (a very strong running point in the film).</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Another subplot comes in with regard to Ethan's racism toward Indians, particularly Comanche (who killed his mother a long time ago). It is revealed that his racism is so strong that it spills over into cultural bias; he even harbors a hatred for former white victims of Comanche raids that were brainwashed—he even wants to consider murdering Debbie (Natalie Wood) due to her having assimilated into the Indian ways and Indian culture. This leaves for another layer of development that set <i>The Searchers</i> apart from not only previous Westerns but also previous John Wayne performances. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
While this film definitely is celebrated and a hallowed piece of Americana in American cinema, it still does have a fair share of detractors, who argue that the film takes a hypocritical stance on racism; they argue that while <i>The Searchers</i> does have anti-racist themes, it does wallow in racism throughout the film, as Indian-related stuff is often related to either evil things or awkward John Ford humor. I would respond that the treatment toward Indians is not flawless and it does have tinges of racism; even so, the anti-racist theme remains powerful, especially in the second half.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Normally in an old Western, the white man would be depicted as the undisputed hero and the Indian as the undisputed villain. Yes, <i>The Searchers</i> retains some of that classical trapping in its structure, with the Indian characters being the villains and the white people being depicted as the protagonists/heroes. However, added to this film is a thought-provoking and excellent layer of moral ambiguity and unsettling power that distinguishes this movie. Ethan Edwards is at once depicted both as a courageous war hero looking out for his only living niece and a culturalist/racist who hates Comanches and whites brainwashed by Comanches. The film skillfully juxtaposes this and uses the other protagonist, Martin Pawley, as a foil to Ethan's virulent racism, which offends even his closest friends.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
What made <i>The Searchers</i> a towering masterpiece is not just all the great technical achievements (directing, acting, mise-en-scene, cinematography, writing, creative uses of flashbacks, beautiful shots and memorable sequences, etc.), all of which deserve the honors they receive, but the moral ambiguity that is prevalent in the film. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Roger Ebert's interesting essay on this film sums up quite nicely:</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Georgia, Cambria, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.399999618530273px;"></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Georgia, Cambria, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.399999618530273px;">Ethan Edwards, fierce, alone, a defeated soldier with no role in peacetime, is one of the most compelling characters Ford and Wayne ever created (they worked together on 14 films). Did they know how vile Ethan's attitudes were? I would argue that they did, because Wayne was in his personal life notably free of racial prejudice, and because Ford made films with more sympathetic views of Indians. This is not the instinctive, oblivious racism of Griffith's “Birth of a Nation.” Countless Westerns have had racism as the unspoken premise; this one consciously focuses on it. I think it took a certain amount of courage to cast Wayne as a character whose heroism was tainted. Ethan's redemption is intended to be shown in that dramatic shot of reunion with Debbie, where he takes her in his broad hands, lifts her up to the sky, drops her down into his arms, and says, “Let's go home, Debbie.” The shot is famous and beloved, but small counterbalance to his views throughout the film--and indeed, there is no indication be thinks any differently about Indians.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Steven D. Greydanus also rightly <a href="http://www.decentfilms.com/reviews/searchers">notes</a>: "<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Trebuchet, 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16.639999389648438px;">The film’s complexity and ambiguity extends even to the famous climax, in which two central characters make choices that could be viewed as changes of heart, but could also be viewed as differing responses to changing circumstances. Do the characters change and develop, or is the truth about them simply more clearly revealed? </span><i style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Trebuchet, 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16.639999389648438px;">The Searchers</i><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Trebuchet, 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16.639999389648438px;"> offers no clear-cut answers, not even to the question in the theme song."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Trebuchet, 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16.639999389648438px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 16.639999389648438px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">While such a film can easily become preachy and heavy-handed, <i>The Searchers</i> brilliantly avoided this trap and gave us not only a great masterpiece of cinema but a film that can be appreciated by almost anybody, even one who likes Westerns as a shoot-em-up genre. Everything has a purpose and is used skillfully by Ford, even the often awkward comic humor and romantic subplots, which show the contrast between humanity and Ethan's wandering nature.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 16.639999389648438px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 16.639999389648438px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">John Wayne gives one of his greatest performances, which also happens to be one of the greatest roles in film. His Ethan Edwards is one of the greatest anti-heroic protagnoists in film, contrasting his most admirable bravery with his despicable and twisted racism and hatred of the Commanches which is infused by a statist and quasi-totalitarian desire to not only kill Commanches but also those who were integrated into this culture. Jeffrey Hunter is also brilliant as Ethan's foil, Martin Pawley, and Hunter's performance infuses humanity into the darkness of this film. And the rest of the performances are also superb, including that of Hank Worden's Mose Harper, Ford's comic-relief character that actually helps the film a lot in many ways more than one. For example, Jason Fraley's <a href="http://thefilmspectrum.com/?p=3655">in-depth essay</a> notes: "</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Bookman, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">Thus there’s almost a humorous significance to Mose’s constant cries of, “My rocking chair! I want my rocking chair!” The rocking chair is a symbol of domestic moral stability, swaying back and forth, but in the end, holding its ground. It’s a visual idea that was perhaps growing in Ford since Henry Fonda memorably rocked in that chair in <em style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-style: italic; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">My Darling Clementine</em> (1946). How fitting that Mose sit in such a chair at the end of <em style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-style: italic; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">The Searchers</em> donning a top hat, yet another symbol of the civilized world." </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 24px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">The rest of the cast is great, including Natalie Wood as the grown-up Debbie (however brief her role is) and Vera Miles as Laurie, who is madly in love with Martin. Even though Miles's performance does annoy me in many ways, I don't deny that it is a good character portrayal and very understandable considering the circumstances of the film. After all, Martin goes off with Ethan on this long quest and often ignores Laurie, leading her to go with another guy (which serves as another point of comic humor near the climatic moments of the movie). </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 24px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 24px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">The visual shots themselves are magnificent and truly cinematic, and they really shine on the Blu-ray Disc for this film. Ford really had an eye for the West and his skill shows in how masterfully and meaningfully he crafts the shots, from the opening mise-en-scene sequences with Ethan and Marth to the wide VistaVision shots of the setting to the other various iconic shots that many films after paid homage to. Also, Ford manages to capture brutality without showing us in-your-face gore and violence, another great skill courtesy of the best classics of olden times (though graphic violence isn't necessarily a bad thing, from my personal point of view; just don't use it in excess and where it is not needed). This thing impressed me throughout the film, and not only that, Max Steiner's epic music score is perfect for the film, ranging from the thoughtful opening song to the wonderful melody to the haunting tunes and finally to the famous "Searchers" song that plays at the iconic ending scene.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 16.639999389648438px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 16.639999389648438px;">Many others have delved further into the brilliance of this movie, so the best I can conclude with is: <i>The Searchers</i> deserves and rewards repeat viewings, and I probably will want to delve into this film again. <b>5/5</b></span></div>
</div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-47968194971588599862014-04-18T13:18:00.000-07:002014-04-18T13:18:14.700-07:00The Meaning of Good Friday<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This day, the day of Good Friday, I have decided to take upon the meaning of "Good Friday," the day that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was crucified on the cross and died to save us from our sins and restore fellowship with God.<br />
<br />
However, on this day, many seem to underestimate the power of this very event and very day, and how it not only impacted the human race but also our very own lives.<br />
<br />
<b>How "Good Friday" Impacted The Human Race's Relation with God</b><br />
<br />
The most important thing in considering "Good Friday" is the consideration of how it impacted the relationship between God and humanity. When Christ died on the cross, He took upon Himself the sin that we committed and by which we were healed (Isaiah 53:5-6). For we should have been punished for our sinful nature, for as the Scriptures said, all sin and fall short of God's glory (Romans 3:23) and the "wages of sin" is death (Romans 6:23). But even so, as Romans 6:23, God's gift is life through Jesus Christ our Lord.<br />
<br />
Without Christ's death on the cross, none of us would be where we were, for without Christ's intercession, the death that comes upon all who sin would rightly come upon us, and we would not receive God's mercy without having violated the justice of God. However, when Christ interceded for us and died on the cross, both the love of God and the justice/wrath of God were satisfied on the cross as the result of sin (death) was upon Christ and the love of God was shown upon us (the human race).<br />
<br />
<b>How Good Friday Impacted Our Lives</b><br />
<br />
The next important thing in considering Good Friday is how it impacted our very own lives. Individual lives were saved through faith by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), and people had freedom from their sin due to God's unfettered grace and Christ's love for them.<br />
<br />
Before this very day, people in Israel often made atonement for their sins by bringing certain animals to the priest, who would then sacrifice the animals to God to make atonement for the sins, for as Hebrews 9:26 said, without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sin.<br />
<br />
However, when God sent Jesus Christ, His death on the cross fulfilled that requirement for redemption, and not only that, the decision was final and complete, bridging the further gap between God and man.<br />
<br />
Hebrews 10:11-18 said of this:<br /><br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: center;">
<span class="text Heb-10-11"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">11 </span>And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.</span><span class="text Heb-10-12" id="en-NKJV-30146"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">12 </span>But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, </span><span class="text Heb-10-13" id="en-NKJV-30147"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">13 </span>from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. </span><span class="text Heb-10-14" id="en-NKJV-30148"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">14 </span>For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: center;">
<span class="text Heb-10-15" id="en-NKJV-30149"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">15 </span>But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: center;">
<span class="text Heb-10-16" id="en-NKJV-30150"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">16 </span><span class="oblique">“This</span> <i>is</i> <span class="oblique">the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the L</span><span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">ord</span><span class="oblique">: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,”</span> </span><span class="text Heb-10-17" id="en-NKJV-30151"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">17 </span><i>then He adds,</i> <span class="oblique">“Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”</span></span><span class="text Heb-10-18" id="en-NKJV-30152"><span class="versenum" style="font-size: 0.75em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;">18 </span>Now where there is remission of these, <i>there is</i> no longer an offering for sin. (NKJV)</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: center;">
<span class="text Heb-10-18"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The significance of this is that no effort of ours could bring salvation; only Christ Jesus could do that, and when He was crucified on the cross, He not only fulfilled the requirement of shedding blood for atonement but also kept us from facing God's wrath and instead revealing His love and justice.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It is for this that we who celebrate Good Friday are grateful; that was the day that God fulfilled His justice and love equally, laying down all our sins on Christ (who took on them of His own will) and giving us new life in Him. That day bridged the gap between God and man, and for it we are so ever grateful.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-44634308648950780752014-04-16T13:21:00.001-07:002014-04-30T09:20:08.960-07:00What Should Christians Think About Taxes?: Part 1 - "Render Unto Caesar" & Romans 13<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Yesterday was Tax Day, the day where everyone pays their taxes to the fed.<br />
<br />
Most Christians argue that taxes are a necessity to humanity and society, and therefore Christians, in obedience to the government, must pay their taxes (Romans 13:6). I don't dispute that Christians should pay taxes, for doing so not only keeps unnecessary harm from ourselves but also keeps the Gospel message from being discredited by anti-Christians. However, what i do dispute is the necessity and morality of taxes. On this issue I and many others depart from the conventional Christian understanding of taxation and society. My view is that while Christians should pay taxes for pragmatic reasons, taxes are not by themselves good things but rather they are unnecessary for human flourishing and are very immoral in their nature. For taxation is essentially the forceful taking of the fruits of the labor of every man for the purpose of the flourishing of the State. While paying taxes is not a sin, the act of taxing is certainly so, and a very dangeorus one at that.<br />
<br />
<b>Romans 13:6</b><br />
<br />
The first reason why I argue that taxation is immoral is from the moral-ethical perspective: taxation can be called theft, for it is the initiation of force to take the fruits of one's labor or one's wealth for the use of the State, and it is not consensual in any way.<br />
<br />
But the Christian may ask, "Why then does Romans 13:6 ask us to pay taxes if taxes were so immoral?" I would answer that the passage in Romans 13:6 does not make a statement on the <i>morality</i> of taxation but rather how a Christian should react to them.<br />
<br />
Norman Horn, in his essay <a href="http://libertarianchristians.com/2008/11/28/new-testament-theology-2">"The New Testament Theology of the State,"</a> says this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 16px;"><b>Verses 5-7 expand upon the reasons for submitting and include practical ways the Roman Christians were to respond to Paul’s message. Cobin says, “The reason we must submit to government is to avoid wrath or worrying about being harmed by the state authority. God does not want us to be entangled with the affairs of this world to the point where such involvement detracts from our primary mission” (Christian Theology of Public Policy, 125). The word “conscience” in verse 5 should be interpreted in a similar manner as 1 Corinthians 10 (regarding food sacrificed to idols). The believers were concerned that the Roman state would find a legal reason to persecute them. One cannot use this verse in an absolutist sense to say that Christians can never participate in removing any authority, such as in the American Revolution. Paul also encourages Christians to “overcome evil with good” as understood in Romans 12:21 (this includes evil authority), and to work to be free if at all possible (1 Corinthians 7:20-23). </b></span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 16px;"><b>Paul also says to submit to paying taxes for the same reason: avoiding state wrath in order to live for God. One despises paying taxes, but in order to abate the state’s wrath one pays them. Likewise, “pay to all what is due them” is commanded for the same purpose, especially considering the political tumult of the time. But does this mean that a man sins if he makes a mistake on his Federal tax return? Paul would very likely answer no. Modern taxes are very different from Roman taxes. In fact, the Greek word for “taxes” in verse 7 is more accurately rendered “tribute,” which is specifically the capitation tax (or “head tax”) in a Roman township census. The Romans would send soldiers from house to house, count the residents there, calculate the tax, and then demand full payment immediately. If a Christian did not comply at once, then he, his family, and possibly even his fellow believers could be in imminent, serious trouble. Paul says to not resist these men when they do this, just pay the tax. Refusal to pay would identify them as part of the tax rebels and political rogues of the day, and would give the Romans a reason to persecute Christians in Rome and perhaps throughout the empire. Paul wanted the Roman Christians to avoid becoming public spectacles and government targets. </b></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 16px;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 16px;">Likewise, since the Christian would definitey want to avoid needless wrath, he should pay taxes, not because the tax itself is legitimate and moral but because paying the tax keeps the hand of the State away from needless persecution. In our present society, if one saw Christians not paying taxes, not only would the State crack down on them but also the media and society will unleash and declare open season on Christians, much like the media has done when scandals have broken out in the Christian community.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 16px;"><br /></span></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;"><b>"Render Unto Caesar": Pro-State?</b></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 16px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 16px;">Now, having dealt with that, how does the Bible deal with the ethics of taxes? Does it approve and condone of the whole thing? Or is there something deeper </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 16px;">in the Scriptures that most pro-tax people don't recognise fully?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 16px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 16px;">First, let us deal with the famous saying of Jesus: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's." Many interpret the passage as meaning that jesus recognized the necessity and morality of taxation because, after all, he didn't say "Taxes are evil!" and thus, he probably approved of the process of taxation (though not necessarily the means with which the Roman Empire exercised taxation). This is the view of the conventional conservative interpretation, as well as the conventional classical-liberal interpretation.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 16px;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;"><a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/03/jeffrey-f-barr/render-unto-caesar-amostmisunderstood-newtestamentpassage/">A great article</a> by Jeffrey F. Barr, however, disputes the conventional pro-tax interpretation of the message of Jesus.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;"><br /></span></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;">The historical context is important in understanding Jesus' situation, where tax revolts occured and the Roman Empire brutally crushed them.</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;"><br /></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; line-height: 20px;">In 6 A.D., Roman occupiers of Palestine imposed a census tax on the Jewish people. The tribute was not well-received, and by 17 A.D., Tacitus reports in <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078%3Abook%3D2%3Achapter%3D42" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #1c1ca5; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">Book II.42 of the Annals</a>, "The provinces, too, of Syria and Judaea, exhausted by their burdens, implored a reduction of tribute." A tax-revolt, led by <a href="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts5.htm" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #1c1ca5; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">Judas the Galilean</a>, <a href="http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #1c1ca5; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">soon ensued</a>. Judas the Galilean taught that "<a href="http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #1c1ca5; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery</a>," and he and his followers had "<a href="http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #1c1ca5; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">an inviolable attachment to liberty</a>," recognizing God, alone, as king and ruler of Israel. The Romans brutally combated the uprising for decades. Two of <a href="http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-20.htm" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #1c1ca5; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">Judas' sons were crucified in 46 A.D</a>., and a third was an <a href="http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messianic_claimants11.html" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #1c1ca5; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">early leader of the 66 A.D. Jewish revolt</a>. Thus, payment of the tribute conveniently encapsulated the deeper philosophical, political, and theological issue: Either God and His divine laws were supreme, or the Roman emperor and his pagan laws were supreme.</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Understanding the background of the Jewish homeland at the time will then give further understanding of how Jesus would have dealt with the situation laid out to him in Matthew 22:15-22. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">First, the Scripture points out that the whole question was not asked in sincerity but in an attempt to trap Jesus and hand Him over to the Roman authorities. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Barr states</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; line-height: 20px;">:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-family: Georgia; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
By appealing to Jesus' authority to interpret God's law, the questioners accomplish two goals: (1) they force Jesus to answer the question; if Jesus refuses, He will lose credibility as a Rabbi with the very people who just proclaimed Him a King; and (2) they force Jesus to base this answer in Scripture. Thus, they are testing His scriptural knowledge and hoping to discredit Him if He cannot escape a prima facie intractable interrogatory. As Owen-Ball states, "The gospel writers thus describe a scene in which Jesus' questioners have boxed him in. He is tempted to assume, illegitimately, the authority of a Rabbi, while at the same time he is constrained to answer according to the dictates of the Torah."</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">This would mean that the Pharisees put Jesus between a rock and a hard place, putting him at risk of hatred if he said yes to the question and being branded a political rebel if he said no.</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">So later on, according to the Scriptures, Jesus finds a coin and asks, "Whose face is on it?" They answer, "Caesar's." Here is where another interesting nuance comes in. Barr points out that the denarii (the coin that was mentioned) was used by the emperor as a sign of his power, and while he made only three, two of which were rare, the third one was common, and Tiberius preferred it as such. Barr points out: </span></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">"</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; line-height: 20px;">The only people to transact routinely with the denarius in Judaea would have been soldiers, Roman officials, and Jewish leaders in collaboration with Rome. Thus, it is noteworthy that Jesus, Himself, does not possess the coin. The questioners' quickness to produce the coin at Jesus' request implies that they routinely used it, taking advantage of Roman financial largess, whereas Jesus did not. Moreover, the Tribute Episode takes place in the Temple, and by producing the coin, the questioners reveal their religious hypocrisy – they bring a potentially <a href="http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig8/horn1.html" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #1c1ca5; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">profane item</a>, the coin of a pagan, into the sacred space of the Temple."</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">This is very important as Jesus uses His question to counter the trap set by the questioners, as the denarii mentioned were often declarations of the emperor's divinity, and they brought something potentially idolatrous into the temple. As Barr points out</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia; line-height: 20px;">, "</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; line-height: 20px;">Jesus' use of the word, "image," in the counter-question reminds His questioners of the First (Second) Commandment's requirement to venerate God first and its concomitant prohibition against creating images of false gods." </span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Also, the "inscription" question harkens back to the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4-9. The coin had the inscription of the emperor, but the commands of God are to worship Him and to inscribe the words, and more specifically to carry them on their hands and foreheads (in the form of <i>teffilins</i>). In fact, Jesus quoted this passage when being tempted by Satan in Matthew 4:10. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Having answered that, let us go on to how that question was answered and how Jesus dealt with it. The answer to the question is only this: "Caesar's."</span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;">Barr points out that the response was significant because the coin would have this inscription on it: "</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;">Tiberius Caesar, Worshipful Son of the God, Augustus." Also, this would appear on the coin—the image of Pax, goddess of peace, and this inscription: "Pontifex Maximus." The term means "High Priest."</span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Barr says</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; line-height: 20px;">:</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-family: Georgia; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;">The coin of the Tribute Episode is a fine specimen of Roman propaganda. It imposes the cult of emperor worship and asserts Caesar's sovereignty upon all who transact with it.</span><span style="text-align: center;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;">In the most richly ironic passage in the entire Bible, all three synoptic Gospels depict the Son of God and the High Priest of Peace, newly-proclaimed by His people to be a King, holding the tiny silver coin of a king who claims to be the son of a god and the high priest of Roman peace.</span><span style="text-align: center;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;"></span>The second reason the answer is significant is that in following the pattern of rabbinic rhetoric, the answer exposes the hostile questioners' position to attack. It is again noteworthy that the interrogators' answer to Jesus' counter-question about the coin's image and inscription bears little relevance to their original question as to whether it is licit to pay the tribute. Jesus could certainly answer their original question without their answer to His counter-question. But the rhetorical function of the answer to the counter-question is to demonstrate the vulnerability of the opponent's position and use that answer to refute the opponent's original, hostile question.</blockquote>
</div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;">
</span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; line-height: 20px;">
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Now we get to the famous "Render unto Caesar" passage, which may not be the pro-state passage that many have interpeted it to be. Jesus, in His answer, subtly showed that God and the empire were in competition over who ruled His people: the State or God. Barr states</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span">:</span></span></div>
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia; line-height: 20px;">With one straightforward counter-question, Jesus skillfully points out that the claims of God and Caesar are mutually exclusive. If one's faith is in God, then God is owed everything; Caesar's claims are necessarily illegitimate, and he is therefore owed nothing. If, on the other hand, one's faith is in Caesar, God's claims are illegitimate, and Caesar is owed, at the very least, the coin which bears his image.</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; font-family: Georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px;"><b>What Is The Lesson For Us?</b></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px;">The lesson here is: Jesus didn't endorse the morality of taxation in his "Render unto Caesar" moment but rather affirmed the sovereignty of God in his subtle rhetorical wording while not directly answering the tricky question. Also, the fact that Christians ought to pay taxes doesn't by nature endorse the morality of taxing itself. In fact, in the Gospels, tax collection is often depicted as a sin, and two who were touched by Jesus were in fact motivated to leave the profession of tax collecting: those two were Matthew/Levi and Zacchaeus. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px;">Thus, while Christians should pay taxes for pragmatic and practical reasons, they should not endorse or celebrate <a href="http://reformedlibertarian.com/articles/politics/the-omniscience-seeking-of-the-modern-state/">the institution that often competes with God for sovereignty and ruler-ship</a>.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #2b1b17; font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px;">The next section will be dealing with how taxation is a form of stealing and thus violates the Scriptures, especially the commandment to not steal.</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-58452234015897986512014-04-14T14:12:00.000-07:002014-04-14T14:12:05.437-07:00Film Review: THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG (2013)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><i>The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug</i></b> (2013)</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgK_oHvPSDi9PN82NFaP6d6TjTD45JcPaKxNx5Sb-kQq9ICmfcCoT-CzYRCKWFYzzTNwfXR1HHvVrk8a3fQFCEgIcIk1FKzuA0Yr7n2-cWace6CTRWulgRqP_UFUY_IqwX2F6ZkwIJN0cET/s1600/the+hobbit+desolation+of+smaug+poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgK_oHvPSDi9PN82NFaP6d6TjTD45JcPaKxNx5Sb-kQq9ICmfcCoT-CzYRCKWFYzzTNwfXR1HHvVrk8a3fQFCEgIcIk1FKzuA0Yr7n2-cWace6CTRWulgRqP_UFUY_IqwX2F6ZkwIJN0cET/s1600/the+hobbit+desolation+of+smaug+poster.jpg" height="640" width="432" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug</i> theatrical poster</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<b>***1/2/***** (3.5/5)</b><br />
<br />
<b>Director</b>: Peter Jackson<br />
<b>Producer</b>: Zane Weiner, Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson, Carolynne Cunningham<br />
<b>Story/Screenplay</b>: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro; based on <i>The Hobbit</i> by J. R. R. Tolkien<br />
<b>Music</b>: Howard Shore<br />
<b>Cinematography</b>: Andrew Lesnie<br />
<b>Editing</b>: Jabez Olssen<br />
<b>Starring</b>: Martin Freeman, Evangeline Lilly, Richard Armitrage, Orlando Bloom, Ian McKellen, Benedict Cumberbatch, Lee Pace, Luke Evans, Ken Stott, James Nesbitt<br />
<br />
<b>MPAA Rating</b>: <u><b>PG-13</b></u> for <span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">extended sequences of intense fantasy action violence, and frightening images</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Run Time</b>: 161 minutes</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><a href="http://letterofliberty.blogspot.com/2013/08/film-review-hobbit-unexpected-journey.html">The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey</a></i>, while definitely flawed and not up to the skill that The Lord of the Rings trilogy displayed, still served as a decent film adaptation of Tolkien's book (though three movies are a bit too stretched; two movies probably would have been enough; however, if the third movie delivers, then I won't complain too much). It did have some overuse of CGi and forced epic-ness, but it wasn't the abomination that some detractors claimed it was (and neither was it the masterpiece that its most ardent fans said it was). </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">However, I was unable to catch this on the big screen, so I pre-ordered the Blu-ray when it was announced that it was going to be released soon. And sure enough, I got this film in the mailbox and decided to see this film with my siblings and a good friend of ours.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;">Now let me get to the plot summary: After the events of the previous film, the movie gives us a brief flashback to the events that happened before the journey, where Thorin (Richard Armitrage) is at an inn and Gandalf (Ian McKellen) meets him up there. It is here that Thorin is encouraged to go upon the quest and reclaim Erebor from the dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch). Later on, the film cuts to 12 months later, where Bilbo (Martin Freeman), Gandalf, Thorin and everyone else is on their journey and they come upon the house of Beorn (Mikael Persbrandt), in whose house they dwell while escaping from Azog and his forces. On the journey they encounter spiders, elves, and men, until they eventually come to the Lonely Mountain, to the Desolation of Smaug, and to their homeland in Erebor. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;">However, dark forces are awakening that were only hinted at before, and they will arise to cause great disaster that will threaten not only our characters but also the entire realm of Middle Earth.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;">Now that i got the plot summary out of the way, let me get to the actual review of the film.<br /><br />Is it the superb and masterful sequel that some claim that it is? Is it the bloated abomination of epic proportions that the detractors claim? Or are these two options only two of many different views of this film.<br /><br /><i>The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug</i> fails in many ways as an adaptation and rendition of the original source. While the main journey is there, much subplot has been added into the film (Thranduil, Legolas, and that female character Tauriel (Evangeline Lily)), and there is more CGi and more action than ever was in <i>An Unexpected Journey</i>. However, if one is considering this as a film, then for the most part this movie succeeds as a nice, exciting action flick that has some pretty good filmmaking and serves as a good blockbuster entertainment that doesn't transcend heights and genre limitations like <i>Lord of the Rings</i> did.<br /><br />The acting is really good, with Ian McKellen and Martin Freeman doing really good jobs as Gandalf the Grey and Bilbo Baggins. Freeman really captures the development of Bilbo and how he has changed from the previous film. And McKellen captures the character of Gandalf as he learns of the evil that is awakening. Richard Armitrage as Thorin is well-acted, showing how the quest impacts Thorin's heart, changing him from a person concerned for Bilbo to a person almost mad for the Arkenstone and consumed by his desire for Erebor and the wealth it contains. Evangeline Lily is pretty decent as Tauriel, though I find her to still be filler that was added just to make the story more "female-friendly" (not to mention that I personally didn't connect with the implied love triangle with her, Legolas, and Kili, one of the thirteen dwarves) and Orlando Bloom is also pretty good in his role as Legolas (though his face looks a bit unnatural in contrast to the <i>Lord of the Rings</i> movies).</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;">All the other actors do well in their roles, including Lee Pace as the dwarf-hating Woodland king Thranduil, but especially interesting in Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal of the fierce dragon Smaug. While he isn't the master that some of the fans claim he is, he actually is very good for his role, and the terror he inspires is fitting for his intimidating role. Cumberbatch was perfect for this role as Smaug.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;">The script also is pretty good, but the film did drag a bit near the middle, especially with the overload of action sequences in this film, all of which are pretty good but which are not great. Many of the scenes border on over-the-top and popcorn-style scenes, with dwarves suddenly having skills that rival the finest Olympic athletes, elves doing acrobatics while fighting evil orcs, Tauriel using cool ninja-esque moves while killing monsters, and more. For the heavy action fan and an admirer of today's action-packed blockbuster entertainment, this movie is heaven. But for those who preferred <i>Lord of the Rings</i> and don't like overloaded action, this film will drag (even though I admit that I didn't hate most of the action scenes in the film). And may I note that this film has an excess of computer-generated images in contrast to the happy marriage of practical and digital effects that has existed in so many great films, masterpieces and classic movies of modern times (<i>Jurassic Park</i>, <i>Terminator 2</i>, and <i>The Lord of the Rings</i> trilogy, and many other films come to mind). While the CGi does manage to be good in the long run, there are instances where it looks fake, particularly in the ending where Thorin and all the dwarves unleash a golden statue of a dwarf warrior and that statue melts and covers Smaug (the gold looked so laughably fake). </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;">Overall, <i>The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug</i>, while a bit too overloaded with action and CGi as well as other pop-blockbuster elements of today, still serves as a nice action movie that both expands upon the merits of <i>An Unexpected Journey</i> and at the same time expands upon the demerits of the film. It works on the overall level as an action film set in Middle Earth, and depsite its many flaws, there is just so much good work and effort put into this movie that it is near-impossible to compare this to other big-budget failures and fanboy punching-bags like the <i>Star Wars</i> prequel trilogy or <i>Battlefield Earth</i>. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;">It is not a perfect film, and neither is it a great film, but it is a good film. <b>3.5/5</b></span></span></div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-83932262876676955162014-04-10T13:04:00.000-07:002014-05-05T14:17:53.633-07:00The NOAH Movie Resource Page<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjG1ZOadbyu6I4RN-iUz_398c0QfcQyVyvst8sGR68QuoE-cqyCTbvDz-y8B4tbeZeO_ZXdw6cgsfkjdv3mJAUsSZrVN0JN7pURj1f4TWaEptMFzWVGKAYNbixVr4j0A_e99I-p4RAdKwtj/s1600/Noah-2014-Movie-Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjG1ZOadbyu6I4RN-iUz_398c0QfcQyVyvst8sGR68QuoE-cqyCTbvDz-y8B4tbeZeO_ZXdw6cgsfkjdv3mJAUsSZrVN0JN7pURj1f4TWaEptMFzWVGKAYNbixVr4j0A_e99I-p4RAdKwtj/s1600/Noah-2014-Movie-Poster.jpg" height="640" width="432" /></a></div>
<br />
The movie <i>Noah</i>, directed by Darren Aronofsky (<i>Black Swan</i>, <i>The Wrestler</i>, <i>Requiem for a Dream</i>) and starring famous movie star Russell Crowe in the titular role, has stirred up much controversy. The critics seem to like it a lot, and the film is getting plenty of glowing to good reviews, praising the creativity and what they see as good filmmaking.<br />
<br />
However, in the Christian and religious community, there is much division. Many Christians consider it to be a good/great movie that succeeds both as a film and is compatible with the orthodox Christian faith despite the extrabiblical liberties and controversial changes. And others despise the film to the very core.<br />
<br />
As for me, I personally I haven't seen the film, but I am finding validity on both sides of the issues. The haters seem to be right on with their complaints about certain bad changes that the movie makes, while the lovers of the film seem to make pretty decent arguments in favor of the film. And I don't exactly hold in favor some of the changes (from what I heard, the reason for the Flood was overpopulation, according to this film), but at the same time I will withhold judgment as to whether the film itself is bibilcal, not only because I haven't seen the film, but because much has already been said of the film elsewhere.<br />
<br />
Also, I think both sides are in the wrong when bringing in personal attacks. Conservative Christians who hate the movie are wrong when they are accusing <i>Noah</i> fans of being immoral, godless hedonists and/or self-loathing Christians (in fact, I am pretty tired of this vitriol directed by them to <i>Noah</i> fans and defenders), and <i>Noah</i> defenders are wrong when they accuse all <i>Noah</i> skeptics of being bigots who can't appreciate good cinema (in fact, many people also hate <i>Noah</i> because they feel it is a bad film).<br />
<br />
So here is my resource page on the movie, compiling lists that praise the movie, hate the movie (or don't want to support it due to the extrabiblical material) and are on the fence about it.<br />
<br />
<b><i><u>Note: This page won't be left uninterrupted and will be updated. When I see the film, I will publish my review of the film and maybe even more stuff on the film.</u></i></b><br />
<br />
<b>Introductory Material</b><br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>Brian Godawa. <a href="http://godawa.com/movieblog/darren-aronofskys-noah-environmentalist-wacko/">"Darren Aronofsky's Noah: Environmentalist wacko"</a></li>
<li>Trevin Wax. <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2014/03/31/how-christians-are-responding-to-the-noah-movie/">"How Christians are responding to the Noah movie."</a></li>
</ol>
<b><u>Pro/<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">Mixed</span></u></b><br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li><a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2014/03/first-impressions-noah-dir-darren-aronofsky-2014.html">Peter T. Chattaway's review of the film</a>; <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2014/03/second-impressions-noah-dir-darren-aronofsky-2014.html">his second impressions</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/sdg-on-noah">Steven D. Greydanus's coverage of the film</a></li>
<li>Steve Greydanus. <a href="http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/noah-controversy/">"The Noah Movie: Questions and Answers"</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lookingcloser/2014/03/all-the-noah-thats-fit-to-print/">Jeffrey Overstreet talks a bit on coverage about the film.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/noah.html?paging=off">The <i>Christianity Today</i> review by Alissa Wilkison</a></li>
<li>Rebecca Cusey. <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tinseltalk/2014/03/review-noah-a-good-flick-for-everyone/">"Noah: A good flick for everyone"</a></li>
<li>Rebecca Florence Miller. <a href="http://rebeccaflorencemiller.wordpress.com/2014/03/29/christian-loves-aronofskys-noah/">"10 reasons this Christian loves Noah"</a></li>
<li><a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2014/03/29/the-repristinator-a-review-of-noah/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">Joe Carter's review</span></a></li>
<li><a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2014/03/26/darren-aronofksys-noah/">Greg Thornbury's review</a></li>
<li>Diana Chandler. <a href="http://www.baptistmessenger.com/scriptural-error-abounds-but-christians-promote-blast-noah/">"Scriptural error abounds, but Christians promote, blast <i>Noah</i>.</a>"</li>
<li><a href="http://www.movieguide.org/reviews/noah.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">MOVIEGUIDE review</span></a></li>
<li>Kat Butler's MOVIEGUIDE article: <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><a href="http://www.movieguide.org/news-articles/whats-wrong-with-noah.html">"What's wrong with NOAH?"</a></span></li>
<li><a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2014/february/noah-five-positive-facts-about-this-film.html">Jerry Johnson lists five things he likes about the film.</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2014/04/no-noah-is-not-gnostic-say-that-ten-times-fast.html">Peter T. Chattaway responds to Brian Mattson's anti-<i>Noah</i> article.</a></li>
<li>Chris Goins. <a href="http://www.a2church.org/noah-thoughts-pretty-simple-pastor-dad/">"NOAH: A Few Thoughts from a Pretty Simple Pastor and Dad"</a></li>
<li>Steven D. Greydanus. <a href="http://www.ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/fr-barron-on-noah">"Fr. Barron on 'Noah'! Catholic Culture! More!"</a></li>
<li>Plugged In. <span style="color: red;"><a href="http://www.pluggedin.com/movies/intheaters/noah-2014.aspx">"Noah"</a></span></li>
<li>Jeffrey Overstreet's commentary on <i>Noah</i> (<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lookingcloser/2014/04/noah-2014-part-one-of-a-two-part-commentary/">Part One</a> and <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lookingcloser/2014/04/noah-2014-part-two-of-a-two-part-commentary/">Part Two</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://rockingodshouse.com/noah-film-christian-movie-review/"><span style="color: red;">Kevin Ott's review of NOAH</span></a></li>
<li>Russell Hemati - <a href="http://christianthought.hbu.edu/2014/03/29/noah-a-christian-philosopher-review/">"Noah - a Christian Philosopher Review"</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ign.com/blogs/idotf/2014/03/30/noah-a-christians-movie-review-of-the-good-the-bad-the-worthy">An IGN.com review of the film by a Christian</a></li>
<li>Ian Huyyet. <a href="http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/least-one-conservative-christian-like-noah/#axzz2ygLDBqZt">"There's at least one conservative Christian who liked NOAH"</a></li>
</ol>
<b><u>Con</u></b><br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li><a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/churchofthemasses/2014/03/the-utter-embarrassing-mess-of-noah-and-why-everybody-is-lying-about-it/">Barbara Nicolosi's review</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation-debate/noah-movie">Answers in Genesis's page on <i>Noah</i></a></li>
<li><a href="http://1morefilmblog.com/wordpress/noah-aronofsky-2014/">Kenneth Morefield's review</a></li>
<li>Brian Godawa. <a href="http://godawa.com/movieblog/deconstructing-noahs-arc-godawful-storytelling/">"Deconstructing Noah's arc: Godawful storytelling</a>" and <a href="http://godawa.com/movieblog/subversion-god-noah/">"The subversion of God in Noah"</a>.</li>
<li>Dr. Brian Mattson. <a href="http://drbrianmattson.com/?offset=1396360800000">"Sympathy for the devil"</a></li>
<li>Dr. Albert Mohler. <a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/03/31/drowning-in-distortion-darren-aronofskys-noah/">"Drowning in Distortion—Darren Aronofsky's <i>Noah</i>"</a></li>
<li>Matt Walsh. <a href="http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/03/29/im-a-christian-and-i-think-noah-deserves-a-four-star-review/">"I'm a Christian and I think 'Noah' deserves four stars."</a></li>
<li>Ben Shapiro. <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/03/28/9-problems-Noah">"9 Problems With Aronofsky's <i>Noah</i>"</a></li>
<li>John Nolte. <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/03/28/Noah-review-brilliantly-sinister-anti-christian-filmmaking">"'Noah' Review: Brilliantly Sinister Anti-Christian Filmmaking"</a></li>
<li>Don Johnson. <a href="http://donjohnsonministries.org/how-the-noah-movie-dangerously-distorts-the-truth-about-god/">"How the NOAH Movie Dangerously Distorts The Truth About God"</a></li>
<li>Denny Burk. <a href="http://www.dennyburk.com/the-midrashiest-midrash-that-ever-was-midrashed-a-spoiler-free-noah-review/">"The midrashiest midrash that ever was midrashed ... A spoiler-free review of NOAH"</a></li>
<li><a href="http://mennoknight.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/a-no-holds-barred-review-of-noah-the-movie-2014/">Mennoknight's review of NOAH</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.untemperedtv.com/?p=710">"A balanced Christian review of NOAH"</a></li>
</ol>
<div>
Discussion thread on <a href="http://artsandfaith.com/">Arts & Faith</a>: <a href="http://artsandfaith.com/index.php?showtopic=22003">"Noah"</a></div>
<br />
<br /></div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-43491573250819731112014-04-07T13:25:00.001-07:002014-05-05T14:18:40.042-07:00Thoughts on "Thick" Libertarianism: Part 1 - Is Libertarianism More Than Anti-Statism?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
There has been a recent controversy in the libertarian movement over the issue of "thin" vs. "thick" libertarianism. Some have argued that libertarianism shouldn't be "thick" while others (particularly of a more leftish inclination) argued that "thick" libertarianism is a necessary and a good thing.<br />
<br />
So I have decided to give my few cents on this issue, from both a libertarian and a Christian standpoint.<br />
<br />
In one article, <a href="http://studentsforliberty.org/blog/2014/04/03/libertarianism-is-more-than-anti-statism/">left-libertarian Cory Massimino argued that libertarianism is more than just anti-statism</a> and <a href="http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/tgif-in-praise-of-thick-libertarianism/">Sheldon Richman (a great writer, BTW) argued in favor of "thick libertarianism</a>." However, many others have argued convincingly that libertarianism doesn't require being "thick" to be a good and that libertarianism, as a political philosophy, doesn't need any "thickness" added to it.<br />
<br />
And now, I intend to give some of my thoughts on the "thick-libertarian" phenomenon, and why I think it is wrong-headed not only personally but also for the liberty movement in general.<br />
<br />
I will also note that this will not be in-depth, for many great articles have been written on this subject, all of which can be found by a simple search on the Internet.<br />
<br />
<b>Is Libertarianism More Than Anti-Statism?</b><br />
<br />
The great Catholic anarcho-capitalist writer Lew Rockwell wrote <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/lew-rockwell/what-libertarianism-is-and-isnt/">a column defining libertarianism and explaining what it both was and wasn't</a>. Many libertarians took it to heart and agreed. However, left-libertarian Cory Massimino argued that libertarianism shouldn't be just anti-statism. It should be a holistically leftist movement committed to the non-aggression principle <b><i>plus</i></b> the leftist ideals of anti-racism, anti-homophobia, and feminism, all as essential to libertarianism.<br />
<br />
First, Massimino argues this:<br />
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.7em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
The reason I concern myself with violations of peoples’ liberty that don’t owe their origin to the state is explained by Rockwell when he writes, “Our position is not merely that the state is a moral evil, but that human liberty is a tremendous moral good.” Exactly! I am against authoritarianism, domination, and believe in equality of authority. That is why I am opposed to statism. But it’s also why I am for a world free of institutional oppression in the form of patriarchy, racism, gay and trans shaming, and autonomy-destroying, hierarchical workplaces.</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; line-height: 1.7em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">At the onset of the tone, it is clear that Massimino wants to infuse leftist ideals and concepts into libertarianism, thus imbibing certain leftist narratives and attempting to combine libertarian opposition to statism with opposition to all authority. But libertarianism, in its commitment to the non-aggression principle and it's recognition of voluntary organization and cooperation, allows for authority of various kinds, provided it is not gained through the use of force and an attaining of monopoly over a parcel of territory, like the State does. That means that gay and trans shaming, patriarchy, racism, and yes, hierarchical workplaces would exist in the libertarian society. They may not be as abundant or as widely-accepted as some right-wing libertarians would wish, but they would definitely exist. And discrimination (ah, that bogeyman of the left) will surely exist.</span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; line-height: 1.7em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">
Later, Massimino says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #212121; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.7em; text-align: center;">Rothbard’s argument shows how liberty is needed for each person to find their own purpose and achieve their own good. This goes beyond the actions of the state. Repressive cultural norms and domineering social customs also prevent people from flourishing. They, too, lessen people’s liberty. A black person can’t flourish if he lives in a staunchly racist community with employers and businesses who refuse him service. They wouldn’t be violating his rights, but they would certainly be diminishing his ability to achieve his own good. He would hardly be considered free in such an oppressive society.</span><span style="line-height: 1.7em;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #212121; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.7em; text-align: center;">Rothbard continues, “Libertarians agree with Lord Acton that “liberty is the highest political end” – not necessarily the highest end on everyone’s personal scale of values.” While this is an excellent quote by Lord Action, it doesn’t go far enough. Why would liberty only be relevant in the political sphere? It is certainly affected by various other factors. There is no reason to end our concern for human freedom at the doorstep of the capitol building. In order to remain consistent, we ought to extend that concern to all human interactions.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #212121;">
</span>
<br />
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; line-height: 1.7em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #212121;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">It is true that these types of relationships Massimino describes may be a horrible thing and a very sad one too. Liberty, however, means being free from the tentacles of being aggressed against, meaning that this freedom is a "negative" freedom. While libertarians may share admirations for other types of freedom, the "negative" ideal of freedom (not interfering with people's rights) is the primary political end. Other freedoms (freedom from sin, freedom from want, etc.) can occur safely within the bounds of negative freedom and are reconcileable with it, but they should not require the violation of other people's rights to provide for those rights. For example, "freedom from want," at least as interpreted by progressive activists, would require taking people's money against their will (taxation) to give to others. However, the freedom to take an unowned parcel of land and mix your labor with it does not violate another's rights, for that does not require the use of aggressive force and/or violence in doing so. So while repressive cultural norms and social customs may be restrictive of freedom in other senses, as long as there is no exploitation and initiation of force involved, then these social customs do not violate "negative" liberty. Also, since the Austrian economic theory teaches us that value is subjective, what defines "repressive" and "domineering"? Some may find the "repressive" traditions (no sex outside of marriage, no homosexuality, no adultery, etc.) to be not so repressive and in many ways liberating in their own way.</span></span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #212121;">
</span>
<br />
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; line-height: 1.7em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #212121;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">As for the example Massimino uses, the black person can then find another place where he can flourish, either by taking unowned land and mixing his labor with it (making it his property) and/or through voluntary exchange and market forces. The beauty of the libertarian society is that it offers options, and in such a society there will be options that don't always require the "crushing" of "repressive" norms, leaving almost no one's rights violated in the process. </span></span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #212121;">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #212121;"></span>
<br />
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; line-height: 1.7em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #212121;">And is "liberty" be relevant only in the political sphere? In a way, that answer is not exactly yes or no. "No" in the sense that libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a holistic one, so the liberty that libertarianism advocates is a negative freedom to not have one's rights violated. Extensions to all human interactions will exist, but even then, as human interactions will become freer, there is not as big a need to make libertarianism holistic as Massimino and others would argue.</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #212121;">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #212121;"></span>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; line-height: 1.7em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #212121;">Later on, Massimino argues that making libertarianism "thick" is only a small branching out of core libertarian principles rather than extrapolating and adding to them. However, when one argues that libertarianism's foundations requires leftist principles and social constructs, then it is hard to consider this anything but adding onto libertarianism. And personally, I think the whole "pizza" comparison is a little offbase.</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #212121;">
</span></div>
Anand Venigallahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07300652293584046392noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726878094607499215.post-66210704493149926532014-04-06T13:11:00.000-07:002014-05-06T15:24:37.483-07:00A Plea to Young Activists - Embrace Liberty<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u>A Plea to Young Activists—Embrace Liberty </u></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u>by</u></b></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u>Jeff Godley</u></b></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b><u>Introduction from Anand Venigalla, chief host</u>: I had recently gotten a Facebook account, and in my encounters I stumbled upon a young Christian anarcho-capitalist by the name of Jeff Godley. I talked with him through private mail regarding many interesting things, and when I mentioned my blog, he asked if he could be part of it, as he has hosted <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/11030812278817351445">other blogs as well.</a> In this article, Jeff argues that young activists should embrace the libertarian philosophy, explaining why he finds libertarianism to be better than statism.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>I hope that everyone who reads this blog will welcome Jeff. May his writing inspire us. :)</b><br />
<br />
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">University students and young adults often find themselves swept up in the current of political activism. Having left home, often for the first time, we find a new freedom to think our own thoughts and embrace our own beliefs. These beliefs often lead us to actively pursue social, political or economic change through activism. <br />
<br />
This new life is not all roses, however. We soon discover that not everyone shares our concern over the issues we have chosen. Some of our peers may disagree with our positions; others may simply not share our enthusiasm. These experiences can bring us into conflict with our peers, and leaves many of us wondering, is there any issue on which we can all agree? Is there any issue which can truly unite <i>all </i>of us? <br />
<br />
I submit that there is one, and only one, issue on which can bring all young activists can stand in solidarity. That issue is <i>liberty.</i></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><br />
Liberty simply means the right of every individual to self-determination. I choose my words very carefully here: liberty is an <i>individual</i> right, not a right which is given to members of a specific group. One group of people cannot have “more liberty” than another, for liberty does not come from groups. And the right of liberty is one to <i>self</i>-determination - it is the right of a person to make their own choices regarding their life, their actions and their possessions. </span><br />
<br />
The truth of liberty may seem obvious, perhaps even not worth mentioning. Yet liberty is under attack everywhere, and often political activists, young or old, are partly to blame. Pick any contemporary political issue - environmentalism, economics, poverty, crime, drugs, gay marriage, to name a few - and you will the majority of people within the debate believe the solution is to take away the right of a certain group to make their own choices concerning their own lives, actions or possessions. Instead of liberty, they embrace coercion.</div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><br />
My plea to young activists is this: do not fall into this temptation. Do not seek to coerce others into accepting your agenda. Pursue whatever social change seems best to you; but above all other goals, pursue liberty. </span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><br />
There are three reasons why I believe liberty ought to be considered the one issue which unites all activists. </span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b>First, all of us became activists through liberty.</b> We were each afforded the freedom to think our own thoughts, to embrace our own beliefs, to act in the way we thought best. Why, then, do we seek to deny this same freedom to others? In order to remain true to our own political goals, we must seek the same liberty for others that we claim for ourselves. </span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b>Second, the complexity of social issues demands liberty.</b> Coercion may seem the more attractive option for achieving change. After all, not everyone will agree that change is necessary - how do we deal with these people? Perhaps it is best simply to force them to comply with our demands. <br />
<br />
The problem is that coercion, by definition, insists on uniformity. Coercion presumes that there is only one viable solution to a problem. By forcing others to accept our solution, we hinder social change. The great driver of human progress is innovation: changes in the way we approach problems and the means we use to address them are what ultimately lead to real, lasting change for the better. Science is the easiest example: where would we be if the great inventors of ages past had been told to embrace another person’s plan instead of creating their own? Social change is brought about not by those who conform, but those are free to transform. </span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b>Third, only liberty ensures that social change is permanent</b>. Coercion as a solution can never bring lasting change. If we choose to bring change by forcing others to conform, we have no choice except to continue coercing them forever. Coercion does not change hearts or minds; in fact, it tends to do the opposite. The more we seek to force others, the less likely it becomes that they embrace our cause of their own free will. After all, if our agenda was so great, why would we feel the need to force it on anyone? So the change lasts only as long as the group in charge remains stronger and more belligerent than the group being forced to comply. </span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><br />
Some might object, “I can live with this situation of perpetual coercion, so long as my group remains strongest.” The problem with this is twofold. First, you cannot guarantee that your group will ever remain strongest, and if ever you lose your grasp on power, all your work can be lost in an instant. Second, any mechanism you put in place to maintain power over others can one day be used against you. If that should happen, the change you lobbied and legislated and voted so hard for could be permanently lost. <br />
<br />
Liberty, on the other hand, does not seek to coerce others, but rather to persuade; it does not seek to make solutions mandatory, but rather to make them attractive; it does not seek to remove all alternatives but always seeks to innovate and find a better solution. Liberty, and not political coercion, is the true path to real and lasting social change. </span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">How, then, do we pursue liberty in our activism? </span></div>
<br />
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Simply this way: instead of seeking a State-enforced solution to a problem, seek a voluntary one. It has become so common-place to think that the State is the engine of social change that this may suggestion might appear outlandish. Yet consider the abysmal record of state intervention. Since the 1950’s governments the world over have thrown vast amounts of money toward alleviating poverty. Government spending on poverty continues to climb, but so does the poverty rate. At some point, we have to ask: how many dollars will finally tip the scales? which increase will be the final one? If state intervention was the cure for poverty, surely we would have seen some qualitative improvement as result of the last 50 years of spending? <br />
<br />
Poverty is just one example of an important issue which is wrongly delegated to government. The consequence of this is not simply a lack of improvement of poverty, but a lack of innovation. We still use the same methods to combat poverty that were in use 60 years ago - because that is the result of coercing others to embrace the solution we think best. How much better off today’s poor be if, instead of demanding a coerced solution from the state, activists had spent their energy seeking a creative and voluntary solution, and persuaded others to take part? <br />
<br />
The solution to social problems does not lie in greater intervention of the state, not in enforced conformity. Quite the opposite, what is needed is liberty - the freedom of people to innovate, to create, and to do so without having another’s will imposed on them. In the short term, yes, this may mean that many will refuse to take up the cause. But it is unnecessary that a majority of people embrace the cause in order for a solution to be found - all it takes is a few motivated individuals dedicated to finding the right innovation. <br />
<br />
Only the change that is chosen voluntarily will last. As tempting as government solutions can be, the state can never foster sweeping social change. Liberty does not demand that we abandon all of our other causes; it does however, demand a radical change in how we pursue them. Thus, my final plea is this: whatever cause you advocate for, embrace liberty. Persuade, do not coerce; pursue a voluntary solution, not an imposed one. Seek change that will truly impact the world for the better in a real, lasting way. <br />
<br />
Liberty is the issue that must unite us all. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
Jeff Godleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030812278817351445noreply@blogger.com0