Norman Horn Publishes My Anarcho-Capitalism Article

Norman Horn, host of the great blog Libertarian Christians and new Facebook friend of mine, was kind enough to link to my piece which explained anarcho-capitalism.

He said of me personally:

My friend Anand Venigalla is a young Christian man with a great desire to learn about and explain Christian libertarian ideas. He now runs a website called Letter of Liberty where he blogs regularly.

Anand is also a regular LCC reader and commenter, and I am very happy to share his recent post explaining anarcho-capitalism from a Christian perspective. For one so young, Anand clearly has an excellent grasp of Christian libertarian thinking.

Please do visit his website, which is wonderful. Thank you very much, Norman. :- )

My Blog Is Mentioned Elsewhere

Dear readers of Letter of Liberty:

Two good libertarian bloggers, both Calvinists and anarcho-capitalists, have been so kind as to link to my blog on their blogrolls.

C. Jay Engel of The Reformed Libertarian has been kind enough to mention my blog on his list of libertarian sites at the bottom of the main page.

And Henry Moore of The Libertarian Liquidationist has also been kind enough to list my blog on the sidebar of the main page as well as the blogroll in the "Other Great Blogs" Section.

BTW, I have a new Facebook account. You can follow me there as well, and I will post there when each blog post of mine is finished.

Book Review: THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY by Murray N. Rothbard

The Ethics of Liberty (1982) by Murray Rothbard; with intro. by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
New York, New York; New York Univeristy Press; 1998 (republication); 1982 (Humanities Press)
308 pages; including bibliography and index
ISBN: 0-8147-7506-3
ISBN-10: 0814775594
ISBN-13: 978-0814775592
Dewey Decimal: 323.44'01--ddl
Library of Congress Classification: JC585 .R69 1982

*****/5

REVIEW: A Masterpiece of Thought and Political Philosophy

Murray Rothbard (1926-1995) was an interesting figure, a polymath skilled in economic theory, political and ethical philosophy, and libertarianism. He defended the libertarian message so clearly and consistently, supported sound economics in the vein of the Austrian school of economics, and was basically the towering leader of the modern libertarian movement. Without Rothbard, the libertarian movement would be very different. He applied the libertarian message consistently, not shying away from the radical elements but embracing them and defending them. And not only that, he was all around a great man. He was no god, and he had faults like any other man, but he was a great philosopher and economist and historian. His work, along with the works of Ludwig von Mises and the classical-liberal and libertarian traditions, should be recognized more and appreciated.

After finishing Rothbard's 1973 classic For A New Liberty, a crystal-clear and beautiful apologia for the libertarian creed, I have decided to embark on his 1982 masterpiece The Ethics of Liberty, a systematic outline of libertarian law and theory, looking at it from the ethical and moral perspective, as well as from a philosophical and logical standpoint. While it is not a Christian work in that it does not refer to Christianity, it is definitely not only compatible with the Christian faith but in many ways harkens back to it in its profound principles, from its attacking of mere utilitarianism and defense of natural law to the defense of justice and liberty, applying libertarian principles radically and logically, all for the enrichment and the rewarding of the thoughtful reader. While most libertarians would accept the foundational principle of self-ownership on which Rothbard bases his political philosophy, few understand the power of radical application of this principle.

The first part of this book (Introduction to Natural Law) deals with the foundation of libertarian theory, and Rothbard chooses natural law theory and natural rights as his basis, seeing it as moral and ethical. He uses the principle to defend the right of self-ownership and the libertarian/natural rights of mankind. While his philosophy is not strictly religious, it is definitely compatible with the Scriptures in that, even while Rothbard doesn't acknowledge God, he does recognize the natural law that God reveals himself through (Romans 1:19-20). Even while his theory is rationalist in orientation, the theory is not anti-religious or anti-Christian but echoing of past Christian scholars and defenders of natural law and natural rights. He even shows that natural law is not "conservative" but rather radical and revolutionary, particularly in the libertarian forum.

The second part (A Theory of Liberty) applies the natural-law libertarian foundation to construct the libertarian theory, starting with the classical Crusoe model that was used by classical economists and showing how the libertarian principles of self-ownership, the homestead principle, and freedom would work with the case of Robinson Crusoe before going on to apply it to difficult and various situations. Rothbard says of man's needs and his desire to fulfill them:

Crusoe, then, has manifold wants which he tries to satisfy, ends
that he strives to attain. Some of these ends may be attained with minimal
ef-fort on his part; if the island is so structured, he may be able to pick
edible berries off nearby bushes. In such cases, his "consumption" of a
good or service may be obtained quickly and almost instantaneously.
But for almost all of his wants, Crusoe fids that the natural world about
him does not satisfy them immediately and instantaneously; he is not, inshort, in a Garden of Eden. To achieve his ends, he must, as quickly and
productively as he can, take the nature-given resources and transform
them into useful objects, shapes, and places most useful to him-so that
he can satisfy his wants. 

In short, he must (a) choose his goals; (b) learn how to achieve them
by using nature-given resources; and then (c) exert his labor energy to
transform these resources into more useful shapes and places: i-e., into
"capital goods,"and finally into "consumer goods" that he can directly
consume. Thus, Crusoe may build himself, out of the given natural raw
materials, an axe (capital good) with which to chop down trees, in order
to construct a cabin (consumer good). Or he may build a net (capital good)
with which to catch fish (consumer good). In each case, he employs his
learned technological knowledge to exert his labor effort in transforming
land into capital goods and eventually into consumer goods. This process
of transformation of land resources constitutes his "production." In short,
Crusoe must produce before he can consume, and so that he may consume. 

And by this process of production, of transformation, man shapes and
alters his nature-given environment to his own ends, instead of,
animal-like, being simply determined by that environment.
And so man, not having innate, instinctive, automatically acquired
knowledge of his proper ends, or of the means by which they can be
achieved, must learn them, and to learn them he must exercise his powers
of observation, abstraction, thought: in short, his reason. Reason is man's
instrument of knowledge and of his very survival; the use and expansion
of his mind, the acquisition of knowledge about what is best for him and
how he can achieve it, is the uniquely human method of existence and of
achievement. And this is uniquely man's nature; man, as Aristotle pointed
out, is the rational animal, or to be more precise, the rational being.
Through his reason, the individual man observes both the facts and ways
of the external world, and the facts of his own consciousness, including
his emotions: in short, he employs both extraspection and introspection. (pp. 29-30)

After giving a brilliant take on how the free society and freedom will work in Crusoe's situation, Rothbard goes on to apply the theory of libertarianism and self-ownership to develop a corpus of the libertarian system, first applying it to the theory of property rights and just homesteading and then going on to apply that to the other issues, ranging from property and criminality, land reform, land theft, self-defense and punishment theory to the issues of bribery, children's rights, and the problem of knowledge, as well as other issues. I didn't always agree with Rothbard, especially with the issue of abortion (though I believe that a true Christian can hold Rothbard's pro-choice view on abortion and the law), but I agree with everything else Rothbard defends and affirms, including the children's rights theory Rothbard defends (with some of my own reservations). Logic and natural law are part and parcel of Rothbard's defense of liberty and libertarianism.

The third part of the book (The State versus Liberty) goes on to deal with the problem of the State, and how libertarian theory applied consistently precludes the very existence of the State, which is originated in political means, the use of exploitation and initiation of force to exist and gain wealth. He not only refutes the statist myths but also refutes the objections of even limited-government libertarians who see a role for the State in society. Rothbard says:

But, above all, the crucial monopoly is the State's control of the use

of violence: of the police and armed services, and of the courts-the locus

of ultimate decision-making power in disputes over crimes and contracts.

Control of the police and the army is particularly important in enforcing

and assuring all of the State's other powers, including the all-important

power to extract its revenue by coercion.

For there is one crucially important power inherent in the nature of

the State apparatus. All other persons and groups in society (except for

acknowledged and sporadic criminals such as thieves and bank robbers)

obtain their income voluntarily: either by selling goods and services to

the consuming public, or by voluntary gift (e.g., membership in a club or

association, bequest, or inheritance). Only the State obtains its revenue

by coercion, by threatening dire penalties should the income not be forthcoming. 

That coercion is known as "taxation," although in less regularized

epochs it was often known as "tribute." Taxation is theft, purely and simply

even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged

criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the

property of the State's inhabitants, or subjects. (p. 162)

He also goes on to show that the State can't own property but only exploits and takes it from others and owns it outside the bounds of just property titles. And he shows how immoral the State is and why it can't exist within a just and proper society, the libertarian society. He even makes the argument that the services that the state provides can be provided in a more just and a more workable manner in the stateless libertarian society, reminiscent of his work For A New Liberty. Also worthwhile are his words on voting and foreign policy, in which he brings a consistent application of the libertarian principles to these tough issues. His perspective is worth considering and even worth embracing.

And the fourth and final parts of the book (Modern Alternative Theories of Liberty and Toward a Theory of Strategy for Liberty) are also valuable in that the fourth section refutes alternative theories that don't reflect natural rights and/or a consistent libertarianism. He critiques Isaiah Berlin for his anti-libertarian theories, attacks F. A. Hayek's faulty definition of coercion, and even critiques his great mentor Ludwig von Mises for adopting utilitarianism and attempting to apply a "value-free" perspective on political philosophy. And the final section is fair and balanced, keeping principles in mind while welcoming any goal, however mild, that defends the cause of liberty. He rejects both opportunism on the right-wing and sectarianism on the left-wing but prefers a moral-pragmatic strategy in which the moral ideal of a pure libertarian society is held up and the pragmatic strategy is allowed which does not contradict the goal.

Also encouraging is Rothbard's optimism and hope for a bright and free future, which, while I don't hold to as highly as Rothbard does, is very inspiring.

Overall, whether or not one agrees with this book's philosophy, The Ethics of Liberty is worth a read by all thoughtful people and all thoughtful libertarians, and I am glad that I spent my time doing so. I will be writing in the future on specific parts of this book, and I will be sure to revisit this book and re-read it, not only to catch what I may have missed when I first read it but also to learn more and to be even more enriched.

Letter of Liberty News Edition (3-18-2014)

Here is the Tuesday Edition of Letter of Liberty

John Cochran explains why GDP measuring leads to more government. Jonathan Goodwin also builds up on Cochran's analysis.

James E. Miller argues that conservatism shouldn't be ditched.

Hunter Lewis gives his thoughts on Obama's new Fed appointees.

Laurence Vance exposes the craziness of anti-discrimination legislation, especially in the strange form it has taken.

Richard Ebeling distinguishes Ukranian and Russian nationalism from self-determination and individualism.

Bill Sardi argues for the use of garlic as a medicine.

Jim Sinclair argues that sanctioning Russia is a very big mistake.

John Whitehead gives his thoughts on the Second Amendment and makes a civil libertarian case for gun rights.

Russia Today reports on Venetian secession from Italy and Roman domination. 

Ron Paul argues for equality under natural law in his analysis of new surveillance-related complaints.

Michael Rozeff argues against the folly of Obama's sanctions and argues against making Crimea's referendum illegal.

Ron Paul makes the case for non-intervention with regards to the recent Crimean secession.

Eric Owens analyses the call to jail the deniers of climate change theory by a professor. Tom DiLorenzo also gives some thoughts.

Jack Douglas looks at the Russia-Ukraine situation.

Daisy Luther looks at terror drills and public schooling (and why they are a bad idea).

Gaye Levy and Joe Alton give their tips on survivial medicine.

Elizabeth Renter: Napping is good for you.

Brandon Engel: Is Google a friend or enemy of liberty?

Pat Buchanan: Is Putin really irrational?

Phil Girardi gives his thoughts on Ukraine.

Kevin Carson reviews The End of Power, a book by Moises Naím.

Jacob Hornberger exposes the Argentinian government inflation scam.

Sheldon Richman contrasts liberty and warfare statism.

Gene Healy looks at the disaster that is the U. S. government's intervention in Libya.

Jack Matlock analyzes U. S. war policy since the end of the Cold War.

David Shellenberg: Tear down free trade barriers uniaterally!

Dan Froomkin reports on the alleged death of a license-tracking device and why reports may be exaggerated.

Kurt Schmoke: The drug war is futile and only grown more so.

Kelly Vlahos gives some thoughts on Afghanistan based on a "surge skeptic."

Winston Wheeler looks at America's trillon-dollar national security budget.

Happy St. Patrick's Day

Happy St. Patrick's Day, everybody!

For today, I would like to note St. Patrick's Day is the celebration of the great saint St. Patrick, the Irish Catholic minister who led many to Christ and who successfully abolished slavery and the slave trade in Ireland (without starting a mass Civil War, like what happend in America).

The Anarchist Notebook, a new and great blog, says in its article:

It’s sad that St. Patrick’s Day is more known for big parades and wearing green and over-consuming liquor and beer. It’d be far better if it celebrated his greatest achievements that included the eradication of slavery – the worst violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. And unlike America, he managed to do it without resorting to violence in any way. 

In fact, Ireland is an anomaly in that its conversion to Christianity was marked by the absence of violence.  Not a single Christian was martyred or killed for their faith while they were converting the pagan Irish. This gave rise to a phenomenon known as “white martyrdom” in which Irishman totally committed their lives to God and “died a living death” in a spiritual sense. 

St. Patrick should be remembered if for no other reason than the fact that he proved the Non-Aggression Principle works and can be implemented if people are willing to embrace it.

Also interesting is that Ireland is an example of a successful anarchist society (before Oliver Cromwell conquered it), which proves that society doesn't need the State to manage itself.  Christian anarcho-capitalist Henry Moore, host of The Libertarian Liquidationist, gives some thoughts on this in his article today: 

The one thing I would like to get out of the way is a definition of “Anarchy”. Etymologically, we know that “anarchy” simply means “without rule”, where “rule” refers to the reign of a ruler or the establishment of some other hierarchical political order. It does not mean, nor does it imply, “without rules.” Nor “chaos.” or “violence.” Rules can be (and usually are, even many of those that are eventually codified by legislation) mere customs which themselves are the result of competition between different ideas for how problems might best be solved. Tradition is very often the result of countless centuries of trial and error of which ideas and methods do and do not work. Legislation, on the other hand, is very often the result of the arbitrary or hubristic wills of so few imposed upon so many. Chaos and violence are part of the human condition, but they can be mitigated through competition, exchange, and voluntary cooperation, whereas intervention and threats of force create strong reactions, perverse incentives, and economic uncertainty, thereby exacerbating the situation. 

The great theorist Murray Rothbard himself, in his classic book For A New Liberty, had some interesting things to say about the Irish society and how it relates to libertarianism (audio available here): 

The most remarkable historical example of a society of libertarian law and courts, however, has been neglected by historians until very recently. And this was also a society where not only the courts and the law were largely libertarian, but where they operated within a purely state-less and libertarian society. This was ancient Ireland — an Ireland which persisted in this libertarian path for roughly a thousand years until its brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century. And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes (such as the Ibos in West Africa, and many European tribes), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a “primitive” society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. For a thousand years, then, ancient Celtic Ireland had no State or anything like it. As the leading authority on ancient Irish law has written: ”There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice….There was no trace of State-administered justice.” 

How then was justice secured? The basic political unit of ancient Ireland was the tuath. All “freemen” who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a tuath. Each tuath’s members formed an annual assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their “kings.” An important point is that, in contrast to primitive tribes, no one was stuck or bound to a given tuath, either because of kinship or of geographical location. Individual members were free to, and often did, secede from a tuath and join a competing tuath. Often, two or more tuatha decided to merge into a single, more efficient unit. As Professor Peden states, “the tuath is thus a body of persons voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes and the sum total of the landed properties of its members constituted its territorial dimension.” In short, they did not have the modern State with its claim to sovereignty over a given (usually expanding) territorial area, divorced from the landed property rights of its subjects; on the contrary, tuatha were voluntary associations which only comprised the landed properties of its voluntary members. Historically, about 80 to 100 tuatha coexisted at any time throughout Ireland. 

But what of the elected “king”? Did he constitute a form of State ruler? Chiefly, the king functioned as a religions high priest, presiding over the worship rites of the tuath, which functioned as a voluntary religious, as well as a social and political, organization. As in pagan, pre-Christian, priesthoods, the kingly function was hereditary, this practice carrying over to Christian times. The king was elected by the tuath from within a royal kin-group (the derbfine), which carried the hereditary priestly function.Politically, however, the king had strictly limited functions: he was the military leader of the tuath, and he presided over the tuath assemblies. But he could only conduct war or peace negotiations as agent of the assemblies; and he was in no sense sovereign and had no rights of administering justice over tuath members. He could not legislate, and when he himself was party to a lawsuit, he had to submit his case to an independent judicial arbiter. 

Again, how, then, was law developed and justice maintained? In the first place, the law itself was based on a body of ancient and immemorial custom, passed down as oral and then written tradition through a class of professional jurists called the brehons. The brehons were in no sense public, or governmental, officials; they were simply selected by parties to disputes on the basis of their reputations for wisdom, knowledge of the customary law, and the integrity of their decisions. As Professor Peden states: 

…the professional jurists were consulted by parties to disputes for advice as to what the law was in particular cases, and these same men often acted as arbitrators between suitors. They remained at all times private persons, not public officials; their functioning depended upon their knowledge of the law and the integrity of their judicial reputations. 

Furthermore, the brehons had no connection whatsoever with the individual tuatha or with their kings. They were completely private, national in scope, and were used by disputants throughout Ireland. Moreover, and this is a vital point, in contrast to the system of private Roman lawyers, thebrehon was all there was; there were no other judges, no “public” judges of any kind, in ancient Ireland. 

It was the brehons who were schooled in the law, and who added glosses and applications to the law to fit changing conditions. Furthermore, there was no monopoly, in any sense, of the brehon jurists; instead, several competing schools of jurisprudence existed and competed for the custom of the Irish people. 

How were the decisions of the brehons enforced? Through an elaborate, voluntarily developed system of “insurance,” or sureties. Men were linked together by a variety of surety relationships by which they guaranteed one another for the righting of wrongs, and for the enforcement of justice and the decisions of the brehons. In short, the brehons themselves were not involved in the enforcement of decisions, which rested again with private individuals linked through sureties. There were various types of surety. For example, the surety would guarantee with his own property the payment of a debt, and then join the plaintiff in enforcing a debt judgment if the debtor refused to pay. In that case, the debtor would have to pay double damages: one to the original creditor, and another as compensation to his surety. And this system applied to all offences, aggressions and assaults as well as commercial contracts; in short, it applied to all cases of what we would call “civil” and “criminal” law. All criminals were considered to be “debtors” who owed restitution and compensation to their victims, who thus became their “creditors.” The victim would gather his sureties around him and proceed to apprehend the criminal or to proclaim his suit publicly and demand that the defendant submit to adjudication of their dispute with the brehons. The criminal might then send his own sureties to negotiate a settlement or agree to submit the dispute to the brehons. If he did not do so, he was considered an “outlaw” by the entire community; he could no longer enforce any claim of his own in the courts, and he was treated to the opprobrium of the entire community. 

There were occasional “wars,” to be sure, in the thousand years of Celtic Ireland, but they were minor brawls, negligible compared to the devastating wars that racked the rest of Europe. As Professor Peden points out, “without the coercive apparatus of the State which can through taxation and conscription mobilize large amounts of arms and manpower, the Irish were unable to sustain any large scale military force in the field for any length of time. Irish wars…were pitiful brawls and cattle raids by European standards.” 

Thus, we have indicated that it is perfectly possible, in theory and historically, to have efficient and courteous police, competent and learned judges, and a body of systematic and socially accepted law — and none of these things being furnished by a coercive government. Government — claiming a compulsory monopoly of protection over a geographical area, and extracting its revenues by force — can be separated from the entire field of protection. Government is no more necessary for providing vital protection service than it is necessary for providing anything else. And we have not stressed a crucial fact about government: that its compulsory monopoly over the weapons of coercion has led it, over the centuries, to infinitely more butcheries and infinitely greater tyranny and oppression than any decentralized, private agencies could possibly have done. If we look at the black record of mass murder, exploitation, and tyranny levied on society by governments over the ages, we need not be loath to abandon the Leviathan State and…try freedom. (pp. 231-234)

I am not saying that the Irish society was a flawless society, as it was marred with paganism before St. Patrick came, and neither am I claiming that a libertarian and stateless society will be a flawless utopia. But what I am saying is that the stateless society is practical and moral, and that it should be worth striving for.

SON OF GOD (2014) - Review

Son of God (2014)

***/5

Director: Christopher Spencer
Producer: Roma Downey, Mark Burnett
Music: Lorne Balfe
Story/Screenplay: Richard Bedser, Christopher Spencer, Colin Swash, Nick Young; based on the New Testament
Starring: Diogo Morgado (as Jesus), Darwin Shaw, Roma Downey, Amber Rose Revah, Sebastian Knapp, Gregg Hicks, and more
Cinematography: Rob Goldie

Studio: 20th Century Fox (distributor), Lightworks Media (production company)

MPAA Rating: PG-13

REVIEW

So last night, me and my family went to see Son of God in the theaters with a good friend of ours, and we sat through a two-hour film going over the life of Jesus Christ (while I was munching on my popcorn), starting from His birth to His miracles to His death and resurrection.

So what did my family think? Overall, they all enjoyed it. And what did I think? I didn't love the film, but I did think it was a decent film. It wasn't the abomination on film that some critics of the film make it out to be, but at the same time, despite the film's merits, ultimately it feels like a pretty decent, but average, re-edit of the original The Bible miniseries, with some filler added to it and one scene removed (the temptation scene, simply because of the over-hyped Obama/Satan comparison).

I feel no need to summarize the plot, since I believe that most people will be familiar with the story and that most critics already have done the job. But I will review the film.

First, I will focus on the merits. Diogo Morgado is very fitting for his role as Jesus Christ, giving us a relatable character who one could empathize with, and even if this Jesus does look like your generic white Jesus, Morgado did a really good job with his performance. The other actors are good in their roles, including Gregg Hicks as the cruel Pontius Pilate, Darwin Shaw as Simon Peter (the "big fisherman"), and the other apostles. Adrian Schiller is also fitting for his portrayal as Caiphas, combining both the self-righteous hypocrite who hates Jesus and the nationalist who is concerned for his nation.

Also, the direction is actually pretty decent, considering that this was originally not intended for a theatrical release (the original footage was from the miniseries). The pacing is passable, though the events do feel out of place and out of order for those who have seen the original miniseries (the order of certain events in the film are switched around). And the cinematography is very well-done, with some excellent choices made throughout the film. Overall, there was not much to complain about in the film.

Now, having given my thoughts on the respective merits on the film, what did I not like about the film?

First, having seen The Bible miniseries, the film felt like a rehash in an attempt to cash in on the quasi-craze of Hollywood-distributed Christian movies (Noah is about to come out, and I am interested in the film myself). Not much was new in the film, except for a few scenes being extended, some extended footage of John on Patmos, a scene where Jesus predicts the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (which is just handled in a kind of back-handed way). And for those who haven't seen The Bible, the film will feel familiar as this story was filmed multiple times. They may or may not enjoy it, but I feel that most will have the view that it seems a bit too familiar, considering that Jesus movies had been made since the inception of film.

Second, Son of God has its share of technical flaws. For example, the pacing seemed to drag at times, and compared to the miniseries, certain events felt out of order. For example, the death of Lazarus and his resurrection was switched around from the original miniseries and placed at a different time in the movie. And while the extended footage added in does have merit, overall it feels like filler for the most part. Also, there are obvious examples of less-than-stellar CGI work here and there throughout the film. Also, as others have noted in their reviews, the film did feel preachy at times. Even Diogo Morgado's otherwise good portrayal of Jesus has some cheap dialogue to say ("Just give me an hour and I'll give you a whole new life" and "change the world" talk near the opening of the film)

Peter T. Chattaway's helpful review of the film gives some insights into its certain flaws that I will take the time to quote:

The film is a mixed bag in other ways, too. At times, the script, credited to director Christopher Spencer and three other writers, displays a welcome sensitivity to the issues at play. But at other times, it misreads them so badly it gets downright goofy.

On the sensitive side, the film avoids some of the controversy that plagued The Passion of the Christ by offering a much more balanced view of Jewish-Roman politics. 

For one thing, it clearly depicts Pontius Pilate (Greg Hicks) as the brutal governor that he was (Luke 13:1), even going so far as to show him violently putting down a protest over his misuse of the Temple’s funds (an episode taken from the secular historian Josephus). 

It also underscores the fact that the high priest, Caiaphas (Adrian Schiller), was motivated not just by religious concerns, but by a realpolitik desire to keep Israel safe from the Romans, even if it meant sacrificing individual Jews (John 11:47-50). 

But on the goofy side, the film utterly botches the scene in which Jesus declares that not one of the Temple’s stones will be left standing. In the Gospels, this statement has dark, apocalyptic overtones, but in the film, Jesus says it for no particular reason, and he smiles and pokes the belly of some random child while doing so. Would the real Jesus have grinned so happily when predicting the destruction of Jerusalem? Doubtful, to say the least.

But still, keeping this in mind, Son of God is a pretty decent and watchable, but ultimately average, cinematic depiction about the life of Jesus Christ. See the film and decide if the film is good, bad, or just average. But to the readers who are looking for better films about Jesus, look to Cecil B. DeMille's The King of Kings (1927) (or the 1971 film with the same title), Pier Paolo Pasolini's The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964), The Jesus Movie (1979), Franco Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth (1979), The Miracle Maker (2000), the 1999 telefilm Jesus (starring Jeremy Sisto as Jesus), or Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ (2004). Or check out Catherine Hardwicke's (Thirteen, Twilight, Lords of Dogtown, Red Riding Hood) The Nativity Story (2006), if one is looking for a film about the birth of Jesus Christ.

Letter of Liberty News Edition (3-14-2014)

Here is the Friday News Edition of Letter of Liberty.

Ilana Mercer comments on the Duke student who became a porn star.

Nick Turse comments on Washington's proxy foreign policy in Africa.

Conn Hallinan comments on Ukraine, WikiLeaks and NATO.

Justin Raimondo advises that Crimea be allowed to secede and determine their fates.

William Grigg laments the end of private property rights.

Russ Baker investigates the mysterious case of "Danny."

Daniel McAdams argues that sanctions against Russia are absurd.

Michael Rozeff demolishes the theory of economic sanctions

Robert Wenzel explains how to get a Wall Street job quick and easy.

Roger McKinney explains fiat money and buisness cycles.

David Swanson argues against the thermonuclear monarchy.

Eric Peters explains new things to know about new cars.

Steve Sailer believes that the US government and Russian government may never get along.

Sheldon Richman explains how Americans can really help Ukranians.

Jacob Hornberger condemns America's Cold War socialism.

Jacob Hornberger warns that the CIA can't be "reformed" and that it should be abolished.

Laurence Vance reviews Faith and War, a book detailing Christian ideas regarding the Cold War.

Byran Cheng: Herbert Spencer, the great 19th century thinker, taught that freedom and empire are in conflict with one another.

Andrew Napolitano explains the troubles with the NSA and the CIA.

The Washington Times editorializes on yet another Justice Department crime: trying to criminalize sharing of links.

Adam Gopnik explains the flaws of Crimea-related hysteria.

Scott McConnell comments on yet another plan to start a Cold War.

Ryan Gallagher and Glenn Greenwald expose the NSA's plans to infect computers with malware through Facebook.

Dean Becker advocates for an end to the drug war, giving advice to the politicians.

Ben Powell argues that government policies harm income mobility.

George Leef teaches us the lessons of UAW's defeat in Chattanooga.

Sheldon Richman attacks the U.S. empire and its hypocrisy.