Monthly Archive for February, 2009

Links: Obama Leaving Troops in Iraq until (at least) 2011

Written by Colin. Published on February 27, 2009 ago in Current Events. 2 Comments

I don’t even know if George Bush could have been so brazen: Obama to Leave Up to 50K Troops in Iraq Through 2011 . Here were some quotes from the GOP:

Few issued statements, and what praise there was came largely from Republicans. Sen. John S. McCain (R-Ariz.) said he “supports the plan to leave 50,000 troops in Iraq as briefed by [chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] Admiral [Michael] Mullen and [Defense] Secretary [Robert M.] Gates.”

Rep. John McHugh (NY), the senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said that the president’s withdrawal plan “is one that we should pray for, plan for and work toward.”

Laws and Breaking Them
Arkansas House approves bill allowing guns in churches

Oregon proposes increase in beer tax to pay for alcohol abuse programs

Will the Recession Doom the Last Sunday Blue Laws?

The age of designer babies has arrived. The Fertility Institutes have announced the “pending availability” of “expanded testing that can greatly increase the odds of achieving a healthy pregnancy with a preselected choice of gender, eye color, hair color and complexion.” Apparently this is an unregulated field of science in the USA. More details are available from SingularityHub.com.

Rule-Breaking: Some More Pottering About from Touchstone Magazine:

The other day day I came upon this piquant title among the children’s books in the New York Times Book Review: How Alice Roosevelt Broke the Rules, Charmed the World, and Drove her Father Teddy Crazy.

I’m pretty sure I recognize the genre, and am decidedly of the Hillaire Belloc school when it comes to the like. I have not seen many Newbery or Caldecott Award books lately with titles like, How Johnny Smith Broke the Rules and was Chopped to Pieces Under the Wheels of a Train, or, How Suzy Jones Broke the Rules and Lost Both Arms in the Grain Auger

The Church
Missionaries get hard labor for words in email.

the 16th edition of the Ethnologue went to press (link is to 15th edition)

To eat or not to eat?. At a traditional Chinese funeral, should a Christian eat the meat offered to the deceased?

Clip the Tip? Point/Counterpoint on Male Circumcision

Economy
There is cheap housing in Detroit for anyone interested.

Clearly even Scrooge McDuck knows more than our economic managers:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_LWQQrpSc4&eurl=http://forums.zealfortruth.org/viewtopic.php?t=3780&start=690&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Obama: Stop Short Term Economic Thinking (But Here is a Quick Fix!)

Written by Colin. Published on February 25, 2009 ago in Current Events. 1 Comment

Obama’s speech was remarkable last night. Aside from Mike Huckabee, there is no other politician who is such an expert at saying absolutely nothing, with so much charm, eloquence and conviction. Obama plays the role as the morally righteous reformer and problem solver, while proving in his speaking and actions that he is a classic embodiment of reckless and irresponsible government intervention for the sake of posturing.

Obama:

…we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before. In other words, we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election.

Correct. Both individuals and government have been spending like mad. You can tell our spending culture is out of control when reductions in state budget increases are called “cuts.” But does Obama plan to stop spending, stop going into debt or stop supporting short-term interventions?

I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t. Not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited — I am. I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships. In fact, a failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years. That’s why I pushed for quick action.

Of course! The best way to stop a culture of short-term debt-spending and reckless tossing of shovelfuls of money into near-sighted government projects is by… wait for it… engaging in short-term debt-spending and reckless tossing of shovelfuls of money into near-sighted government projects. Obama says we need to stop shovelling out money to important electoral groups, and then, without batting an eye, starts talking about how it is somehow good for the long-term economy that teachers, health-care workers and police (huge electoral groups) have job security. He cites 57 police in Minneapolis keeping their jobs today as though this is an indicator (or, even worse, a creator) of long-term growth for the whole country.

Obama continues talking out of both sides of his mouth. Remember how earlier, he cited piles of public and private debt as a cause of the crisis? Less then ten minutes later:

The concern is that if we do not re-start lending in this country, our recovery will be choked off before it even begins. You see, the flow of credit is the lifeblood of our economy.

So we are going to fix the problem caused by too much debt with… wait for it… more debt!

Obama then declares that this is important to “…finance the purchase of… a home to a car to a college education.” But of course, Obama just said that part of the crisis was that: “People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway.”

Of course, Obama is just the spokesperson for the generally useless politicians in Washington. The whole chamber started clapping when he declared:

First, we are creating a new lending fund that represents the largest effort ever to help provide auto loans, college loans, and small business loans to the consumers and entrepreneurs who keep this economy running.

The way out of the financial crisis is not for people to make better decisions, invest in wiser business or incentivise higher quality products through the market – it is to buy, buy, BUY!Buy more houses, more cars and invest in even more risky businesses.

There was a lot more to complain about in Obama’s agenda, but if he doesn’t even understand economics – then he is going to have trouble working out healthcare, the military or education.

Deconstructing Manufactured Consent and Conspiracy Theory

Written by Chris A. Published on February 23, 2009 ago in General. 7 Comments

Those seeking to discredit that which so inconveniently goes against the grain of historical memory are often deemed “conspiracy theorists” – the connotation being that alternative explanations for historical events must certainly be in the realm of bigfoot and little green men. However, such assertions are not always accurate. In fact, more often than not, alternative explanations are intentionally overstated in order to discredit them.

Defining the Conspiracy Theorist
One good definition for the word conspiracy is a concurrence or general tendency, as of circumstances, to one event, as if by agreement. A good definition of theorist is a person who theorizes. So a conspiracy theorist would be a person who theorizes about occurrences or general tendencies, as of circumstances, to events, as if by agreement.

Theories involve propositions; absent a proposition a theory cannot exist. For example, if I were to say that Lee Harvey Oswald in collusion with the Soviets assassinated President Kennedy that would involve a definite proposition. (And just so we’re clear, this is a hypothetical theory that I do not personally subscribe to.) Now, if I were to simply say that I do not believe that Oswald acted alone in his attempt to assassinate the president that is not a theory because it does not involve an absolute proposition about who is responsible. In other words, I am not making accusations about the guilt of any particular party; rather I am saying that I remain unconvinced, from my examination of the evidence, that the accused is solely responsible for the crime.

Basics of Criminal Investigation
When criminal acts take place, those given the responsibility of investigating the crimes gather evidence (including circumstantial evidence), conduct interviews of witnesses, determine persons of interest and interview them. On the basis of the evidence gathered, the authorities formulate a theory about how and why the crime took place and who is responsible. By definition, this is a conspiracy theory if it involves more than one person. Most of these theories involve some degree of hearsay and conjecture.

Basics of Criminal Prosecution
After the authorities determine the guilt of an individual or individuals on the basis of their investigation, formal charges are made. However, the accused has a right to present his defense, and until he is proven guilty his innocence is assumed. He may enter a plea of guilty, not guilty, or no contest. Assuming the defendant has maintained his innocence, the guilt or innocence of the defendant is determined by those whose function it is to weigh the evidence, either a judge or a jury.

Disruption of Criminal Process
When there is a disruption in the criminal process, and a “rush to judgment” occurs, the outcome should always be in question until a satisfactory and independent examination of the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, many major crimes involving national security fall into this category, and thus the official explanation is naturally discredited.

This would be the case concerning the attacks on the World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001 in New York City. First of all, there is the question of jurisdiction. Whose responsibility is it to investigate the crime and prosecute the criminals? The NYPD? The FBI? Whatever the jurisdiction, the investigations that have followed in no way resemble legitimate criminal process. The suspects have been tried in the court of public opinion, an opinion shaped almost entirely by information disseminated to the public with the intent of manipulating public opinion.

Assuming the crime fell under the FBI’s jurisdiction, it might interest the public to note that the FBI has never named Osama bin Laden as a suspect for the crime despite the fact that millions of Americans still believe he is responsible. Why not? Obviously, if a person is not even named as a suspect, there might be some reasonable doubt as to his guilt or a lack of evidence. And such a conclusion does not constitute a conspiracy theory.

The Motive of the Accusers
When there is a disruption in the criminal process, it is left up to the public to examine the possible motives of the accusers. This is where the public is duty-bound to check government power and police the police. Because the accused, for whatever reason, are being denied their day in court, the information given to the public can only be propaganda; it is the strongest possible case the state could make because there is no opposition to it.

The most obvious motive the state has is to maintain the appearance of competence. No one wants to lose their job because they fail to measure up to what the public expects of them. Prosecutors who wanted to keep their jobs and maintain their reputations for being “tough on crime” have been guilty of locking up innocent people, only to have them released years later when suppressed or new evidence is presented. In some cases, the prosecutors have still maintained that the formerly accused are guilty even after their release.

Naysayers and Complicit Gatekeepers
For some reason, rather than questioning the second and third-hand information and outright propaganda that comes from governments, many people actually internalize it. This is the best situation that the state can hope for – to foster collective consent in the public such that any opposition to the official government account is quickly and instinctively extinguished. Even this concept, likely to be mistaken as a conspiracy theory itself, is just institutional analysis; all governments have a stake in controlling public opinion.

In some cases, the CIA has literally fed propaganda through a media filter in order to marginalize opposition. (This is a fact, not a theory.) However, not everything is handled with the same techniques used in Operation Mockingbird. Although such techniques are definitely in use today, most recently evidenced by the CIA’s infiltration of Iranian media as exposed by Brian Ross at ABC News, manufacturing consent does not usually require such covert practices. All governments have to do is wait for the public to reach a consensus on the basis of their version of events, and those thus indoctrinated will cry “conspiracy theorist!” at the slightest mention of anything that questions the official government account. Of course, this only works when the public trusts the government or is too lazy or apathetic to look at the evidence independently. One sure way of becoming a government stooge is to repeat what they say as a fact.

Psychological Warfare through Word Association
One of the techniques used by governments and government stooges alike is a straw-man involving the use of word associations to misrepresent a point of view. Sometimes these word associations use legitimate terms that have taken on a different meaning through negative usage, like conspiracy theorist or liberal. Other times words like kook, crazy, tinfoil hat, compound, separatist, anarchist, un-American, terrorist, and the like are used in conjunction with the mention of a dissident person or group of persons.

Another similar and popular technique involves using ridiculous ideas and comparisons to discredit a point of view. For instance, a person might say, “The government’s explanation for the destruction of the Salomon Brothers building just doesn’t make sense.” A stooge might respond by scoffing, “I suppose a secret cabal of Zionists and Jews is to blame.” Or another response might be more extreme like, “Yeah, the little green men detonated the building from their flying saucer.” Either way, the desired effect is the same whether a person is shamed into submission by associating his point of view with something politically taboo or science fiction. At any rate, a careful examination of the evidence is discouraged through peer pressure.

Formulating a Theory
The formulation of an accurate theory as to the motivation for something like an assassination, for instance, is a near-impossible feat. This is due to the complicated nature of a multitude of parties of interest and the limit to which one may investigate all possible motives and associations. A much more practical approach is to remain skeptical when the evidence warrants skepticism. The last thing anyone wants to be is a sucker, and you can be a sucker being a government stooge or voicing opinions about questions you are ill-equipped to answer. Nevertheless, a healthy sense of skepticism is a guard against deception, and there is no reason why a person must – especially if he in good conscience cannot – formulate a theory.

Although the formulation of conspiracy theories is generally (though not always) ill-advised, the communication of evidence of complicity is encouraged. It must be understood, however, that this is a means of public investigation. For instance, the fact that the North American Aerospace Defense Command ran military exercises very similar to the actual real world scenarios that occurred on 9/11 and then lied about it, is evidence of complicity; it does not involve the formulation of a theory, but states a matter of fact. Now, if an individual were to take that evidence (not proof) and formulate a theory involving NORAD as a possible conspirator to the crime, that would be premature. Nevertheless, the emergence of the many theories that have entered the national consciousness (some of them quite ridiculous) bears witness to the fact that not all of the populace is asleep. That is a good thing.

Describing Government in Anarcho-Capitalist terms

Written by Atanamis. Published on February 18, 2009 ago in General. 31 Comments

I have recently become convinced that modern governments are in fact consistent with Anarcho-Capitalist ideals, they just don’t understand it. To demonstrate this, I will describe government in terms familiar to anarcho-capitalists:

Assumptions:

1) Anarcho-capitalists allow groups of people to form corporations, which can own property.

The concept of a corporation is essential to understand modern governments. In a corporation, many owners collectively fund and own a company. The company can then act in many ways as a person, owning property, producing products, entering contracts, etc. It is the corporation that has customers and liabilities. In many cases, stock holders in a corporation may also be customers of that corporation. The key elements for this article are that corporations can own property, and that corporations pursue whatever goals are desired by the owners of the corporation (who generally can vote on the goals of the corporation and the corporation’s board of directors who select the top positions in the corporation).

2) The owner of a property is allowed to set the price of rent, and to evict people who do not pay rent, even if that person was born on the property.

A primary complaint of anarcho-capitalists is that people to not “opt in” to government. This is categorically not true though, since most Western governments provide full freedom for people to leave their countries. If I own a property which I rent to a tenant, the fact that the tenant has a child while on that property does not obligate me to give free housing to the child. Particularly if the child becomes an adult and their parent dies, I have no obligation to give the child “free housing” or to help them find another place to live if they can’t or won’t pay rent. In fact, I have a right to seek compensation if they continue to use my property without paying rent.

3) The owner of a property has the right to demand payment for the use of services provided on their property

If I own a piece of property and provide security guards to protect those on my property, I have the right to demand that those coming on to my property pay a fee for that protection. That fee can come in the form of a one time payment, or I can charge a certain percentage of the person’s profits in exchange for the service. If the person does not agree to my terms, they are free to leave my property. If they do agree and then later refuse the determined payment, I have a right to seek compensation for the unpaid services.

Conclusions:
I’m sure everyone reading this sees where it is going. Using anarcho-capitalist definitions, modern governments “own” all land in they control. Like any corporation, they claimed unused land, and can buy or sell that land as they see fit. They could choose to sell land to individual buyers, but historically have only “truly” bought/sold land to other “governments” (corporations which sell the use of force). Anyone choosing to live in one has a moral obligation to respect the property rights of the government as a corporation and to pay rent if required. Any business choosing to organize under that government’s legal structure is also a customer deliberately seeking the services offered by the government.

The US government is also a corporation, owned by the citizens who get to choose the goals and leaders of their company. Like any land owner, the US government has the right to evict anyone for any reason it chooses. Like any seller of services, the US government must provide a satisfactory service to its customers (renters and corporations), or it will see them seek out competitive alternatives. Like any service provider, it has the right to charge fees on any calculation it chooses (profit taxes or payroll taxes). Like any owned entity, it has to report to its owner regarding its goals and leadership (elections).

The US is the epitomy of anarcho-capitalist ideals. Their only real complaint is that the US as a corporation chooses not to sell its land to individual buyers, but since anarcho-capitalism holds sacred the rights of a property owner to do as they wish with their own property they have no moral right to criticize what “US Government Incorporated” chooses to do with its assets. As partial owners, they have every right to suggest redistribution of assets, but the corporation MUST listen to the decisions its majority stockholders define. If as customers (taxpayers) they wish to find a new landlord, they are free to do so. Like any property owner, the US enlists arbiters to determine property damage cases with neighboring countries. If we damage Canada with pollution, we end up paying “Canada Incorporated” for the damage to their property, and vice versa.

“Anarcho-capitalism” is not a reaction against infringement of individual liberties, it is either a semantic argument (only governments “own” property in the anarcho-capitalist usage of the word) or it is a rejection of free market ideals regarding ownership of property and the rights of corporations. If they want to run a territory on different rules, they must first purchase some land (from a government under the clear contract that the property will no longer be governed by the selling government, a “real” sale not a “rental agreement” which is normally referenced as a sale in modern usage). There is nothing stopping a government “owned” by a single person. In fact, this is exactly what a dictatorship is! Buy a group of dictatorships, and structure your free association of independent property owners however you see fit.

Claiming a government lacks the right to own and oversee land or charge rent for its usage is simply an attack on the rights of a corporate group of people to own property, and has nothing to do with the rights of an individual to life, liberty, and property. (Obviosuly the above does not apply to a government that refuses to allow its citizens the right of liberty and property to take their person and wealth out of the country. Since they do not actually own the land though in the anarcho-capitalist sense of the word “own”, they cannot take their property only sell their lease on its usage and the rent obligation that comes with that lease.)

The Roots of Statism

Written by Colin. Published on February 16, 2009 ago in General. 13 Comments

Typically, those who are opposed to “pure” libertarianism – which is generally articulated as some form of anarchy or decentralised society – do so on the grounds of 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes (whether intentionally or not). This includes all statists, from obvious ones such as Marxists or socialists; moderates such as republicans or democrats and even minarchists like libertarians and objectivists.

The Hobbesian view is that man needs a government in order to prevent a “war of all against all.” That without a referee (namely a government monopoly), men would be unable to figure out the rules of the game, so to speak. But more than that, they would break any rules that were established and society would quickly degenerate into complete chaos.

But there are numerous illustrations available to show that this construct is actually not workable (empirically) and not logically consistent (axiomatically). Government intervention does not empirically do what it is supposed to, and the axiomatic legitimizations for it have yet to be shown as water-tight. As government increases, wars and rule-breaking don’t decrease. In fact, the state itself becomes the largest aggressor and rule-breaker. It doesn’t use it’s monopoly on force – and it’s exemptions from the rules the rest of society must follow – purely for good. Not surprisingly, it uses these exceptional powers to favour the agendas of those who wield them – whether it is world domination, trade or environmentalism.

Hans Hoppe explains this conundrum in The Myth of National Defense:

The quarrel is only with the Hobbesian solution. Given man’s nature as a rational animal, is the proposed solution to the problem of insecurity an improvement? Can the institution of a state reduce aggressive behavior and promote peaceful cooperation, and thus provide for better private security and protection? The difficulties with Hobbes’s argument are obvious. For one, regardless of how bad men are, S —whether king, dictator, or elected president— is still one of them. Man’s nature is not transformed upon becoming S. Yet how can there be better protection for A and B, if S must tax them in order to provide it? Is there not a contradiction within the very construction of S as an expropriating property protector? In fact, is this not exactly what is also—and more appropriately—referred to as a protection racket? To be sure, S will make peace between A and B but only so that he himself in turn can rob both of them more profitably. Surely S is better protected, but the more he is protected, the less A and B are protected from attacks by S. Collective security, it would seem, is not better than private security. Rather, it is the private security of the state, S, achieved through the expropriation, i.e., the economic disarmament, of its subjects.

The Hobbesian philosophy essentially demands that larger and more powerful groups of thugs be in charge of smaller groups of thugs because people obviously seems to just want to commit random violence against each other like animals and require a big group of thugs with sticks to keep them in line. Government is empowered in this manner because otherwise, what, a government will develop? In reality, the argument against anarchy is that “a big group of thugs will come unless we have a big group of thugs.” Is the circular reasoning not evident here? We don’t want the world to devolve into chaos where a big group of thugs can run wild and enslave us – so enstead we enslave ourselves to a big group of thugs which then creates chaos to justify it’s perpetual dominion (wars, economic crises, social crisis, national emergencies, etc…).

The Burden of Proof
I put the emphasis on statists (whether they are libertarians or Marxists) to justify their argument for why the initial natural order requires a government (which no matter how complicated or advanced it is – is based on the philosophy of the strongest thugs and bullies running the show – this is its axiomatic argument, despite platonic motives attached to it) to be superimposed on it. The intervention requires justification – not nature. The protection racket or group of thugs needs to demonstrate a) that their ideas will work and b) that they even have a legitimate right to force their will on naturally free people.

Even if the natural state of man is chaos, it is the responsibility of those who would put it “right” to justify their actions – even with the best motives. If they refuse to do this, and hope to just beat men into submission “for their own good” – they are no better than the men they are trying to reform and put to order. They are using the same methods.

Some Criticisms
Of course, the anarchist’s alternative is not that suddenly without a state everyone is going to hold hands, obey common laws and never fight with one another. There are still going to be wars, crimes and disorder. In addition, many men, even if purely free to do so, will not do what’s best for them. If drugs were legal and freely available, for example, of course more people would use them – and this would not be a good thing.

In fact, if this is true (which I think it is), that man is not always going to do what’s best for him, then the case for government breaks down very quickly (much more quickly than an anarcho-capitalist system) – as man doesn’t magically become “rational” when given a monopoly on force over other men. He doesn’t magically become a philosopher king. If anything, he abuses his power. The Hobbesian case for government presumes a miracle – that a man will suddenly find a conscience if he is given power over other men.

In other words, if we allow a group of thugs to regulate our behaviour, even for good, why do we think that this group will now be so morally consistent and superior as to enforce this justly?

Another set of criticisms is empirical. I saw a bunch of socialists protesting at a mall the other day, handing out editions of the Morning Star showing a photo of bankers with the headline: “Capitalism has failed.” However, the banking sector is hardly free market. If capitalism – or the purest form of capitalism: market anarchy, is to be critiqued, it needs to be done logically, not empirically.

I think a strong logical argument can be made that monopolies and class-gaps are not created in a free market. The fact that these things happen empirically does not invalidate pure freedom (or anarchism). In fact, it probably means that laissez-faire wasn’t taken purely enough – that is close enough to the axiomatic ideal where it proves to work perfectly. Again, this is the same case with communism. Did communism fail because of empirical or axiomatic flaws with Marxism? I think communism is best criticised by criticising the logical flaws in Marxism, not from taking data from Soviet Russia – which never really was “communist.”

Inevitable Thugs?
This still leaves the problem of the big group of thugs. Presuming Hobbes is right, if we don’t put one in power, how do we still prevent them from rising up anyway if we let nature take it’s course?

As to why big groups of thugs would be discouraged in a anarcho-capitalist world – Hans Hoppe explains his vision of how this might work out in The Private Production of Defense. He argues that thugs would turn into non-aggressive insurance companies pretty quickly.

…defense is a form of insurance, and defense expenditures represent a sort of insurance premium (price). Accordingly, as Rothbard and the Tannehills in particular would emphasize, within the framework of a complex modern economy based on a worldwide division of labor the most likely candidates for offering protection and defense services are insurance agencies. The better the protection of insured property, the lower are the damage claims and hence an insurer’s costs. Thus, to provide efficient protection appears to be in every insurer’s own financial interest; and in fact even now, although restricted and hampered by the state, insurance agencies provide wide-ranging services of protection and indemnification (compensation) to injured private parties. Insurance companies fulfill a second essential requirement. Obviously, anyone offering protection services must appear able to deliver on his promises in order to find clients. That is, he must possess the economic means —the manpower as well as the physical resources—necessary to accomplish the task of dealing with the dangers, actual or imagined, of the real world. On this count insurance agencies appear to be perfect candidates, too. They operate on a nationwide and even international scale, and they own large property holdings dispersed over wide territories and beyond single state boundaries. Accordingly, they have a manifest self-interest in effective protection, and are big and economically powerful. Furthermore, all insurance companies are connected through a network of contractual agreements of mutual assistance and arbitration as well as a system of international reinsurance agencies, representing a combined economic power which dwarfs that of most if not all existing governments.

Again, it is not hard to see illustrations of these basic ideas – that people are incentivised to cooperate and work together for mutual benefit. It’s easy to see this applied in some areas: churches, charity, trade, small businesses, civil disobedience, book clubs, families and so on. Why defence and policing is somehow taboo doesn’t make sense. Cooperation and mutual benefit are not exclusive only to certain kinds of human behaviour- but it is a natural incentive in humanity itself.

Links: No Bad Ones, I Promise!

Written by Colin. Published on February 13, 2009 ago in General. 7 Comments

From a Rasmussen poll: “Forty-four percent (44%) [of American] voters also think a group of people selected at random from the phone book would do a better job addressing the nation’s problems than the current Congress, but 37% disagree. Twenty percent (20%) are undecided.”

From Chris Andrews at Gutenberg.com: 20 Reasons Why 2009 Will Be The Year of the Ebook. The gist is that current Ebook readers are cheap enough and good enough to overcome previous objections, and that Ebooks themselves are freely and widely available. Jew’s response: No.

Cop steals donuts. Jew’s response: The AP stylebook says to spell it doughnut.

Pro-Abortion Marie Stopes Eager for American Funds to Promote Abortion in Kenya

Vatican endorses Darwin, slights intelligent design‏

The popular uprising against central banking‏

The Gospel Is Everything

Written by Colin. Published on February 11, 2009 ago in Essays, Religion and Theology. 10 Comments

To many, the tile of this piece may seem obvious. Of course the gospel is everything – it is the message of salvation – the good news that tells us of what Christ has done for us and how we can be reconciled to God. Without the gospel, we don’t learn of this truth.

For some Christians, I fear that this is the limit of how the gospel has been applied. It is viewed as the means by which we are saved – a historical summary that is the beginning step of the Christian walk, which is soon departed in favour of more weighty and mature truths.

Many teachers lament how new Christians seem to be “on fire” for God upon being saved, but this passion soon dies out as Christians settle into their walk for the long-run. They go from being excited, grateful, evangelistic and passionate to developing a patient concern for other elements of the Christian walk – the church, serving in ministry, giving, studying scripture and so on. It seems that these things (which are tremendously important) are viewed as “advanced” or “beyond” the gospel – that the gospel is really a gateway to Christian life, rather than the Christian life itself.

Neglecting the Gospel
At times, I believe my Christian walk has been neglectful of the gospel. What do I mean by this? Was I not saved? What I not evangelising? Was I in idolatry? Not exactly. But I believe that the focus of my walk has sometimes drifted into a pursuit of the benefits of the gospel – a relationship with God, study of the word, fellowship, ministry, evangelism and spiritual gifts – rather than a consistent and steadfast application the gospel.

Applying the gospel is not merely an essential element of Christianity – one thing among others to enrich our relationship with Christ – it is Christianity. The gospel defines everything about God and his nature. It defines everything about man and his nature. It explains the purpose of all things: past, present and future. The gospel is the cornerstone of truth – from which all other truths are derived. Biblical truths do not compliment, define or shape the gospel – rather, the gospel is the genesis from which these truths spring.

Anger: A Practical Example
Let me speak about this practically. Imagine the problem of wrath and anger. The bible has a lot to say about wrath, and provides us practical steps, methods and warnings about anger. Proverbs 27:4 tells us that “Wrath is cruel and anger a torrent, But who is able to stand before jealousy?” In Colossians 3:8 , Paul tells us to “put off” anger. Many more examples and stories could be taken from the bible to help us deal with anger. There is no question that these truths are helpful.

However, without the gospel, these truths basically become biblical therapy, guidelines and can even become rules. They are correct and valid, but they lack the power of the gospel.

How does the gospel apply here? In many ways. For example, we know that God’s wrath and anger are completely just and fair. Yet he has suspended his anger, delivering us from his wrath by the death of Christ. God has shown that his mercy triumphs over wrath, even just and righteous wrath, for the sake of his glory and his purposes. If God has suspended his wrath against us sinners, who have been at war with God, then how much more so should we be quick to forgive and embrace patience and self-control?

I hope the difference here is clear. One set of truths (minus the gospel) provides means, mechanisms and guidelines for dealing with sin. But the gospel provides the power because it is rooted in the essence of God’s greatest and perfect act. By applying the gospel to our lives, we remove ourselves from the disappointing, often futile struggle against sin which results from using our own effort to to seek power to obey truth. How can sinful man, totally depraved, somehow find the power to change within himself? This is not possible. So why continue to struggle?

Perspective and Power
The gospel gives us comprehension of the “big picture.” It puts everything in perspective. It enables the church to serve one another more effectively. It minimizes us trying to be little psychologists, judges and police of one another and instead helps us to “stir up love and good works” (Hebrews 10:24). We can minister, encourage, admonish, serve and pray for one another in the power and perspective of the gospel.

The gospel is not merely to convince people they are saved, it is for Christians to embrace their entire lives. When we praise God in heaven, we are not thanking him for teaching us about how to deal with lust, anger or to do our devotions more regularly. We are entirely focussed on praising him for the gospel – for redeeming us (Revelation 5:9). If this is our focus in heaven, should it not be our focus here on earth?

Two Law Codes – A Quiz

Written by Casey Huxley. Published on February 9, 2009 ago in Religion. 26 Comments

This quiz is original to zealfortruth.org, written up by our own Casey Huxley.

Below, a number of legal situations will be given. For each situation, the actions under two different law codes will be listed. Choose which option you think would make a better law. Make a note of how many times you choose option A and option B. Note that this may entail picking the lesser evil of two poor options.

If Man X has given possessions to Man Y for safekeeping, and the possessions are stolen and not recovered from the thief.

A. Man Y will make make compensation to Man X of twice the value of the stolen possessions.

B. Man Y will make equal compensation to Man X for the loss.

If a man steals an animal from another man.

A. The thief will make restitution of 5 (if oxen) or 4 (if sheep) if he has slaughtered the animal or sold it. The thief will make restitution of 2 of the the animal if it is found in his possession.

B. The thief will make restitution of 10 of the type of animal he stole.

If a man is forced to pay off his debt by selling a family member into slavery.

A. If a male, the family member will work for their master for 6 years in then be set free. If a female, the family member will never be set free.

B. The family member will work for their master for 3 years and then be set free.

If a man wants a divorce.

A. The man will give his wife a certificate of divorce.

B. If they have had children, then the man must give the wife her dowry and a portion of his property. When the children come of age, the man must give his divorced wife a share of his property equal to the inheritance of a son.

If they have not had children, then the man will give his wife her dowry.

If the wife had no dowry, the man will give her about $21,000.

If a woman wants a divorce.

A. No provision is made for a woman seeking divorce.

B. If her husband is found to be uncongenial, then the woman will be granted a divorce and will be given her dowry from her husband. But if the discord is found to be the fault of the wife’s then her husband may divorce her without penalty. But if the husband does not wish to release her (when the discord is the woman’s fault), then she will remain in his house as a servant.

If a man’s wife is caught in the act of adultery with another man.

A. Both will be executed.

B. Both the wife and the other man will be executed, however the husband may pardon his wife.

If a man brings charges of adultery against his wife, but there are no witnesses.

A. The wife will take an oath before the priests and drink bitter water. If the woman is guilty her stomach will swell and her thighs will waste away. If she is innocent nothing will happen and she will be cleared of the charge.

B. The wife must take an oath before the judge and then can return home.

If a man commits incest with his daughter.

A. This specific case isn’t covered, but in general sex with a close relative is punishable by execution. If the person in question was a daughter-in-law instead of a daughter, then both the man and the daughter-in-law would be executed.

B. The man will be sent away into exile.

If a man rapes a virgin.

A. The man will pay the virgin’s father about $300. He must marry the girl and won’t be allowed to divorce her.

B. The man will be put to death.

If a son strikes his father.

A. The son will be executed.

B. The son’s hands will be cut off.

If a man has a rebellious or disobedient son.

A. The son will be executed.

B. The man will take his son before a judge, if the son is not found at fault then there will be no penalty. If the son is found at fault, then he will be forgiven the first time, but the second time he will be disowned.

If an ox that is known to have a habit of goring, but the owner does not keep it confined and it kills a man.

A. The ox and the owner will be executed. However, the owner may avoid death by paying whatever is required if the dead man’s family wishes.

B. The owner will pay the dead man’s family about $10,000.

If a man accidentally kills another man.

A. The man will have to flee to a destinated city, where he will have to stay (upon penalty of death) until the current high priest dies.

B. The man will swear before the judge that it was an accident and will pay the dead man’s family about $10,000.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

If you have not done so, tally up your answers!

If you chose option A more than option B, you prefer the laws God gave to Moses. Praise Yahweh!

If you chose option B more than option A, you prefer the laws God gave to Hammurabi hundreds of years earlier. Praise Marduk!

Links: Amtrak, Goodbye Gitmo and Superbowl Recap

Written by Colin. Published on February 6, 2009 ago in General. 29 Comments

Man is arrested and injured by Amtrak police for taking pictures of Amtrak trains. Why was he taking pictures of Amtrak trains? Because Amtrak is hosting a contest asking people to take photos of Amtrak trains. Go Amtrak!Victim’s Blog

If We Buy American, No One Else Will

…history has shown that Buy American provisions can raise the cost and diminish the effect of a spending package. In rebuilding the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in the 1990s, the California transit authority complied with state rules mandating the use of domestic steel unless it was at least 25 percent more expensive than imported steel. A domestic bid came in at 23 percent above the foreign bid, and so the more expensive American steel had to be used. Because of the large amount of steel used in the project, California taxpayers had to pay a whopping $400 million more for the bridge. While this is a windfall for a lucky steel company, steel production is capital intensive, and the rule makes less money available for other construction projects that can employ many more workers.
…
When the United States imposed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930, it helped set off a worldwide movement toward higher tariffs. When everyone tried to restrict imports, the combined effect was a deeper global economic slump. It took decades to undo the accumulated trade restrictions of that period. Let’s not make the same mistake again.

NBC rejects pro-life/Obama Super Bowl Commercial

Forget Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” and chalk one up to “technical difficulty.”

What Life Asks of Us

The Pope’s second controversial appointment: bishop who says Hurricane Katrina was God’s wrath on homosexuality….and the Harry Potter books spread Satanism. The first was the fascist Holocaust-denying separatist in Sweden who claimed recently that the Vatican was controlled by Satan.

Holocaust denier must recant that denial before getting back into communication with the Vatican.

Secrets abound surrounding the possible torture of a British resident who is currently in Gitmo limbo.

The last action Gitmo trial has been halted.

GOP’s Conservative Working Group gets consult from Joe the Plumber of election fame (or infamy).

Sweden’s going nuclear…thankfully it’s not going postal.

The Economy is Recovering In Spite of Bailouts

Written by Colin. Published on February 4, 2009 ago in General. 10 Comments

The New York Times published an article the other day, and the AP has followed, declaring that consumers are now beginning to save more and spend less. Finally, after years and years of unsustainable debt-spending and other atrocious family budgeting practices, Americans are biting the bullet in the short-term and are doing what’s best for them. Of course, the NYT and AP see it completely different:

Putting away money and paying down debt may be good for one family’s kitchen-table economics, but the broader economy suffers in the short term when millions of families do it… A dollar saved does not circulate through the economy and higher savings rates translate into fewer sales and lower revenue for struggling businesses. As Congress considers an $800 billion package of tax cuts and spending plans, policy makers said that the most effective stimulus was money that would be spent quickly.

The solution to our economic problems is staring everyone in the face, even beginning to happen, and yet officials and bureaucrats feel the need to subvert it by artificially low interest rates, easy money and interventions to increase debt – the exact reckless policies that got us here. The solution is an increase in capital to liquidate debt and reinvest in profitable, sustainable industries – which comes from, what? Savings.

Short-term bursts of new money, funded by debt, invested in industries and sectors of the economy that have proven themselves to be worthless is suicide. The media, of course, is completely ignorant of basic economic principles and instead relies on pundits and politicians to tell them what to write:

The Federal Reserve cut interest rates to stimulate growth, and Americans took advantage of easy credit to finance trips to the mall, remodeling projects and new cars. Consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of growth.

Good idea! We can pretend that we aren’t tens of thousands of dollars in debt per person and take a quick trip to the mall. Going shopping always makes us feel good! The prevailing wisdom is that we should all act like those irresponsible people we all know with three maxed-out credit cards, a high mortgage and two cars who still will go buy overpriced retail goods at the mall. See, this is just “kitchen table” thinking – we need the experts to tell us that really we should continue to spend money we have no way to pay back – for our own good.

The problem here is that mainstream economics teaches that the laws that govern economics on the individual level are completely different on a larger scale. We all know that families who increase their debt-spending while raking in less money will go broke very quickly. But somehow governments can engage in the same behaviour, by increasing spending and lowering taxes, and it will be good for all of us? Incredible!

The fact is that industries and investments which never should have happened are being wiped out. This is a good thing! We don’t want any more resources being wasted on stuff no one wants to buy. The economy needs to shift and invest in new technologies, goods and services that are more reliable, cheaper, faster, more productive and so on. This, by definition, has to be done responsibly from the beginning – with real capital: savings. An increased rate of savings is the first sign of rebuilding. Real capital with real wealth that has been earned and saved provides incentives to invest wisely and patiently in sectors of the economy that have more reliable returns.

Quite frankly, I’m shocked. I did not expect American to rise to the occasion. I figured they would keep buying cars, boats and consumer crap even while their houses were getting repossessed and their creditors harassing them. If the politicians will get out of the way for a moment and stop trying to “help”- maybe we can make it out of this one.