In case you haven’t seen it yet, Tomas Woods (author of Nullification and Meltdown) is interviewed by a Zombie. The video is a hyperbolic look at how Tomas Woods (and others such as Thomas DiLorenzo, Robert Murphy, etc…) has generally been treated by the media and when speaking about issues like Federal Reserve abolishment, Nullification, State’s Rights, and so on.
Monthly Archive for June, 2010
My wife sends me articles and blogs from time to time and I thought I’d share one. This from a womens blog hits a great point on the differences between using “Christian language” and then actually being a gospel-centred Christian. Some food for thought:
…I now understand that a pastor can say gospel, grace, and Jesus in sermons as much as he wants, but that doesn’t make him gospel centered. That doesn’t mean he understands grace. That doesn’t show an awareness of the fullness of whom Jesus is and what He came to live out before us.
The gospel isn’t a word. It’s a paradigm-shifting lens through which we view everything else. It isn’t something we do to change ourselves. It’s something done for us, in which we dwell daily. The gospel changes everything. The gospel INFORMS everything. The gospel is the pair of glasses that sits on our nose as we leave Sunday service changing how we view ourselves, our marriage problems, our marriage successes, our disobedient children, our obedient children, the people we don’t want to be like, and the people we do want to be like.
The gospel enlightens us (I did not save myself). The gospel teaches us (Neither can they). The gospel inspires us (Love them unconditionally the way Christ loved me). The gospel gives us hope (They aren’t past repair). The gospel gives us power. (The same force that raised Christ from the dead is at work in me and them). The gospel changes everything.
The gospel keeps us from thinking too highly of ourselves. It keeps us from thinking too highly of others. It protects us from self-condemnation when we fail. It equips us to catch others when they do. It gives us hope that transcends car accidents and relationship failures. It gives perspective to painful hindsight of mistakes with our husband or children, coworker or roommate. It just simply changes EVERYTHING. But it won’t change everything until you learn to look at everything through the lens it provides. And that means more than throwing the words around, even in proper context.
The whole thing is here.
I can definitely agree with this author. I sometimes think the difference between the Christian I was five years ago and the Christian I am today is reformed theology. But really, its just the gospel informing and changing more of my life. I wrote about this a year and a half ago and I am still amazed at how great and powerful the gospel is.
John Stewart has let loose on Obama for being just as much of an authoritarian statist as President Bush (US link; UK link). If the left finally willing to recognise that Obama is a statist and that statism has no party (or rather, has adherents in both parties)?
In the philosophical tradition (the French and UK), the left has been libertarian. In the recent pragmatic (US and German) tradition, it has been on the right. It’s time for both conservatives and liberals to unite on common ground to reduce the police-state, wars, corporatism and government spending.
The answer takes courage. It means that Republicans need to not support statist republicans – either don’t vote, or vote Constitution or Libertarian Party. It means that Democrats need to not support statist Democrats – either don’t vote, or vote Green or Libertarian Party. Either way: STOP VOTING FOR STATISTS.
Republicans and conservatives failed miserably last time. George Bush almost immediately proved that he was an authoritarian to the core – yet he received virtually unwavering support. His philosophy was adopted by many conservatives who blindly supported the measure for which they now criticise Obama. When Ron Paul spoke up on this, they ridiculed him (many now support him, even more support his son Rand).
But if this is a partisan change in the right, then it is doomed to fail. The end of a partisan shift, is merely to elect party members (re: Republicans) into office. But a philosophical shift will see beyond partisan allegiance and will seek philosophical progress in whichever party it may be found. The left now has its opportunity to awaken in the wake of Obama’s complete lies on so many critical issues. Hopefully anti-authoritarians on the right will embrace them and ally with them – not engage in partisan bickering.
Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem handing out work visas at the border to any healthy, non-criminal, adult with ER insurance willing to come here and work. Migrant labor massively lowers the cost of fruits and vegetables grown in the US, by reducing the cost of picking. They reduce the cost of fast food. They improve the quality of life of every American. If someone who was given a free education here in the US and all the other benefits of growing up here really wants that fruit picking job or that fast food job, they can compete with foreign labor for all I care.
That said, our current policy is both abusive to migrants and dangerous to us. We are almost deliberately creating a black market of workers who won’t cooperate with the police, who are re-infecting the US with diseases which were previously eradicated, and who create a pipeline for other illegal trafficking. Employers can abuse their migrant workers who have little recourse, as can other criminal traffickers.
The answer is to grease the legal channels for migrant workers, since we obviously have a demand for them and they increase our own standard of living. Require them to provide a thumb print and basic health inspection at the border, then report to the government when they find a job. Anyone breaking the migrant worker laws gets kicked out and is not allowed back in. Anyone committing a crime on a work visa gets kicked out. If emergency health care is needed, it is covered by a highly focused plan so hospitals aren’t shafted.
This plan would be better for the migrant workers, better for the American people, and better for law enforcement. The one group it would NOT be better for are the corporations that treat migrants little better than slaves because they know the migrant has few legal resources to call upon. We shouldn’t reward illegal behavior (like sneaking into our country), but the laws have been designed to be broken. Unfortunately, the elite have managed to turn this into an irrational brawl where people accuse migrants of stealing jobs. Personally, I like my $1 fast food cheeseburger. If that means allowing migrants to “steal” fast food jobs, so be it!
From the latest poll:
One thing that’s very interesting about these numbers is that Ron Paul is the most popular out of the whole group with independents. They see him favorably by a 35/25 margin. The only other White House hopeful on positive ground with them is Romney at a +2 spread and they’re very negative on the rest: -5 for Huckabee, -16 for Gingrich and Palin, and -17 for Obama. All five of the possible GOP contenders lead Obama with independents, but Paul does so by the widest margin at 46-28.
It has been easy in the past to write Paul off as irrelevant but this anti-politician climate is giving his movement some steam. Paul’s going to have an interesting choice in the next year or so. If his goal is really to be President rather than to influence the national dialogue then he should probably keep on trying to win the GOP nomination, as improbable as that might be. But if he wants to guarantee himself a major role in the 2012 contest he should run as a third party candidate instead. Polling at 5-10% nationally in the general election would get his views a much wider airing than just trudging along through the Republican nomination process and hoping to get 10-15% in each primary.
Now among all voters, Paul still loses to Obama quite clearly. However the popularity among independents marks an incredible strategic advantage both in early caucuses and primaries, as well as in a general election.
USC’s basketball team has received heavy sanctions for it’s abuses. Now, it appears that the football team will have wins vacated, a reduction of scholarships and a two year post-season ban. These are severe and devastating consequences for breaking the rules that uphold the NCAA.
Yet the two main culprits have gotten off scot-free. Coaches Pete Carroll and Tim Floyd left their programs just in time to make it out with jobs elsewhere. Carroll especially could be seen as able to gauge which way the wind was blowing in order to time his exit at the best possible moment.
And now to what might seem an unrelated matter – the national debt.
The American voter has been electing people for years to manage our government and our money. These people have been spending this money on their own power, projection and legacies. And they have left a mammoth debt which threatens to cripple this country in the coming decades.
But much like USC’s coaches – these politicians will bear no criminal or social responsibility for their recklessness. No, when the debt collectors come, they will be taking YOUR assets, YOUR house, YOUR stuff and YOU will be forced to work to pay for THEIR spending. The crooks in Washington will be long gone by the time the collectors come calling. Do not be deluded: YOU will end up holding the bill.
Americans, in my experience, are completely and utterly ignorant of what national bankruptcy looks like. They continue to demand an expansion of social services and welfare from the left. The right continues to demand expanded wars, military spending and costly unenforceable drug laws. Many Americans have no clue, absolutely no clue what kind of slavery they are setting up for themselves.
When the debt collectors do come and the politicians are sipping iced tea in Costa Rica, perhaps they think that the rich will pay for these debts? Since when have the poor ever been able to out muscle the rich? No, the rich will be stuck with some of it, but they are the next most likely to escape with minimal damage. The bulk of the debt, probably a disproportionate amount, will be paid by middle and working class Americans – those least able to get away. Based on the debt to income ratio with these classes, the prospects are nothing short of perpetual serfdom.
The average American already works five and a half months just to pay his taxes. And these taxes are heavily subsidised by government debt. If Americans had to pay the costs of government, plus the principle on debt, plus the interest payments – then they may be working ten or eleven months just to pay for the past decades of wanton waste.
Wake up Americans. Stop demanding government to take care of you from cradle to grave. Stop demanding that the American military be large enough to police the world. Stop demanding the government bail you or your neighbours out when you buy crummy products, make stupid decisions, buy stuff you can’t afford, get your feelings hurt or otherwise screw up. Take some responsibility for yourselves. Because the politicians are not going to help you – they are looking out for number one and are going to ditch this sinking ship at the last possible minute, and you are going to be left drowning.
Rand Paul went on Neil Cavuto yesterday and got a grilling. Quelle surprise.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4cdaeNzaLM[/youtube]
If there is anything that has restored my faith in Rand Paul, it’s getting an awful reception from Fox News. It’s obvious that Paul was shocked by the questions asked, having lately secured an uneasy truce with the GOP establishment. Paul can be seen nervously laughing as he is asked leading question after leading question. At one point, Cavuto asks him about a staff “shake-up” which never happened and was only based on rumours and speculation.
It’s patently obvious that Paul, despite being more conservative than libertarian, has not yet allied himself with the GOP establishment and still represents a true outside candidate.
I came across an interesting take on merging environmentalism with libertarianism. The suggestion is to recognize the natural property rights of plants and animals!
Asking the Right Questions
…environmentalists often confuse symptoms with problems. But this doesn’t mean that the problems aren’t real. There may be considerable debate about global warming, the toxicity of dioxin, or the threats to species like spotted owls or grizzly bear. Rather than dismiss these problems, libertarians who want to work with environmentalists should treat them as genuine symptoms of a serious underlying problem. This means focusing on environmental problems not as technical issues but as big government and property rights issues:
- “Will dams make the salmon go extinct?” is the wrong question. The right question is, “Why is the government subsidizing dams?”
- “Will timber cutting make the spotted owl go extinct?” is the wrong question. The right question is, “Why are there no property rights for owls and salmon, and how could property rights help protect these species from extinction?”
- “Is burning of hydrocarbons changing world climate?” is the wrong question. The right question is, “Why are people allowed to emit pollutants into the air that trespass onto my property?”
- “Do pulp mills damage rivers with dioxin pollution?” is the wrong question. The right question is “Why are there no property rights to the rivers and how could property rights protect them from pollution?”
Nearly all environmental problems are rooted in society’s failure to adequately define property rights for some resource. An ecosystem doesn’t solve such problems by passing a prescriptive law or creating a regulatory agency; it relies on individual self-interest to produce a balance. The important thing is to show environmentalists how thinking of the economy as an ecosystem leads to decentralized free-market solutions to environmental problems.
More: Building an Alliance Between Environmentalists and Libertarians
So the big question then is: “Do other species have natural rights to property?” And if they do, who has the authority to enforce those rights? In general, can’t anyone choose to protect a natural right of a weak party from being violated?
This past Sunday (May 30, 2010) I participated in an annual American tradition: I celebrated Memorial Day in church. An active-duty service member carried the American flag down the aisle while the congregation sang America the Beautiful and God Bless America. Next, everybody said the Pledge of Allegiance, and the pastor spoke a few words of thanks to those who serve and have served in the military. That was it. (We also had this Memorial Day insert in the bulletin, but it wasn’t mentioned during church.) The sermon was not connected to Memorial Day; the pastor continued his series on Identity in Christ with a sermon from Romans 7.
As often happens, I discussed the events later with my wife. I don’t mind celebrating Memorial Day in church. It’s not a religious holiday, but the gathering of believers is a community event as well as a religious event; it’s not out of place to acknowledge Memorial Day in that context. But I then I thought about reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in church.
There we were, in church, pledging our allegiance to an earthly institution.
Does that seem right to you?
It seems wrong to me. I love America. It’s my home, it’s my culture, and I think it’s the best country in the world. I am proud to be an American. But I have a hard time pledging my allegiance to this nation, because as a Christian, my primary allegiance is elsewhere. That led to this exchange:
Wife: So would you rather pledge allegiance to the Christian flag?
Me: No. There’s no such thing as a Christian flag. I mean sure, somebody designed one, but that doesn’t make it a real significant thing.
Wife: What about the Bible?
Me: The Bible is just a pile of paper. It can’t save anybody. It’s inspired by God, yes, and it’s important. But it’s not what we worship.
Wife: I guess.
Me: I could pledge allegiance to Jesus. Is there a pledge to Jesus?
Wife: You should write one.
Me: “I pledge allegiance to Jesus.” The end.
Wife: That’s all?
Me: What else is there?
Recent Comments
Tom Degan
Darius, Jasen, Christopher Roussel
Colin, Jubal Biggs, Colin, Jubal Biggs, Jubal Biggs, Christopher Roussel [...]
Bryan Jenkins, Colin, Christopher Roussel, Colin, Christopher Roussel, Darius [...]
Bryan, B, Colin, Bryan, Christopher Roussel, Jew [...]