Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 18, 2017

Jan 3

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost on some of what Queen Elizabeth said. The part focused on here is where Pearce states that Queen Elizabeth is advocating subsidiarity. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

The writer of this article grossly misinterprets the Queen in a certain area. For the Queen said:

But even with the inspiration of others, it’s understandable that we sometimes think the world’s problems are so big that we can do little to help. On our own, we cannot end wars or wipe out injustice, but the cumulative impact of thousands of small acts of goodness can be bigger than we imagine.

Pearce interprets her as saying the following:

Can we really believe that the head of state of one of the most powerful countries in the world is extolling the principle of subsidiarity—the principle that individuals, families, local communities, charities and churches can change society for the better whereas big and burdensome governments tend to make the big problems even bigger?

What Pearce's interpretation misses is the key phrase 'On our own.' Because of that phrase, Pearce's exclusive-or interpretation of saying that either big gov't saves the vulnerable or local groups of people help the vulnerable but not both presents a false dichotomy. In addition, to exclude gov't from helping people is to say that gov't can only represent those people who can help themselves. And such leaves the vulnerable wholly dependent on the benevolence and access to resources that those around them have.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Carl Trueman who complained that we are intolerant of the wrong things. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Intolerance should not just be determined by the tenets and behaviors we are objecting to, but by the context in which these beliefs and behaviors exist as well. It is one thing to be intolerant of heresy or immoral sexual behavior in the Church, but should we be intolerant of it in society as well?

Right now we have battle lines being drawn between post Modernists and authoritarian traditionalists with both have something significant contribute to the other, but with neither one of them listening because they they think know enough already. It is wrong for either of these groups to be intolerant of others in society. Why? Because society is not the Church, it includes both those who belong to the Church and those who don't. And while some in the Church are upset because they feel that they are being marginalized by society's acceptance of different sexual orientations and identities, the truth is that the Church, for centuries, has had society marginalize those who practice certain sexual sins and it has done so with all of the personal traits of the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 4

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Paul Helm that questions whether there is a right side of history? This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Let's approach this subject on a case by case basis. Were those who opposed slavery in America on the right side of history or if there is no right side of history, are they to be placed next to those who supported slavery as if there is no difference between them?

Seems to me that the right side of history is the side that does not invoke shame for one's position. And it also seems that we should not let the fact that the right side can be wrongly identified be used to deny the existence of the right side of history.

As for comparing the Enlightenment with Medieval times, there is no reason why we can't compare those two times on a trait by trait basis so that both get a mixed report even though side might be more preferable to the other. Otherwise, we have only shown ourselves to have a fear of having a preferred time period being examined more closely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 17

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost asking whether Trump will be a nationalist or an imperialist. The article describes in binary terms nationalism on one hand and imperialism/internationalism/globalism on the other hand. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The use of terms 'nationalism' and 'imperialism' is understandable but inadequate. For while one dictionary definition of nationalism allows a nation to pursue imperialism while the other definition merely advocates for self-rule. Likewise, internationalism or globalism is not the same as imperialism. Internationalism or globalism can refer to collaborative efforts between nations in some sphere whereas  imperialism involves controlling or conquering rather than collaboration. In addition, we need to recognize that in both nationalism and globalism, we can have either democratic rule or elite-centered rule.

Thus, we need to be clear about the terms we are using. Each nation should respect the right of the people from all other nations to exercise self-rule. But such does not eliminate internationalism. Because some of what a nation does can impact other nations, there is an international accountability. In addition, certain moral values must not be violated in how a nation treats subsets of its population or there must be international accountability.

But something else must be said about either self-rule and collaborative efforts. They can be based on democratic principles where all people are involved in the decision making processes or they can be elite-centered. For example, the US is now considered by some to be an oligarchy (see  http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746  ). Thus, regardless of the national interests Trump pursues, because we are a nation that suffers from elite-centered rule, his pursuits will not result in self-rule.

An example of elite-centered rule from an internationalist perspective could be seen in Obama's efforts to fast-track the TPP. His efforts simply removed democratic principles from the decision making process. In addition, the result of the TPP would be to give foreign investors power and control over each member nation in that corporations could sue governments over laws that were democratically passed if such laws cost the corporations profits while these same corporations were not accountable to the governments. But when talking about internationalism, are we going classify the ICC or the UN with their internationalism in the same category as trade agreements such as the TPP or the EU?

The problem we have in describing the world around us is that we tend to use binary thinking. During the Cold War, we had the Free World vs Communism. However, there were many things practiced by some in the Free World that resembled the pejorative stereotype we assigned to Communism. And there were democratic efforts made by Socialists that were not duly recognized and thus distinguished from Lenin-Stalin Communism by the Free World. So we should see that this model of nationalism vs imperialism where the former neglects to distinguish between democratic rule and elite-centered rule while the latter fails to distinguish imperialism from internationalism and the different types of globalism is flawed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Art Carden and his blogpost about Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand. In that article, Carden describes the conflict as being the invisible hand o the market vs fist of the state. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There are two problems with this article. First, the binary understanding of the conflict that exists regarding markets. That conflict being the invisible hand of the market vs the fist of the state. The second problem is tendency for some to misunderstand what Smith said.

According to this article, it seems that the invisible hand of the market represents the freedom of all people while the fist of the state represents alien tyrants. The history of labor struggles in the US strongly contradicts that perception. For we should note that representation in the free market is not based by the individual but by the dollar or whatever currency is involved. Those with the most dollars have the most say while those with the least wealth are barely heard. And in a society where things are valued more than people, the public interest is not necessarily served by those who have the greatest say over what happens in the market. Again, the history of American labor struggles bares this out. We might also want include the history of offshoring jobs as well.
interest.

In addition, what if the state is working democracy, how can its decisions that limit the free market be described as the fist of an alien tyrant? Rather such a government is putting limits on a market that is anything but democratic.

Second, Smith did not speak of the invisible hand of the market by observation alone, but by some speculation. His description of the invisible hand came from arguing against mercantilism and the influence that those with wealth had over government officials. So did eliminating mercantilism also eliminate the influence that those with wealth have over government officials.

In addition, the line from the article that says:

This is where the invisible hand of the market comes in. Voluntary market exchange reveals the patterns of specialization, division of labor, and production most consistent with consumers’ preferences. Others’ talents, tastes, values, and knowledge constitute the invisible hand. I convey information about my own talents, tastes, values, and knowledge with offers to buy or sell. Others convey their knowledge by their willingness to accept my bids and offers. I am being led by the invisible hand of others’ knowledge toward patterns of specialization and production that leave us most satisfied, given that we are all free to accept or reject any offer.

does not entirely represent Smith's sentiments. The following is what Smith also wrote about the division of labor (see http://www.gradesaver.com/the-wealth-of-nations/study-guide/quotes as it quotes Smith):

In the progress of the division of labor, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labor, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations; frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects, too, are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention, in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life.

It seems that those who use Smith to promote free markets, do so selectively.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on 5 facts about Martin Luther King Jr. This appeared in the Acton blog.

But there is one other fact about Martin Luther King if we are to truly honor him. That fact was that opposing racism was not his only core concern. He also opposed materialism and economic exploitation as well as war and militarism. In fact, he saw the three of them, that is racism, materialism/economic exploitation, and war/militarism as being inseparable and incapable of being defeated for as long as our society cared about gadgets, profits, and property rights more than it was concerned about people (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm as just one of several references that support what was just written about King).

Capitalism And The Last Temptation In The WIlderness

In Matthew 4, after fasting for 40 days Jesus is tempted by the devil. In Christ's last temptation, the devil proposes a trade, he will give Christ all of the kingdoms in the world if Christ will worship him (click here). Christ knew to reject the deal, the question is, do we?

Free Market Capitalism tells us that we can have the most prosperty possible if we bow down and worship ourselves. For in Free Market Capitalism, self-interest is our strength, our energy, our conscience and our guide. And the question becomes, how did such a temptation become a political-economic philosophy in a "Christian" country? Before answering that question, we must define our terms.

The concept, though not the term, Free Market Capitalism was proposed by Adam Smith in response to the merchantilism of his time. In merchantilism, imports were restricted while exports were promoted in order to strengthen a nation's economy. However, Smith saw the result of merchantilism in England differently; he saw it as a manipulation of the economy for the benefit of a few, that is for those around whom the economy was revolving. Rather than orient the economy around a select few who were providing services, Smith proposed that England would become wealthier if the economy was oriented around the consumer. Here, there was also some of the fine print that should have been listed as conditions for guarantee of the promise of relying on self-interest. For example, if businesses engaged in fair competition for the sale of their products and services, self-interest would enlighten the decisions of both businesses and consumers. This condition implied a laissez-faire relationship between the government and business. 

Those enlightened decisions would produce a healthy economy whose tide would lift everybody's boat. That is because as we purchase what we wish, we stimulate the economy including employment. And as customers demand products that give them the best value for the money spent, companies compete for their business by finding ways of producing newer and better products in more efficient ways. And thus, if businesses and customers care solely or primarily about themselves, by them looking for the greatest value or the highest profit, society will reach the highest state of happiness possible. 

So, while shopping, self-interest would cause me to focus solely on my purchasing power. And that purchasing power increases as I get more of a product for less money. So suppose I can buy 10 teeshirts for x dollars from one store while I can only buy 5 teeshirts for x dollars from another store. I will buy from the first store because I am concerned solely about getting the best deal for myself. In so doing, everything ends up being kosher for the economy. At least that is how the theory goes. 

There are a number of ways to question this rather simplistic theory by Smith. Of course, we first need to give Smith his due for the concerns of his times and what he was reacting to. He was reacting to the manipulation of the economy for the benefit of a few. And when questioning his theory, we should not feel compelled to reject everything he proposed. However, we still need to question the theory. And we can do so in two ways. First, we can look for the side effects to this reliance of self-interest by both consumers and businesses that would make Free Trade Capitalism either less desireable or unsustainable. And second, we can look to see how well the theory is working. 

One of the side effects noted in Smith's Free Trade Capitalism in how such an economy changes the personal values of the participants and society. For example, Karl Marx noted that such an economy reduces men's connections to each other to that of seeing what we get out of each other especially in terms of financial profit. In fact, he saw this changing of connections even affecting the family. He also was concerned about how even some who were self-employed could become wage-slaves of the Bourgeoisie (see pages 15-16 in here). We should note here that the Bourgeoisie were those who not only held private property, but they were able to use that ownership of property to control others. This control could take place on both a smaller scale, such as being the owner or boss of employees in a business, or a larger scale, such as having an inordinate influence on those in government. We should note here that Marx's first concern was about how one smaller group of people controlled others and thus came the term "wage-slave" for those who were employed by the Bourgeoisie and were paid an hourly wage.

This reduction of our relationships to that of using each other for profit or advantage dehumanizes us by making us all into objects of gain. This relegation of people into objects leads to exploitation and abuse. And from consumers, this demotion of people leads to apathy as customers become concerned solely about what they are getting for themselves while not caring about the plight of those whose labor made the products or, as today's world dictates, the environment. It is at this point that consumers ask Cain's post-crime, rhetorical question, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

Our reaction to all of this could be to consider the source. After all, Marx was antagonistic to Capitalism and we all know what happened to his theories.  That is we could ignore Marx except for the fact that Martin Luther King Jr., despite his adamant rejection of Marxism's basic tenets, agreed with Marx's comments on the problem with the primacy of the profit motive in Capitalism. The place of this motive in society causes people to be more invested in "making a living than making a life" and judging success by the goods one accumulates rather than how one helps and serves others (see page 94 in here). 

At this point we need to ask the following of a political-economic system that promises us happiness by focusing on ourselves, is a such a society that is based on self-interest sustainable? And we could also ask, is such a society desirable?

Is a laissez-faire, Free Trade Capitalism possible? We could answer this question in a number of ways. Logically speaking, is it reasonable to expect those with wealth, ability and who are governed by self-interest, to tolerate an economic system that relies on fair competition for the benefit of the consumer? Or does it make more sense to expect such parties to press for every advantage to increase profits? Or we could look at both American History and its present to note how many times corporations have paid government to get into bed with them. Since WWII, America has been involved in over 50 interventions. Many of these interventions have targeted democracies for the benefit of American businesses. Or we could note how many times big business has sought advantages and privileges within our own country. So we have to ask whether the American economy is the embodiment of what Smith proposed? And if it isn't, is such an economy possible?

We might also ask if we really want to live in a society where everybody is just out for themselves. My fellow Christians who are politically conservative will object by saying such an economy was meant to run by principled people such as themselves. Here we have to ask, doesn't reducing all interests to self-interest contradict being principle-minded and what the Bible teaches and thus to embrace such a political-economic system is to stray from sound principles and the Scriptures?

The fault in Smith's theory is not the existence of self-interest but the belief that there is a system in which its participants only need  to rely on self-interest, or perhaps even greed, for energy while believing it can correct for the toxic emissions that are sure to result in a place where everybody is out just for themselves.