Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 31, 2018

The number of blogs being referenced in this series has been decreasing because of the increasing number of conservative blogs that now prohibit users being able to comment on their articles.

 Jan 27

To Caroline Roberts whose blogpost mentioned some writers who support free markets. She focused on the point made by Jacques Ruff as he saw moral reasons for promoting free markets. This appeared in the Acton blog.

So the argument for free markets are for the sake of morality? But whose morality?

If regulations prevent the exploitation of workers, are the markets free? If not, then how is an argument for markets to be free from protecting workers from exploitation an argument based on morality? The same applies for regulations that prevent the exploitation of other stakeholders besides workers, how is an argument for markets to be free from those regulations an argument based on morality? And what about regulations that are passed to protect the environment? How can an argument for markets to be free laws that protect the environment be based on morality? We could refer to the works of Ha-Joon Chang who points out that we have no free markets in an absolute sense. And those who oppose him claim that Chang is arguing against a straw-man because no one is promoting markets that have no regulations.

Thus, the problem becomes whether one could argue for markets that are free in a relative sense. That is besides some basic, predefined standards, is an argument for markets free from that set of issues a moral one?

Thus, what is really being argued for by those who favor free markets is the existence of a relative free market that works for all nations in all circumstances. We could call this the Ultimate Relative Free Market. It is a relative free market because it subscribes to necessary set of regulations designed to ensure that the market does no injustice as it functions as efficiently and effectively as possible. But it is ultimate because it provides the answers for the  markets of all nations regardless of their time, location, or economic circumstances.

But the search for such a free market, however, is a pathway to the dark side of human hubris. For one has to admit that to say humans can conceive of such a market is claiming that they can produce an infallible economic machine even if that machine is based on what they have observed from nature. And once they have produced such an infallible machine, then they can claim the moral authority to pressure any nations to embrace such a machine for the "flourishing" of its people regardless of the wishes of the people. But the quest for creating and promoting such a machine has only led to ideological tribalism. And as anyone who is familiar with the concept of tribalism will tell you, the more tribal followers become, the sooner morals, along with Elvis, leave the building.

The free market did not make America into the economic powerhouse that it once was or even is today. For most of our history, our nation has employed forms of protectionism which allowed our nation to build certain industries to the extent that they could successfully compete with their counterparts from other nations. And though we should readily acknowledge that because protectionism worked for us in the past, that that doesn't imply that it will always work in the future; what we must ask is, how is it that we can deny developing nations the right to employ protectionism if it helps that nation develop? And, equally so, how is it that we should now believe that some forms of protectionism will never work for us again or that there is an Ultimate Relative Free Market in the first place? Somehow, I am missing the moral argument here.

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

Jan 29

To Bradley Birzer and his blogpost on modern conservatism and how it seeks for a free society through the controlling influences of its institutions. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

What is sad is when we view those from other ideological circles has having nothing to teach us. At that moment, we resemble the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying.
What seems to be the tension in the conservatism described above is the following:

The job of every conservative, then, is twofold. First, he must fight “tirelessly” against the “centralized, omnicompetent, and unitary state” and all that goes with it: debt as well as empire. Second, he must do everything possible to promote that which makes the free society not just an ordered one, but a good one: the intermediary institutions of family, church, friendship, business, and school.

The tension comes from fighting against a state that is too big while living where a free society results from conformity to society's key institutions. . We should note that  conservatives are not just for any kind of family, they are for the kinds of family promoted by the Church. And likewise, conservatives are not just for schools general, they are for schools that do not undermine the Church.

But what will conservatives resort to when diversity rears its ugly head? They will look to the state either to enforce that conformity, as they fought against the legalization of same-sex marriage, or they will look to the state to allow them to withdraw from that diversity, as seen in legislation that seeks to allow Christians in business from serving either same-sex events or members of the LGBT community themselves.

For as the secular becomes more and more influential and/or as people see alternative views of family life, the need for the conservative view to rely on the state to protect its interests grows and the society becomes less free. This is why many conservatives adamantly attack multiculturalism and diversity. It is because the conservative vision of society does not adjust well to too much diversity. And the options that conservatives seek to alternatives to their idyllic vision is for the state to enforce conservative standards or for insular conservative communities to retreat within their shell. Thus, in the end, the control that conservatives are afraid of the state using is to be used by their institutions.

And the diversity that is seen as a danger inside the state is even greater outside the state. For the state must not only avoid ruling as an empire, it must escape being ruled over by others. Thus, careful alliances must be made and emerging threats quelled. But in accomplishing the latter, sometimes empires emerge.

Finally, the conservative view of the state is always one of an alien entity that seeks to force its way on people. The conservative view rarely, if ever, portrays a state as being ta representative of the people even though it is one of the few institutions that can adequately protect people from being exploited by the business world. For such a recognition could give an institution that is independent of the Church too much power.

Certainly there are individual parts of conservatism that have much to teach everyone. But what is unrealistic in much of conservative thought is the belief that it can escape diversity. For the more it tries to do that, either domestically, regionally, or globally, the more it must choose between either clinging to state power to control others or retreating inward into its own small world.

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

Jan 30

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost ranting about the current state of our public schools. Clark blames certain changes over time for whatever demise he sees in our school. He wrote this article to justify Christian parents as they take their kids out of the public schools.

To blame changes in the quality of education on a narcissistic culture that breaks from the culture Clark seems to miss misses the irony of the claim. It also misses some historical information. In particular, the year in which Clark was finishing public school saw the publication of a very important book called The Culture Of Narcissism. In other words, Clark grew up and had satisfactory public education experiences during a time in which narcissism was already significantly present. So, with regards to his article, Narcissism isn't a new feature. And when we consider what we were told about our nation being so exceptional and the protector of the free world, how could we not embrace narcissism during those times.

And as Clark would like to speak against  the changes that occurred during the 1960s and 1970s, the times before the 1960s were insufferable for a great number of Americans. Blacks, in particular, were sorely oppressed during America's Jim Crow era. Authoritarianism ran rampant as people were told what Americans were suppose to believe and what they were to see as a threat. The Vietnam War was an immoral war that interfered with the Geneva Accords. The Geneva Accords was an agreement where the question of the reunification of Vietnam was to be determined democratically. Our nation rejected those accords and tens of thousands of Americans as well as millions of Vietnamese paid for our rejection with their lives.
As for the government paying for everything, LBJ's War on Poverty, though incomplete because the war effort competed for government funding, did produce vast reductions in poverty. However, it was diminishing economic opportunities, especially for many living in certain urban areas, that necessitated the government programs Clark objects to.

And Clark's comments about the therapeutic culture, though containing some seeds of truth, should, for the most part, be seen as a turf war in the understanding of people between conservative theologians and psychologists. Likewise, his support for spanking in school shows the physical side of the authoritarianism he so favors. Yes, schools need to enforce codes of conduct. But spanking is not necessary to do so. Allowing public schools to expel students who threaten others by their lack of self-control or to fail those who do not do the academic work restores the level of discipline required by schools to function without using corporal punishment. I finished public schooling before Clark did and corporal punishment would not be tolerated in my school. And yet, at the time when I was a public school student, our schools functioned very well.

Clark's 'Christian America' suffered severe deficiencies prior to the 1920s when it allegedly began to fall apart. Again, you had Jim Crow. You had the exploitation of labor. You had a government that jailed anti-war activists and manipulated popular opinion against leftist political ideas. BTW, the jailing of anti-war activists was done by a liberal President. We had a nation that began to participate in conflicts in order to expand the American empire. And the justification for expanding our control had a significant racist component.

If we were to compare the 1960s with today, we could use a line from a Martin Luther King Jr. speech against the Vietnam War that identifies a common thread running in both time periods. King said:

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

What has been true throughout all of America's history is its tendency to value things more highly than it values people. And as that trend grows stronger over time, the intrinsic value of  each person becomes more and more diminished. People are relegated into becoming objects of gain. And when a person can no longer be useful enough in helping others obtain their desires, they are discarded either through neglect or oppression. Isn't it the objectification of people that is driving the attitudes of those who practice loose sexual morals? Here, we need to note Marx's criticism of Capitalism that showed how workers became disposable in Capitalist economies. One doesn't have to agree with Marx's proposed solutions to understand that dynamic.

Though there is much validity in what Clark's objects to in our public schools, he blames the wrong parties for those results. And as for whether Christian parents should take their kids out of school, there are logical cases to be made both for and against that practice. However, the problem with Christians withdrawing from the public square is that it increases our insularity from society and the world. And in increasing our insularity, we become less effective ambassadors for the Gospel because we start becoming the equivalent of those past Christian leaders who persecuted the advancing scientific discoveries of those days.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 1, 2017

Feb 24

To Joe Carter and his blogpost stating that Christians must oppose anti-Semitism. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

If we believed that Christians should oppose all racial discrimination, then articles like the one above would be unnecessary.

Of course anti-Semitism must be opposed by all Christians. But what is being talked about above is anti-Semitism against Jews. What is being overlooked is that Jews are not the only Semites--contrary to the assumptions made by Wilhelm Marr who was the first person to coin the term. Palestinians are also Semites; but how many Christians are talking about anti-Palistinian prejudice and discrimination?

The stats that Carter cites regarding instances of anti-Semitism are tragic and point to the need to oppose anti-Semitism. But what about the stats regarding anti-Muslim acts, where are they? We should consider that since Trump's election, 2 mosques have burned and there was a shooting in another one. In addition, over 700 anti-Muslim acts have been recorded by law enforcement when the number hate crimes against Muslims in 2015 was under 300.

It isn't just anti-Semitism that must be opposed by all, let alone by Christians. All racial and religious bigotry must be opposed. If we don't oppose all racial and religious bigotry, then our valid complaints against anti-Semitism will be relegated to be counted as instances of Pharisaical tribalism.

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

To George Carey and his blogpost advocating the return of popular self-government. In that article, Carey states that only conservatism could bring back popular self-government. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

This is simply another article that states conservatives must rule, and that rule must be without limits. For the only form of populism recognized is conservative populism. Then in complaining about the power of the courts, the issue is that any laws drafted by conservative principles, whether they be federal laws or state laws, must then be evaluated by the courts to see if they violate The Constitution. For though there is less complaint here when the courts apply The Constitution to evaluate the legitimacy of Federal law, it is argued here that the courts have no grounds for so evaluating state laws.

But such would seem to run contrary to what we know as the Bill of Rights. For rights that cannot be abridged by federal laws but can be violated by state laws are not rights. And thus what the current practice of the courts, including the Supreme Court, is that it runs as a check on both state and federal governments in terms of how they would rule over those not represented by populist sentiment.

What is assumed is that only conservatives have the proper approach to interpreting and applying The Constitution and that populism is not determined by any majority, but by those who most accurately represent the founders of our nation.  This article is nothing more than a promotion for a conservative power grab where conservatives can deny the rights of others provided that they do so through their state governments. And in promoting this conservative power grab, nonconservatives are meant to be relegated to a passive role of accepting whatever a conservative mandate dictates provided, again, that it is through the state governments.

There is no sense of conservatives working with others in this article. Rather, it is just another in what is becoming a long line of conservative works calling on conservatives to take back their nation from nonconservatives regardless of whether conservatives represent a majority of the people. Our nation, according to this article, must suffer a tyranny of the past as only conservatives have interpreted it. Instead of sharing the nation with the children of the Enlightenment as equals, this article calls on conservatives to strive to seize full control of this nation.  At this time, we should note that the writers of The Constitution were merely trying to strengthen the federal government so that those from the upper economic classes could safely rule over those from the lower classes. We should remember that at the time of the ratification of The Constitution, only around 5% of the people could vote. That soon changed but was that the intention of our founding fathers?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 28

To Devin Ryan and his blogpost citing Dylan Pahman’s work that claims that free trade helps a nation’s economy more than government interference via protections, the regulation of wages, and guaranteed incomes. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The trouble with the above article, besides the fact that the title is a bit misleading,  is that history points to economic benefits from protectionism. This is true especially when a nation uses protectionism to build up specific industries and economic sectors. Those nations that currently push free trade now are merely 'kicking away the ladder' they used to develop many of their own industries in the past.

Something else should be troubling here. Though the ratio of jobs lost to automation compared with offshoring might have changed, initially, offshoring was a primary way by which many lost their jobs here and those from other nations who took them were not protected by the laws of their nations as many workers here are. And still, a significant number jobs continue to be lost to offshoring. Why offshoring, for many, it is because stockholders here were demanding a greater ROI and thus workers here were sacrificed in order to achieve bigger returns. In fact, for many corporations, the only meaningful stakeholder has become the shareholder and yet nothing here is said about that changing scenario.

What free trade demands is what the Donald is offering American big businesses here: fewer and fewer social responsibilities for business in terms of what they owe to those who traditionally were regarded as their stakeholders. So Trump's economic policies pretty much resemble Hillary's in terms  of goals and direction. The only difference has to do with the issue of the location of the business restraints government would employ. Would the restraints fall more on restraining an expansion in the foreign workforce of American businesses or on taxes and regulations on how American businesses would conduct themselves here. We should note, and this is neither a criticism or sign of support, that  the open trade borders Hillary wanted was part of an American economic plan for South America written in the mid 1940s.


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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on why people prefer government to markets. This appeared in the acton blog.

We should note here that when people favor government over business in a democracy, they are favoring democratic controls over business rather than market control that favors elites in how they will interact with all of their stakeholders, not just their shareholders.

We should also note that free markets and free trade allow for elites to increase not just their profits but their power as well. That on the way to increasing their profits, many elites have a way of objectifying many of the stakeholders of their businesses thus making them disposable. And when people, especially workers, become disposable, then the neighborhoods in which they live become disposable as well. And when people are so disposable, there is a denial of their intrinsic worth. Only their market worth is recognized. In contrast to that, democratic control of the markets allow people to show solidarity as they attempt to protect the vulnerable.

So we have a choice between democratic control of the market place or elite-centered control of the market place and the government where the rule of economic force rules. I wonder how Christians could defend the latter.

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).

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 26, 2016

Oct 19

To Roger Scruton and his blogpost which pits Classical music against Avant-Garde music. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Unfortunately, this article speaks in an authoritarian manner telling us that the only music worth listening to is that which strives for order and beauty. Thus, the only music worth listening to, according to the writer of this article, is that music that expresses the ideal. And so we have an exclusive-or choice between modern Avant-Garde and what is considered to be classical music. Twelve tone music is thus condemned because it fits outside the boundaries set by classical music and the use of music to express the ideal.

However, without having to throw out classical, which to my knowledge is done by no one, we should note that music is not just for expressing the what we regard as what is beautiful and the ideal, but to express reality as it appears in all of its ways. And this is really the basic rub here. Is music to be limited to painting  beautiful pictures with sound or is music there to help us communicate what all of life is about.

That we do not have to choose both approaches to music is demonstrated by many musicians, but I will pick one in particular. Dave Brubeck incorporated many musical forms in his writing and performing. And this included forms from all sorts of Jazz to Bach to religious music to 12 tone. And which ones were used in any particular piece depended on what Brubeck wanted the piece to express. And here we should note that he felt that music should express the gamut of emotions.

Thus, the real conflict here is between the ideal and reality, between authoritarianism and freedom. The authoritarian view tells us that the choice of music we have before us should be limited to only that which expresses beauty. The choosing to be free says that music should fit the message it is trying to communicate whether that message is one about beauty or one about the realities of life. So we see that even in music, those who are authoritarian are always fighting against freedom.


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

Oct 22

To Joe Carter and his use of the Love Gov film series to discourage any government oversight into a nation’s economy and to promote free market economies in his blogpost. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Free market economies do not promote charity, selflessness, and kindness. Such a claim is nothing more than a sales line. What a free market economy does is to promote elite-centered rule and independence. Free market economies promote elite-centered rule because such economies provide the fewest obstacles for the consolidation of wealth. And where we have the consolidation of wealth, we have the consolidation of power. And such economies tell those at the top that their business operations are to be free the demands of any government including those governments that are working democracies. That is another way of saying that business owners are more and more free from their social responsibilities. And in every nation whose government is a working democracy, then a free market economy tells the business owners that their business is free from the demands made on them by the people represented by their government.

We should note that human flourishing uses as a bottom-line measurement by at least some who promote free market economies. For their claim is that free market economies remove the most people from abject poverty. But there are three problems with the claim. First, the standard of living that exists above the abject poverty level is still a poverty level of living especially depending on where one lives. Second, what produced the jobs for people from those nations that saw the greatest reduction in abject poverty was the removal of jobs from people from other nations. And the motive for the moving of those jobs was to benefit the investors who owned the businesses rather than to benefit the people in the nation that would receive the jobs. In the meantime, many who lost those jobs now flood the job market for certain skills and that keeps the wages for those jobs down because of the law of supply and demand. And third, many of the jobs in nations where people are escaping abject poverty are set in sweatshop conditions. In addition, in the two nations where the most people have been removed from abject poverty, slavery is either stagnant or increasing.

Free market economies are investor-oriented economies with less and less government oversight over the markets. Thus investors, even foreign investors, will have more to say about any nation's economy where the economy is a free market economy than the people of that nation will. Thus, the drive for free market economies are establishing a new governmental organization that lies outside of national boundaries and the reach of elected government officials, especially in those nations whose governments are working democracies. And here we should note that governments that are working democracies are not the kind of governments that are depicted in the film series above. Governments with working democracies are those that truly represent what their people want. The drive for free market economies is a drive for a new way for money to rule the world.

Recently, the US had to rescind laws that required the labeling of the origin of meat because the WTO, of which the US is a member, threatened serious economic sanctions if it didn't. And it did so because other nations were concerned that their businesses would lose money if the people in our nation knew from which nation the meat they were buying was. With the proposed TPP, corporations can sue governments for laws passed, but governments cannot sue those corporations. And those lawsuits would be heard in TPP tribunals that have no concern for any US law, even The Constitution. Thus, investors will have more say over laws protecting the environments or workers' rights and pay than the people of a given nations will. Other nations, such as Canada and Costa Rica, have felt the bite from these free market economies. We need to look at the whole package of what a free market economy offers while noting that the above film series does not depict the only alternative to a free market economy.

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

Oct 23

To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost that claims that flourishing occurs when we act authoritatively while making ourselves vulnerable. This appears in the Acton blog.

It seems that the current emphasis on always flourishing is just another prosperity gospel. We live in a fallen world that is an alien place for believers so that to think of flourishing as a natural state is to believe that this world can be our home. Such denies what the NT says. For how does what Jesus says about where we should lay up treasure impact our view of flourishing? The same goes for when the writer of the book of Hebrews tells us that we have no home on earth.

It isn't that we should not celebrate times when we do flourish. But we should also look at those times and examine plight of all the stakeholders involved including the environment to ensure that our flourishing isn't at least partially because of exploitation. When expecting to flourish, we should also note that infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible. And our world is telling us that perhaps we have been seeking flourishing a bit too much with the rising temperatures in the troposphere and the rising sea levels that have already been hurting people.

Again, this emphasis on forever flourishing is just another prosperity gospel. It uses flattery and visions of sugar plums dancing in our heads to appeal to us. But it denies the costs all of us must pay either now or later for how we have been flourishing today.

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

Oct 24

To Peter Lawler and his blogpost asking if we should venerate The Constitution. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

I don't know how we can determine whether we should venerate The Constitution without talking about the context in which the document was written. After all, it was written during a time of widespread dissent and soon after Shays Rebellion. As we observe from all of the Constitutional references to the Militia, one of the purposes of The Constitution was to strengthen the Federal Government so that it could better respond to insurrections. And when we look at Madison's view of one of the purposes of government, which is to 'protect the minority of the opulent against the majority' and that Senators were immune to public opinion by not just the length of their terms, but by being appointed rather than elected, we see the disdain that many of the framers of The Constitution had for direct democracy. We should also note that Federalists pejoratively referred to those with whom they disagreed with as belonging to 'factions.'

And many conservatives carry on that traditional disdain by equating democracy with 'mob rule,' as if the majority rule by elites (a.k.a., a republic) is more virtuous than majority rule by all the people. For if democracy is mob rule, then how can majority rule by elites be referred to in any other way than 'the mob rules'? Here we should note that The Constitution was written in an effort to maintain the status quo for the sake of domestic elites. And, as Federalists 10 pointed out, it is the union that is more important than the states. So how in the world can we see The Constitution as promoting limited government and states rights unless, from an apriori commitment, we perform eisegesis by reading it into the document?

Sure, if some want to put The Constitution on a pedestal and venerate it, they are free to do so. But all of us should remember that the higher that pedestal and the greater the veneration, the more we have the tyranny of tradition and thus a form of authoritarianism. This isn't to say that we should easily replace The Constitution by today's popular views. That would be the result of narcissism. It is to say that just as conservatives want government to be limited, so we should want the size of the pedestal on which we place The Constitution and its veneration to be limited as well. After all, we should remember that both The Constitution and the founding and expanding of our nation was racially based.

How To Market One's Own Society

Not too long ago, law professor and contributor to the website The Imaginative Conservative, Bruce Frohnen, wrote a blogpost for that website called What Is An Opportunity Society?  In that blogpost Frohnen made strong efforts at fairly comparing what he called the 'Security Society' of Iceland where people are taken care of by government with America's former 'Opportunity Society.'

Frohnen defines an Opportunity Society by what it is not. And what it is not is a society like Iceland's. Nor is it a society where the government passes regulations requiring what many would regard as the fair treatment of employees with benefits such as overtime and health insurance--Frohnen mentions high wages too, but some corporations use government assistance programs to subsidize their payroll by paying some employees poverty wages. 

Frohnen continues to define what an Opportunity Society is not. It isn't a society where small business owners fear the legal repercussions from refusing to provide goods and services for same-sex weddings. An Opportunity Society is not one where businesses are hassled by the government for not appearing to be racially fair by falling short of some bureaucrat's expectations.

An Opportunity society does not help with healthcare when it isn't provided at work especially when the healthcare policy punishes the middle class and rewards the rich. So when one sums up all of the ways by which a society is not an Opportunity Society, we must agree with Frohnen's conclusion that America is no longer an Opportunity Society. 

Now, the point here is not to examine Frohnen's comparison between Iceland and America. Nor is it to test the claims that Frohnen makes about what Opportunity Societies are or whether what he sees as the obstacles of such societies act as real obstacles to such societies. Rather, the purpose of this post is to examine Frohnen's methodology.  For not only does Frohnen uses a single word to describe all of American society, he comes to such a description by considering only one group, his favorite American child, business.

The problem with Frohnen's methodology is that it employs oversimplifications. To describe all of American society by focusing on only one group suggests that that group is the most important group in America. It suggests that that group is the most privileged group and it might suggest that it is the group we must depend on the most. So it matters not how regular citizens fare in America or how healthy and safe our children are. It doesn't matter to Frohnen how people of different races are getting along or how people who need healthcare are coping. To Frohnen, the only group that can be used to define American society is business. 

But we need to proceed from there. Regardless of the complexity of our economic system and how some businesses are performing. For regardless of how some businesses are offshoring jobs or how some businesses might be harming the environment or how some businesses are finding ways not to pay their fair share of taxes, our society would be called an Opportunity Society if government would just get out of business' way.

Because Frohnen's analysis of what America was depends solely on the life experiences of one group and because he can sum up the ideal arrangement for that group using a single word,  Frohnen is flirting with using dichotomous thinking. With dichotomous thinking, the state of any person, group, or venture is looked at in black-and-white terms. Things are going either good or bad, there is no continuum that provides in between measurements. Thus, the interpretation of one's status depends on a self-limiting set of inputs. 

With Frohnen's methodology, our infrastructure could be crumbling, racism could still be thriving, our incarceration rate could be the highest in the world, and there could be more empty houses than homeless families. But as long as the business restrictions Frohnen was complaining about were absent, he could classify our society as an Opportunity Society.

The oversimplification employed by Frohnen moves us to deliberately work and make decisions with an inadequate amount of information. To be an Opportunity Society, we only need to worry about our businesses and what restrictions or responsibilities they have to face.

If we as Americans are going to either work our way out of the current hole we have dug for ourselves or advance as a nation, we can't afford to make decisions based on inadequate information. We can't afford to make decisions based only on how one group is affected or whether we meet the criteria imposed by one label. For example, in 2016, we can't afford to cast our votes for candidates solely because of political party affiliation or only because they will favor our pet group. And the same applies for deciding to favor trade agreements that will cost jobs here or weaken our sovereignty.

We have to be concerned with all groups in America and we must resist the temptation to use single labels to describe the status of our complex society, economic system, our healthcare system, our education system, or whatever systems remain. The more we we oversimplify issues or statuses, the more we choose to make ignorant decisions. And that is simply the result of considering only one group or using single labels to describe how our society works.

Those Whom Government Cannot Represent

During one of the sessions of Left Forum, we dealt with the following Margret Thatcher quote stating that there is no such thing as society (click here for the source, it comes from an interview):

 What is wrong with the deterioration? [mistranscription?] I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system

Please note that previously, and quite consistently, Thatcher had said the following when talking about England's Enterprise Allowance (click here for review of the program):

 The enterprise allowance is for young people who want to start up on their own, have been on the unemployment register, and we recognise—I must tell you this as the background—that having got the income from unemployment benefit and social security, you cannot expect them to take the leap into self-employment with all its uncertainties unless you help them across that gap, and so three or four years ago, we devised a method: “If you want to start up on your own, we will guarantee you for a year an income of £40 a week, so that you know that you have got that coming in, but in order to get the enterprise allowance, to show that you have something to start off with, because you usually need a little bit of capital, you do have to raise somehow £1000!” A lot of people do it. It is astonishing how many find that their families, from their savings, will give them £1000.

If we compare the two quotes along with reading the whole interview, we see that the initial quote declaring that there is no society, just individuals seems less cold. We should note that there were social programs that were condoned by the Thatcher administration and this eliminates the blunt coldness of her original statement.

But we should note a couple of the criticisms cited in the article on the Enterprise Allowance previously referenced. Those criticisms stated that many who relied on the Enterprise Initiative would have become self-employed anyway (remember that one was to rely on contacts like family to raise the money) along with the fact that many of the businesses became 'one-man shows.'

Thatcher's support of self-employment was an attempt to deal with the unemployment problem that had already existed in Britain. In addition, to Enterprise Allowance, Thatcher denationalized many businesses, like the National Freight Company, utilities, and the mining industry. Thatcher was for free markets and self-determination and she opposed trade unions.

We could begin to say here that government is for some people, particularly those who either have connections or can survive, or even thrive, in the free market. Her policies strongly favored business elites, but, as stated, those weren't the only people whom she helped. 

Therefore, though the rest of the article and the times tell us that her comment about there being no society, but there are only individuals is not as cold as it might sound at first. For in other words, there are those who are worthy to varying degrees of their government's support and there are those who don't deserve any consideration from their government.  And it seems that the minimum requirement that existed for receiving consideration from the Thatcher government is that one had family resources on which one could rely. This caused many who had no family that could provide support to be grouped with whom Thatcher described as those who refused to work because they could milk the system. And there seems to be a conservative eagerness to group too many people into this category because not to do so would challenge their faith in Capitalism.

This problems with deciding who is worthy of their government's support and representation and how worthy they are is a battle still being fought today. And, again, Conservatives are too eager to say that the less well off don't deserve their government's consideration because it is their fault while the more successful people deserve a greater amount of their government's benevolence because of what they bring to the table. Such a mentality provides a roadblock to democracy. That is because such a mentality promotes the consolidation of power to those who "deserve" it elites of the private sector while others don't deserve it. 

But the more consideration one receives from their government, the more government benefits one receives whether those benefits come in the form of beneficial regulations, favorable deregulation, domestic and/or foreign policies that increase one's bottom line, or actual business from the government. And if we used the owners of a major league sports team, especially those who are required to meet a salary cap, to illustrate the real problem with this approach to receiving government help. the better we can see how those who are most favored by the government, that is the elites from the private sector, will hurt those who are in the greatest need. For in major league sports teams we know that the more money A gets from the owners, the less is available to B and the rest. And the more B gets from what's leftover from what A got, then there is less available for C. And the progression is not too difficult to see especially how it plays out in real life. A too similar of a progression occurs with getting government consideration and resources.

We should note one other thing here. As Thatcher and her administration emphasized stock ownership, they were falling back on the worst parts of the Thatcher quote we've been examining. This is because stock ownership teaches one to be more concerned with one's own self-interest and welfare and less concerned, if at all, with the welfare of others. That is the culture promoted by stock ownership is an individualist one. The higher the ROI a company provides to its shareholders, the more rewards go to the shareholder and thus the greater the desirable of being a shareholder for that company becomes. And what is lost in the shuffle are the costs to a company's stakeholders, including its own employees, that is its wealth creators, and to the environment. That is because the more a company invests in its employees or spends on protecting the environment, the lower the ROI. 

All of this produces a greater emphasis on the individual and growing cutthroat mentality toward those a company is beholding to. The more emphasis that is placed on increasing one's own wealth from the ROI, the greater others will be seen as threats because of the competition for resources. And the more we regard others as threats, the more society disappears until all that is left are individuals who are living out a survival of the fittest contest. And that leaves us with the realization that the coldness of the original quote from Thatcher is greater than we might have guessed from reading the interview and the context of her statements.



 

Reviewing The Cultural Case For Capitalism Part 12 Of 12.

We have now reached the final episode of Jonathan Witt's A Cultural Case For Capitalism. In this article, Witt acknowledges that Capitalism is challenged by Marxism but he rejects the challenge. His rejection is partially based on his view of Marxism and the question is, does Witt demonstrate a significant understanding of Marxism? It doesn't seem so.

Witt's understanding of Marxism is confined to its main example, the old Soviet Union, and brief references to atheism and materialism. Other than that, there is no discussion of Marxism which, in turn, fails to support the 'Beyond Marxism' part of the title. We should note that the only other reference Witt makes of Marxism here is the categories used by some to critique Capitalism. But there is no description of Marxism either substantial or cursory. One can only conclude then that mentioning the Soviet Union was a significant enough description of Marxism for Witt to make.

So there is either a problem with Witt's title or his content. So let's take a look at the Soviet Union and see how it represents not just Marxism but Socialism in general. The criticism Noam Chomsky levels against Lenin and the beginning of the Soviet Union describes the two directions in which Socialism went with the Russian Revolution and identifies which direction was truly socialistic based on facilitating workers' control of the means of production (click here). In the one corner was an ideological approach in need of a vanguard. That approach was taken by Lenin. His leadership told the people that only certain elites could lead the country in socialism. And thus, those with opposing opinions were silenced as heretics. However, in taking that approach, control was taken out of the workers' hands and given to Lenin's vanguard. This vanguard would be the judges of what was true socialism and what wasn't. Chomsky noted that since the vanguard overthrew and replaced the workers councils (a.k.a., soviets), the term 'Socialism' was only used as a marketing tool.

Criticisms of Lenin revealed another side of Socialism, it was Socialism as a practice. Rosa Luxemburg called Lenin's take over of the Revolution and his subsequent rule a 'bourgeoisie dictatorship.' Karl Kautsky strongly criticized Lenin for his silencing of fellow Socialists. Kautsky favored democracy. We should note that Luxemburg criticized Kautsky as favoring a 'bourgeoisie democracy.'  But by favoring democracy, both Kautsky and Luxemburg supported Socialism as a practice where decisions are made democratically by representatives who belonged to the proletariate and who were elected by peers.

Witt's conflating of the Soviet Union with Marxism thus misses two points. The first point is that Marxism and Socialism are not monoliths. Though one can hardly fault Witt for not knowing all of the different flavors of Marxism, this does not excuse his conflation of the different forms of socialism under the heading of the old Soviet Union. And lest Marxists feel singled out, we should note that, throughout this series, Witt seems unaware of the different kinds of Capitalism as well.  

Second, what is most important in Marxism is who has control. While conservatives like to call big government Socialism, Socialism is really about the distribution of power among the proletariate and thus, not all examples of big government are socialistic. For example, in writing about the Jewish Question, Marx stated that in America, private property had been abolished in the America of his time because non-landowners could write laws governing the actions of landowners. Note that though landowners still owned private property, but since their hold over society and politics, according to what Marx perceived, had been broken, control of those who held private property had been abolished. 

So with Witt equating Marxism with the Soviet Union, he shows a gross ignorance of Marxism and Socialism. Thus the part of the title, 'Beyond Marxism,' is a misnomer because Marxism is not first adequately defined.

Now Witt goes on to talk about the materialism that serves as a foundational part of Marxism. Here, Witt should have consulted Martin Luther King Jr. because Marxism, according to King, did not have a monopoly on materialism. Capitalism could also be materialistic (see page 95 of this link). And even without the King's charges, we should note the materialism that is a foundational part of Capitalism. After all, what is American Capitalism's claim to fame? Is it not that it has produced the greatest material wealth in the history of mankind? In addition, how is it that we can so focus on competition for business and profits and not be materialistic?

And yes, Marx was an atheist. But that does not make atheism a requirement for at least partially agreeing with Marx.

In opposition to the Marxism Witt fails to adequately define or describe, stands Capitalism that, according to Witt, based on a Judeo-Christian view of people. Central to that is the belief that ideas have consequences. Such seems sound until one happens upon some of the consequences that occur but are not mentioned. What if my ideas cause my investments or business to bust, should the consequence include poverty, homelessness, and death? If so, then the basic foundation of Witt's Capitalism is Social Darwinism, not Christianity. And the chief apostle of such Capitalism is Ayn Rand. And the idea that voluntary organizations can pick up enough of the pieces of people's failure is deliberately delusional and designed to free private sector elites from their social responsibilities. 

And just perhaps, Witt's association of Christianity with today's Capitalism is to lure unsuspecting Christians into the trap of supporting the status quo rather than acting as today's prophets. For while Witt acknowledges that today's Capitalism needs some corrections, the corrections he is thinking of involve implementation rather than structural change. For little does Witt suspect that Free Market Values of self-interest and competition sabotage the Free Market itself. And thus, just perhaps, the Free Market is not based on Judeo-Christian values as much as he claims. These points have been made in the reviews of the other parts of his A Cultural Case For Capitalism. 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 28,2014

May 21

To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost on Decentralization of State authority. In  his blogpost, he cited Burke's analysis of the French Revolution and Kuyper's favoring of limited state authority. This appeared in the Acton blog.


Though I don't have Burke's book on the French Revolution and so I might be more easily mistaken in what I am writing here, it is always disturbing to hear people easily compare the American and French Revolutions in a self-flattering way as well so easily put down the centralization of government without questioning the centralization of wealth and power.

A comparison of the participants in the two revolutions should give reason for pause in comparing the two revolutions. One was a revolution against a local government while the other was against a remote one. And though both dealt with a lack of representation, the French Revolution saw pitting of the Church and Aristocracy vs the rest--or those with great wealth vs those with some to no wealth--while the other revolution was at least predominantly led by the local aristocracy because of actions taken by a remote government against it. Our Constitution was written in response to the discontent and even rebellion against the local aristocracy and was a move to centralize authority compared to what was. And finally, we need to compare the aristocracies of the two nations involved. Both had wealth but the French aristocracy was based on birthright while the other was based on economic class first and birth second--note that Madison's wealth was all inherited including his slaves. And our Constitution was written to preserve the place of the local aristocracy. In addition, because of today's situation, we should note that before the French Revolution, financial reforms were enacted that continued to shift the tax burden from the aristocracy to the 3rd estate.

We should also include that the post revolutionary history of our nation was equally bloody to that of the French Revolution if one includes the blood of those for whom our revolution was not intended to benefit: America's indigenous people and Blacks. And see, that is the problem when people compare the two revolutions. We compare the benefits vs costs of the two revolutions by only comparing what happens to those from our own group while the suffering of those outside of our group becomes invisible--much like the suffering of the third estate had become invisible to the Church and aristocracy in France before its revolution.

Finally, if you are going to limit centralized power, you must limit the consolidation of wealth. That is because power always follows wealth and so if you have controls on wealth, you have controls on power. And for those who want to claim the converse, realize that there is a difference between power and authority. Power is used predominantly by those with wealth to preserve and enhance their status and this can be done with or without a centralized authority. Centralized authority has its place and should fluid depending on the needs of all of the people but this should be under one condition. That condition is that the people have control over the centralized authority. And so far, the problem we have in this country is that we are such followers of our own economic aristocracy in hopes of either joining them or riding in on their coattails that we have abdicated our position by relegating democracy to just voting and limit that voting to one of two parties--such a system allows for a consolidation of power.

One more point needs to be made about the French Revolution and we could make this by comparing it with the Civil Rights movement in this country which was a revolution in its own way. The key problem with the French Revolution was that it came under the immediate control of elites who inspired the participants to externalize evil. And in the externalization of evil, they sought to conquer and remove those who were perceived as not being one of them. When we compare that with the Civil Rights movement here, the movement here sought to win over rather than conquer those who were oppressing others out of fear that one could become like one's enemy. In addition, while one was waiting to win them over, democratic controls were sought to stop the oppression.

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



May 27

To Ray Nothstine and his Memorial Day blogpost. This appeared on the Acton blog. 


I remember the first Army-Navy game I attended came after a traumatic event for the nation-- the assassination of President Kennedy. The game was played to show the nation that it could move on as Navy under Roger Staubach edged Army led by Rollie Stichwey. The game provided a small therapeutic exercise for the nation and the players of both teams greeted each other as brothers because many of them knew that their next stop would be in Vietnam.

And yet, why should military leaders who have had those under them become fallen warriors be the only ones who lament the loss of those they commanded? True, the President sends our troops into action but we can partially control him by how loud and often we voice our opinions. But to voice our opinions, we first need to be educated to see if the President is sending troops in harm's way to defend freedom or for less honorable reasons. The sensitivity of the commander who forever lives with the losses of those under him should be the sensitivity we should all have as we think about all, including civilian and combatants, who were killed or maimed in the wars and interventions that took place under our democratic watch. 

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

To Elise Hilton and her blogpost about the Pope and capitalism and free markets. This appeared in the Acton blog.


I don't see any problem with what the Pope has said about our current form of capitalism. But I do have a problem with those who oversimplify what has lifted people out of poverty. One of the biggest gains has been found in China and China does not have a free market. Another country where the biggest gains have been seen is India, a country that has a free market but there are serious free market problems there. Farmer suicides because of high debt is a significant problem in India and so is suicide among young people who are joining the work force.

Here, we have plenty of food but there is a question about the contamination of that food with pesticides and GMOs. In addition, laws have been passed that protect biotech corporations from legal liability. We have revolving door policy between biotech corporations and the FDA. And food corporations are fighting legislation that would inform customers of the presence of GMO ingredients.

In addition, in order to spread the free market, we have seriously damaged or killed the capability of some countries to produce their own food. Such vulnerabilities make countries susceptible to food shortages when fuel prices spike and it destroys their own sovereignty. In addition, free markets are killing wages and jobs here in America while opening up sweatshops overseas.

So I don't think overlysimplistic statements about the benefits of the free market are either appropriate or intelligent. Rather, they are disingenuous and manipulative.

ONIM for the week of July 9, 2012

Bishops Fear Austerity Will Lead To More Arrests -- Christian Today (UK)

Church Hears Vision For Global Mission -- Christian Today (UK)

A Tale Of Two Scientists And Their Different Views Of The Beginning -- Christianity Today

Do Our Spiritual Forefathers And The Founding Fathers Go Together? -- Christianity Today

Dealing With A Dysfunctional Family -- Christian Post

Problems With Theologically Resolving Israel & Palestine -- Religion Dispatches

When Conservative Theology And The Free Market Encounter Wildfires -- Religion Dispatches