Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 2, 2015

 The presence of only two comments here is the result of fewer blogs blocking my comments. This is a good thing though it can reduce the content for this blogpost series.

August 26

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Robert George stating that because of the recent Supreme court decision on marriage, we should expect multiple partner marriages in the future. This appeared on Heidelblog.

The problem with the above assessment is that it reduces marriage, heterosexual or same-sex, to just one facet. Marriage as recognized by the State involves much more. For it involves the complete union of two people including in terms of physical, legal, and property. In addition, marriage between two people involves equality since it is the complete union, not just physical, of what two people have and are. Polygamy and polyamory do not include that kind of union. In fact, laws would have to be rewritten to address the complexity of property ownership and division as well as parental and legal responsibilities.

Now because no complete union by both parties can be undertaken in any kind of multiple partner marriage, the state's legitimate concern with equality comes into play. This concern for equality and the protection of those who would be treated less than equal implies that same-sex marriage has much more in common with heterosexual marriage than multiple partner marriages do.

When marriage is reduced to just its reproductive aspects, then we must ask if the state has the right to regulate any couple's decision to have children? Or should the state prohibit the marriages of those who cannot have children together? Note that with the latter question, both heterosexual and same-sex couples are affected. For example, I cannot reproduce because of cancer surgery. Now suppose I become a widower and then take another wife. If marriage is reduced to its reproductive aspects, should the state have the right to prohibit me from being married? Or if marriage is reduced to its reproductive aspects, then does the state have the right to force me to marry so that I may provide children for society?

Unfortunately,  the above blogpost is simply a slippery slope argument that works only with an oversimplified view of marriage. And the purpose of the oversimplification is to make it appear that same-sex marriages have more in common with marriages involving multiple partners than they do with heterosexual marriages. And, again, that case can only be made when marriage is oversimplified to the sexual-romantic relationship while ignoring the union of a couple in other spheres of life including those which the state must address. Marriage to the state involves much more than the sexual-romantic fulfillment of the couple involved. And proof of that can be seen in its laws that involve marriage.
----------------

Sept 1

To Marc Vander Maas and his blogpost consisting of a video that introduces a book that describes how poverty of the nations can be solved. The comment below addresses the talk given by Wayne Grudem in this video. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Having read Grudem's book on politics, it is unfortunate that his comments here do not disappoint. That is because just as Grudem did not display any kind of adequate knowledge of the Left in that book. This might be because his book was designed to provide an apologetic for why Christians could continue to be political conservatives. Likewise here, he reduces the Left, without naming them, to that of charitable giving to nations in need as its solution to poverty, but who produce dependency instead. In reality, the Left believes that one of the means by which we can end poverty is found in the redistribution of power, not just wealth.

Now while Grudem warns us not reduce economics to per capita income, something all should agree on, but he virtually performs that reductionism on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as he states that that is the key to bringing nations out of poverty.

In addition, Grudem states that complaining about how exploitation has held a nation back is like crying over spilled milk. One must forget that and move on to focusing on increasing the nations's GDP. But here is a question for Grudem: What if the exploitation is continuing? Should we still regard complaining about it as crying over spilled milk? We could also ask if we should complain if past exploitation has produced such crippling effects that present economic growth is still impossible.

Grudem's reductionism continues as he talks about the haves and have nots of countries. The haves are focusing on increasing their GDP.  He failed to mention how such a focus worked in China. For such a focus has led to sweatshop labor and horrific environmental problems.  See, just focusing on increasing one's GDP without regard to how it is achieved, especially when GDP relies on exploitation, can be misleading. We should note that our economy got its start by relying on exploitation too as we took land from the Indians and then enslaved Blacks both before and after the Civil War. The enslavement after the war occurred during Jim Crow when many Blacks were jailed and their labor in prison was used to increase our nation's GDP.

As Grudem shows a map of the nations that are doing well, his disregard for crying over the spilled milk of history continues as he forgets to mention that many of today's prosperous nations were, and few are still, empires. And that includes the United States. He forgets to mention China's controlled economy when celebrating its economic growth. He mentions India as a positive example, but fails to mention the suicides committed by  hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers. He mentions Chile, but fails to mention how Chile got its start in the Free Market. It did so by the US supporting and enabling a military coup which led to the rule of Pinochet who was a murderous tyrant and was indicted for crimes against humanity. And while he rules out economies that redistribute wealth, such redistribution actually helped Norway become a prosperous nation. He also fails to mention that South Korea used protectionism, which is against Free Market principles, a practice used by many wealthy nations, to enable its industrialization.

At the same time, Grudem briefly describes the plight of poorer nations like many African nations and also Haiti. He states that foreign aid to these nations usually increases governmental corruption. This is true, But he neglects to mention how other nations also increase governmental corruption and even civil wars in Africa by how they are exploited for their natural resources ( BBC on Exploitation and Video Interview on Film About Colonialism  ). Again, what do you say about exploitation when it continues, when it is not just in the past?

And one only needs to read about the history of Haiti to realize that foreign intervention is the real reason why Haiti is so poor today.

As a theologian, Grudem fails because he only sees giving aid to the poor as an act of charity. In reality, giving aid to the poor is both an act of charity and of justice. This is why the Israelites were instructed on how to harvest their crops so that there were left overs for those in need. This says something to us today about what we owe those in need.

Here is the short of it. Grudem's presentation relies heavily on selectivity. That is true of the economies of  poor nations he uses as negative examples as well as the economies of nations he uses as positive examples. Now to be fair, this presentation was to introduce a book he co-authored with Barry Asmus and there might be places in that book that addresses some of the short comings mentioned here. All that can be mentioned here is the presentation. And considering the history of Free Market Fundamentalism and Neoliberal Capitalism, there is something not up front about Grudem's presentation.
 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 19, 2015

The comment below was published because it was awaiting moderation. It wass listed here because of the length of time in which it has been awaiting moderation. This comment has now been published.



Aug 11

 To David Robertson and his blogpost podcast covering a number of issues such as Turkey, prostitution, and immigration. This appeared in Theweeflea blog.

Whether the discussion was on Turkey, prostitution, or immigration, this is the first program I’ve heard where conservative voices were not just echoing the concerns of those on the Left, but looking at the solutions from a similar perspective.

This might not seem true especially regarding the piece on Amnesty International and prostitution because many on the Left see the sex industry as a matter of freedom. But there are voices on the Left that have condemned that position and who favor the solution suggested in this program that we criminalize the purchase of sex rather than the selling of it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Aug 17

To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost quote lamenting how court decisions requiring businesses to provide goods and services to bi-sexual party is the end of religious liberty. This appeared in Heidelblog.

How is it that preventing discrimination proves that the sky of religious liberties is falling? The same court principles that dismantled Jim Crow, which some used religious beliefs and the Bible to defend, are being applied to protect the those from the LGBT community from being discriminated against and marginalized.

For those who see these court decisions as a blow to religious liberties, let me ask the following question: Are you still free to attend the church of your choice and to use your religion to publicly protest these court decisions? If so, why complain that those from the LGBT community are now free to pay for goods and services from any business they choose to patronize?

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

Aug 18

To Marc Vander Maas and his blogpost consisting of a podcast interview of Samuel Gregg on economic liberty. This appeared on the Acton blog.

The logic used to so pair economic and religious liberties is rather manipulative. To cite China first tries to prove the association by example and fails to consider what other variables could be involved, besides economic freedom, in the increase in religious interest there. One might consider another example where the market is much freer than that in China and see where religious interest is decreasing. This is occurring in America. And the reduction in religious interest also has been waning more in other free market societies such as in European countries. So if the correlation between economic freedom and religious interest seems to be inconsistent, how can a follow up to correlation, that is a cause and effect relationship, be established?
Describing the conversation as being manipulative can also be said of the distinction made between self-interest and selfishness, the relationship between work/risk and rewards, and envy. For example, selfishness was defined as being irrational in overemphasizing the importance of a desired object while self interest is rational. But isn't the importance of an object relative according to the person desiring it? More importantly, though, isn't selfishness related to self-interest so that rather than associating selfishness with an object, we should measure in terms of the degree self interest plays in determining our priorities and making decisions?

Likewise, note the association made between those who work the hardest or take the biggest risk with who deserves the most wealth.  Currently in our economy, wages have either stagnated or decreased per the skill level of many jobs. In addition, wages can be, and have been, reduced simply by increasing the supply of labor and those who control that are those with wealth. But note how work and risk are put on the same level. Those making the most money are not necessarily those who have risked it all by starting up their own business, but it is made by those who risk what they have by playing stock market. And one of the ways to increase the reward shareholders receive from their stock holdings in a publicly owned company is to freeze or decrease the wages that many of the workers of that company  make, And please note that the only time a publicly owned company receives money from the sale of stocks is from the sale of originally issued stocks.
Finally, envy is tied with the desire to redistribute wealth. But here, the redistribution of wealth has a similar role as the revision of history. Its fairness depends on the accuracy used in the beginning. It is not wrong to revise history when the original version was slanted. Likewise, redistributing wealth is fair when the original distribution of wealth was unfair. And whether the original distribution of wealth was unfair depends on how fairly the role of each person involved is valued and on how well were the interdependencies factored into the original distribution of wealth. Interdependencies include factors outside the company that contribute to its wealth. Physical and social infrastructures contribute to the wealth of companies. So does the quality of the society in which a company exists. And the question becomes whether the original distribution of wealth is fairly paying for the support it has received from the outside.

Those who assume that the original distribution of wealth was fair seem to be the ones who claim envy is behind the call for the redistribution of wealth. Rarely to the same people admit that the hoarding of wealth by the wealthy can be fueled by envy or related vices as well. And usually it is the same group that values risk over work and believes that labor depends more on capital than capital depends on labor. And here we should note the work of Thomas Piketty who has observed that more and more wealth is being inherited than earned.
Other points could be addressed, but it is enough to stop here. We should note that the more economic liberty is paired with religious liberty, the more likely that the association is because it is mamon that is being worshiped and served rather than God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost lamenting the percentage of people who would elect a socialist as President. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Aren't we being a little selective when we only accuse those who have less of being envious? Isn't it possible that some who have hoarded wealth have done so out of envy of their peers? And what is wrong with the redistribution of wealth if the original distribution was unfair? Also, are people like Sanders objecting to the lack of income equality or to the degree of income and wealth disparity?

Finally, before putting electing a Socialist in such a bad light, wouldn't it be more informative to educate readers on the different kinds of socialist approaches and on one of the basic tenets of Socialism: workers' control of production.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 11, 2015

Feb 8

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quip stating that the Crusades have no influence on today's Muslim attitudes toward the West. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Perhaps, when looking at the Crusades, one must at least look at the behavior of the Crusaders toward the indigenous population as well as the racist pronouncements and spiritual incentives given by Pope Urban II. It is simply out of tribalism that one does not condemn the crusades.

Yes, there were political reasons for the crusades back then, not just religious ones. But modern Western imperialism was motivated by access to and control of Middle East natural resources. And so, regardless of the name or motivation, you still have the results of Western invasions in the Middle East today by countries with a Christian heritage into countries that have more of an Islamic heritage. And with Islam being a political religion as well as a spiritual one, we can start to see what prompted attacks on the West.  

Finally, the article from which the above quote was take discusses 9-11 in reference to the crusades. And it is correct to say that the crusades had no bearing on that attack. It is what the West did during the 20 century that provoked the kind of anger we saw in the terrorist attacks of 9-11. Their attacks were unjustified but their anger is at least understandable.

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

Feb 10

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote describing the infidelity in same-sex marriage. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

The lack of precision in the statements made as well as data collection methods as well as the amount of data collected leaves the quote used in this post unsubstantiated. And conclusions drawn from this snapshot are rather dubious since there is no discussion of history or trends. 

We should note from an article with inadequate data collection is that about 70% of married (that is heterosexual marriage) men cheat on their wives (note the source: http://magazine.foxnews.com/love/cheating-statistics-do-men-cheat-more-women  ). Meanwhile, another article gives different info both in terms of percentages and direction ( http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/marriage/story/2011-09-05/Gay-straight-couples-more-monogamous-than-in-the-past/50267258/1 ). It is what Andrew Sullivan said that the data is 'all over the map' (see http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/07/02/monogamy-gay-men-lesbians-and-straights/  ).

BTW, my own collection consisting of personal friends show no instances of cheating in either heterosexual or same-sex marriages.

So it seems that only those who are eager to jump to conclusions will do so.

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

To Joseph Sunde and the list of 5 reasons why Christians should be understand and be concerned about economics. This appeared in the Acton blog.

What's missing in these reasons for caring about economics is any serious reflection on our current economic system and how fair and unfair it is to the stakeholders of our economy. So what seems to be endorsed here is a synthesis between a prosperity gospel based on individual responsibility with a stewardship of the world. 

By appearances, that sounds good. But what is missing is how some of the greatest wealth being garnered is accomplished by exploiting the work of others whether that exploitation involves abusing workers, underpaying them--which sometimes occurs because of supply and demand--and/or making workers, and thus their communities, disposable. See, the greatest wealth being garnered is gained through investments. And those investments often give the investors a greater voice in a company than years of service provided by workers. And in many cases, if the current labor that provides the wealth for a company can be procured at a lower pay scale, then those who are providing that labor can be sacrificed in order to maximize profits. 

Funny how the exploitation of workers was not mentioned but hard work was. Perhaps that was done purposely so that we don't fully explore the theological implications of politics. And perhaps it was also purposely done so that only workers become aware of their responsibilities in the public square.

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

To Elise Hilton and her blogpost reviews an article by Jonathan Witt that associates the quality of water with the degree of economic freedom in a nation. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Besides the fact that Witt's data sample is not only small, but contains mixed results based on the size of the sample, the title is misleading--though he makes one or two good points off this title. For many people, the fewer regulations that exist, the more economic freedom there is for the individual. But Witt writes favorably about those nations where there is a moderate or reasonable approach to regulations. BTW, his use of the word 'anarchy,' to represent a system with no regulations and what some would call the situation with the greatest economic freedom, shows an inadequate understanding of the word. For anarchy refers more to the number of dominant leaders than to the number of laws and regulations. And the number of dominant leaders sought by anarchists is 0.

In addition, his reduction of the reasons why clean water exists or not down to freest economies seems to miss the correlation between population density and clean water. For some of the dirtiest bodies of water he listed occurs in countries that have areas of highly dense populations such as in Indonesia, India, and China. Besides, calling England one of the freest nations, singled out because of the quality of the Thames River running through London, when it is one of the nations that is under such great surveillance makes one wonder about the criteria for determining the freest nations.

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

To Marc Vander Maas and his blogpost containing an audio of an Acton Institute colleague Jordan Ballor has Ballor talks about current efforts to access more fossil fuels. This appeared on the Acton Blog.

Besides the strawman Ballor creates about those who oppose projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline, Ballor seems to avoid mentioning the specifics about man-spurred climate change. And in so doing, he doesn't do justice to the urgency needed for us to switch from our reliance on fossil fuels to non-fossil fuel sources. In addition, though he advocates our responsibility in terms of how we extract fossil fuel resources, he also seems to ignore how some sources of fossil fuels could make it impossible for us to extract from responsibly in terms of not significantly damaging the surrounding ecosystems. 

Finally, there is a way of helping those who are poor besides increasing the amount of fossil fuels we extract and make available on the market. That way is to find better ways to share what we already have and are using.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For Jan 22, 2014

Jan 16

To R. Scott Clark's posting of a video of Ben Stasse criticizing obamacare



I could take what ben says if he was consistent. What about how the gov't forces us to pay for wars and policies that not only kill babies, both born and unborn, but kills adults and invites revenge.

And though I agree with Ben in opposing the use of tax dollars to fund abortions, where was his voice of protest for those who either chose not to see a doctor because they had no insurance or went bankrupt regardless of having insurance. Where was his outrage about the millions who had no insurance at all?

If you want to criticize Obamacare, and many of us on the Left do just that, then criticize the context that gave birth to Obamacare. Otherwise, the criticism strongly appears to be nothing more than a opportunistic, partisan attack. And what is worse is that when Christians conduct such an attack, the reputation of the Gospel is sullied to many nonConservatives who need to hear it. 

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

Jan 20

Below is a comment that eventually led to me being blocked on the Acton Blog. I made a general comment about the "basic conservative message" to the poor. One of the moderators demanded that I apologize for my "lies" against conservatives. I asked if he could show why my interpretation of the conservative message was unfair. So he blocked me instead. The conversation regarding the blocking was post on the threads of different posts.

To Joe Carter's blogpost on what auto racing in Finland can teach us about poverty.


Chilean economist, Manfred Max-Neef, says that there is only one way to understand poverty. That way is to be poor, to live in poverty. And since the poor are not a monolith, then to understand poverty, one needs to be poor in more than one way. Max-Neef compares understanding poverty to understanding love. He says that one can know about love, but unless one falls in love, one will never understand it. And he says the same is true about poverty and so he lived among the poor to get an education from them.

And yet, the Conservative perspective, and that perspective is expressed in many places in addition to this blog, tries to understand poverty from the perspective of the haves. Thus, the basic conservative message to the poor becomes, "Poverty is your fault. And if you want to escape poverty, you have to change because we aren't going to." That is the premise on which all other the conservative messages to the poor is based. And the preaching of that message is no more loud and clear than when Conservatives talk about minimum wage. For they say that if you make our business people pay you any more than we do now, we must fire some of you and not hire others. Why? It is because business people aren't going to change from maximizing their own profits. They are not going to change regardless of how their actions affect others.

All of this is important since we are coming up to Martin Luther King Jr. day. It is important because on that day, we will describe King as someone who has jumped on the bandwagon of our concerns and causes rather than the person who is constantly preaching repentance to us by saying that we need a revolution of values because the three problems of racism, economic injustice, and militarism are inextricably linked. Remember that when he was assassinated, King was working for higher pay and some degree of economic injustice for Memphis garbage collectors. Having said that, what do you think King would be saying about our minimum wage debate?

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

The following are the blocked messages that followed an Acton's blog moderator had with me.


To Marc Vander Maas on Joe Carter's what auto racing in finland can teach us about poverty

Marc,

I understand the emotional reaction. But at some time, the emotions behind the reaction must be logically explained. If my analysis is so wrong, please tell me how conservatives have understood poverty from the have-not perspective when they never criticize the system. Whether it is the minimum wage debate or using auto racing as an analogy, when will conservatives speak from the position of the have-nots. In fact, when have conservatives first lived with the poor and then written about poverty like the person I cited above? Max-Neef actually lived with the poor because he knew that the economics language he was so fluent in meant nothing to those who were poor. So he lived with them to learn from them. And lest you think I am picking on Conservatives, the same goes for many liberals? We might say that though liberals do love to foster dependence, at least they are willing to modify the current system.

For both, the answer always revolves around how to get the poor to make use of the system. And the system is presented as physical science with fixed laws that act regardless of what kind of economy is employed. 

Finally, yes, I am a religious conservative and a former political conservative. Before 2004, I had never voted for a Democrat. I strictly hold to the 5 fundamentals of Christian Fundamentalism. And what I am writing here is simply a reflection of what I have and heard from conservatives both here and elsewhere. The answer to the poor is to become like the haves so you can work the system. But people on Left, such as Howard Zinn, saw too many others who worked hard and were never lifted out of poverty.

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

To Joe Carter on cars and freedom from racial segregation

But aren't a multiplicity of cars a cause for environmental concern?

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

Jan 21

To Marc Vander Maas on family values and  minimum wage post on why acton is banning my comments

Marc,

Answering questions with questions is not evasive, it is a way of dialog, of thinking about what was said. I didn't do that all of the time, but when asked, I explained how my questions related to the questions being asked. But that didn't satisfy you because you wanted to dictate how I was suppose to answer your simple, direct questions. I gave you the content but not the form.

But look at the attitude expressed at my ideology, let alone me. It is as if you have nothing to learn from those on the left. I wouldn't say the converse of that. I think both sides have something to learn from the other. In addition, I haven't expressed the disdain toward conservatives that has been expressed against me. Yes, I have criticized conservative reactions to specific subjects. For example, when conservatives repeatedly say that jobs will be lost if the minimum wage is increased without being willing to criticize the system that allows for that, such behavior deserves criticism. 

As for my ideological cousins, what you have minimized the significant differences such as authoritarianism and elite-centered between the Leftism I follow and that old elite-centered Leftism. You dismissed those differences in favor of magnifying the role of collectivism in the tyrannies of the Soviet Union and Red China. And even when I cited examples of my ideological cousins who strongly criticized the tyrannies you wished to associate me with, you seemed to have ignored the examples. 

And why I interpreted the blocking of my comments because you don't your readers to read them is because you really didn't offer a logical challenge to my comments. I have seen other conservatives logically challenge my comments, but not here.

You are right, yous guys have the right to ban who you want and for whatever reason you want. But how we treat others is a reflection on us. I wanted give-take and too many times that was met with more emotion than logic. That doesn't mean that I was never too emotional, but note how in the auto-racing comments, I asked for specifics as to why my interpretation of the Conservative position was wrong. What I got in return, that is after the accusations, was silence That goes back to the previous paragraph. And I understand that. I was like that in defense of conservatism back in the 90s and before. Group loyalty does that to us whether we are Conservatives, Liberals, or Leftists and regardless of age. What really helped me shy away from that kind of group loyalty is the realization that that kind of loyalty is from tribalism or a gang mentality. What also helped me shy away from that was the Occupy Movement. That is because while many people were looking to us for ideological answers, we were saying that the solution is found methods that foster participatory economics and politics. And we weren't pure in how we did things. We showed internal violence from our own tribalism to the police and we sought to conquer the 1% rather than to include them by winning them over. And our future correction of those mistakes depends on whether we will read people like Martin Luther King. 

So I will continue to comment and whether you wish to include them is your business.

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

Comments Which Conservatives Block from Their Blogs For Jan 1, 2014

This is a new category of posts. It is dedicated to those conservative blogs that have blocked my comments for various reasons. IMO, they have blocked my comments because they don't want their readers reading my criticisms of their conservatism. It is for those blogs that I am creating this new kind of post. This post will be posted on Wednesdays.

Finally, since comments are not edited as well as blogposts, please excuse the grammatical errors that will occur more often with the comments.

Dec 20

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on Duck Dynasty's star being fired for comments about homosexuality in the Gospel Coalition Blog

Part of the problem here is a pendulum swing, homosexuality use to be a crime, and part of it is that we don't know how to respectfully oppose homosexuality in a public forum. During an email discussion at work, a colleague called for either me to apologize for saying homosexuality was wrong or for the school to fire me. There was no threat to my job because I stated my views showing respect to homosexuals as equals and that is how the administration saw it as well as my colleagues who disagreed with me. 

I don't think we can respectfully oppose homosexuality while comparing it to bestiality or other gross sins. It is comparable to adultery and fornication, however. And in comparing it with adultery and fornication, we can speak to homosexuals as equals not because we have engaged in those sins, but because many of us have been tempted to engage in them.

In addition, we cannot respectfully oppose homosexuality by opposing same-sex marriage out of fear that its legalization will normalize homosexuality. Should we oppose freedom of religion because it normalizes other faiths besides Christianity? And how do we deal with that kind of normalization? See, we cannot respectfully oppose homosexuality if we insist that society stigmatizes gays. That is to have society treat gays as less than heterosexuals. 

If we want to publicly oppose homosexuality while minimizing society's scorn, we need to speak to gays respectfully and as equals realizing that past Christians have made gays victims of injustice. 

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

To Sarah Stanley's blogpost which showed an interview involving Stewart Varney, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Father Sirico discussing Pope Francis's statements about 'unfettered capitalism.' This appeared on the Acton Blog

It seems that the interview was an attempt at damage control. In paragraph 56 of his Apostolic Exhortation, the Pope wrote the following:

This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control.

There is no way to get around the meaning of what the Pope wrote. The problems which the Pope has observed are due to "the autonomy of the marketplace" and the rejection of the right states to hold the marketplace accountable. But the participants in this interview seem to deny both of these points as well assert that it only the marketplace that can correct the errors. Perhaps we could call this approach, "Marketplace Utopia"

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

Dec 31

To Marc Vander Maas's comment on Joe Carter's blogpost on minimum wage and family values

I should note here that Acton has just begun to publish my comments again. But the publishing of my comments has sometimes been delayed so what is written below might still appear but is so far blocked. I wanted the comment below to be published especially because of the 2nd to last paragraph. That paragraph is crucial in understanding the differences between some political-economic conservatives and myself.

Marc,
I read a number of conservative sources including this blog. And they are consistent in saying that the raising of the minimum wage results in the drop in employment rates. 

But I haven't read a conservative who publicly writes about this saying that raising the minimum wage will result in a drop in the employment rate under the current conditions. The conservatives I have read and heard universally declare that employment rates are inversely related to the minimum wage and thus if we raise the minimum wage, we will put more people out of work. It is from that that the connection which the conservatives I read and hear make between minimum wage and employment rates sounds like exploitation or blackmail. And perhaps those who belong to the working poor see that connection in the same way I do. I know that the ones with whom I marched with on Dec. 5th feel that way and their experiences, feelings, and views are often ignored in these discussions.

Also, the only conservative I know who favors raising the minimum wage believes that such a raise should depend on the living expenses of the region so that it should be regionally based--something I agree with. In fact, I believe I even mentioned this, or tried to, before. This conservative doesn't write on the blogs or uses a public podium to express his views. But he is both a business owner and a good personal friend and we debate economics all of the time. 

Now if there are conservatives who publicly support the raising of the minimum wage whom I don't know about, cite them. That would be a useful and appreciated correction.  For the observations I have made about conservatives here are based on exposure. The ones to whom I have had access warn against raising the minimum wage because of the consequences they foresee. Unfortunately, these same conservatives say little about the current drawbacks of keeping the minimum wage where it is.

Finally, I believe that the real crux of our disagreement has to do the belief held by many, but not all, conservatives, that individual liberty is the only liberty. Such a view sees democracy as being one of several threats to liberty. So when I write that we should listen to the facts on the ground, I am writing from a perspective that says that we should use democratic mechanisms and procedures to both listen and respond. This allows for more stakeholder participation in the governing of our economy. So I agree with you when you write that Hunter Baker approaches listening to the facts on the ground from a different perspective. And I strongly disagree with him on whether raising the minimum wage is a family value. 

And Marc, thank  you for responding.

.

The Tea Party's Lines In The Sand

Today's link is from Acton Institute's blog and is posted by Marc Vander Maas (click here for the link). It consists of a video interview of Dr. Samuel Gregg of the Acton Institute and was done to promote his book, Tea Party Catholic: The Catholic Case For Limited Government, A Free Economy, And Human Flourishing. The contents of this review, however, will be what was covered in the interview and the blog discussion afterwards between Marc Vander Maas and myself.

There were two lines drawn in the sand during the interview. The first was what should we do about the worldwide but silent persecution of Christians particularly in Syria. This persecution is resulting in over 100,000 Christians being killed in one year alone. We are calling this persecution silent because of the lack of attention it draws from the media and politicians. The second line in the sand here is one over small government and less interference between government and business.

My fellow Christians are in a horrible dilemma in Syria. They are being protected by an abusive tyrant, President Bashar al-Assad. The 2011 Arab Spring, Syria style, morphed into a bloody and brutal civil war. The Christian community in Syria is receiving a large part of the violence by some rebel forces because of the longterm Christian support for the government. Their enemies are the varied groups of Islamic extremists who make up only part of the rebellion. In this interview, Gregg makes a point of the lack of media and political attention to the persecution and killing of Christians worldwide. And as if some of the world was listening, the USA Today posted an article in September on the targeting of Christians occurring in Syria (click here for the article). In addition, the European Parliament just publicly condemned the attacks on Christians in Pakistan, Syria, and Iran (click here for the article). Note that these seemingly contradictions to Gregg's claim occurred after the interview.

Some of the persecution Christians face in these countries revolve around the approach some Muslims take to Islamic religious laws while Christians are also attacked because of the friends they have chosen to hang around with. The latter point applies to the Christians in and out of Syria. We have already mentioned the Syrian Christians' ties with an oppressive government. Outside of Syria, one only needs to note how America, which is perceived representing Christianity by some, has provided an unbalanced support for Israel such that in most cases, the US has Israel's back regardless of how Israel treats the Palestinians. We could also note how the US has also supported tyrannical leaders, like Saddam Hussein during the 1980s, because of the financial benefits such support has provided.

Anyone who has an inkling of past history can then easily see the association that a few Muslims might understandably make between Christianity oppressing the the vulnerable with what Mohammad witnessed between the polytheistic religions of his day and their treatment of the poor. 

Thus, the longterm solution for the current persecution of Christians is to change one's friends. Instead of Syrian Christians buying their safety by supporting the government, they should do what they can to join in opposition to their government. That opposition does not have to be violent. There is nonviolent opposition to the government in Syria (click here for more information). Just for conscience's sake, Christians should oppose tyranny even when they benefit from it.

Likewise, American Christians must push their country toward providing a conditional, balanced support for Israel. That is, support for Israel must be based on their treatment of the Palestinians and the land. When Israel abuses the Palestinians or continues to steal Palestinian land, Christians must call on America to oppose Israel and do all it can to nonviolently stop Israel from harming the Palestinians.

Such changes would not eliminate all persecution of Christians in the Middle East. But what these changes can bring is an example of or setting the precedence for being more committed to principle than partisanship. Without such a commitment, tribalism rules. And as long as tribalism reigns, relative morality gives way to barbarity and the cycle of violence continues. In contrast to tribalism,  Christians can provide a good influence in the Middle East by speaking against tyranny and oppression regardless of who its practitioner is. This applies to Christians both in and out of Syria.

The second Tea Party line drawn in the sand is one over the size and power of the government. What provides a dilemma for the Tea Party here is the use of the Constitution to call for a small government that practices a laissez-faire relationship with business, which is what Gregg calls for in the interview, is that the Constitution was originally written and sold to provide a stronger federal government than what existed before. James Madison points this out in Federalist #10 when he writes

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. 

This statement made by Madison is an argument supporting a stronger Union in contrast greater states' rights -- though we could argue that Madison opposed any government effort at disturbing the financial status quo. We could also point to my quotation of Madison from the Constitutional debates in favor of insulating the Senate from public opinion. 

But what should also be pointed out to Tea Party supporters is that any call for a smaller government is also a call for a more limited democracy. Though the call for a weaker democracy definitely fits the purposes of many of our nation's founders, it also allows for more tyranny to be practiced by elites in the private sector. For the less a democratic government can provide checks on business, the greater the power of those in the private sector not only to create their own wealth but to gain that wealth by exploiting customers, communities, the environment, and workers.

The Tea Party call for a smaller government is nothing more than giving in to a fatalism regarding how government will rule. The Tea Party's limited vision of government is that it can only act as an alien force for its own interests. Certainly, that is how government appears to work today. But we should ask if the government acts that way because the population is minimally involved in the democratic process by reducing democracy to voting every x number of years. In any case, the Tea Party's warning about the dangers of government is aided by the lack of involvement by public.

Instead of calling for as small a government as possible, we should involve ourselves as much as possible so that government is adequately pressured to act for the welfare of the people more than for its own interests or the interests of private sector elites.

The points about Christians associating with the wrong people and about the pitfalls of too small a government because of to little interest by the people are missed by Tea Party Catholics such as Dr. Samuel Gregg. And what we see in this interview is an age old 
alliance of conservative authoritarian religion with conservative authoritarian politics. Here, the politics is authoritarian because it revolves around elites. The fact that these elites are from the private sector does not negate the fact that any time power is consolidated, we have authoritarianism. So we should not be fooled by the call to reduce government. Such a call does not work against the consolidation of wealth and power because it simply moves the power out of the hands of an elected government and puts it in the hands of non-elected, private sector elites instead.