Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 7, 2018

Nov 4

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that cites a Joseph Loconte article on Luther’s 95 theses and what that did to promote religious liberty and a free conscience. This appeared in the Acton blog.

There are problems with Loconte's article on Luther and conscience. Besides the fact that appeals to our conscience do have a limit, we should note what else Luther supported. He sided with wealth and power by supporting a brutal suppression of the Peasant's Revolt as well as he, later on in life, expressed strong anti-Semitism sentiments and suggested harsh treatment of the Jews in Germany with the purpose of seeing them gone through attrition.

From these two facts, we see that even Luther put limits on the conscience: the consciences of some with whom he disagreed. The limits we should note about the conscience here is that we can't excuse our oppression of others on our consciences. This excusing of visiting injustice others occurred during Jim Crow when some Christians used the Scriptures to defend segregation and white supremacy. Here one could say that they included an appeal to consciences as a defense of their abuse of others. At least that is how they saw it and the same could be said of those who owned slaves or supported slavery that preceded Jim Crow.

How some Christians used their religious beliefs to defend the oppression of Blacks is an important point to bring up here because a similar defense is being made for Christians being able to discriminate against the the LGBT community. Though there are significant differences between the past marginalization of Blacks in during slavery and Jim Crow and how many religiously conservative Christians want to discriminate against the LGBT community today, the basic theme of not sharing society with a targeted group as equals is what both kinds of discrimination have in common.

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

Nov 5

To Caroline Roberts and her blogpost that references an article by Samuel Gregg that speaks of what is good and bad about our economy. In listing what is bad, Loconte lists several entitlement programs as causing current and future harm to our economy. Roberts’s article appeared in the Acton blog

In actuality, the article cited (see  https://stream.org/economy-booming-but-theres-trouble/ ) is rather disingenuous with its claims about the economy and especially about entitlement programs.
Is the economy improving? Yes, but it has been for a while especially during much of Obama's Presidency. In other words, part of the success of the economy has to do with the momentum created by what went on during the Obama Administration.
But is the economy improving for everyone? No. Wealth disparity continues to grow and with that there is a growing disparity in political power so that the wealthiest gain more and more political power. Wages for many jobs have not increased significantly for decades when accounting for inflation. Basically, we have an economy that revolves around the whims of major shareholders rather than one that accounts for the needs for everyone.

The grouping of entitlement programs as being blamed for 70% of the Federal budget is deliberately deceptive. Both Social Security and Medicare are self-funded and thus cannot negatively contribute to the National Deficit or Debt. In fact, the Federal Government has borrowed more money from the Social Security Trust fund to finance its spending than any other lender including China. Realize that that fund is financed by individual payers for their collective future for when they retire and much of that spending goes to corporations. Thus we are seeing a transfer of funds from the middle and lower economic classes to the higher ones. Also, to include Social Security and Medicare with programs that are not self-funding in this 70% of Federal spending is deliberately dishonest. In addition, one of the reasons why we have some current spending problems with Medicare is because of Federal laws that prohibit Medicare from negotiating lower drug costs with Pharmaceutical companies.

To merely call self-funded programs like Social Security and Medicare entitlement programs is false labeling. To call the non-self funded programs entitlement programs without including other labels is highly selective. Along with Social Security and Medicare, these programs are survival programs for many in this nation.

From an overall perspective, the most apparent reason for calling for cuts in these entitlement programs is that those with wealth want to pay less and less in taxes while enjoying the benefits from living in and/or doing business in our nation at the current and previous tax rates. Basically we have an ongoing Ayn Rand Coup of the government. But let's suppose we cut those "entitlement programs," what happens? This has been occurring in Greece and even the IMF has come to the conclusion that national austerity policies lead to economic harm. From other perspectives, these cuts lead to a society and culture that value things over people. Such according to Martin Luther King Jr maintain what he called the 'triplets of evil': racism, materialism, and militarism.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 28, 2018

March 23

To John Horvat and his blogpost on a Christian approach to the tariff issue. In his article, Horvat sees the tariff issue as being argued over by two groups: those who promote free trade with the fewest possible restraints vs those who want to control trade according to how it impacts culture. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Though Horvat makes a useful distinction between the economics of those who favor as much free trade as possible vs those who want to check economics at the door of culture, he misses a basic point about economics. That being that those who favor more and more unrestricted free trade are not approaching the subject as economists; instead, their only interest here is in commerce. For commerce is defined as (see  http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/commerce.html  ):

Exchange of goods or services for money or in kind, usually on a scale large enough to require transportation from place to place or across city, state, or national boundaries.

On the other hand, economics is defined as (see  https://www.britannica.com/topic/economics   ):

[the] social science that seeks to analyze and describe the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth.

What is missing from the free trade perspective is the paying of attention to production. For production involves workers and then the society and the culture that depends on those workers. Production also involves the environmental impact of production as well. What the advocates of free trade focus on are the immediate returns from the exchange of goods. This feeds the embracing of the ethic that calls for maximizing profits. And the maximizing profits ethic focuses first on the welfare of the owners. A secondary focus is paid to the consumers but only to the extent that it serves the owners. For the maximizing profits ethic is a cannibalizing ethic that devours all other ethical standards and values. For all other standards and values must be sacrificed when one makes one's goal the creation of as much profit as possible.

The emphasis on maximizing profits makes Horvat's suggestion of Natural Protectionism DOA. For Natural Protectionism is nothing more than Adam Smith's teaching on the Invisible Hand, if memory serves. So once owners, and then consumers after them, embrace the maximizing profits ethics, concern for local preferences is easily sacrificed just as all other standards and values are to serve the maximizing of profits.

Aside from  what has just been noted above, Horvat's description of those who want to at least somewhat control economics because of its impact on culture is a portrayal of those who want democracy to control economics, which includes commerce.

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

To Dan Hugger and his blogpost on self-deceit, utopian ideologies, and Communism. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Not knowing how the the term Communism is being used above, I will offer the following points.

First, Communism/Socialism is not a monolith. And note that not all Socialists have utopian expectations. How can that be? It is possible because not all who follow Marx fully agree with him or interpret him the same way.

Second, those who claim that their pet political-economic system is the best of all time and cannot improved on or be beat by another system have already implied that they hold to a utopia of their own. Unlike Marx's utopia, their utopia is a relative one as its results are compared with the results of other systems. Thus, those who believe that free markets are the all time best way of doing commerce, note I wrote 'commerce,' not 'economics,' and that they cannot be improved on have already implied that we have entered a utopia of sorts. And then what was said above about utopian ideologies applies to systems that are promoted as producing relative utopias.

Third, conservatives who portray the Communism/Socialism practiced in the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, etc. as the only form of Communism/Socialism that exists are either being disingenuous or have deliberately limited their reading about Communism/Socialism to sources that are wholly antagonistic to Marx and Marxism. That means that they are being either deliberately deceitful or they are speaking out of ignorance. Those who have never read Marx and the writings of his various followers are free to say what they want to about Marxism, they are just unqualified to do so.

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

March 24

To Joe Carter with his blogpost that cites Samuel Gregg’s attempt to make a patriotic case for free trade. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Whether a patriotic case can be made for free trade depends on what we identify as being American and thus what we call patriotic. According to the cited article by Samuel Gregg (see http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/03/21211/  ), embracing free trade is good for commerce, allows America to be more innovating, and forces America to be more flexible and adaptable. All of that goes into what Gregg, and Carter, think of as making America great and it is that search for America's greatness that Gregg calls patriotic.

But there are problems with what free trade apologists advocate. For one thing, and Gregg's article provides an example for this,  free trade apologists fail to give America's past protectionist policies their due. Yes, there were trade-offs with those policies, but those policies allowed America to develop its own industries survive foreign competition. For free trade allows foreign nations with more developed industries to compete in a developing nation with domestic industries and those domestic industries often have less chance to survive (see  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/ha-joon-chang-protectionism-the-truth-is-on-a-10-bill-5334137.html  ), Thus free trade can partially enforce an economic caste system as more developed nations are found 'kicking away the ladder' of protectionism from developing nations (see  http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm ).

In addition, as Gregg sees free trade calling on workers to be more 'adaptable and plan for the future more carefully, workers are more likely to see the work place as being more volatile as the continual switching from job to job becomes the norm. This puts many American workers in a bind for not only must they make enough to pay for immediate expenses, they are also expected to prepare for sizable fuure expenses such as college education for their children and their own retirement. In the meantime, those who benefit most from the free trade that is meant to provide lower costs for the consumer are benefiting the most from the deal. This might serve as a partial explanation for why America has seen a steady increase in wealth disparity over the past few decades. All of that shows that free trade apologists are more concerned with a tunnel view of commerce as opposed to the wide-angle picture that is provided by the discipline of economics. For economics is not only concerned with  commerce, but it is concerned with production as well.

Also, those who define America by its performance in commerce might have grounds for wrapping the flag around free trade. But those who place a high value on democracy cannot. For free trade continually severs business's  accountability to the government. And when that government is a working democracy, then we find that free trade makes businesses less responsive to democracy.

Finally, those who condemn "Communism" for the unintended consequences of its quest for utopia while promoting free trade for all nations in all circumstances are themselves promoting their own utopia. In reality, both free trade and protectionism are human models of thought with neither one being neither a monolith nor perfect. Free trade and protectionism stand on opposing poles on the same continuum. And varying degrees of each one works at different times for different nations. Those who believe otherwise are the ones who show themselves to be least flexible and adaptable.

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

March 27

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that uses the myth of a frog that refuses to leave a pot of slowly boiling water with the scientific consensus on climate change. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

What I learned from this article is that frogs who reside in slowly boiling water can still demonstrate more intelligence than some humans. I also learned that theologians struggle with logic. Take the comparison of the past accepted truth that earth was the center of the universe and that science is settled on climate change used in order to give an example of how a once accepted truth was exposed as being false. Besides the fact that the latter is stated too ambiguously to make a legitimate comparison, the data on which each accepted truth is based is significantly different in terms of sources and amount of data. Such differences makes the comparison invalid for the point being made.

However, the association of religiously conservative Christianity with a rejection of the warnings about climate change does harm the reputation of the Gospel to both political non-conservatives and even some political conservatives. And considering that businesses stand to lose profits when acting on the available scientific consensus on climate change, we should remember the times in Church history when the dominant branch of the Church sided with wealth and power during pre-revolutionary times of nations like France, Russia, and Spain. That is because when their respective revolutions came, not only was the reputation of the Gospel harmed, Christians suffered unnecessary persecution for the alliance.

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

Oct 17

To John Gallagher and his blogpost that commends President Trump for withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

The logic and facts used by Gallagher in the above article are deeply flawed. For one thing, criticisms of the Paris Climate Agreement from environmentalists is because the agreement is inadequate, not invasive.  And it seems that the Trump Administration's objections to the agreement has nothing to do with forging our nation's own path in protecting the environment. For his administration is cutting the clean air and water standards set by the Obama Administration. Rather, the actions of his administration revolve around cutting social responsibilities for corporations so that they can increase short-term profits and ROIs for investors instead of spending money on protecting the environment.

Gallagher's use of the failure of the Kellogg-Briand Pact as an argument for rejecting the Paris Climate Agreement is logically flawed. How is that we  can develop a precedent for refusing to participate in all international agreements based on a failed agreement from the 1920s?

And celebrating Trump's withdraw from the agreement because it is an exercise in national sovereignty when the issue is the environmental health of the world is like celebrating the decision of a person who drives their car without any regard for traffic laws as an exercise in personal freedom.

Some controls that government puts on us citizens are valid and are for the protection and welfare of others. The same applies to some international agreements that can serve to protect other nations and promote their welfare.

Whether its Gallagher's thinking that one failed international agreement implies that we must reject all international agreements or  his warning that progressives are looking to control our future implying that we must reject all progressive proposals and ideas exhibit all-or-nothing thinking patterns that reject the notion that we examine proposals and agreements on a case-by-case basis. Such thinking is not psychologically healthy for it is overly simplistic and fails to recognize the complexities of the world around us.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that celebrates the reduction in the number of people who living in extreme poverty across in the world. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition blog.

The logic behind Carter's article is flawed? Why? Because the eradication of extreme poverty is based on the measuring of a single variable based on a single standard without regard for understanding any of the dynamics involved. So assume that extreme poverty has diminished, what grounds, given in the article, do we have for concluding that such a reduction will continue or mean anything?

We should note the price China has had to pay for the reduction of extreme poverty in their nation. Not only do you have many people in China working in sweatshop labor conditions, we have seen a monumental increase in the pollution of the environment there. In addition, how many people in China actually escape extreme poverty just because they are living on $1.90 or more per day? Does living on $1.90 per day in major city in China mean that one is not living in extreme poverty? And what should we say about China's political/economic system, which is far different from the political/economic system in Western nations simply because fewer people in China are living on less than $1.90 per day?

We might also ask who suffered in order for China to reduce the number of people? Are there more people living in poverty, though not extreme poverty as measured by the less than $1.90 per day standard elsewhere because they lost their jobs to Chinese workers?

And when talking about India, we might want to consider that the number of people who are forced into slave labor has significantly increased in the recent past. So do slaves makeup some of those who are now living on $1.90 or more per day? If so, how the reduction in number of those who live on $1.90 per day significant?

How much is there to really celebrate here?

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

To Caroline Roberts and her blogpost that cites a Samuel Gregg article on the relationship between intellectuals and the free economy. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Link to cited article:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/10/20255/

There are at least a couple of Gregg's ideas that need to be challenged. First, that there is more than one role government can play with regard to the economy. Yes, government can see itself as a manager of the economy. And in order to justify such a position, government can claim to be a vanguard for the interests of the people. But that claim to having a vanguard role, as seen with Lenin's hijacking of the Russian Revolution, can be more of a rationalization rather than a justification for exercising control in the nation's economy.

On the other hand, government can act as the representative of the people to those in business telling them how they can act in society. Whether government acts this way depends on the integrity of its elected representatives and/or a structure of  government where people are represented by both vocation. We should note that before Lenin hijacked the Russian Revolution, the creation of soviets was providing for the Russian government the capability to allow for the representation of people based on vocation provided that one's vocation was practiced by the proletariat. That kind of capability was rejected by both the Tsars and Lenin. That rejection exercised by Lenin triggered  Rosa Luxemburg's charge that Lenin had instituted a bourgeois dictatorship rather than a Marxist regime. We should note that in America, we are doubly represented by location with no representation by vocation for those jobs that are considered to be proletariat vacations.

BTW, we should note that government can also act as a servant of business. Whether we want to look at the neoliberal revolution-coups that existed in South America, such as in Chilé in 1973 or Argentina in the 1970s, we see that coups were supported by the US to install governments that were friendly to a kind of free market economy called neoliberalism. We should note that in such instances, only the markets were free while the government acted as a ice hockey enforcer on all those who resisted or sometimes even questioned the validity of radically free markets. We should note that some consider our political system to be an oligarchy rather than democracy (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ).

The second of Gregg's points that needs to be challenged is the roll of intellectuals in the economy. Gregg cited Marx's influence as an example where an intellectual gave direction for economics. Here we should note that intellectuals cannot provide a recognized way forward unless their analysis of the past or present resonates with the perceived experiences of enough people. Why was Marx seen as a leading intellectual? It was because of the accuracy of his analysis of both some of the past and the present economic conditions of his time. But for the analysis of any intellectual to gain public favor, the analysis must also resonate with the values of enough people. This is why Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged has become so influential. It is because her values that celebrates selfishness resonate with enough who have means and live privileged lives that her ideas are so influential in our economy. In that sense, the role of intellectuals, while providing leadership, does not provide the kind of leadership over the economy which Gregg sees.





  

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 10, 2017

May 3

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote challenging the claims that 97% of climate scientists see the relationship between see CO2 has increased or that climate change will lead to hardships. This appeared on Heidelblog

It is very unfortunate when Christian leaders take the side of business in discussing issues like climate change. The above quote on this blogpost without offering any opposing view is such an example is not just unfortunate, it can be irresponsible depending on how it is presented. We should note that prior to the French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions, that the predominant branch of the Church in those countries supported those with wealth.  And so now we come to climate change.

Below are a few links pointing to more than just polls taken about CO2 levels. The first one is a study surveys the literature on whether the climate is warming due to human activity. The overwhelming consensus is that it is true.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

We might also want to note joint statements of scientific organizations like the ones below:

    1.    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/292/5520/1261
    2.    http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

But we should note that with the above joint statements, concern is expressed over the results and the need to stabilize the rising CO2 levels in both the atmosphere and the oceans. There already are observable results of our current climate change. A few small islands in the Pacific have disappeared, low level areas in parts of the East Coast of the United States are experiencing and increase in non-weather related flooding, and the thawing of the permafrost in the Arctic which results in the release of methane gas, which is another greenhouse gas are some of the effects that are observable now. And below is a link to an unexpected result.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/113/42/11649.full

In addition, we have a statement signed by a number of scientists regarding the lack of respect that the scientific study on climate change is receiving.

http://www.pacinst.org/app/uploads/2013/02/climate_statement3.pdf

One thing we should note about the article linked to above is that it provides a partial listing of the negative effects of the warming of the climate. These include:

    1.    Ocean acidification

    2.   Sea level rise

But what does all of that mean? According to the last article, it means the following:

The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

While no one can accurately predict what exactly will happen due to the warming of our climate, a number of models point negative consequences for a large number of people. And there is consensus on that point as well.

The article being cited is important to read. But so is the literature provided by scientific organizations let alone other individual scientists. In addition, we should note that one source cited by the article quoted from above about scientific views sometimes come from a non scientific source. Prof Lindzen, in an effort to challenge the claim that ocean acidification is an increasing concern, cites a report from the Frontier Center for Public Policy, and think tank group that favors neoliberal economics. There are other problems with some of the other things Lindzen said.
Though we can't look into the future clearly, there is enough evidence to cause much concern as well as motivation for changing how we live. And yet, it seems, that some in the Church side with those who don't want short-term profits for business to be threatened. So why do some religious authorities step out of their area of expertise to weigh in on these matters on the side of those serving mammon?

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost critquing the prosperity gospel of people like Oral Roberts and others. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Being a graduate of ORU and having attended the university while Oral was president of the school, I can safely say that the above assessment of the prosperity gospel is a decent one. One thing that was left out was the Scripture passage often used by Oral and others to defend their emphasis on prosperity: 3 John vs 2 (see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=3+John+2&version=NIV ).

We should also note that Oral looked at the prosperity part of his preaching as part of the stand standard gospel. Oral believe in what we would call the Gospel that says that we are sinners and are saved from our sins through faith in the work of God's only son, Jesus Christ. Perhaps his background of suffering from respiratory illness early in life caused him to seek an interpretation of God's Word that would prevent others from experiencing what he suffered.

But we should consider one other point here. Does the secular world have its own version of the prosperity gospel? That is does the secular world believe in and promote an economic ideology that promises great prosperity while sacrificing social responsibility & solidarity, human rights, and the environment? This is an important question for all of us religiously conservative American Christians to consider if we want to remain consistent in avoiding those beliefs that promise wealth despite the price others must pay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 7

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that answer Stephen Fry’s blaming God for the problems in the world. This appeared in Heidelblog.

This is a very good article and its title gives the most appropriate answer to Stephen Fry's rant blaming God for the evil in the world. And yet, religiously conservative Christians balk at applying the title to our nation and the problems it faces because of  its foreign, its economic system, and its domestic policies.

Such both brings and shows a disconnect with how the Scriptures describe the world. If the Scriptures define man as being depraved as they do, why are some of us religiously conservative Christians so defensive regarding American foreign policies as being sinful and producing sinful results? This is especially be true when we see the relationship between our foreign policies and the terrorist groups proliferating around the world is pointed out to them.

And when we look at the exploitation that is built into our Capitalist economic system, especially with today's neoliberal Capitalism, how can we not partially attribute many of our social and economic problems to that  system? And when you add that domestic policies that favor the wealthy and hurt the vulnerable, again, how can we not partially fault the systems that our nation so deeply relies on?
The disconnect that exists for us religiously conservative Christians and we seeing significant faults in how America does things is that the line "it's our fault" is forbidden from being applied when it implicates our sacred cows. Our founding fathers, The  Constitution,  our prosperous way life especially in the suburbs, and our nation's domination over other nations would all be implicated in sin. And then when you add climate change to the mix, the admission of sin is too great a burden to bear because we enjoy so much of what we have.

Thus, the line "it's our fault" is partially said disingenuously and that is very obvious to many unbelievers. And because our message about sin is said disingenuously, many unbelievers don't see us as being credible when we talk about their sin.

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

May 9

To Joe Carter and his blogpost containing a video praising the merits of comparative advantage in trading. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The overly simplistic view of trade to support comparative advantage is nothing but disingenuous. We should only note history to judge whether comparative advantage always works. We should note that when the U.S. started, it was told to follow a comparative advantage trade approach. The U.S. was told that Adam Smith promoted comparative advantage. And yet, the U.S. did the opposite. The U.S. used tariffs to allow certain industries to develop (see https://chomsky.info/20120811/   ). This gave time for U.S. to expand its talents rather than stay with the status quo. So if 3rd world nations followed the comparative advantage advice that the U.S. rejected during its beginning, those 3rd world nations can follow the road not traveled by the U.S. But in so doing, what are those nations trading?

The video presentation is overly simplistic. How can it not be when individual people are used to serve as metaphors for the economies of whole nations? And here, the issue isn't that a nation must choose between trading in ways that follow a comparative advantage approach or it becoming totally isolated. The issue is whether richer nations can force comparative advantage trade approaches on other nations which would only serve to keep those other nations less self-sufficient and more dependent on the richer nations. 3rd world nations should have the right to use tariffs to protect industries they want to develop. But such doesn't mean that all trade is cut off.

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

To Devin Ryan and his blogpost that reports on the claims of Samuel Gregg on how to make America great again. The key point was that making America great again depends on increasing our nation’s economic growth primarily by cutting regulations. This appeared in the Acton Blog

There is either a paradox or contradiction presented here. On the one hand, America's greatness is measured solely by its economic output. On the other hand is the claim that economics is not being presented as an end in and of itself. Rather, It is a means to reducing poverty. This latter claim runs into problems. For only economic growth, spurred by decreasing regulations, is mentioned as our nation's saving grace in becoming "great again" and addressing poverty while nothing is said about other factors. Other factors include how our industries impact the environment or whether wealth disparity continues to grow in our nation. Could some of our problems with poverty be due to an unfair distribution of wealth? Martin Luther King Jr. thought so according to Tavis Smiley's biography of him.  And what should we say about those businesses that rely on government assistance programs to subsidize their payrolls because they pay some of their employees poverty wages? Couldn't better regulations address that issue or would those businesses be eager to pay all of their employees higher wages if regulations weren't holding them back?

Many regulations deal with protecting the environment or workers or other stakeholders. Therefore, merely reducing regulations should be seen as an overly simplistic approach to what ails the economy. If the government decides to reduce regulations, will it act as a bean counter in doing so or will it give a detailed account of the regulations being cut and why they are being cut? This is an important question especially because with publicly owned companies, their major shareholders sometimes become like absentee landlords by how they demand higher and higher returns on their investments. Many times these demands cost workers their jobs and/or bypass safeguards for the environment.

It seems to me that the conservative approach to our political-economic system is that government should represent and serve business interests only while people who are not business owners should rely on business to take care of and protect them. This leaves people out of the democracy formula. It also leaves people vulnerable to those business interests that are better served by exploiting them or the environment. A simple economic indicator of whether people are being exploited is whether our wealth and income disparities continue to grow as regulations are being cut.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 7, 2016

Nov 30

To Mike Edmonson and his blogpost on Evangelicalism’s 4 unique perspectives on politics. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

Christianity does not revolve around our own uniqueness, it revolves around the uniqueness of Christ and the Gospel. To focus on our own uniqueness merely imitates those from any other group where tribalism is strong. To show this, all we need to consider is the concept of American Exceptionalism and how people from other nations have also seen their own nations as being exceptional.

Another way of showing that our uniqueness is not unique is to look at each of the 4 perspectives on politics and show that they are not unique. Take the first perspective, which is our governmental perspective, for example:

Although elections are important, as believers we uniquely understand that elections are not ultimate.

Sorry but Howard Zinn made an activist career of putting elections and their leaders in their place. Anarchism and bottom-up forms of Socialism also regard elections as not being ultimate.

On the other hand, the belief that elections are ultimate in that we depend too much on our elected leaders to manage the government while we tend to our own business is a mark of embracing an authoritarian relationship with the government. And guess which institution is one of the greatest teachers on authoritarianism is. It is the Church where most of our relationships with others and God use authority figures as a center part of each relationship.

Take the second perspective, which is our moral perspective, as another example:

Wealthy business-owning American citizens baptized in Christ, for example, must deeply consider the practical wellbeing of the undocumented migrant worker and refugee also baptized in Christ. Christian civil engagement is not fundamentally self-interested.

Hate to bust Edmondson's bubble here but Socialists have him beat. For Socialists are not just concerned for the well-being of Christian migrant workers and refugees, they are concerned for all migrant workers and refugees. What Edomondson seems unaware of is that he is replacing self-interest with tribal interest. And what group, where tribalism is present, is not concerned with all of its members?

As for the third perspective which is our perspective on pain:

One of the most significant distinctions we have as God’s people is our compassion for the distressed. Deuteronomy 10:18 says God “executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing” (see also Exod. 22:22–23; Deut. 27:19; 2 Chron. 19:7; Ps. 68:5; and Ps. 146:9). Throughout Scripture, the Lord makes himself known through his practical care and concern for the most vulnerable and distressed

Here we need to compare how those in a Christian nation, especially Christians who tend to be politically conservative, with those from other nations. Until its Civil War, Syria was one of the leading nations in caring for refugees. Ironically here, most of the refugees whom Syrians took care of became refugees as a result of America's invasion of Iraq. Currently Jordan is one of the world's leaders in taking in and caring for refugees. As for Christian America, we only need to look at its political conservatives, who have more than their fair share of religiously conservative Christians, and their position on taking in refugees. That is because their position is not very good and this is especially evident by the support conservative Christians gave to Donald Trump in the election. There is no need here to mention Trump's views on immigration or the Republican Party's opposition to societal safety nets.

As for the forth perspective, if the beliefs expressed there were so strongly held, why did the majority of religiously conservative Christians vote for a candidate like Donald Trump? Issues like controlling immigration, changing the Supreme Court, and wanting to make America great again were reasons that greatly influence Christian voters.

Again, pointing our uniqueness as a way of proving Christianity to either ourselves or others is problematic. It is flawed because as people, we are not always as unique as we perceive ourselves to be or should  be. And once our lack of uniqueness is outed, our credibility as witnesses for Christ is greatly damaged.


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

To Jason Baxter and his blogpost about what the humanities can contribute to the modern world in the light of how our politicians are trying to make education more of a tech school experience. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Every time I read a conservative reference to the founding fathers which describes them as trying to limit government's power, I wonder if such conservatives have heard of decontextualization. That is because The Constitution was written with the intention of strengthening government power so that the Federal government could, in the future, better respond future insurrections. And the point of being better prepared to handle future insurrections was to maintain the status quo for the sake of the bondholders and the landowners and slaveholders where wealth was consolidated at that time. The then current insurrection that prompted the writing of that document was Shays Rebellion.  And all one has to do to realize that The Constitution was written to strengthen the federal government's power is to look up all of the references made to the militia. For the militia was to be armed and trained with funds from Congress and was to be under the command of the President. And one of the state purposes of the militia was to put down insurrections.

Furthermore, with the powers granted to the Senate, we should note how Senators originally received their office. They were appointed by their respective state legislators. That, along with their term in office, made Senators pretty much immune to popular opinion and with good reason. In arguing for the length of a Senator's term, it was Madison who said that the purpose of government was to 'protect the minority of the opulent from the majority.'

Along with the fact that only White, male, property owners could vote when The Constitution was ratified, we see a government that is as not limited as conservatives want to portray it. In fact, since The Constitution was written to preserve the status quo for the sake of America's own elites, Baxter's statement that Rubio and Walker are closer to Clinton than to our nation's founding fathers is a bit more problematic than Baxter realizes. For in that Walker, Rubio, and Clinton are striving to preserve a status quo that serves those with wealth and power, they are all in fact following in the footsteps of the majority of those who wrote The Constitution.

Thus, their, that is Walker, Rubio, and Clinton, wanting education to serve the welfare of the money-interests is in line with the intentions of our founding fathers. And so there is a certain irony when Baxter uses our nation's founding fathers to challenge the current deemphasis on the humanities in education. Baxter is completely correct in challenging the current emphasis on technology. He just does so from the wrong basis.

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

Dec 3

To Greg Forster and his blogpost that describes both America’s signs of death and its signs for hope. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

I heartily agree with much, though not all,  of the description of the problem. The solution, however, is problematic. But there is also a problem with the description of the problem. The problem with the description of the problem is that it doesn't tie together the similarities between what Hillary was offering and what Trump was offering.  Those similarities could be described with two labels: neoliberalism and neoconservatism.  Yes, their versions of both were different, but the general direction was the same.  With neoliberalism, both wanted to cut big businesses' social responsibilities and give them free reign in society. Hillary wanted to do that on the global scene with open markets and free trade; Trump wanted to do that on the domestic scene by reducing taxes and regulations. This somewhat illustrates why their versions of neoliberalism are different. While the Repubs want an express train to corporate rule, the Dems want a local train that offers amenities. But in the end, they destination is the same. After all, how different is Trump's promise to reduce regulations from trade agreements like the TPP that allow corporations to sue governments for any financial losses incurred by the laws a government passes? And yet, open markets would  rely on trade agreements like the TPP. And both Hilary and Trump have expressed the same concern over these agreements: it is American jobs not this corporate control. Plus, we also have to realize that with the presence of foreign investors, we really don't have any true American big businesses anymore

As for their shared neoconservative leanings, the only real difference between Hillary's and Trump's view of America's leadership in the world is that Trump wants America's allies to pay protection money for its military services and presence.  Plus we also have to ask ourselves why a free world needs a leader? For if the free world has a leader, is it truly free?

Despite missing their similarities, the  identification of battle between technocrats vs tribalists has much merit. But we also have to realize that patriotism is an exercise in tribalism as well. So if we are going to complain about Trump's economic nationalism, which is something not necessarily mentioned here, or his other forms of tribalism we have to complain about our military tribalism as expressed in patriotism as well. And we need to accurately define tribalism in the context of the world we live in. Tribalism is when group loyalty is so high that it trumps, no pun intended,  any commitment to  morals and absolute values. And tribalism can be based on what's listed above as well as ideology and economic class. Thus, we could say that Hillary's favoring of technocrats was a form of tribalism.

The solution resented is problematic for two reasons. First, the Church has, since the time of Constantine, generally stood with and supported wealth and power. Yes, there have been some intramural battles between wealth and power where the Church was split, but it still has, for the most part, stood with wealth and power.  This was true prior to the French, Spanish, and Russian Revolutions as well as  many other modern revolutions. It is most certainly true for the conservative Church in modern America. After all, the conservative Church in modern America was slow to even recognize our nation's problem with racism. And it wasn't the conservative Church that took the lead in battling racism. We should note that King was no conservative Christian theologian. The conservative Church in America, under the banner of patriotism, has been even slower in recognizing the immorality of many of America's wars. And where does the conservative Church stand in relation to unions and workers' relationship with employers? The conservative Church  predominantly supports small gov't and low taxes and few regulations and all of that favors those with wealth. And the conservative Church is not a big supporter of social safety nets because it believes that the Church should be in charge of providing relief and help, not the government.

Or we could go back to what was written in a report called The Crisis of Democracy where the Church is listed, along with the family, schools, and the military as institutions whose job was to teach people how to fit into society and take orders from those with authority. Here it would be helpful to note that that report was the liberal view of the role of the Church which was in response to the radical exercises of democracy during the 1960s. The The Crisis of Democracy called those radical exercises in democracy an 'excess of democracy.'

But it isn't just our history that makes the proposed solution problematic. What the above solution proposes is that the Church must have a place of supremacy in society that is based on the freedom of religion. And this is done by having society look to the Church for its temporal salvation. In such a scheme, where does the LGBT community fit in? And how about those whose suffering is prolonged by the Church's slowness in recognizing their problems just like the conservative Church was slow in recognizing our nation's problem with racism? And how can we call for a public discipleship while the Church shares society with others as equals? And if it doesn't share society with others as equals, then what other position than a place of supremacy does the Church want in society?

Yes, we need to share the Gospel to all. But we have to both acknowledge our past failures and look at how we can share society with all sorts of unbelievers as equals so that if a large number of people become converted, they will not be a part of marginalizing some group like the Church has for all America's history.


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

Dec 4

To Kyle Hanby and his blogpost that cites an article by Samuel Gregg which claims that protectionism is bad for us in the long run. This appears in the Acton blog.

Link for the article cited: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/1201/Can-economic-nationalism-keep-more-jobs-in-US

Just as location is everything in real estate, so labels are in persuasive articles.The 'economic nationalism' and 'free trade' labels serve as such examples. We should note that economic nationalism can mean economic self-rule. We should also note that if free trade is not popularly accepted, it becomes forced trade with the free part describing how those who benefit the most experience it.

We should also note that economic globalism has produced more than the alleged effect of lifting more people out abject poverty. It has caused a loss of many manufacturing and even service jobs in America causing a glut of people applying for low skilled labor jobs. That glut means less in wages for many people which is why over a billion dollars goes into subsidizing corporate payrolls via government assistance for the working poor. We should also note that economic globalization has involved the trafficking of people and to sweatshop factories. In addition, in the two nations that have allegedly seen the biggest decrease in poverty, which are China and India, we have seen slight to significant increases in slavery. In the mean time, Jeff Halper notes that the wealth disparity between nations has sharply increased.

Certainly any kind of self-rule that is based in some kind of tribalism is not good for anyone. But the reliance on the rule of economic elites as opposed to self-rule produces even worse results in the long run. For the rule of economic elites which we see in today's economic globalism not only increases wealth disparity in and between nations, in many of the nations which have embraced this kind of globalism, it destroys democracies and all of that occurs for the love of wealth. So why is a Christian blog encouraging a system that revolves around the love of wealth and the weakening of national sovereignty?

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

Dec 6

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on profits, wealth, and well-defined property rights. This appeared in the Acton blog.

We should first note that the Scriptures don't label money as being intrinsically evil; but they do call the love money the 'root of all kinds of evil.'

But second, what is said above about property rights is pretty much contradicted by Martin Luther King Jr. when he spoke against the Vietnam War:

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.

So while well-defined property rights are a key to the common good according to the article above, King states that while property rights and other things are more important than people, then the triplets of 'racism, materialism, and militarism' will forever plague us. We should note that well-defined property rights does not imply just property rights. A question that would be involved in determining just property rights would be this: Did all of James Madison's wealth belong to him seeing that much of it was the product of slave labor? We might ask the same when it comes to corporations that pay poverty wages to workers here and/or use workers from sweatshop factories abroad. We might also ask, why, if there is this economy of mutuality, do we have a growing wealth disparity within many nations as well as between nations?
 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For Deceember 16, 2015

Dec 9

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on our addiction to pseudo events in the news. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

The purpose of news about pseudoevents is to cause us to lose interest in real news and real events. And the less attention we pay to real news and real events, the less accountable those with wealth and power are to the rest of us.

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

Dec 12

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost containing a video of a Muslim woman claiming that much, if not the majority, of Muslims pose a threat to the West. This appeared in Heidelblog.

One of the problems with this post is that it removes the context from Islamic terrorism. While the title here talks about Global Islamism, it fails to mention America's Empire. It fails to mention how America, and the West, has intervened in Islamic nations. For America, that started in 1953 with the overthrow of a democratically elected government and the installation of a dictatorship as its replacement. For the West, it started in earlier when France and England took control of parts of the Middle East including what is now called Iraq? And what about the West's support for dictatorships such as the one in Saudi Arabia? And none of this mentions Israel's occupation of Palestine and the atrocities that it daily visits on the Palestinians. And before pinning anything on the Muslim religion, we should acknowledge how America has intervened in over 50 nations since WW II and that includes disrupting or overthrowing democracies over 30 times. Does that record show an adherence to the Western values of free speech and tolerance?

In his book Al-Qaeda: The True Story Of Radical Islam, Jason Burke, who approached this subject from an investigative journalistic point of view, noted that Islamic terrorism is not a monolith. Within Al-Qaeda, are both secular and religious participants. Within those Muslims who have participated in terrorism, there are both those with localized and global perspectives and goals. However, as the West continues to support the oppression of people in Islamic and other nations, eventually some start to join together. In addition, he noted that people get involved with terrorism when the available political structures offer no legitimate way to address grievances. Considering the brief record of American interventions cited above, is it possible that our nation's policies is significantly responsible for some of the Islamic terrorism we see in the world?

Note that if 1% of all Muslims are fighting some kind of Jihad, that would leave us with over 10 million radical Muslims to battle. As for the polls cited above, remember that what they want for where they live is not necessarily what they want for all nations. In fact, that was stated explicitly. And yet, there seems to be an effort here to associate Islamic terrorism with those advocating Sharia law. Thus some of the polls are used to give a false impression of what we are facing. In addition, the citation of such polls tell us little. Before drawing conclusions, what is need are the demographics of those participating in the polls.

This isn't to deny that there aren't serious problems with terrorism from terrorists with either local or global concerns. But these problems will never be adequately addressed by the kind of approach taken by this article. Rather than addressing the problem, articles like these simply promote attitudes and policies that both fan and add fuel to the flames. And that is not to mention the self-righteously oblivious view of one's own nation or group.

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

Dec 14

To Joe Carter and his blogpost citing the work of Samuel Gregg as he answers the Pope’s criticisms of Capitalism. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Gregg's writings show either an inability or unwillingness to criticize Capitalism. This is seen in his denial of Capitalilsm's materialism, which Martin Luther King Jr. called pernicious and as materialistic as what was attributed to Communism, as well as how it causes poverty through wealth disparity, and its relationship to the destruction of the environment. And what is not even mentioned in Gregg['s writings is mention of how globalizing trade agreements weakens national sovereignty and increase foreign investor sovereignty. And why that is mentioned by those who pride themselve on love of country is a mystery.

We should note here that as globalized Capitalism allegedly eliminates poverty, it sometimes does so at a  very high cost. For example, globalization is credited with bringing the largest group out of poverty, the Chinese. However, when one llooks at the sweatshop labor conditions endured by some and the environmental hazards suffered by those in major cities, such as Beijing's most recent red alert for smog or that roughly 25% of the air pollution in LA can at times be attributed to air pollution coming from China  (see   http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/chinas-next-big-boom-could-be-the-foul-air.html?_r=0   ) with air pollution is not China's only environmental problem, we see that whatever benefits Capitalism is bringing to China, there are significant problems that must be addressed.

Or we could talk about India's eonomic performance. While Greeg included India on his list of nations that escaped poverty through globalization and Capitalism, Gregge fails to mention that the number of Inidian farmers who have committed suicide because of the economic distress they have suffered due to "free trade" numbers in the hundreds of thousands. So apparently, while overall numbers in Indian's economy might be increasing, such improvement is not reach all sectors especially the critical sector of agriculture.

We could also talk about Chile and its ecape from poverty. What is not mentioned is how Chile got its economic start. It was through a US sponsored coup where a democratically gov't was replaced with a brutal tyrant. That tyrant, General Pinochet, was indicted for crimes against humanity before he passed away. He did get a hearty thumbs-up from both Reagan and Thatcher. And again, not all Chileans benefited from that strictly enforced globalize Capitalism (see   http://santiagotimes.cl/very-high-inequality-in-chilean-society-breeds-resentment/   ).

The above provides partial narratives of just a few of the nations Gregg listed as proving how honorable and productive globalized Capitalism is. As for the USA, where income for much of the population ranking below the 90% in wealth has stagnated for decades, we see a growing wealth disparity and a shrinking middle class. We measure our economic progress by gains made on Wall Street even though those gains are distributed in terriby disproportionate amounts and where the greed on Wall Street not ony showed massive corruption, it almost crashed the world's economy.

BTW, none of this mentions how trade agreements attack national sovereignty. Just to note a couple of examples here, Costa Rica is being sued by a Canadian mining company for denying the company the right to mine for Gold in its borders. The reason for the denial was the belief that such miniing would significantly hurt the environment. Another case involves the WTO and how it is threatening to place sanctions on the US for some of the consumer warning labels put products. But it was our gov't that decided on placing those labels on products in order to inform consumers.

So far, I don't see why Gregg or others at Acton step back from their roles as Capitalism's cheerleaders to become Christian critics who call for reform or even the replacement of Capitalism with other systems.

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

To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost on how the 6 parts of Capitalism, as he identified them, creataed the wealth we enjoy today. He made an analogy between those parts and the 'elves of the shoemaker.' This appeared in the Acton blog.

Are 'elves of the shoemaker' the most appropriate analogy to use here? Take private property for example. We are celebrating private property in a world full of scarcity as if the holding of that private mitigates the effects of that scarcity? Does the ever growing wealth disparity we see around us qualify private property as a good 'elf'? 

But let's suppose the exclusive ownership of property allows for world improvement--supposing that without asking for proof that is. Is that what we are seeing today? Are we seeing more hoarding and resource wars while others go without?

Elf #2: This elf is voluntary exchange. But what is the basis of our voluntary exchange? Is it so that we can get the most out of the deal for ourselves? If so, how does that provide for those who have less than the average person to give in exchange?

Elf #3: Dvision of labor is celebrated by those on top, not necessarily those on the bottom. In addition, Adam Smith strongly criticized a strict division of labor. He stated that when a person's job becomes limited to simple tasks that always, or almost always, produce the same or similar results, that person loses his ability to 'understand' and to create solutions . Thus, such a man becomes 'stupid' and 'ignorant (see pg 21 of http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781134091188_sample_518267.pdf   or Smith, 1776: 781–2 in Wealth Of The Nations). So it is easy to understand why those at the top would celebrate the division of labor that limits the intelllectual exercise by those who are underneath them and are competing for scarce resources in the market place.

Elf #4: Yes, risk-taking by entrepreneurs should be conditionally honored. But should these risk-takers enjoy privileges over the rest of us as if they were part of an aristocracy? We are all forced to become risk-takers. Yes, the kinds and degrees of our risk-taking are different. However, there is a danger here. That danger is to grant privileges to entrepreneurs that put them above the rest of us. In the end, gov't is formed so that it represents them more than the rest of us showing that while entrepreneurs are allowed to depend on gov't, the rest of us are restricted to relying on the good graces of a limited number of entrepreneurs. And indeed, with corporate welfare and the  number industrial compexes (i.e., military industrial complex or the prison industrial complex)  that rely on gov't business for survival, that is what many of us have been left with.

Elf #5: Certainly the accumulation of capital is an important part of our economic system. But we need to ask what are the tradeoffs involved with today's accumulation of capital? Again, with today's growing wealth disparity as well as the growing control money has over our political systems, it is easy to see what some of those costs are. In addition, with accumulated capital going to those with wealth rather than sharing that with those who labor, how are we not teaching society that wealth is more important than work?

Elf #6: The problem with elf #6 is not the desire for a better life, but what defines a better life. Is it things or our connections with others, especially with those who are in need?

There is something completely disingenuous about this article. For it would like us to believe that what we have today is the result of what our economic system has enabled invidiuals to accomplish. It is a "We Built That" cheerleading article. The problem lies with the truth claims of "We Built That" message. For history teaches us  that when societies reach new zeniths in wealth and prosperity, it happens within the context of empire. This happened within the Roman Empire. And this happened within the British Empire. Is there any reason to doubt that what we have today is, in large part, due to it happening in the American Empire? 

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.

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.