My Quest for Truth and Liberty
Posts tagged Anarchy
Why My Conscience Will Not Allow Me to Vote for Romney
3227 days
I am afraid this is beating a dead horse, but there are several reasons for dredging up the “to vote or not to vote” issue again:
1) The horse may be dead, but it is an important horse. There are many subjects that I disagree with other people about, but I figure it isn’t a big deal, and is not worth publicly disagreeing. However, for anyone who has discussed this issue in person with me, you will know I’m passionate about what I believe. It is no small matter, this comes down to our basic assumptions about the role of government and the duty of the Christian. It is not to be taken lightly.
2) I think through writing. Apparently a lot of people think through talking. I don’t want to discuss something until I’ve thought it through carefully. And one way that I analyze things is to write it as my writing skills are much stronger than my verbal skills. So I’m covering this issue again because I want to test my position yet again. I’m always open to changing my opinion on things. A couple years ago I openly admitted it when I realized my minarchist position was wrong and became an anarcho-capitalist. And since I have a blog, this seems to be the appropriate place to think through things.
3) There are people who are agree with me and may need some encouraging because I’m afraid we are the minority right now. This is for those who have decided not to participate in the elections but have been questioned about it or are beginning to doubt that they made the right decision.
4) Some people simply don’t know what they are going to do. They have no pre-conceived ideas either way and are curious about hearing another viewpoint. So they can hear it here.
Please note that I don’t intend this to be a tirade against those who disagree with me. In fact, if I were someone like that, I probably wouldn’t even bother reading my website, just as I don’t bother reading Fox News or any of the Republican websites that promote voting for Romney. If you don’t understand why I have decided not to vote, then maybe you would find this helpful. Otherwise, I don’t feel at all bad if you don’t finish reading this.
So, with my introduction out of the way, let’s get down to the issue.
Joel Beeke posted an article on his site called, “Why My Conscience Will Not Let Me Not Vote for Romney.” Please note the double negative, which confused me at first. I was intrigued by the article because several friends posted in on Facebook and because I know Joel Beeke and have read one of his books.
Thanks to several years of formal logic, I now think in logical propositions. It is sometimes annoying, but mostly helpful. I’m always trying to mentally convert an argument to a formal syllogism. I’m going to convert Joel Beeke’s argument to a syllogism and test it out. In italics I will include quotes from Joel Beeke so that it is clear I’m taking each of these premises directly from him.
Premise 1: Christians have a moral obligation to vote.
“To avoid the ballot box is to remain silent while a million lives are snuffed out each year.”
Premise 2: Christians have a moral obligation to not vote for a candidate who is pro-choice, or more accurately, anti-life.
“When one considers what the Bible says about the unborn child (Ps. 139:13–14), homosexuality (Rom. 1:26–27), debt (Prov. 22:7), and stealing (Ex. 20:15), including taking from the rich to favor the poor (Ex. 23:3), those committed to biblical truth cannot but groan over the policies that presently rule our nation.”
Premise 3: Obama is pro-choice/anti-life.
“The President’s unqualified support of abortion goes beyond anything we saw from previous Democratic leaders like President Clinton. His public endorsement of same-sex marriage is well known. His fiscal policy has launched the federal government into reckless spending which runs up our deficit at a rate of more than a trillion dollars per year—that is, more than $3250 of additional debt per year for every one of our 312 million people. At present, our government is in debt more than $51,000 for every person living in our nation. People have documented his socialist agenda for the government to use its coercive power to steal wealth from some in order to redistribute it to others as its officials see fit.”
Premise 4: Romney is pro-life.
“The difference between President Obama and Governor Romney regarding abortion is clear. Romney has far more respect for the right to life and for freedom of conscience than Obama.”
Premise 5: Christians have a moral obligation to vote for the Republican or Democratic candidate.
“In the election on Tuesday, we have only two realistic options. If you don’t vote for Romney, then you have helped Obama.”
Conclusion: Therefore Christians must vote for Romney.
Please note that this looks like a valid argument. It is valid in that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Validity in logic does not have anything to do with the actual truth of the premises, but merely the relationship between each of the premises and the conclusion.
So I’m going to go through each premise and test the truth of each one. The point being, if even one of these premises is proved false, then the conclusion cannot be proved true.
Premise 1: Christians have a moral obligation to vote.
“To avoid the ballot box is to remain silent while a million lives are snuffed out each year.”
This assumes that voting for a pro-life candidate will actually protect the unborn. It assumes:
1) A pro-life candidate will enact pro-life legislation, presumably repealing Roe v. Wade
2) Enacting legislation will stop abortions
Assumption 1 leads to more questions. We have had several pro-life presidents since Roe v. Wade. For example, there was a Republican congress for 6 out of George Bush’s 8 years in office. So, what did he do? I found this article from the American Right to Life group which lists all the pro-choice statements and actions of George Bush, and it isn’t very positive. It seems to deny all empirical evidence and experience to claim that a pro-life president will actually be able to do anything about the abortion laws.
Assumption 2 is always rather weak. Abortion is an effect of sin. We can make it more difficult for abortions to be performed, but no amount of laws, short of creating a totalitarian state to enforce them, will stop people from having abortions. To me, it would seem that being active in supporting a crisis pregnancy center and being personally involved in the lives of couples who are considering abortion is a far more effective way to be pro-life. There are have been abortions for thousands of years, making it illegal will not fix the ultimate problem of sin. Instead of focusing on the effect of sin, we need to be addressing the cause which is our human depravity and desperate need for salvation. And Joel Beeke rightly supports the separation of church and state by saying, “…we are not electing a pastor. We are electing the President of the United States. We do not live in a political system where the head of state leads the established religion of the nation.” So there isn’t really anything that a president can do about reaching the lost, such as spreading the gospel, assuming he is even a Christian.
In the end, despite the drama and sense of urgency in this quote, “To avoid the ballot box is to remain silent while a million lives are snuffed out each year,” I do not find it to be a compelling argument to vote.
And he also tries to argue ad absurdum, “Is it a compromise of principle to vote for someone who does not agree with your perspective 100%? If so, then it seems that you can only vote for yourself!” However, the anarcho-capitalist will point out that this is exactly what would happen in an voluntaryist society and that it is entirely possible to maintain law and justice without being forced to vote for someone you don’t agree with.
Please note that I also covered this issue of the Christian’s assumed duty to vote in this blog post.
Basically it comes down to the fact that God does not command us to vote, and voting/politics is not an especially effective way of promoting Christian principles, so I don’t see that we have a moral obligation to participate in voting.
Premise 2: Christians have a moral obligation to not vote for a candidate who is pro-choice, or more accurately, anti-life.
“When one considers what the Bible says about the unborn child (Ps. 139:13–14), homosexuality (Rom. 1:26–27), debt (Prov. 22:7), and stealing (Ex. 20:15), including taking from the rich to favor the poor (Ex. 23:3), those committed to biblical truth cannot but groan over the policies that presently rule our nation.”
I would agree with this completely. I have included this quote with Bible verses because for me, that is enough proof of this premise. I would hope that any Christian would agree with this statement.
Premise 3: Obama is pro-choice/anti-life.
“The President’s unqualified support of abortion goes beyond anything we saw from previous Democratic leaders like President Clinton. His public endorsement of same-sex marriage is well known. His fiscal policy has launched the federal government into reckless spending which runs up our deficit at a rate of more than a trillion dollars per year—that is, more than $3250 of additional debt per year for every one of our 312 million people. At present, our government is in debt more than $51,000 for every person living in our nation. People have documented his socialist agenda for the government to use its coercive power to steal wealth from some in order to redistribute it to others as its officials see fit.”
I would also agree with this. I appreciated that Joel Beeke included links to verify his statements. Since we’re talking about strict facts here, it would be very hard to dispute the truth of this premise.
Premise 4: Romney is pro-life.
“The difference between President Obama and Governor Romney regarding abortion is clear. Romney has far more respect for the right to life and for freedom of conscience than Obama.”
I found the link that Joel Beeke included fascinating. One of the major problems with proving my position is that Obama has been in office, whereas Romney has not. So you will notice in the comparison of the two candidates at the above link that the proofs for Obama’s pro-choice stance are references to bills he has supported, legislation he has approved, and actual actions he has taken. On Romney’s side, there are quotes. Just references to things he has said. Words are cheap, very cheap, especially during election time.
So the questions I think any rational person would ask would be:
1) Has his pro-life stance been consistent through his career?
Most definitely not. According to this article, it wasn’t until 2005 that he began to switch positions. The article references a 1994 debate he participated in against Ted Kennedy, where he said, “I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice.” While running for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 he continued to maintain his pro-choice position. Suddenly, while running for president in 2007, he decided to become pro-life. And then during this campaign there have been some doubts about his position, such as this, “‘There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,’ the Republican presidential nominee told The Des Moines Register in an interview.” And there is a “Romney Approved” ad floating around Youtube that qualifies his pro-life position for those women who concerned about the possibility that he would try to ban all abortions.
2) Has he offered an explanation for his switch from pro-choice to pro-life?
I tried to do a Google search to find any explanations for Romney’s flip-flopping, hoping to find some source where he explains what made him change his mind. But I couldn’t find anything. One minute he’s defending a woman’s right to choose and the next he’s defending the unborn infant’s right to life. I want to know why he changed his mind because it looks suspiciously like pandering to the crowd in order to win an election.
I think this is a good time to define what “pro-life” means. I take it to mean that that you support a human being’s right to life, even though it may be more convenient or simpler for others if that human being was killed. So let’s create another syllogism:
1) Every human being has the right to life unless it is take away through due process of law as punishment for committing a heinous crime of equal proportions.
2) Human life begins at conception and ends at death.
Therefore, every human being conceived and not yet dead has the right to live.
I think that’s all pretty self-evident. And you would expect a pro-life candidate to support the conclusion, right?
However, there are several areas where Romney is not consistent with his pro-life stance.
- Example One: Drone Strikes in the Mideast
The research and evidence makes it clear that using drones to fight terrorism is highly ineffective. See this article, this article, and this one. Drones are highly anti-life as innocent civilians are routinely killed, a part of the “collateral damage.” A pro-life candidate ought to be holding President Obama accountable for supporting this widespread murder of innocent people. Instead we find that Romney agrees with Obama’s policy on drones.
- Example Two: Assassination of Suspected Terrorists
From Reason.org, ‘During the final presidential debate, the moderator asked Mitt Romney about President Obama’s policy of killing suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens, with missiles fired from unmanned aircraft. “I believe we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world,” Romney replied. “I support that entirely.”‘ Again, I find this diametrically opposed to a pro-life platform and belief system.
- Example Three: Promoting War against Iran
War is never pro-life. War always means death. I was shocked to read Romney’s statements about Iran because it is so blatantly pro-war. For example, “U.S. policy toward Iran must begin with an understanding on Iran’s part that a military option to deal with their nuclear weapons program is very real and very credible. This message should not only be delivered through words, but through actions.” And in one of the debates both candidates agreed that “they would use military power if necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.” Since there is no proof that Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon, or is attempting to build a nuclear weapon and since the U.S. has 5,000 nuclear bombs and is the only country to ever use one (and not just one, but two!), and has a record of invading other countries for at least the last 100 years, it seems like gross hypocrisy to insist that Iran will sooner be destroyed than allowed to have a nuclear weapon. And a candidate who is not opposing the assassination of Iranian scientists can’t really be pro-life.
So, from this information, I would conclude that Romney is not pro-life, or at least not any more pro-life than Obama.
Premise 5: Christians have a moral obligation to vote for the Republican or Democratic candidate.
“In the election on Tuesday, we have only two realistic options. If you don’t vote for Romney, then you have helped Obama.”
This assumes that Romney is a preferred candidate over Obama, as a conclusion from Premise 2 & 3. However, I just got done explaining why I don’t believe Romney is particularly pro-life, which negates the primary reason for voting for Romney over Obama. Also, I disproved the premise that Christians must vote, so it seems entirely possible for Christians to not vote at all.
If Beeke can use hypothetical examples, then let me present one. Imagine an election where Hitler was running against Stalin and they were the candidates of the two popularly accepted political parties. What ought the Christian to do? There would be two realistic options. If you don’t vote for Stalin, then you’ve helped Hitler. In the end, do we do what is right or what will work?
Beeke also seems to be using a sort of circular reasoning here…that we have only two realistic options because we have only two realistic options. In other words, we must vote for Romney because we are voting for Romney. If people like Beeke did not promote the fear of “throwing away your vote” then a third-party candidate might actually have a chance. But because everybody says a third party candidate can’t win, then they won’t win.
Here’s another quote: “Our Lord Jesus acknowledged the wisdom of being careful to “count the cost” before engaging in a large economic or military endeavor (Luke 14:28–32). Our resources are precious. We must not throw them away if we know we cannot accomplish our goal. Your vote is precious.”
It must be admitted that one vote is not precious. As noted here, “the probability of a person’s ballot being materially significant is unlikely to be greater than the probability of winning the lottery.”
I see several reasons why Christians are under no moral obligation to vote for a candidate from one of the two mainstream parties.
Conclusion: Therefore Christians must vote for Romney.
So, from my examination of Beeke’s premises, I have found that 3 out of the 5 premises are not true. Using the laws of logic, it follows that the conclusion is not necessarily true. It might be true, but a completely different set of premises would have to be used, since this argument does not hold.. In other words, the support for Beeke’s conclusion is not logically consistent.
Let me make a few closing remarks:
1) I realize that Joel Beeke is a highly respected theologian and author in Christian circles. One of my reasons for covering this issue again is because I did not want to lightly disregard the opinion of someone who is far more knowledgeable about Christianity. His beliefs deserve to be taken seriously because of his position.
2) I have come to my position through searching the Scriptures, praying for wisdom, and using the faculties I have been given as well as I can. I know that I don’t have everything right. The depravity of our nature and the noetic effects of the Fall essentially guarantee that I will never have a perfect understanding of everything, at least in this life. I trust it will all be made clear in eternity. At any rate, I know that it is possible for me to someday be convicted that my position is wrong. But until then, I can only maintain this position because I am bound by my conscience and by the Word of God.
3) The recent discussion in our Sunday School class this last Sunday was very helpful in regards to this. We talked about the varying beliefs of Christians in many areas, from parenting/schooling views, to political affiliations to theological issues like baptism. We must try to maintain this balance of accepting different viewpoints but not watering everything down to a wishy-washy subjectivism. It would be absurd to proclaim our beliefs but then qualify it by saying, “I don’t think I’m right on this.” Of course I think I’m right on this issue of voting or I wouldn’t bother writing all this. And this does mean that I must think that those who differ from me are wrong. However, we must be careful not to de-Christianize those with different viewpoints. Therefore let me state that I do not doubt Joel Beeke’s sincerity or his salvation because of what he says, nor do I question the Christianity of everyone I know who is going to be voting for Romney. I am sorry that they feel they must make that choice, but in the end, they must do what their conscience dictates and it does not take away from their position as my brother or sister in Christ. In the end, the words of John Newton are most apt, “The whole system of my politics is summed up in this one verse, “The Lord reigns! Let the nations tremble!” Psalm 99:1
In Defense of Liberty
1294 days
My latest post, The Lesser of Two Evils, resulted in quite the controversy. I had a feeling about that, so I wasn’t completely surprised. I really hesitated to publish it because I knew the topic was so loaded. I have compiled a list of arguments against my position, and I’d like to take the time to respond to each of those.
1) A person must use the “lesser of two evils” principle and vote for the candidate who has the best chance of winning.
I don’t see why this is necessary. We are called to do what is right. As long as we do what is right, we are not responsible for the successful or failure of it. Example: We are commanded to worship in a God-centered way and not cater to the desires of the world in worship, even if that means our churches are not mega-churches and even if that means we don’t appear to be successful in this world. We just do what God says and trust Him to prosper it as He desires. I deeply oppose the idea of acting solely on practicality or pragmatism. To be honest, I don’t care what works, I care about doing what is right. What else can we do? How can we claim to know what is going to “work”? What does that mean? How can we gage success? A mega-church is successful in the eyes of the world but is not necessarily successful to God. We are on shaky ground by being pragmatic because “success” and “what works” are such subjective terms. As I stated in my blog post, I personally believe it is not right for me to support a candidate such as Romney, for the reasons that I explained in the post. I don’t care how electable he is, that is irrelevant to my judgement. I cannot in good conscience support him.
2) Not voting is the same as doing nothing.
Not voting is not giving up on trying to make any change. Maybe I should have elaborated on my original statement. I said, “Voters can complain about evil because they voted for the lesser of two evils, when others refused to support evil at all?” I should have also pointed out that those who refuse to support evil at all often go on to support good and promote positive change that will make a difference. This includes education of the public and raising public awareness of what the government is doing. This includes presenting ideas for alternative forms of government/society to make people realize this two-party system is not the only thing possible. And just because there are these two candidates offered to us doesn’t mean God necessarily wants us to support either of them. The Founding Fathers could have said, “well, God gave us this king, so that’s the way God wants it to be, we must have a monarchy.” Instead they acted according to their consciences, even though it meant upsetting the norm, the status quo that had literally existed for hundreds of years. Just because something is reality now doesn’t mean that’s what God ordained for the future. He ordained that the Founding Fathers rebel against England. While I’m not saying I believe this is what God wants or what should happen, why could it not be that He ordained for the country to rebel next year? Maybe His plan is to completely change the status quo in America. So do we have the right to argue that everyone must absolutely do all they can to maintain the current form of government because this is God’s will? We can’t know His will. Again, it comes back to doing what we believe is right and trusting in the sovereignty of God to do what He pleases with the situation.
3) It is our duty to vote.
Where does this duty come from? Who commands me to vote? Where is this law? I’ve thought a lot about it and as I see it, there are a few possible answers.
i) The Constitution is the law of the land and hence we are to vote.
I have two objections against this. (Note: I think I read way too many Puritans, my posts are almost ridiculously complex, haha)
Objection One: The Constitution applies to the government, not the citizens. The Constitution has nothing to say about what the people can and cannot do, it essentially says what the government can do. It doesn’t say that every American citizen must vote. So, our duty cannot come from the Constitution as it has nothing to do with what our responsibilities are but rather how the government is supposed to be formed and ordered.
Objection Two: Even if the Constitution said, “Every American citizen must participate in the elections” I would still question this, because who agreed to this law? Who signed the Constitution? The Founding Fathers. Was I asked if I agreed to performing these duties? What if there was some document that a group of people signed back in the 1700′s that said, “All American Citizens must observe Pi Day by baking a pie.” Ok, so…? What legitimacy does that have over me? What appeal does that have to the general moral law or the Common Law which most people recognize? It is pure absurdity. I could make any law I want and say everyone needs to follow it, but what difference does that make?
ii) We have a duty to vote because we are American citizens.
This is related to the argument above, but less clear. I don’t know how it is that we have this nebulous obligation to do something simply because of the place of our birth. To be clear, I believe in negative obligations to fellow humans, I believe we have the obligation to not encroach on them, to not harm them or their property. But this doesn’t obligate me to perform any actions for anyone. This is one of the argument against national healthcare, no one has the “right” to force someone else to perform any actions for them. To say I must vote, you’re saying someone has the right to receive my vote. What happened to the right to life, liberty, and property? Let’s take this to the logical conclusion. If I have an obligation to vote and I refuse to do it, why not force me? Why not come to my house, take me to the polls, and physically force me to choose a name on a piece of paper? If this is a moral issue, then why not make me perform it? And if that is the case, then we might as well forget about the whole “right to life, liberty, and property” idea because it is no longer valid. Again, as I said above, we have negative duties (such as the duty to not kill other people) but to say we have positive duties is to make us slaves, essentially. It is saying that some other person or group of people have the right to the fruit of my labor, even if it is just a completed ballot slip. It is saying that someone has the right to make me take a specific action. I don’t see this being Biblical or at all consistent with the ideology of liberty.
And to be clear, I also think that all people have a positive obligation to God. I believe all people ought to worship God, to serve Him, love Him, submit to Him, etc…but that does not give me the right to force them to do so. I believe that God will judge all of us and that it is not my place to force people to attend church or perform any actions, even though they are commanded by God.
iii) We have a duty to vote because the Bible says so.
Again, I ask, where does the Bible say this? Considering that there were no democracies in the time of the New Testament, I think not. There is not explicit command to vote, so I don’t see how it could be a Biblical command on the same moral level as the Ten Commandments. The verse “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” says nothing about voting. Remember, Jesus is talking about a Caesar, not a President, so I doubt if His audience would have interpreted this to mean, “oh, I guess we should go vote then!” Someone can say that they believe voting is one way to fulfill the more general commandments of the Bible, but I do not believe any person has the authority to bind the conscience of any other individual by saying we have a moral duty to vote since the Bible does not explicitly command it. You can infer it from certain passages. You can say, the Bible commands us to be good stewards and voting is one way I believe we can be good stewards. But you cannot say that the Bible commands us to be good stewards, therefore every American must vote. The thing just does not logically follow. Some people argue that we ought to recycle and “go green” because this is how we are good stewards. Ok. I can understand that. But does that mean we sin by not recycling? Does that mean we are morally obligated to have a “green” lifestyle? Does that mean we can be forced to recycle because this is the right action? Absolutely not. This is far from Biblical, this is using the Bible to reach conclusions that don’t necessarily follow from Scripture.
Or one could argue that since the government is taking our money, we ought to vote because we should try to have a say in how it is used. Well, why not vote for Ron Paul then, who has always said that he would abolish the income tax if elected president, hence we wouldn’t to worry about where our money went! Again, I don’t think this is a moral obligation. I don’t believe we will held responsible for how other people use money that they forcibly took from us. God will not judge me because my money went to fund an immoral war. But considering that basically between Romney and Obama we get to choose if our money is spent killing innocent civilians in other countries or innocent unborn children in America, there aren’t a whole lot of options. Fundamentally these two men aren’t really going to be spending our money in any drastically different ways. So how much will that help?
In the end…if you want to vote, go for it. But don’t pretend you’re fulfilling some moral duty which I’m failing to do because I choose to not vote. I will never advocate the use of force, either to make people vote or to keep people from voting. I don’t think it is morally wrong to vote, so if you believe this is the right thing, then do it. But don’t confuse moral obligations with Christian liberty.
Cyber-Property: An Apology
0Note: This is not an apology for my beliefs, but rather the justification of them and my reasons for the said beliefs.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with Facebook, let me briefly explain how it works: everyone on facebook has a profile and a wall. A wall is where they post updates, links, etc…and by default, everyone else who is their “friend” can see and comment on anything on their wall.
Is that all settled? Okay…let me begin…
I posted a very innocent update to my wall, announcing that I’ve started a new book and the working title is “All that is Light is Eternal.” Someone commented on that with this question about how the sovereignty of God could be compatible with human will. I was a little puzzled because I had no idea (and still don’t) how this was related to my original post. Basically, before I took the time to answer this question, another friend commented with some atheistic responses. There was some dialogue between the two, and then this friend posted a 5 paragraph diatribe declaring that anyone who believes in a deity is stupid and irrational. I emailed this person and said something like this:
“You are a libertarian like me, and so we both respect private property. I would not put religious signs on your property and would respect your beliefs. Likewise, I would expect you to keep atheistic signs off my yard. I see Facebook like our yards. I appreciate helpful and informative dialogue about different opinions, but I do not want my Facebook wall to be used to promote your atheistic beliefs. I ask that you delete that comment.”
The person replied and said they would delete it and only wanted to encourage discussion and did not appreciate my censoring of their beliefs.
So I deleted the comment myself and wrote a comment explaining my reasons.
I don’t write this post to rehash what happened, but wanted to explain what led up to my consideration of this issue.
My basic thinking goes like this:
1) The owner of private property has the right to decide what happens on that property.
2) A facebook wall is, in a sense, private property. (Yes, the owners of Facebook ultimately control it, but none of my friends do. For all intents and purposes, it is the same as private property. It is connected to a specific person who has the power to control it.)
Therefore, the owner of a facebook wall has the right to decide to allow or prevent certain subjects from being discussed.
I was not really bothered that I was accused of being a close-minded person who refuses to participate in dialogue or discussion over beliefs. I was bothered by the accusation that I am censoring other people.
Censoring is where a book, or other form is media, is officially reviewed and banned from the public knowledge. In other words, governments censor. A facebook user doesn’t censor. If I were actually censoring the discussion, I would be able to control the participants’ ability to continue the discussion anywhere else on the web. As it was, I even suggested that they move the debate to 1) their own wall, or 2) a Facebook note. Later I thought of other options including a Facebook group, or even a blog. I would have absolutely no control over what these people say or argue in these other places and frankly, I wouldn’t even care.
Jeff Tucker, over at Mises.org, recently compared Facebook to a dinner party where you invite your coworkers, friends, acquaintances, family members, and college roommates. Yes, as you can imagine, it can get awkward. As the host of the dinner party on my wall that is made up of all my “friends” I have the right to choose what subjects are discussed. If I refuse to let anyone else speak, but just keep spouting off on my own ideas, everyone will just ignore me and eventually unfriend me. It isn’t that hard to ignore someone who is disagreeing with you in an offensive way…as long as they aren’t doing it on your own wall.
And just to make it clear, I also practice my own advice. I rarely comment on posts on Facebook and if I do, it is to agree with a person or say something positive. I never use another person’s post as a reason to argue my own beliefs. Maybe I’m going a little bit overboard in the other direction, but I have a very limited time on Facebook every day, so I just try to avoid any controversial posts.
When this whole “drama” on my wall started, I was trying to decide what to do as a Christian and as a libertarian. As a Christian, I want to be polite and kind to everyone. As a libertarian, I have the right to decide what happens on my wall. I feel that I took appropriate action before actually deleting the comment and as the person did not respond in an understanding way, deletion was my only alternative unless I wanted this debate to rage for 50+ comments…all because I said my next book’s title is “That which is Light is Eternal.” I’m just saying this because I think it is an example of how conflicts can be resolved not only online but also in a free society.
What the 4th of July Should Be
0I need to preface this with a confession, taken from my latest Facebook status. “I’m afraid I’m a hopeless introvert.” It is true. Probably part of my aversion to 4th of July parades, county fairs, and all those fun American things is that I just don’t like people much. I mean, there are particular people I like, and some I like very much, but I find the general population to be so insipid, close-minded, self-centered, and utterly boring that I don’t really care much for being around people. Under certain circumstances, I enjoy watching people, but I find it hard to interact with them. Anyways…I’m sure some people get a warm, fuzzy feeling when they attend a 4th of July parade, it just doesn’t happen for me.
So, today I was attending the 4th of July parade in a small town nearby, rather reluctantly. I think my mother worries about me sitting at home alone, happily reading a book while everyone else enjoys the festivities of the day; consequently, I was persuaded to attend. I got the most pleasure out of seeing my baby brother become overwhelmed with excitement at seeing so many tractors, trucks, and other loud motor vehicles. As in any small Midwest town, we had a super-abundance of tractors in the parade. Of course the parade started with the police. We got a lot of fire engines too. And some politicians. And several military/veteran groups. Eventually the businesses came around (and they threw more candy than any gov’t participant, I might add) and then the tractors and so forth.
I really think that the 4th of July parade should be made up entirely of tractors, businesses, and other forms of free market contributions. Instead of the 4th being a celebration of our government, it should be a celebration of our culture and our heritage. Having just finished a book that took place partially in the Midwest, it was very inspiring for me to see the antique tractors and farm equipment that has shaped our community. The technology and resources are all a result of voluntary interactions of the free market. We should celebrate those who sacrificed present consumption so we might enjoy better farm machinery and therefore cheaper, more abundant food. We should honor those who risked their fortunes and life to improve society with a more efficient method of planting, harvesting, or processing crops. We should celebrate those who instead of sitting back and collecting unemployment, toiled long hours in hot, dusty fields to earn an honest living. Such was my great-grandfather and great-grandmother, who even after their children were grown and married, moved to the Rockford area and bought a farm. My great-grandfather had a manufacturing job, and my great-grandmother spent her days working the 160 acres of our farm…only to come inside in the evenings to lay the beautiful hardwood floors that are still in our house today. And this was in the midst of WWII, with all the uncertainty and fear surrounding it. So many Americans just plodded on, growing food, raising animals, and keeping the lifeblood of the country flowing.
This morning we had a discussion about patriotism. I was explaining to my sisters that patriotism implies loyalty to and love of your government. That’s why I don’t like the word patriotism. I wish there was a good English word for loyalty to and love for your society, your culture, your community, your heritage. We could only come up with, “I love the geographical area of North America known as the Midwest,” which is, admittedly, very clumsy. But that’s what we should celebrate and appreciate, not the acts of violence, aggression, and force which our government has been committing since 1789.
Thus Begins My Second Weekend
0I may have said this before, but working every day gives the weekend a whole new dimension. “Oh…so that’s why people are so excited about Friday nights…”
I must say that my job has helped me have more sympathy for other people. In a sense, my job is bringing me out of the idealistic stage of youth. Don’t worry, it hasn’t made me entirely cynical yet, but it is slowly happening. For one thing, I understand now why some people don’t have the time to do things they like. Someone says they want to come to our Mises Circle, but doesn’t have the time, and now I can sympathize with them. When I get home from work (and I only work 12-5pm) I’m generally quite tired and ready to “chill” for a couple hours with the family while recuperating enough to give a webinar, study, or teach a class. I have my mornings to get things done, but I see how people with fulltime jobs wouldn’t have the time to do a whole lot, even though they may really want to do it.
Also, the last week or two have taught me some important lessons about life. It is way more complicated than I sometimes think. I have come face to face with a huge dilemma, my job or my liberty? And this life is no fairy tale, for I lost this battle. Let’s just say, the powers that be won out and I was forced to accept their system of legalized plunder, as Bastiat put it. However, notice what I said, “this life is no fairy tale”…but in the last few days, I’ve come to realize that there’s more to my life than just this life. No, I don’t mean reincarnation. I mean, the eternal life that is to come. And while there are imperfections, sorrows, and injustices in this world, they will be righted in the next world. If there was no injustice here, why would we care about going to Heaven?
So this whole struggle has helped me understand in a deeper, more personal sense that my eyes should be set on the next world, for we can’t expect things to go right here. Up to this point, I haven’t had that many “crisis” moments that would define my direction in life. I have met the enemy and he has won, for now, and I’m not ashamed to say that. Yes, it means that I’ve had to compromise on my strongest beliefs, it means the life I’m living no longer perfectly matches what I talk about, it means that I must now deal with the regrets and pains of knowing my own hard-earned money is going to fund murder (in the form of abortion and needless wars), corruption, tyranny, and all that I have philosophically rejected, but I can keep going and keep on hoping. Why? Not because I dream of a time in my life when all of this will be ended (although that is one of my hopes, and I’m still trying for it) but because I know that there will come a time with all tyranny will be punished and justice will triumph and in that time and in that place there will be no stealing, no pain, no injustice, no murder, and no tyranny.
I have two other points related to this (don’t give up yet…this post won’t be too much longer!):
If God’s justice had not already been satisfied, I would not be longing for that time of righting wrongs. For we have all wronged God. We have rebelled against His divine justice and His very character demands punishment. But because Christ has satisfied that justice and redeemed all those who will believe, I can look forward to the Day of Judgement.
When thinking about Heaven, I’ve been tempted to use the words “perfect liberty” to describe it. But I think that misses the point. The reason it is unjust for one person to steal from another is because they are both just people. The thief is no better than the victim. What claim does the thief have on the life of their victim? No legitimate claim whatsoever. However, in Heaven, it will be different. For there we will be living for the only One who does have a legitimate claim on our life and being, our Creator. In practical terms, God is the only One who has a right to our paycheck. In fact, if He wanted, He would demand the entirety of our weekly earnings, for He’s made us, made this earth, gave us a job, and is keeping us alive so we can work. He is the only One who deserves all that we are and all that we have. Not only does He deserve it, that is the reason for our existence. Just as artists make paintings to express the artist’s character, we were made to express and worship God and who He is. Of course, we do this imperfectly here, but in Heaven there will be ultimate fulfillment of the emptiness and dissatisfaction inside. Instead of being frustrated and discouraged, we will be doing what we’re meant to do! Imagine the frustration of a painting that is used as a coat rack…and imagine the complete bliss and joy of that painting when someday it is actually displayed as a painting that mirrors the artist who created it. It isn’t tyranny for the artist to hang the painting on the wall, it is foolish for the painting to try to be anything but a painting. That’s how I look at it, and what’s why these trials and troubles haven’t left me without hope.
A Philosophical Dilemma
1Oddly enough, this post was inspired by an Andy Griffith episode I watched last night. Let me quickly summarize the story so this will make sense.
Ellie (works at drugstore) discovers there’s a girl living out on a farm near town who longs to have make-up, lipstick, perfume, etc…but doesn’t have any. So Ellie and Andy go out to the farm and give her a sampling of these items as a gift. The girl’s father walks up to them, discovers the items, and makes his daughter give them back to Ellie, saying that she doesn’t have any need for them. This infuriates Ellie (who faintly resembles a “liberated” woman of the modern age) and she persuades Barney to go back and confront the farmer and force him to allow his daughter to come to town and get “prettied up.” Of course Barney doesn’t have the guts to confront the farmer so he sneaks around the farm and steals the girl away to town, without the farmer knowing about it. Ellie pretties her up and reveals a very beautiful young woman under all the grime and overalls. They take her back to the farm, convinced that her father will realize how much all of this means to his daughter now that he can see her beauty. He is impressed but adamant; he has no sons and is struggling to keep his farm going. He needs his daughter not to parade around in high heels but put the overalls back on and get to work. Andy is very diplomatic and shows the farmer that if his daughter is all prettied up and attractive it will draw strong farm boys from all around and he’ll probably end up with a very productive and helpful son-in-law. So of course it all turns out happily ever after. :)
My immediate thought as I watched it was, “that isn’t any of their business!” and this is what Andy originally says too, before being swayed by Ellie’s pleading expression. But that doesn’t change that fact that this daughter is really none of their business.
However, I wanted to think through what would happen in this type of situation without any government. Granted, Andy wasn’t really acting on behalf of the law, but he was seen as a representative of the state and could have possibly arrested the farmer on some trumped-up charges to “free” his daughter. So I wanted to think about what would happen if there had been no state. What I came up with was this:
If Ellie had such a problem with this “cruel” farmer depriving his daughter of all these feminine luxuries then she perhaps should have talk to the community and raised this issue with them. She could argue her case with them and ask that if they disagreed with the farmer’s decision then they should refuse to trade with him or allow him to buy at their stores. In that type of situation I could easily see the other farmers siding with this particular farmer, as they understood his plight. And perhaps the younger generation in the city proper would side with Ellie. So Ellie might or might be successful in persuading the farmer to “liberate” his daughter. A couple points about this:
1) It would not be force against the farmer. No one would be coercing him into anything. It would simply be a withdrawal of exchange. “You don’t let your daughter wear lipstick, we won’t let you buy our _________.” This is where you can see the clear line between a free society and a society ruled by a state. The state is force and violence. The free society can only withdraw privileges. I say privileges because the farmer really has no “right” to trade with anyone. Just wanted to clarify that point. Some (including family members…) have responded with, “now, that’s absurd! That’s horrible! Just because this farmer has some reason why he doesn’t want his daughter to wear makeup doesn’t mean that people can isolate him and make him entirely self-dependent. How will he make a living if he can’t sell or buy things? He’ll have to move somewhere else and start all over again–just because of this rabble-rouser, Ellie.” But here’s why I don’t think that would happen, especially over such a trivial matter.
2) Trade and exchange is mutually beneficial. It is easy for us to look at the farmer and think that the rest of the community is doing him a favor by trading with him. But let’s say he sells a certain amount of corn to someone for $10. We’ll say X lbs. corn for $10. Haha, can’t escape from my algebraic past…these X’s are still haunting me! Anyways…the farmer says to the miller, “hey, I’ve got this X lbs. of corn, would you like to buy it?” Miller replies, “sure, that sounds great. I was needing some corn.” So they exchange goods. And who benefits? BOTH!! The miller has benefitted from the exchange just as the farmer did. And so then the farmer takes this $10 to the butcher and says, “I need a side of beef, can you sell it to me?” Just because the farmer initiated this exchange doesn’t mean that he’s the only one who needs the good. The butcher probably needs the $10 to pay his bills too. So the butcher trades with him. Side of beef for $10. Who benefits? BOTH parties!!
Imagine a businessperson who refused to do business with people who had a different religion than him. Or who didn’t wear a certain type of clothing. Or who wore glasses. Or…you get the point. It doesn’t make business sense to keep restricting your market like that. There would have to be a really, really good reason to convince someone not to trade with a particular person.
Back to the story. If Ellie were going to be successful in working against this farmer she would have to persuade everyone to give up the benefits they would receive through trading with the farmer. I think most of them would be unwilling to forfeit the sales of goods to the farmer just because his daughter didn’t wear makeup. I don’t think the extreme situation mentioned above would actually occur over something this small. But then I wondered what would happen if the problem was bigger. Let’s say the farmer beat his daughter. Then what?
I think this would definitely be too much for the people of the community to accept. While not being allowed to wear makeup is a passive act, being beaten is an active encroachment on her rights. And I doubt if anyone would object if the community began to isolate him and refuse to do business with him until he stopped beating his daughter and made some kind of restitution. And the same for a situation like murder.
So then the problem seems to be that there’s a disconnect between beating a girl and not letting her wear makeup. And this is a very subjective and “gray” area; I’m just going to give my own thoughts on it and you can think whatever you’d like about it.
The girl lives with her father. She eats the food that he helps to produce. She lives under the roof he has provided her. And so I don’t think it is wrong for him to ask her to do or not do certain things. She is under his jurisdiction. I assume that the girl is over 18 and could have run away if she had wanted to be “free” so badly. But no, she stayed with her father despite the toil and difficulties, and likewise he shared of his stores and food with her. It appeared that he had never explained to her why she wasn’t allowed to have the same things as other girls. I think that it would have been nicer if he had shown her how much he needed her help and how she was the only help he had. Instead of feeling and acting like he was forcing her into this servile position they could have worked together as a team, she sacrificing her own desires so that their farm would prosper and he doing likewise. This would have made their relationship better, but I don’t think he was obligated to tell her.
Question is, did the girl have the right to wear makeup and such things? Yes, she had the right to do whatever she liked…but by living under the jurisdiction of her father she forfeited certain rights in order to receive the privileges he gave her, such as a roof over her head, food to eat, and a father’s protection. We all give up certain rights whenever we enter any type of relationship. A mother gives up her right to read books all day long when she has a child, for the privilege of being a mother. A wife gives up certain rights when she marries for the privileges of a husband’s protection, leadership, provision, etc…This is part of life. We freely choose to forfeit certain things to gain others. And we are constantly engaged in acts of valuation, “is this privilege more valuable to me than this right?” And every time we choose one end we are giving up another less-valued end. The girl valued the benefits that came from living under her father’s jurisdiction more than the freedoms she could have had by living somewhere else.
I know that the feminists would probably kill me for this blog post, but hey, it is just my humble opinion. :) I thought it was an interesting situation and wanted to think it through a bit. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts as on this too!
Thoughts on Egypt
0I know that everyone is suddenly saying, “oh…I’ve got some thoughts on Egypt” or “I’ve always had a feeling about Egypt…” but hey, if you’re here reading my blog it is because you like what I say, so you might just appreciate my thoughts on the Egyptian crisis.
Frankly, I haven’t thought much about Egypt before. It is like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I vaguely knew they existed, but it wasn’t until everyone started talking about it that I got interested.
I was watching some of the footage from it last week. I have mixed thoughts about what’s going on there. The conventional, safe, “ordinary” side of me is thinking, “uh-oh. Watch out for those people. They are mad. And doing crazy things. I hope that never happens here.” But I was discussing the subject last week with a friend and our conversation led me to see it from another perspective. While we shouldn’t encourage violence and protests like that, at least the people recognize that they are enslaved and at least they desire liberty. Seeing all those people burning pictures of their “dear leader” (I forget his name…) and overpowering rows of police officers with black masks and all that, it does excite and inspire me a little. As my friend said, and I’m loosely quoting, “a few days of freedom, even with a little chaos, would be worth it.” If all the good people in America would rise up like the Egyptians, it would cheer my heart. But I’m afraid of something like that happening here, because you’d get the good and the bad rising up. We would have violent people who don’t respect others. We’d have entitlement-minded people interested only in looting others. There is no foundation of Common Law or property rights here, and it would get very wild very fast.
But I like seeing these bold people striking out against tyrants and upsetting the plans of world leaders.
Avoiding the Question
0I was listening to NPR today because my classical radio station wasn’t coming in, and that was the only other option, besides Rush Limbaugh, which, although it may be hard to believe, is even worse to listen to than NPR. So the host was interviewing this NPR political correspondant who has covered news from Congress for about 10 years and is now leaving to develop a new project. They were discussing the situation in Washington right now, gridlock, party conflicts, etc…and one of the comments was, “Washington is broken. And we need to figure out how to fix it.” And I was like, “uh…wait, why do we need to fix it?”
For my facebook friends, I recently posted a status update about my frustration in discussing politics with people. My status was this: “It is incredibly frustrating and essentially impossible to have any kind of relevant and productive political discussion between an anarcho-capitalist and minarchist. This is becoming more obvious to me the longer I attempt to engage in such discussions. I think I’ll try to avoid it from now on, unless the other person is ready for a 2 hour explanation on what anarcho-capitalism really is before talking about anything else :)”
That’s how I felt while listening to NPR. They automatically make the assumption that for some unknown reason, we must try to figure out a way for the political parties to work together and continue to govern the nation. It is unacceptable to them to consider any other option. The only thing we can do is talk about how we’ll fix it, but the crucial of whether it is worth fixing or not is completely ignored.
So what can you do? When you’re not allowed to question the presuppositions of the culture, how can progress be made?