Church-State...Christians-Politicians

I grew up very much being taught to be politically conservative. But not one to simply carry on, I studied the philosophical underpinnings of what the conservatives claimed: free markets. This inevitably led me to Austrian economics and libertarianism as a result. But from the start I had embraced "Christian Economics" and had arrived by a different gate than most libertarians. Mine came through my theological studies primarily, which is foundational to all of my [good] thinking. Even here I found no refuge and have forsaken all political parties. I have abandoned the idea of "rights" which seem to me to be extremely selfish and have instead adopted the idea of "duties." This is a perspective change, however and not some wholesale pitch of a new ideology. Instead of the right to bear arms I believe I have the God mandated duty to protect my family. Instead of "blah" rights I have "blah" duties before God to do "such and such." Our duty must also be weighed in the balance between obeying our earthly rulers with God's rule from heaven (obedience of course, as long as there is no conflict). This is a very different ideology from Ayn Rand's; I would daresay it's the biblical one. Thus, I reject outright the idea that the conservative party represents Christianity in American politics. In fact, it represents the worst of religiosity's use of "god" to invade other countries, claim more power over men's lives and meanwhile holding themselves up as substitute messiahs (even though they prove themselves philanderers, thieves and cheats).

What is a Christian’s responsibility when it comes to politics? I look to Moses who set up the system of judges. I look to Joseph who was the second most powerful person in Egypt. I look to Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael who served a pagan ruler but did not partake in wickedness. So Christians may be involved. And I would argue should be involved in order to exert a godly influence. My view of the biblical argument: Christians can be involved in government without committing sin. In the cases where Christians are involved, we have an established precedence that where God’s people are, God’s mercy is extended (i.e. mercy is God’s law and love). Anecdotally it's kind of like this; given a controlled culture and government that claims the sovereignty that belongs only to God, I appear as a libertarian or even anarchistic. But if I were to live in an anarchistic country, I would appear as a statist/monarchist/socialist since I would call for the restriction of violence by the state. This always seems to be the rule: moderation in all things.

Women's Ordination

William Witt's Article Series on Women's Ordination

John Piper and Wayne Grudem's Complementarianism

Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE): Free Articles

The Rise and Fall of the Political Ultra-Rich

The Rise of the Political Ultra-Rich

The most important statement made in this article is the heading of the final paragraph: "How establishment Republicans are trying to survive Tea Party challenges." This is the most telling data point of the whole piece. It clues us in to the reality of the situation: the Supreme Court's decision doesn't affect the Rep-Dem stranglehold on political posturing. The writer indicated that there will be a short-term benefit to Reps but that it would only be short, really short.

So in the least pontificated "paragraph" of the article do we find an exquisite exposition of the incredible implications? No. It reads almost as if the article was truncated. It ends abruptly.

So in the spirit of charitable free-lance, allow me to finish the article which was just starting to get good before it got gone.

How establishment Republicans are trying to survive Tea Party challenges

Turning to Senate contests, we’re seeing examples of how establishment Republicans are trying to survive Tea Party challenges. In North Carolina, American Crossroads is airing a TV ad for establishment GOPer Tom Tillis highlighting his work for voter ID laws. And in Mississippi, Thad Cochran is using guns and abortion as way to strengthen his conservative bona fides.

But saying that they are merely challenges is to obfuscate the symptoms with the source of those challenges. As indicated earlier in the article, the power of influence is via the power of the dollar, traditionally speaking. However the "Republicans" of today are less traditional. In fact, this is a problem for establishment Democrats as well. The establishment's base of support is dwindling due to changes in the culture, largely brought about by reactionary changes from generation to generation as well as the technological changes that have sparked the information revolution.

The response is revolutionary. What is becoming ever obvious to ordinary citizens is that the bureaucratic machine continues to polarize the public and pander to the politically minded. The establishmentarians fail to realize that the new generation of collective, political activism known broadly as the Tea Party is an idealist, intellectually-grounded, free-thinking, and politically-centrist movement of ideologues that cannot be bought by anachronistic advertising. They deal in the currency of ideas. They are neither republican, nor democrat. They are neither conservative, nor liberal. They desire the one thing that a bureaucratic machine cannot deliver: freedom. And like their forefathers, they are ready to fight for it.

Billions of dollars spent on smear campaigns won't deter the coming tide. If the establishment will not change to suit their constituents, their constituents will change the establishment. The rise of the political ultra-rich is also, paradoxically, the fall of the political ultra-rich.

Global Warming and Risk, Risk, Risk! Subtitled: Our Diar[rhea] Circumstances...

Holy Crimea Batman! This piece reads like the alarmist literature it claims to not be. As I got a good laugh out of how it linked all of the world's ills to global warming, I thought to myself, "Why not blame the widening rich-poor gap on global warming too!" And guess what? Unfortunately, I cannot even muster the courage to quote the ridiculousness contained therein. Instead, I shall make a prediction.

I have no idea how long it will take for policy setters...er...modern scientists, to quit their shenanigans. Thus I give no timeline to my prediction. One disclaimer: I don't mean all scientists have disavowed science for politics, I mean that those policy setters wearing the academic garb of scientia are not scientists in any sense of the word (hyperbole). The average person will one day view global-warmers as we now view flat-earthers. Unfortunately, they will probably misattribute the held belief of the common uneducated person to the religious who have opposed the common view if for no other reason than that it fails to align with divine revelation. #endrant

The curse of wealth.

1 Timothy 5:16 If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed.

Who is the Church? And why are Christians so financially burdened? Do we not want to be in the position to assist when called upon? There is no excuse for the Church of Christ to be impotent today given our improved wealth and standard of living, as compared to the first century Church for instance.

The more we have, the more we want. Christians need to stop being so fearful when talking about money. They need to avoid beggars in clerical robes and give to the real beggars. They need to help when it is in the power of their hand to do it. Christ will come back and we will reconcile all accounts with Him. Christians also need to tithe. Don't be fooled by my soft way of making that last statement.

My crude historical outline of Free-Market thought

Mercantilism gave governments an excuse for privation of their countrysides for the benefit of their "country" or royal coffers. (Terms to google: Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Louis XIV)

Physiocrats or economistes came into existence under authoritarian France. They coined the term laissez faire. They applied the enlightenment ideals of freedom and liberty to economics during a time of growing enlightenment in the culture at large. (Terms to google: Francois Quesnay)

Adam Smith was an intellectual heir to the physiocrats and also English. His Wealth of Nations popularized free market theory. (Terms to google: Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations)

Carl Menger and others in Austria (I do believe they were also under an authoritarian government) had amazing insights into what really drove the market's pricing of goods: demand. The next generation of Austrian free market economists Ludwig von Mises, Frederick Hayek, explained the trade cycle in terms of economic theory thereby discovering the source of the "boom-and-bust" cycle. (Terms to google: supply and demand, Ludwig von Mises, Frederick Hayek, Austrian economics)

Today there is a thriving school of thought call Austrian economics. Ludwig von Mises Institute is the de facto headquarters. Some famous or infamous people associated with it are Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, et al. (Terms to google: austrian theory of the trade cycle, Murray Rothbard)

To aid in the learning process I am including a list of links to sites promoting liberty in politics and economics:

"The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism and the Austrian School of economics."

I also subscribe to GaryNorth.com which is where I get most of my knowledge from. But it costs $15 a month. You can get most of the same information for "free" but you'll have to work harder for it (it'll only cost you time...).

Congressman Ron Paul's website.

Lew Rockwell blog and site.

Constitution Party. I vote for their candidates.

Chuck Baldwin's website (Constitution Party Candidate 2008).

Chalcedon Foundation. A Christian educational organization.

Campaign for Liberty.

Ron Paul Archives.

Gary North Archives. And his Freebooks website.

If this list isn't daunting enough Google: Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Carl Menger, Frederick Hayek, Frederick Bastiat, Adam Smith...

What did they expect?

Lawmakers steamed over ritzy AIG retreat after bailout

FED: Private or Public?...er...Hybrid?

In response to a comment; Gary North on his Q&A forum:

If the FED is not private "at all," then why do all the 12 regional Fed banks have .org in their web addresses? Why do they all pay postage, unlike the Board of Governors?

The Board of Governors has .gov. It is a government institution. It mails out under the government's frank.

You learn something new everyday. The FED really is a monstrous hybrid from Jekyll sland.

Are we in recession?

Depression, recession, mild downturn...What do these words mean anyways?

Did anyone see this coming? Yes. I was warned by those who study economic theory. By all indications as of the end of 2007 we were heading for recession.

If you want to learn more check out this required reading list: The Recession Reader

Managed "Free" Market

Conservatives: 'Take a breath' before passing bailout

"Nobody wants to do this. Nobody wants to be involved in this. Nobody wants to take the chance, but I would argue... if we do nothing, we are jeopardizing our economy, jobs and people's retirement security," [Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the top Republican in the House] said.

"[I]f we do nothing" is exactly what this country needs from you Sir. Please do nothing and allow the economy to right itself.

Discriminatory Tax Cuts

If I were to vote solely on the basis of who gave me a larger tax cut, I would vote for Barack Obama. The Washington Post article Obama and McCain Tax Proposals shows us something of politics and media. John McCain caters to the capitalists; Obama caters to the populace (or at least 60% of taxpayers). So who wins out?

McCain gets the backing of the wealthy; money is necessary to a campaign and the backing of those with money. Obama gets the backing of a large voting block; votes are necessary to a campaign and the accompanying charisma. Will money and advertising sway the voting public or will popularity and the vague doctrine of "change" rue the day?

We also see what the Washington Post wants us to see. "Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy." This appeal to emotion fails the test of logic. Is it right or better to give tax cuts to those who make the least? Is it right that those who work harder/smarter bears the larger burden because they make more money?

This is a case of "politics of envy." Show me someone who votes to raise the taxes on America's wealthiest and I'll show you a hypocrite who would vote the contrary if his economic position improved to the point where he was in the top 1% of wage earners. Is Obama supposed to be some kind of "Robin Hood" because he "steals from the rich to give to the poor?" The reality is that he will "rob Peter to pay Paul."

Under Obama's plan capital is transferred from the few experienced and knowledgeable investor to themany fractious and divided mass of consumers who spend what they do not have, do not save money and do not know how to successfully invest their money. This is not a good economic plan. This is a good political ploy. This country needs sound money not political pandering.

My view is that our current state of taxation is unethically high for everyone. Although McCain is giving back more than Obama by an average of almost 7X as much. This would benefit the economy more if that is what your aiming for in the tax cut.

Comparatively Obama will be far more ruinous to this country's economy than McCain will. But McCain will not provide a means of restoring sound money either. I vote for the clssic liberal who promotes freedom and liberty. For that is what this country needs (meanwhile I will concurrently promote attending to the deplorable spiritual state of this country as well).

But what about throwing your vote away when you could have a Republican with some adherence to the conservative agenda? This country needs long term vision. Short term gains and long term losses are unacceptable. I cannot in good conscience vote for the "lesser of two evils." You cannot split rotting wood (Gresham Machen). The war must be over the long run and short run battles must be in the direction of less not more government. Tactics must be consistent with strategy.

Both candidates will bring more government, not because they personally will seek its augmentation but because they will not resist those who do. We need a president who is keenly aware of the unwritted alliances and seek their abolishment. It is common knowledge that "politics is dirty." Then why are we upset by those who act in terms of that thinking? The policy setters are not the same people who are the policy makers. Who then set policy? Follow the money.

Why the title Discriminatory Tax Cuts? Because our entire tax structure is currently discriminatory and to give so little back (both candidates stop far too short) is discriminatory. Taxes discriminate against Americans. We fought for our indeppendence under a system of taxes lower than today's...Where have we gone wrong?

We need to get rid of income taxes altogether and support our fiscal needs on something like an excise tax(es). We need people like Ron Paul (R) and Chuck Baldwin (CP). But we need them all over this country and in every level of politics from the "dog catcher" to the president.

Equilibrium in Personal Economy

What is equilibrium as it relates to trade? What is it in relation to a personal economy? Is equilibrium one of the natural economic laws?

Does any person at any particular time have everything he wants? If he is not working to obtain something he wants, I would say he has everything he wants. To "want" something and not work for it is some kind of illusion of want.

Most people say they want to be rich but few truly work to achieve wealth. So what is a person really saying? "I would like to be rich if it was worth my time working for it." That is closer to what they really mean.

Thrift is the key to wealth. No debt (the bad kind), living below your means, and saving the rest is the start to amassing wealth. But it is not enough to have it (i.e. bury it), you must put it to use (i.e. put it in a bank at minimum).

With great risk comes great reward. You must take a reasonable risk to get rich. Combined with thrift even mistakes can be worked through. Oftentimes the rich did not get that way the first venture they tried.

Most people will admit that they are lazy (I have and am trying to reverse the curse of the desire for leisure). So even if some one says they want to be rich their actions will prove if they really want it or it is some unrealistic dream.

A persons "want" has to outweigh the "cost" be it laziness, time or money. If a person has to sacrifice too high a level of either of these he will not make the purchase (i.e. trading time for wealth). Thus that person has saved himself from mis-allocating that resource.

Being that people make decisions in self interest a personal economy reflects a certain idea of equilibrium (not sure if that was what Hayek was getting at but this is how I understand it). Thus people have everything they want, barring those things they are currently working to acquire.

America's Economic Future, Slide Show

http://perotcharts.com/challenges/

$9.2 trillion in listed/visible debt = $5 trillion of public debt + $4 trillion in intragovernmental debt
$70-80 trillion in unlisted debt due to required future entitlement payments

OR

The government will NOT continue its entitlement program as currently administered.

US Loan Mapping

Provided by the Federal Reserve here.

Greenspan warns economy may fall into recession

No kidding. He should be able to predict it. He has been in charge of our economy for years. He knows what he has done and he knows where we are headed. (Read his statement.)

With the 'New' Fed's policy of lowering inflation we ought to see the market correcting itself...But what that means is Recession at best, Depression at worst.