Philosophos: This feeds well into a discussion of what the Kingdom of God is. The Kingdom of God is nothing more (or less) than a culture. It is the One True Culture. The only One completely based on the King's values. And every culture on earth is to be judged by this standard and reformed in this pattern to the extent that we (the Church) have influence. Prayer is influence, certainly, but it must work in tandem with example, education and activism. (And we might also add "violence" to end of that list, but only in very, very limited circumstances).
Nomodiphas: I would agree on your assessment that the only true culture is based off of the King's values—all other cultures must be judged off of this standard only. I also fully agree that crimes based on neediness (theft for example) are not capitol crimes, nor does neediness ever necessitate a capital crime. I would further agree that more capitol crimes are committed by poor/minority people so a just system would execute more of them. I believe this is largely due to the fact that their cultural has deviated further from Kingdom culture than has the cultural of say the middle class (maybe 'further’ is the wrong word, but the deviations of the lower classes are in areas with more blatant consequences and in areas that lead to more crimes of this type).
For example, I believe that the higher rates of out of wedlock pregnancies, divorce, incarceration, school dropout, etc. in these communities are a result of the perversion of their cultural and values (things like victimization and entitlement). Yet at the same time these problems that are a result of a deviation from God’s culture lead to a furthering of the deviation from Kingdom culture. It is a cycle that must be broken.
Materialism is also to blame. Young men turn to crime because it is easier than working to get the things they want and feel they are entitled to. They treat women without honor and abandon them with children. The children then grow up with dads who are either absent or incarcerated. These children are not trained in Godly values (the only examples they have are from the media and older gangsters that they admire) so they do what they see and enter a life of crime that perpetuates the problems that led them to crime in the first place.
I would say these problems come from a number of deviations from the King’s Culture. The consequences of rebellion in the areas of materialism, infidelity, and laziness are blatantly obvious. In my opinion neediness, or perceived neediness, only plays a small part. That is why economic development does not bring significant change to these communities. You see a lot of people growing up in the ghetto making it big in music or sports and still succumbing to crime and violence. A lot of values need to change to bring transformation to these communities. They need a new culture—the culture of the King.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
The Death Penalty
Philosophos: Onto a whole new topic. Is the death penalty permissible?
Nomodiphas: It is used in the Bible so that seems to be an obvious yes. Why do you ask that?
Philosophos: In the extremity of my youth I used not to think so. I was seduced by the teachings of the pacifists—men like Tolstoy and Gandhi. I took Christ’s Sermon on the Mount literally and thought that all violence was wrong. Now I have come to a different conclusion. I believe that based on Scripture it is plainly not unjust for a government to put certain criminals to death. God told the Israelites to do this in the Old Testament era and God clearly would not command an unjust action. Further, in circumstances where lifetime incarceration is not a viable option (such as in the Israelite wilderness wanderings of the Old Testament), it seems to me that a just society absolutely must use the death penalty. But, we are no longer in those circumstances. So, perhaps, other alternatives should be examined. Though it is in no way unjust, I don't really have a strong sense one way or the other on using the death penalty in our age.
Nomodiphas: In regards to the death penalty I really don't have a strong opinion either. Lifetime incarceration is more or less the same thing; it in effect takes a person's life from them. One thing I have noticed is the swiftness with which justice was administered in the Law of Moses. True there is a system of 'appeals' if the case is too hard for a judge. But in cases where guilt is obvious the people are instructed to execute punishment immediately. That is one thing unmistakably lacking from our death penalty and I think waiting 20 to 30 years to enact a punishment takes away from its effectiveness.
A pro to imprisonment is that people have a longer time to repent and find the truth. However a con to lifetime imprisonment would be that prisoners may put off coming to terms with their mortality, as many do, because there is no immediate end to their life in sight. Contrast this with a quickly administered death penalty. Since death is imminent and comes closely after a crime a person may be more overwhelmed with conviction and repent. Though they lose their life their soul may be saved.
A final thing to consider is justice to the victim. Some cases are so heinous that it is hard to imagine the killer living for decades with good food, TV and entertainment, fellowship with other inmates, books etc.—after depriving one or maybe a number of people of their lives in a terrorizing and torturing fashion. (But that problem could lie more in the prison system than in a need for the death penalty).
The main objection to the death penalty seems to be that people executed are more likely to be poor and of minority status. I think there is truth to this. The amount of money a person has determines what type of lawyer they will have access to, and to some degree, the level of justice that they will receive. This however is not a problem with the death penalty, but a problem with our justice system that, I believe, needs to be reformed regardless of the status of the death penalty.
There are my general thoughts on that. The more I think about it, the more I would be in favor of the death penalty if it was done correctly (administered equally across races and classes and done swiftly without millions of dollars and decades spent on appeals—I think it is an indictment against our system that many of people on death row die of natural causes).
Philosophos: Your thoughts look reasonable to me with one exception. I have never seen any real evidence that the death penalty is NOT administered equally across races and classes. I have only seen so-called evidence—statistics showing a disproportionate number of minorities or relatively-low-income folk (I don't use the term "poor" for any American) convicted and sentenced. But it is undeniable that a disproportionate number of heinous crimes are committed by members of these groups, so I don't see how this type of statistic proves unequal treatment under the law. On the contrary, equal treatment demands this very result.
And another thing: crimes that are based on neediness (or perceived neediness), such as theft, are not capital crimes. So neediness (or perceived neediness) does not directly drive someone to commit a capital crime. I think it does have an effect, but only indirectly. It tempts one toward a culture with twisted valuations of freedom, violence, success, entitlement, victimization, etc. This twisted culture, I think, is the basis of most capital crimes. And this is the reason why we see a statistical connection between minority/low-income groups and conviction of capital crimes.
Nomodiphas: It is used in the Bible so that seems to be an obvious yes. Why do you ask that?
Philosophos: In the extremity of my youth I used not to think so. I was seduced by the teachings of the pacifists—men like Tolstoy and Gandhi. I took Christ’s Sermon on the Mount literally and thought that all violence was wrong. Now I have come to a different conclusion. I believe that based on Scripture it is plainly not unjust for a government to put certain criminals to death. God told the Israelites to do this in the Old Testament era and God clearly would not command an unjust action. Further, in circumstances where lifetime incarceration is not a viable option (such as in the Israelite wilderness wanderings of the Old Testament), it seems to me that a just society absolutely must use the death penalty. But, we are no longer in those circumstances. So, perhaps, other alternatives should be examined. Though it is in no way unjust, I don't really have a strong sense one way or the other on using the death penalty in our age.
Nomodiphas: In regards to the death penalty I really don't have a strong opinion either. Lifetime incarceration is more or less the same thing; it in effect takes a person's life from them. One thing I have noticed is the swiftness with which justice was administered in the Law of Moses. True there is a system of 'appeals' if the case is too hard for a judge. But in cases where guilt is obvious the people are instructed to execute punishment immediately. That is one thing unmistakably lacking from our death penalty and I think waiting 20 to 30 years to enact a punishment takes away from its effectiveness.
A pro to imprisonment is that people have a longer time to repent and find the truth. However a con to lifetime imprisonment would be that prisoners may put off coming to terms with their mortality, as many do, because there is no immediate end to their life in sight. Contrast this with a quickly administered death penalty. Since death is imminent and comes closely after a crime a person may be more overwhelmed with conviction and repent. Though they lose their life their soul may be saved.
A final thing to consider is justice to the victim. Some cases are so heinous that it is hard to imagine the killer living for decades with good food, TV and entertainment, fellowship with other inmates, books etc.—after depriving one or maybe a number of people of their lives in a terrorizing and torturing fashion. (But that problem could lie more in the prison system than in a need for the death penalty).
The main objection to the death penalty seems to be that people executed are more likely to be poor and of minority status. I think there is truth to this. The amount of money a person has determines what type of lawyer they will have access to, and to some degree, the level of justice that they will receive. This however is not a problem with the death penalty, but a problem with our justice system that, I believe, needs to be reformed regardless of the status of the death penalty.
There are my general thoughts on that. The more I think about it, the more I would be in favor of the death penalty if it was done correctly (administered equally across races and classes and done swiftly without millions of dollars and decades spent on appeals—I think it is an indictment against our system that many of people on death row die of natural causes).
Philosophos: Your thoughts look reasonable to me with one exception. I have never seen any real evidence that the death penalty is NOT administered equally across races and classes. I have only seen so-called evidence—statistics showing a disproportionate number of minorities or relatively-low-income folk (I don't use the term "poor" for any American) convicted and sentenced. But it is undeniable that a disproportionate number of heinous crimes are committed by members of these groups, so I don't see how this type of statistic proves unequal treatment under the law. On the contrary, equal treatment demands this very result.
And another thing: crimes that are based on neediness (or perceived neediness), such as theft, are not capital crimes. So neediness (or perceived neediness) does not directly drive someone to commit a capital crime. I think it does have an effect, but only indirectly. It tempts one toward a culture with twisted valuations of freedom, violence, success, entitlement, victimization, etc. This twisted culture, I think, is the basis of most capital crimes. And this is the reason why we see a statistical connection between minority/low-income groups and conviction of capital crimes.
Friday, June 20, 2008
The Environment/Global Warming
Nomodiphas: What do you make of the current debate over global warming? What should our government do to prevent global warming, or at the very least mitigate its imminent disastrous effects?
Philosophos: I am very skeptical about this whole global warming ‘crisis.’
Nomodiphas: How can you say that? Isn’t the evidence indisputable that the earth is growing warmer?
Philosophos: The earth may well be growing warmer, but I doubt that humans are the cause of it and even if we are, I doubt that the effects will be as dramatic as the forecasted effects.
Nomodiphas: But, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it?
Philosophos: Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?
Nomodiphas: So if global warming is not caused by humans and it is not this pending threat, what is going on?
Philosophos: I was reading something by Reid Bryson the other day. Now this man is known as the father of scientific climatology. He was a professor at a very liberal university and the head chair of a very liberal environmental group—he is far from being in the pocket of oil companies and big business as radicals claim all those who doubt global warming are. Bryson believes that global warming is ‘a bunch of hooey.’ He says he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it. He says there is no question that the earth has been warming. "However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time."
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer. It is true that humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny. "It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he says of our concern on human activity. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence." Bryson argues that just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in a democracy, maybe."
So why do we constantly hear talk of global warming? "There is a lot of money to be made in this," Bryson claims. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of graduate students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'" As far as how reporters get their facts, often times they will call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson explains. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'" The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years.
In conclusions Bryson remarks that "there is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts." The only evidence of man-made warming in our state is around cities for the last 100 years. There has been slight change around cities, but that was true and detectable in the 1930’s. Other areas show no warming. Cities are hotter not because of carbon dioxide, but because of concentrated cars, pavement, and home heating.
As far as I am concerned the jury is still out on global warming. Caribou live near the artic circle. They flourish in the hardest, coldest climates. Yet Julius Caesar wrote that France was filled with Caribou while he was campaigning there. What does that mean? The climate is always changing! It does so naturally. Is it warming now? Maybe. Do we have anything to do with it? Probably not, but even if we do, most agree there is little we can do to change things. And even if we could change things, we shouldn’t.
All life contains both risk and cost. Do you know how many people die every year in car accidents? Millions, it is the most common form of death. We could prevent all these deaths by instituting a world wide two mile an hour speed limit. But you don’t hear anyone calling for that. Why not? Because the cost in time and economic hurt brought about by this change would lead to far more death and harm than the current situation. The same is true for global warming. Radicals argue that since global warming may bring death there is a moral imperative to do all we can to stop it. But radically limiting development would be an economic catastrophe and would lead to far greater harm than doing nothing at all.
Nomodiphas: That was really interesting what you said about professor Bryson. Profit mixed with science and education; the wrong end for a field once again corrupts a field. I can understand that. I can see how you need to have some huge problem in order to attain research grants to solve that problem.
As for the scientific claims, I am no scientist and I have not seen the data myself, however I do doubt that things are as cut and dried as global warming activists propone them to be. Our whole media seems to revolve around fear inducement. You need to be extreme in order to get people’s attention and sell your news. ‘The climate is naturally changing and humans may have to make minor adjustments to their lives’ does not sell papers like a headline that reads: ‘millions will die, global warming catastrophe is imminent.’
I think there is an alarming lack of research occurring here. Reporters go into something with a story and mind, needing only to find someone to back up the claim. Those that prophesy doom and gloom get attention. In order to get attention and grant money one needs to continue with this game. When one wants to hear something many will be quick to say it so long as it brings them attention and money.
Regarding the environment in general, should there be any environmental laws?
Philosophos: Before I answer that I would like to mention that I do think people should be good stewards of resources. It is wise not to over-fish, over-graze, pollute, etc. I think however, most of these choices are to be made at the individual level. The reason the Bible does not allow the government to punish an individual for unwise stewardship, I believe, is primarily because there are natural consequences. If you over-fish your pond or over-graze your field, it will lose value and you will only hurt yourself. The problem is with the commons. There the tendency is to take what one can get. There is no incentive to be a good steward for someone else may take it all before you can use it or pass it on. That is why the state should encourage more property to be privately owned—private owners tend to be the best stewards of land.
However not all land can be privately owned and the state can make laws to ensure that people respect these common areas. But as far as private land goes, we have a right to use our land as we wish so long as it does not harm others (for example, I can’t build a factory that puts chemicals in a stream that kill my neighbor’s cows or crops). The right to life limits the right to property. Pollution limiting laws are in this way justified. As for recycling and things of that nature, they are choices left to the individual. The government may not interfere and tell people how they are to use or dispose of their property.
I want to switch gears here and talk about the main reason I am skeptical of global warming. The president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus recently said this about global warming: "What is at risk is not the climate but freedom. I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning."
Nomodiphas: Are you implying that you think there are people who are promulgating fraudulent claims and wrongfully stoking fear over a natural process in order to take or gain power?
Philosophos: I am not implying it; I am accusing them of it. What is tyranny?
Nomodiphas: It is the wrongful rule of one.
Philosophos: And how does this come about?
Nomodiphas: It comes about when there is a crisis and we have a need for a decisive individual to rule and lead us out of the crisis. We disregard our laws and procedures because the crisis necessitates fast action.
Philosophos: What is one to do if they want to circumvent the laws and rule over the people as a tyrant and there is no crisis?
Nomodiphas: I don’t know.
Philosophos: They create a crisis to justify their take over. I believe that this is at the heart of the global warming ‘crisis.’ It is an invented crisis which has the sole aim of taking liberty from the people. You can see that now already. Those that want more evidence of global warming are put on par with those who deny the Holocaust. There are calls to make sacrifices and create limits on consumption of use, but allowances for those that have the money to buy ‘carbon credits.’ Sacrifices have to be made, but not by those in power, they are far too important for that! “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than the others.” If Al Gore is so worried about global warming why doesn’t he move out of his 10,000 square foot house and start riding a bus instead of flying around in his private jet? That is unthinkable! Those are the things the common man it told to do, but Al Gore is far too important to be bound by those rules. After all, didn’t Napoleon teach us that great men are not subject to the restrictions of the masses?
Philosophos: I am very skeptical about this whole global warming ‘crisis.’
Nomodiphas: How can you say that? Isn’t the evidence indisputable that the earth is growing warmer?
Philosophos: The earth may well be growing warmer, but I doubt that humans are the cause of it and even if we are, I doubt that the effects will be as dramatic as the forecasted effects.
Nomodiphas: But, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it?
Philosophos: Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?
Nomodiphas: So if global warming is not caused by humans and it is not this pending threat, what is going on?
Philosophos: I was reading something by Reid Bryson the other day. Now this man is known as the father of scientific climatology. He was a professor at a very liberal university and the head chair of a very liberal environmental group—he is far from being in the pocket of oil companies and big business as radicals claim all those who doubt global warming are. Bryson believes that global warming is ‘a bunch of hooey.’ He says he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it. He says there is no question that the earth has been warming. "However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time."
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer. It is true that humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny. "It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he says of our concern on human activity. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence." Bryson argues that just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in a democracy, maybe."
So why do we constantly hear talk of global warming? "There is a lot of money to be made in this," Bryson claims. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of graduate students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'" As far as how reporters get their facts, often times they will call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson explains. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'" The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years.
In conclusions Bryson remarks that "there is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts." The only evidence of man-made warming in our state is around cities for the last 100 years. There has been slight change around cities, but that was true and detectable in the 1930’s. Other areas show no warming. Cities are hotter not because of carbon dioxide, but because of concentrated cars, pavement, and home heating.
As far as I am concerned the jury is still out on global warming. Caribou live near the artic circle. They flourish in the hardest, coldest climates. Yet Julius Caesar wrote that France was filled with Caribou while he was campaigning there. What does that mean? The climate is always changing! It does so naturally. Is it warming now? Maybe. Do we have anything to do with it? Probably not, but even if we do, most agree there is little we can do to change things. And even if we could change things, we shouldn’t.
All life contains both risk and cost. Do you know how many people die every year in car accidents? Millions, it is the most common form of death. We could prevent all these deaths by instituting a world wide two mile an hour speed limit. But you don’t hear anyone calling for that. Why not? Because the cost in time and economic hurt brought about by this change would lead to far more death and harm than the current situation. The same is true for global warming. Radicals argue that since global warming may bring death there is a moral imperative to do all we can to stop it. But radically limiting development would be an economic catastrophe and would lead to far greater harm than doing nothing at all.
Nomodiphas: That was really interesting what you said about professor Bryson. Profit mixed with science and education; the wrong end for a field once again corrupts a field. I can understand that. I can see how you need to have some huge problem in order to attain research grants to solve that problem.
As for the scientific claims, I am no scientist and I have not seen the data myself, however I do doubt that things are as cut and dried as global warming activists propone them to be. Our whole media seems to revolve around fear inducement. You need to be extreme in order to get people’s attention and sell your news. ‘The climate is naturally changing and humans may have to make minor adjustments to their lives’ does not sell papers like a headline that reads: ‘millions will die, global warming catastrophe is imminent.’
I think there is an alarming lack of research occurring here. Reporters go into something with a story and mind, needing only to find someone to back up the claim. Those that prophesy doom and gloom get attention. In order to get attention and grant money one needs to continue with this game. When one wants to hear something many will be quick to say it so long as it brings them attention and money.
Regarding the environment in general, should there be any environmental laws?
Philosophos: Before I answer that I would like to mention that I do think people should be good stewards of resources. It is wise not to over-fish, over-graze, pollute, etc. I think however, most of these choices are to be made at the individual level. The reason the Bible does not allow the government to punish an individual for unwise stewardship, I believe, is primarily because there are natural consequences. If you over-fish your pond or over-graze your field, it will lose value and you will only hurt yourself. The problem is with the commons. There the tendency is to take what one can get. There is no incentive to be a good steward for someone else may take it all before you can use it or pass it on. That is why the state should encourage more property to be privately owned—private owners tend to be the best stewards of land.
However not all land can be privately owned and the state can make laws to ensure that people respect these common areas. But as far as private land goes, we have a right to use our land as we wish so long as it does not harm others (for example, I can’t build a factory that puts chemicals in a stream that kill my neighbor’s cows or crops). The right to life limits the right to property. Pollution limiting laws are in this way justified. As for recycling and things of that nature, they are choices left to the individual. The government may not interfere and tell people how they are to use or dispose of their property.
I want to switch gears here and talk about the main reason I am skeptical of global warming. The president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus recently said this about global warming: "What is at risk is not the climate but freedom. I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning."
Nomodiphas: Are you implying that you think there are people who are promulgating fraudulent claims and wrongfully stoking fear over a natural process in order to take or gain power?
Philosophos: I am not implying it; I am accusing them of it. What is tyranny?
Nomodiphas: It is the wrongful rule of one.
Philosophos: And how does this come about?
Nomodiphas: It comes about when there is a crisis and we have a need for a decisive individual to rule and lead us out of the crisis. We disregard our laws and procedures because the crisis necessitates fast action.
Philosophos: What is one to do if they want to circumvent the laws and rule over the people as a tyrant and there is no crisis?
Nomodiphas: I don’t know.
Philosophos: They create a crisis to justify their take over. I believe that this is at the heart of the global warming ‘crisis.’ It is an invented crisis which has the sole aim of taking liberty from the people. You can see that now already. Those that want more evidence of global warming are put on par with those who deny the Holocaust. There are calls to make sacrifices and create limits on consumption of use, but allowances for those that have the money to buy ‘carbon credits.’ Sacrifices have to be made, but not by those in power, they are far too important for that! “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than the others.” If Al Gore is so worried about global warming why doesn’t he move out of his 10,000 square foot house and start riding a bus instead of flying around in his private jet? That is unthinkable! Those are the things the common man it told to do, but Al Gore is far too important to be bound by those rules. After all, didn’t Napoleon teach us that great men are not subject to the restrictions of the masses?
Saturday, June 7, 2008
AIDS
Nomodiphas: I have a question. How should the governments of the world respond to the current AIDS epidemic?
Philosophos: Epidemic? First off, I wouldn’t call it that. It is true that many people around the world are calling for the world’s governments to get involved and ‘solve’ the AIDS problem. I am of the opinion that governments of the world are doing too much, rather than not enough to stem the spread of and cure this disease. In my opinion the government should ensure that innocent people do not contract the disease (by inspecting blood used in transfusions and protecting people from rape) and no more.
AIDS is a natural consequence of disobeying God’s revealed commands in the area of sexuality. The vast majority of people who contract AIDS do so because they engage in sex outside of marriage. They leave behind orphans and widows and bring suffering and hardship to their communities. In one sense this is a good thing. We have been living for far too long in the mistaken belief that we can operate outside of God’s boundaries without any consequences. AIDS is a stark reminder that there are consequences to our disobedience of God. I for one would rather experience God’s temporal punishment for my sins on this earth, be made aware of my transgressions, and have an opportunity to repent rather than live comfortably in my sin and only be reminded of the wrongness of my actions after my death. I believe that in this way AIDS is a testimony to God’s mercy.
Nomodiphas: A testimony to God’s mercy, aren’t you exaggerating?
Philosophos: Not at all. Think of it like this. You have a tumor in your arm that you are unaware of. If you do nothing about that tumor it will spread and kill you. You slip on some ice and sprain your arm. You are in a lot of pain, so you go to the doctor. While at the doctor’s office, the doctor discovers your tumor. The pain of the sprained arm would be minor compared to the damage the tumor would do if it was left undiscovered. If you could somehow know that God had allowed you to fall on the ice, would you not call this an act of mercy? For even though it produced temporary pain it brought knowledge of and allowed you to fix a much more serious problem.
The same is true of AIDS. AIDS manifests physically the hurt, death, and destruction that illicit sex always brings. The destruction of sexual sin (since the advent of birth control) is usually hidden and only contained in the emotional and spiritual realm. AIDS has changed that. It is a stark reminder of the consequences of sin. AIDS is a physical manifestation of the consequences of sin that is all too often invisible to us. It is a wake up call; a call to repent. It is a sign to those that contract it that the lifestyle they are living is wrong (a life without God and outside of God’s boundaries) and if left unchecked this lifestyle bring death to them and devastation to their families and communities. And in that it is an act of God’s mercy. It reminds us of the consequences of sin that are all too often hidden and forgotten by us.
As Christ said, it is better that a man lose an eye or a hand and enter the kingdom of God than to enter Hell whole and healthy, for what good is it for a man to gain the whole world and yet forfeit his soul? In the same way it is better for a man to be infected with AIDS and find Christ than to live happy and healthy in ignorance to the Truth.
All that being said we should not sit on hands and watch others suffer, rather we should take advantage of the destruction and hardship that AIDS brings and use it as an opportunity to serve others and spread God’s mercy. AIDS provides for the church an opportunity to give mercy to those in great need of it. We must remember that we are no better than those with AIDS. We too have sinned and thereby deserve death. But God did not leave us as we were with the eternal consequences of our sins; rather He provided a way that we may be saved. In the same way the church should not be smug and tell people they deserve what they got, but should instead be quick to offer mercy to those in need of it.
Returning briefly to the role of the government, AIDS is a self induced hardship. Those with it have no right to help, so the government should not be involved in helping them, for mercy is not within the realm of the government’s duties. Mercy is the duty of the church and the church need not spend anymore time reminding those with AIDS that they deserve it. Christians must be merciful just as God has been and continues to be merciful to them.
Philosophos: Epidemic? First off, I wouldn’t call it that. It is true that many people around the world are calling for the world’s governments to get involved and ‘solve’ the AIDS problem. I am of the opinion that governments of the world are doing too much, rather than not enough to stem the spread of and cure this disease. In my opinion the government should ensure that innocent people do not contract the disease (by inspecting blood used in transfusions and protecting people from rape) and no more.
AIDS is a natural consequence of disobeying God’s revealed commands in the area of sexuality. The vast majority of people who contract AIDS do so because they engage in sex outside of marriage. They leave behind orphans and widows and bring suffering and hardship to their communities. In one sense this is a good thing. We have been living for far too long in the mistaken belief that we can operate outside of God’s boundaries without any consequences. AIDS is a stark reminder that there are consequences to our disobedience of God. I for one would rather experience God’s temporal punishment for my sins on this earth, be made aware of my transgressions, and have an opportunity to repent rather than live comfortably in my sin and only be reminded of the wrongness of my actions after my death. I believe that in this way AIDS is a testimony to God’s mercy.
Nomodiphas: A testimony to God’s mercy, aren’t you exaggerating?
Philosophos: Not at all. Think of it like this. You have a tumor in your arm that you are unaware of. If you do nothing about that tumor it will spread and kill you. You slip on some ice and sprain your arm. You are in a lot of pain, so you go to the doctor. While at the doctor’s office, the doctor discovers your tumor. The pain of the sprained arm would be minor compared to the damage the tumor would do if it was left undiscovered. If you could somehow know that God had allowed you to fall on the ice, would you not call this an act of mercy? For even though it produced temporary pain it brought knowledge of and allowed you to fix a much more serious problem.
The same is true of AIDS. AIDS manifests physically the hurt, death, and destruction that illicit sex always brings. The destruction of sexual sin (since the advent of birth control) is usually hidden and only contained in the emotional and spiritual realm. AIDS has changed that. It is a stark reminder of the consequences of sin. AIDS is a physical manifestation of the consequences of sin that is all too often invisible to us. It is a wake up call; a call to repent. It is a sign to those that contract it that the lifestyle they are living is wrong (a life without God and outside of God’s boundaries) and if left unchecked this lifestyle bring death to them and devastation to their families and communities. And in that it is an act of God’s mercy. It reminds us of the consequences of sin that are all too often hidden and forgotten by us.
As Christ said, it is better that a man lose an eye or a hand and enter the kingdom of God than to enter Hell whole and healthy, for what good is it for a man to gain the whole world and yet forfeit his soul? In the same way it is better for a man to be infected with AIDS and find Christ than to live happy and healthy in ignorance to the Truth.
All that being said we should not sit on hands and watch others suffer, rather we should take advantage of the destruction and hardship that AIDS brings and use it as an opportunity to serve others and spread God’s mercy. AIDS provides for the church an opportunity to give mercy to those in great need of it. We must remember that we are no better than those with AIDS. We too have sinned and thereby deserve death. But God did not leave us as we were with the eternal consequences of our sins; rather He provided a way that we may be saved. In the same way the church should not be smug and tell people they deserve what they got, but should instead be quick to offer mercy to those in need of it.
Returning briefly to the role of the government, AIDS is a self induced hardship. Those with it have no right to help, so the government should not be involved in helping them, for mercy is not within the realm of the government’s duties. Mercy is the duty of the church and the church need not spend anymore time reminding those with AIDS that they deserve it. Christians must be merciful just as God has been and continues to be merciful to them.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
War
Philosophos: What should a Christian’s attitude be towards war?
Nomodiphas: I think a Christian should be opposed to war. We are told by Jesus to ‘turn the other cheek’ and to ‘not resist an evildoer.’ It seems from these teachings that Christians should not support or participate in war.
Philosophos: Would you go as far as to say that war is unjust?
Nomodiphas: I guess that is the conclusion that Jesus’ teaching leads one to.
Philosophos: What about the fact that the Israelites made war in the Old Testament under the direct order of God and that God at times participated in war making?
Nomodiphas: Maybe it was just then, but Jesus brought a new law.
Philosophos: That is not how justice works. Justice does not change from time to time or from person to person. And Jesus never claimed to abolish the law—in fact He categorically rejected that notion. Jesus Himself fulfilled every aspect of the law. The law showed us our sin and we are all still sinners. Jesus did not break the law in order to save us; He fulfilled the requirements of the law for us by taking upon Himself the just punishment we deserved as a consequence of our sin.
Nomodiphas: Could it be that war is not unjust today, but also not a valid action of government? The wars of the Old Testament were different because they had different functions. God used Israel to accomplish His specific purposes for that region. No nation can claim this special status today so no war can be valid in the way it was then.
Philosophos: What do you make of the fact that soldiers approached John the Baptist and specifically asked him what changes they should make in their lives and he did not tell them to quit the military? Or the fact that Jesus healed the daughter of a centurion and commended him for his faith and in no way told him to change his way of life as He did to others? Or the fact that neither Peter nor Paul nor any other New Testament author condemns or prohibits war? There is no distinction between wars, no claim that some are valid and others are not. There is no difference made between just wars and unjust wars and no allowance for the former with a prohibition of the latter (as some today claim). War is not encouraged, but it is also not condemned. The Bible makes it clear to us what behavior is prohibited and it is dangerous for us to read restrictions into the Bible that are not there. Those that did this at the time of Jesus were the people most sharply criticized by Jesus (the Pharisees). It is true that we are to lay down our rights including our right to self defense (we are to not strike back, but turn the other cheek—we are to give mercy as God gives mercy to us and not vindicate ourselves but allow God to vindicate us), however no where in the Bible are we instructed to lay down the rights of others. On the contrary we are instructed to defend the weak and their rights.
Pacificism is wrong because it necessitates the denial of one’s value, the abdication of one’s duty, and is often founded upon cowardice. Christian pacifists often say that we have no rights as Christians so we may not defend ourselves. This is completely unbiblical. No where in the Bible does it say that man lacks rights, on the contrary man is made in God’s image. Man has both rights and value, but we are asked to lay down these rights as we follow Christ. That is what makes turning the other cheek so beautiful. We do not say I am nothing and have no right to strike you back, on the contrary we as Christians say justice allows me to strike you and I thereby have a right to do so, however, in imitation of Christ I lay down this right and give you mercy just as Christ has given me mercy.
Pacificism also involves rejecting one’s duty to protect his brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, parents, and countrymen. We may not lay down their right to life; on the contrary, if we are able, we are to defend them from harm. We are who we are because of those around us and all our lives we have benefited from the configuration of our state. Those around us have served us and if the state orders us, we must serve them. In a time of need we may not relinquish our duty to defend and sacrifice on behalf of the state.
Finally many, though not all, are pacifists because they are cowards. Consider the Vietnam protests. Do you think the majority of those hippies gave a damn about the Vietnamese? I highly doubt it. The protests were completely self interested. After growing up with all the benefits that our country endows upon its citizens, these kids were selfish and unwilling to put their happiness on hold in order to sacrifice on behalf of their country. They feared hardship and selfishly wanted to keep themselves from it. Their pacifism was not principled, but only a crass display of their selfishness and cowardice.
Nomodiphas: But we are talking about war. War brings with it an uncountable host of horrors: suffering, injury, pillage, fear, hunger, famine, poverty, and emotional trauma to name a few. Why would we ever want this?
Philosophos: No one in their right mind would ever want this. War is not something to be desired, but it is something that must be endured in order to avoid even worse terrors. Let me ask you this: are there values that are greater than human life?
Nomodiphas: I am sure there are.
Philosophos: Liberty, justice, security, and provision—I would sacrifice my life for these things. I would give my life so that my family could enjoy these things. I would endure a war so that my children would not have to live a life without these things. I imagine you would too. War is not the worst thing in the world for death is not the worst thing in the world. Slavery and injustice for example are far worse than death and sometimes these things can only be avoided by means of war. On this ground war is justified.
Nomodiphas: You’re right. I too would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
Philosophos: Now consider the death rate for a moment. How does war affect the death rate?
Nomodiphas: In one sense it doesn’t. I suppose it brings death sooner to some, but all are destined to die. But the way they die, it seems to be much worse than the average death.
Philosophos: Indeed, for those who die in war the death rate is still 100%. As for the type of death that war generally brings, I would take the opposite position. Most that die in war die in a moment’s time. Death on the battlefield often comes without warning and is relatively painless due to its instantaneous nature. If you asked people in a nursing home if they would rather endure a slow, agonizing death induced by years of cancer or the other ailments that bring pain and death to the elderly: Alzheimer’s, strokes, diabetes, arthritis, and the slow breakdown or their body or if they would prefer to die an instant death on the battlefield, surrounded by their closest friends, giving their lives for others and for values greater than themselves, I would bet that few would reject the option of death on a battlefield.
Further the good thing about war is that those who die in war are more likely to be at peace with God, because their death is more likely to be contemplated. War makes us come to terms with our deaths; the church fathers thought it was a good thing of us to be aware of our mortality. As C.S. Lewis said, only a wise man does this in peaceful times, during war even fools must come to terms with the temporal nature of life. Citizens of nations at war do not live day after day, year after year without contemplating their death, assured that death is distant (as most do now). On the contrary they are constantly aware that today may be there last day. This discourages frivolous living and encourages one to examine their life and ask the deep questions of life. This in turn gives God opportunity to reach people.
Nomodiphas: But must one participate in a war if called upon, or may a Christian be a conscientious objector? What if the war is a war of conquest or for some other ignoble purpose?
Philosophos: Are taxes always used for just expenditures?
Nomodiphas: No.
Philosophos: But must one pay them nonetheless?
Nomodiphas: Yes, as a Christian we are to pay taxes to our government. Jesus was asked this question and told His followers that they must ‘render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.’ They were to pay these taxes to Rome even though the Roman imperial government was not always just.
Philosophos: So one has a duty to pay their taxes even if those revenues are used for wrong purposes?
Nomodiphas: Yes.
Philosophos: Why is that?
Nomodiphas: Because the government needs taxes to function. Even though not everything the government does is just, the government needs taxes to perform its functions. If people could evade taxes because the government was doing something unjust, no one would ever pay taxes because no earthly government will ever be perfectly just.
Philosophos: Does it not follow that war is the same? A core function of the government is to protect us, to protect our right to live. In order to do that the government requires the service of able bodied men. Able bodied men therefore have a duty to provide this service to the government when called upon. They may not get out of the commitment simply because the war they are fighting is not completely just. People are imperfect and I would be surprised to ever witness a perfectly just war. No where in the Bible is war condemned, no where in the Bible are we told we can or should lay down the right to resist of another. On the contrary the Bible makes it clear that the government has a duty to administer justice and protect our rights and that we have a duty to furnish the government with the ability to carry out its function.
Nomodiphas: I think a Christian should be opposed to war. We are told by Jesus to ‘turn the other cheek’ and to ‘not resist an evildoer.’ It seems from these teachings that Christians should not support or participate in war.
Philosophos: Would you go as far as to say that war is unjust?
Nomodiphas: I guess that is the conclusion that Jesus’ teaching leads one to.
Philosophos: What about the fact that the Israelites made war in the Old Testament under the direct order of God and that God at times participated in war making?
Nomodiphas: Maybe it was just then, but Jesus brought a new law.
Philosophos: That is not how justice works. Justice does not change from time to time or from person to person. And Jesus never claimed to abolish the law—in fact He categorically rejected that notion. Jesus Himself fulfilled every aspect of the law. The law showed us our sin and we are all still sinners. Jesus did not break the law in order to save us; He fulfilled the requirements of the law for us by taking upon Himself the just punishment we deserved as a consequence of our sin.
Nomodiphas: Could it be that war is not unjust today, but also not a valid action of government? The wars of the Old Testament were different because they had different functions. God used Israel to accomplish His specific purposes for that region. No nation can claim this special status today so no war can be valid in the way it was then.
Philosophos: What do you make of the fact that soldiers approached John the Baptist and specifically asked him what changes they should make in their lives and he did not tell them to quit the military? Or the fact that Jesus healed the daughter of a centurion and commended him for his faith and in no way told him to change his way of life as He did to others? Or the fact that neither Peter nor Paul nor any other New Testament author condemns or prohibits war? There is no distinction between wars, no claim that some are valid and others are not. There is no difference made between just wars and unjust wars and no allowance for the former with a prohibition of the latter (as some today claim). War is not encouraged, but it is also not condemned. The Bible makes it clear to us what behavior is prohibited and it is dangerous for us to read restrictions into the Bible that are not there. Those that did this at the time of Jesus were the people most sharply criticized by Jesus (the Pharisees). It is true that we are to lay down our rights including our right to self defense (we are to not strike back, but turn the other cheek—we are to give mercy as God gives mercy to us and not vindicate ourselves but allow God to vindicate us), however no where in the Bible are we instructed to lay down the rights of others. On the contrary we are instructed to defend the weak and their rights.
Pacificism is wrong because it necessitates the denial of one’s value, the abdication of one’s duty, and is often founded upon cowardice. Christian pacifists often say that we have no rights as Christians so we may not defend ourselves. This is completely unbiblical. No where in the Bible does it say that man lacks rights, on the contrary man is made in God’s image. Man has both rights and value, but we are asked to lay down these rights as we follow Christ. That is what makes turning the other cheek so beautiful. We do not say I am nothing and have no right to strike you back, on the contrary we as Christians say justice allows me to strike you and I thereby have a right to do so, however, in imitation of Christ I lay down this right and give you mercy just as Christ has given me mercy.
Pacificism also involves rejecting one’s duty to protect his brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, parents, and countrymen. We may not lay down their right to life; on the contrary, if we are able, we are to defend them from harm. We are who we are because of those around us and all our lives we have benefited from the configuration of our state. Those around us have served us and if the state orders us, we must serve them. In a time of need we may not relinquish our duty to defend and sacrifice on behalf of the state.
Finally many, though not all, are pacifists because they are cowards. Consider the Vietnam protests. Do you think the majority of those hippies gave a damn about the Vietnamese? I highly doubt it. The protests were completely self interested. After growing up with all the benefits that our country endows upon its citizens, these kids were selfish and unwilling to put their happiness on hold in order to sacrifice on behalf of their country. They feared hardship and selfishly wanted to keep themselves from it. Their pacifism was not principled, but only a crass display of their selfishness and cowardice.
Nomodiphas: But we are talking about war. War brings with it an uncountable host of horrors: suffering, injury, pillage, fear, hunger, famine, poverty, and emotional trauma to name a few. Why would we ever want this?
Philosophos: No one in their right mind would ever want this. War is not something to be desired, but it is something that must be endured in order to avoid even worse terrors. Let me ask you this: are there values that are greater than human life?
Nomodiphas: I am sure there are.
Philosophos: Liberty, justice, security, and provision—I would sacrifice my life for these things. I would give my life so that my family could enjoy these things. I would endure a war so that my children would not have to live a life without these things. I imagine you would too. War is not the worst thing in the world for death is not the worst thing in the world. Slavery and injustice for example are far worse than death and sometimes these things can only be avoided by means of war. On this ground war is justified.
Nomodiphas: You’re right. I too would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
Philosophos: Now consider the death rate for a moment. How does war affect the death rate?
Nomodiphas: In one sense it doesn’t. I suppose it brings death sooner to some, but all are destined to die. But the way they die, it seems to be much worse than the average death.
Philosophos: Indeed, for those who die in war the death rate is still 100%. As for the type of death that war generally brings, I would take the opposite position. Most that die in war die in a moment’s time. Death on the battlefield often comes without warning and is relatively painless due to its instantaneous nature. If you asked people in a nursing home if they would rather endure a slow, agonizing death induced by years of cancer or the other ailments that bring pain and death to the elderly: Alzheimer’s, strokes, diabetes, arthritis, and the slow breakdown or their body or if they would prefer to die an instant death on the battlefield, surrounded by their closest friends, giving their lives for others and for values greater than themselves, I would bet that few would reject the option of death on a battlefield.
Further the good thing about war is that those who die in war are more likely to be at peace with God, because their death is more likely to be contemplated. War makes us come to terms with our deaths; the church fathers thought it was a good thing of us to be aware of our mortality. As C.S. Lewis said, only a wise man does this in peaceful times, during war even fools must come to terms with the temporal nature of life. Citizens of nations at war do not live day after day, year after year without contemplating their death, assured that death is distant (as most do now). On the contrary they are constantly aware that today may be there last day. This discourages frivolous living and encourages one to examine their life and ask the deep questions of life. This in turn gives God opportunity to reach people.
Nomodiphas: But must one participate in a war if called upon, or may a Christian be a conscientious objector? What if the war is a war of conquest or for some other ignoble purpose?
Philosophos: Are taxes always used for just expenditures?
Nomodiphas: No.
Philosophos: But must one pay them nonetheless?
Nomodiphas: Yes, as a Christian we are to pay taxes to our government. Jesus was asked this question and told His followers that they must ‘render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.’ They were to pay these taxes to Rome even though the Roman imperial government was not always just.
Philosophos: So one has a duty to pay their taxes even if those revenues are used for wrong purposes?
Nomodiphas: Yes.
Philosophos: Why is that?
Nomodiphas: Because the government needs taxes to function. Even though not everything the government does is just, the government needs taxes to perform its functions. If people could evade taxes because the government was doing something unjust, no one would ever pay taxes because no earthly government will ever be perfectly just.
Philosophos: Does it not follow that war is the same? A core function of the government is to protect us, to protect our right to live. In order to do that the government requires the service of able bodied men. Able bodied men therefore have a duty to provide this service to the government when called upon. They may not get out of the commitment simply because the war they are fighting is not completely just. People are imperfect and I would be surprised to ever witness a perfectly just war. No where in the Bible is war condemned, no where in the Bible are we told we can or should lay down the right to resist of another. On the contrary the Bible makes it clear that the government has a duty to administer justice and protect our rights and that we have a duty to furnish the government with the ability to carry out its function.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Applications of God's Principles: Trade and Debt
Philosophos: That was a very productive discussion. Now let’s move from the government’s interaction with other spheres to current controversies within the government. First we will discuss foreign issues and then we will move to domestic concerns. . . . First off let’s discuss trade policy? What do you think is a just trade policy?
Nomodiphas: Well I bet I know what you think is the best policy. I expect you would say something like “the economy is a field distinct from the government and the government should therefore have a ‘hands off’ approach to trade. Free trade may not produce the best results, but government involvement only makes matters worse.”
Philosophos: Judging by your tone I would guess that you would not agree with that statement.
Nomodiphas: I think we should prefer ‘fair trade’ to ‘free trade.’
Philosophos: And what is ‘fair trade?’
Nomodiphas: It is allowing and ensuring that people get paid a fair price for their products.
Philosophos: What is a fair price? Isn’t a fair price simply what the market dictates? I am guessing that you are concerned about developing nations being underpaid and taken advantage of. However, their main advantage is the low price of their labor. If we raise their wages to Western levels they lose their competitive edge and cannot sell their products on the world market. This in turn leads to an economic down turn and a loss of jobs. If manufacturers have to pay the same wages in China as they do in the United States there is no benefit for them of building factories in China. The reason it is profitable to build factories there and create jobs there is because the labor is cheaper there than it is here. China is experiencing unprecedented growth due to its low labor costs. This economic growth is benefiting everyone in their country.
Nomodiphas: But we are to help the poor. Isn’t supporting fair trade a good way to help the poorest of the poor?
Philosophos: Though fair trade policies have good intentions, they are misguided. Let me repeat myself, fair trade policies often have a reverse intended effect. Instead of helping developing nations, fair trade policies keep their economies from outcompeting developed nations. The biggest advantage of developing nations is that they can produce cheaper goods because their cost of labor is low. If the cost of labor is raised they lose their competitive edge and economic growth slows or stops, hurting all. Further the reason why laborers in other countries get paid less is because the cost of living is less. They do not require the income we do to live and therefore the market does not provide the level of income that we receive here.
Nomodiphas: I do not doubt that. In fact I would agree that the fair price is the price that the market dictates. The problem I have is all the non-market forces at work in the economies of developing nations that force wages and prices down.
Philosophos: Give me an example.
Nomodiphas: OK, a common scenario is that a developing nation wants to induce economic growth so it borrows money from a foreign or international institution. It borrows money to finance some sort of development, like a dam or a power plant. The lender wants to capitalize on its investment so it encourages the nation to over-borrow. The project does not generate the revenue that the nation expected (or there is a problem with corruption and the money is not properly used)—whatever the cause the nation goes into debt.
Because it is not generating money and it owes money, often the borrower needs to refinance its loan to pay back the loan, or take out another loan just to pay the interest off the original loan. At this point in time the International Monetary Fund (IMF) agrees to help the borrowing country, but only if the nation makes certain structural adjustments. The developing nation is forced to open itself up to foreign investment and discontinue all forms of economic protectionalism. Further, often times the leaders of these countries will impound private property and turn it into a manufacturing site (for there are always manufacturers who are anxious to invest in countries with low wages). The farmers whose land was unjustly taken now have no livelihood save the new factory built on their former land. They are desperate for jobs and will work for even small amounts of money—for little is better than nothing. This in turn artificially depresses wages.
In addition to this, in order to attract the foreign investment that the country is now reliant upon the leader of that country will do things to drive prices down even further. He will use the military to put down unions and quell strikes, relax restrictions on hours worked, abolish prohibitions on child labor, etc. This creates inhuman working conditions, but it also attracts foreign capital. Plants are taken from our country and moved to these types of places and the consumers here benefit from this injustice in the form of cheaper products.
Philosophos: I do not doubt that this happens, nor will I contend with the assertion that it is grossly unjust. However, how is this result the consequence of free trade and how will ‘fair trade’ somehow fix this injustice?
Nomodiphas: I just explained to you how it was the product of free trade. Banks have an interest in nations over borrowing and constantly paying interest and debt and businesses have an interest in developing nations not being able to pay loans back and being required by the IMF to create conditions beneficial to for business investment. These groups work hand in hand to make developing nations dependent on foreign capital so that they may benefit from the constant repayment of debt and cheap labor that these conditions produce. Fair trade might not fix any problems, but it will mitigate the harm done to the people caught in the middle of this.
Philosophos: I want to reiterate, I complete believe your characterization of most bankers and businessmen regarding third world countries. Like you, when I consider your account I see a lot of injustice. But unlike you I do not believe this injustice is a product of free trade. First off, we are discussing ‘developing nations’ i.e. poor countries. Why are these people in poverty in the first place? I think there are two explanations. The first is that they have a wrong culture. They have views that do not encourage hard work and frugal, disciplined lifestyles. The other cause is an unjust government that does not protect property or that in some other way prevents the people from overcoming poverty. Likely it is some combination of these two factors. Either way it is a result of the people’s actions. They either hold unto false cultural views or have been sloth in defending their liberty and allowing a despotic government to rule over them. I do not hold any credence to the view that the West is somehow responsible for the poverty of the third world because of its former colonization. One need look no further than the United States to see that former colonies are quite capable of prospering.
Nomodiphas: What do you make of Orwell’s explanation?
Philosophos: I discount the Orwellian account for poverty. If I remember correctly Orwell stated that the elites consciously deplete resources through war in order to keep class distinctions (and their position in that hierarchy) intact. The growth of disposable income in the west is a clear refutation of this.
Now getting back to your narrative, you said that the problem of debt begins when an overreaching government involves itself in its economy and attempts to create economic growth by its own power (through borrowing and state sponsored development projects), instead of creating conditions that allow an economy to grow. And as you said there is often corruption within these governmental projects. So developing nations find themselves in debt because their government wrongly involved itself in the economy, and not only that, but managed this involvement poorly, allowing corruption and inefficiency.
Now, instead of trying to fix this problem on their own, these developing nations turn to others for help. You are correct in claiming that many times foreign bankers and organizations often do not have the borrower’s best intentions in mind. They do, to some degree, take advantage of the borrowing nation’s self created disadvantaged position. But isn’t this to be expected? I do not expect my bank or credit card company to have my best interest in mind. They are out to make money! They have that goal in mind. This is a legitimate goal. We are talking about businesses and not charities after all. When I deal with these companies I need to be diligent in looking after my interests, instead of foolishly assuming I can abdicate this responsibility to others. Why should it be any different for nations? Governments are instituted by God to look after their nations well being and they should not imprudently relinquish their power.
After these nations forfeit their sovereignty by relying on the money of others to solver their problems they are often forced to institute reforms. It is true these reforms are favorable to business, but they are often in the best interest of the borrowing nation as well. For example, they often force the nation to run a balanced budget, investigate and halt all governmental corruption, and try to create a national economy that is open and accountable. These nations are foolish to relinquish their sovereignty, but despite making themselves reliant on foreign capital and subject to reform, often these reforms are win-win and benefit borrower and lender alike.
Finally, as far as low wages are concerned you say it is often the result of the government impounding private agricultural property from some and giving it to others to use for manufacturing. I agree that this happens, and again I agree that this is a gross injustice, but this is injustice within the country’s government and is not a product of free trade. The problem as I see it is that the government needs to be reformed according to principles of justice and it seems to me that fair trade will do little to solve this problem. Free trade is not the cause of poverty, the problem is unjust and corrupt governments. It is the responsibility of citizens to reform their governments and make them just. In fact it seems like fair trade could hurt these countries in the long run.
Too often when governments give aid they perpetuate injustice. Going back to your example from before, often times the tyrant ruler of a developing nation can take a farmer’s land and turn it into a factory because that tyrant is insulated from the need to reform by the foreign aid he receives.
By helping out individuals living under an unjust government we create complacency with that government’s policies. There is less need and desire to reform a government if one is well fed and provided for. It is not good for us to encourage people to sacrifice liberty and justice in return for material well being (or at least comfortable living without liberty and justice), but when we give money blindly we do just that. To escape poverty people must take responsibility for their government and reform it according to God’s principles. Often time’s change of this magnitude requires the people to undergo some hardship. By giving foreign nations aid we prevent the people from undergoing hardship, and in turn, prevent them from truly reforming their country in such a way so as to live in freedom and prosperity.
In the same way I doubt that canceling third world debt will do any good because it does nothing to deal with the root problems: unjust governments and ungodly cultures. Canceling debt will only offer a moment of respite. The unjust government would remain in place and further problems would quickly follow. Foreign aid alone does not help poor countries develop. Market reform (and often cultural reform as well) is needed. With foreign aid dictators become entrenched and can survive without reform: their subjects tolerate them because they are well fed.
Respect for law and property creates wealth. These reforms only occur when foreign aid is cut off and a country is forced to reform. If fair trade is to be done at all, it should be done on a local level, as an act of mercy and done by the church. I see no benefit or justification for it to be mandated by the government. As said before it does not solve the root problem, the root problem is unjust governments and there is little our government can do to reform the internal workings of other governments (and I question how much we should do this, even if we could do it effectively).
Nomodiphas: I understand what you are saying, but wouldn’t you agree with me that the government can and should interfere with the market in order to prevent injustice—in order to protect the rights of people.
Philosophos: Of course I would agree with that. We have environmental regulations to prevent poison from going into our water and we require children to be at least twelve before they work to help ensure that they are not forced to work against their will.
Nomodiphas: Then wouldn’t it follow that our government has a duty to interfere in the international economy to prevent injustice and ensure the rights of people?
Philosophos: You have to ask, to whom does a government have responsibility? Does our government have a responsibility to the entire world? Must it protect the liberty and ensure the rights of every living person? This appears to me to be a very dangerous notion of government for it necessitates a one-world global government. A global government may be able to do that, but the mischief it would be capable of would be unbearable. That is why at Babel God divided people into different groups and different places. God recognized the threat that global government posed for liberty so He frustrated man’s plan for it.
Global government is not a solution. Every country on earth is distinct. The citizens of each country have a responsibility to make their government just—the governments of every country have a responsibility to their citizens to promote justice and liberty. These responsibilities do not extend beyond national boarders. Instead of pressuring our government to subvert the policies of other governments to be just, we should focus on discipling the people of the nations and instilling within them a Godly understanding of government so that they will be able to wisely reform their states to be just entities.
As consumers we can boycott products made under inhuman conditions. I suppose our government could do something like tax or ban imports from countries that allow inhumane working conditions. This may encourage them to reform, but it is a very difficult thing to monitor without infringing on the sovereignty of other governments. The best solution is not for us to use our government to force top down reforms, but rather for us as Christians to disciple the peoples of the world so that they may wisely work to reform their governments.
In conclusion, I’ll return to your first thought. I think free trade is best. There may be times when protectionalism is warranted in order to protect infant industries. The government may do this and other things to encourage business so long as it does not cross the line and become directly involved in business (like provide subsidies or protect mature business from foreign competition by means of tariffs). We live in an imperfect world with lots of imperfect people. As in all areas of life, restraining the government in order to give people liberty produces a lot of bad results, but it is far better than having the government take away all our liberty and control all aspects of our lives.
Nomodiphas: Well I bet I know what you think is the best policy. I expect you would say something like “the economy is a field distinct from the government and the government should therefore have a ‘hands off’ approach to trade. Free trade may not produce the best results, but government involvement only makes matters worse.”
Philosophos: Judging by your tone I would guess that you would not agree with that statement.
Nomodiphas: I think we should prefer ‘fair trade’ to ‘free trade.’
Philosophos: And what is ‘fair trade?’
Nomodiphas: It is allowing and ensuring that people get paid a fair price for their products.
Philosophos: What is a fair price? Isn’t a fair price simply what the market dictates? I am guessing that you are concerned about developing nations being underpaid and taken advantage of. However, their main advantage is the low price of their labor. If we raise their wages to Western levels they lose their competitive edge and cannot sell their products on the world market. This in turn leads to an economic down turn and a loss of jobs. If manufacturers have to pay the same wages in China as they do in the United States there is no benefit for them of building factories in China. The reason it is profitable to build factories there and create jobs there is because the labor is cheaper there than it is here. China is experiencing unprecedented growth due to its low labor costs. This economic growth is benefiting everyone in their country.
Nomodiphas: But we are to help the poor. Isn’t supporting fair trade a good way to help the poorest of the poor?
Philosophos: Though fair trade policies have good intentions, they are misguided. Let me repeat myself, fair trade policies often have a reverse intended effect. Instead of helping developing nations, fair trade policies keep their economies from outcompeting developed nations. The biggest advantage of developing nations is that they can produce cheaper goods because their cost of labor is low. If the cost of labor is raised they lose their competitive edge and economic growth slows or stops, hurting all. Further the reason why laborers in other countries get paid less is because the cost of living is less. They do not require the income we do to live and therefore the market does not provide the level of income that we receive here.
Nomodiphas: I do not doubt that. In fact I would agree that the fair price is the price that the market dictates. The problem I have is all the non-market forces at work in the economies of developing nations that force wages and prices down.
Philosophos: Give me an example.
Nomodiphas: OK, a common scenario is that a developing nation wants to induce economic growth so it borrows money from a foreign or international institution. It borrows money to finance some sort of development, like a dam or a power plant. The lender wants to capitalize on its investment so it encourages the nation to over-borrow. The project does not generate the revenue that the nation expected (or there is a problem with corruption and the money is not properly used)—whatever the cause the nation goes into debt.
Because it is not generating money and it owes money, often the borrower needs to refinance its loan to pay back the loan, or take out another loan just to pay the interest off the original loan. At this point in time the International Monetary Fund (IMF) agrees to help the borrowing country, but only if the nation makes certain structural adjustments. The developing nation is forced to open itself up to foreign investment and discontinue all forms of economic protectionalism. Further, often times the leaders of these countries will impound private property and turn it into a manufacturing site (for there are always manufacturers who are anxious to invest in countries with low wages). The farmers whose land was unjustly taken now have no livelihood save the new factory built on their former land. They are desperate for jobs and will work for even small amounts of money—for little is better than nothing. This in turn artificially depresses wages.
In addition to this, in order to attract the foreign investment that the country is now reliant upon the leader of that country will do things to drive prices down even further. He will use the military to put down unions and quell strikes, relax restrictions on hours worked, abolish prohibitions on child labor, etc. This creates inhuman working conditions, but it also attracts foreign capital. Plants are taken from our country and moved to these types of places and the consumers here benefit from this injustice in the form of cheaper products.
Philosophos: I do not doubt that this happens, nor will I contend with the assertion that it is grossly unjust. However, how is this result the consequence of free trade and how will ‘fair trade’ somehow fix this injustice?
Nomodiphas: I just explained to you how it was the product of free trade. Banks have an interest in nations over borrowing and constantly paying interest and debt and businesses have an interest in developing nations not being able to pay loans back and being required by the IMF to create conditions beneficial to for business investment. These groups work hand in hand to make developing nations dependent on foreign capital so that they may benefit from the constant repayment of debt and cheap labor that these conditions produce. Fair trade might not fix any problems, but it will mitigate the harm done to the people caught in the middle of this.
Philosophos: I want to reiterate, I complete believe your characterization of most bankers and businessmen regarding third world countries. Like you, when I consider your account I see a lot of injustice. But unlike you I do not believe this injustice is a product of free trade. First off, we are discussing ‘developing nations’ i.e. poor countries. Why are these people in poverty in the first place? I think there are two explanations. The first is that they have a wrong culture. They have views that do not encourage hard work and frugal, disciplined lifestyles. The other cause is an unjust government that does not protect property or that in some other way prevents the people from overcoming poverty. Likely it is some combination of these two factors. Either way it is a result of the people’s actions. They either hold unto false cultural views or have been sloth in defending their liberty and allowing a despotic government to rule over them. I do not hold any credence to the view that the West is somehow responsible for the poverty of the third world because of its former colonization. One need look no further than the United States to see that former colonies are quite capable of prospering.
Nomodiphas: What do you make of Orwell’s explanation?
Philosophos: I discount the Orwellian account for poverty. If I remember correctly Orwell stated that the elites consciously deplete resources through war in order to keep class distinctions (and their position in that hierarchy) intact. The growth of disposable income in the west is a clear refutation of this.
Now getting back to your narrative, you said that the problem of debt begins when an overreaching government involves itself in its economy and attempts to create economic growth by its own power (through borrowing and state sponsored development projects), instead of creating conditions that allow an economy to grow. And as you said there is often corruption within these governmental projects. So developing nations find themselves in debt because their government wrongly involved itself in the economy, and not only that, but managed this involvement poorly, allowing corruption and inefficiency.
Now, instead of trying to fix this problem on their own, these developing nations turn to others for help. You are correct in claiming that many times foreign bankers and organizations often do not have the borrower’s best intentions in mind. They do, to some degree, take advantage of the borrowing nation’s self created disadvantaged position. But isn’t this to be expected? I do not expect my bank or credit card company to have my best interest in mind. They are out to make money! They have that goal in mind. This is a legitimate goal. We are talking about businesses and not charities after all. When I deal with these companies I need to be diligent in looking after my interests, instead of foolishly assuming I can abdicate this responsibility to others. Why should it be any different for nations? Governments are instituted by God to look after their nations well being and they should not imprudently relinquish their power.
After these nations forfeit their sovereignty by relying on the money of others to solver their problems they are often forced to institute reforms. It is true these reforms are favorable to business, but they are often in the best interest of the borrowing nation as well. For example, they often force the nation to run a balanced budget, investigate and halt all governmental corruption, and try to create a national economy that is open and accountable. These nations are foolish to relinquish their sovereignty, but despite making themselves reliant on foreign capital and subject to reform, often these reforms are win-win and benefit borrower and lender alike.
Finally, as far as low wages are concerned you say it is often the result of the government impounding private agricultural property from some and giving it to others to use for manufacturing. I agree that this happens, and again I agree that this is a gross injustice, but this is injustice within the country’s government and is not a product of free trade. The problem as I see it is that the government needs to be reformed according to principles of justice and it seems to me that fair trade will do little to solve this problem. Free trade is not the cause of poverty, the problem is unjust and corrupt governments. It is the responsibility of citizens to reform their governments and make them just. In fact it seems like fair trade could hurt these countries in the long run.
Too often when governments give aid they perpetuate injustice. Going back to your example from before, often times the tyrant ruler of a developing nation can take a farmer’s land and turn it into a factory because that tyrant is insulated from the need to reform by the foreign aid he receives.
By helping out individuals living under an unjust government we create complacency with that government’s policies. There is less need and desire to reform a government if one is well fed and provided for. It is not good for us to encourage people to sacrifice liberty and justice in return for material well being (or at least comfortable living without liberty and justice), but when we give money blindly we do just that. To escape poverty people must take responsibility for their government and reform it according to God’s principles. Often time’s change of this magnitude requires the people to undergo some hardship. By giving foreign nations aid we prevent the people from undergoing hardship, and in turn, prevent them from truly reforming their country in such a way so as to live in freedom and prosperity.
In the same way I doubt that canceling third world debt will do any good because it does nothing to deal with the root problems: unjust governments and ungodly cultures. Canceling debt will only offer a moment of respite. The unjust government would remain in place and further problems would quickly follow. Foreign aid alone does not help poor countries develop. Market reform (and often cultural reform as well) is needed. With foreign aid dictators become entrenched and can survive without reform: their subjects tolerate them because they are well fed.
Respect for law and property creates wealth. These reforms only occur when foreign aid is cut off and a country is forced to reform. If fair trade is to be done at all, it should be done on a local level, as an act of mercy and done by the church. I see no benefit or justification for it to be mandated by the government. As said before it does not solve the root problem, the root problem is unjust governments and there is little our government can do to reform the internal workings of other governments (and I question how much we should do this, even if we could do it effectively).
Nomodiphas: I understand what you are saying, but wouldn’t you agree with me that the government can and should interfere with the market in order to prevent injustice—in order to protect the rights of people.
Philosophos: Of course I would agree with that. We have environmental regulations to prevent poison from going into our water and we require children to be at least twelve before they work to help ensure that they are not forced to work against their will.
Nomodiphas: Then wouldn’t it follow that our government has a duty to interfere in the international economy to prevent injustice and ensure the rights of people?
Philosophos: You have to ask, to whom does a government have responsibility? Does our government have a responsibility to the entire world? Must it protect the liberty and ensure the rights of every living person? This appears to me to be a very dangerous notion of government for it necessitates a one-world global government. A global government may be able to do that, but the mischief it would be capable of would be unbearable. That is why at Babel God divided people into different groups and different places. God recognized the threat that global government posed for liberty so He frustrated man’s plan for it.
Global government is not a solution. Every country on earth is distinct. The citizens of each country have a responsibility to make their government just—the governments of every country have a responsibility to their citizens to promote justice and liberty. These responsibilities do not extend beyond national boarders. Instead of pressuring our government to subvert the policies of other governments to be just, we should focus on discipling the people of the nations and instilling within them a Godly understanding of government so that they will be able to wisely reform their states to be just entities.
As consumers we can boycott products made under inhuman conditions. I suppose our government could do something like tax or ban imports from countries that allow inhumane working conditions. This may encourage them to reform, but it is a very difficult thing to monitor without infringing on the sovereignty of other governments. The best solution is not for us to use our government to force top down reforms, but rather for us as Christians to disciple the peoples of the world so that they may wisely work to reform their governments.
In conclusion, I’ll return to your first thought. I think free trade is best. There may be times when protectionalism is warranted in order to protect infant industries. The government may do this and other things to encourage business so long as it does not cross the line and become directly involved in business (like provide subsidies or protect mature business from foreign competition by means of tariffs). We live in an imperfect world with lots of imperfect people. As in all areas of life, restraining the government in order to give people liberty produces a lot of bad results, but it is far better than having the government take away all our liberty and control all aspects of our lives.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Art
Philosophos: Next topic, what is the purpose of art?
Nomodiphas: To create beauty.
Philosophos: How should the government interact with this field?
Nomodiphas: I believe it should allow art and free expression to a very large degree, even art that is critical of government (not that this is a Biblical right, it is just pragmatic—repression tends to be very ineffective). I don’t think there is a right to be vulgar or obscene or any reason to tolerate obscene expressions, but outside of that and extreme calls for the violent overthrow of the government, I don’t think that the government should censor art.
Philosophos: What about governmental support of art?
Nomodiphas: Again, the Bible does not say anything specific about this so my opinion is primarily prudential. I don’t think that the government should support art. For starters creating beauty is a separate function and is outside of the sphere of government. When government involves itself in art there is a tendency for the government to use art as propaganda—to force the artist to convey reality the way that is most favorable to the government (look at the advent of Soviet Realism as a recent example of this). Secondly art is degraded when the goal of art is to create something that the government desires and not create beauty for its own sake (just as art is tarnished when the goal of is to create a marketable product).
Nomodiphas: To create beauty.
Philosophos: How should the government interact with this field?
Nomodiphas: I believe it should allow art and free expression to a very large degree, even art that is critical of government (not that this is a Biblical right, it is just pragmatic—repression tends to be very ineffective). I don’t think there is a right to be vulgar or obscene or any reason to tolerate obscene expressions, but outside of that and extreme calls for the violent overthrow of the government, I don’t think that the government should censor art.
Philosophos: What about governmental support of art?
Nomodiphas: Again, the Bible does not say anything specific about this so my opinion is primarily prudential. I don’t think that the government should support art. For starters creating beauty is a separate function and is outside of the sphere of government. When government involves itself in art there is a tendency for the government to use art as propaganda—to force the artist to convey reality the way that is most favorable to the government (look at the advent of Soviet Realism as a recent example of this). Secondly art is degraded when the goal of art is to create something that the government desires and not create beauty for its own sake (just as art is tarnished when the goal of is to create a marketable product).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
