Kingdom Culture

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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).

Media

Philosophos: Ok, is time for us to shift gears once again. What is the function of the media?

Nomodiphas: To disseminate information.

Philosophos: How should the government interact with the media?

Nomodiphas: I think in much of the same way that it interacts with religion—just as the government should allow freedom of religion it should also allow freedom of speech. It is true that there is no right to freedom of speech, but it is not the role of the government to decide issues of truth for us, that is a right reserved to the individual. Because of that the government should allow freedom of speech. It should allow everyone to have their say and let people make their own decisions.

Philosophos: So the government should allow everyone to have their say and let people make their own decisions based off the information that free speech produces. Do you think the government should ensure that people are getting adequate information from which to make good decisions? Do you think the government should make sure that every side of each issue is heard?

Nomodiphas: No, I think governmental involvement of this sort does more harm than good. If we have laws that allow any tampering with or restriction of speech there is a temptation for the government or party in power to censor information critical about it, all under the cause of making speech ‘fair.’ It will in fact limit what information we have access to and thereby limit our ability to decide on the truth of matters.

But, you have to admit there is bias in the media. Certain people sponsor news companies and they do not want stories critical of them to come out. Papers and television programs intentionally fail to report stories that are critical of their sponsors out of a fear of losing advertising revenue. This self censorship prevents the public from full and free access to information.

Philosophos: This is true, but I think with the advent and growth of the internet commercial based news sources are becoming less and less relevant. User generated news sources and blogs allow everyone to get their voice out and have their opinion heard. I think something like the fairness doctrine does more harm than good (we get governmental propaganda instead of propaganda from news source owners) and is unjust because it takes away the individual’s right to choose on matters of truth. But something like this today is completely irrelevant. We have access to tons more information through the internet. No one is limited by lack of funds or influence in having their voice heard. Because there are thousands of news options rather than three or four on TV, there is less opportunity to hide the truth. Let people be biased and one-sided, there are enough news outlets for people to find conflicting opinions. Every side and then some is to be found on the internet. People have access to the truth, it is their responsibility to seek it out and find it.

Our problem isn’t so much censorship as it is apathy. More people vote for a contestant during a season of American Idol than vote in a presidential election. We have more information at our disposal than any other time in human history, but to our shame we are more concerned with finding temporal entertainment than discovering eternal truth. We will lose our freedom not by force, but rather by means of distraction. We will come to love our chains so long as we can watch TV in them. The dystopia we approach is not from the mind of Orwell, but rather Huxley.

Writers in Russia complain that during communism the government kept them from speaking, under the current system they are allowed to speak, but no one bothers to listen. This is our battle. The greatest threat to our liberty is not government censorship, but the indifference of the people to their liberty. Liberty can only be maintained when the people are vigilant in guarding it.

Is this intentional? Is our government purposefully created distractions so that it may take from us our liberty? I doubt it. What we are falling into is the pitfall of all democracies. Think of Athens. They wanted destructive things and elected Pericles because he promised to give them what they wanted. Socrates said Athens was like a child with a toothache. What they needed was a dentist, but they elected a candy-man to give them more sweets. It made them feel better for a moment, but did nothing to cure their problems and in fact only made their problems worse. Socrates wanted to be their dentist and do what was best, even if it hurt, but they put him to death.

In a democracy the people get what they want. The problem is people often want the wrong things. Athens chose the wrong things and because of those choices it lost its liberty. We want happiness at all costs. We want this so much we are willing to sacrifice our liberty for it. Think of credit card debt. What is that other than the sacrificing of future liberty for the sake of instant, temporal gratification? Like Athens we have problems. We have a tooth ache and desperately need a dentist. But like Athens we have many eager Pericles’. Many are willing to give us what we want, even if it is not best for us, and to our detriment we elect these men in droves. It is true we do not put our Socrates’ to death, but we ignore and marginalize them all the same.

This is not some grand governmental conspiracy; it is the outworking of a democracy. We the people do not want to hear the truth. We the people want to live happily in our sin. The truth is a reminder that we are living wrongly and this reminder takes away from our enjoyment. We the people don’t want anything to come in the way of our enjoyment, not even the truth or our liberty. So we the people silence and ignore those who speak the truth and instead give power to those who promise us more happiness. It is we the people who are foolishly making our bed and we the people who will lie in it.

Sorry I spent so much time on that tangent, but once I got started I had to follow it to the end.

Nomodiphas: Not a problem. I did want to mention early on that I agree that the growth of internet is amazing. It is common for political changes to follow advances in communication technology; I would not be surprised if in a decade or two (maybe even sooner) the internet brings such a change. But before I follow your lead and too get sidetracked, I will return to the topic of freedom of speech. So do you in fact advocate complete freedom of speech?

Philosophos: Of course not. We have libel and slander laws and I think these are good things (they may not be Biblically demanded, but they are wise and prudential nonetheless). In fact I think the government should go further in restricting speech in one area. I believe there is no right to pornography and the government should ban it completely. Pornography is not expression or speech, it is degrading. People do not have absolute rights to their bodies; no human being is a commodity to be bought and sold! We do not allow people to sell their organs or to sell themselves into slavery. Nor do we allow people to prostitute themselves. There is no right to use our bodies in this way; in fact government has an obligation to prevent this behavior.

We have a right to bodily sanctity and the government is to protect us from others that try to harm us. This right to bodily sanctity extends even to the personal use of our bodies. The government has an obligation, in the case of pornography, to protect our right to bodily sanctity by preventing us (or after the fact, punishing us) from degrading ourselves by means of the selling our bodies. I think pornography falls under the same category as slavery and prostitution. It should be prohibited because it does not recognize the value of humans. It degrades humans and treats them as mere commercial commodities rather than creatures created by God and made in His image. People have intrinsic value and the government is to defend that value. Pornography treats people not as ends in themselves, but like prostitution or slavery, treats people as means to another person’s selfish end. Pornography is not free expression and even if it was, the right to expression should never trump the right bodily sanctity. People do not have right to use others, nor themselves in this way and the government should destroy this industry.

Nomodiphas: So we have a freedom of speech, but not freedom in the sense of complete license. Rights have limits. I cannot us my right to property to harm another. My right to property ends where another’s right to live begins. In the same way the right to speech ends where the right to human dignity begins. It is true that people have no right to freedom of speech, but the government has no right to decide issues of truth and falsehood for us, because of that the freedom of speech within certain bounds is implicit: the government cannot decide what we should or shouldn’t hear, therefore we are free to speak our minds and hear all opinions. This is a sound conclusion.

Church

Nomodiphas: What are you advocating here: a rule of the state by the church? A lot of people accuse Christians of wanting a theocracy—of wanting the church to rule. They say that the Bible advocates this and that this was the system of Old Testament Israel. What do you make of those claims?

Philosophos: I think that the claim that that ancient Israel was a theocracy is completely false. I don’t think many Christians want a theocracy, and if they do they are wrong for wanting one. I for one do not want a theocracy, but I do want our government to be just and I believe that only a government founded on the truth found in God’s Word can be just. The church and the government are two separate spheres with two separate functions. The government is to administer justice while the church is to bestow mercy. When the government takes on functions outside of its sphere it corrupts both itself and the function it has taken on. The same goes with the church. When the church seeks to rule and administer justice it corrupts not only itself, but also justice. One need not look far into history to find examples of the church being more concerned with power than with the Gospel. These times tarnished the image of the church and corrupted the notion of justice.

Nomodiphas: But what about the Old Testament, wasn’t there a significant merging between state and religion? Isn’t that the ideal setup?

Philosophos: No I do not think that ancient Israel had theocratic system. I do not think there was any significant merging between religion and state. Did the state of Israel have an ‘official’ religion of sorts? Yes. That was because of their special status as God’s chosen people. They made a specific covenant with God (and renewed it a number of times) in which they agreed to worship only Him. Because of that Israel had only one legitimate religion. All other religions (such as witchcraft) were illegal and where thereby outlawed by the state. This appears radical to us, but it was not at all radical for the time. Most states in this period had state religions. Rome had its Gods and Greece had theirs. It was common. Why do we assume that our current system is right and theirs was wrong?

God worked through the existing system of that time and chose one people through which to reveal Himself to the world. His goal was to the show the world that they may have their gods, but Israel had the one true God. Government was involved in religion to the extent of protecting the one true religion. And one could say the Hebrew government had an obligation to do this, that this was justice because the people had made a covenant with God and it is the duty of the government to uphold freely willed covenants.

Religion did influence politics, this is true. Prophets advised the rulers, rebuked the kings, and at times were persecuted by the kings of Israel. These godly men counseled their rulers then just as Christian men can and should do now. And godly men did rule as well: Moses, David, Hezekiah, Josiah—just as men who know God can and should rule now.

It is true that some men held more offices than one. Samuel was both a prophet and a political leader. David was a worship leader and a king. Just as today one could be a prophet or a worshiper and be involved in government. What is key to notice is that the high priest was never a ruler. From its very conception the nation of Israel had a distinction (though not a separation) between church and state: Moses was the law giver and political leader, while his brother Aaron was the high priest. The rulers and the priests had separate functions. The state and religion had separate duties. These roles were not to be confused. King Saul was heavily rebuked by Samuel for merging these separate fields and confusing their functions, when he as king offered a sacrifice before a battle that only a priest should offer.

Anyone who thinks that Israel had a theocracy is very ignorant in my opinion. Yes the laws given to the Israelites were from God, but all good law systems agree with the truths found in the Hebrew law code. All good laws come from God, for God is just and wants us to understand justice. Why is it somehow better to rely on abstract reasoning or popular opinion as the source of our laws? The Law of Moses is tried and tested and found to work. It seems to me to be as legitimate a source as any for the foundation of laws.

Yes religion influenced their government, but religion influences every government! Yes the state protected the religion, but in doing so it was enforcing a contract. God never intended religion and government to merge or to have the same roles. They are two separate fields with two distinct functions. This is true, but it is also true that God never intended for us to have one part of our life that is sacred and another part that is secular. Our lives are to filled with constant awareness and communion with the sacred and the sacred is to influence every thought and action in our lives. There was always a distinction between the fields, but never a separation.

As far as things go now I think the church and state should remain distinct, but not separate. Why is it that people’s faith in secular humanism can and should influence how they act in office, but their faith in God is somehow an illegitimate influence on their decision making process? The same people that want the church out of the government are the ones that are most keen to have the government take on the church’s functions.

Our founders were not concerned about religion influencing the government. Many of the founders were deeply religious and those who were not recognized the value that religion has for a country. There is nothing in the Constitution that says church and state must be separate. The Constitution simply says that ‘Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.’ They were most worried about state involvement in religion. They did not want the government dictating what is or is not orthodox. They knew about Constantine’s involvement in the early church as well as the post-reformation wars. They worried that the government would involve itself in religion and attempt to influence it in the most advantageous way to itself.

Nomodiphas: So Christians can and should both serve in and advise the government. The church and state should maintain their distinct functions but need not remain separate. So the church may not rule, but it may advise rulers and yet there is a danger of governmental involvement within the church (though the state was involved in Israel’s religion in order to enforce a covenant). I am clear about your thoughts about how the church should be involved in the government, but to what degree should the government be involved in religion today?

Philosophos: I don’t think it does any good to force people into the church. When Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome he forced millions of unbelievers into the church and thereby corrupted the doctrines of the church. This also led the church to become dependant on the state (which prevented the church from acting in its proper role of advising or criticizing the state). Further, there is also a worry about the state getting involved in matters of orthodoxy and persecuting true believers (as happened many times in Europe). I don’t think state involvement in religion is a good idea, even if it means we must tolerate false religions. Christianity is the truth and after all sides are said and heard the Truth will win out. Looking at things from that perspective, false religions seem tolerable.

Nomodiphas: But one must ask: does one have a right to believe in a falsehood?

Philosophos: I think so, God gave us the ability to choose our beliefs, but we will be held accountable for what we choose to believe.

Nomodiphas: And does one have a right to advocate false beliefs?

Philosophos: No, one does not.

Nomodiphas: Then doesn’t it follow that the government has no obligation to protect the rights of those who desire to preach falsehoods?

Philosophos: No, you are correct in asserting that it does not, but I also think that it is not within the government’s power to decide what is true and false for us. God presents us with the truth and leaves it up to us to reject or accept it. I don’t think the government may take that choice from us by imposing a state religion. I believe we should have freedom of religion to a great extent (thought I don’t believe in complete freedom of religion, I think those that cast spells on others should be punished. Witchcraft was a capital crime in Israel. Today we don’t make laws like this not because we think it is ok, but because we don’t think it is possible. I think it is very much possible to cast spells and it should be illegal, though enforcement would be a challenge). It is true that the state did protect religion in Israel, but I think they did so because of the covenant the people had freely and repeatedly made with God. We have no such covenant with God. We have made many good decisions and have thereby been blessed by God, but we are not God’s chosen people. So choosing religion, or more appropriately, choosing to accept or reject God’s gift of salvation should not be done by the government. It is to be left up to the individual, for every individual will be held responsible for what he chooses.

Family

Philosophos: What about the relation of the government to the family structure?

Nomodiphas: Like the individual and the other fields we have been discussing, the family appears to me to be a distinct field. The government should respect the liberty and autonomy of the structure of the family. For example, people should be free to have children when they wish and they should be free to raise their children as they wish. These are freedoms that we largely enjoy and take for granted. We’ve talked a little about the state overstepping some of the boundaries of family autonomy in areas like health and education—instances where the state either tells the family how it should operate, or takes children away from their parents and directly performs a role of the family. I understand the injustice of these infringements, but it seems to me that there is no absolute right, no despotic power that parents have over their children or husbands have over their wives and there are therefore times when the state should interfere in the family, like if the parents are violently beating their children.

Philosophos: It is tragedy but it is true that many parents do a poor job in raising their children, but this is the system that God ordained and it would be imprudent of us to think we know better. The state is not permitted to interfere and take on the role of the parents in raising children. We have seen this occur to a large part in our schools. Our schools teach our children religion and morals (evolution and humanism), teach them about sex (be safe), and how to interact with one another (tolerate all sorts of evil and celebrate sin as diversity). Though I may be wrong, these appear to me to be core responsibilities of parents.

The state has also taken on determining decisions regarding children’s health—mandating HPV vaccines for young girls for example and controlling the foods that kids have access to at school—shouldn’t it be the parent’s decision to inoculate their kids from STDs and to determine their children’s diet? The state has also begun to prevent parents from spanking their children as a means of punishment—a form of punishment clearly permitted in the Bible.

That being said there are times when the government must interfere in the family. Because the family is a God ordained institution, the state should be slow to interfere. However, whenever the right of an individual is threatened or violated the government has a duty to interfere. When kids or a spouse are being beat or molested and having their right to bodily sanctity violated, the government should become involved and protect the rights of the victim. We’ll talk more about this later, but I believe that the single greatest injustice that our government is currently promulgating is not intervening enough in the family and protecting the rights of our most fragile citizens: the right to life of the unborn.

I want to bring up one more issue. The individual has natural liberty and rights and the government is instituted to protect his liberty and rights. The family too has natural autonomy and rights. The government has a duty to protect these things—to protect the institution of the family. This is an area where our government could use some improvement. Our divorce laws allow men to leave their wives with ease and saddle them with the responsibilities of rearing and providing for children. Permitting fornication produces the same result. By failing to enforce sexual morality the government has allowed the disintegration, to some degree, of the family. More children are raised in single or unmarried parent families, then in married families. We will talk of this later, but for now I want you to realize undermining the system that God instituted has consequences. Further, programs like social security weaken natural communal and familial cooperation, which in turn leads to a further breaking apart of the family structure. The government has a duty to protect the liberty and the rights of the family. It does this by leaving the responsibilities that God gave families to families (that of provision and care—both by parents and of parents, discipline, and child rearing) as well as promulgating sexual morality (limiting sex to within marriage, making divorce more difficult to attain, and holding those responsible for the consequences that their sex outside of marriage produces).

Health Care

Philosophos: Interesting thoughts. I most definitely agree with you on the need to be vigilant and on guard against even minor breaches of our liberty by the government. Let’s transition from general thoughts on health to specific thoughts about health care. First question: do we have a right to health care?

Nomodiphas: No we don’t. And I’m going to guess that by making this into a right we will further corrupt the field as well as further corrupt the government.

Philosophos: Exactly. Benevolence in the field of medicine used to be common. Just as lawyers do pro bono work doctors used to provide free services for patients who could not afford treatment. This phenomenon has largely disappeared with the advent of programs like Medicare and social security. Further the government is a non market participant and its involvement in the field increases prices across the board. Hospitals can charge limitless amounts for procedures that the government will fund through these programs. This cuts against efficiency.

Nomodiphas: I understand the problems of governmental involvement, but you can’t begin to defend the current system.

Philosophos: Of course the current system is full of problems, I simply believe that there are better solutions to it than state sponsored universal health care and that further government involvement in health care would make matters worse and not better. Look at the countries that have universal health care. Because everything is covered (notice I use the word covered and not free because these systems do cost money, lots of money like ours, the only difference is that it is paid collectively rather than individually) there is less incentive to take care of yourself or administer home remedies. So people over use the system. This creates a strain on the system. Just the other day I read that a woman died in labor in Japan after an ambulance took her to nearly 30 hospitals. Not one hospital had sufficient room to take her, so she died in the ambulance after hours of searching in vain.

Now the government can respond in a couple of different ways to this strain. It can hire more doctors and raise the cost of the system. This in turn costs tax payers more money. Or the government can require doctors to do more with less and have them try to visit more patients. Visits then become less comprehensive and effective. Further in both cases patients are often required to wait longer for visits (often months at a time). This extra time can complicate some disorders and sicknesses and people may in fact die in the extra time it takes for them to see a doctor. When the people resist paying higher taxes for their inefficient, overused health care system, the government has to cut costs. They give less money to research companies (with less money for research there is less innovation in medicine and procedures and a decline in cures) and less money to doctors (when doctors make less money there is less incentive for our best and brightest to invest themselves in a field that requires years of extra education, long hours, and high levels of stress).

I visited Prague a few years back. While I was there I took a tour of the city. I asked the guide if this was a full time or part time job. She said she was only working part time as a tour guide, but she was hoping it would become a full time job. At that time her full time job was that of a doctor, but she could make more money being a tour guide. She explained to me that the Czech Republic has a nationalized health care system. The government provides health care for all, but also determines the pay of those working in the health care field. In order to keep taxes down it must keep costs down and it does that by keeping wages down. This tour guide told me she regretted investing ten years of her life into becoming a doctor when it turns out she can’t make good money. She said that in response to the inadequate compensation, the youth of her country were wizening up and not going into the medical field as they were before. This of course will hurt the country’s health care long term as the best and the brightest go into different fields.

Nomodiphas: If state sponsored health care is not a viable option, what is the solution?

Philosophos: I’ll be honest, I am by no means an expert in this field, but I do have a few hunches. First and foremost there should be more of a focus on prevention, rather than fixing problems after the fact. Simply eating healthy and exercising prevent a whole host of problems. Second, more health care should be performed at the family level. When I was growing up my parents took care of most of my health problems. Instead of the doctor being our first choice, it was a last resort saved for emergencies. I think people are too quick to run to the doctor. Prevention coupled with home remedies would probably solve most of our health problems. As for the problems that prevention and home remedies can’t solve, I would leave them to the market. The market will ensure that doctors are adequately compensated for the time they invest in their education, as well as for the hours they work and the stress involved in their job. The market encourages innovation and research to create quicker and more efficient ways to cure problems. The market ensures that people will not overuse and abuse the system. Further, if there is a shortage of doctors the market will make sure that more doctors join the field, thereby reducing wait times.

Nomodiphas: But what of those who can’t afford health care?

Philosophos: First off I doubt there are many people in this country that truly cannot afford health care. I would bet that many people who ‘can’t afford health care’ have money for cable TV, money to go out to eat, have money to spend at the bars, or on cigarettes—they have money for health care they just choose to spend it on other things. If health care was a priority, they would save money for it or get insurance, but it isn’t and why should the government require others to pay for their health care when they have money for everything else they want? Why should we through our government subsidize their irresponsible lifestyles?

Second, you have to remember that government action stifles acts of mercy. If the government today would stop paying for people’s health care I promise you that private individuals and communities would come together and through acts of charity take care of the weak in their midst. Further doctors would resume the abandoned practice of providing free care to the truly needy.

I am not surprised at all that people want the government to provide health care for them and that people even go as far as to say that health care is a right. People have been conditioned to think that it is the government’s job to keep them from the negative consequences of their decisions. They think the government must rehabilitate criminals and give drug treatment to addicts. They think that if people make poor choices and fall into poverty it is the government’s responsibility to provide them with food and shelter. The government takes money from people when they are young so if they fail to have the foresight to save for their retirement they don’t have to suffer the consequences. Why should the field of health be any different?

You see this all the time. How often do you hear about people that smoke or are obese, people that completely fail to take care of themselves? And when they get sick they think the government has a responsibility to take care of them. Or someone that has reckless sex and contracts AIDS and complains that the government does not do enough for them. The same goes with those mentioned before that have money to go out drinking every week, but when they are sick they curse the government for not providing health care for them. Justice requires us to be held responsible for our actions. The government should encourage responsibility instead of engaging in acts of mercy that prevent people from facing the consequences of their choices. What will compel people to repent and live Godly lives if they can live as they wish and face no consequences?

Lastly, the government’s involvement in the field of health care destroys liberty. Instead of people taking responsibility for their actions and taking care of themselves, they rely on the government to take care of them. They see the government less and less as their creation and servant and more and more as their good intentioned big brother, their savior. When people look to and rely on the government for the solution to their self induced problems they accept injustice and restrictions on their liberty so long as the government takes care of them. They cease to be citizens and at once become slaves. They accept all the government says without question so long as their needs and desires are met.

Once again we see how government involvement in a field not its own corrupts the field and makes it inefficient, drives out mercy, and corrupts the main function of the government itself.

Science

Nomodiphas: What topic are we unto now?

Philosophos: How about science? How should the government be involved with the field of science and what is wrong with the way the government is interacting with it now?

Nomodiphas: Science is its own sphere with its own function so it should remain distinct from the government.

Philosophos: And is that the current situation?

Nomodiphas: Well, I think government is involved in science, but not to the degree that it is involved in education.

Philosophos: Give me an example of governmental involvement in the field of science.

Nomodiphas: How about NASA?

Philosophos: And what are the consequences of governmental involvement in this organization.

Nomodiphas: Well the organization has to pursue programs and topics that the government approves of. Also because this is a non-market institution it suffers the fault of all governmental organization: it is inefficient and too costly. Further, because it is government funded it is not focused so much on a gaining of knowledge as producing products that its sponsor desires. But then again, that is how most of the scientific field operates. It used to be that scientists sought to discover the principles of the natural world so that men could live according to them, now science seems to be focused solely on manipulating the principles of the natural world to make life more convenient for men (like designing better phones or ipods for example). When science is so market driven and focused only on results that create a profit, it loses sight of its primary function—that of discovering knowledge in the world.

Philosophos: Very good observation. It is true that government funded science is too focused on results, but so is market driven science. Few are the men who seek to discover knowledge for its own sake. Does a program like NASA infringe on our liberty?
Nomodiphas: Maybe I am missing something, but I don’t see how NASA infringes on our liberty. This probably has something to do with the fact that NASA does a lot of military research and the military is a valid function of the government. So by having NASA the government has not strayed too far from its function of protecting people. A scientific group that I think does infringe on our liberty is the FDA. Its function may be valid (that of protecting us by ensuring minimum standards of food and drug quality), but I think it goes too far at times. However, the biggest problem that I see in the FDA is that it often treats people like kids—it fails to respect their autonomy.

Philosophos: When does it do that?

Nomodiphas: I imagine you’ve read about those programs and initiatives they have to raise awareness about trans fat or to encourage people to exercise. This seems like an unnecessary and inappropriate use of tax dollars. They also do things that seem to undermine the autonomy of the family with their programs to encourage kids to play outside and eat their vegetables. It seems that this type of thing is the responsibility of the parents. It makes me a little nervous when the federal government tells me to go outside and to be sure I wear a hat and sunscreen! It has not happened yet, but there is always talk about banning certain fatty foods or sugary soda. It is up to the individual to decide what food they will eat and whether or not they will exercise. It makes me nervous when the government says we are making wrong choices with harsh consequences (namely obesity) so they must step in and keep us from making these decisions. These types of decisions are in the realm of individual liberty—a realm the government should not invade. I would rather have a country filled with fat and free men than a live in a country of healthy slaves! So far the invasions of freedom have been slight. I do not worry that this is a slippery slope of sorts (though it may well be) I just think we need to be on guard against even the smallest infractions of our liberty.

Education

Philosophos: How should government relate to the field of education?

Nomodiphas: Well education is obviously a good thing. It is especially important in a democracy like ours where the people are required to make important decisions. It seems to be a necessity for a society. . . .

Philosophos: Let me interrupt you to ask you this: does anyone have a right to education?

Nomodiphas: Well, no.

Philosophos: Then why do we assume that the government has an obligation to provide it? Why do we assume that education is a function of the government?

Nomodiphas: Well what about kids who can’t afford education? Isn’t it unfair to put them at a disadvantage because of the shortcomings of their parents?

Philosophos: First off if kids are in poverty it is probably because of some mistake (like laziness or a debaucherous lifestyle) of their parents. The mistakes of their parents are likely going to affect them more than their lack of education. Second, education isn’t a fix all for poverty. You know what pulls people out of poverty? Hard work, frugal living, and marriage.

And speaking of unfair, how fair is it for people without kids to provide for the education of others? What do they owe others? Education is a privilege, not a right. When we treat it as a right, people abuse it.

Think of the behavioral problems that teachers must endure because kids have a right to education and schools can’t kick them out. These kids sabotage learning for others. How fair is it to you or me to pay for some brat to go to school and screw off, disrespect his teachers, and keep other kids from learning? And why do we force kids to go to school that don’t want to? Education is a privilege, but making it into a right has had terrible results. Look at drop out rates and illiteracy rates among graduates. We see these results most in low income areas, the very areas that free education is supposed to help! Education is not in any way leveling the playing field or helping disadvantaged kids succeed. Our education system throws a bunch of kids who don’t want to be in school and learn in with a few kids that do—the result is bad for everyone. If education was treated as the privilege that it is people would take it more seriously, sacrifice for it, and not let their children go to school and screw off.

Nomodiphas: So you would just have poor kids go completely without an education. I really don’t see how that will solve any problems.

Philosophos: You are wrong to assume that if the government doesn’t educate kids, then they won’t get educated. Before the government ran education people got educated! And they got better educations than they do now. What are the results of government run education? It has more or less destroyed acts of charity in this field. No longer do people teach for free or support students with a will to learn that lack the means—rather the government takes care of everyone.

We force kids to ride on buses for hours in order to achieve acceptable levels of diversity at our schools. The race neutral standard that Brown v. Board of Education imposed quickly turned into an obsession with race. Diversity became the focus of education; and this destroyed the community basis of schools. Cities were forced to bus kids from different areas to reach a quota. In Kansas City in the 1990’s for example, a judge said the city schools must lure more white kids into the school system to achieve proper integration. He doubled the property taxes in order to add computers, a UN room, a jury room, and pools to the school at an incredible cost of an additional $36,000 per student. The result? White enrollment continued to decrease, while attendance and drop out rates continued to increase. Money does not solve all problems!

Why is there such a push for diversity. The main reason diversity is valued within in schools is to raise the self esteem of children. But there is no connection between self esteem and performance. Of all industrial countries Korean students did the best in math, while our students did the worst. 23% of Korean students said they were good at math while over 2/3 of our students thought they were good at math. We have a high level of self esteem, but we lack knowledge. It is not the function of schools to make sure kids have high self esteem; rather their job is to impart knowledge.

Walk through a government run school and take a look at things—you’ll find many distractions, but little imparting of knowledge. In many schools are security guards and metal detectors. Despite this there still is a large amount of violence. Why do we tolerate kids that bring gang rivalries to school? In addition to this our schools have a carnival like atmosphere of constant distraction. Clubs, sports, regular dances—ask the average student what they are most concerned about and I guarantee nothing that has anything to do with education will make their top ten list. The football game or the prom are their primary concerns. As is fashion. There is a need to be trendy, to fit in—the hallways are like miniature runways. Everybody is concerned about who is hooking up with who and most invest the majority of their time and effort into getting action or having mini marriages.

Drugs and drinking are rampant. From fear of violence, to sports and romance—there are many things to keep kids from learning at these government sponsored institutions. And this is probably a good thing for whenever schools try to teach kids something they never impart wisdom. Schools are brainwashing and indoctrinating our kids with gross falsehoods. They never mention God or true religion, but instead preach to them the false religions of this world. Our schools indoctrinate our children daily with the tenants of humanism. They tell them they must tolerate and accept all the choices of their peers. They preach to them the philosophy of Darwin: we are all nothing more than molecules and swirling atoms. We should therefore live to cultivate pleasure—nothing is right wrong so long as you do not hurt another person. We have the government, through their schools, teaching our children about sex! Why on earth would we want the federal government determining how and what our kids learn about sex! This is the state of the public education system. Many proponents of public education admit the faults of our system, but their solution is always the same: more money. If only we had more money for this or that we could solve these problems. That is how bureaucracies work. They are stifled, unable to be creative, and they constantly require more and more money but fail to produce results.

Nomodiphas: Ok, I think your little rant about public schools is justified. It seems you are probably right that forcing kids to go to school that don’t want to corrupts learning for all and that if education was not free people would take it more seriously. But what about college? The state gives its universities some money and students pay the rest. People go there by choice. Are colleges any different?

Philosophos: You tell me, you’ve been there more recently than I have; though I doubt that my experience was unique. Learning while at college, in my experience, was more the exception than the rule. During my first week of college a guy on my hall gave me a good piece of advice, he said: don’t ever let this university get in the way of your learning. I think the distractions at college are worse than those in high school. There is more partying, drug use, drinking, a greater devotion to the athletic teams, more groups and clubs to be involved with, and an even greater focus on hooking up. For most students college is like Pinocchio’s play land. Everything is acceptable. College is viewed as a time when you are to ‘have fun’ and ‘experiment.’ Kids are finally out of the eyes of their parents and they indulge themselves in the party scene.

Why should tax payers subsidize this lifestyle? If students had to pay their own way I would bet less people would go to college and those that did would take their learning more seriously. Yes we need doctors, scientists, and lawyers, but with the current system these professions are being watered down. When a good portion of students go to college for four (or more commonly now, five or six years) of getting drunk and hooking up the top of the class is not required to work as hard to be at the top of the class. I think we put too much importance on institutionalized education. The majority of what I learned I learned outside of the classroom.
We tell kids they have to go to college to get a good job, so many go not because they want to, but because they feel they have to. This is no accident; higher education is a multi billion dollar business. Think of all the graft and extra positions we have that have nothing to do with education. LGBT counselors, advisors for out of class groups, and million dollar football coaches to name a few. Those running the education system tell us how important it is to get an education and because it is so important, they tell us how they deserve to make more money. If kids don’t want to go to higher education we should not compel them. Why is that we can’t impart the necessary basic knowledge in twelve years? Why do we need sixteen? Can’t we make better use of the time when kids are younger so they need not go to school years into adulthood? Most people graduate with a degree in one thing and end up being retrained and working in a wholly unrelated field. What is the profit in this? We should make our earlier education better and allow younger people to specialize. We should put more focus on apprenticeship type training as well. Higher education should be reserved for professional types of degrees. Those who are able and have a desire should get these degrees and they should pay their own way so they take their studies serous.

Nomodiphas: I understand your position on higher education, but what about lower education? If the current system is inefficient and unjust, what is the solution?

Philosophos: Our schools should be family/community based. Instead of taking from some and giving to others we should make families responsible for the education and wellbeing of their children. Within this context education could take a number of forms. It could be done solely by the parents, by groups of people, or communities could hire teachers and establish centers of learning. They would be responsible for funding these centers, would control the curriculum, and be responsible for discipline.

Nomodiphas: What about cases in which the parents don’t take education seriously and don’t invest in their children? Or what if the community lacks the resources to hire quality teachers for their learning centers?

Philosophos: What are you advocating? That the government should take children from their parents and raise them because parents might do a bad job? Shouldn’t the government just decide who may breed and who may not to prohibit potentially bad parents from mating? How will this solve any problems? When the government takes on a function that is not its own it creates even more problems then it solves and undermines its own function.

Raising children (which our education system attempts to do to a large degree) not only indoctrinates children with a number of falsehoods and presents them with a plethora of distractions to keep them from learning, but it undermines the family structure and the liberty of parents to raise their children. Protecting our liberty is one of the primary things the government is entrusted to do, when the government takes on things outside of its sphere it ends up corrupting its primary functions and undermining the functions of other spheres.

Poverty

Nomodiphas: I believe that people through their government have a duty to eradicate poverty. In Deuteronomy 10:18 Moses told the people of Israel to imitate God “who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.” The people were told to take the initiative and be sure the poor were taken care of. This command was not qualified in any way.

We know there are different sources for poverty. Some people are poor due to their bad work ethic, others are poor because of disabilities, and still others are poor because of oppression. The burden of poverty was not laid on the poor, but rather on the rich. The poor were not instructed to take care of themselves, but instead the rich were commanded to provide for them. For example in the Law of Moses the rich, who benefit from the structure of society, were on multiple occasions warned to provide and care for the poor and needy. In Deuteronomy 15:7-8 Moses said: “If there is among you anyone in need. . . . You should . . . open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be.” In verses 10-11 Moses further instructed the rich to “give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so . . . I therefore command you: Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.” It was the responsibility of the rich to ensure that there was “no one in need among [them].” There was no inquiry into the origin of poverty and no justification for its presence in society. Poverty was treated as an evil that the prosperous in society must do all they could to minimize and relieve.

Philosophos: Indeed that is true, but these principles must be balanced with other verses. First off, the Law of Moses also states that if there was a young man who was able to work, but refused to and instead spent his time drinking and hanging out with friends, the community was to stone him. So yes the Israelites were to take care of the poor, but they were not to tolerate people among them who chose not to work when able, living idly with the expectation that others should provide for them. They were to take care of the poor, but the poor would mainly be comprised of the sick, elderly, widowed, and orphans. Poverty is an evil and yes we should be working against its existence, but we should also not tolerate those who live idle lives and leach off of those that work. We are not obliged to give them anything and their presence acts as a disincentive to work and when they are taken care of by us we actually encourage poverty. When one can have their needs met without working there is less incentive to work and without working one cannot escape poverty.

What is the cause of poverty in our country? It is cultural. Less than 1% of our poor finish high school, get married and stay married, and work full time for one year at the same job. These are the things needed to escape poverty. Our social welfare programs work against the elimination of poverty for they allow people to have the basic securities of life without marriage or work—they do not encourage good decisions. Couple this with the fact that our government has worked hard to remove the sigma of welfare. If the government provides basic securities and there is no shame of not working, why work? The continuation of poverty brought about by governmental aid is demonstrated in the fact that welfare rates have gone up even in times of huge job growth! Welfare is not need based and it in fact prevents people from entering the job market.

Nomodiphas: I am confused, how does government involvement keep people from working?

Philosophos: Look, today we have a situation where minimum wage, entry level jobs are held in contempt and welfare is a right (we are entitled to the wealth of others). A good work ethic is not natural. Economic incentive (or economic necessity) coupled with social stigma produces hard workers. The government has sought to eliminate both. There is no longer any reason for our poor to not choose leisure and immediate gratification over work.

Nomodiphas: Well sure, but in the Bible business was subordinated to the charge of caring for the poor. In this sphere there was no unbridled free market; rather the Law of Moses trumped any business plan. In Deuteronomy 24:13-14 Moses warned employers to “not withhold the wages of poor and needy laborers,” and to return all pledges given for loans by sundown. Furthermore, in verse 19 Moses said to the landowners “when you reap your harvest in the field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be left for the alien, the orphan, and the widow.” This was to allow the poor to provide for themselves. This same principle was applied to olive trees and vineyards in the next verse. Business could only function within the limits established by the law and the law was limited in such a way so that care for the poor was the priority instead of secondary to the profitability of business.

Philosophos: I don’t at all see that as a repudiation of the free market. These are just conditions to allow the market to work. The state did not assign jobs to its citizens; it allowed them to freely contract their labor—this is the free market at work. The restrictions you mentioned were put into place to prevent abuse. They did not limit what type of job one could work at or how much one had to be paid. They merely ensured that wages were given in an appropriate amount of time.

Second, I want you to notice how it is not the government that is told to care for the poor, but rather the citizens that are told to care for the poor. The government was not given the power to take from those with wealth and give to those with less wealth. Instead it was the citizens who were commanded to be generous for God had been generous to them. Further, though sometimes there is a need for it, the people were not to just give the poor a handout—the primary way they were to help the poor was by allowing or giving the poor an opportunity to help themselves. The people were not told to harvest their gleanings and give it to the poor, but instead to leave the gleanings so that people without property would have an opportunity to work and provide for themselves.

As for the limits on business, they were to prevent oppression. A core function for the government, a truth about justice, is that the strong should not take advantage of the weak (that is justice while mercy would be the request that the strong actively take care of the weak). The Bible is very serious about preventing oppression of the weak, by the strong. The Book of Amos, for example, is full of warnings of impending judgment for the oppressors of the poor. In 8:4-10 Amos wrote:

Hear this, you that trample on the needy, and bring to ruin the poor of the land . . . buying the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals. . . . The Lord has sworn by the pride of Jacob: Surely I will never forget any of their deeds . . . I [God] will make the sun go down at noon, and darken the earth in broad daylight. I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation.

Nomodiphas: You make good points. The rich were commanded to not oppress the poor and were required to not take from the poor the ability to provide for themselves. But there are other ways the Law of Moses subordinated business to the end of preventing poverty. Even more effective than caring for the poor and needy were the institutions and laws that prevented poverty from even taking root within society. The first such provision was a ban on usury. In Exodus 22:25 Moses wrote that “if you lend money to . . . the poor among you, you shall not deal with them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from them.” In addition to this Deuteronomy Chapter 15 states that every seven years all debts were cancelled and people who hired themselves out as laborers were released from there obligations. This prevented people from falling into inescapable debt where they would exist under the power of their debt holder.

Another provision to keep members of the Hebrew nation from falling into poverty was the year of jubilee. When the Hebrew people first occupied Israel under Joshua the land was divided and each family was given a hereditary tract of land. Leviticus 25:28 pronounces that during difficult times people were allowed to sell their land, but at the end of fifty years, in the year of jubilee, all property was to be given back to the original inhabitants. These measures were exactly what Rousseau had in mind when he wrote that “it is therefore one of the most important functions of government to prevent extreme inequality of fortunes; not by taking away wealth from its possessors, but by providing all men the means to accumulate it . . . [this prevents] the citizens from becoming poor.”

These measures that God instituted through Moses prevented any family or group from gaining large tracts of land and through this a dominating position in the nation. In a largely agrarian society, land was essential to provide for oneself. Through the natural cycle of weather some land owners could be lucky, while others unlucky. The lucky ones, in difficult times, could buy the land of the unlucky and soon amass huge tracks of land and wealth for their families. This, however, would put everyone else at a disadvantage and they would likely be hired as laborers who would only be paid a portion of what their work produced, causing them to fall deeper into poverty while enriching those with land.

As economic stratification widens, not only is there a risk of class antagonism and civil war, but more likely, a tyranny is bound to emerge. The rich invent a philosophy to justify their wealth. They say they are fairly rich; they work hard and are cleverer than the rest of society and therefore merit their wealth. If only the poor would work harder, then they too could enjoy the same lifestyle as the rich. Because the wealthy hold a larger stake in society, they come to think that they alone should rule. Soon a government of the rich and powerful few emerges that oppresses the poor, weak masses. The rich claim they know best and have society’s best interest in mind, but they rule in order to hold their position, to keep themselves and their children elevated in society and keep the poor trampled under foot.

Liberty cannot exist without some form of economic equality. Rousseau wrote that the essential duty of government is “above all in protecting the poor against the tyranny of the rich.” Moses shared this notion and for this reason instituted these economic measures. Banning usury, canceling debts, and returning land so that every family may provide for itself and no family may amass a fortune, all these provisions promoted a degree of economic equality while preventing a stratification of wealth in order to safeguard the freedom of the people.

Philosophos: I would agree that these laws were put into place primarily to prevent social stratification. I believe that these are wise and good laws; however given that there is not penalty attached to these proscriptions I would argue that these are prudential and not moral, necessary laws. A large middle class is better because of the problems that you mentioned that often accompany wealth concentration. You are right about the fact that as wealth becomes more and more concentrated those with wealth are more likely to control politics. But you must keep in mind that wealth in and of itself is not bad. God blessed Abraham, Job, and King Solomon among others with great wealth.

There is a Christian man in my city that is very wealth and he gives the majority of his wealth away. He is doing more for the church and the poor than anyone else I know. He works primarily to make money to help advance the Kingdom of God. I have very deep respect for him. If all men were like him, I would encourage the concentration of wealth for when a few men control wealth they can be decisive with it and be well organized and fund projects that large, contentious groups can’t. The problem is that this good man is a rarity, he is not the norm. Most men that make money make it for their own benefit. Still, it is not morally wrong to have lots of wealth, what is right or wrong is how you use it.

Still, as you mentioned earlier today, the government is not entitled to tell you how to use your wealth. We have a right to the fruits of our labor. The government may tax to further its legitimate purposes, but taking from some and giving to others is not a legitimate government function. The government should have laws in place that help the poor provide for themselves and prevent the rich from oppressing the poor, but it may not justly take from some and give to others and it may not force others to give. It is wise for a government to have laws in place that work against the concentration of wealth, but this is merely a prudential law and not a morally necessary one.

Nomodiphas: What about Jesus? Didn’t he warn in Mathew 25:40-43 that on the final judgment he will tell the righteous “just as you did to one of the least . . . you did it to me.” And to the wicked he will say “you that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire . . . for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” Jesus said that not only is it unjust to oppress the poor, as most people agree with, but it is also unjust to ignore the plight of the poor and not actively care for them.

There are many other passages within the Bible that confirm this principle of caring for the poor. The prophet Isaiah in 1:17 told the Hebrew nation to “learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.” Again, there is no qualifier to help only those who could not prevent their poverty and ignore those whose poverty is self inflicted. No matter their circumstances people have value and must be treated with dignity and respect. Jesus affirmed the principle that at all times everyone must be treated as ends in themselves, rather than as collateral means so others may live a more comfortable life.

Philosophos: Of course we are to treat all people with dignity and respect and not as collateral means so that we may live a comfortable life. With power comes responsibility and those with wealth in this life ought to use it to help those who have less. But let me ask you this, are we saved by works?

Nomodiphas: Of course not, we are saved by God’s grace alone.

Philosophos: So when Jesus is talking about taking care of the poor he is not saying that our salvation is hinging on it?

Nomodiphas: Not at all.

Philosophos: Then what is he saying?

Nomodiphas: I suppose he is saying that our acts of mercy are evidence that we follow him.

Philosophos: I think you are correct. God saved us out of mercy. After receiving his mercy we are expected to give it to others. We need to keep in mind who Jesus is talking to here. He is not addressing some governor telling him to care for the poor, nor is he telling non-believing merchants that they’ll be judged based on how they care for the poor, rather He is talking to his followers telling them that He expects them to be merciful as He was and that their mercy is evidence that they are true followers. It is not unjust to withhold aid to the poor, rather it is unmerciful. The government deals with justice and not mercy and therefore care to the poor is outside of its function. Are you in agreement with this?

Nomodiphas: Yes.

Philosophos: Now, how do we relate all of this back to our society?

Nomodiphas: Well, we should not tolerate those who are able to work, but choose not to and instead live from the work of others. Based off of the principle of gleaning, there should be laws in place that prevent the rich from taking away people’s ability to provide for themselves. The government must have laws in place to prevent oppression and it is wise, though not necessary, to have laws in place which encourage the growth of a large middle class and prevent the growth of wealth disparity. The government cannot force people to give nor can it take from some and give to others. As Christians we are expected to be merciful, it does not save us, but is the correct response given the mercy that Christ gave to us. As we know mercy is different from justice. Care for the poor is an act of mercy and is therefore beyond the realm of government and the government in no way can compel it.

Philosophos: What are the consequences of the government either directly or indirectly providing for the poor?

Nomodiphas: Well, given the conclusions we have come to, it is unjust. The government does not have the power to take from some and give to others. Second it corrupts notions of justice and mercy thereby perverts the gospel message. Finally it costs a lot. Taxes are raised and a bureaucracy must be created to administer this massive act of mercy. A giant bureaucracy is less efficient then individuals at dispensing charity. The government is set up to treat people as faceless citizens, not as individuals, but mercy requires individualization and that is why the government fails at it. It seems that people (at least as in the case of America where there are not structural injustices) are responsible for their poverty. Only the poor themselves, by taking responsibility for their poverty and dealing with it, are able to overcome it. And now that I think of it, even in cases where government oppression creates poverty, we are responsible for our government and in that way in responsible for our own poverty. Because we are responsible for our governments, even if they are bad, we should give wisely and give in such a way so that our giving may bring change (mainly increased liberty) instead of allowing injustice to perpetuate.

Philosophos: Very good and true. Today, wanting someone else’s money is called ‘need,’ wanting to keep your own money is called ‘greed,’ and ‘compassion’ is when politicians arrange the transfer.” In the 1980’s, when the tax rates were lowered, charitable giving rose at a rate 55% faster than the last 25 years. Government involvement in care for the poor stifles private giving and care. We lose personalized charity for a charity that is dispensed by a faceless organization. Further, because charity is forced it loses its goodness.

Because mercy is outside of its function, the government is not good at providing mercy. A good example of a failed attempt by the government to help the poor is the Job Corps. The Job Corps took 100,000 young people and provided them with free job training. 2/3 never finished this free program financed by the people at a cost of over $21,000 per participant. Those that did finish often worked in a field outside of their training. This program cost a lot and did no real good. But outside of inefficiency I want you to consider one more aspect of the government aiding the poor. How does it affect our liberty?

Nomodiphas: Popular involvement in government assumes that people are free. As they become more reliant on the government they become less free and well, more reliant. As their liberty lessens, they don’t function as independent of the government. They cannot step back and look at what is best for the government for they need a government, just or not, that will continue to provide for them. They don’t see the government as their creation, but rather like a father. They cease to be free citizens that run the government and instead become children of the state unable to rule themselves. Reliance destroys self rule. They put up with its injustices so long as it continues to provide them with the things they believe they are entitled to. They have lower opinions of themselves for taking handouts, which prevents them from self governance and leads them to accept the government’s impositions. They are less likely to start up new businesses, wealth decreases, and then further poverty sets in. They take less initiative in the field of science or health always waiting for the government to solve their problems. These fields lag as well. It definitely hurts liberty and we know that one of the primary functions of government is to further and protect our natural liberty. Wealth production is not the primary purpose of government and government should not be involved in it especially if it jeopardizes the liberty of its citizens.

Philosophos: Good thoughts. Here is my last question on this topic, what is poverty in our society? Specifically how do we define poverty and does it even exist in our country?

Nomodiphas: I can think of two different types of poverty or two different types of poor people, one is subjective or comparative poverty the other is absolute poverty (destitution). Comparative poverty is common in our country and in every country. It means I am rich or poor compared to those around me. For example if I lived in a half million dollar house in a community where everyone else lives in ten million dollar houses I would be poor. While I am poor in this sense, I am not destitute.

Destitution is when one lives without the basic needs of life: food, water, clothing, and shelter. From what I can tell destitution does not exist in this country. I do not know of anyone who starves to death in this country. There are people without shelter, but groups provide temporary shelter for them—the reason many people reject these shelters is because they are not willing to obey the rules of them (like staying drug free). Poverty in this country is a very elusive term. You can see people who are considered poor that wear designer clothes and carry cell phones. I read about a woman complaining that by the time she spends her government aid on her rent, cable TV, and her cell phone bill, she barely has any left! Cable TV! Cell phones! And you consider yourself poor and oppressed? People who are poor in this country live like kings compared to the rest of the world. They have running water, electricity, refrigerators, and phones; often they own cars and sometimes even houses!

Philosophos: Very true. Lets take a look at what poor people look like in our country. 41% own homes, 75% own cars and VCR’s, 2/3 have air conditioning and microwaves, most have a TV, refrigerator, and a phone. The average poor person in our country has more living space and is more likely to own a car than the average European. Our poor would be wealthy in many other places and ages. In fact if you compared our poor to the rich during the time of Jesus I bet our poor across the board live better. I would wager that they have better access to food, clean water, health care, cleaner living conditions, fairness in the courts of law, and even more opportunity for non-essential forms of entertainment. If our poor live better then the rich at the time of Jesus, who was Jesus telling us to help when he said help the poor?

Nomodiphas: He was referring to the destitute. I don’t think he wanted us to make sure that all of our neighbors had DVD players or new cars. Rather Jesus told us to help those without the basic necessities of life. Destitution does not exist in the United States. However, real poverty affects hundreds of millions around the world. There are countless people who lack the necessities of life. These people do starve to death, live without clean water, adequate shelter and clothing, and die due to a lack of medicine. Not that we should ignore our neighbors, rather we need to expand our conception of who are neighbors are. I believe too much focus is put on those in the US and this takes the focus off of those who live in the most need.