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.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Friday, May 9, 2008
Applications of God's Principles: Trade and Debt
Philosophos: That was a very productive discussion. Now let’s move from the government’s interaction with other spheres to current controversies within the government. First we will discuss foreign issues and then we will move to domestic concerns. . . . First off let’s discuss trade policy? What do you think is a just trade policy?
Nomodiphas: Well I bet I know what you think is the best policy. I expect you would say something like “the economy is a field distinct from the government and the government should therefore have a ‘hands off’ approach to trade. Free trade may not produce the best results, but government involvement only makes matters worse.”
Philosophos: Judging by your tone I would guess that you would not agree with that statement.
Nomodiphas: I think we should prefer ‘fair trade’ to ‘free trade.’
Philosophos: And what is ‘fair trade?’
Nomodiphas: It is allowing and ensuring that people get paid a fair price for their products.
Philosophos: What is a fair price? Isn’t a fair price simply what the market dictates? I am guessing that you are concerned about developing nations being underpaid and taken advantage of. However, their main advantage is the low price of their labor. If we raise their wages to Western levels they lose their competitive edge and cannot sell their products on the world market. This in turn leads to an economic down turn and a loss of jobs. If manufacturers have to pay the same wages in China as they do in the United States there is no benefit for them of building factories in China. The reason it is profitable to build factories there and create jobs there is because the labor is cheaper there than it is here. China is experiencing unprecedented growth due to its low labor costs. This economic growth is benefiting everyone in their country.
Nomodiphas: But we are to help the poor. Isn’t supporting fair trade a good way to help the poorest of the poor?
Philosophos: Though fair trade policies have good intentions, they are misguided. Let me repeat myself, fair trade policies often have a reverse intended effect. Instead of helping developing nations, fair trade policies keep their economies from outcompeting developed nations. The biggest advantage of developing nations is that they can produce cheaper goods because their cost of labor is low. If the cost of labor is raised they lose their competitive edge and economic growth slows or stops, hurting all. Further the reason why laborers in other countries get paid less is because the cost of living is less. They do not require the income we do to live and therefore the market does not provide the level of income that we receive here.
Nomodiphas: I do not doubt that. In fact I would agree that the fair price is the price that the market dictates. The problem I have is all the non-market forces at work in the economies of developing nations that force wages and prices down.
Philosophos: Give me an example.
Nomodiphas: OK, a common scenario is that a developing nation wants to induce economic growth so it borrows money from a foreign or international institution. It borrows money to finance some sort of development, like a dam or a power plant. The lender wants to capitalize on its investment so it encourages the nation to over-borrow. The project does not generate the revenue that the nation expected (or there is a problem with corruption and the money is not properly used)—whatever the cause the nation goes into debt.
Because it is not generating money and it owes money, often the borrower needs to refinance its loan to pay back the loan, or take out another loan just to pay the interest off the original loan. At this point in time the International Monetary Fund (IMF) agrees to help the borrowing country, but only if the nation makes certain structural adjustments. The developing nation is forced to open itself up to foreign investment and discontinue all forms of economic protectionalism. Further, often times the leaders of these countries will impound private property and turn it into a manufacturing site (for there are always manufacturers who are anxious to invest in countries with low wages). The farmers whose land was unjustly taken now have no livelihood save the new factory built on their former land. They are desperate for jobs and will work for even small amounts of money—for little is better than nothing. This in turn artificially depresses wages.
In addition to this, in order to attract the foreign investment that the country is now reliant upon the leader of that country will do things to drive prices down even further. He will use the military to put down unions and quell strikes, relax restrictions on hours worked, abolish prohibitions on child labor, etc. This creates inhuman working conditions, but it also attracts foreign capital. Plants are taken from our country and moved to these types of places and the consumers here benefit from this injustice in the form of cheaper products.
Philosophos: I do not doubt that this happens, nor will I contend with the assertion that it is grossly unjust. However, how is this result the consequence of free trade and how will ‘fair trade’ somehow fix this injustice?
Nomodiphas: I just explained to you how it was the product of free trade. Banks have an interest in nations over borrowing and constantly paying interest and debt and businesses have an interest in developing nations not being able to pay loans back and being required by the IMF to create conditions beneficial to for business investment. These groups work hand in hand to make developing nations dependent on foreign capital so that they may benefit from the constant repayment of debt and cheap labor that these conditions produce. Fair trade might not fix any problems, but it will mitigate the harm done to the people caught in the middle of this.
Philosophos: I want to reiterate, I complete believe your characterization of most bankers and businessmen regarding third world countries. Like you, when I consider your account I see a lot of injustice. But unlike you I do not believe this injustice is a product of free trade. First off, we are discussing ‘developing nations’ i.e. poor countries. Why are these people in poverty in the first place? I think there are two explanations. The first is that they have a wrong culture. They have views that do not encourage hard work and frugal, disciplined lifestyles. The other cause is an unjust government that does not protect property or that in some other way prevents the people from overcoming poverty. Likely it is some combination of these two factors. Either way it is a result of the people’s actions. They either hold unto false cultural views or have been sloth in defending their liberty and allowing a despotic government to rule over them. I do not hold any credence to the view that the West is somehow responsible for the poverty of the third world because of its former colonization. One need look no further than the United States to see that former colonies are quite capable of prospering.
Nomodiphas: What do you make of Orwell’s explanation?
Philosophos: I discount the Orwellian account for poverty. If I remember correctly Orwell stated that the elites consciously deplete resources through war in order to keep class distinctions (and their position in that hierarchy) intact. The growth of disposable income in the west is a clear refutation of this.
Now getting back to your narrative, you said that the problem of debt begins when an overreaching government involves itself in its economy and attempts to create economic growth by its own power (through borrowing and state sponsored development projects), instead of creating conditions that allow an economy to grow. And as you said there is often corruption within these governmental projects. So developing nations find themselves in debt because their government wrongly involved itself in the economy, and not only that, but managed this involvement poorly, allowing corruption and inefficiency.
Now, instead of trying to fix this problem on their own, these developing nations turn to others for help. You are correct in claiming that many times foreign bankers and organizations often do not have the borrower’s best intentions in mind. They do, to some degree, take advantage of the borrowing nation’s self created disadvantaged position. But isn’t this to be expected? I do not expect my bank or credit card company to have my best interest in mind. They are out to make money! They have that goal in mind. This is a legitimate goal. We are talking about businesses and not charities after all. When I deal with these companies I need to be diligent in looking after my interests, instead of foolishly assuming I can abdicate this responsibility to others. Why should it be any different for nations? Governments are instituted by God to look after their nations well being and they should not imprudently relinquish their power.
After these nations forfeit their sovereignty by relying on the money of others to solver their problems they are often forced to institute reforms. It is true these reforms are favorable to business, but they are often in the best interest of the borrowing nation as well. For example, they often force the nation to run a balanced budget, investigate and halt all governmental corruption, and try to create a national economy that is open and accountable. These nations are foolish to relinquish their sovereignty, but despite making themselves reliant on foreign capital and subject to reform, often these reforms are win-win and benefit borrower and lender alike.
Finally, as far as low wages are concerned you say it is often the result of the government impounding private agricultural property from some and giving it to others to use for manufacturing. I agree that this happens, and again I agree that this is a gross injustice, but this is injustice within the country’s government and is not a product of free trade. The problem as I see it is that the government needs to be reformed according to principles of justice and it seems to me that fair trade will do little to solve this problem. Free trade is not the cause of poverty, the problem is unjust and corrupt governments. It is the responsibility of citizens to reform their governments and make them just. In fact it seems like fair trade could hurt these countries in the long run.
Too often when governments give aid they perpetuate injustice. Going back to your example from before, often times the tyrant ruler of a developing nation can take a farmer’s land and turn it into a factory because that tyrant is insulated from the need to reform by the foreign aid he receives.
By helping out individuals living under an unjust government we create complacency with that government’s policies. There is less need and desire to reform a government if one is well fed and provided for. It is not good for us to encourage people to sacrifice liberty and justice in return for material well being (or at least comfortable living without liberty and justice), but when we give money blindly we do just that. To escape poverty people must take responsibility for their government and reform it according to God’s principles. Often time’s change of this magnitude requires the people to undergo some hardship. By giving foreign nations aid we prevent the people from undergoing hardship, and in turn, prevent them from truly reforming their country in such a way so as to live in freedom and prosperity.
In the same way I doubt that canceling third world debt will do any good because it does nothing to deal with the root problems: unjust governments and ungodly cultures. Canceling debt will only offer a moment of respite. The unjust government would remain in place and further problems would quickly follow. Foreign aid alone does not help poor countries develop. Market reform (and often cultural reform as well) is needed. With foreign aid dictators become entrenched and can survive without reform: their subjects tolerate them because they are well fed.
Respect for law and property creates wealth. These reforms only occur when foreign aid is cut off and a country is forced to reform. If fair trade is to be done at all, it should be done on a local level, as an act of mercy and done by the church. I see no benefit or justification for it to be mandated by the government. As said before it does not solve the root problem, the root problem is unjust governments and there is little our government can do to reform the internal workings of other governments (and I question how much we should do this, even if we could do it effectively).
Nomodiphas: I understand what you are saying, but wouldn’t you agree with me that the government can and should interfere with the market in order to prevent injustice—in order to protect the rights of people.
Philosophos: Of course I would agree with that. We have environmental regulations to prevent poison from going into our water and we require children to be at least twelve before they work to help ensure that they are not forced to work against their will.
Nomodiphas: Then wouldn’t it follow that our government has a duty to interfere in the international economy to prevent injustice and ensure the rights of people?
Philosophos: You have to ask, to whom does a government have responsibility? Does our government have a responsibility to the entire world? Must it protect the liberty and ensure the rights of every living person? This appears to me to be a very dangerous notion of government for it necessitates a one-world global government. A global government may be able to do that, but the mischief it would be capable of would be unbearable. That is why at Babel God divided people into different groups and different places. God recognized the threat that global government posed for liberty so He frustrated man’s plan for it.
Global government is not a solution. Every country on earth is distinct. The citizens of each country have a responsibility to make their government just—the governments of every country have a responsibility to their citizens to promote justice and liberty. These responsibilities do not extend beyond national boarders. Instead of pressuring our government to subvert the policies of other governments to be just, we should focus on discipling the people of the nations and instilling within them a Godly understanding of government so that they will be able to wisely reform their states to be just entities.
As consumers we can boycott products made under inhuman conditions. I suppose our government could do something like tax or ban imports from countries that allow inhumane working conditions. This may encourage them to reform, but it is a very difficult thing to monitor without infringing on the sovereignty of other governments. The best solution is not for us to use our government to force top down reforms, but rather for us as Christians to disciple the peoples of the world so that they may wisely work to reform their governments.
In conclusion, I’ll return to your first thought. I think free trade is best. There may be times when protectionalism is warranted in order to protect infant industries. The government may do this and other things to encourage business so long as it does not cross the line and become directly involved in business (like provide subsidies or protect mature business from foreign competition by means of tariffs). We live in an imperfect world with lots of imperfect people. As in all areas of life, restraining the government in order to give people liberty produces a lot of bad results, but it is far better than having the government take away all our liberty and control all aspects of our lives.
Nomodiphas: Well I bet I know what you think is the best policy. I expect you would say something like “the economy is a field distinct from the government and the government should therefore have a ‘hands off’ approach to trade. Free trade may not produce the best results, but government involvement only makes matters worse.”
Philosophos: Judging by your tone I would guess that you would not agree with that statement.
Nomodiphas: I think we should prefer ‘fair trade’ to ‘free trade.’
Philosophos: And what is ‘fair trade?’
Nomodiphas: It is allowing and ensuring that people get paid a fair price for their products.
Philosophos: What is a fair price? Isn’t a fair price simply what the market dictates? I am guessing that you are concerned about developing nations being underpaid and taken advantage of. However, their main advantage is the low price of their labor. If we raise their wages to Western levels they lose their competitive edge and cannot sell their products on the world market. This in turn leads to an economic down turn and a loss of jobs. If manufacturers have to pay the same wages in China as they do in the United States there is no benefit for them of building factories in China. The reason it is profitable to build factories there and create jobs there is because the labor is cheaper there than it is here. China is experiencing unprecedented growth due to its low labor costs. This economic growth is benefiting everyone in their country.
Nomodiphas: But we are to help the poor. Isn’t supporting fair trade a good way to help the poorest of the poor?
Philosophos: Though fair trade policies have good intentions, they are misguided. Let me repeat myself, fair trade policies often have a reverse intended effect. Instead of helping developing nations, fair trade policies keep their economies from outcompeting developed nations. The biggest advantage of developing nations is that they can produce cheaper goods because their cost of labor is low. If the cost of labor is raised they lose their competitive edge and economic growth slows or stops, hurting all. Further the reason why laborers in other countries get paid less is because the cost of living is less. They do not require the income we do to live and therefore the market does not provide the level of income that we receive here.
Nomodiphas: I do not doubt that. In fact I would agree that the fair price is the price that the market dictates. The problem I have is all the non-market forces at work in the economies of developing nations that force wages and prices down.
Philosophos: Give me an example.
Nomodiphas: OK, a common scenario is that a developing nation wants to induce economic growth so it borrows money from a foreign or international institution. It borrows money to finance some sort of development, like a dam or a power plant. The lender wants to capitalize on its investment so it encourages the nation to over-borrow. The project does not generate the revenue that the nation expected (or there is a problem with corruption and the money is not properly used)—whatever the cause the nation goes into debt.
Because it is not generating money and it owes money, often the borrower needs to refinance its loan to pay back the loan, or take out another loan just to pay the interest off the original loan. At this point in time the International Monetary Fund (IMF) agrees to help the borrowing country, but only if the nation makes certain structural adjustments. The developing nation is forced to open itself up to foreign investment and discontinue all forms of economic protectionalism. Further, often times the leaders of these countries will impound private property and turn it into a manufacturing site (for there are always manufacturers who are anxious to invest in countries with low wages). The farmers whose land was unjustly taken now have no livelihood save the new factory built on their former land. They are desperate for jobs and will work for even small amounts of money—for little is better than nothing. This in turn artificially depresses wages.
In addition to this, in order to attract the foreign investment that the country is now reliant upon the leader of that country will do things to drive prices down even further. He will use the military to put down unions and quell strikes, relax restrictions on hours worked, abolish prohibitions on child labor, etc. This creates inhuman working conditions, but it also attracts foreign capital. Plants are taken from our country and moved to these types of places and the consumers here benefit from this injustice in the form of cheaper products.
Philosophos: I do not doubt that this happens, nor will I contend with the assertion that it is grossly unjust. However, how is this result the consequence of free trade and how will ‘fair trade’ somehow fix this injustice?
Nomodiphas: I just explained to you how it was the product of free trade. Banks have an interest in nations over borrowing and constantly paying interest and debt and businesses have an interest in developing nations not being able to pay loans back and being required by the IMF to create conditions beneficial to for business investment. These groups work hand in hand to make developing nations dependent on foreign capital so that they may benefit from the constant repayment of debt and cheap labor that these conditions produce. Fair trade might not fix any problems, but it will mitigate the harm done to the people caught in the middle of this.
Philosophos: I want to reiterate, I complete believe your characterization of most bankers and businessmen regarding third world countries. Like you, when I consider your account I see a lot of injustice. But unlike you I do not believe this injustice is a product of free trade. First off, we are discussing ‘developing nations’ i.e. poor countries. Why are these people in poverty in the first place? I think there are two explanations. The first is that they have a wrong culture. They have views that do not encourage hard work and frugal, disciplined lifestyles. The other cause is an unjust government that does not protect property or that in some other way prevents the people from overcoming poverty. Likely it is some combination of these two factors. Either way it is a result of the people’s actions. They either hold unto false cultural views or have been sloth in defending their liberty and allowing a despotic government to rule over them. I do not hold any credence to the view that the West is somehow responsible for the poverty of the third world because of its former colonization. One need look no further than the United States to see that former colonies are quite capable of prospering.
Nomodiphas: What do you make of Orwell’s explanation?
Philosophos: I discount the Orwellian account for poverty. If I remember correctly Orwell stated that the elites consciously deplete resources through war in order to keep class distinctions (and their position in that hierarchy) intact. The growth of disposable income in the west is a clear refutation of this.
Now getting back to your narrative, you said that the problem of debt begins when an overreaching government involves itself in its economy and attempts to create economic growth by its own power (through borrowing and state sponsored development projects), instead of creating conditions that allow an economy to grow. And as you said there is often corruption within these governmental projects. So developing nations find themselves in debt because their government wrongly involved itself in the economy, and not only that, but managed this involvement poorly, allowing corruption and inefficiency.
Now, instead of trying to fix this problem on their own, these developing nations turn to others for help. You are correct in claiming that many times foreign bankers and organizations often do not have the borrower’s best intentions in mind. They do, to some degree, take advantage of the borrowing nation’s self created disadvantaged position. But isn’t this to be expected? I do not expect my bank or credit card company to have my best interest in mind. They are out to make money! They have that goal in mind. This is a legitimate goal. We are talking about businesses and not charities after all. When I deal with these companies I need to be diligent in looking after my interests, instead of foolishly assuming I can abdicate this responsibility to others. Why should it be any different for nations? Governments are instituted by God to look after their nations well being and they should not imprudently relinquish their power.
After these nations forfeit their sovereignty by relying on the money of others to solver their problems they are often forced to institute reforms. It is true these reforms are favorable to business, but they are often in the best interest of the borrowing nation as well. For example, they often force the nation to run a balanced budget, investigate and halt all governmental corruption, and try to create a national economy that is open and accountable. These nations are foolish to relinquish their sovereignty, but despite making themselves reliant on foreign capital and subject to reform, often these reforms are win-win and benefit borrower and lender alike.
Finally, as far as low wages are concerned you say it is often the result of the government impounding private agricultural property from some and giving it to others to use for manufacturing. I agree that this happens, and again I agree that this is a gross injustice, but this is injustice within the country’s government and is not a product of free trade. The problem as I see it is that the government needs to be reformed according to principles of justice and it seems to me that fair trade will do little to solve this problem. Free trade is not the cause of poverty, the problem is unjust and corrupt governments. It is the responsibility of citizens to reform their governments and make them just. In fact it seems like fair trade could hurt these countries in the long run.
Too often when governments give aid they perpetuate injustice. Going back to your example from before, often times the tyrant ruler of a developing nation can take a farmer’s land and turn it into a factory because that tyrant is insulated from the need to reform by the foreign aid he receives.
By helping out individuals living under an unjust government we create complacency with that government’s policies. There is less need and desire to reform a government if one is well fed and provided for. It is not good for us to encourage people to sacrifice liberty and justice in return for material well being (or at least comfortable living without liberty and justice), but when we give money blindly we do just that. To escape poverty people must take responsibility for their government and reform it according to God’s principles. Often time’s change of this magnitude requires the people to undergo some hardship. By giving foreign nations aid we prevent the people from undergoing hardship, and in turn, prevent them from truly reforming their country in such a way so as to live in freedom and prosperity.
In the same way I doubt that canceling third world debt will do any good because it does nothing to deal with the root problems: unjust governments and ungodly cultures. Canceling debt will only offer a moment of respite. The unjust government would remain in place and further problems would quickly follow. Foreign aid alone does not help poor countries develop. Market reform (and often cultural reform as well) is needed. With foreign aid dictators become entrenched and can survive without reform: their subjects tolerate them because they are well fed.
Respect for law and property creates wealth. These reforms only occur when foreign aid is cut off and a country is forced to reform. If fair trade is to be done at all, it should be done on a local level, as an act of mercy and done by the church. I see no benefit or justification for it to be mandated by the government. As said before it does not solve the root problem, the root problem is unjust governments and there is little our government can do to reform the internal workings of other governments (and I question how much we should do this, even if we could do it effectively).
Nomodiphas: I understand what you are saying, but wouldn’t you agree with me that the government can and should interfere with the market in order to prevent injustice—in order to protect the rights of people.
Philosophos: Of course I would agree with that. We have environmental regulations to prevent poison from going into our water and we require children to be at least twelve before they work to help ensure that they are not forced to work against their will.
Nomodiphas: Then wouldn’t it follow that our government has a duty to interfere in the international economy to prevent injustice and ensure the rights of people?
Philosophos: You have to ask, to whom does a government have responsibility? Does our government have a responsibility to the entire world? Must it protect the liberty and ensure the rights of every living person? This appears to me to be a very dangerous notion of government for it necessitates a one-world global government. A global government may be able to do that, but the mischief it would be capable of would be unbearable. That is why at Babel God divided people into different groups and different places. God recognized the threat that global government posed for liberty so He frustrated man’s plan for it.
Global government is not a solution. Every country on earth is distinct. The citizens of each country have a responsibility to make their government just—the governments of every country have a responsibility to their citizens to promote justice and liberty. These responsibilities do not extend beyond national boarders. Instead of pressuring our government to subvert the policies of other governments to be just, we should focus on discipling the people of the nations and instilling within them a Godly understanding of government so that they will be able to wisely reform their states to be just entities.
As consumers we can boycott products made under inhuman conditions. I suppose our government could do something like tax or ban imports from countries that allow inhumane working conditions. This may encourage them to reform, but it is a very difficult thing to monitor without infringing on the sovereignty of other governments. The best solution is not for us to use our government to force top down reforms, but rather for us as Christians to disciple the peoples of the world so that they may wisely work to reform their governments.
In conclusion, I’ll return to your first thought. I think free trade is best. There may be times when protectionalism is warranted in order to protect infant industries. The government may do this and other things to encourage business so long as it does not cross the line and become directly involved in business (like provide subsidies or protect mature business from foreign competition by means of tariffs). We live in an imperfect world with lots of imperfect people. As in all areas of life, restraining the government in order to give people liberty produces a lot of bad results, but it is far better than having the government take away all our liberty and control all aspects of our lives.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Art
Philosophos: Next topic, what is the purpose of art?
Nomodiphas: To create beauty.
Philosophos: How should the government interact with this field?
Nomodiphas: I believe it should allow art and free expression to a very large degree, even art that is critical of government (not that this is a Biblical right, it is just pragmatic—repression tends to be very ineffective). I don’t think there is a right to be vulgar or obscene or any reason to tolerate obscene expressions, but outside of that and extreme calls for the violent overthrow of the government, I don’t think that the government should censor art.
Philosophos: What about governmental support of art?
Nomodiphas: Again, the Bible does not say anything specific about this so my opinion is primarily prudential. I don’t think that the government should support art. For starters creating beauty is a separate function and is outside of the sphere of government. When government involves itself in art there is a tendency for the government to use art as propaganda—to force the artist to convey reality the way that is most favorable to the government (look at the advent of Soviet Realism as a recent example of this). Secondly art is degraded when the goal of art is to create something that the government desires and not create beauty for its own sake (just as art is tarnished when the goal of is to create a marketable product).
Nomodiphas: To create beauty.
Philosophos: How should the government interact with this field?
Nomodiphas: I believe it should allow art and free expression to a very large degree, even art that is critical of government (not that this is a Biblical right, it is just pragmatic—repression tends to be very ineffective). I don’t think there is a right to be vulgar or obscene or any reason to tolerate obscene expressions, but outside of that and extreme calls for the violent overthrow of the government, I don’t think that the government should censor art.
Philosophos: What about governmental support of art?
Nomodiphas: Again, the Bible does not say anything specific about this so my opinion is primarily prudential. I don’t think that the government should support art. For starters creating beauty is a separate function and is outside of the sphere of government. When government involves itself in art there is a tendency for the government to use art as propaganda—to force the artist to convey reality the way that is most favorable to the government (look at the advent of Soviet Realism as a recent example of this). Secondly art is degraded when the goal of art is to create something that the government desires and not create beauty for its own sake (just as art is tarnished when the goal of is to create a marketable product).
Friday, May 2, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
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).
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).
Sunday, April 20, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
