Vox Popoli

The Evangelical Outpost writes: When it comes to Christian libertarianism, though, I’m a bit baffled. Its not that I dont think that Christians can be libertarian. In fact, I think that by applying Christian ethics to the political philosophy it would solve many of the criticisms I have with the libertarian position. Im just a bit vague on how Christian thought is applied to libertarianism in order to transform it into a unique political stance. (Im assuming, of course, that the term Christian isnt simply being used as a generic modifier.)Id be interested in hearing the thoughts of those who apply this label to their own beliefs. In particular, Im curious to know how it differs from conservatism and/or liberalism.

The important thing to understand first is that although the term “Christian libertarian” is a political term, the philosophy has strong roots in conventional Christian theology. Christian libertarianism is derived from the postulate that God places a strong inherent value on free will. Since God, who has infinite power, elects not to use such power to control individual behavior, humans and human law should do likewise in imitation of the Divine, drawing a firm line at where one individual’s behavior exerts a direct and inarguable effect on another individual.

It is thus contrary to the Calvinist theology, but is also distinct from the conservative tradition in that it rejects the notion that moral behavior can be instilled in a society through legal force. Christian libertarians recognize that not even the most totalitarian state has been successful in imposing moral behavior on its citizens, and therefore insist that the forces of social ostracism and free association must be utilized for such purposes instead. We also reject the notion that legality is synonymous with morality, and insist that the State play no role whatsoever in matters of religion, marriage or financial well-being. Conservatives recognize that state-imposed distribution is not charity, they do not, however, recognize that state-imposed moral behavior is not morality, it is nothing more than fear. Which, we are told, does not come from God.

Christian libertarianism is different from conventional Libertarianism in that it is not purely utilitarian, but shares some of the same roots in Natural Law as conservativism. For example, it does not equivocate on abortion, but steadfastly opposes it as an infringement upon the right to life of the unborn child. In short, it recognizes the importance of moral law, but sees this on the order of a natural law such as the law of gravity, not a basis for societal law enforced by the state.

To be sure, there are verses which suggest that the earthly authorities have been given their authority by God. However, it is worth noting that the apostles, who surely understood the Gospel better than we do, were constantly in trouble with the law, and indeed, most of them were executed by the legal authorities, as was Jesus Christ himself. This would seem to support the notion that earthly law and moral law are not one and the same.

Needless to say, Christian libertarianism has very little sympathy for left-liberalism, which elevates the State to earthly godhood.

The conspiratorial Volokh writes: Several readers questioned whether Jews really give half of all money raised by the Democratic Party. I’ve seen this figure quoted for years, and it seems well-accepted. Here, for example, is the Washington Post in December: “Jews provided at least half the money donated to the DNC in the 1998 and 2000 election cycles”. Another Post article, however, qualifies this by noting this refers solely to donations by individual donors, and does not take into account corporate and labor union donations, which have been, to say the least, substantial. Some of the readers who wrote to me fear that mentioning such figures will stoke anti-Semitism.

Those fearful readers must be left-wingers. Yes, let’s hide the truth, because if people learn it, maybe they’ll use the data to conclude something we don’t like! This is not only wrong-headed, it is diametrically opposed to the position of the man who said the truth will set you free. It’s an interesting fact, given that the Democratic Party is increasingly opposed to Israel, Jews and religion in general.

Like many evangelical Christians, I’m an outspoken defender of both Jews and Israel. That being said, I think the crack about the Jewish tendency to vote like Puerto Ricans is amusing, arguably true and completely inexplicable. Then again, it could also be argued that Jews are, by and large, clueless. The results of an American Jewish Congress poll showed that 56 percent of American Jews believed that “most” or “many” Muslims are anti-Semitic, while 41 percent believed that “most” or “many” Religious Right Christians are.

Right. The people who give millions of dollars to Israel and believe that God will bless those who bless Israel rank as second-class Jew-haters only when compared with those trying to blow up innocent Jewish children and preaching the destruction of Israel. Seriously, it makes me wonder if a significant percentage of the German Jewish vote went to the National Socialists in 1933. Sigh.

Jay Shay writes: “I had an amusing conversation with a so-called ‘normal’ American the other day. I was presenting him with the current figures on how bad it really is on all the issues he mentioned, and he acted like it was something he had never heard before. I realized that maybe he never has heard how bad it has gotten, and maybe he didn’t want to hear it. His shock and anger were immediate and vitriolic in nature. He denounced me as a liar, and claimed I was making these things up out of thin air.”

“The fact that most of the figures and facts I gave him were from US government agencies and the newest reports did not even slow him down in his attacks. I repeatedly pointed out that the facts were coming from his oh so loved government and he almost physically attacked me. I even showed him the printed reports from various agencies and he accused me of fabricating them completely.”

I think Americans will be absolutely furious when they finally wake up and realize that significant portions of the so-called economic growth is invented hedonic calculations, that inflation has been massively underestimated by virtue of accounting chicanery and that their money is not even money. Doubt me? Look up any econ 101 textbook, which will say that one of the features of money is that it is a store of value. There may not be much inherent value to metal, stone or land – all of which have been used as currencies in the past – but there’s surely more than there is in the electrons in your bank account.

From the Contrarian Chronicles: First off, let me take a step back. For my entire career, I always have believed that monetary stimulus “works.” Throughout the Greenspan reign, I have believed that the Fed would print as much money as was required to try to make things better. Consistent with those two points, I always have believed that in a social democracy with a fiat currency, all roads lead to inflation. But since the bursting of the biggest bubble in the history of the world, I have been dubious about the ability of stimulus to work its magic in any sustainable way, because of the excess capacity and the misallocation of capital produced by the mania.

Key word being “sustainable”. One reason I have written very little about the markets of late is that I was completely wrong about the Saddam rally and the ability of the Fed to sustain it. But I have not changed my opinion about the state of the economy at all, and despite my options debacle, I am still net ahead in that same time frame.

The dollar will go to zero, though it could be another 50 years. The interesting question revolves around what will replace it. Perhaps the Union of the Americas will kick itself off with a gold-backed currency, assuming China, the EU or the Arab nations don’t beat it to the punch.

It may be expecting too much to expect most intellectuals to have common sense, when their whole life is based on their being uncommon — that is, saying things that are different from what everyone else is saying. There is only so much genuine originality in anyone. After that, being uncommon means indulging in pointless eccentricities or clever attempts to mock or shock.

Something to keep in the back of your mind. Both as one watches others, as well as one’s own tongue.

Brent Bozell writes: In an interview with Jane Hall in the most recent Columbia Journalism Review, [Tom[ Brokaw suggests there is no such thing as liberal media bias … and then asserts that liberal bias is an “obligation” of journalism. Journalists should “represent the views of those who are underrepresented in the social context, or the political context, and to make sure that they’re not overlooked, and that their wrongs get the bright light of journalistic sunshine.”

So there’s no left-liberal media bias, there’s a left-liberal media obligation. Well, that clears that up. It also makes it clear that the reason Tom Brokaw believes our grandparent’s generation was the greatest generation is not because they defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, but because they turned America into a left-liberal quasi-socialist welfare state.

Since the radio show last night, I’ve been thinking about why the amnesty is being pushed by the Bush administration. It makes zero political sense. Then it occurred to me that the USA and other governments of North, Central and South America are simply following the example set by Europe. Just as the sovereign political nation that is the EU began as a “free trade” zone, a course has been set to create an American superstate.

This will take time, probably on the order of 30-40 years. But the outlines have been sketched and the structure is starting to become apparent to the most astute observers. Almost everyone will deny this, of course, just as they were denying that the EU could ever be a political entity as recently as 18 months ago. You won’t hear any such objections now, since it’s undeniable by even the most skeptical at this point. But the skeleton for the current EU was created with the Treaty of Paris in 1951, then given flesh with the 1957 Treaty of Rome. The Union of the Americas is still at a point somewhere between Paris and Rome, which is why I conclude it will be another 40 years before NAFTA is expanded and transformed into monetary and political union.

Flooding the country with people who will support such a concept is vital, so we can expect the massive immigration to continue unabated, just like the Swiss government – eager to join the EU despite the failure of two national referendums on potential membership – has ramped up immigration from EU countries. The best argument for immigration is that our Mexican gastarbeiten are taking jobs that lazy Americans are unwilling to take. But a recent debate in the Dallas Morning News showed that the Hispanic population of Dallas County increased from 30 percent to 40 percent from 2000 to 2002. I find it very difficult to imagine that the economic growth of that area is such that the increase stemmed from a dearth of employable workers. It’s a theoretical argument that sounds good until one examines the facts required to support it.

Rich Lowry writes: [Gen. Clark] accuses the Republican party of a lack of true Christianity, saying that “there’s only one party that lives that faith in America, and that’s our party, the Democratic party.”

Don’t most Democrats who aren’t nominal once-a-year-won’t-kill-me Christians hate Christians who actually take the tenets of the faith seriously, or at the very least wish that they would stay out of politics altogether? Otherwise, what’s with all the cracks about Bible thumpers, the virulent antipathy for Catholic and evangelical judges, and the desire to eradicate all signs of Christmas from public view.

One wonders what in the seventh secret name of Gehenna the general is smoking. Clark must have the notion that playing Robin Hood with other people’s money is the same thing as charity – of course, Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, not what belongs toJoseph, Mary, Simon Peter and Paul. And he also said to suffer the little children to go unto him, not to stick a fork in their brains because “mommy” hasn’t finished her International Relations degree yet.

Seriously, what does the Democratic Party stand for, sopratutto:

Higher taxes

Abortion

Entitlements

Affirmative action

Eradicating religion

Globalism

Gay rights

The only one that correlates with Christian teaching at all is – maybe- entititlements, and that only because Jesus did say that the poor would be with us always, and entitlements are one way to make sure of that. Is it any wonder that the evangelicals all left that building? Of course, if George Bush keeps it up, my Christian Libertarian party will be the de facto third party.

UPDATE: DG contributes another Clark gem: “Now, there’s one party in America that’s made the United Nations the enemy. And I don’t know how many of you have ever read that series of books that’s published by the Christian right that’s called the “Left Behind” series? Probably nobody’s read it up here. But don’t feel bad, I’m not recommending it to you. I’m just telling you that according to the book cover that I saw in the airport, 55 million copies have been printed. And in it, the Antichrist is the United Nations. And so there’s this huge, ill-informed body of sentiment out there that’s just grinding away against the United Nations.” (Jan. 7, Fuller Elementary School, Keene.)

And there’s 55 million uninformed people who won’t be voting for General Clark. The United Nations certainly is the enemy, as dictated by basic logic and behavior as well as apocalyptic Christian fiction. Anyone else surprised that the good general has trouble separating fact from fantasy? But given the president’s amnesty plan, Republicans will find it hard to attack Democrats on giving away the national sovereignty store.

In case anyone is interested, I’ll be appearing on A Closer Look being interviewed by Michael Corbin tonight at 7 PM Eastern. We will be discussing the question of whether Bush should be impeached or hailed as a hero. It’s an interesting question, as you can probably make the case for both. The interview is intriguing from my point of view, as Mr. Corbin is cognizant of von Mises. I’ll bet there isn’t a single NPR interviewer who could say the same.

I don’t know on which stations the show is broadcast, so give Google a whirl. It’s out of Denver, I believe.

John Podhoretz writes: The Bush administration and the GOP Congress have put it all on the line these past years – from the tough line in the War on Terror to the tax cuts to the Big Government solutions on health care and education. A loss would destroy Republican self-confidence and indicate that the American people are eager for a different kind of governing ideology.

Yes, I suggest that perhaps the American people would be interested in one that doesn’t involve Big Government solutions. We can get them from the Democrats, now we get them from the Republicans as well. We can also get them from the Greens and the Socialists. This is why I never vote for any of these parties.

Eliminate the Department of Education, like Ronald Reagan promised. End all Medicare/Medicaid entitlements and ban HMOs. Eliminate all laws requiring a state-sanctioned license to practice medicine – if you want an AMA-certified doctor, great. If you can’t afford one, hire whoever you want. This may come as a big shock to some, but state permission has never been a guarantor of quality.