Category Archives: political-economy

Wikipedia on the anti-federalists seems too abstract

Anti-Federalism is a political philosophy which opposes the concept of Federalism. In short, Anti-Federalists dictate that the central governing authority of a nation should be equal or inferior to, but not having more power than, its sub-national states (state government). A book titled “The Anti-Federalist Papers” is a detailed explanation of American Anti-Federalist thought.

via Anti-Federalism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I’m not insane enough to fight on wikipedia, but I don’t think this gives an accurate picture.  I don’t think there was a “political philosophy” that opposed “Federalism.” I think it was a response to the governments that actually existed. There were thirteen sovereign states who won their sovereignty by a war for independence. That was a fact. Those were the governments that existed. They were not “sub-national” because there simply was no nation state.

Now, in response to the attempt to win jurisdiction over these states via voting, many argued against ceding to such jurisdiction because they believed it effectively guaranteed conquest by a foreign entity.

To make wikipedia’s definition work, we’d need to see some claim that all nations everywhere should have sub-national states that are equal to or superior to the central governing authority.  I’ve never heard of such a thing.

Intellectual property seems more like a state invention than God’s idea

The spirits of John Wycliff and Brother Andrew hover over this shameful situation compelling us to act. If the enemy forces were a state religion like the Church of England or an oppressive government like China or Iran we would think nothing of risking our lives to bring the Bible to those who can’t access it otherwise. But in this case because the bad guys have the words “Bible Society” in their name we’re supposed to sit on our thumbs.

via Illegal sources of the Portuguese Bible in digital format | lingamish.

Please read the whole amazing post.

“Bible Society” in the name doesn’t change the fact that it is state monopoly laws backed by a courts and policing regime that are the enemy.  In fact, this makes me think of a new argument against “intellectual property” in general for Christians.  If you don’t think God’s word can be copyrighted, maybe we need to question the general principle of copyright in the first place.

6 talking point for North American freedom

1. Big business and big government are (for the most part) natural allies.

2. Although conservative politicians pretend to hate big government, and liberal politicians pretend to hate big business, most mainstream policies – both liberal and conservative – involve (slightly different versions of) massive intervention on behalf of the big-business/big-government elite at the expense of ordinary people.

3. Liberal politicians cloak their intervention on behalf of the strong in the rhetoric of intervention on behalf of the weak; conservative politicians cloak their intervention on behalf of the strong in the rhetoric of non-intervention and free markets – but in both cases the rhetoric is belied by the reality.

4. A genuine policy of intervention on behalf of the weak, if liberals actually tried it, wouldn’t work either, since the nature of government power would automatically warp it toward the interests of the elite.

5. A genuine policy of non-intervention and free markets, if conservatives actually tried it, would work, since free competition would empower ordinary people at the expense of the elite.

6. Since conservative policies, despite their associated free-market rhetoric, are mostly the diametrical opposite of free-market policies, the failures of conservative policies do not constitute an objection to (but rather, if anything, a vindication of) free-market policies.

from Wild Cards | Austro-Athenian Empire.

hat tip

Pagan, Christian, and Enlightenment/Christian states of alleged nature

In Norman Cohn’s The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages (Galaxy Books), he follows peasant movements from the so- called Middle Ages, to the Reformation.  It has been a long time and I don’t remember if I finished it.  (I think I actually read it from the library in college and then bought it later and have managed to hang onto it ever since.  There is a really depressing story about how many excellent books that I used to own that did not survive my early years in the pastorate, but that must wait for some other time, if ever.)

In any case, because I will be teaching on the anabaptists and the Reformation soon, I thought I should revisit the book.  And I have either re-read (having forgotten it) or read for the first time Chapter 10, “The Egalitarian State of Nature.”

What a bizarre study.

Cohn claims (and has the citations to back him up) that there was, in pagan hellenic thought, the idea that back during the “age of Saturn,” (before Percy Jackson’s parents got in charge–for those who know what I’m talking about) there was an age in which there was no private property or monogamy or government or slavery.  Everything was held in common and everyone was honest and equitable in sharing everything.

Somehow, Christian apologists latched onto this idea in order to defend and/or explain the doctrine of “The Fall,” even though nothing in the Bible actually indicates there was no private property and it is actually the Apostle Paul’s basis for his teaching on monogamy.  Cohn traces this idea, being enmeshed with some scripture passages, such as the description of the early church in Acts, as it is preserved and propagated in Christian literature.  Even the idea of universal “free love”–to use the modern Anglo-American slogan–was kept intact as the theory was advanced through Christendom.  In the middle of the 1200s, a French poet actually wrote about it in a work that was a bestseller (among the literate anyway).  Basically, anyone who could read learned this mythical history as sober history passed on from the authority of antiquity.

This raises several thoughts.

First, it makes me think that Rousseau was actually passing on an ancient idea.  Maybe not.  Maybe he accidentally reconstructed it.  But it is worth further study if I ever have time.

Second, for all the claims that he is secular, it seems to me that John Locke’s theory is a Christian response to this pagan idea infecting the Christian Church.  His claim that property is individual and is acquired through homesteading and then by giving (in exchange or not) looks like a direct common-sense attack on the myth.

Third, Hobbes was doing the same thing to prove that a state was necessary.

Guess who is suddenly asking for a bailout because the price of milk dropped?

2004:

2007:

So sorry for the farmer, but any attempt to “prop up” milk prices is a direct robbery of the consumer who are also having to deal with the pop of the bubble.  The only way to get through this is to start acknowledging the market before it starts destroying our system of evasions.

Keep your needles away from me

This manufactured panic is so idiotic, you almost wonder, if America ends up in camps, if that doesn’t prove we deserve it.

Consider this story, with an introduction and then numbered points.

The introductory paragraphs are the usual panick-mongering about how much danger we are in and then,

1. No cause for panic.

So far, swine flu isn’t much more threatening than regular seasonal flu.

So what are you scaring us for?

But then look at the numbered points 4-6 and then 7 ask yourself about the priorities they demonstrate, here are 4-6 in summary:

4. Get the kids vaccinated.

5. Get your shots early.

6. Immunity takes awhile.

An now comes number 7:

7. Vaccines are being tested.

Health officials presume the swine flu vaccine is safe and effective, but they’re testing it to make sure.

The federal government has begun studies in eight cities across the country to assess its effectiveness and figure out the best dose. Vaccine makers are doing their own tests as well.

They presume.

Has the world gone mad?  Because I think the spreading pharmafascism insanity looks far more dangerous than the virus.  And has the government already granted Pharma immunity from liability about this stuff they want shoved into children?

Trade is embedded in God

The fundamental fact of reality is God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God could have decided not to make the world. He could have chosen to simply remain “alone.” But there is no possible world in which God does not exist as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are a community of love. They are always such a community. They always will be.

So, even though they could have created the world in many different ways, they would never consider creating a world that didn’t reflect that fundamental reality—their social nature as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When the human race is created in God’s image, the Bible makes it clear that the Divine image is related not only to each individual man or woman, but also to a human family or community:

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

This would lead us to expect that Trinitarian relationships are the model for social relationships. We can hardly avoid this conclusion for parents and children when we worship and read about Father and Son. But also we find it for wives and husbands: “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (First Corinthians 11.3).

One way the Apostle Paul exhorts Christians in marriage is to recognize a mutual dependence or interdependence. He tells the husband, “In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church…” (Ephesians 5.28, 29). That “body” solidarity is also invoked by Paul to describe relationships in the Church (First Corinthians 12).   The church is one body so that all the members of the Church, like the organs or parts of a living body, all contribute to the good of the rest.

For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together (First Corinthians 12.14-26).

But what about relationships that are less intimate? What about the insurance salesman or the cashier at your local grocery store? How do those relationships model on the Trinity? Even though the word “relationship” can seemed stretched by applying it to strangers whom you only know through transactions, there still seems a way in which the word applies and the Trinity applies as a model. Jesus pointed to a fundamental way in which the persons of the Trinity relate to one another: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you” (John 17.1). This passage appears related to many others about mutual glorification that takes place in the Trinity The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist in a mutual interchange. It seems to work very much in the same way the Church functions as a body with diverse members according to First Corinthians 12.14-26). Indeed, Augustine of Hippos saw this in the Holy Spirit, of which he wrote:

But the relation is not itself apparent in that name, but it is apparent when He is called the gift of God; for He is the gift of the Father and of the Son, because “He proceeds from the Father,” as the Lord says; and because that which the apostle says, “Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His,” he says certainly of the Holy Spirit Himself. When we say, therefore, the gift of the giver, and the giver of the gift, we speak in both cases relatively in reciprocal reference. Therefore the Holy Spirit is a certain unutterable communion of the Father and the Son; and on that account, perhaps, He is so called, because the same name is suitable to both the Father and the Son. For He Himself is called specially that which they are called in common; because both the Father is a spirit and the Son a spirit, both the Father is holy and the Son holy. In order, therefore, that the communion of both may be signified from a name which is suitable to both, the Holy Spirit is called the gift of both (The Trinity, Book 5, Chapter 11).

Augustine correctly sees that the “gift of the Spirit” given from God to the Church is a reflection of the eternal reality that the Spirit is given by the Son to the Father and vice versa. They are in an eternal interchange of love. Humanity, made in God’s image, is created and then redeemed to reflect this in human relationships.

What is an intimate and relatively unquantifiable interchange in intimate human relationships (husband and wife) translates to exchange among those relationships that are not so intimate. None of us are independent. We need one another and we help sustain each other through mutual cooperation in trading or exchanging goods. God made us to be this way.

How wide is the anarchist principle?

The definition in the preface of Chrispin Sartwell’s Against the State seems surprisingly soft to me. “By anarchism I refer to the view that all forms of human association ought to be, as far as possible, voluntary.”  Wouldn’t any minarchist say the same?  Or even a social democrat?  I doubt this statement rules out neocons.

I look forward to reading more of the argument.

But it also strikes me that there is no reason why what is possibly voluntary would remain constant in all human history and in all situations.  This reminds me of the situation in Judges where there is no tax-supported offices that constitute a unified civil society.  But in times of war, while there is no ordinary conscription, towns that refused to help liberate their brothers could be attacked.  A non-voluntary state, if you will, assembled and then dis-assembled as the situation demanded.