Monday, January 05, 2009

"Our cry is not greed, profit, or materialism — it is simply laissez-faire. All we want is for government to stay out of the market. We don't need a nanny state any more than we need an omnipotent state. We don't need your usury laws. We don't need your trade laws. We don't need your labor laws. We don't need your antitrust laws. We don't need your price controls. We don't need your regulations. We don't need your wealth redistribution schemes. And we certainly don't need any Christian economist defending any of these things as if they had any biblical basis. Economic myths die hard, and especially the myth of the just price. Economic ignorance is great, and extends to the highest levels of society — just look at the recent crop of presidential candidates and Congress's latest economic stimulus package. In the tradition of the Mises Institute and its namesake we must continue our labor of economic education."
Laurence M. Vance

I came across an article by this man and it was absolutely excellent. You can check out the entire article at....

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Education Monopoly

"The real problem is that the public-school system is, in effect, an educational garbage dump. No matter how much money we pump into these schools, they will not improve because the system's foundation is rotten. It is a compulsory government-controlled near-monopoly- that is the rot under its foundation. Just as the government-controlled food system in the communist Soviet Union produced failure and famine, so our government-controlled public schools produce educational failure for our children. In both cases, that failure is built into the system because compulsory government control strangles free choice and competition." Joel Turtel in Public Schools, Public Menace

Monday, July 21, 2008


Here is about a 30 minute video I found on-line about America and our political institutions. It is broken into four parts and I found it very informative. If you only have time to watch one part I would recommend part 2 of 4.


Monday, June 30, 2008

Five Reasons Christianity Conflicts with Socialism (#5)

In a few brief articles, I have attempted to lay out a handful of reasons that socialism conflicts with Christianity in a philosophical and practical sense. Though not exhaustive, I hope these reasons are sufficient to help the reader realize the problems inherent in the collective worldview. The "collective soul" should never replace the God-designed individual soul, or other God ordained ideas such as: the role of the family, the role of the church, and the role of private property. At the epistomological level, socialism's most subtle and powerful claim may be about the nature of the world. This claim is that the world and humans are primarily physical in nature. In this final section I want to show how Christianity conflicts with the materialistic outlook of the socialist.

First, we know that mankind was created in the image of God (who is spirit) and that God breathed life into him (which differentiated him from the animals). When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit they began the process of physical death, but (more importantly) they were for the first time separated from God. From this came guilt, shame, evil thoughts, etc. Man had become dead spiritually, which was to God the main problem. Man was then tried by God to see what was in his heart. Job lost all he owned when going through testing and said "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised." (Job 1:21) Job was commended for this because he realized that his worth and faith were not based on possessions.

Second, Jesus stated that the poor will always be with us (Matthew 26:11). This is not for one nanosecond to imply that Jesus was uncompassionate or unconcerned for the poor. The Scriptures are filled with commands to care for the poor and oppressed through individual compassion. Christians are command to share with other Christians and other people as a way to demonstrate our transformed lives(Ephesians 4:28). Certainly, many unbelievers are generous, but apart from Christ we tend to be more greedy and physically focused. However, we are told to fix our eyes on that which is eternal and not that which is temporal (2 Corinthians 4:18). In addition James wrote "let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted: But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away." (1:9-10) Whether rich or poor we are to have an eternal perspective. Jesus was saying that the poor are important, but we must keep first things first. There will always be more productive people or more priviledged people (rich) so there will always be less productive or less priviledged people (poor). It is impossible to control that unless all humans are changed to robots. Here is the point: the spiritual and the physical do intersect, but the spiritual is what endures.

Socialists, like Karl Marx, tend to see the world and humans as only physical. Inequality of physical possessions is seen and class conflict is preached. In this temporal scenario, governments are necessary in order to take control and right these "wrongs" as soon as possible. Government needs to change ownership of property through redistribution and government needs to handle "important" decisions. Through force a better world will be created at the hands of the elite (or the decision makers). All this is often being done with no regard the spiritual nature of man or the cost of making him a puppet of the state. God is looking for changed hearts to move with compassion to help the needy, while the socialists are looking to big programs at taxpayer expense to help. Christianity claims this is an eternal struggle for the spiritual and physical redemption of mankind and the world. Socialism claims this is an earthly struggle to fix the physical mess we find ourselves in. One path falls short of the total truth and that makes all the difference.

Monday, May 05, 2008

The Oppressive Government and Education

"I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe....Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of government, from their carelessness and negligence. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants....Make them (their children) intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting wrong, and they will apply the remedy." - Daniel Webster

One of the most important tools for the masters of the socialist state is government-run education (public education). For, it is fundamental that the minds of youth be conditioned to trust and follow government edicts (because, after all, these regulations are "for the public good"). So, the question, "who should shape the minds of our youth?", is extremely important for any society. God expects parents to train their children in the way they should go. Math, History, Philosophy, and Science can not be divorced from truth and God is central to these truths. For example, math and science show God's ordained order. In addition, what subjects and topics we teach our children will differ based on worldview. Socialists like to trust the state, and state alone, to answer these questions. They assume the government bureaucrats are right, or at least, more right than the rogue parent. Freedom is too risky for the socialist. However, the right to freely educate one's children is assumed in the Bible, and actually required of the parents. Thankfully, our Founders separated church from state and school from state at the national level (see first and tenth amendments). If only our government followed the Constitution and applied that wisdom to state governments as well.

"God demands that we submit to authority. In America, the people have retained the sovereignty of the king, and they have a Law by which to rule: the Bible-based common law and the written Constitution. These are the Law of the land, these are the God-appointed authority- not a man or a group of men. To submit to the lawless and unconstitutional acts of rebellious leaders is to become accessories to their crimes against the Law of the land, and thus against God. Yet many Christians comfort themselves that acquiescence is proper because it is submission to authority. In fact, it is ignorance and cowardice masquerading as submission. Too many Christian men today are ignorant: they don't know our nation's heritage or understand its system of law. They are cowards, unwilling to make the personal sacrifice required to stand up against legal lawlessness. They are rebels against God and the authority he has established in this republic." Editors of Patriarch Magazine (Jan. 1997)

We desperately need the government out of education. I publicly declare that I favor ending government involvement in education.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

A Conservative Revolution?

The two words seem to be at odds. After all, one word, conservative, means to keep a particular idea and the other word, revolution, means to change that which exists. However, in some instances they are not contradictory and, in fact, sometimes a revolution is necessary to conserve something. For example, our own War for Independence was a bloody revolution; although, American patriots would have rather it came peacefully. At the same time though, Americans saw it as a conservation of the ideals of liberty that had long ago been birthed in England. For these patriots, the only way to conserve the rights and liberties that they should have been entitled to was to revolt. They recognized that there comes a time in the course of history to overthrow a government that ignores its own laws and principles. Speaking of ignoring laws, America is at another similar turning point today.

Americans for years have enjoyed liberty from tyranny that few people on the face of the earth have enjoyed. Years of “tranquil and quiet lives” (1 Tim. 2:2) came about because prayers were said for those in authority and because those in authority usually recognized that they did not have jurisdiction over personal choices like diet, education, health care and religion. However, much like Israel lusted after a king to centrally lead and guide, Americans lusted after a government to lead and to guide in the economic and social aspects of life. Apparently theocracy and liberty were too risky and unsafe. Unfortunately, the same curses have come on America that Samuel warned would come on Israel. Military drafts, income taxes, property taxes, and slavery to the government were among the consequences (1 Sam.8: 11-18). Little did many realize, getting the security of a powerful government would mean the giving up of private property, freedom of education, and many other liberties. Will Americans throw off this government that has ensnared them at this crucial hour?

Only one candidate, Ron Paul, is totally committed to conserving our constitution and revolutionizing our way of life from one of dependence to independence. Much like Jesus offers us freedom from sin, we can be free from government control. Already thousands have joined this struggle. If about 10% of the primary population have already voted for a conservative revolution in Iowa and New Hampshire, why not an increasing number in the forty-eight other states?

Education helps the revolution and ignorance holds it back. Apathy helps the socialists and compassion for our fellow humans moves us on. Read for yourself how Ron Paul would change America.
Ron Paul’s writings on numerous issues
Christians for RP
Mary Pride endorses RP
An open letter to homeschoolers

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Five Reasons Christianity Conflicts With Socialism (#4)

Christians, as I have attempted to show in past posts, should have many reasons for opposing socialism and socialistic policies. It retards individual productivity and neglects and destroys God's plan for the family and human government. Perhaps even more odious though is socialism's removal of the idea of private property. Whereas the Bible affirms the Lord's ownership of the world "and all it contains" (Psalm 24:1) and God's delegation of stewardship to humans (Gen 1:28), socialism affirms the totalitarian rule of the government (even when it is democratically elected).

It is clear in the early parts of the scriptures that God has not only created human life, but will not allow anyone to unjustly take life, such as in the case of Cain and Abel. A person's life is in effect owned by God and God has in effect given each man stewardship over his own life. His own decisions may lead to health, prosperity and good relationships, or his decisions may lead to pain, and physical and spiritual problems. A life can produce all sorts of things such as food, clothing, and materials. So life is the foundation of private property, which is essentially the ability to keep the fruit of one's labors and pass it on freely. This is affirmed in Exodus 20:13-17, which states that you should not murder, commit adultery, steal or "covet your neighbor's house...or anything that belongs to your neighbor". Can we take the things our neighbor has produced with his own labors? No, they are his, even though we may think our lot in life was unjust.

Socialistic policies often take the very fruits of human labors and they often tax the owners of property so citizens become serfs to their own government, which in turn acts as the "noble" lord in this modern day example of feudalism. Even if we say pure socialism does not take private property because their is no private property in pure socialism we run in to a biblical problem. If all property is public then the state owns that which God designed individual humans to tend and enjoy. How can a person show compassion and give to the needy if he has no property to give? If God expects you to "divide your bread with the hungry" (Isaiah 58:7), then you can not carry out His command. Jesus affirmed private property when he commended those who gave what was "theirs" to others.

One reason that socialists get nervous about allowing people to freely handle their own money is that they know some people will respond like the rich young ruler. Probably he was given his wealth through an inheritance (hence his wealth and position in youth). When Jesus asked him to "sell his possessions and give to the poor", he "went away grieved" and decided to keep his possessions (Matthew 19:21-22). The socialists fear that wealth will simply be collected by the rich to get richer. However, the socialists deny two important things: the power of God and the principles of economics. First, God has the power to change even the most selfish life and use it for good (such as with Zaccheus in Luke 19). Second, people need to fulfill the desire of another person to gain economically from them. If I want food, I am willing to pay for it and the farmer gains money. The fact that this rich man was a ruler probably indicates that he got money through taxation or domination over others (not by providing a true economic service), which ironically is the very thing the socialists are willing to accept by the government. The very oppression they hope to stop becomes universal under socialism. That is what led Winston Churchill to state (at least as my memory recalls it) that " the vice of capitalism is the inequality of its riches, while the virtue of socialism is the equality of it misery".
(My next post will develop further this ideal of material equality and what it means for a Christian.)