Ron Paul is clearly the only candidate not running against Barack Obama or against the other GOP candidates. He is running to promote liberty and a restoring of the Republic to the Constitution. He does criticize Obama, but more importantly he describes our social problems as stemming from something greater and more problematic.

Yet one thing doesn’t seem to be clear to Ron Paul supporters: Ron Paul is not the hope of America, or even the world. Bleeding Heart Libertarian Matt Zwolinski cautions Paul’s supporters into being overly excited about a Paul Presidency, and has taken considerable heat from it. In short, he said that the time supporting Ron Paul could be better spent. Maybe, but that’s too sharp a dichotomy for me. Elections are for a season. Supporting institutions like the Institute for Humane Studies can continue beyond the 2012 election cycle. Call me crazy, but I’m 100% sure Ron Paul won’t run for president again. So let’s seize the day. And if we have enough time and money, we can do both.

But Zwolinski hints at a deeper point that he doesn’t quite explicitly say: Ron Paul is not the ultimate solution to our social problems. To be fair, I truly, honestly, deeply believe that no Ron Paul supporter believes a Paul Presidency will usher in the New Millennium (or something like it). I’m an enthusiastic supporter of Paul (if you don’t believe me, check out my Facebook). Yet as a Christian I am reminded that the hope of the world doesn’t rest in worldly institutions, as much as they need dramatic reform. The hope of the world doesn’t rest in the administrations of men. It doesn’t come through mere human efforts.

A Ron Paul White House would yield tremendous positive results for society and the world. Fewer nations would be threatened by our military. Diplomats around the world might begin to trust our nation. Children will have their fathers return from foreign lands. Fewer troops will suffer from psychological disorders. The importance of sound money will become center stage in the national conversation. Those changes are truly needed. Let’s not underestimate or devalue those outcomes.

But the hope of the world doesn’t come through the actions of one administration. It comes from the members of society who are committed to change, starting from the inside out. Those individuals will shape the world around them. God’s will done “on earth as it is in heaven” will happen when the love of Jesus is demonstrated throughout society. When followers of Jesus funnel their gifts, talents, resources, abilities, and passions for the good of the world, they become God’s image to mankind so real hope is present.* And even though we are ardent supporters of Ron Paul, this thoroughly hope-filled belief is the true position of LibertarianChristians.com.

Perhaps former presidential candidate Barack Obama said it best: “We are the change we’ve been waiting for!” 

—–

* It’s far too easy to ignore the virtue of suffering, something Western Christians avoid at all costs. When we suffer along with our fellow human beings, we bring ourselves closer to each other and to God in a way unlike any other. True “social justice” (whatever that phrase implies) requires it, otherwise change is anything but real. But that’s for a future article…

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Ron Paul is NOT Obama

Let’s consider each amendment in turn.

The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Government officials, however, have insisted that they can gag recipients of “national security letters” and censor broadcast ads in the name of campaign finance reform.

The Second Amendment says the people have the right “to keep and bear arms.” Government officials, however, make it difficult to keep a gun in the home and make it a crime for a citizen to carry a gun for self-protection.

The Third Amendment says soldiers may not be quartered in our homes without the consent of the owners.  This safeguard is one of the few that is in fine shape — so we can pause here for a laugh.

The Fourth Amendment says the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Government officials, however, insist that they can conduct commando-style raids on our homes and treat airline travelers like prison inmates by conducting virtual strip searches.

The Fifth Amendment says that private property shall not be taken “for public use without just compensation.” Government officials, however, insist that they can use eminent domain to take away our property and give it to other private parties who covet it.

The Sixth Amendment says that in criminal prosecutions, the person accused is guaranteed a right to trial by jury. Government officials, however, insist that they can punish people who want to have a trial—“throwing the book” at those who refuse to plead guilty—which explains why 95 percent of the criminal cases never go to trial.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases where the controversy “shall exceed twenty dollars.” Government officials, however, insist that they can impose draconian fines on people without jury trials.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. Government officials, however, insist that a life sentence for a nonviolent drug offense is not cruel.

The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage others “retained by the people.” Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what rights, if any, will be retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people. Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what powers they possess, and have extended federal control over health care, crime, education, and other matters the Constitution reserves to the states and the people.

Thank goodness we still have Amendment #3! The Cato Institute also posted a little video as well:

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Is there still a Bill of Rights?

“Honor the king” (1 Peter 2:17) is Peter’s terse apostolic admonition to first-century Christians, “pilgrims of the dispersion” (1 Peter 1:1), whom Nero had exiled to Asia Minor from Rome. The admonition includes the specific objects and extent of their acquiescence: “submit yourselves to every ordinance of man…to the king as supreme, or to governors…” (1 Peter 2:13-14a). In the same vein, the Apostle Paul wrote in more general terms to the Christians at Rome and Gortys (the capital of the province of Crete), using the language “rulers and authorities” (Titus 3:1, cf. Romans 13:1-3). Paul surely had in mind the imperial Caesar Nero, as well as various lesser authorities who ruled Rome’s provinces, such as Herod, Felix, and Agrippa.

Historians refer to the phase of the ancient Roman state in apostolic times as the Principate. The Emperor was Caesar and, as such, held autocratic dominion. Although high-handed rule dominated, a number of decentralized forms and conventions still existed—leftovers from the oligarchic self-government of the Roman Republic (which effectively ended in 27BC). Thus, wealthy Plutarchs were called upon by the Emperor to handle various administrative functions in each province of the Empire (totaling 50 million inhabitants). It is important to realize that the Apostles were writing to Christians who lived under an autocratic, brutal state, rather than the famous Roman Republic that had ended some 80 years earlier. Sure, the memory of the old Republic likely filled the imagination of many citizens, but it was no longer a reality. (In the same way that some Romans might have mused about their glorious Republic of old, so some modern American patriots fondly muse about the liberty-loving American republic before 1861.)

The Bible’s political context is important because it profoundly influences our theology of public policy. Yet the clear contextual differences between the political organization and public policies of first century Rome and the present day seems to be missed by many pastors and Christian leaders today. Some of them apparently presume that the Apostles lived under a state similar to ours. However, it is manifestly clear that they did not, and proper biblical interpretation must be tempered accordingly.

Consider the differences in the form of government then and now. We do not have a “king”. While the principle of submitting to those in authority, even in a Constitutional Republic, can rightly be inferred from the passages pertaining to obedience to the state and honoring the king, it is quite possible that structural changes in government can lead to corresponding changes in our response to the state and its policies. Some Bible doctrines are either dependent on or subject to contextual considerations, meaning that with some commands only principles survive without the exact form of obedience.

For example, modern Christians do not literally buy a “sword” for use as a weapon (as Christ says in Luke 22:36); because of technological improvements they can buy a gun. Likewise, Paul commanded Roman, Achaean, and Macedonian Christians to greet each other with a “holy kiss” (Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:26). The command was given four times—one more time than the Apostles commanded Christians to be submissive to state authorities. Yet modern Christians do not have the exact practice of greeting-by-kissing because the culture has changed. Only the principle of affectionate salutation has been retained.

So how should American Christians “honor the king”? They have no monarch. Does that fact invalidate apostolic doctrine about submission to state rulers? No, the principle of submission still stands. Culture does not wipe out biblical theology, even if the application of doctrine must be adapted to technological and cultural changes—like swords and holy kisses becoming guns and handshakes.

Other important questions remain however, including the reason why Christians should submit and what Christians should submit to. I have argued in Bible and Government: Public Policy from a Christian Perspective (Alertness Books, 2003) that Christians submit for expedient or pragmatic reasons. The Bible in several places calls believers to exercise practical wisdom—perhaps even insincere and superficial performances—before rulers (Proverbs 23:1-3; Ecclesiastes 8:2-5; Matthew 17:27). Interpreting Scripture with Scripture, one may conclude that the kind of performance mandated for Nero and his cronies should correspond to those mandated in these other passages.

In America, a case can and should be made that the proper object of submission by Christians is to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence since they comprise our formal government. Presidents, Supreme Court justices, and congressmen are not kings. Our political structure is not autocratic but rather a republic based on a contract between “We the People”. The political allegiance of an American Christian is not to the President or to Congress, but to the republican contract established by the people. That means that an American Christian can submit to the principles of the Constitution, for instance, and still dishonor, condemn, or even—as a last resort—overthrow the government actors who oppose it. This idea would have been unfathomable in the context of the first century, even for those acquainted with the Roman Republic era. Yet it is part and parcel of the American civil society that Providence has decreed.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on June 8, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Public Policy Theology in Historical Context

I love this post by my dear friend Anthony Gregory at the Independent Institute: “Saved from the Precipice of Doom!”

————————

Thank goodness for the Republicans and Democrats, who in the eleventh hour, put aside their differences and compromised to avert the catastrophe of a government shutdown. You see, the Republicans wanted to cut something like $78.5 billion from what Obama wanted to spend—itself more than $78.5 billion over the year before. The Democrats were initially willing to talk about “cutting” much less. And now, thanks to the greatest political compromise since the one in 1850—and surely one that will be as permanent in preventing a national crisis—we can all sleep at night knowing that Yosemite and the National Archives will continue to be open for business. The Washington Post reports:

The final pact on 2011 spending called for $38 billion in cuts to federal agency budgets compared with last year’s levels, about $78.5 billion below the president’s initial funding request for 2011. The White House, which initially resisted any funding reductions, started touting all the cuts it signed off on in a statement that praised reductions of $13 billion in funding for education, health and labor programs.

Oh my, oh my! $38 billion cut from Obama’s budget proposal? I guess everyone gets what they want. Obama gets to pat himself on the back for avoiding a shutdown. The Republicans get to pat themselves on the back for avoiding a shutdown, and the American people are satisfied as well.

Oh, wait. Those who love government spending are not so satisfied. You see, the cuts appear to target hot-button social programs. And those who want (at a bare minimum) for government to live within its means might also be dissatisfied. They might protest that even if we go by Obama’s projected deficits, these cuts will only shave a few percent of the amount deeper the U.S. goes into the debt hole in a year.

Yet we should forget about all this and just be glad the government didn’t shut down. For if it did, we would surely awake to a dystopian nightmare, coastal cities collapsing into the ocean, civil unrest at every corner, whole swaths of previously populated centers abandoned, disease and lawlessness rampant in every direction. Thank goodness Congress and the President got together and stopped this.

After all, we all remember when happened when the government shut down in 1995. Traffic lights didn’t work. All the prisoners were running wild in the streets. The US military was completely put out of commission, allowing the Soviet Union to spring back to life and take over half of the world. In the Great Government Shutdown of 1995, an estimated 150 million Americans died of starvation, pertussis, rubella and acute cynicism. Cats were chasing dogs, telephones and plumbing ceased to function completely, and only 75 channels were available on cable television.

Some will respond that these claims are preposterous—that in fact, not only do modern “government shutdowns” only close down a handful of functions (including such programs as tax refunds and national museums, just to annoy the American people)—but that, in the United States, such shutdowns are so superficial an example of the government truly shutting down that they actually cost more money than allowing the government to run as normal.

Sure, refuse to take such a catastrophe seriously. But as our Dear Leader says, “Americans of different beliefs came together. . . [i]n the final hours before our government would have been forced to shut down. . . [to pass] a budget that invests in our future while making the largest annual spending cut in our history.” Thanks to these courageous and selfless efforts, “when 50 eighth graders from Colorado arrive in our nation’s capital,” they might “get a chance to look up at the Washington Monument and feel the sense of pride and possibility that defines America.”

Doesn’t that make your burn with patriotic fever? Red-white-and-blue fumes are just making their way up my esophagus right now. The two parties put aside their vast disagreement—over whether to borrow another trillion or so of to be paid back by these eighth graders or whether to cut that amount down by a few percent—and they agreed to meet in the middle. Just like their parents and grandparents, these kids will have the pride to know that they live in a country where every generation has the chance to grow up with much more money owed by the government on their behalf that the generation before it.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

News of the Week: Saved from Doom!!!

There is some controversy over the proposed construction of a $150 million Noah’s Ark theme park on 800 acres near Interstate 75 in Kentucky. The theme park – to be called Ark Encounter – is a joint venture between Answers in Genesis and Ark Encounter LLC. The former group already opened a $27 million Creation museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, in 2007.

The proposed park, to be completed by 2014, will feature live animals, event venues, a children’s play area, a replica of the biblical Tower of Babel, a 500-seat special effects theater, a reproduction of a first-century Middle Eastern village, an aviary, and a 500 by 75 foot wooden ark to replicate the biblical Noah’s Ark. The project is expected to create more than 900 jobs, attract 1.6 million visitors in the park’s first year, and have an economic impact of $214 million in the first year alone.

As expected, religious groups generally hailed the project even as other groups that focus on church-state issues had a problem with the project. Contrary to critics of the theme park who think the educational message of the park is “unscientific” and “embarrassing for the state” or that any jobs created would be “low-paying” and “transient,” Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, seemed to raise two main arguments against the proposed park: First, Lynn pointed out that when Noah launched the Ark the first time, he was not looking for government funding. Second, he said that while the Constitution doesn’t prevent someone from putting up a water park, it does prevent people from putting up a religious one, such as Noah’s water park.

But both of Lynn’s points are misguided.

Under Kentucky’s Tourism Development Act, which exists to bring tourist attractions to Kentucky, up to 25 percent of the cost of an approved project can be recovered by developers via the state’s refunding to them a portion of the sales tax paid by visitors on admission tickets, gift sales, and food. Up to ten percent of the tax incentives can be refunded per year for up to ten years. It is a common thing for states to use various tax incentive measures to lure new businesses to the state. The tax incentives here involve rebated sales tax money collected that would not even be available if Ark Encounter never opened its doors. No government funding will be used to construct the park. And not only will no money be taken from the state budget, the project will generate millions of dollars of government revenue in the form of increased federal payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and local real estate taxes. Like any for-profit business, Ark Encounter will be forced to be a tax collector for the state. And like any for-profit business, Ark Encounter is a legitimate candidate for Kentucky’s tax incentives.

Libertarians would, of course, argue that states shouldn’t collect sales tax (the states of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon have no general sales tax), force businesses to be tax collectors, or take money from people in the form of sales taxes (or any other kind of taxes) and redistribute it to private businesses – for any reason. But Rev. Lynn is not arguing against the sales tax incentives on libertarian grounds.

Lynn’s second argument is a veiled reference to the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The principle of what he seems to be saying is true: governments shouldn’t fund religious construction projects or business operations. But this has nothing to do with the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from making a law respecting the establishment of religion. The reception by religious-oriented businesses of refunded sales tax collected is not establishing any religion. And neither does it violate the prevailing broad view of the federal courts on the First Amendment. Two groups that are not normally on the side of religion, the ACLU and American Atheists, agree. The ACLU of Kentucky said that so long as giving tax incentives to religious groups is nondiscriminatory, it does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. American Atheists stated that giving tax incentives to religious groups is only actionable when there is a demonstrable bias in the sort of religious groups who benefit.

From the perspective of libertarianism, the real issue is not one of religion, but whether governments should fund private construction projects or the operations of any business no matter how it obtains the money to do so. But not only should the government not do these things, it should not have its own construction projects or operate any business. The purpose of governments, should they exist at all, is to protect their citizens’ life, liberty, and property from the violence or fraud of others. Governments shouldn’t build sports venues, run liquor stores, pick up garbage, or operate a bus service. These goods and services should be left to the free market.

Whether Ark Encounter or any other business – secular or religious – should accept tax incentives of this nature is another matter.

First of all, there are always strings attached to deals like this and there is no exception here. Kentucky governor Steve Beshear insists that “Kentucky’s contract with developers of the theme park will bar tax incentives if there is discrimination in hiring based on religion.” Mike Zovath, Senior Vice President of Special Projects for Answers in Genesis, “pledged to be mindful of ‘green’ building standards and to use local contractors.”

And second, there is the moral aspect since businesses that accept refunded sales tax collected can be said to be receiving stolen funds. However, some businesses may look at receiving a sales tax incentive as a return of money confiscated from the business in the form of state corporate income tax, unemployment tax, gross receipts tax, or franchise tax. Thus, they might accept state money up to the amount of the taxes they have paid.

So what does all of this have to do with private property? Plenty.

There are many principles to be noted here that relate to the sanctity of private property. In a truly free society, there are a number of things that a property owner should not be prevented from doing.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from using his property as he sees fit. That means no zoning laws, building codes, eminent domain, or environmental regulations to strip someone of his property or limit its use.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from constructing whatever he chooses on his property. That might mean building a home, a business, a monument, or a nature preserve.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from promoting any religion with his property. That might be accomplished by putting up a church, a mosque, a synagogue, a Buddhist temple, or a statue of Darwin.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from operating any business on his property. That might be a hospital, a bar, a retail store, or a theme park.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from using whatever hiring practices they choose or making any compensation agreement with employees in the course of operating any business on his property. That might include low-paying jobs, transient jobs, immigrant workers, non-union labor, out-of-town and/or non-licensed contractors, and discrimination in hiring based on religion or any other criteria.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from using his property for any educational mission. That might be promoting evolution or creation, free love or celibacy, or ‘green’ building standards.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from using his property to promote something that people disagree with. That might mean something considered stupid, immoral, unscientific, or embarrassing to the state.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from doing whatever he wants on his property. That might be erecting a cross or flag, burning a cross or flag, or creating or filling in a wetland.

Controversy over a Noah’s Ark theme park – or the construction or operation of any other business – vanishes when the property rights of the park, its patrons, its critics, and the taxpayers are all respected.

Originally published at the Future of Freedom Foundation on January 11, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Noah’s Ark and the Sanctity of Private Property

This week, Students for Liberty announced the nominees for their 2011 Awards, and the Libertarian Longhorns are on the list! Our “More Guns, Less Crime” event with John Lott held this past September is one of the finalists for the “Event of the Year” Award, which recognizes events that had major impacts on their campus and local community. You can vote for the Libertarian Longhorns by clicking here (you can vote once a day).

The “More Guns, Less Crime” Event received massive press coverage and had a huge impact in Austin, so we are very proud to be on this esteemed list. Many thanks to all those who made it possible (especially Jose Nino, the main organizer of the event), to the great John Lott, and of course to Students for Liberty as well.

Click here to see the original SFL blog post with all of the nominees.

Cross-posted at the Libertarian Longhorns Blog.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Libertarian Longhorns nominated for SFL Event of the Year Award

In today’s political climate, a hot button issue is the legalization of drugs and more specifically that of marijuana. In this essay, I hope to convince you of two things:

1. That the Constitution does not grant the authority to deal with matters of drug prohibition to the Federal Government.
2. That mixing government and morality is highly dangerous, and as Christians we should be willing to help those who are held in the firm grasp of drug addiction.

Constitutional Reasoning Against Prohibition

As a (Christian) libertarian one of the things in the debate over drug legalization that troubles me is the notion that Federal law trumps state law. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they delegated to the Federal Government a list of 18 enumerated powers by which the government had the authority and responsibility to fulfill. They also wrote the 9^th and 10^th amendments, which delegate all other powers to the individual states or to the people of those states. To defend their position proponents of drug prohibition will immediate fall back on the “Supremacy Clause,” and either through willful or forgivable ignorance they forget an essential element to the entire issue: what the Founding Fathers said about the Supremacy Clause.

William Davie, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from North Carolina said:

“This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land. Every power ceded by it must be executed without being counteracted by the laws or constitutions of the individual states. Gentlemen should distinguish that it is not the supreme law in the exercise of power not granted. It can be supreme only in cases consistent with the powers specially granted, and not in usurpations.”

From The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.

Mr. Davie’s point is that the prerogatives of the Federal Government, those eighteen enumerated powers, and any laws to that affect, do hold sway over any laws that emanate from the states, but that this authority does not, nor should it be interpreted to exceed, those 18 enumerated power. Anything not enumerated in the Constitution as an area of authority of the Federal Government is the authority of the states or the people. For the prohibitionist point to be valid they would have to cite at least one of the 18 enumerated powers which might in any way give such authority, and having reviewed those eighteen specific enumerated powers it is my opinion that such a grant of authority does not exist. That being the case, what bolsters my opposition on a Constitutional level to the “Supremacy Clause” argument are the aforementioned 9^th and 10^th amendments. The 9^th Amendment to the United States Constitution states the following,:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

This does further damage to the “Supremacy” argument because it clearly indicates that the Federal Governments authority is limited to those eighteen enumerated powers in the Constitution. I could leave my argument there, but to be sure that there is no flaw I would offer an explanation as to the 10^th Amendments meaning as well. The 10^th Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Again, this clearly indicates that the areas of authority of the Federal Government are limited and defined, or enumerated. And that any and all other areas of power are the prerogative of the individual states or the people.

Arguments in favor of the “Supremacy Clause” are at the least unfounded, and at their worst are an interpretation that does away with key elements of the Constitution, the 9^th and 10^th Amendments, and ultimately make the Constitution a dead letter, as well as making it more easy to simply do away with the rights of the people by Legislative decree.

Moral Reasoning Against Prohibition

First, I want to make one point absolutely clear. Yes, I am arguing for the legalization of drugs, especially marijuana. Does that mean that the consumption of drugs has garnered my tacit approval? No.But for intelligent people to argue against the notion that a man should be allowed to consume in any fashion any substance he chooses is to grant a quiet license to the Federal Government. This quiet license allows the government to legislate on any and all forms of morality, and it goes without saying government is not the best arbiter of what is moral. If the government can legislate on the morality of consuming a potentially dangerous substance where does its assumed authority end? Does it have the right to legislate against speech it deems immoral or dangerous? Does it have the right to bar free individuals from congregating together for the purpose of perpetuating the furtherance of a shared belief that the government views offensive or dangerous? Does it have the right to tell us how to raise our children, where we send them to school or what we teach them ourselves? Or what we teach them about our religious and personal views? Does the government have the right to muzzle our minister, priest, rabbi or cleric in the name of morality? Would we abide by the entrance of a bureaucrat in to our place of worship to tell our minister, priest, rabbi or cleric what he can or cannot preach/teach? Of course not! None of us would abide by the formation of a government agency tasked with the unconstitutional implementation and oversight of such things, nor would we abide by a bureaucrat coming into our home and telling us what books, toys, clothes and food are good or not for our children.

This dependency on government is dangerous and hypocritical. It is dangerous because it does not take into account individual responsibility. It is hypocritical because many who call for prohibition would overwhelmingly defend their right to decide themselves on other matters relating to their own body and beliefs and those of their families. Let us be clear, I am not calling for a libertine society where anything goes. I am calling for individual responsibility. The purpose of the law should be to protect individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We live in a country known for its desire to help, to donate money to charitable, social, religious, and first aid programs. The tsunami in the countries of the Indian Ocean, and more recently the earthquake in Haiti are prime examples of this. The large sums of money, reaching the millions, if not billions of dollars, are an indication that a large portion of society could be willing to donate to organizations or programs whose stated goal or more, is to rehabilitate those who are snared in the vice of habitual drug use. This in essence would give individuals the social, secular and religious impetus to open such institutions. And as it relates to Christianity, it is a perfect avenue for healing the body and soul of those on the fringes of society. The prohibitionist argument, it seems, has ensnared well-intentioned Christians in the notions that all drugs users should be locked up and the key thrown away. We see far less compassion today for habitual drug users than Jesus himself had for a prostitute and a man possessed. Jesus Christ did not see an infirmed man, foaming at the mouth and spouting nonsensical ravings. Nor did he see a filthy harlot. He saw a man and a woman, guilty of sin and on their way to an everlasting hell, and in his merciful love, he stooped to forgive one, and worked a miracle in forgiving the other. As far as drug use is concerned, there remains one key question. When are professing Christians going to stop pontificating about charity and kindness and start putting those principles into practice? Instead of asking coercive government to assume a moral responsibility it was never intended to take, we should be diligently seeking to aid those whom society views as disposable, unwanted or undesirable. I am reminded that for all our modernity there are still those in this country, like the homeless, and drug addicts of the Philippines, who I have seen with my own eyes, who still need our help both physically, financially, and spiritually. What of them? Will we leave them hung out to dry? Or will we use our freedom to help those in need, and to bring them the Gospel which God gave us and decreed that we should take to all mankind.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Why would Christians want prohibition?

In the world of literature on liberty, books fall into three distinct categories. First are the books for experts scholars, deeper works that address high level concepts, social or economic theory, and philosophical ideas. Next are the books for the informed reader, those that have a working knowledge of libertarian ideas and seek to improve one’s understanding of the philosophy of liberty. Finally, there are books for those just starting their journey in liberty, those who have little knowledge of economics or libertarian theory. Jason Rink’s Disciple of Liberty falls into the latter category, and it fills a particularly useful void in libertarian literature: an easily accessible explication of liberty to the Christian newcomer, from the Tea Party proponent to the disillusioned conservative or liberal.

Rink’s key point, made very early in the book, is that Christians do not need to wonder if it is appropriate or biblical to get involved in politics to defend liberty. On the contrary, it is good and right to become informed and take a stand for what is just, good, and right, we ought to get involved in some way. One cannot simply look at Romans 13 and say that “obeying the powers that be” is all we should do. For those “on the fence,” Rink says to get on board.

But Rink does not simply tell us “just do something, anything!” without a care for what we stand for. “Just get out and vote!” is not a compelling message at all. Rather, he takes the minarchist, constitutionalist position, and defends it wholeheartedly. Rink identifies seven priority areas to which Christians should pay special attention:

• Define the limits of authority – The government cannot, and should not, have unlimited power. Limits must be clear and precise.
• Demand fidelity to the Constitution – The limits of authority for the United States Federal Government are found in the Constitution, period. We should continually demand that representatives follow it.
• Defend liberty for all people – If we expect to have liberty, we need to defend liberty even for people with whom we disagree with their choices. This is a difficult, yet absolutely essential element part of our way of life. Rink quotes Thomas Paine:

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”

• Despise debt – We know that individually we cannot spend more than we make; it is unsustainable and irresponsible. The same should be true of the government. No more can they be allowed to spend like a drunken sailor. And this isn’t even about welfare programs either, which account for a small fraction of total government spending. Rather, we must oppose spending on everything that is unconstitutional, from the FCC to the military-industrial complex.
• Demand honest money – The US Federal Reserve and it’s fiat monetary system is fraudulent, backed by nothing but empty promises. A return to the gold standard should be at the top of our priorities, for it is the ultimate check against runaway spending by the State.
• Desire peace with all nations – A Christian is called to love his enemies, not bomb them. We need to understand the history of our current wars in the Middle East and demand that the government cease interventionism.
• Disciple others in liberty – It is time to get involved in the fight for freedom, and we all can play an important role.

Disciple of Liberty has many commendable strengths. The book’s length, about 100 pages long plus reprints of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, is very appropriate for a reader who is not ready to tackle a tome about libertarianism quite yet. It is fast paced and lively, yet gently brings the reader to see from a different point of view. The seven principles he outlines are really good, all are worth understanding in detail. Striking a balance between length and depth of material is quite a challenge. Overall, Jason Rink has put together an interesting and useful book that can help Christian newcomers to libertarian thinking grasp some fundamental ideas about liberty.

However, there are a few things in the book (or not in the book) that I don’t like. For one thing, the sources and bibliography are surprisingly short. A bit more along the lines of what to read next would have been nice. If I may be so bold, I’d recommend Rothbard’s For a New Liberty and Ron Paul’s Revolution: A Manifesto (which, I should note, was mentioned in the Bibliography).

Another minor point of contention I have with the book is its interpretation of Romans 13, but it is an admittedly debatable topic. Of course, Rink easily disproves the “you just have to obey the government” line that so many evangelicals take. He take’s Chuck Baldwin’s approach, which emphasizes that our contemporary “powers that be” are the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, whereas my own approach is quite a bit different. Detailed exegesis, though, is difficult to distill when you are trying to reign in the length of a book, so it is understandable. But following on this point, overall I have certain doubts about making Constitutionalism our prime directive. Personally, I see the Constitution as a bludgeon or mirror, something we can use to say the Federal Government is so terrible that it does not even follow its own rules and never has. We need to remind people that government is aggression, and that our “resistance” against aggression is to expose such truth without apology. Now, Jason does mention each of these things in the book, so this is just the hard-core anarcho-capitalist in me talking. In no way am I downplaying Jason’s work.

As a personal friend of Jason now, I can honestly say that I am very proud of what he’s done despite my reservations on a few points. This is a great book for liberals, conservatives, or Tea Party supporters, who are all in need of some perspective about what liberty should mean to us. I think that it would be great to give to your Christian parents, relatives, or friends who are fed up with the Federal Government and are looking for an alternative. I encourage you to use Disciple of Liberty to strengthen your own resolve and plant new seeds of liberty in Christian hearts.

Visit Jason Rink at www.jasonrink.com. Buy his book here.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Disciple of Liberty by Jason Rink, Book Review

It’s going to be massive.

Estimates run that the one-hundred eleven new groups formed by the bill will need to employ on the order of 50,000 newbie bureaucrats. But whatever, this country is bankrupt and probably won’t be able to sustain this program for a couple of years. Start taking care of yourself better now so you don’t get smashed by statist health care later.

Read the huge list of new bureaucratic groups after the jump.

1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)
2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)
3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)
4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)
5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)
6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)
7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)
8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)
9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)
10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)
11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)
12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)
13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)
14. Public Health Insurance Option (Section 321, p. 211)
15. Ombudsman for Public Health Insurance Option (Section 321(d), p. 213)
16. Account for receipts and disbursements for Public Health Insurance Option(Section 322(b), p. 215)
17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services(Section 1222, p. 617)
19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)
20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)
21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)
22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)
23. Independence at home demonstration program (Sect Health Insurance Option(Section 322(b), p. 215)
17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services (Section 1222, p. 617)
19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)
20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)
21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)
22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)
23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)
24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)
25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)
26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)
27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)
28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)
29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)
30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)
31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)
32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)
33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)
34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)
35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)
36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)
37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)
38. Demo program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)
39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)
40. Identifiable office or program within CMS to provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibility (Section 1905, p. 1191)
41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)
42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)
43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)
44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)
45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)
46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)
47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)
48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)
49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)
50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)
51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)
52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)
53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)
54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)
55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)
56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)
57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)
58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)
59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)
60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)
61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)
62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)
63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)
64. No Child Left Non-immunized Against Influenza demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)
65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)
66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)
67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)
68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)
69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)
70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)
71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)
72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)
73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)
74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)
75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)
76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)
77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)
78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)
79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)
80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)
81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)
82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)
83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)
84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)
85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)
86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)
87. National Woman’s Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)
88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Woman’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)
89. Agency for Health Care Research and Quality Office of Woman’s Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)
90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Woman’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)
91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Woman’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)
92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)
93. Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)
94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)
95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)
96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)
97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)
98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)
99. Office of Indian Man’s Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)
100. Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)
101. Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)
102. Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)
103. Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)
104. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)
105. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)
106. Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)
107. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)
108. Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)
109. Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)
110. Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)
111. Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)

(HT FalkenBlog)

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

How Much Bureaucracy Did Congress Just Buy Us?

“THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

Mary Theroux of the Independent Institute updates Niemöller with some analogous language that perhaps hits closer to our immediate political situation:

“FIRST Truman went to war against Korea without Congress,
and I didn’t speak up because the communists had to be stopped.

THEN Clinton passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,
and I didn’t speak up because innocent people don’t need habeas corpus.

THEN Bush passed the USA PATRIOT ACT,
and I didn’t speak up because terrorists don’t deserve trials.

THEN Obama ridiculed the Supreme Court,
and I didn’t speak up because I don’t like corporations.

THEN Obama classified the Constitution as messy rules standing in the way of important ends,
and by that time no one could remember what a root principle is.”

Will you speak up today? Don’t you think that it’s time?

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

“First They Came…”