Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) had an enormous impact upon the history of theology and western philosophy (besides having some really cool names). They may have been contemporaries, but they developed their ideas in tremendously different circumstances and cultural backdrops. Both had great success with their respective cultures as well, so we would be wise to understand their work.

Schleiermacher lived in a time and place where Christianity was despised by the culture because of the conflict it supposedly had wrought among them. He writes in a German culture strongly affected by the memory of the Thirty Years War, one of the most destructive conflicts in history during which Protestants and Catholics were convinced to kill each other at the whim of their corrupt political leaders. If religious diversity – a seemingly good thing – could cause so much death and destruction, then why give it any credence at all?

Kierkegaard, however, comes later in the Enlightenment era, post-Immanuel Kant. His culture in Denmark was questioning how faith was even possible in their brave new world of knowledge. Kant had cast much doubt on being certain of God, and Kierkegaard was responding to this influence (but others as well).

Their different cultural situations resulted in different doctrinal emphases. For Schleiermacher, the important point to convey was that all men had an awareness of absolute reality, of absolute truth. If men would just see this as their starting point, perhaps they could move past their conflicts. Kierkegaard, however, was primarily interested in people ceasing their indifference to religion and making a choice. He believed that God meets you when you take a leap in faith toward him, because God never enforces himself upon anyone. He wants to tell others that faith is not irrational , but rather not approached in the realm of rational-irrational dichotomies at all.

If I am certain of one thing about American culture (no offense, international readers, this may be exactly true of your culture as well), it is that American culture is not uniform. In my hometown of Austin, Texas for instance, you can walk through a grocery store and hear five different languages before you reach the bread aisle. Your colleagues at work could include three or four cultures you’ve never experienced in your life. I think we live in a culture that reflects aspects of both Schleiermacher’s and Kierkegaard’s times. Many people see religion as divisive and conflict-inducing, and thus they reject Christianity as part of the problem. Others are simply indifferent to religion, or see faith as irrelevant.

Schleiermacher’s approach may appeal to the former group – the modern “cultured despisers” of Christianity. His emphasis on inner awareness could help them to understand that Christianity doesn’t need to be about causing destruction (though Leo Tolstoy would probably do it just as well or better). The danger, though, is that an attitude that suggests “all religions are created equal” could emerge and “New Age” attitudes de-emphasizing absolute truth could develop. This is an undesirable result, but can be avoided with careful teaching.

Kierkegaard’s approach may appeal to the latter group – those who simply do not care and those who see faith as irrational. Kierkegaard pushes people to cease indifference and consider a life of faith more carefully. He challenges those who conveniently do not believe by showing them that they have a kind of religious anxiety, like any other person, and that their disbelief is primarily a matter of laziness rather than intellect. In a way, Kierkegaard frees us from solely appealing to apologetical arguments, in favor of experiencing God in the leap of faith. The danger, however, is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Reason is ultimately on the side of the Christian, and should never be abandoned. Kierkegaard reminds us that there is more than one way to talk to people about God.

Does any of this resonate with you? What questions does this bring to mind? Please encourage more discussion by commenting below…

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Lasting Influence of Schleiermacher and Kierkegaard

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: history, philosophy, theology

Related Content:

• Top 10 Books for Christian Libertarians – 2009 Edition (4)
• Summer Reading – Top 10 books that you should drop everything to read now… (3)
• Religious Roots of Liberty (3)
• My Journey Through Liberty (6)
• Anarchy and Christianity (5)

Don’t let your ends justify your means.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

In memoriam

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: ethics, history, war

Related Content:

• Conscience on the Battlefield (4)
• What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine? (1)
• Theological Traditions (3)
• The Deadly Cost of Interventionism (3)
• The Christmas Truce (0)

Q1: When Paul wrote Romans 13, the government was distasteful to our 21 century sensibilities for sure. Yet Paul commands believers to honor the rulers, even calling them "servants of God." Coupled with Peter’s instructions to honor them, pray for them, etc., this shows that God has a role for government. Is it possible to determine if Paul personally prefers a small or large government? If God has a purpose for government should Christians be advocating it’s disappearing?

A: The problem with saying that Romans 13 proves there is "a role for government" is that it is conflating government being within God’s plan with government being sanctioned and declared inherently moral by God. When one considers the numerous negative references to the State in the Bible, such as Matthew 4, 1 Samuel 7, Genesis 11, and the book of Revelation, one cannot but admit that the State is, at core, rooted in rebellion against God. So while it is impossible to speak directly for Paul, it seems to me that the State itself is the problem and not merely the size. In conclusions, a Christian can admit that the State is not outside of God’s plan, and yet still advocate for it’s abolition as the greatest oppressor of the innocent in history.

Q2: What in the Bible suggests that followers of Jesus should subscribe to the ideas of libertarianism?

It would be incorrect to say outright "God/Jesus is a libertarian," but what I find very compelling in Scripture is that Christian ethics and libertarian ethics end up being very similar. Other instances: (1) The Golden Rule in Matthew 7:12 is very similar to the non-aggression principle. (2) Scripture is consistently skeptical toward power concentrated into the hands of rulers (cf. 1 Samuel 7). (3) The "Kingdom of God" is never characterized with the aggression of the State. Can you think of any more?

But besides Scripture, libertarianism has more or less emerged from the Western tradition, which is tied very strongly to historical Christianity. It’s ideological predecessor, classical liberalism, was primarily promoted by Christians in its infancy. So, we have an interesting historical argument as well supporting libertarianism from a Christian perspective.

Q3. What in the Bible suggests that followers of Jesus should not subscribe to the ideas of statism?

Besides all the positive reasons that support libertarianism, one of the greatest rejoinders to statism I know of is Matthew 20:25-28, where Jesus says: "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant… just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Q4. Where does LibertarianChristians.com make a distinction between resistance to unjust Government action and the directive to "submit himself to the governing authorities"? (Romans 13, NIV)

The position of LibertarianChristians.com is that Romans 13 is about prudence in action toward governmental intrusion in life. While civil disobedience is not immoral and certainly is great to do in certain cases, one must be very careful in executing such measures. For instance, my first responsibility is the caretaking of my family, and then serving the church. I will not do things that bring unreasonable risk upon them. Frequently enough there are better ways of making a difference. But most of all, LibertarianChristians.com does not and will never advocate violence as the answer to our problems.

Would you like to add anything to these answers? Comment below. Or if you like, ask your own question today!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

New FAQ Questions Added

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: Blog News, christian libertarian, Christianity, government, history, libertarian christian, libertarianism, Romans 13, romans13, statism, The State, theology

Related Content:

• Edmund Opitz – Minister to Liberty (0)
• Disciple of Liberty by Jason Rink (7)
• Announcing the Christian Libertarian FAQ (5)
• Anarchy and Christianity (5)
• Top 10 Books for Christian Libertarians – 2009 Edition (4)

Besides having a really cool and creative site layout, his content is fantastic. Essentially, he has gone through the history of each United States President and shown why each and every one, from George to Barack, was terrible and a blight to liberty. He is cataloguing “America’s Undying Pursuit of a King.” You heard us right: the United States has never had a “good” president. Every single one has exacted tyranny in some way or another. Eric doesn’t excuse anyone because some foolish historian or civics teacher told us once that “Presidents have to make the hard decisions.” As if it’s hard to make a decision to do the right thing, like not incinerate 250,000 Japanese civilians with an atomic bomb, or imprison those who dissent against your policies. But I digress, back to Eric…

On every page, he gives in short form what exactly each President did that was so heinous. Then – and this is where it gets great – he has written a short song for all 44 presidents about their crimes against humanity. Every song has been recorded as a short video and posted on YouTube. When you think about it, just writing, say, 20 of these to start up the site would be quite an achievement, but he has already written a song for each one!

After each song, he has posted the lyrics and guitar chords so you can read along or even learn the song yourself, if you like.

I have to hand it to Eric; he really did a great job here. It is truly an achievement of note, and worthy of remark. It’s just so, I don’t know, simple. Not simplistic, just the good kind of simple. If you know the history, you can enjoy the songs and learn quick facts that you can bring out in a jiffy when talking to people. If you’re not as aware, then you’re being exposed to great information in short form, with an entertaining way of remembering it.

I mean, seriously, how can you forget that John Adams wrote the Alien and Sedition Acts after hearing Eric sing, “Is it ‘cause you kind of look like an alien?” Really, what’s your problem, John?

This video/song about John Adams is definitely one of my favorite. I also really like the songs about Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, and Harry Truman.

So thanks Eric, for telling the truth and making it ever easier to learn and retain the truth. GREAT JOB!

Check it out, here’s the link once more: http://whyeverypresidentsucked.com

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Why Every President Sucked

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: history, music, politicians, politics

Related Content:

• Why does the Tea Party support Scott Brown? (10)
• The Dismal Year (1)
• Rand Paul Moneybomb August 19/20 and Interview Announcement (0)
• Demonstration Report from UT-Austin on August 9, 2010 (9)
• What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine? (1)

Jacques Ellul (1912-1994) was a French sociologist, philosopher, and theologian, but his main profession was teaching law at the University of Bordeaux. He held strong views about the nature of government as antithetical to Christian faith, and is counted among the 20th century Christian anarchists.

Anarchy and Christianity is a short work presenting the essentials of Ellul’s political philosophy with respect to Scripture. It reads in a scholarly manner, especially with his references to historical and textual criticism and the assumption that the reader knows something about Marxian class theory, historical theological traditions, and even a bit of Greek. One must be prepared to encounter someone distant from the American evangelical theology that we are so familiar with. I’d be hard-pressed to say he is a “theological liberal,” but he is different. Despite the qualms I have with certain elements of Ellul’s thought, I found the book to be a very enjoyable read and it enlivened Scriptures that I had not paid due attention in the past. Since it isn’t that long, I think anyone can gain a lot from reading this book.

The book contains three main parts, plus an appendix for further thoughts. First, Ellul includes a personal introduction to demonstrate why the political question of anarchy is still important to the church today. He begins: “The question I am posing is the more difficult because fixed opinions have long since been reached on both sides and have never been subjected to the least examination.” If anything, the question is not settled (not even with him). He reveals some of his personal history, including his time participating in Marxist movements before converting to Christianity. Even though he admired Marx, he was also very familiar with Proudhon (“Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order.”) and therefore never really considered himself a strict Marxist/communist even while sympathetic to the ideas.

Part 1 is entitled “Anarchy from a Christian Standpoint” and outlines what anarchy actually is, describes why he considers himself and anarchist, and answers some anarchist objections to Christianity. To Ellul, the essential element of anarchy is not the caricature of a bomb-throwing revolter but a rejection of violence and aggression as a means of accomplishing political goals. “No matter what the motivation, however, I am against violence and aggression. I am against it on two levels. The first is simply tactical… My second reason is obviously a Christian one. Biblically, love is the way, not violence.” Ellul then addresses the charge of non-Christian anarchists that Christianity itself is antithetical to freedom, even going so far as to address briefly the “problem of evil.”

I love this paragraph where he defends the position that God is the great liberator:

But why freedom? If we accept that God is love, and that it is human beings who are to respond to this love, the explanation is simple. Love cannot be forced, ordered, or made obligatory. It is necessarily free. If God liberates, it is because he expects and hopes that we will come to know him and love him. He cannot lead us to do so by terrorizing us.

The subject of Part 2 is “The Bible as the Source of Anarchy,” where Ellul shows via what he calls a “naïve reading” of the Bible that typical interpretations of pro-state Christians are wrongheaded. He surveys both the Old and New Testaments, answering a variety of questions that seemingly pro-state Scriptures bring to the forefront. Without giving too much away, he addresses 1 Samuel, the Prophets, the teachings of Jesus, Paul, Peter, and Revelation. Some of his interpretations are what I expected, others are quite surprising. I will leave it to you to discover and enjoy.

In summary, Ellul’s work is quality material for the Christian libertarian. His chief flaw – and this flaw is certainly not trivial from my point of view – is a lack of understanding about the free market as the great vehicle of practicing freedom. I think it very likely that he is caricaturing corporatism as capitalism, but nevertheless a steadier free market principle would be help bolster his ideas to contemporary libertarians of all backgrounds. But most importantly, he gives an thought-provoking case that the State is from any point of view the enemy of freedom and of God.

Please consider buying Anarchy and Christianity at Amazon.com and LCC will then get a small kick-back from the sale. Remember, LCC receives a small percentage of any shopping you do at Amazon when you go through an LCC link. Help keep LCC growing and growing; your support is much appreciated!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Anarchy and Christianity

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: anarchy, ethics, free market, free society, gospel, government, history, Marx, philosophy, The State, theology

Related Content:

• Top 10 Books for Christian Libertarians – 2009 Edition (4)
• New FAQ Questions Added (2)
• Turning the Other Cheek — Matthew 5:38-42 (6)
• Theological Traditions (3)
• The Proper Origin of Rights (24)

“The talk is not hurried. Time, bordering on eternity, has lost all meaning.” Take your time reading it. Come back to it later if you have to. But, read every word. It just might change your life.

The Dialogue

Well young man, you may think this is it. Perhaps you are wondering what comes next.

Who are you?

I am you, a part of yourself with which you hardly got acquainted. I am your Integrity, your Intelligence, your Humility, your Reason, your Conscience. In short, I am such Harmony as you have with Ultimate Wisdom – shall I say, with God? You have kept me in the background, hidden away from your earthly life. You have had only dim notions of my existence.

Why do you appear to me now in this last moment of life?

Appear now? You talk as though it were I who do the coming and going. I have been here all the time. You simply haven’t seen fit to embrace me, to make me a real part of your earthly self. Frankly, this is the first time since childhood that you have been receptive. Your time has been occupied with other companions: approval and applause among men, fortune, fame, power, to mention but a few. They have now deserted you as they do everyone, at the end. You are alone with me. I am all you have left. Thus it is that you feel I have come to you. On the contrary, this circumstance of your earthly departure has merely made way for me.

Strange that I should wait until now to know you. What an about-face in my sense of values! Fame? Always I was wooing her. Now I see her shallowness. Concern about Immortal Judgment takes her place, a concern I have not known before. How, dear Conscience, will I be judged?

Have you not written your own credentials? Perfect justice will assuredly be accorded you. Everlasting Life will doubtless be an accurate mirroring of you as you have been. While in many respects you were an excellent person, the record shows that you killed men – both Korean and Chinese, and were also responsible for the death of many women and children during this military campaign.

That is correct, and I regret that it was necessary. But we were at war, a good and a just war. We had to stop Communist aggression and the enslavement of people by dictators. That war was in accord with United States foreign policy.

Did you kill these people as an act of self defense? Were they threatening your life or your family? Were they on your shores, about to enslave you?

No, they were not. But you don’t understand our foreign policy. It was very clever. It sought to thwart aggression by going to war against others before they could use aggression against us in our own homeland. It had the advantage of using someone else’s country as the battleground. True, this foreign policy sometimes confused me. But I always imagined I got my thinking straight by envisioning Mr. and Mrs. Jones, next door, getting into a battle royal. The winner might feel strong enough to attack me. So, why not take the side of the weaker party in order to forestall such a possibility? That would put an end to neighborhood trouble, wouldn’t it? In short, our foreign policy was represented as an act of self -defense. We merely anticipated the acts of our enemies by taking certain positive and necessary actions. We planned to lick them before they had a chance to become aggressive against us. Our motto was: "Never give up the initiative." I hope it will turn out all right. I was dealt this blow before the issue was settled. Conscience, what do you think?

In the first place, please understand that I don’t care to discuss what you call your foreign policy. It is too late for that. The judgment which now concerns you must be rendered on you as an individual – not on parties or mobs or armies or policies or processes or governments. While governments limited to keeping the peace and invoking a common justice are necessary for mortal beings, before Him it is only the quality of individuals that counts. What collective can have any validity for you from now on? In the Temple of Judgment which you are about to enter, Principles only are likely to be observed. It is almost certain that you will find there no distinction between nationalities or between races. A woman is a woman. A child is a child, with as much a right to an opportunity for Self-realization as you. To take a human life – at whatever age, or of any color – is to take a human life. You imply that you feel no personal responsibility for having killed these people. Why, then, did you personally accept the "honors"? According to your notions, no one person is responsible for the deaths of these people. Yet, they were destroyed. Seemingly, you expect collective arrangements such as "the army" or "the government" to bear your guilt. Yet you expect in Everlasting Life the bestowal of personal honors for virtues. Are you not struck with the absurdity of it all? Will you not stand before Judgment unadorned – just as a spirit, a recorded memory and conscience? Is this not all that will be dealt with there? Can there be any other trappings to consider beyond this spirit you are – once a person who lived and had the opportunity to choose between good and evil?

But, my Conscience, I had no choice. I had to do what others called my duty. Otherwise, my friends and fellow-citizens would have dubbed me a traitor. I would have been put in jail, disgraced before man, borne the name of a coward.

You are doubtless right about what would have happened to you, and at the very hands of those whose guilt is as great as yours. In my view there can be no distinction between those who do the shooting and those who aid the act. Moreover, the guilt would appear to be even greater on the part of those who resorted to the coercive power of government to get you to sacrifice your home, your fortune, your chance of Self-realization, your life – none of which sacrifices they themselves appear willing to make. They will face Judgment, too, in but another moment. And they will be judged as you will be judged. On the surface it would seem that more courage would have been required of you to attend strictly to Principle than to do what you did – than to take a part in tearing asunder what God has created. Deeper reflection, however, will reveal that you and others took on the characteristic of a herd, and by so doing surrendered your standing as individuals. By this drifting from personal action to mass action – a move that only alert intelligence could have avoided – a dilemma was created for you and for all members of the collective: the choice of shooting others or having others shoot you for forsaking them; to do as the others demanded, or risk the collective’s penalty for nonconformance.

You certainly put my evil in good company. According to you, nearly every man, acknowledged as great in our history, bears a guilt not unlike my own, as does about every American citizen of today. Isn’t that carrying condemnation a little too far?

In attempting to answer this question, it should be clearly understood that no single person is ever in possession of more than an infinitesimal fraction of Truth. This condition would seem to condemn man to some error even when he exercises his best judgment. The capacity for self improvement affirms this point. To argue otherwise would be to classify man as perfect – that is, as equal to God. To assert that any mortal could be wholly free from sin would be to make the same untenable argument.

Man, in spite of his individuality, lives with others. And having chosen to live with others, he cannot escape an accountability for his part of any collective action of society in which he participates. As part of the warp and woof of society, he is committed to some responsibility for its collective misdeeds, either by commission or omission. Thus, all men err. There are no exceptions.

To take one’s own life to escape the sin implicit in living, or to surrender life as the alternative to sinning, is to indulge in a greater sin. The first duty of man is to defend life. Otherwise, there is no opportunity to develop God-given potential. Living man can only aim at sinlessness; he can never achieve it. Having any part in coercive, collectivist action is one way of insuring sin. The best one can do, then, finding some such action inescapable, except through death, is to mitigate his sin. While bearing his share of society’s sins he can at least refuse to be a sponsor of them; indeed, he can use suasion to spread the truth as he sees it. You should not, therefore, be too dismayed that you and those you hold in high esteem have erred. It is the lot of mankind. Among the cardinal sins, however, is the failure to make earnest attempts at minimizing error.

Thanks for the relief which these thoughts provide. But, one matter bothers me very much. Why did our leaders, including many supposed moral leaders, tell us that we could not fail in this war because God was on our side?

It may well be that your leaders believed what they told you. But many of the leaders in what you call your enemy countries also claimed God’s blessings, and said the same things. I doubt, however, that you will be judged according to these claims of any earthly leader. Nor will a leader be judged for the acts of his willing followers. The greatest of earthly leaders will doubtless stand alone before God, on their own records, as you will stand.

Very well! I am beginning to see what you mean. But I shall argue for absolution on the grounds that I did not know that I was doing a wrong. These points you have made never occurred to me before.

Do not overlook the fact that you were born onto earth with God-given mental faculties, with the power to reason. You had me with you all the time, yet often ignored me. You should have realized from the simplest earthly observations that there is no evidence of any absolution of cause and consequence on the grounds of not knowing. For example, assume that you were unaware of the law of gravitation, and jumped from atop a high building. Would the fact of your ignorance have made the fall any less severe? Let’s say you had no suspicion of murder as an evil and, as a consequence, you killed people. Would they be any less dead by reason of your failure to know? Isn’t the untimely demise which you now face enough answer to these questions? In spite of your lack of understanding of the reasons for it, you are dying. If Conscience has any function, it must be as a guide to the avoidance of evil acts and their inevitable consequences. To put one’s self into communion with Truth is the first of all virtues. To do this one must live. Could you conceive of there being no penalty for ignorance, or reward for wisdom?

No, I could not, my Conscience. But, another question. Why do you say it is wrong to kill, and then imply that it is proper to kill, if necessary, to defend one’s life?

The answer becomes clear if we think in terms of who initiates violence. It is evil for any person or set of persons to initiate violence against another. But, if another initiates violence against you, and if he dies in the process of your protecting your life, does he not, in reality, suffer death at his own hand, as in suicide? He initiates the action in the course of which he is killed. He, not you, is the author of the equation that destroys him.

I can plainly see that this is morally sound as relating to persons. But isn’t there a different standard for a nation?

No! There is no new right brought into being by reason of you and another, or you and 150 million others, acting collectively. Whatever is immoral for you as a person is immoral for a number of persons. Virtue is a quality solely of the individual. Multiplication of individuals does not change virtue’s definition. As it is proper for you to protect your life against violence initiated by another, so it is proper for a number of you to protect yourselves against violence initiated against your number. But that is all. There is no extension of moral rights by reason of how numerous you are. Were moral rights to exist in relation to number, a mob’s actions would have a basis for approval. Russians would have rights not possessed by Americans. And might would, indeed, make right.

But what about the protection of others, beyond our number, who have had violence initiated against them? Suppose I had observed a bully beating a child, or a ruffian attacking my neighbor’s wife? Should I have stood idly by as a mere witness to such outrage?

Not necessarily. It is presumed that in the case of a bully beating a child, or a ruffian attacking your neighbor’s wife, that you have been as competent to judge initiated violence as if the violence were initiated against your own person. You asked the question because you think you see in it a situation analogous to the United States protecting South Korea. The situation is not analogous. You would not, of your own free will, give up your home, your business, even your life, to protect the South Koreans as against the North Korean. And for good reason. In many instances, you recognize your incompetence to assign causation even to your own acts. It is, therefore, next to impossible for you to determine the just from the unjust in cases that are remote to your experience, between peoples whose habits and thoughts and ways of life are foreign to you. Thinking only of yourself you recognize your own scope and proper limits of your own actions. But interference in strange areas may make you the initiator of violence rather than the protector of rectitude. If, however, of your own free choice, you wish to protect the South Koreans, you have only your own judgment to account for. But there is a far greater accounting to make if coercion is used to cause others to do what you elect to do. Why, though, should you elect to do any such thing? You are as unaware of the forces at work in this Asiatic affair as you are of the causes of a quarrel between two headhunters. Am I wrong? If so, why have you been shooting Koreans and Chinese when the Russians are supposed to be the ones you fear? Are you expecting the North Koreans or the Chinese to invade the American shores?

Very well, my Conscience, but matters of national concern such as this cannot be left to the voluntary action of a free people. Few, if any, would be here in Korea. I doubt if many would voluntarily give up home, fortune, and life to protect the Philippines, or France, or even England. National interest demands that there be an authority to coerce us into proper action against communism.

Force! Coercion! Violence! Forever, it seems, people proposing force as a means to eliminate force! You do not seem to realize that the essential characteristic of communism is coercion. Communism in essence is the communalization of the product of all by force. Americans now practice communism in so many ways that the doctrine – not in name, but in substance – is rapidly becoming not only acceptable but "respectable." There are people, many of them, who sincerely believe in this idea. Those who believe in it, and openly proclaim their belief in it, you call "Communists." But you who practice it, and deny your belief in it, call yourselves "Liberals" and your countries "Democracies." And you propose to rid the world of force by using force against those who admit they believe in force. In reality, you endorse their position. You make the belief in force unanimous. What, pray tell, can you do with guns to make them question the rightness of their beliefs? Can you do more than to confirm their belief in guns and to incite the wider use of guns?

The belief in coercion is an idea just as much as the belief in freedom is an idea. It is for this reason that I think you have mistaken the nature of the conflict. It is ideological, not personal; it is of the intellect, not of the flesh. A ferment now goes on in the minds of men, ideas demanding violence as the means to a communal way of life. As in every ferment a scum rises to the top, as fungus on a muck heap. These bad ideas which rise out of the ferment are not to be destroyed by killing the persons who voice them. The swirls in the ferment will throw up replacements endlessly. Killing merely agitates the process, as a poke on the jaw usually evokes a retaliatory poke on the jaw. It’s the ideas which have to be considered. The route to better ideas is evolutionary and peaceful, a matter you should have pondered long ago. Better ideas are not shot into persons with guns. Can you not see that gunners, except when acting in self-defense, have contracted the very disease they are bent on destroying?

What you are saying is that the people of the United States do not know their own interests; that coercion, the essence of the dictator idea, produces better results than man in free action. You are saying that your countrymen are ignorant if free, but that one or more of their number, politically selected, will force them to act wisely if given enough power. You are saying that wisdom is generated by the mere act of giving some person or persons a monopoly of coercion. If this be true, why do you not accept the Russian arrangement and be done with it? Does it really matter whether an American or a Russian has a gun in your back? I thought you were fighting for freedom. Isn’t it possible that the way to advance freedom is to behave like free men rather than like regimented men? You, I fear, have been spreading the very disease you claim to be trying to destroy.

It is rather dreadful to think that I have met death in an action that spreads communism. The demand for unity, however, has always seemed sound to me. An early American slogan was: "In unity there is strength." How else could unity be achieved except by some program insuring involuntary service?

There are two kinds of unity. One kind makes for weakness. The other makes for strength.

For instance, there is that type of unity exemplified by the goose step. It makes for a sameness in action, to be sure. However, it is nothing but a mass obedience to a master will. It demands a disregard of personality and individual variation. Its theme is a tortuous cadence, mankind responding to the tick-tock of some fallible, human metronome. In this kind of unity there is but the appearance of strength. In substance it is a corruption and a weakness implicit in men, who, though gifted by God with reason, permit themselves to be led like oxen or driven like sheep. This is the kind of unity involuntary service provides.

There is strength only in that unity which results from like-mindedness. This originates with an individual’s actions being in unity with his conscience. In short, the type of unity that has lasting strength is born of integrity. Its extension depends on the consciences of men being similar. The result is similarity in action – action dictated by conscience instead of by Caesars. This is the kind of unity voluntary service produces. Involuntary unity, however, will do even more harm than that of merely making its practitioners weak. Its false show of strength tends to create fears in other nations, developing a like-mindedness in them as to what they should do to resist and assuage their fears. Coercion thus generates a voluntary unity and a real strength among the very people at whom the involuntary unity is aimed.

In one of the little-publicized chapters of World War II, for example, one million Russian officers and men voluntarily joined the invading Germans, considering them as their liberators. The German dictator, hearing of this, ordered that these officers and men be imprisoned or killed. This action, dictated by Hitler, caused a like-mindedness among the Russian people. There subsequent action at Stalingrad against the Germans became very much of a voluntary action. History records how like-mindedness created a strength where only weakness had existed.

The Korean affair is in no way dissimilar. Hardly an American favored this war if tested by his willingness voluntarily to sacrifice family, fortune or life. This war could not have happened short of involuntary service. And as was to be expected under these circumstances, the result has been less security for America. Our excursion into Korea is creating a like-mindedness, the will to voluntary service against us on the part of the Asiatic people. These steps which are weakening an America that was strong are strengthening an Asia that was weak.

But, then, is it not also true that involuntary servitude and a show of military force by the Russian people tends to cause a like-mindedness, a will to voluntary service, on the part of the Americans?

This would be the tendency, if let alone. But the involuntary service that has been initiated in America destroys the tendency toward voluntary unity in this field, just as, in the field of welfare, involuntary police grants-in-aid destroy the will to voluntary charity. Directed action is substituted for self-inspired action. Weakness takes the place of strength.

Involuntary service on the part of the Russians, if extended to the point of interfering with American life and property, would inspire American voluntary service.

But Conscience, wouldn’t this voluntary action on the part of the American people come too late to save us from invasion?

This prevalent idea overlooks the weakness from within that comes to the aggressor by reason of his continued involuntary service. It glosses over the fact that as the enemy extends himself and his supply lines he is faced with ever-dwindling resources at home. His extended position requires the opposite: progressively greater resources at home. Overlooked, also, is the strength that would remain with Americans by reason of the conservation of their resources and by reason of an undeniable determination bred by the like-mindedness of a people defending their homeland. They are as a tigress protecting her offspring.

To fight evil with evil is only to make evil general. To contend against involuntary action by involuntary action is only to make involuntary action general. Let a slave master organize millions of slaves into industrial and military divisions, and many people will think they observe a great strength. Let millions be free of any slave master, let their energies be released, let them work alone, or competitively or cooperatively as the mutuality of their interests suggests, and many people think they observe a great chaos. These observations are but great delusions. People confuse appearance and substance one with the other. There is enduring strength only in free men. When the truth of this is learned to the point of its becoming a profound faith, then – and then only – will mass murders be removed from the agenda of men. Man will seldom kill if acting on his individual responsibility and under guidance of his own disciplines. But he can be made to kill if and when he becomes an involuntary agent. In this condition he is no longer singular and self, but part of a mass, responding to stimuli beyond his own wisdom and conscience.

I begin to understand. The chaos I thought I saw in men acting freely was but the inadequacy of my own grasp of things; it was but the reflection of my own limited comprehension. Order, strength, to me, meant only an arrangement of men’s behavior that fell within the range of my own narrow knowledge. Men forced to goose step, to act in simple patterns, gave the appearance of unity which I mistook for strength.

This chaos I thought I saw – others doing things I couldn’t do or understand – was but men in free and voluntary effort, each finding his greatest realization and productiveness in action of his own choosing. I had planned, after this war, to enter my chosen field, a highly specialized one, adapted to aptitudes peculiar to me. I now see how my own interest would have been better served by similarly having others specializing in the fields peculiar to their aptitudes in order that there might be an exchange among us with benefit and profit to all.

All sorts of things occur to me now. Human energy is expressed through the faculties of men. The non-use of any faculty, be it a muscle in the arm or the power to reason, brings on atrophy. Human energy is like electrical energy; it has strength only as it is flowing, as it is in use. These faculties of men through which their energy finds expression are not only different in all men but they are self-controlled. No man can control the creative faculties of another. No man can force another to think, or to invent, or to imagine. The only control one man can exercise over the faculties of another is a destructive or restraining control. One man can destroy all the faculties of another by shooting him. One man can restrain the use of the faculties of another by inducing fear of prison or ostracism.

Involuntary service, therefore, is the restraint of men’s faculties by another, the denial of self-control of faculties, the forced employment of someone else’s idea of one’s faculties, an idea that has no possible way to be right. This explains why, in the army, I have noted good entertainers made into poor cooks, and skilled machinists employed as bad buglers. Involuntary service presupposes that there is one person or group of persons who know how to fit the peculiar faculties of all men into some master plan of action. In reality, though, such persons are fortunate if they even know what to do with themselves, let alone others.

I now see the strength in voluntary effort. I now see that no one – least of all I – can grasp or understand more than a fraction of the total effort of all persons. But I can see my own superiority as a free man as against a slave. And I need only to project this idea to all other persons to arrive at my own answer, the one you have been trying to impress upon me: Free men are strong men!

I wish, however, that you would elaborate even more on why most individuals will not kill on their own responsibility, but will take a part in mass killings. If these acts of ours which turn out to be evil, were done in ignorance, why so wide the lack of understanding? All people seem to be similarly at fault to some degree.

I only wish you had called on me, your Better-self, ere this. Or that you had called on others. Excellent answers to these questions have been made time and time again throughout history. You merely took no heed of them, nor of me. You repeatedly said you had no time to contemplate, to think, to read, to study – in short, to invoke my help. Unwittingly, you made mockery of anything really serious that had a bearing on your Immortal Soul. You opened your ears and mind to the frivolous, to "easier" ways, to the fallacy that you could turn your responsibilities and problems over to government, to answers that declared you could take a part in evil and not be responsible for it. By your failure to reason you became a party to an absurdity: the notion that you could gain peace by the use of war; love by the use of violence.

The key to your mortal confusion, I believe, has been a failure to perceive, until now, the nature of the collective. You have admitted – and I believe you – that you as an individual would not kill another person. But oftentimes men personally as virtuous as yourself have joined a mob, lynched and killed someone, and attached no personal guilt to themselves at all. The collective – the mob – was responsible for the deed, so they thought. But the mob, an informal collective, is not subject to eternal damnation or Immortal Glory. It is but a name given to an arrangement which consists only of individuals. Can other than persons be responsible for acts, be the acts done alone or in association?

But I was not acting as a member of a mob. I acted in response to my government.

Government, also, is a collective. It differs from the mob in that it is organized, legalized, formal force, presumably founded on deliberation rather than on impulse. But government is no more subject to eternal damnation or Immortal Glory than is an illegal mob. It, also, is but a name given to an arrangement which consists only of individuals. They – and they alone – are responsible for what they do collectively as government. They – and they alone – are subject to Judgment.

Most persons believe some form of government to be necessary as a means of achieving maximum liberty. But unless they succeed in properly limiting government, they will surrender some – or even all – of their personal rights and responsibilities to it. Unless they understand the nature of coercion – its power only to suppress, restrain, destroy – they will yield to it and lose their ability to act creatively. Government has the necessary and logical function of protecting the property and life of all citizens equally. But if people fail to understand the nature of coercion they will attempt to use this force of government even for creative purposes; they will vainly attempt to use a negating physical force – government – as a means of accomplishing a positive good. Unless they comprehend coercion, many of them will rob in the name of charity, plunder in the name of prosperity, and kill in the name of God.

I confess, I have been killing in the name of God, at least as I know God.

There appears to be another failure, too; the failure to grasp the idea that whoever gives another the authority to act on his behalf, must accept personal responsibility for the results of the delegated authority. For example, self-discipline is exclusively the product of the individual. It is the quality – indeed, the virtue – in you which accounts for the fact that you would not kill another person in your own name. But let authority for your actions be transferred to government, a collective, without an exact accompaniment of your personal responsibility for that authority – without an equivalent transfer of that excellent discipline which controls your own actions – and, ipso facto, you will act without personal discipline as a result of the mistaken belief that there can be authority without responsibility. In short, will you not generate irresponsible action? And this, I submit, is the illogical process – call it foreign policy or whatever – which leads you to kill another person without remorse or a feeling of guilt. You label the action by another name, "the government," "the army"; so you thoughtlessly conclude that the responsibility is attached to another name also. Does not the fault inhere in your not recognizing that the consequences of your actions are irrevocably yours, whether you personally conduct them or whether you employ government, a collective agency, to administer them?

Unless there be a strict awareness of the limitations that should guide delegated authority, and an equally keen realization that even a limited, delegated authority demands total personal responsibility, there will of necessity result a vast amount of evil action.

Were there none of my forebears who understood the nature of the collective?

Yes, many of them. One of your countrymen perceived these dangers and gave a warning that was little heeded: "That government is best which governs least." It is only when the agenda of government are minor and incidental to the aggregate action of a people that the agenda can even be understood, let alone accepted personally as one’s own. If the agenda become numerous, or if they extend beyond the narrow confines of defending all citizens against violence and predacity initiated against them by others, the minds of most men will not be able to grasp what will be suffered in their names. However, as I said before, you should have sought my services sooner. While I, too, am finite and subject to error, I am as close to God as you can get on this earth. It was your task to join with me in order that together we might search for Truth—-the vital element in your earthly purpose of Self-realization.

Thank you, my Conscience. But what is there for me now?

Your life is now about to end. Will you not from here on be judged for what you were? You will no longer be in the realm of the to be. What you have been will condition what you will be, or so it seems to me.

What has happened to your life is not at all uncommon. You simply elected to act in a way pleasing to some of your earthly contemporaries. You gave little weight or thought to Immortal Judgment. You chose to have your honors before your fellowmen rather than before God. You gave preference to man’s medals and plaudits over and above the reward you now seek. You were given your opportunity, and you made a choice. As a consequence, will not your spirit and influence go down through the ages as you elected they should? Were you not the judge, and have you not passed judgment on yourself by your life and the way you lived it? It seems to me that you have made the pattern for your life in the Everlasting World, a part of which you have made in this last moment of consciousness as a mortal being. Let us, since you and I are now one and inseparable, be eternally grateful that so much of it appears to have been good.

Epilogue

Hmm! The collective! Government and its over-extension! The process of de-personalization! The method that divorces action from conscience! Action and conscience together lead to justice – apart, action becomes indiscriminate! Action and conscience together, and I would not kill – but divorce them, and I become a party to mass killing. Why did I not think of these ideas and their meaning? Why did I not recognize that (1) our ambassadors to other countries are politicians and (2) that the only ambassadors of good will and peace are free traders, as free to trade with other nations as between our fifty states? Why did I not think…

Copyright 1951, 1981 by the Foundation for Economic Education.

Leonard E. Read (1898–1983) was the founder of FEE.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Conscience on the Battlefield

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: ethics, history, philosophy, war, war on terror

Related Content:

• The Deadly Cost of Interventionism (3)
• Ron Paul: Get out of Afghanistan NOW! (0)
• Podcast: War, Foreign Policy, and the Church (Part 1) (0)
• Podcast: Christianity and War Part 1 (4)
• Mission Accomplished, Obama-Style (0)

The Texas Declaration of Independence

The Unanimous Declaration of Independence made by the Delegates of the People of Texas in General Convention at the town of Washington on the 2nd day of March 1836.

When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted, and so far from being a guarantee for the enjoyment of those inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their oppression.

When the Federal Republican Constitution of their country, which they have sworn to support, no longer has a substantial existence, and the whole nature of their government has been forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism, in which every interest is disregarded but that of the army and the priesthood, both the eternal enemies of civil liberty, the ever-ready minions of power, and the usual instruments of tyrants.

When, long after the spirit of the constitution has departed, moderation is at length so far lost by those in power, that even the semblance of freedom is removed, and the forms themselves of the constitution discontinued, and so far from their petitions and remonstrances being regarded, the agents who bear them are thrown into dungeons, and mercenary armies sent forth to force a new government upon them at the point of the bayonet.

When, in consequence of such acts of malfeasance and abdication on the part of the government, anarchy prevails, and civil society is dissolved into its original elements. In such a crisis, the first law of nature, the right of self-preservation, the inherent and inalienable rights of the people to appeal to first principles, and take their political affairs into their own hands in extreme cases, enjoins it as a right towards themselves, and a sacred obligation to their posterity, to abolish such government, and create another in its stead, calculated to rescue them from impending dangers, and to secure their future welfare and happiness.

Nations, as well as individuals, are amenable for their acts to the public opinion of mankind. A statement of a part of our grievances is therefore submitted to an impartial world, in justification of the hazardous but unavoidable step now taken, of severing our political connection with the Mexican people, and assuming an independent attitude among the nations of the earth.

The Mexican government, by its colonization laws, invited and induced the Anglo-American population of Texas to colonize its wilderness under the pledged faith of a written constitution, that they should continue to enjoy that constitutional liberty and republican government to which they had been habituated in the land of their birth, the United States of America.

In this expectation they have been cruelly disappointed, inasmuch as the Mexican nation has acquiesced in the late changes made in the government by General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, who having overturned the constitution of his country, now offers us the cruel alternative, either to abandon our homes, acquired by so many privations, or submit to the most intolerable of all tyranny, the combined despotism of the sword and the priesthood.

It has sacrificed our welfare to the state of Coahuila, by which our interests have been continually depressed through a jealous and partial course of legislation, carried on at a far distant seat of government, by a hostile majority, in an unknown tongue, and this too, notwithstanding we have petitioned in the humblest terms for the establishment of a separate state government, and have, in accordance with the provisions of the national constitution, presented to the general Congress a republican constitution, which was, without just cause, contemptuously rejected.

It incarcerated in a dungeon, for a long time, one of our citizens, for no other cause but a zealous endeavor to procure the acceptance of our constitution, and the establishment of a state government.

It has failed and refused to secure, on a firm basis, the right of trial by jury, that palladium of civil liberty, and only safe guarantee for the life, liberty, and property of the citizen.

It has failed to establish any public system of education, although possessed of almost boundless resources, (the public domain,) and although it is an axiom in political science, that unless a people are educated and enlightened, it is idle to expect the continuance of civil liberty, or the capacity for self government.

It has suffered the military commandants, stationed among us, to exercise arbitrary acts of oppression and tyrrany, thus trampling upon the most sacred rights of the citizens, and rendering the military superior to the civil power.

It has dissolved, by force of arms, the state Congress of Coahuila and Texas, and obliged our representatives to fly for their lives from the seat of government, thus depriving us of the fundamental political right of representation.

It has demanded the surrender of a number of our citizens, and ordered military detachments to seize and carry them into the Interior for trial, in contempt of the civil authorities, and in defiance of the laws and the constitution.

It has made piratical attacks upon our commerce, by commissioning foreign desperadoes, and authorizing them to seize our vessels, and convey the property of our citizens to far distant ports for confiscation.

It denies us the right of worshipping the Almighty according to the dictates of our own conscience, by the support of a national religion, calculated to promote the temporal interest of its human functionaries, rather than the glory of the true and living God.

It has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defense, the rightful property of freemen, and formidable only to tyrannical governments.

It has invaded our country both by sea and by land, with intent to lay waste our territory, and drive us from our homes; and has now a large mercenary army advancing, to carry on against us a war of extermination.

It has, through its emissaries, incited the merciless savage, with the tomahawk and scalping knife, to massacre the inhabitants of our defenseless frontiers.

It hath been, during the whole time of our connection with it, the contemptible sport and victim of successive military revolutions, and hath continually exhibited every characteristic of a weak, corrupt, and tyrannical government.

These, and other grievances, were patiently borne by the people of Texas, until they reached that point at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue. We then took up arms in defense of the national constitution. We appealed to our Mexican brethren for assistance. Our appeal has been made in vain. Though months have elapsed, no sympathetic response has yet been heard from the Interior. We are, therefore, forced to the melancholy conclusion, that the Mexican people have acquiesced in the destruction of their liberty, and the substitution therefore of a military government; that they are unfit to be free, and incapable of self government.

The necessity of self-preservation, therefore, now decrees our eternal political separation.

We, therefore, the delegates with plenary powers of the people of Texas, in solemn convention assembled, appealing to a candid world for the necessities of our condition, do hereby resolve and declare, that our political connection with the Mexican nation has forever ended, and that the people of Texas do now constitute a free, Sovereign, and independent republic, and are fully invested with all the rights and attributes which properly belong to independent nations; and, conscious of the rectitude of our intentions, we fearlessly and confidently commit the issue to the decision of the Supreme arbiter of the destinies of nations.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Happy Texas Independence Day!

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: Austin, freedom, government, history, individualism, Texas

Related Content:

• What We Can Learn from Spaghetti Sauce (2)
• Top 10 Books for Christian Libertarians – 2009 Edition (4)
• Texas Independence Day 2009 (0)
• Religious Roots of Liberty (3)
• New FAQ Questions Added (2)

Communism is the vision of an egalitarian society with common ownership of property. Karl Marx, the father of communism, stated that the prevailing capitalist environment is responsible for class struggle and inequality among people. He believed that people’s lives are determined by their economic environment and in order to achieve the communist utopia, that environment has to be changed. For this change to occur, the working class (proletariat) must overthrow the existing regime, dismantle all capitalist institutions, and eliminate the possibility of a counterrevolution by the merchant class (bourgeoisie). Then, as a necessary pre-stage to communism, a socialist authoritarian government must be established to take complete control over the means of production—natural resources, infrastructure, tools, financial capital, and labor. Once people are thoroughly conditioned by this new structure they will morph into a “higher” man. Soon, government will wither away and in its place will emerge the stateless, egalitarian society that communists envisage. This may sound good in theory to some, but the communist experiments of the 20th century resulted in economic deprivation and murder on a massive scale.

Communism kills. Marx knew that winning the revolution would not be enough. He penned that “so long as other classes continue to exist, the capitalist class in particular, the proletariat fights it…it must still use a measure of force, hence governmental measures.” Lenin purged his ideological rivals, the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries. Stalin, Pol Pot, Che Guevara, Castro, and Mao all eliminated whoever they suspected of opposing their regimes, whether by deporting dissidents to slave labor camps, subjecting them to sham trials in which the forgone conclusion was a “guilty” verdict and execution, or simply murdering them outright. In all, even according to conservative estimates, communist regimes have killed at least 150 million people. Not too peaceful…

Communism prohibits private property. As Marx saw it, private property is the primary cause of man’s alienation from his social nature and a limitation on his freedom: “The right of property is therefore, the right to enjoy one’s fortunes and dispose of it as he will; without regard for other men and independently of society…It leads every man to see in other men, not the realization, but rather the limitation of his own liberty.” Marx agreed that private property is the basis of the capitalist system, creating enormous wealth and economic progress; but he claimed that such wealth and progress is limited to a small class of rich merchants at the expense of a large class of poor workers. But, as classical liberals such as Adam Smith and John Locke argued, private property is essential to securing man’s natural rights to life and liberty. Think about it: the right to life is the right to live, and to live in the way you choose; the right to liberty is the right to pursue what you need to survive and live a good life, so long as it does not entail violating the rights of someone else to do the same.

However, if the needs of others are the determinant of how much food, shelter, or clothing you are allowed to have or of the profession you may pursue—then, ultimately, your life depends on whoever can claim to have a greater need than you. That’s not freedom; that’s slavery.

Communism is full of contradictions:

• Communists claimed that their philosophy would outdo capitalism economically because it promotes the good of all rather than the narrow self-interest of a few greedy capitalists. Yet, if being self-interested means that one acts according to a set of values that one holds and wants to realize, then communism itself could not be implemented without self-interest. Capitalist economies far surpassed communist ones in wealth, evident by the fact that the least-well-off in the former have a greater standard of living than all but the top echelon of government officials in the latter. To achieve the economic growth necessary to alleviate poverty, productivity and innovation are key, both of which depend on the proper incentives. Under capitalism people get to keep and dispose of what they have produced, which gives them an incentive to produce and innovate more. This is absent under communism.
• Communist leaders hailed their societies as beacons for a more just, abundant society. Yet, one only needs to look at how people voted with their feet to know that was not true; many willingly risked death to escape the devastatingly brutal conditions of communist countries to obtain a better life in capitalist countries. Moreover, in areas once seen as “breadbaskets” of the world, communism (and the disallowance of private property) brought mass famine, as was seen in Russia in the early 1920s and in China in the late 1950s.
• Communists stated that their philosophy is ethically superior to classical liberalism and capitalism because it seeks to abolish inequality. Under communism, they claim, everybody is equally provided for but in reality only those in power (bureaucrats and party honchos) win while everybody else loses. The only level of equality reached by the common man is in the shared level of misery.

Next | All Memes

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Communism Kills

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: capitalism, communism, economics, ethics, history, Marx

Related Content:

• Myths America Lives By – Richard Hughes (0)
• Defending Freedom and the Free Society (0)
• Anarchy and Christianity (5)
• What is the point of private property if you cannot use it? (9)
• Virtually unknown pub "Faith & Freedom" now available on Mises.org (2)

Our group from the Libertarian Longhorns (and Robert Butler, executive director of LP-Texas) left Austin around 6am on Saturday, January 23, to make sure we arrived in time to get a decent seat. Robert volunteered his vehicle, and so I didn’t have to drive. We talked up the LP’s plans and upcoming events on the drive to Houston and back.

Upon arrival, we had the privilege to meet some really neat  people. I happened to run across a few LCC readers as well, like Yvonne Kelly (on the far left of the group picture). Tom Woods said hello as he walked in, and I briefly spoke with Lew Rockwell as well while drinking some coffee.

The theme of the day was "the failure of Keynesianism" — appropriate considering our current political situation, wouldn’t you say? Doug French was the first speaker. For some reason I have lost my notes, but his topic was "Bank Failures in a Keynesian World." What was most interesting to me about his talk was the striking parallels of the circumstances preceding "the lost decade" and the circumstances we are now experiencing in the United States. One can only hope that failed policies would be remembered, but alas and alack it’s politics not wisdom that we deal with.

Tom Woods spoke about "Keynesian Predictions vs. American History." Did you know that as World War 2 was coming to a close, policy makers were concerned that the soldiers coming home would overwhelm the economy and that a new depression would ensue. How wrong they were: 1946 was the single greatest year for the American economy ever. I also enjoyed his ransacking of Paul Samuelson and Paul Krugman.

Before lunch we enjoyed hearing the beloved Congressman Ron Paul. His principal point was simply that a true revolution is philosophic in nature. This is most certainly true, and the Austrian School of Economics is at the forefront of this change. Dr. Paul touched on many topics, but as he likes to do he focused on monetary policy and foreign policy. He made specific mention of the importance of auditing the Federal Reserve. He said that once audited, two well-kept secrets will be brought into the open once again: (1) that the Fed frequently bails out friends via the discount window (Fed short term loans), and (2) that the Fed has many international activities unaccounted for. Thus, we find monetary policy is also connected to foreign policy as well. Call me conspiratorial if you must, but the CIA’s funding goes beyond Congress – it’s tied to the Fed as well. Best quote from Ron: "Quite frankly, in a Constitutional Republic, you would not have a CIA."

Lew Rockwell was our final speaker for the day on "Economics and Moral Courage." He noted that although in many ways we are quite free (such as the freedom of the internet), we are also having much freedom taken away from us little by little. Moreover, as more freedom is stolen from us, people are more frequently not able to envision how freedom actually works. They simply do not have experience in understanding cause and effect. In truth, this is due to the "banality of evil," something small that ekes its way into public life. For example, the acceptance of a wrong premise about the role of government in life can be a first step toward more and more government control, leading finally to totalitarianism. What begins with banality, ends in bloodshed.

Overall, I’d say it was a great day…

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Mises Circle Houston Recap

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: Austrian School, economics, free market, free society, freedom, history, keynesianism, Mises Institute, Ron Paul

Related Content:

• ObamaCare finishes what LBJ started (0)
• Anarchy and Christianity (5)
• What’s the difference between a gas station and a hospital? (3)
• What We Can Learn from Spaghetti Sauce (2)
• Virtually unknown pub "Faith & Freedom" now available on Mises.org (2)

End the Fed, by Ron Paul – The Federal Reserve banking system is corrupt and has devastated the world economy, and Ron Paul demonstrates in this great book just how bad it really is. A must-read for our current political situation!

Meltdown, by Thomas Woods – Here’s another essential book for you to know well. Tom has not only written a great expose of how the government has crippled the economy but also a great treatise in basic economics. This book even hit the NYT Bestseller list for multiple weeks!

The Libertarian Theology of Freedom, by Edmund Opitz – Most LCC readers are already familiar with Opitz since I have been in the process of archiving his essays online, but I want to point out that this book is back in stock again at Amazon (but probably not for long). Read my review of this book for more information. But for that matter, any book by Ed Opitz is well worth having on your bookshelf.

Christianity and War, by Laurence Vance – I’m going to keep pushing this book until every Christian I know is reading it. Laurence’s work is incredible and absolutely essential for getting the church at large to realize war is NOT the answer. (Don’t forget that you can get the audiobook exclusively from LCC!)

Amusing Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman – Does American “culture” sometimes make you wonder what on earth happened here? Neil Postman clarifies the problems we face on a regular basis in this classic book. Check out my book review here at LCC.

The Ethics of Money Production, by Guido Hulsmann – Guido is definitely one of my favorite scholars in the Austrian School, and this book is just one more reason why. His thesis is simple: money creation must occur on the free market, neither inhibited nor controlled by government, in order to be created in an ethical manner. Pretty great topic, eh? (By the way, you can get this book at Amazon, but it’s cheaper via the Mises Institute online store.)

The Cult of the Presidency, by Gene Healy – I met Gene for the first time this past October at the Students for Liberty Texas Conference, and am now an even greater admirer of his intellect and tenacity to hit the establishment hard. This book shows just how ridiculous statolatry has become, especially in the last eight years with Bush. Now, I think he could write a second book just about Obama. (Also, the paperback version runs a couple bucks cheaper if it matters to you.)

Faith and Liberty, by Alejandro Chafuen – I was really excited to find this book, which covers the history of the Late Scholastic thinkers and their writings on private property, trade, money, and the State – which were all written from theological perspective.

The Way, the Truth, and the Sword, by Scott Ritsema – You can get Scott’s great book either as an eBook or through Lulu.com. Either way, you’re in for a treat, as Scott has written a wonderful little book encouraging the church at large to reject the State and get back to the true savior, Jesus Christ. Scott is the webmaster at Civics News.

An Amazon Kindle filled with the Mises library and Christian Classics – This may be #10, but it’s probably #1 in my list. You know, almost every book the Mises Institute publishes (and much more) is available to download for free as a PDF on their website. You could easily fill a flash drive with liberty PDF’s from the Mises Library and tons of classic theological texts from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library and Project Gutenberg. Now THAT would be a gift long remembered! (Hey Mom, hint hint?)

And remember, if you follow one of these links, LCC gets a small referral cut from every purchase you make at no cost to you. So, get some great books AND support LibertarianChristians.com while doing your Christmas shopping. It’s much appreciated…

Finally, if you think a great book deserves to be on this list, comment below and make your voice heard!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Top 10 Books for Christian Libertarians – 2009 Edition

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: Book Reviews, culture, government, history, money, philosophy, recommended books, statolatry, theology

Related Content:

• Summer Reading – Top 10 books that you should drop everything to read now… (3)
• Leo Tolstoy Against the State (2)
• Anarchy and Christianity (5)
• Virtually unknown pub "Faith & Freedom" now available on Mises.org (2)
• The Libertarian Theology of Freedom (28)