A recent article of mine over on the Blog at Mises.org -- Jim

The New Bureaucratic Man
Jim Fedako

[An MP3 audio file of this article, read by Steven Ng, is available for download.]

There is something to Trotsky's vision of man under communism. From all historical appearances, man under a totalitarian state functions differently than a man under liberty. And degrees of man exist as society slowly turns from liberty to slavery.

The prevailing view is that man under socialized healthcare will remain the same as man today — a man living under a pseudo-free market. In fact, some even believe that man may progress. In this view, the doctor we see today will, at the very least, remain the same under socialized health care. Don't bet on it.

Unlucky Ducks

I once worked as a software contractor for a state agency (forgive me). The building where I worked was not your typical government building. It had a modern feel, with a decorative moat detailing the front entrance. The front door — guarded, of course — was accessible via a walkway bridge of sorts.

It's not what you may be thinking; it was all very subtle and nice. However, the drop from the bridge to the mulch-covered, bush-laden moat was a good three feet.

One year, at the beginning of spring, a duck built a nest in the moat, under one of the many bushes. As her ducklings hatched and grew, it came time for them to search for water. However, despite their repeated attempts, the ducklings could not jump from the moat to the walkway bridge.

One of the employees in the building asked the building manager if he (the employee) could place a wooden ramp to allow the ducklings to waddle out of the moat. Being a good state employee himself, the building manager called the state department of natural resources for guidance. The answer: since ducks are migratory birds, no one could do anything.

The next morning, someone plastered official signs around the entrance, stating that any attempt to help the ducks was a violation of law. No ramp, no water, no food. And violators — you know this already — would be prosecuted to the fullest extent.

Soon we had a real scene. The mother duck would leave the moat and encourage her ducklings to follow. They couldn't, of course. She would march back and forth on the walkway bridge and quack in desperation. All the while, the guard at the entrance stood watch, stopping any attempt to help.

Repeated calls to the bureaucrats at the department of natural resources were answered by a repetition of laws and fines. And not one of the department employees was going to go against the rules, or even ask for an exemption, for any reason.

The ducklings died days later.

There you have it: upon joining the state, the department of resource folks — folks who likely dreamed of careers helping wildlife — became staunch bureaucrats enforcing rules over reason.

Healthcare

I have had many good experiences with doctors, nurses, and such. Our pre-Obamacare system was not perfect, but it suffered from nothing that the free market couldn't cure. Nevertheless, our elected officials believe otherwise. And they have a lot of support from the masses, who, I believe, are deluded.

Many proponents of socialized healthcare envision a system where their current providers remain, and society, hidden behind the state, pays the bills. But man changes by degree as liberty is lost. So the smiling doctor and caring nurse you trust will become the faces of the nomenklatura and apparatchiks. They can become nothing else.

Yuri Maltsev, former economist under Gorbachev, detailed the truths of Soviet medicine in a recent Mises.org article. He wrote of drunken medical professionals roaming the halls of filthy hospitals — hospitals devoid of necessary equipment and supplies. And he wrote of a system where adherence to the rules of the bureaucracy trumped reason and sanity.

Meeting quotas was the mission, not serving the patients. So people died due to the rules of the bureaucracy, and no one could or would do otherwise.

Do we really believe the conduct of Russians under socialist rule was due to genetics or geography? Do we really believe there is something unique about Russians or Russia — and all the other groups who lived under socialist rule? And do we really believe Americans under that very same system would comport themselves in a different manner — as if altruism were genetic in the 50 states? Does anyone really believe any of that?

We have a tough case to make. We have the supporters of socialized healthcare dreaming that everything will remain the same, except someone else will pay the bill. It's a nice fantasy. But a fantasy, nonetheless. And fantasies can be hard to defeat at times.

On our side, we have the science of economics that says the system will collapse in the end. It will collapse under its own weight due to the state's inability to allocate resources efficiently. And just as important, we have history that shows how man behaves when under socialism — how man will behave until the system finally collapses. And let me tell you, that behavior ain't pretty.

Your doctor and nurse, no matter how nice today, will become the bureaucracy. They will see you in terms of state rules and regulations. They will push you out into the cold rather than risk having you die on site — and them having to suffer the consequences of a bad report to the central authorities.

Of course, your beloved healthcare professionals will not change overnight from Dr. Jekyll to Mr. Hyde. No, they will slowly change as the cloud of socialized medicine and accompanying bureaucracy incessantly rots their souls (as it rots our souls as well). It will happen — it has to.

To think otherwise is to be that mother duck, expecting officials of the state to rescue her ducklings because that is what employees of the department of natural resources are supposed to do: rescue wildlife.

Letting the bed bugs bite

A recent post of mine over on the Blog at Mises.org:

Letting the bed bugs bite

Jim Fedako

Who would let the bed bugs bite? The feds of course.

If you are looking for a reason to support the Tenth Amendment movement, turn a bedsheet or two in Ohio.

Seems the EPA no longer allows the pesticide Propoxur to be sold for home use. Why?

Is Propoxur unsafe? Hardly, Propoxur is "a decades-old pesticide that many see as the best, and cheapest, way to stop the voracious bugs."

What changed? According to Andrew Christman, owner of the Ohio Exterminating Co. and president of the Ohio Pest Management Association, "Propoxur had long been labeled for use in homes. It lost that status last year because the manufacturer had declined to pay to re-test and re-register the product."

So the manufacturer decides that the cost for federal testing and registration is too high and now "[m]any low-income families and elderly residents repeatedly suffer from bites because they cannot afford extermination, which generally costs between $200 and $500 per application."

Remind me, who does government benefit?

FFF ... again

From a recent edition of the Email Update from the Future of Freedom Foundation:

Monday, May 3, 2010

If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too.
— William Somerset Maugham, Strictly Personal [1941]

Science for the State

A recent article of mine over on the Blog at Mises.org -- the final version of an article that evolved here and here:

Science for the State
Jim Fedako

It sometimes seems that every regime needs to find its justification in science. Ideology is fine, to a point. But the final arbiter of legitimacy resides, or so it seems, in science. So what of science?

The Soviet Union had its ideological foundation in dialectical materialism — that edgy methodology that combines, you guessed it, dialectics and materialism. In essence, so the theory goes, matter moves from one state to another in an endless ascendancy from the lower to higher.

I know, blah, blah, blah. Just a load of muddled nonsense. But it was the Soviet religion. And everything had to be justified through it.

So in the 1920s, along comes this quack by the name of Lysenko. According to Wikipedia,

he rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of the hybridization theories of Russian horticulturist Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin, and adopted them into a powerful political-scientific movement termed Lysenkoism.

Helena Sheehan picks up the story noting that Lysenko

subsequently became famous for the discovery of "vernalisation," an agricultural technique that allowed winter crops to be obtained from summer planting by soaking and chilling the germinated seed for a determinate period of time.

More muddled nonsense. But since Lysenko and his nonsense — er, theories — fit the nonsense that is dialectical materialism, he became a sweetheart of the state bureaucracy.

And as Lysenkoism grew in power and prestige, so did the pressure on those who dared object.

Alternate theories were rejected and proponents forced from positions and jailed, and sometimes even sentenced to death. Mendelian genetics was pushed from the halls of academia into the hushed-hushed backrooms where no one listened, except spies for the state.

There were two other results of Lysenkoism worth noting: food shortages and waste. But, hey, what's a few cracked eggs among friends, especially when the omelet is for the state?

The key to my opening statement is not that science needs to justify the state. The key is that the state needs to find the science that will justify its (the state's) existence.

So the state creates its justifying science and, lo and behold, that very same science justifies the state. In Lysenko's words,

Long live the Party of Lenin and Stalin, which discovered Michurin for the world and created all the conditions for the progress of advanced materialist biology in our country.

Glory to the great friend and protagonist of science, our leader and teacher, comrade Stalin!

Does any of this sound familiar? In the 1930s, the state adopted Keynesian economics. It did not do so because the system made sense. No, the state adopted Keynesian economics because it justified the state and the state's profligate ways.

Keynes was the Lysenko of the Roosevelt administration. The state declared Keynes a genius and worked to control his opposition. No Siberian Gulags, just academic ones. But the chilling result was the same here as in the Soviet Union. The state's science became the science, and science and state lived happily ever after. For a while anyway.

When Stalin died, Lysenko was first discredited by Khrushchev.

Nevertheless, Lysenko was to find favour again, and at that with Khrushchev, for his researches into composting and breeding dairy cows with high butter fat, themes both dear to Khrushchev who wanted to raise the USSR's milk output.

In the end, the Soviets finally recognized that Lysenko was a fraud, though it took a half a century.

Here in the United States, it took us almost the same amount of time to begin to question Keynesianism. And just like Lysenkoism, Keynesianism fell out of favor only to subsequently return to favor once again — nothing like more butter fat to whet the appetite of the political class.

Of course, Keynes is gone — his long run ended years ago. But Keynesianism lives on through its adherents. And Paul Krugman is the most visible one we have today.

But Krugman is just another Lysenko — peddling nonsense that justifies the state. As one of its most prominent and vocal proponents, Krugman is an influential activist for the political class and the status quo. So, of course, he is blessed by the state.

Most importantly, Krugman is willing to see more than a few eggs cracked in order to serve up a state-sized omelet — I think he calls his special omelet the Laureate, but I am not certain of that.

Every state needs justification. And the justifiers are always welcomed and cheered by the state. So we should not be shocked that a false science — a science that props up the state — is embraced by the state and associated sycophants.

But we must always remember that in the end, the nonsense is revealed for all to see, with the proponent receiving his due discredit. But how long do we have to wait? And what will be the final result? Only time will tell.

Life of an article -- final version

A recent article of mine over on the Blog at Mises.org -- the final version of an article that evolved here and here:

Time Is on Our Side
Jim Fedako

Living at the intellectual margin can challenge even the most ardent advocate of free markets and liberty. However, I contend that history is on our side.

In the preface to his book Marx's Religion of Revolution (1989), Gary North writes of an intellectual movement that was for years confined to the dark recesses of coffeehouses and tearooms.

Igor Shafarevich, the Soviet mathematician and critic of Marxism, made a very important observation in his classic book, The Socialist Phenomenon (1975). He said that peculiar little socialist groups debate for years about the details of their odd-ball social theories, and then, almost overnight, their ideas become widely believed, and societies are restructured in terms of them.

When I am feeling down because of the political landscape, I think of that passage. Change one word and you have this bit of encouragement, "He said that peculiar little anarcholibertarian groups debate for years about the details of their oddball social theories, and then, almost overnight, their ideas become widely believed, and societies are restructured in terms of them."

What a powerful statement. And a statement that may soon ring true, if we all do our part.

At one point during the recent The Birth and Death of the Fed conference, I sat with three other Austrians in the hotel sitting room discussing the details of our supposedly oddball social theories — the theories of free markets and liberty. Around us sat other peculiar little groups proposing various means for these very same theories to become widely believed once again, to serve as the guiding lights for a near-overnight restructuring of society. While the theories we debated are still not mainstream, a tipping point of sorts may be near.

In the not-too-distant future, it is likely that we will see the ideas of free markets and liberty begin to take hold. And we will watch as societies start to restructure themselves without the burden of the oppressive state. Questions arise: How will this restructuring occur? Will it be through political action?

Politics is about today — tomorrow be damned. The politician wants to get elected and stay elected, and retire well off. He only cares about getting votes from constituents he abhors. He cares nothing of their lives, their struggles, or their successes.

In the politician's mind, he is of the vaunted political class, and his constituents are nothing more than groundlings to be manipulated and entertained by his double entendres and rhetorical sleights of hand. So it is no wonder that heartless politicians cannot stand the sight of the little folks, those whose votes decide the next coronation — the bestowing of the power and the prestige each politician so desperately desires.

It is obvious that politics is not the answer. And neither, it turns out, is violent force — politics by other means. This is a nation conceived in the ideas of liberty. Given time, ideas would have won the day. But our forefathers resorted to force. And by doing so, they birthed, so to speak, the desire for a new state — a powerful central authority to guide the several free states.

Shortly thereafter, unable to control their fetish for a state, our forefathers went behind closed doors and crafted the so-called perfect union that secured the blessings of liberty to themselves alone, leaving their posterity to suffer under an ever-growing Leviathan — a Leviathan now larger by magnitudes than the one they had so recently deposed.

You may object: Wasn't the Soviet Union the product of both political action and violent force? Yes, to a point. The actual revolutions (February and October) were more political than violent.[1] And even that political action was the product of something else. What was that something else?

Ideas, of course.

Ideas have consequences that, in the long run, trump the politics of the day. Nevertheless, we are currently engaged in the battle over ideas. And as Mises so clearly stated, it is a battle we must all fight.

Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us. (Ludwig von Mises, Socialism)

Each of us carries this burden. And we must engage in the great historical struggle that none of us asked for. But a struggle that is ours nonetheless.

Remember the peculiar groups and their oddball theories. And remember the tipping point. The failures of the state are becoming obvious and folks are taking notice. It is our responsibility to vigorously thrust ourselves into the intellectual battle and relentlessly advocate for free markets and liberty.

Each individual who embraces our oddball theories and joins our peculiar groups brings us that much closer to the tipping point and pending restructuring — and free markets and liberty.

I'll defend you right to drink raw milk

A recent post of mine over on the Blog at Mises.org:

I'll defend you right to drink raw milk

Jim Fedako

But, please, don't drink it in front of me.

A friend of mine in the liberty movement drinks raw milk. That's not for me.

What really offends me is that adults -- such as my friend -- have to sneak around in order to buy something they believe is healthy.

In a guest commentary in my local paper, I wrote: "Raw milk is not the issue, it's a symptom. The issue is our desire to rule over our neighbors through the use of government. And that desire gets fed each time another intrusive law passes without protest."

Dreaming of a Bastiatian Orange

A recent post of mine over on the Blog at Mises.org:

Dreaming of a Bastiatian Orange

Jim Fedako

The regional planning commission in my area recently released "the region’s first Regional Food Assessment and Plan." The executive summary is 20 pages worth of the joys of central planning.

The regional planning commission believes that more food must be grown and eaten locally. Now local is not defined as the US. Nor is it defined as the Midwest. It's not even defined as the 88 counties that make up the state of Ohio. No, local is defined as the 12 counties within -- you guessed it -- the region of the regional planning commission. Talk about micro-mercantilism.

The recommended solutions include such nonsense as encouraging indoor fish farms and longer growing seasons (global warming, anyone?). Oh, and lots of government support and force -- such as efforts to "persuade retailers and restaurateurs ... to ensure shelf space for local produce."

The local media is all over this. They are excited beyond belief. I imagine them locking hands with the folks over at the commission while dancing and singing, "We're going to central plan, We're going to central plan."

As Bastiat wrote in his Sophisms, "By means of this duty, they say, the conditions of production will be equalized; and the Chamber, giving effect, as it always does, to such reasoning, inserts in the tariff a duty of elevenpence upon every foreign orange."

If this nonsense goes forward, Ohio will do just what Bastiat argued against some 150 years ago. Of course, central Ohio will not impose a tariff, just a tax. Regardless, taxpayers will be supporting centrally-planned waste.

Who ever said we get smarter by the generation

Talk about a pig in a python

A recent post of mine over on the Blog at Mises.org:

Talk about a pig in a python

Jim Fedako

The Teachers College of Columbia University publishes TCRecord, an online version of the Teachers College Record. For those who do not know, the Teachers College is one of the nerve centers of Progressive education. All the evil -isms of the day have a home there.

TCRecord sent out a recent email that included an article lamenting the supposed youth obesity crisis.

Of course, no crisis can exist without associated hyperbole. This, for example:

Today fully one-third of children and adolescents are obese (having a weight to height ratio at or above the 95th percentile for age and gender) or overweight (85th percentile).

When one-third of a group is at or above the group's 85th percentile, you have a real pig in a python. And catchy hyperbole as well.

The 30-Second Political Test

Insight from Joseph Sobran (HT FFF):

If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist.

— JOSEPH SOBRAN

Cutting in e-lines

A recent post of mine over on the Blog at Mises.org:

Cutting in e-lines

Jim Fedako

A group of "Wiseguys" beat the CAPTCHA challenge in order to move closer to the front of virtual ticket lines. And they are now facing the standard federal prison sentence pile-on.

These four guys purchased quality tickets to events (such as Springsteen concerts, New York Yankees games, etc.) and resold them, earning $28.9 million along the way.

As I see it, what they did was no different, in an ethical sense, from the host of scams used to cut in line at a real ticket window ("I had to step out of line to give my brother my cell phone."). And the involvement of wire does nothing to change that.

More sophisticated for certain. And really rude. But is it worthy of decades in federal prison?

A government influenza

A recent post of mine over on the Blog at Mises.org:

A government influenza

Jim Fedako

I recently received the 2009 Annual Report of my county's general health district. Splashed on the front page is the headline, "H1N1 Flu Campaign Breaks Local Records." Wow. I didn't realize the flu had such an impact in central Ohio. Or did it?

Turns out the records were not cases of the flu -- there were only 29 of those throughout the year. No, the records set were these (from the front page of the annual report):

The biggest immunization campaign (18,000+ doses of flu vaccine administered, and still counting)

The biggest single immunization clinic (2,404 persons served at Olentangy Liberty High School)

The biggest data entry project (every dose of the vaccine is being tracked in case of adverse reactions)

The biggest mobilization of volunteers (at least 71)

All for 29 cases. In a county of over 160,000 residents.

H1N1 certainly had an impact -- it allowed the specter of big government to further haunt the soul of a once proud, independent region.

Life of an article -- version 2

The editor said that quotes at the beginning are universally skipped. So back to Word for revision two. -- Jim

note: Editors are (almost) universally correct. So I do not mind revising to be read.

Peculiar Groups and Odd-Ball Theories

Igor Shafarevich, the Soviet mathematician and critic of Marxism, made a very important observation in his classic book, The Socialist Phenomenon (1975). He said that peculiar little socialist groups debate for years about the details of their odd-ball social theories, and then, almost overnight, their ideas become widely believed, and societies are restructured in terms of them.“ Gary North, Marx’s Religion of Revolution

“Are you really for free market health care knowing that children will die?” What a tough question, especially since the average questioner will only give you 30 seconds before switching subjects or walking away. But it is a question that serves as a bellwether of our current state of affairs.

When I am feeling down because of the political landscape, I think of the quote above from North. Change one word and you have this bit of encouragement, “He said that peculiar little anarcho-libertarian groups debate for years about the details of their odd-ball social theories, and then, almost overnight, their ideas become widely believed, and societies are restructured in terms of them.”

This is powerful. At the recent The Birth and Death of the Fed conference, I sat with three other Austrians in the hotel sitting room discussing the details of our supposedly odd-ball social theories -- the theories of free markets and liberty. Around us sat other peculiar little groups proposing various means for these very same theories to become widely believed once again, serving as the guiding lights for a near-overnight restructuring of society. While the theories we debated are still not mainstream, a tipping point of sorts may be near.

It is likely that at some point in the not-too-distant future, we will once again see the ideas of free markets and liberty begin to take hold. And we will watch as societies start to restructure themselves without the burden of the oppressive state. However, a question arises: Will this restructuring occur due to political action?

Politics is about today; tomorrow be damned. The politician wants to get elected and stay elected, and retire well off. He only cares about getting votes from constituents he abhors. He cares nothing of their lives, their struggles, or their successes.

In the politician’s mind, he is of the vaunted political class, and his constituents are nothing more than groundlings to be manipulated and entertained by his double entendres and rhetorical sleights of hand. So it is no wonder that heartless politicians cannot stand the sight of the little folks, those whose votes decide the next coronation – the bestowing of the power and the prestige each politician so desperately desires.

It is obvious that politics is not the answer. And neither is violent force – politics by other means. This is a nation conceived in the ideas of liberty. Given time, ideas would have won the day. But our Forefathers resorted to force. And by doing so, they birthed, so to speak, the desire for a new state – a powerful central authority to guide the several free states.

Then, shortly thereafter, unable to control their fetish for a state, they went behind closed doors in an act of subterfuge and formed the so-called perfect union that secured the blessings of liberty to themselves alone, leaving their posterity to suffer under an ever-growing Leviathan – a Leviathan now larger by magnitudes than the one they had so-recently deposed.

So what is the answer? Ideas, of course. Ideas have consequences, which, in the long-run, trump the politics of the day. Nevertheless, we are currently engaged in the battle over ideas. And as Mises so clearly stated, it is a battle we must all fight.

“Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.” Ludwig von Mises, Socialism

Back to the question at the top: “Are you really for free market health care knowing that children will die.” The question is a bellwether – its presence shows that we are still engaged in the great historical struggle which none of us asked for. But a struggle that is ours nonetheless

So what is the correct response to the question? The answer is simple: Say anything that promotes liberty, just be accurate and consistent. Realize you will not win the day with a 30-second response. But you may inspire the occasional questioner to doubt the status quo and seek out the truth, and maybe even join those peculiar groups debating odd-ball theories.

And always remember that each addition brings us that much closer to the tipping point and pending restructuring – and free markets and liberty.

The life of an article

Over the next few days I will be posting versions of an article that I submitted for publication. Sometimes I hit a home run and get it right the first time, while other times I have to work my way around the bases.

Here is the first version which the editor thought had a slow start. And he is right. -- Jim

A Peculiar Tent of Social Theories

Igor Shafarevich, the Soviet mathematician and critic of Marxism, made a very important observation in his classic book, The Socialist Phenomenon (1975). He said that peculiar little socialist groups debate for years about the details of their odd-ball social theories, and then, almost overnight, their ideas become widely believed, and societies are restructured in terms of them.“ Gary North, Marx’s Religion of Revolution

Q: What do you get when three Christians and an atheist converse by the fireplace of a hotel sitting room?

A: If they are all Austrians at the Jekyll Island Club Hotel during the The Birth and Death of the Fed conference, you get a thought-provoking and lively discussion. And you get a view of the big tent that is the movement for liberty.

The question posed by the atheist was simple, but the answer was not. The atheist asked, “In a political debate with a socialist, how can the Christian libertarian politician respond to ‘Are you really for free market health care knowing that children will die?’”

We, the Christians, were stumped. However, the atheist did not have us since he was stumped as well. It was a discussion, not a debate. We all searched for an answer, but could not find one.

Keep in mind the situation we created for our hypothetical political debate: Your opponent ended his rebuttal of your response to a health care question posed by the moderator with, “Are you really for free market health care knowing that children will die?” You opponent is looking at you. The moderator is looking at you. Everyone is looking at you.

You have 30 seconds to respond, not enough time to breeze through Human Action or touch on Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson. Not even time for a quick lesson in Bastiat’s unseen. No, you have to come up with a 30-second response to win the day. And your time is already counting down.

When I am feeling down because of the current political landscape, I think of the quote from North above. Change one word and you have this bit of encouragement, “He said that peculiar little anarcho-libertarian groups debate for years about the details of their odd-ball social theories, and then, almost overnight, their ideas become widely believed, and societies are restructured in terms of them.”

This is powerful. The four of us – a peculiar little group, indeed – sat by the fire discussing the details of our supposedly odd-ball social theories; the theories of free markets and liberty. And we proposed various means to realize the dream of our theories becoming widely believed once again, the guiding lights for an overnight grand restructuring of society.

It is possible that at some point in the near future, we will see liberty take hold. And we will watch societies restructure themselves without the burden of the oppressive state. However, a question arises: Will this restructuring occur due to political action?

Politics is about today; tomorrow be damned.

The politician wants to get elected and stay elected, and retire well off. He only cares about getting votes from constituents he abhors. He cares nothing of their lives, their struggles, or their successes.

In the politician’s mind, he is of the vaunted political class, and his constituents are nothing more than groundlings to be manipulated and entertained by his double entendres and rhetorical sleights of hand. So it is no wonder that heartless politicians cannot stand the sight of the little folks, those whose vote decides who gets the power and the prestige the politicians so desperately desire.

Politics is not the answer. And neither is violent force – politics by other means. This nation was conceived in the ideas of liberty. Ideas would have won the day, given time. But our Forefathers resorted to force. By doing so, they created the beginning of the state. And shortly thereafter formed the perfect union which secured the blessings of liberty for themselves alone, leaving their posterity with an ever-growing Leviathan.

So what is the answer? The answer is ideas. Ideas have consequences, which, in the long-run, trump the politics of the day.

The battle is over ideas. And as Mises so clearly stated, it is a battle we must all fight.

“Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.” Ludwig von Mises, Socialism

Back to sitting room on Jekyll Island. What was the correct response to the question posed by the socialist? The answer is simple: Say anything that promotes liberty, just be accurate and consistent. And realize that you will not win the day in the political arena. But you may inspire some members of the audience to question the status quo and seek out the truth (think Ron Paul during his presidential campaign).

The sufficient response to the socialist’s question will take more than 30 seconds. It will take time to educate members of the audience in the science of economics and the ideas of liberty. It is the great historical struggle which none of us asked for. But it is ours nonetheless. So drag anyone you can under the tent of liberty, a tent growing bigger by the day.

We will easily win political debates with the socialists (and fascist, and all the other –ists) when our odd-ball social theories of liberty are once again widely believed. In the meantime, educate, educate, educate.

Ethics and Morality: The islands of Inopia and Plenty

Ethics and Morality: the islands of Inopia and Plenty

Jim Fedako

It was late when our conversation abruptly turned from the mundane to the challenging, from breezy, passing fancies to intriguing, absorbing discussions of ethics and morality. My friend nervously glanced around and leaned forward, and began. I listened, full of amazement. His tale was fantastic and unreal. I tried to make sense of it all, as best I could.

I took him at his word, for he had always been honest before. And, oh, how his words struck me that night. As I was without pen, my recollection must rely on a memory of the evening that is jumbled at best, with sequence and specifics confounded in the mix of visions that his words etched on my mind.

So I'll repeat his story in my own words, full of the unanswered questions and unaddressed contradictions I never pushed him to explain. And I’ll let you be the judge of whether his tale was worth retelling.

The sailor awoke to the froth of the sea, his face gently licked by the warmth of the incoming tide. Slowly he moved. The pain he felt eased as his gained, first a knee, and then a foot. He rose and rubbed his face. The scene was wondrous, but not what he expected to see.

The flotsam and jetsam that were once his rig explained it all. The storm from the night before had ended his solo journey and deposited him on shore. But where?

The sailor picked through the wreckage and salvaged what little he could. He wrapped it all in a tattered shirt and began walking along the shore. Before long he noticed smoke from a not too distant fire. Turning inland he headed in its general direction.

My friend told of the sailor’s introduction to the inhabitants of the island. He told of their bitterness and sorry, of darkness in a tropical paradise. But what caught the eye of the sailor, a friend of a friend of my friend, were the signs that contrasted with demeanor of the islanders.

“Work for the state brings happiness,” read one such sign. Yet there was no happiness to be seen. Only the sight of the haggard sailor added any emotion to dower faces. Or so it seemed at first.

In the midst of despair was the occasional sparkling eye. Our sailor soon noticed that there were two classes of islanders; there were those who were forced to labor in order to find the guaranteed happiness, and there were those who exhorted the laborers with slogans and chants, wearing clothes with the same color scheme as the ubiquitous signs. And it was the latter that seemed happy in this land – the island of Inopia.

The sailor received help from the islanders. In spite of their poverty, the laborers did what they could. And once the sailor obtained some strength, he was forced to work as well.

But it wasn’t the sailor’s experiences that really drew me into the story. It was what the sailor discovered as the reason for the condition of the islanders that make this tale worth retelling.

The sailor was able to find someone who would talk, someone who could explain it all. This gentleman, advanced in age, knew the cause from its beginning.

Years ago, the island was doing fine. Sure there were hardships, but life improved by the generation. Folks worked and owned what they produced. And they owned their tools, or rented tools, as the situation warranted. It was capitalism, a burgeoning capitalistic society.

And they used their excess to help those in need. Not by force, but by their own choice. Those who were helped appreciated the assistance since they knew the sacrifice it entailed. Not everyone lived well. Some made decisions that showed they did not care to be relatively comfortable. But no one starved nor suffered from true needs.

Of course, not everyone was happy with this situation. There were those who didn’t like to labor, and there were those who envied the wealth of others. But the fabric of the society was strong enough to hold fast against threats to property and prosperity.

Oh, the malcontents schemed and envisioned a better structure of things. They saw themselves as the overseers, living off of the efforts of others. They knew that they could not simply create this dream world over the objections of those others. So they worked to slowly undermine the current way of life.

One evening some of these folks met to discuss their plans and progress. As they connived and plotted, a particularly odd one of the group rose to speak, “Let’s say that I write a tale of an island similar to ours, an island full of plenty. And let’s say that I claim this island never suffers from want. And furthermore, let’s say that I claim our island would also be a land of plenty if we only adopted the ethics and morals of such a land?”

A murmur took to the air. And it grew. Everyone liked the idea and they sent this man home to begin writing his tale.

The oddball writer succeeded and his book became widely read. His book told the tale of the land of Plenty and how those islanders answered calls for help. In this land, no one ever denied anyone who asked for anything. If a stranger asked for a loaf of bread, you gave it to him since the next time you open the pantry, the loaf would have been replaced by a new one – such is life in the land of Plenty.

In his tale, the oddball noted that one day an opposing view began to take hold. Some of the residents began to question providing for all, so they began to say no. They simply would not give to everyone who asked, in spite of things never being scarce. They just plain said, “No.” And soon they gave to no one.

This idea quickly took hold. Neighbor began to fight neighbor, and folks began to hoard and take advantage of others. Soon, things became scarce and before long shortages and suffering entered a land where plenty had ruled. Leisure gave way to labor which created a new cycle of hoarding and suffering, which in turn gave way to more labor, and on and on.

The conclusion coming from the book was that the islanders of Inopia were alienated from the land of plenty because they recognized scarcity. If the islanders would give more there would be more.

The book ignited discussions. It seems that everything was backwards. Holding onto property was the way to poverty. And despite a seemingly improving economy, the islanders of Inopia were suffering by their own system of ethics and morality.

While many accepted these new ideas, many also rebelled. And in the midst of this struggle, hidden from sight, were the agitators and their oddball writer.

As more began to accept the new ideas, they looked for leaders to show the way. They wanted to force all of their neighbors to accept as well. So they needed the power of coercion and compulsion on their side – they needed a state.

Who had the personality to lead? Who wouldn’t mind wielding the club against those who questioned the new path? Why our agitators of course.

So the island’s society was reorganized. And the theft became justice, with the agents of the state always taking their cut.

But the more that justice was applied, the less there was available for all – accept the agents state, of course. The island was getting poorer. Each year brought more despair. And each year the state asked for more. The island slowly fell into poverty, as witnessed by our sailor.

And so ends my retelling of the tale told to me that evening. It is a tale of woe and caution, and a tale for the times.

You see the folks who were taken in by the book didn’t understand that in a world of scarcity the ethics and morality of a land of plenty cannot apply. When the state takes something, it steals from the margin. Taking bread from those who saved, and giving it to those who have not, simply undoes the plans that were set in motion by the act of saving.

Yes, someone gained from that loaf of bread thieved from the pantry, but a new one does not exist when the pantry is opened again. So the saver goes wanting.

Our sailor experienced the result of a system of ethics and morality based on plenty but applied to scarcity. He survived and returned home. How, I do not recall. But he returned to share his tale with those who will listen.

I am glad that the discussion that evening turned from fancies and ended up in a better understanding of things. If only others would recognize that dreams need to inhabit the night. They are not meant to guide the day. Dream on. But do not destroy your world based on a vision of plenty that can never exist in our world of scarcity.

Great Christian Sites

Thanks to fellow bloggers RonMcK at Blessed Economist and Steve Scott at From the Pew for doing the heavy lifting on Christian issues, especially their research on biblical insights in the study of economics.

These two bloggers make it tough to write on Christian topics as they grab hold of their subjects with vigor and polish. Excellent writing. Check them out when you get the chance, you'll learn something and really enjoy yourself.

Note: In addition, Blessed Economist has an excellent blogroll that links to many other interesting and informative sites. One site of note is KingdomWatcher's series on Christian Economics.

Jealousy and Envy: The Christian and the State

A recent article of mine on LewRockwell.com -- the best-read libertarian website in the world:

Jealousy and Envy: The Christian and the State
Jim Fedako

My Fellow Christians:

I am a jealous father. As such, I will not allow the state to steal the hearts of my children. And I will not allow the state to raise them for its purposes. So I homeschool.

Am I wrong in my jealousy?

Our brother Paul was jealous, and so is our Father. I will let their words speak for them:

As Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, he is "jealous over you with godly jealousy." (2Cor. 11:2) [1]

As God spoke to Moses, "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God" (Exo. 34:14)

But they were not envious – they despised (God still despises) envy. Again, letting their words speak for them:

"Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers" (Rom. 1:29)

"Therefore, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will even do according to thine anger, and according to thine envy which thou hast used out of thy hatred against them" (Eze 35:11a )

While jealousy can be godly, we are to despise envy, always. [2]

Today we tend to use the terms jealousy and envy interchangeably. But the Bible sets those two words apart. So what is the difference between them?

According to Helmut Schoek, in his excellent book, Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour, "[T]he jealous man can never normally become a spontaneous, primary aggressor." The jealous man only seeks to protect that which he rightfully possesses from the hands of his rivals – those striving to obtain those very same assets. So the jealous man’s "mind is at rest once he knows that he is free of rivals."

The envious man expresses a more hostile set of emotions. Throughout his book, Schoek delves into the heart of the envious man. He clearly shows that set of emotions to be evil and destructive. Seductive, yes. But oh so vile.

According to Schoek, the envious man "usually knows exactly what provokes him." But the object of his envy "may actually be ignorant of his existence." The envious man wants something that is not rightfully his. And his heart is always filled with spite, as nothing, not even the destruction of the object of his envy, will set his mind to rest.

In simpler terms, the jealous man wants to keep his own possession while the envious man wants the possessions that someone else rightfully owns.

Paul and God expressed jealousy. Both sought (God still seeks) to protect hearts from their rivals – the gods of this earth. And both desired (God still desires) to see souls won for the Kingdom.

Therefore, jealousy is the favored set of emotions. It is not evil, nor is it vile. [3]

However, we are a people who have turned from jealousy toward envy. We have become the primary aggressors, using the power of the state to obtain possession of the rightful assets of others. And we many times we do this in the name of God.

So we advocate for the redistribution of wealth. We ask the state to tax those who possess more than we possess in order to fulfill (or so we think) our mission to help the poor. But, as James warns, "For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work." (Jas. 3:16)

Is that not our world today?

Paul asked, "Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?" (1Cor. 10:22)

We dare not provoke God to jealousy by turning away from Him. So why would we dare provoke jealousy in others by using the power of the gun to take from them that which is rightfully theirs And why would we invite the wrath of God on ourselves "according to thine envy?"

Many claim that stealing with a good intent (can that be possible?) is a godly action. But as Paul wrote, "Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? (Rom. 2:21)

Do we not also preach "thou shall not steal?" Turning around, do we then pull the lever on the ballot box, setting in motion various acts of theft? Do we advocate for state interventions that take from others? And do we really believe that one can only steal from those who are less fortunate than we are – as if those more fortunate can find no protection under the word of God?

When we embrace a system of envy, we also ignite the fires of sin that exist in hearts of all men. We end up pushing our fellow believers – and unbelievers – farther from the spirit of the Lord. In essence, we fan the flames of all those sins Paul noted above, including unrighteousness, wickedness, murder, deceit, etc.
Instead of winning heart for heaven, we condemn souls to our envious ways. Is this to be our epitaph?

It is time that Christians turn away from envy and embrace jealousy. We should actively keep watch over that which we hold dear – whether it is our property or the hearts of our children. And we should despise a system of government that seeks to take from one and give to another – a system of government that is both based on envy and controlled by the envious. There is nothing godly about such a system.

Notes:
1. All Bible quotes are from the King James Version, available at BibleGateWay.com – a wonderful resource.
2. In addition, the envious man may simply want the object of his envy to not be allowed to possess some asset that that man currently possesses. In essence, the envious man is willing to be harm himself as long as the object of his envy is harmed also. Ludwig von Mises called this the Fourier complex.
3. Due to his sinful nature, man can take jealousy too far and desire to hold onto his worldly possessions in lieu of his heavenly ones. But it does not follow that the state must thieve his earthly possession – it is a matter of the heart, not the possessions, that is the issue. And theft is always theft, regardless of the rationale behind it.
March 15, 2010

Jim Fedako is a homeschooling father of seven who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

Copyright © 2010 LewRockwell.com

Democracy at work

As the dramatic tragedy that is socialized health care continues to be played out before our eyes, remember that this is democracy at work.

This is the reason soldiers are dying in foreign lands -- to force democracy on the rest of the world. And what has this vaunted democracy gotten us? Socialism.

We used to be a republic based on a constrained state. But we have changed into an empire based on an ever-increasing state.

Here is what I say to all those Republicans who supported Bush's wars: Do not question the outcome of a democratic vote on health care. Because if you do, you will be turning your backs on the soldiers fighting for your beloved democracy -- the unconstrained tyranny of the majority.

For those who desire supposedly free health care: Don't come crying to me when your beloved state denies you the same.

Is this the end of the experiment in liberty that began some 235 years ago?

The healthcare junta hits Cleveland

David Zanotti of American Policy Roundtable asks, "What were you doing when America died?" That's a soul-searching question, if ever there was one.

Zanotti is referring to the day that Obama came to speak in Cleveland. In a scene reminiscent of elections in Jamaica (where I served as a Peace Corps volunteer in the early 90's), the president and his armed guard and gangs of union thugs hit the town for a scripted event.

To think there was a time when anyone could knock on the door of the White House and expect to receive a welcoming response. Of course, that was early in our Republic, before we became an empire -- an empire that is now following Rome's road to ruin.

Read Zanotti's article (below) and join him in Polaris this Tuesday (RSVP with American Policy Roundtable beforehand).

What were you doing when America died?

"As a man lives, so shall he die. As a nation falls so shall it lie…"

The motorcade sped by, a symbol of the nation at war. Instead of a single limousine with a smiling politician waving from inside, there were three identical cars. Three “Presidential Cadillacs” speeding across town surrounded by a convoy of armor. Black trucks with open windows revealed gunmen in body armor pointing weapons at the crowd. Police cars were everywhere, ambulances and emergency vehicles following close behind. Along the streets a thousand protesters shouted out as the military convoy sped by. Everywhere police were pressing the crowds into a single strip of pavement. Government cameras filmed the protestors. Union thugs walked the crowd looking to intimidate, provoke and attack.

It wasn’t a third world dictatorship. It wasn’t North Korea or Iran. This motorcade carried a man who was to make a speech in Strongsville, Ohio in the United States of America on March 15th, 2010. A man who is the President of a nation that was once free.

The speech he made that day was a symbol. He stood before an artificial crowd, bussed in to play the role of “citizens.” In reality they were political partisans summoned to support their leader. The crowd was not many more than those protesting outside in the freezing rain, far fewer than the thousands of cars that passed that line of flag waving protesters and shouted their support.

Inside the security sanctum the President pumped up the crowd. He told them a terrible story of a woman nearby who was beaten and left for dead by the horrible insurance industry and the careless doctors and hospitals of America. He spoke in a thundering voice and hushed tones working the crowd like a televangelist or talk show host. He was there because the sick woman could no longer stand to defend herself and so he summoned the partisans to attack the evil empire of America’s health care providers, insurance companies and all those foolish people standing outside in the rain. As he spoke of the need for courage to win this final battle, back in Washington D.C., his allies in the Congress began marking up another 2,500 page health care takeover bill. Their goal was to pass the bill into law in 100 hours and steamroll anyone who dared stand in their way.

Of course no one had time to read the bill. There would be no hearings, no citizen input, no chance for the evil insurance companies or doctors or hospitals to defend themselves. The President’s Crusade would suffer no resistance from those too foolish to understand. Poor women were suffering and dying and he and the Congress would now end this tragedy once and for all.

And so in a matter of days, they finished their task and broke the spine of a once honest Republic anchored in the rule of law. They trashed the Constitution and burned down the legislative barriers of common sense and protocol. They not only passed a massive restructuring of the American economy, but they did so with a bill that was never read, fully debated, or even honestly scored for economic impact. None of those things mattered. A poor woman was dying and the President had to save her and the millions like her who were suffering.

By the time the sun would set that fatal day, the truth about that poor woman would actually leak out from Northeast Ohio. She was diagnosed with cancer and cured over ten years ago. She was self-employed by choice and paying about $6000 per year for insurance premiums. When her premium costs went up over several years she chose to stop paying her premiums altogether and lost her coverage. Recently her cancer returned, she collapsed and was rushed to the hospital where she was NOT denied care. She was in the good hands of the Cleveland Clinic who assured the world they would never force her into bankruptcy or put a lien on her home. In fact, the Clinic was trying to get her into a federal medicare program and qualify her to get full support from their medical charity network as well.

No matter. The President was speeding by the protesters and the facts as well. No matter. The Democrat drones in Congress all had their talking points and votes in order. No matter about the Constitution, the rule of law, the rights of the minority, or the proper role of a limited government. No matter for the truth. The Administration had their story and they were sticking with it. The puppet Congress was doomed to follow or forfeit their career positions.

And the media, America’s “fourth estate,” followed the regime. They ignored the moms and dads and kids and veterans and grandparents standing in the freezing rain, waving their patriotic flags and begging the President and his Congressional clones to come back to the truth. They stood there on their ribbon of sidewalk, the last island of their liberty, surrounded by police. If they stepped on the grass they would be arrested. If they stepped off the curb they could get shot.

Where were you that day? That day the U.S. Congress decided to abdicate its legal authority and its conscience to a regime hell-bent to break the back of the Constitution and make an example of the once proud health care industry? Did you come to the aid of your doctor? Did you stop and pray for those evil insurance companies who were about to be impaled and dismembered by the partisans on Capitol Hill? Or did you just wait for the armored motorcade to pass by and go about your everyday life? Where were you that day? Did you even bother to watch the news?

The saddest part of this tale is that it didn’t have to be this way. The vast majority of Americans do not want a federal takeover of their health care. Sadly, that’s all they offer in this conflict- just an opinion. For the most part, Americans are just too busy doing something else to care about the fact their once great nation is dying. They are so busy doing other things they just don’t realize their liberties are evaporating. Today it is the evil doctors, insurance companies and hospitals. Tomorrow it will be the protestors. And the next day it will be all the people who were just too busy to care.

How did this happen? There are causes that go back hundreds of years to be sure. In the end, however, the people in that motorcade on March 15th represent a tiny fraction of Americans who decided a few years ago that they could dominate the American political process. They realized the rest of us had grown so comfortable and ignorant that the radical left could take over the Congress and the Courts and the White House in one generation. By the time we woke up, they would snap the Constitution to pieces and shut the books on any opposition. They layed down their lives and their incomes for their cause and they took over the nation while the vast majority of the Americans chased other things more important than good government and liberty.

Can we talk? Can I tell you the stories of the man who was too busy this year to make a contribution to the Roundtable because he was on his way to the Superbowl? How about the church whose members wanted to do a class on the American Mission® but their pastors just couldn’t find a way to fit the Roundtable project into their class schedule? How about the radio station managers who refuse to carry The Public Square® broadcast because they are afraid of potential controversy? Dare we discuss how many people have chosen to cut back their giving because “times are tough,” but still travel the world in style?

Please understand, we are not anti-prosperity or profits or lifestyle. But somewhere, somebody has to hit the wake-up button on reality. This nation is dying. Our Congress is beating the Constitution to death in the full light of day while “conservative” and “Christian” Americans are simply looking the other way as if there are no real consequences to our civil government being destroyed.

When are we going to wake up? It is NOT ENOUGH to simply TALK about the problem or listen to those who do. When was the last time you actually did something that was a sacrifice for your nation? When was the last time you spent an hour praying for America? When was the last time you gave up something you didn’t really need to invest in for the gift of Liberty? If you were one standing in the freezing rain on March 15th, we thank you. If you have given all you can, this letter should encourage you in that we are urging others to follow your lead. But if you are like most of us – we have a debt to pay.

Here is the great irony. People have no idea HOW LITTLE it actually takes to turn a nation around. We have a terrific plan now in place, called iVoters.com. We are beginning to launch this project across America this month. iVoters.com can help train and galvanize MILLIONS of Americans who care in this critical election year.

iVoters.com is a communications project utilizing radio, TV, Internet, print and major events to help Americans who care, get off the couch and into this battle. iVoters.com, fully funded in key battle ground states, will make a terrific difference and help raise up new leaders in 2010.

The entire iVoters.com project for 2010, reaching all our battleground states, carries a price tag of only 2.4 million dollars. That’s it. If every person receiving this letter today wrote a sacrificial check – we would have that money raised in a single month. Will you?

You will find the first piece of the iVoters.com strategy waiting for you online at aproundtable.org. When you log onto our home page you will find the new book, Free Agents, right there for you to read online, free of charge. If everyone reading this letter today just ordered and shared 10 COPIES of this book, we would raise $250,000 for iVoters.com TODAY!

Will you join us in spending one hour this week praying for America? We dare you to try. And when you done praying, do the right thing. There is still time – but precious little time is left. The clock is ticking, and the armored motorcade is heading to a town near you. WE NEED YOUR HELP TODAY.

For the Light of Liberty we remain,

David Zanotti

President & CEO

The American Policy Roundtable

Exhibitionists for the State

A recent article of mine on LewRockwell.com -- the best-read libertarian website in the world:

Exhibitionists for the State
Jim Fedako

On Monday night, I took two of my children to the Judge Napolitano/Ron Paul evening at the Ohio State University (a fantastic evening, by the way). During one of the segments, Napolitano asked a panel of young folks how they would respond to this common defense of the ever-more intrusive state:

Judge (paraphrased): What would you say to someone who says, "What do I care, I have nothing to hide?"

After mulling this over, if ever asked that very same question, my response is now: I do have stuff to hide. That's why I close bathroom doors, pull bedroom blinds and wear clothes. And no one (save my wife) has any business in any area I declare to be private (including my property and areas where I have contracted with others to keep my private stuff private). The state and its agents included.

Napolitano’s question is an important one. The "I have nothing to hide" response is used time and again by folks who I now see as exhibitionists – exhibitionists for the state. These folks see nothing wrong with opening their private lives to the state – they have nothing to hide.

So the very same folks who pull their blinds to keep the leering eyes of their neighbors out of their bedrooms open those very same blinds to those very same neighbors when they (their neighbors) act as agents of the state. And those folks do so as if a state badge transforms their neighbors into something other than voyeurs – as if the badge makes it all OK.

But the badge is only a sign that the power of force is standing behind the one wearing it, and leering. It should be a point of real concern, not security.

Look, if I left my bathroom door open, you would certainly think me odd. Wouldn’t you wonder why I want to expose my private matters to the world?

I could say, "Since I am not committing a crime, I have nothing to hide."

Would you buy that line? Would you simply shrug off my actions? Would you feel safer in the presence of someone so open about his peaceful intentions? Would you?

I wear clothes for a number of reasons, with protecting my privacy at the top of the list. Yet I am forced to virtual strip before ogling TSA agents as if I have nothing to hide. But that is the very reason I dressed to begin with.

I desire to hide from my neighbors acting as neighbors, as well as my neighbors acting as agents of the state. I desire to hide.

There are inane responses to questions regarding state interventions. But the "I have nothing to hide" response is the most inane of them all. You have something to hide. We all do. And what we hide is our own business – it is personal.

The next time some exhibitionist for the state claims they have nothing to hide, call them on it. And hopefully they will learn a little lesson.

March 11, 2010

Jim Fedako is a homeschooling father of seven who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

Copyright © 2010 LewRockwell.com

Is everything a matter of public safety?

Orange Township taxpayers is getting hit with the bill to remodel the kitchen at the fire station on S. Old State. And it is considered a matter of public safety. Maybe they should upgrade to flatscreens as a matter of public health. -- Jim

From the township trustees' agenda for Monday March 15, 2010

Regular Meeting (excerpt)

8) Public Safety Report
d) P.O’s:
5) Republic Builders LLC. $10,993.00: Kitchen Remodel at Station 362

Open Letter to Bill Harris and John Husted

Bill Harris is the president of the Ohio Senate. John Husted is a new state senator who was the previous Speaker of the House. -- Jim


Bill,

Since you believe the state has the right to perform Body Mass Index calculations on students and then badger their parents (S. B. No. 210), I figure you would gladly share your BMI with your constituents.

Please reply with your BMI so that I may see if you are fit enough to continue as the senate's chief nanny do-gooder (you do appear a little pudgy in your photo).

Keep in mind that the only waist you should be poking is your own.

Thanks.

Note: John, send your BMI also. It appears that your need for power is expanding with your beltline. By the way, how do you differ from the Progressives on the Left? Remind me.

Interventions upon interventions

William M. Briggs nails the nonsense of state regulations:

Now for the The Law of Unintended Consequences. Just like salmon, sea lions come in different models. Two of which are California sea lions and Stellar sea lions. California sea lions are a dime a dozen, but the Stellar sea lions, just like the chinook salmon, are blessed with the protection of the Endangered Species Act, and they are just as hungry as their cousins.

What to do? One Endangered Species is eating another Endangered Species. You can’t shoot the sea lions, and you also can’t not let them eat the salmon, but then you can’t let the salmon be eaten.

What a predicament!

Destroying the Constitution

Dear Editor:

Why limit the reach of your editorial to just the Second Amendment when there are nine more to rewrite("Rule wisely," March 7, 2010)?

To help you along, I'll write the next editorial for you (tongue in cheek).

"Anytown sits next to a troublesome suburb and absorbs their words of liberty and freedom. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court appears unlikely to step away from its activist interpretation of the First Amendment as a right held by the individual. And a ruling against Anytown repeats the idea that the right of speech applies nationwide.

A group of government officials urging the court to prevent such a travesty wisely noted that 'the First Amendment was written to protect the states from redress of its citizens' and that 'it makes no sense to incorporate the right of speech against the states.'

What is particularly disturbing are the accidental effects of free speech, especially with regard to children.

How do the justices of the nation's highest court presume to know what local speech ordinances are best for maintaining law and order on the streets of America's highly diverse cities?"

There you are. Two down and eight to go.

Sincerely,

Jim Fedako

And then there were six

Olentangy local schools are celebrating their meager six National Merit Semifinalists. Forgotten is the number of semifinalists the district used to have 12 years ago -- then a much smaller district (roughly one quarter the size) with the same number of semifinalists.

Your tax dollars at work.

Romans 13 and Anarcho-Capitalism

My latest article on LewRockwell.com -- the best-read libertarian website in the world:

Romans 13 and Anarcho-Capitalism
Jim Fedako

Consider this situation: You saved for years to go on a cruise of the Caribbean. It is not just the sights and sounds or the fun and food, it is the chance to sail the open seas. You have dreamed a sailor’s dream: to face the dare and danger of a storm racing across the open deck. And you want to hear the wind in the wires make that tattletale sound as the waves break over the railing. Yes, you want an Edmund Fitzgerald experience of sorts, but with buffets and entertainment, a warm shower and soft bed, and a happy and safe return to port.

OK. You really want to feel a slight storm blow across the deck. Nothing too scary. Just a little excitement to breakup the doldrums of suburban life.

On the evening of your second night, a storm approaches. The crew begins asking passengers to head inside for the safety of shelter. You hesitate. This is your once-in-a-lifetime cruise and your only chance to feel the power and bite of the wind and rain coming from that storm which is now creating a tiny tempest in an otherwise calm sea. You know you could easily slip past the crewmembers without detection and live that dream by the edge of the windward railing. But you are a Christian. So what should you do?

If I were in that situation, I would simply head inside. As a Christian, I am to follow the governing authorities – I am to place my obedience to God over my desires to witness the storm firsthand. The captain and his designees are responsible for protecting the lives of all onboard. I am not to resist them. They are not to be feared, nor are they a terror to good conduct. And even if I can evade their authority, for the sake of my conscience, I am to obey their instructions.

This is significant. Why? It shows that the instructions given by Paul in Romans 13 extend beyond a Christian’s interactions with the state. And it shows that the existence of government is not required to fulfill the intent of the chapter. More importantly, it shows that Christianity and anarcho-capitalism can coexist.

When I am in a store and I see a door with a sign that reads, "Employees only," I do not enter. Not because entering would break some law. I do not enter because the governing authority of that store has said that I am not to enter. And I am called to obey and not resist the authority of the store owner. Just as I am called to obey the rules of my neighbor when I am on his property or in his house.

A world without the state would never be a world without authority. Paul wrote to the Christians of Rome during the Roman Empire, the reign of the Caesars. However, since the Bible is truth through eternity, Paul’s instructions are true regardless the form of governing authority. We are to obey those who govern our various situations: my neighbor on his property, the security guard at the mall, and the shopkeeper in his store. And as God has arranged all, he has arranged matters so that each ruler is to be a minister of God, within his individual realm.

However, as Christians, no earthly law can exceed the word of God. When the two clash, God always wins. And when the governing authority extends its reach beyond its defined role, it has become an enemy of God. This is true whether the ruler is Caesar or a group of neighbors acting as the local junta that is democracy. And it is even true when the ruler is the captain of the ship or the owner of the store, or your neighbor in his backyard.

We are to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. This will also be true under anarcho-capitalism as we will have to render unto the property owner that which he is due. But we will only have to render as we see fit, based on where we chose to go.

As Christians, we are to obey the legitimate governing authority, but it does not follow that the authority must be the state. Paul’s instructions are the same no matter who is in charge. And in an anarcho-capitalist world, we would only be forced to obey the governing authorities whose properties we chose to enter.

A better world, indeed.

Jim Fedako is a homeschooling father of seven who lives in Lewis Center, OH, and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.

Copyright © 2010 LewRockwell.com