Disqus - Latest Comments for jurisnaturalist

Re: Deregulation of Television Finally Bearing Fruit for Consumers

jurisnaturalist — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:36:32 -0000

Satellite share looks somewhat static, except for a blip in 2012 (triple-play bundling perhaps?)
But would it make sense for satellite's share to diminish if rural populations remain constant while urban populations grow?

Re: Explainer: What You Should Know About the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Accord

jurisnaturalist — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 13:30:48 -0000

The TPP moves us toward free trade in many respects, but is completely unnecessary.

Included in the TPP, and any other negotiated trade agreement are myriads of loopholes and exceptions that amount to little more than rent-seeking, or attempts to influence the domestic policies of foreign nations.

Instead, the US should unilaterally open its markets to free trade and increase by an order of magnitude the quotas on immigration.

Nathanael Snow

Re: Episode 24 - Christian Nationalism

jurisnaturalist — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:56:16 -0000

A properly constrained government is one where no one would care if a Kim Davis clone held every public office.

Otherwise, we are placing too much faith on the electorate to choose wisely, and too much faith on elected officials to act according to the public interest rather their own once elected.

Of course, this will severely limit the scope of government, but there is no better solution.
For example, there is no reason for federal, state, or county governments to be involved in issuing marriage certificates. Kim Davis is bad at her job because her job should not exist.

As Christians, we ought to be taking back our country, not through elections, or other political mechanisms, but by making government programs unnecessary. For example, if Christians were industrious, frugal, and charitable, there would be more than enough surplus to care for the poor. If Christians did this, then welfare programs would have no one to help, and no reason for existing.

But Christians abdicate this responsibility when they practice Christian Nationalism.

Nathanael D. Snow
Haymarket, VA

Re: ‘Who Would Dare To Love ISIS?’

jurisnaturalist — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:40:06 -0000

Loving ISIS would have to begin with confessing the ways that Western Christians have behaved hatefully towards Muslims and toward Africans, Arabs, and Persians. I understand that this video may have come from the Chinese church, so it is understandable that the confession is not the starting place. This is a beautiful video.

Re: Experimental Theology: Unstoppable Love?

jurisnaturalist — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:22:33 -0000

Should songs sung corporately use the first person? Shouldn't we sing "God, You pursue *us*?"
Shouldn't we change many of the "You"'s to "Jesus"'s?

Re: Episode 10 - Sanctification, Miracles, and the Science of Why Jesus Told Stories

jurisnaturalist — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:37:32 -0000

Miracles were taken by Richard Whately to be an evidence of Christianity that should be shared with others. On the other hand, John Newman saw miracles as a way to have internal assurance. The question is more about apologetics Christianity as compared to an existentialist Christianity. Why miracles?
I think, more than anything else, miracles prove the hardness of hearts. See Matthew 11:20-24. Maybe miracles are especially good for those who allow themselves to be the vehicle for the Holy Spirit and experience that joy.

Re: Experimental Theology: Saint Darwin

jurisnaturalist — Thu, 03 Jul 2014 01:24:55 -0000

Here is a different perspective. Darwin's morality was about whether a person had the capacity of foresight. http://www.econlib.org/libr...

Re: Why Don’t Libertarians Care About the Establishment of Religion?

jurisnaturalist — Sun, 18 May 2014 19:49:14 -0000

What if the establishment clause was accepted primarily because it would help to protect religion from politics? That is, what if involvement in politics has a corrupting influence on religion, and desiring to establish a constitutional constraint against that happening religious people behind a veil of ignorance would prefer that their religions not get destroyed by political involvement?

Re: Christian Pacifism but not Christian Libertarianism?

jurisnaturalist — Fri, 02 May 2014 11:10:53 -0000

I've engaged in conversation with even further left Christian pacifists. Mark Van Steewyk has a good book on Christian Anarchism.

To take Yoder to James Buchanan instead of to Zizek is the task at hand. The problem is that Ph.D.s in Theology are just now getting to Hegel - Marx - Zizek. See the work of Professor Creston Davis (whom I worked with as a missionary before turning to Economics).

Hegel-Marx-Zizek is ultimately not a tractable framework for explaining history and what amounts to rent-seeking stories. Virginia Political Economy can do the job.

But Christian-dom has no desire to become pacifist. Evangelicalism is getting cozy with Catholicism in order to make the tent of Christian-dom bigger. The goal remains the same as at the outset of evangelicalism surrounding the issue of Abolitionism in Great Britain: Use a politically expressive issue to capture the median voter within your coalition and then you will have influence over the legislature.

This is what evangelicals are doing now in the major flip-flop on immigration and the zealousness over sex trafficking.

Nathanael Snow
GMU Econ, Ph.D. Student

Re: Christian Pacifism but not Christian Libertarianism?

jurisnaturalist — Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:28:41 -0000

I've sat in the classroom with both Stanley Hauerwas and James Buchanan. I don't know if anyone else can claim to have done that. I don't know many who might want to.

The Hauerwasian - Yoderian approach to theology simply is not informed about public choice. Hauerwas's pacifism is not only mostly right, but also quite influential. The real problem is that Theology is slow on the uptake, and is only recently getting to Marx.

Many in the Hauerwas camp are reaching back to Hegel, frequently through Zizek (my friend Creston Davis, for example, or David Fitch). They are right to want to do political theology. Roger Congleton once told me that many Public Choice readings of history tell similar stories as Marxist readings. Both are a critique of power structures. Public Choice is tractable, Zizek, Marx, and Hegel are not.

Hauerwasian theology has taken a bad methodological turn. Perhaps in due time, with folks like Anthony Bradley, Anne Bradley, and me? this can be remedied.

Re: “Christian-Libertarianism” Is Oxymoronic

jurisnaturalist — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:20:38 -0000

Christian Libertarianism might simply mean that the use of the state to constrain the behavior of individuals cannot be successful. Instead, Christians must provide themselves as the vehicle for improving the world. The vehicle of the Holy Spirit, that is. The Christian Libertarian believes that the state can do what it will, but that it will not correct injustices conclusively. Every state reform is captured by special interests, which in turn breed new injustices. Only personal sacrificial altruism ends cycles of injustices. This is what Jesus demonstrated and bade us to join Him in.
Libertarianism just means rejection of the state as a means of doing good.
Christianity means taking up one's cross and following Jesus, recognizing that you are His chosen vessel for achieving His decrees, not the state.
Rejection of Christian Libertarianism is to put one's faith in collective action, to take up power and assume that one won't be corrupted by it, to foist responsibilities on others rather than see them through oneself. This is true for Christian Conservatism and Christian Liberalism alike.
Collective action is a problem without a solution, outside of the church. Power corrupts. Authoritarianism, paternalism, and hierarchy are cowardice.
Its Christian Libertarianism for me.
Nathanael Snow

Re: Ask an Open Theist (Greg Boyd)….

jurisnaturalist — Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:34:28 -0000

I guess this set of ideas derives partly from my exposure to Hauerwas, Yoder, Cavey, Boyd, and Van Steenwyk, and partly from my work in Political Economy. Public Choice Economics and Constitutional Political Economy have some tendencies toward anarchism, mostly because the analysis of these disciplines demonstrates the near-futility of reform efforts. Any reform we enact is likely to either be captured by special interest groups or unjustly over-punish the privileged class.
Thus far on my journey I find that only voluntary sacrificial altruism imitates Christ in a way that both rescues the oppressed and redeems the oppressor. There is only one collective approach that works, and that is action by the church operating under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
All governmental forms are a fail.
Nathanael Snow

Re: Ask an Open Theist (Greg Boyd)….

jurisnaturalist — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:02:17 -0000

Greg,
I know you are working on an explanation of Old Testament violence, and have written previously on this. I've been wondering lately whether we should read the Old Testament as a narrative description of the following sort.
God recognizes the need for redemption and reconciliation with His fallen creation. But more than that, He wants it to be clearly understood that the redemptive and reconciling act He will perform is absolutely necessary. Furthermore, the approach He will call us into with Him is peculiar.
God lays out all of the possible approaches *we* might think of for reconciling the world to itself. All of the solutions we might conceive for fixing the human disease.
First we have the nuclear option: destroy the world as we know it and start over afresh. Keep just what we think we need. He sends a flood.
Then there is the one-world-government model. But that model was so weak that a simple confusion of language brought it down.
Having a unique chosen family with extra blessings didn't work.
400 years of slavery that developed deep institutional solidarity crumbled the moment the bread ran out.
Direct God delivered law was insufficient.
International conquest disappointed.
A system of loosely federated tribes with an independent ruling judiciary was not successful, though maybe the best things ever got.
Divine Right Hierarchical Absolute Monarchy failed.
Separation of powers among prophetic, priestly, and royal branches was broke down.
Miracle performing mystics went unheeded.
Exile the second time generated solidarity in a great tradition, but one that was always backwards-looking, longing for a romanticized Davidic era that never actually was.
Jerusalem the city-state after exile never really became independent.
Even a long period of silence did not work.
What was required was the death of God. He knew it all along. But He provided the narrative as a warning, a warning not to mix the new wine with old wineskins. None of those other approaches was successful. God was not failing. He was teaching us that only sacrifice succeeds.
But we did not learn the lesson. We are trying to avoid sacrifice. We hide ourselves from joy.

Re: Will Private Charity Be Enough?

jurisnaturalist — Mon, 16 Dec 2013 15:06:25 -0000

The relevant comparison is not whether private charity would be sufficient to meet the needs of everyone in poverty, but whether it would do better than government welfare.
There simply is no way to help everyone in need. It won't happen, and that Nirvana should not even be considered when comparing the alternatives. The "gotta save them all" motive is nice, but immediately subject to all of the collective action and knowledge problems that have been covered here.
How much of the motive to care for those in need through collective action is due to a desire to treat the poor as "others," as subjects rather than individuals. There is a failure to adopt analytical egalitarian analysis that removes those in need from being objects of sympathy and places them in the same category as animals that must be "husbanded," or "homesteaded," as some libertarians would say.
Sympathy cannot be imposed.

Re: From Too Big to Fail to Too Big to Flourish

jurisnaturalist — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:00:28 -0000

FYI, there is a free pdf of A Humane Economy available online.

Re: Disrupting the Cable TV model?

jurisnaturalist — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:39:06 -0000

There is a sample selection error here, because people who are online are more likely to watch TV online. In particular people who respond to online surveys are more likely to watch TV online. The FCC reports that less than 5% of all TV viewing is web-based streaming. People watch a lot of TV on TV.

Re: Don’t Fight for Liberty

jurisnaturalist — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 21:07:53 -0000

Forsake all other loves and follow Me. That includes Church, State, and Republic. All of which are abstract concepts, with the possible exception of Church, as the body of Christ. But State certainly is abstract, and rightly to be forsaken. But for what? Robespierre may have chosen his own reason. Hubris. Republic is to be forsaken for it does not, cannot, deliver on its promises. The monster cannot be contained. Love is not contractual, but covenantal, and only rightly understood in concrete action. Sacrifice then is love. Sacrifice beyond reason, and in imitation of Him who teaches us what sacrifice means. And it never requires a fight.

Re: Should Christians Wield Power?

jurisnaturalist — Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:25:52 -0000

The concept of "power" and how Christians should talk about it is nebulous, and there is relatively little agreement. When Hauerwas and Walter Wink start to include in "powers and principalities" things peculiar to voluntary transaction-type markets, I think they go awry. Because markets create wealth, and often wealth that gets distributed unequally, markets are viewed with suspicion. But that's because a large centralized state is taken as a given. Wealth cannot affect power-over state based systematic injustice if the state is properly constrained in size and scope. The problem is that the state is vulnerable to influence from wealthy individuals, seeking to become "crony capitalists" by capturing privileges within the marketplace granted by the state. If the state were so constrained that it could not grant such privileges, then crony capitalism would die away and the market would cease to be a locus of power-over. The market as a nexus of voluntary transactions might make some interactions less personal, but that usually would work to reduce power inequalities.

Christian involvement in politics has largely worked to expand the size and scope of the state, and in so doing the church has abdicated its peculiar mandates. We fooled ourselves into believing that America was a Christian nation. This became justification for pursuing the mandates of the gospel through the state. We thus lost our peculiarity, and our saltiness.

I don't think that power should be used by Christians to do good in the world. I think if we imitate Christ we lay down our "crowns," our power, and learn submission, achieving the mandates of the gospel through personal sacrifice. We should not work to make abortion illegal, we should adopt babies, and take care of mothers. Our willingness to sacrifice from our own resources demonstrates in real terms what the worth of that baby is to us. Talk is cheap, and legislation is cheaper. It imposes the costs of our peculiar ethic on others. We ought to bear the full weight of that peculiar ethic for ourselves and for others.

But what are we actually to do? Submission and attention to the Holy Spirit individually and communally are our guides. Just as Jesus only did as he saw his father in heaven doing, we also are only to engage in submission to the Holy Spirit. We need not be concerned with "healing them all" or "rescuing all the lost." He is sovereign over the suffering of his innocents. Notice whose innocents they are. His not ours. We are simply to be obedient. This recognizes God's sovereignty (Piper) and prevents us from justifying means in order to accomplish ends (this is the fatal error of progressive theology - Wallis, Sojourners, etc.).

Inasmuch as Christians enjoy privileges we ought to abdicate
them whenever possible. I think we might want to abandon the civil marriage
license, for starters. Christians need to become committed members of
communities. In one sense this might prohibit church-hopping (and this may
explain some of the movement of millenials toward catholicism) and treating church like a consumptive activity. In another sense Christians might want to be more ecumenical, recognizing that their baptism binds them to the entire body of
Christ and not just the local congregation or the denomination, etc..

Practically speaking, Christians can avoid office politics, always be straightforward in their dealings. Never apply for business privileges from the state. This might include not applying for Patents or Copyright in addition to not applying for business tax favors from local governments! We can be present among those who are suffering.

Inasmuch as I cannot abdicate some of my privileges, the fact that I am white and male and well educated, for instance, I must never take advantage of those privileges in ways that harm others.

The appropriate use of power for the Christian is the same as the appropriate use of fasting, as recorded in Isaiah. When we let the power of the Holy Spirit flow through us, the orgasmic rush we experience as he uses us as his vessel is joy. That reward is the ultimate reward, it is the crown, it is what we live for, and what we are willing to die for. In this life joy is all that remains for the believer. And it is greater than all human motivations. It makes us appreciate our human relationships for what they are, opportunities to exercise stewardship and to reflect God's love for the world and his church. This is the only power that a Christian should touch. It is pure. It is participating in the ongoing creative work of God our Father through Christ Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Re: Who Said It?

jurisnaturalist — Sat, 12 Oct 2013 10:36:23 -0000

David Levy points out this passage in his History of Economic Thought course. Among the most interesting things to note is that this is the only instance of the phrase "just liberty" in all of Smith's corpus. One's own labor is the source of "just liberty" and restrictions on the sale of one's own labor are therefore the most unjust form of intervention in markets.
Nathan Snow

Re: Why people vote for what they don’t want (The Abilene Paradox)

jurisnaturalist — Fri, 13 Sep 2013 07:44:11 -0000

Perhaps the presence of an Abeline Paradox is a good indication that the decisions or action ought not to be made at the collective level, but rather at the individual level, or at least perhaps at a less centralized level. If a high committee is trying to make a decision about something and the Abeline Paradox emerges it is likely that those voting don't know enough of the relevant facts and circumstances to motivate opposition. The absence of knowledge is a good indicator that the decision should be delegated to people who do have the relevant knowledge.

Re: Experimental Theology: Racial Segregation in America

jurisnaturalist — Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:41:05 -0000

Thomas Schelling in "Micromotives and Macrobehavior" explains this phenomenon. People don't need to be racist for the separation we observe to occur. Rather, if people have a ever so slight preference to live among others similar to them, we see the same results.

Re: Is It Always Wrong for a Christian to Use Violence?

jurisnaturalist — Sat, 24 Aug 2013 11:27:29 -0000

There is a question of office neglected here, and a question of direction by the Holy Spirit. Suppose I were to intervene in a case where I did not know the attackers or the victim. How could I be sure that the victim was not more dangerous than the attackers? What if he were to escape only to run off and commit a murder? The problem is that by intervening into a situation where I do not know the particulars I may do more harm than good.
I used to be a teacher at a private school in the ghetto. I would often have to break up fights. One day, after an unusual number of fights I was walking into a Wal-Mart. There was a fight going on between two men. I jumped in to try to break up the fight by pulling one man off the other. But the man I jumped on turned out to be a police officer, and the other a criminal. Other bystanders who knew more about the particulars of the situation pulled me off the officer. I got off with a warning after explaining myself.
But what if it were my child, or someone whom I had stewardship over? Then I would apply the useful just war principles. I would use force, only sufficient to end the violence toward the one entrusted to my care, sufficient to repel the attackers, but not getting into the territory of vengeance or retaliation.
In the second case, i should get involved. In the first I should not. But there is an exception to the first case. If the Holy Spirit specifically directs me to intervene in a situation I may. This requires the most sensitive discernment. It is too easy to make a mistake.
Violence still should remain a final option. The first option is to volunteer oneself as the object of violence in place of the innocent one. This is more exactly what Jesus did for us.

Re: Seeking the Peace by Educating Children

jurisnaturalist — Sat, 17 Aug 2013 07:25:15 -0000

I said "sometimes", so the assumption isn't "only". I'm going from experience here, not theory, so it is messy. Have you not observed this phenomenon?
The ministry I was a part of ( a boarding school) was founded and led by a white woman. We have a very hard time getting support or volunteers from black churches. Why?
I don't think whites need to take the lead. I think that falls right into the Hayek-Coyne model of goo-dooderism.

Re: Seeking the Peace by Educating Children

jurisnaturalist — Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:26:06 -0000

I'm completely on-board with this, but I have a question, which you've heard before.
Sometimes whites get involved in inner-city missions (schools, tutoring services, etc). Sometimes they found, organize, and staff these missions. But it seems that when someone white is at the helm black churches become reluctant to support such works. I think this is understandable. Too often goo-dooders sweep in with little or know knowledge of the specifics of time and place (Hayek - Coyne), with their own agendas, and do more harm than good. The clear solution would be for white congregations to join with local congregations with the relevant knowledge. But political differences make this difficult. What are your thoughts?

Re: Does Legalizing Prostitution Reduce Child Sex Slavery?

jurisnaturalist — Thu, 08 Aug 2013 21:29:29 -0000

Dr. Boudreaux does not assume that child prostitution and adult prostitution are perfect substitutes. But you do assume that in no case are they ever substitutes. That's bad economics on two counts. Finally, asserting that legalization can not reduce the problem does not prove that prohibition will.