Definition of Conswervatism

Conswervative: a 'conservative' who, for the sake of personal and party electability (at all hazards) rejects Ronald Reagan's three-legged stool of conservatism based on a) free enterprise, b) strong national defense, and c) pro-family social policies.  Conswervatives have turned Reagan's stool upside down, removed two of its legs, national defense and social conservatism, and offer Americans a seat on the one upturned leg, fiscal responsibility, that they still affect to conserve.  For example, What principles were ever conserved by deviants and deviance?  Electability does not, however, account for Judge Richard Posner's conswervatism.  The writings and rulings of this most cited of America's legal scholars reveal that all he has conserved is the law of the pack--not a Judeo-Christian basis for morality and law as contemplated by the United States Constitution . 

Dimension-less Politics

The delay of the Keystone Pipeline is not something that "anyone can reasonably justify", according to eleven Democratic Senators.  The media and the White House have sought to justify the delay on political grounds.  But is the outcome of a mid-term election really of graver consequence to America's interest than energy independence in America, 40,000 new jobs, immediately eliminating existing environmental hazards and excess carbon emissions associated with the rail and road transport of oil, and amity with allies like Canada and Europe (Europe needs the oil now but China would construct a pipeline across Canada to get it)?  Should America's national interest be hostage to politics?  Proportion-less politics (totalitarianism) always puts party and purges before the prosperity and interest of the people--but it was never satisfactory for demagogues, even under isms like Maoism or Stalinism, to use politics as the sole justification for sacrificing the interests of the populace.

Speech Crime In America?

Racism is repugnant.  But there is no such thing as speech crime or thought crime under the Constitution of the United States.  And for good reason.  To enforce speech crime or thought crime, government must intrude into one's mind to ascertain the color of his private thoughts and words.  As it rejects an objective moral standard, how could government discriminate blackness or whiteness of thought or word in individuals--and effect justice?  How lengthy, how lavish would be the prohibitions of law?  And what would enforcement cost us all?  In relative terms, it is far more reprehensible to make speech or thought a crime than it is to allow a racist or bigot to speak or think.  When speech is free, the truth emerges and ultimately prevails.  When it is not, falsehood smothers all humanity.  While racism is repugnant, it is distortionate and deleterious to Constitutional rights for our news media to treat it as speech crime or thought crime.

Hostiles Will Comprehend It--You Just Need To Change?

Changes that inculcate the perspective and values of a hostile alien species might help Americans understand why progressives (ie. those in control of the Presidency and the Senate) are:

• against the Keystone pipeline that would conduce to energy independence in America,
• dismantling the Monroe Doctrine that has kept the two American continents secure,
• disarming the military to levels not seen since before the World Wars,
• militarizing local and state police and federal regulators to unprecedented levels,
• seeking to disarm the populace with gun control measures,
• transforming the economy to a planned administration using Obamacare,
• not reigning in expenditures even though the current amount of federal liability (debt plus unfunded liabilities) is about $450,000 per U.S. citizen, 
• multiplying taxes with Obamacare,
• eliminating individual choice with Obamacare,
• spying on Americans (ie. NSA),
• quelling free speech with a weaponized IRS (and other agencies),
• refusing to respond to Congressional subpoenas and findings of contempt,
• referring to assembled, outspoken Americans as “domestic terrorists”,
• disregarding the law as its very executors,
• setting at naught the popular and legislative will regarding gay marriage.

Hostiles and progressives will understand this.  You just need to change?

Plaintiff, Judge, Jury, Executioner?

Without due process, Cliven Bundy of Nevada was just convicted of something by Harry Reid in the court of his own mind:  "Well, it's not over. We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it's not over".  On Mr. Reid's conviction, Mr. Bundy and his compatriots cannot just walk away--perhaps they might only crawl away or come away in cuffs?  Apparently, violations of law vex Mr. Reid when they are undertaken by the "American people" but what if they arise from the law's executors?

Mr. Reid's son, Rory Reid described the progressive method of prosecution that will yield a wished-for verdict against Mr. Bundy:  "if state and local prosecutors look at this more closely, they’re going to find that (Mr. Bundy) broke the law".  Note that there were about 200 federal agents--that's about 200 more than we have on the ground in Ukraine or Iraq--focusing, not on murderers or rapists or illegal immigrants, but on Mr. Bundy's dissidence toward creeping federalism.  If Mr. Bundy's guilt was a foregone conclusion to anyone other than the Reids (who, by the way, have or had financial interests in the form of foreign solar power investments nearby), why wasn't a warrant for Mr. Bundy's arrest served?  There were, after all, more than enough federal agents present to serve it.

And how closely do investigators need to look to find that Mr. Bundy broke a law--any law?  If 200 can't discover an instance, perhaps 2,000 might?  To look for anything under magnification is distortionate: to the straining, unblinking, omnipresent eye (ie. the NSA's), an awaited instance of infraction will appear, however ephemerally; as one zooms in, the forest is lost in the trees; under extreme magnification, what is a person may be mistaken for an insect--transforming a candidate for one's charity into a candidate for extermination.  Perspective is paramount--especially to law and governance:  otherwise, 200 armed federal agents might be assigned, uneconomically, to a cattle trespass--even as paroled serial offenders commit murder-rapes and even as drugs, guns, and humans are in traffic at America's open borders.  Politics that are all-permeating (this is totalitarianism) are pernicious to true perspective.  When what is political grows proportion-less, reason, expression, truth, and charity--in other words, humanity--must wilt in its shade.

If it's "not over", why did BLM agents skulk away from a daylight, public confrontation arising from their own confiscation?  If it's "not over", when will it end?  Will it become a grudge match between the federal government and a private citizen characterized by cumulation, escalation, retribution, and ultimately bloodshed?  If it's "not over", how will it end?  If not face-to-face, in the daylight, among droves of witnesses, perhaps the score might be bravely settled after the private partisans disband--under a veil of darkness, veniality, and federal tyranny?  Do you, Mr. Reid, wear your sunglasses at night--that is, as night is ushered and ushering into America?

Ukraine, THE Theater and Museum of World War II

For America, the central question of the Ukraine crisis is not whether Russia can be made to disgorge Crimea but whether Europe can be kept allied on issues pertinent to the Middle East or even pertinent to Europe as Americans understand them.  Unfortunately, some of our presumed European 'allies' are completely dependent on Russia for gas.  Is it reasonable to expect them to live in austere conditions like those prevailing during the 19th century for several years (life without fossil fuels was characteristic of the 19th century) to support our agenda in the Middle East or even in Europe?  Would they be 'cowards' to pursue their own interest which now diverges from ours?  Unfortunately, it is probable that the central question of the Ukraine crisis was decided several years ago by United States military and energy policy.  For example, what ever happened to Ukraine's nuclear deterrent?

Abraham Lincoln, Conspiracy Theorist

Contrary to popular media, Abraham Lincoln was not a vampire.  But the historical record will reveal that he was a conspiracy theorist.

"If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it", Abraham Lincoln once advised.  Mr. Lincoln cited many curious correlations, he called them "facts.....dark and mysterious" between events then conducing to the extension of slavery.  And then observed, "We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen.....and we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few --not omitting even scaffolding--or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such a piece in--in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe.....(collaborators) worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first lick was struck."  A House Divided: Speech Delivered by Abraham Lincoln at the Republican State Convention, June 16, 1858

What "timbers" would Mr. Lincoln observe in society today?  For example, would he observe "timbers" a) in judicial contempt for the will of people expressed in redefinitions of marriage in the Union's most conservative states (ie. Utah, Oklahoma, and Texas), b) in a veritable flood of federal verdicts--an unbroken string of victories--in favor of gay marriage (overturning populist laws and constitutions), c) in delayed stays by appeals courts that withdrew legal recognition of gay marriages only after marriage certificates were already issued, d) in the lack of outrage by the now unmarried-married over this legal hinterland created by federal courts, e) in curious appeals by gay-married victors at law (in at least three states) to the Supreme Court to hazard anew their newfound matrimonial bliss for nameless others to renovate marriage in favor of one to two percent of America's population and to redefine law and justice away from Judeo-Christian morality for the other 300 million of us, f) and now in Supreme Court stays that federalize this issue?  These timbers are crooked.  They invert and bend reason.  They don't fit the foundation and structure of America.  So, what is being built?  Why are these being cast upon our common house so hastily and so helter-skelter?  Won't that fell the house that is America?  As an occupant, can you hear the creaking?

For more on this topic, see the post entitled "The Anti-Diversity Agenda" at whoseman.blogspot.com.

The Foremost and First Amendment

The earlier ratification of the First Amendment relative to the Fourteenth Amendment establishes its primacy in the United States Constitution.  The first ten Amendments (the Bill of Rights) became part of the American social contract on December 15, 1791; the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified after the Civil War (on July 9, 1868).  Only an irrational, only an ill-intentioned person or court could be confused and confounded by this native logic: while the equal protection of the laws is essential as enumerated by the Fourteenth Amendment, freedom of religion and speech were first and are foremost..

Six Californias Plan

Six Californias would add ten more United States Senators from the existing State of California at a time when the American people are about to sack the Senators who supported Obamacare's excess.  Purpose:  to prevent a conservative-majority in the United States Senate?

Notional National Morality

C.S. Lewis once observed that, "human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it" (Mere Christianity).  This idea persists today.  We hear it expressed anew every time anyone uses terms like “good” or “bad” or “productive” or “counterproductive”.  To use these terms, one must have in mind some standard of relativity, of relevance, of rightness.  And unless one is a nihilist or a narcissist, one must acknowledge some arbiter of one’s standard:  a philosophy, a god, or a throng.  Otherwise, one’s “good” or “bad” is just one’s prejudice—it is a notional standard of self, for self—it has no value for society at large.

In fact, it is adverse to society—this notional standard of morality—the self.  It is adverse to society because it acknowledges no authority as superior to the self.  This standard is harmless enough when it appears in the form of a self-deifying delusionary.  After some psychiatric diagnosis, an egocentric like that might be confined to a straight jacket.  But what if much of society became afflicted with this autonomy--the standard of the self for its morals?  And was not sensible that this standard springs from the id—that subconscious part of the psyche from which the instincts spring?  And had a teen-like regard for and understanding of moral authority and antiquity? 

Society would have no bearings, no moorings, no inhibitions, and no real basis for law.  Adrift, it might hazard any harbor—just for the sake of change.  Its crew would be in a constant state of mutiny—against all authority and against every check on self and gain.  Consequently, nothing would be secure—especially a destination.  This mob would need to be mastered in order to sail.  For a time, hopes, dreams, personal gain, or a promised land might actuate the crew to cooperate.  But some of the crew might tack for the safety of a familiar and forsaken harbor or reject the new destination as a fall or a fiction.  And thus, divide the ship.  To preserve a unity, to quell mutiny, while at the same time rejecting the morality and moorings of the past, unable to accept or appeal to any commonly cognizable authority—except the eventual use of force by mobs—its masters would make this their resort.  What was moored (ie. to objective morality), they would cast overboard; their opponents (ie. truth) would be made to walk the plank.  The “goodness” of their destination, the masters would moralize (without a standard for goodness) will justify this journey away from the past—and all of its sacrifices human and otherwise.  But after all of the sailing and sacrifices, the destination would be familiar.  It would be similar to the destination at which the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia actually arrived:  a sickening shipwreck of society.

A notional, national morality will not do to avert a shipwreck in America.  Our law depends on moral judgments and on an objective, fixed code (ie. the Constitution).  Amorality does not recognize and will not render justice.  And immorality will confound it.  If morality is notional, there is no basis for justice under law.  And without a rule of law, nothing is secure—even your person.  Today, we might agree about basic human rights and what is heinous behavior towards humanity.  But will we tomorrow?  And so, invariably, we moralize.  And raise our voices.  Louder.  But who will be the arbiter of right:  the rule of law?  The louder?  The stronger?  The most violent?

Freedom = Virtue

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.  As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

- Benjamin Franklin


"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

- John Adams

Can Justice be Meted absent any Measures?

"where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of moral and religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?"

George Washington, Farewell Address

Salvation by the People, for the People, of the People?

Salvation and security.  It is our common and chiefest pursuit: to be secure--to be saved.  We seek to be spared scarcity, age, disease, death, hazard, hell, insignificance, and etc.  When our own strength won’t carry us fast enough to overtake salvation, we hitch a ride in its direction with others, or wait for it, watchfully.  We only differ as to ends: salvation from what?  And differ as to means: salvation by what means?

In 1993, in a National Bestseller, Peter Drucker, a prodigious analyst, recorded and reiterated what he considered to be a self-evident observation about salvation:

"The bankruptcy--moral, political, economic--of Marxism and the collapse of the Communist regimes were not 'The End of History' (as a widely publicized 1989 article entitled The End of History proclaimed).....But the events of 1989 and 1990 were more than just the end of an era; they signified the end of one kind of history.  The collapse of Marxism and of Communism brought to a close two hundred and fifty years that were dominated by a secular religion--I have called it the belief in salvation by society.....Communism collapsed as an economic system.  Instead of creating wealth, it created misery.  Instead of creating economic equality, it created a nomenklatura of functionaries enjoying unprecedented economic privileges.  But as a creed, Marxism collapsed because it did not succeed in creating the 'New Man.'  Instead, it brought out and strengthened all the worst in the 'Old Adam': corruption, greed, and lust for power; envy and mutual distrust; petty tyranny and secretiveness; lying, stealing, denunciation, and, above all, cynicism.....But surely the collapse of Marxism as a creed signifies the end of the belief in salvation by society".

If the belief in salvation by society was so evidently bankrupt in 1990 to an observer as astute and as mainstream as Peter Drucker, why do some still look to government as if it was the last best hope for salvation?  How is this stinking siren, salvation by society, still sounding?  Who exhumed her?  And who is huffing on the cold, dry box that was her voice--to again hear and sound her sorry song?  Who would follow these pied huffers?  Are they deluded by the falsity of her defunct ideals--ideals that ultimately realized an equality of misery only?  Perhaps they prefer to spare themselves and others happiness--to be saved from happiness?  Or, in her song, do they hear the promise of self-aggrandizement by force--of personal salvation in spite of and at the expense of others?

The Creepy and Creeping Definition of a Bench Warrant

Recently, my daughter, a college student, was arrested for failure to appear in court to answer for a speeding ticket she got over a year ago.  Her sister posted bail or she would have spent time in jail.

Today, a Bench Warrant is a common order that a judge (or group of judges) issues to the police with the purpose of effecting a person's arrest.  The person to be arrested is then subject to forcible seizure and/or detention by the police.  Generally, a Bench Warrant is issued for contempt of the court by a judge on the testimony of a police officer.

Time has changed this definition—and for the worst.  In American history, a Bench Warrant might be issued for contempt--after one was indicted by a grand jury for a serious crime.  But a Bench Warrant would not be issued for contempt as affirmed only by a policeman or judge or individual for a mere infraction.  A Law Dictionary (A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States) published in 1856 by John Bouvier, defines Bench Warrant as follows:  “  A true bill is the result of an indictment by a grand jury convened to consider evidence and acting as a majority. 

If A Law Dictionary, was “Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States”, it is reasonable to inquire as to what today’s definition of a Bench Warrant is adapted?  Is today’s definition, for example, adapted to the Constitution of the United States?  Or, instead, may it be adapted to a particular judge’s or police officer’s caprices?  In other words, does today’s definition of a Bench Warrant sustain a rule of law?

The Constitution struck a balance between security and liberty.  The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States asserts that “No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”  In other words, a warrant is required, supported by witness, and must describe the place to be searched and person or things to be seized.  It is interesting to note that the police officer who arrested my daughter did not present a warrant describing the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.

Recognizing the threat that government posed to individual liberty, the Fifth Amendment augmented the protection of accused individuals.  Under the Fifth Amendment, a person cannot be arrested and tried for a serious crime unless a grand jury indicts the accused; and “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  It is self-evident that “due process of law” is something other than forcible seizure and/or detention on the order and/or testimony of one individual (ie. a policeman and/or a judge).

The creepy and creeping modern definition of a Bench Warrant reveals that the Constitutional balance between security and liberty has been revisited and revised by case law, by administrative law, and by legislators—to the detriment of the rule of law.  Government has erred in favor of security and against individual liberty.

I hope America re-enthrones the rule of law as defined by the Constitution of the United States before someone decides on a whim to arrest me for contempt in writing.

Anathematization of Truth and Goodness (God)

Totalitarianism: pervasive control by the state of all things including the thoughts and acts of individuals.  Benito Mussolini defined it this way: "everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

But surely its menace existed only elsewhen? And elsewhere?

Totalitarianism has been thoroughly tested as an alternative to the rule of law.  It was ruinous to the peoples and countries who tested it (ie. Cambodia, the Soviet Russia, and Nazi Germany).

For this reason, it is troubling that recently, its methods appear in America: in NSA espionage, in political profiling by the IRS, in coordinated militarization of law enforcement, in nationalization of the health care market, in media bias, in efforts to disarm the populace, in intolerance for political opinions, and etc.

Totalitarianism seeps into and subverts all of civil society.  It makes itself the capricious code of everything.  It becomes the internet of ideas:  history.gov, education.gov, healthcare.gov, news.gov, transportation.gov, science.gov, art.gov, money.gov, politics.gov, love.gov, religion.gov, and etc.  What share of our billboards now bear this or a related suffix:  .gov (ie. .state)?  It becomes the monopolist of markets.  It sets itself up as the dispensary of jobs and opportunities, property, education, recognition, and etc.  It bends laws, truth, and information to its cause.

It defines goodness and truth and salvation:  it cannot tolerate diverse definitions of goodness and truth or evil and falsehood dictated by individual conscience.  So it rewrites history.  And burns books.  And subdues conscience.  And reforms god and goodness in its own image.  And casts down all other gods before it.  And relates sin to rebellion against itself and evil to every form of opposition to its oppressive unity.  And offers salvation on its own terms--however benightedly.

Under its heavy hand, every decision, expression, and act--public or private--has political ramifications up to and including execution.

In a totalitarian state, those who preserve or enhance their privileges and property are those who promote the state and pay servile obeisance to it.  For example, in Nazi Germany, to preserve their privileges, most of the priests genuflected to the Nazis--even on theological issues.  After many compromises, the Reich church became little more than an extension of the Nazi party--offering what it represented to be God's salvation on Nazi terms.

While those who pay obeisance to the state advance, those who influence the public's opinion against the deceits and deceivers of totalitarianism are stripped of influence and anathematized.*  For example, theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer was imprisoned and eventually executed for his refusal to genuflect to the Nazis regarding theology.

If your belief in divine omniscience keeps you from obeisance to human omniscience, in a totalitarian state, you may be a subject for anathematization.*  But would you have a fallible, totalitarian state be your god?

*Anathematization suggests total condemnation of a person by all society.  The Nazis anathematized the Jews.  The effect of anathematization was religious, economic, political, social, and etc.  In history, the Soviet and Nazi secret police effected anathematization by confiscations (forced impoverishment and dependency), prohibitions on expression and assembly, social alienation, professional condemnations (ie. psychiatric), criminalization, and etc.  The fear and cowardice of the populace enabled the totalitarians to anathematize their victims.

Truth Faileth And With It Charity

"And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.

Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the Lord (sees) it, and it (displeases) him that there (is) no judgment."

 

- Holy Bible; Isaiah 59: 14-15

Bill of Sale

Legitimized By and Delegitimizing the Constitution?

Electoral majorities do not empower officials to suspend or subvert a Constitution to which they owe their very legitimacy as leaders.

Protector of Property?

In the Federalist Papers, Mr. Hamilton wrote that: “Energy in the executive…is essential…to the protection of property (of Americans) …A feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.”

Checks and Cages

In the previous post, I observed that the Supreme Court's influence is greatly diminished relative to its former influence: in 1900, the Supreme Court rendered about 1.4 verdicts per 100,000 American citizens in five years time; today, the Supreme Court renders about 0.13 verdicts per 100,000 American citizens in five years time.  In other words, by this measure, the Supreme Court's influence was ten times as great in 1900 as it is today:  in 1900, there were ten times as many judicial opportunities to check the growth and reach of the federal government.

While there are fewer judicial checks on the growth and reach of the federal government, the reach of the judiciary into the lives of the American people has not been shortened by at least one ominous measure.  Regarding incarceration, the caging of once-free men, the grasp of the judiciary is far greater than it has ever been.

In fact, it is far greater in both nominal and relative terms.  In 1900, only 69 of every 100,000 Americans were incarcerated in state and federal prisons; by 2000, 478 of every 100,000 Americans were incarcerated in state and federal prisons.  In 2010, 731 of every 100,000 Americans were incarcerated.  In other words, incarcerations are accelerating:  exponential growth appears in both nominal and relative terms.

The "Caging of America" was the subject of a recent article by the New Yorker which observed that "Mass incarceration on a scale almost unexampled in human history is a fundamental fact of our country...Over all, there are now more people under 'correctional supervision' in America—more than six million—than were in the Gulag Archipelago (Siberian concentration camps) under Stalin at its height."

According to Rose Heyer of the Prison Policy Initiative, "the United States is now the global leader in incarceration".  Of course, we didn't vie for this distinction.  In fact, it is embarrassing.  It seems rather unprogressive for the leader of the free world to cage more and more of its citizens.  So, how did we earn this distinction?

As illustrated in my previous post, it was ten times as likely that the Supreme Court would act to protect one from government in 1900 as it is today.  The United States Constitution sought to protect the people from the government (not the government from the people) by granting the judiciary the power and duty to check the exercise of executive power in execution of the law.  This leaves one to wonder:  does the lack of checks, as observed, explain the cages?  While confluence will not prove correlation, perhaps additional research would?

Supreme Court's Influence in Decline

Apparently, the influence of the Supreme Court is in decline.  The Supreme Court's caseload was about 3 times as great between 1900 and 1904 as was its caseload between 2007 and 2011: about 1032 cases were heard in the five year period between 1900 and 1904 while only about 402 cases were heard in the five year period between 2007 and 2011.  In other words, a century ago, there were about 3 times as many verdicts rendered by the Supreme Court.  To summarize, in 1900, there were three times as many judicial opportunities to check the growth and reach of government.  This is notable.

But it is even more striking given the observation that follows:  there are four times as many Americans today as there were in 1900.  A century ago, the population of the United States was only about 25% of what the population is today.  In other words, a century ago, there were three times as many judicial opportunities to check the growth and reach of government at a time when the population was a small fraction of what it is today.

Consequently, the Supreme Court's influence is greatly diminished: in 1900, the Supreme Court rendered about 1.4 verdicts per 100,000 American citizens in five years time; today, the Supreme Court renders about 0.13 verdicts per 100,000 American citizens in five years time. By this measure, the influence of the Court has been reduced 90% from what it was in 1900.  In other words, by this measure, the Supreme Court's influence was ten times as great in 1900 as it is today.  Of course, this measure of influence does not assess the influence of the Court relative to the other branches of the federal government.  Of course, this measure, which suggests that the influence of the Supreme Court has been diminished by 90%, does not consider the effect that partial, statist, and/or pro-federal verdicts might have on the Court's current ability to check the influence of the other branches of the federal government.  While it is not the subject of this post, pro-federal partiality would be an interesting topic to consider across a century--especially given its potential to incrementally diminish the Supreme Court's influence relative to both a) its former influence and b) its influence upon the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.  But this is a topic for another day.

Nonetheless, the diminution of the Supreme Court's influence helps to explain the present polarity of presidential politics.  We Americans worry, perhaps with reasonable cause, that we have elected not a President--but a King?

Man in Black

Faced with a decision about whether the Supreme Court could even hear a case about warrantless federal spying and whether anyone could even challenge a law that allows the federal government to spy on its citizens without judicial warrants, perhaps the most conservative Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, opined that some laws are now beyond judicial review. “We’ve had cases in the past where it is clear that nobody would have standing to challenge what is brought before this court,” he said. “That just proves that under our system of separated powers, it is none of our business.”  Plaintiffs lack standing because all evidence is concealed as secrets of state: the court will not or cannot compel evidence.  So, according to perhaps its most conservative Justice, it is "none of (the Supreme Court's) business" to check warrantless federal spying.

Made In China: US Interest Rates

For at least four to five years, China has largely determined US interest rates.  In other words, US monetary policy is not its own--its China's.

I just correlated daily US interest rates as reported by the Federal Reserve to the daily dollar/yuan exchange rate (Treasuries of all maturities to the dollar/yuan exchange rate).  The statistics show that the China-managed dollar exchange rate has largely determined interest rate changes in the US.  In fact, Chinese policy accounts for almost all of the change in medium-term interest rates in the US (on five-year Treasuries the r-squared is about 70-75%).

The irony here is that a communist country is planning the economy of our Christian nation and has been allowed to exploit us with mercantilism which the President and Congress have enabled (or have not hindered).

Is currency manipulation a concern?  What if currency manipulation means China determines US interest rates?  It seems that it does.  Okay, so rates are low.  But what if China's Premier suddenly decides to raise US interest rates?  Central planning for our economy (ie. interest rates) will emanate from China.

How Capitalism AND Central Planning Failed

A war is being waged on capitalism.  And for capitalism.  In America.  It is as if we are being asked to decide between governing economic systems.

But the founders of our Republic did not create an economic system.  They created a rule of law--the Constitution of the United States.

In 2007 and 2008, financial markets collapsed.  Wealth evaporated.  It was a certain indication that, unchecked, capitalism is rapacious.  Armed with evidence that capitalism is effete, antagonists reacted against it.

Thereafter, reactionist economics was used to justify extra-legal and otherwise unconscionable redistributions of property and rights.  Recently, industries like banking, insurance, the auto industry, and green energy have become part of central economic plans centrally funded--with your money.

But apparently, this intervention has not improved the economy. 

Much of this economic activity, of capitalism and of central planning, from at least 2007, has contravened existing law.  It has made investment in the American economy uncertain and unprofitable.  Wealth has been redistributed without regard to justice or the rule of law. What's worse, wealth has been redistributed away from those who uphold or would uphold the rule of law (ie. the middle class).

But the economic cures we have been offered were the wrong prescriptions.  As cure for Wall Street's confiscation of Main Street, we were prescribed central economic planning by government.  Capitalism, unchecked by the Constitution, failed; now, central economic planning, unchecked by the Constitution (see my post "Is Justice Alive and Well?") is failing:  high unemployment persists and the middle class is worse off.

So, what is missing?  We've tried economic solutions.  The economic solutions we've tried put science (ie. economic science) above the law.  Now, we are worse off.  But reason would suggest that even science ought to be beneath the law.  Otherwise, ours is a rule of science.  And science has shown how it operates: in laboratories; by experiments.  Do we want to be human experiments in a world laboratory?

As a governing unity, economic science has an abysmal record.  Economic plans and capital controls invariably become despotic social plans and human controls.   For example, in Russia, the idealism of Marx became the realism of Stalin.

Perhaps, some say, China is an exception? After all, the gross domestic product of the Chinese economy has probably now surpassed the U.S. GDP. This is remarkable. But is it sustainable? Has the record of China surpassed America's record on human rights, household wealth, stability, and duration? We note that the Peoples' Republic of China was constituted in 1949 while the Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1788.   Has any nation, in all of the world's history, enjoyed as prosperous a tenure as has the United States?

Here, then, is what is missing in our economy: the rule of law.  In its absence, property and prosperity went missing.  Let's return to the rule of law.  If we can reinstate the Constitution as the supreme law, we can expect economic prosperity by and by--without egregious confiscations of property by others (ie. Wall Street) or for others (ie. presumably the less fortunate).

Fellow Americans, don't be deluded by economic arguments. Let's defend the Constitution of the United States. Economic prosperity will follow.  God bless you!


Whoseman


Dear reader, if you are not American, this may sound heartlessly nationalist.  Understand that we want you to enjoy the rights American citizens have enjoyed under the Constitution.  Can we ever enjoy these rights together or separately if we Americans shrug off what Abraham Lincoln called "the last best hope of earth"?

Profession

It is interesting that the word profession arises from the word profess and is related to the word professor. In history, what one professed generally determined one's profession. Professing allegiance to a tyrant, one might become his counsel. Professing opposition to a tyrant, one might expect imprisonment. Isn't it still true that what we profess influences or determines our profession (for other present parallels see my post entitled "Is Justice Alive and Well?")? After all, isn't it exceptional to find a self-declared conservative among professors (ie. economics professors)? Isn't it rare to find a self-declared conservative among trial lawyers? Perhaps one prerequisite to these professions is professing progressivism? And for their professions they are richly compensated. Perhaps one impediment to employment in these professions, and some other very high-profile professions, is a failure to profess what has been deemed "progressive"? Is there an economic penalty for failure to profess what is "progressive"? Economic research might consider that topic. And do some of the less fortunate in America then wrongly attribute their relative economic misfortune to fate or God--and fault Him for it in ignorance? Philosophers might consider that topic. And what is progressivism?

Progressivism is a political philosophy advocating economic, social, and political reform. During the era of trusts and sweatshops, some reform in America was self-evidently necessary. But I think you will agree that reform ought to have some constraints. Are all reforms progressive? Must we reform everything to be progressive (ie. our calendars, our language, our conception of religion or marriage)? Shall we remake our society on an economic ideal--purged of literalism and moralism (see the post entitled "Is Justice Alive and Well?")? What if we don't want the essence of our Constitution to be reformed? What if we don't want to be purged of literalism and moralism in favor of economic liberalism? Are we then consigned to low-wage professions because we professed what was not progressive? Without constraints on reform, what is the end of progressivism? For example, would it be progress, for all humanity to be subjugated under a unified economic world order? Would the means to that end be "progressive" or would it be depraved? How would the end then differ from the means employed to effect it?

When Justice Fled

In history, it was observed that "the law is slacked, and judgment doth never go forth".  This observation was made by Habakkuk, a prophet of the Old Testament (Habakkuk 1:4).  Slack, the law would cause the weak, the infirm, and the invalid to stumble while the strong would leap over it.  Slack, the law might, on demand, be made taut to address political expediencies (see my post entitled "Is Justice Alive and Well?").  Habakkuk's observation that the law was slacked, coincided with the coming of Israel's Babylonian captivity.  Ten of the twelve tribes of Israel were carried into captivity from which, to our knowledge, they never returned.  Did their disregard for justice in law coincide with their capture and captivity?  Will our preference for economic and secular interpretations of the law invite capitivity for Americans?

Elegant Smiles

There are those in our community who, with elegant smiles and outward certitude, are trying to turn the internet, neighborhoods, activities, and relationships into webs that snare others. Like the Pharisees, refusing to enter God's kingdom, they seek to hinder others.

If we allow these detractors entice us, their efforts will join us with the whore of the earth, described by the Apostle John, in the Book of Revelation (Chapter 17). There, we are warned that, ultimately, the beast that the whore rides, earthly kings, will hate the whore, reveal her nakedness and desolateness, "eat her flesh", and "burn her with fire". To me, it sounds like an inquisition based on the use of information technology and surveillance to discover and reveal secret iniquity, to enable possession and consumption of those who have been joined to the whore at the discretion of those in power--however briefly.   The technology for an inquisition, like that described, already exists. It is being implemented at super spy centers (ie. in Bluffdale, Utah).

Beware the whore.  Beware those who would ensnare you in any way.   If you would be free, be free of sin through Jesus Christ.  If you are ensnared, you can be released by and through Jesus Christ.

If you prefer to captivate others, it may seem to you for a time that you are in control, but you will find, as John predicted, that "he who leadeth into captivity goeth into captivity".  God bless you to evade captivity.

The UnTIED States of AmerCIA

Red or blue:  the UN-TIED STATES OF AMER-CIA.

Where is the white that once unified us--whiteness of intent that made America a city on a hill?  Can the CIA / National Security Agency reconcile and unify us with its new super spy centers which were developed in contravention of Constitutional rights?  For more on this, see http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/.

Why didn't the Germans get off the Nazi train?

We shouldn't forget that Germany was a Christian nation in 1933.  So why didn't they get off the Nazi train?  Before Kristalnacht?  Before Barbarossa?  Before Stalingrad?  Before Auschwitz? 

Was it fear or pride or grudge or gain or prestige or prospect that kept them until the last cattle car rolled into Auschwitz without cattle?  And its contents walked to the gas chambers.

Judiciary Impartial?

"The probability that we fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just."

- Abraham Lincoln

Where are the Lincoln lawyers and judges?  Where are the judicial checks on abuses by government (ie. abrupt economic confiscations and redistributions -- see Is Justice Alive and Well)?  Why have we abandoned the only real basis for law--moral absolutes like justice and morality?  Where are the judicial watchdogs?  Perhaps it was a mistake to require attorneys to attend three years of law school and pass a bar exam to practice law?  After all, Mr. Lincoln was licensed through homestudy.  The required investment of time and money in law school and the wage differential an attorney may anticipate coupled with the peer pressure to profess progressivism (see my post "On Ascent") and to advance economic interpretations of the law (see my post "Is Justice Alive and Well?"), might suffice to coopt one to a conformity that is adverse to the rule of law itself--a conformity that enables the executive to run roughshod over constitutional rights.

Do Unto Others

Loyalty, it has been observed, is the chief characteristic of love.  Acts of apparent disloyalty, then, one might surmise, always exhibit a lack of love.

To early Christians, the first and great commandment was to love God.  Because He is perfect, we can love God and be loyal to God without any reserve.

The second great commandment was to love others as we love ourselves.  But naturally, we are "brutish" in knowledge, according to Jeremiah, and "children", according to Christ.  So we love ourselves and others with some reserve and we love God without any reserve.  Our absolute loyalty must be reserved for God and truth as revealed by Him.

We tend to misunderstand loyalty.  For the sake of friendship, understanding, mutual affirmations, and shared benefits, we often compromise.  Giving our self away is a good thing--if we don't give up on God.  But some would require our absolute devotion.  Some would require our devotion to darkness, to deceit, and to dominance of others.  They would have us put our loyalty to them before our loyalty to God.  Like sticks, their prestige, power, wealth, or fame, might make us fear to do what might appear to be disloyal to them (ie. to speak out).  Like carrots, they might give us opportunities, honors, and riches for our acts and professions of loyalty to them--however secretively.  But we hazard our souls and our civilization on loyalty to such persons and causes.  It is disloyal for others to induce us to do what is wrong.  It is disloyal for them to expect us to follow them in error.  When courageously, we correct them, if they love God and others more than money and power, they will amend their ways and we should embrace them.  If not, the Golden Rule suggests that we should do unto them as we would have them do unto us if we were in error--we would want them to work to reconcile us to God (and not to brutish men).

It is loyal for us to oppose misdirected persons and false ideas.  Our loyalty to the best in them and to the truth causes us to oppose error.  We do it with their best interests in mind, for God, for ourselves, for our children, and for others--sometimes at our own expense.  Can we do otherwise and still be loyal to God?

On Ascent

Jeremiah observed that "every man is brutish in his knowledge" even that "the pastors (leaders and shepherds) are...brutish."

"Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches. But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgement, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord" (Jeremiah 10:14, 21; 9:23-24)

Without light and knowledge from God, we are brutes. Leaders or groups who deny, reject, and/or offend God will become brutes and will cause civilization to become brutish.

When spiritual darkness prevails, the brutish ascend. This ascent affirms them. And they affirm their mentors. Together, they reason: "are we not ascendant?" "Surely, as cause for our ascendancy, we must have done something right, done something worthy?" Without proper attributions to God and His enlightened purposes, the ascendant attribute their ascendancy to their own cleverness. What's more, they attribute the relative servility of others to some deficiency. But isn't it really presumptuous, even deluded, to omit to consider dumb luck, or inheritance, or one's professions (and etc.) as the source of one's ascent--especially in an increasingly politicized environment?

It is interesting that the word profession arises from the word profess and is related to the word professor. In history, what one professed generally determined one's profession. Professing allegiance to a tyrant, one might become his counsel. Professing opposition to a tyrant, one might expect imprisonment. Isn't it still true that what we profess influences or determines our profession (for other present parallels see my post entitled "Is Justice Alive and Well?")? After all, isn't it exceptional to find a self-declared conservative among professors (ie. economics professors)? Isn't it rare to find a self-declared conservative among trial lawyers? Perhaps one prerequisite to these professions is professing progressivism? And for their professions they are richly compensated. Perhaps one impediment to employment in these professions, and some other very high-profile professions, is a failure to profess what has been deemed "progressive"? Is there an economic penalty for failure to profess what is "progressive"? Economic research might consider that topic. And do some of the less fortunate in America then wrongly attribute their relative economic misfortune to fate or God--and fault Him for it in ignorance? Philosophers might consider that topic. And what is progressivism?

Progressivism is a political philosophy advocating economic, social, and political reform. During the era of trusts and sweatshops, some reform in America was self-evidently necessary. But I think you will agree that reform ought to have some constraints. Are all reforms progressive? Must we reform everything to be progressive (ie. our calendars, our language, our conception of religion or marriage)? Shall we remake our society on an economic ideal--purged of literalism and moralism (see the post entitled "Is Justice Alive and Well?")? What if we don't want our Constitution to be reformed? What if we don't want to be purged of literalism and moralism in favor of economic liberalism? Are we then consigned to low-wage professions because we professed what was not progressive? Without constraints on reform, what is the end of progressivism?  For example, would it be progress, for all humanity to be subjugated under a unified economic world order? Would the means to that end be "progressive" or would it be depraved? How would the end then differ from the means?

In any case, we should follow leaders who seek counsel from God--not those who seek to counsel God or deny God.

On Sedition

Sedition is the incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.  It involves speech that promotes rebellion.  Sedition is not something we advocate or will advocate.  In fact, it is the opposite of sedition for us to petition for execution of the law precisely as it is written.  It is the opposite of sedition for us to defend the supreme law of the land.  It is loyal for us to do so. 

Consistent with constitutional law, we support the rule of law.  Not government by persons or personalities.

It is not seditious for us to reprove persons and personalities who hold a public trust or seek public ends—especially if they do not uphold the rule of law.  It is not sedition or terrorism or “hate speech” to do so--even in exigencies and emergencies.

 

On the other hand, is it not sedition for persons who consider America defective to enforce Constitutional law?  Is it not seditious for the rule of law to be smothered by economic ends (see my post "Is Justice Alive and Well?")?

Charisma and Demagoguery

Alexander Hamilton noted that "a dangerous ambition...often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people.....of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants."

Charisma and outspoken zeal for the welfare of others has often concealed dangerous ambitions.  For example, Stalin and Hitler had charisma; both purported to represent the common people or the homeland.  As ends, they promised peace, prosperity, and progress; as means, they used war, murder, and oppression.  They failed to grasp their ends.  In fact, their means became their ends:  Hitler's thousand year reich ended in ignominy and bitter defeat in about a decade; Stalin died alone and paranoid in a forest bunker and came to be despised by his own people.  Our means will become our ends.  Don't expect to grasp peace, prosperity, and progress with seditions, suppressions, or swords.

If we really want to make a change for the better, we must seek better means to our ends.  The best means is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  It proposes love of God, others, and self.  And wouldn't that be the best end?

Dissidence and Discretion are Desirable

In a totalitarian society, what is studied is what subdues.  History is what exonerates the suppressers.  What is worshipped is what exalts them (the suppressers).  In a totalitarian society, only dead men tell the truth.

Salient Quotations from John Adams

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." 

 

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation...so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."

"The Science of Government it is my duty to study, more than all other Sciences...I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematics and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematics and Philosophy, Geography, Natural History, Naval Architecture, Navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture..."

 

And liberty is tenuous again.  Will our sons and daughters have liberty to study what they choose unless we are a moral, merciful people, wise to the corruptibility of coin, credit and circulation, given to the study of the science of government, politics, and war?

Justice in America?

This cartoon, Justice under Economics, concerns law and economics in America.  To most of us, law and economics are distinct concepts.  But almost everyone who attended law school in recent decades took a course in law and economics.

This course considered the intersection of the law and economics.  The students learned that economics is a modern social science that seeks to optimize societal production, consumption, and investment.  Their legal curriculum suggested that the law is a codification of the evolving ethical reasoning of society.

The differences between the law and economics were striking.  For example, the law is divided:  by country, by state, by municipality, by jurisdiction, by court, and as to origin (ie. common law versus administrative law).  Unlike law which has many divisions, market economics purports to be a unity: it purports to prescribe what is maximally productive or efficient across cultures and borders.

Economics is modern and progressive when compared with the law.  Much of law is ancient, is cultural, is situational, and is outdated?

The law looks backward for precedents; economics looks forward with forecasts and prescriptions.

Justice defies measurement; it is case-specific and based in perceptions.  Meanwhile, economics provides neat numerical measures of societal utility (satiety)—if that can be made to represent broad justice.

Here is a science, they learned, that can independently or in tandem with other sciences reduce everything (however tenuously) to a monetary cost or price or value.  For example, an economist might, using the prescriptions of a psychologist, derive the monetary value of a mother lost to a child—if the psychologist’s prescriptions are an adequate substitute for a mother.

They learned that economic theory, like game theory, might suggest more efficient ways to compete and contend in a case or in a courtroom—if maximal monetary gain was justice enough.

Economic arguments, they observed, appeal to something which garners universal sympathy:  human want or need. Sympathies for literal and moral arguments are more heuristic— influenced by one’s experience with the law or moral at issue.

Economics can substitute the cool rationality of digits for the hype, heat, and heft of semantics in legal arguments.  Literal and moral arguments tend to be strident and divisive.  With economics, one can consider what is optimal, productive, and/or efficient--without the divisive freight of moral arguments.

Economics exalts self-interest as service to society; in a courtroom or in a political debate, self-interest is self-seeking partisanship.

From the perspective of economics, the regulation of law is an externality—something that inhibits or impedes the natural flows of capital and goods.  Economists assert that competitive markets efficiently ration goods and capital; courts don’t; if laws and governments didn’t intrude in economics, societal utility (satiety) would be maximized.

The law students probably came away from the courses with the vague perceptions that economics is unassailably mathematical and logical when compared with the law which is ad hoc, political, administrative, unscientific, and sometimes illogical.

During the courses, many of these law students probably made and shared some new and informed resolutions:  to be a prudent lawyer: to generally favor economic arguments as unifying to persons across classes and cultures and to spurn literal or moral arguments as difficult and divisive, to err toward an economic interpretation or execution of the law; to generally avoid a moralizing interpretation or execution of the law; to identify and represent only economic causes so as to have money and reason on one’s side; to only pursue a just cause for as long as it is economic; to retain experts who would provide “empirical” economic testimony to influence juries; to refuse cases that would pit one against economic collectives like the government and the legal community.

But in general, the classes did not provide the attorneys with the skills to measure economic value.  Without this skill, in practice, the newly minted attorneys and judges would only pursue clients, causes, and legal interpretations that they easily deemed economic or progressive.

Progressively, economics (and law) would enable detachment from literal interpretations and moral arguments when they would be inconvenient, illiberal, or unprogressive.  For example, “just compensation” to be paid to private property owners under the Bill of Rights when private property is taken for public use might be trivialized to “just compensation” as in “just yesterday”, thus losing all the ethical and moral freight of justice and equity, on behalf of an economic client like the state and its public.  It would spare one the duty to represent or defend or even concede a jury trial to a private “holdout” against the state and its public taxpayers because it would be non-economic and unprogressive, however just.  To allow state employees to be accountable for torts, even egregious or criminal torts, would be uneconomic—especially if one was a state judge on a state payroll.  An economic interpretation of the law would spare judges much of the political hazard of rendering justice—because an economic interpretation of law would almost always side with might.

With some reflection, the students probably deduced that:   what is economic generally promotes a welfare state:  it purports to represent what is best for the majority; it generally benefits the masses—often at the expense of the rights of individuals—unless the individual happens to be a Rockefeller or a Rhodes.  Law and economics naturally sides with the rich and the poor--to the detriment of the middle class.

Notably, what the law and economics classes probably omitted was a simple observation about the origin and timing of economics.  Relative to the origin of law, economics came late.  In fact, the English rule of law preceded the study of economics by five centuries.  It was in 1297, that the law of the land clause of the Magna Carta was confirmed by Edward I.  It protected persons and property from arbitrary imprisonment and confiscation.  The first study of economics only emerged in 1776 with the publication of The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.  In other words, the supremacy of law was instated in England and America long before economics emerged.  Much of economic theory was developed in the United States under the auspices of Constitutional law.   This is notable.

Without rules, without the supremacy of law, everyone understood economics:  he prospers who is not prey.   Without protections for property and persons, both were simple prey to power.  Ownership was not secure.  Capital and goods were ephemeral.  Sovereign seizures made physical security (not productivity) paramount.  Efficient activities included hoarding and bribery under this regime.  It was superfluous to consider the efficiency, productivity, and optimization of capital when capital was not secure.

Some centuries after the rule of law had ordered society and economic relationships and interactions, economics arose.  History reveals that the rule of law was the egg; economics was the chicken that hatched from this egg.  The enlightenment of economic science was only enabled by and extended from the rule of law (ie. the Constitution of the United States).

Some would say this observation is tenuous and that the rule of law was an accident observed in a single sample:  history.  An economist, one of the most cited legal scholars of the 20^th century, has suggested that “the rule of law is an accidental and dispensable element of legal ideology".  Perhaps this authority considers economics to be other than “an accidental and dispensable element of legal ideology”?

It is nonsense, blindness, and/or treason to propound economic theory as the highest argument or analysis or law or arbiter or government:  to do so is to propound the invisible hand of anarchy.  To do so, is to run against the only sample we have:  history.  To do so, is to reduce all humanity to economic capital.  To do so, is to embrace the centralized planning of society by politicians and economists.  Rule of law would suggest that even science including economic science is beneath the law.

But is that how we actually order our society?  By this infinitive:  rule of law  > economics?  Or, is economy foremost?  As a society, haven’t we come to generally shun what is literal, cultural, political, and religious and favor what is economic, productive, and efficient?

What is our dominant identity as Americans?  Is our chief identity economic?  Is it that:  of the credit-enabled consumer, of the profiteer with or without produce and with or without work, of the insatiable internationalist or industrialist, of the uncensurable government employee or unionist, of the entitled welfare recipient, of the social-security retiree?  Or, do we identify with the patriots to whom freedom under law was so dear that they purchased it with their money and lives and reputations—for us?  Do we value the rule of law above our jobs, credit, investments, entitlements, profits, industries, even our temporary security?  Or, for the sake of jobs or pensions or profits, will we assent to the suspension and subversion of some laws that protect the property and persons of others?

For the sake of societal gain, economics is used to justify all sorts of extra-legal and otherwise unconscionable redistributions of property, rights, and legal priorities—especially in times of crisis.  For example, to avert an economic crisis and to stimulate the mortgage market, economists have suggested that borrowers ought to be allowed to breach mortgage contracts—but only if their mortgage is past due—never mind the social cost to justice, to the lender, and to other borrowers.  Politicians, informed by central planners, have intervened to prop up industries like banking, insurance, and the auto industry and to develop industries like green energy.  Apparently, this intervention has not improved the economy.  Much of this activity has contravened existing law.  It has made investment in the American economy uncertain and unprofitable.  Worse, it has redistributed wealth without regard to justice or the rule of law.  Worse, wealth has been redistributed away from those who uphold or would uphold the rule of law (ie. the middle class).

Under law and economics, without moorings to morality, the legal system lacks the will to check this lawlessness.  Consider the events of 2008.   Some of our law students became politicians, judges, and regulators—the same individuals who reversed laws and deferred regulations and structured rulings to deregulate the financial markets, concerned that laws would check the efficiency of the financial markets that ultimately fleeced so many Americans in a financial crisis that continues to reverberate.  In so doing, they propounded economic theory as ascendant to the rule of law.

Certainly, for the rich and powerful, raw economics is more efficient than egalitarian laws.  Perhaps economics and law has contributed to the increasingly unequal distribution of income in America?  Apparently, the rich are getting richer right alongside economic interpretations of the law.  And the poor are getting poorer (and the prisons are burgeoning) right alongside economic interpretations of the law.

But if economic interpretations of law are unjust, if they confound the checks on government that protect the rule of law, what will be our basis for law and justice?  Can a consensus be formed based on morality when common sense and conscience are publicly confounded?  In its true light, law and economics ought to be viewed for what it is:  a valiant but impoverished attempt by the legal community to prop up law in the absence of morality as a substitute for displaced absolutes like God, truth, and right.  In place of moral absolutes, economics exalts self-interest as enlightenment in the judge and in the judged.

This simplifies justice.  It reduces it to sums.  It appeals to our selfish natures.  It rebuffs guilt when we encounter inequality:  we rationalize that the poverty of others is self-inflicted--perhaps because they have refused the enlightenment of self-interest?

But isn’t it also self-interest that animates nature’s predators?  Are we, then, under economics, animals who accidentally acquired a conscience?  Would our courtroom, economic, political, religious, and cultural disputes be better reconciled by natural processes that leave one “red in tooth and claw”?

Here is my economic forecast for a country that puts economics above the rule of law and morality:  hunger and fear.  Don’t expect good sense or justice or morality to prevail in a society where the only law applied or upheld is the science of secular economics.  In fact, if constitutional law is successfully subverted by law and economics, if economics becomes our only unity, conscience, and constraint expect to turn the calendar back about 1,000 years to a period that resembles the Spanish Inquisition.

God bless you,


Whoseman

On the Dispossession of the Middle Class

Recently, Vice-President Joseph Biden observed that the middle-class has been "buried" during the past four years.  Dispossessed is an adjective related to buried:  one might say that the middle-class has been dispossessed of their property.

Here is an observation by F.A. Hayek from The Road to Serfdom (p. 229):  "It should never be forgotten that the one decisive factor in the rise of totalitarianism (in Europe before World War II).....is the existence of a large recently dispossessed middle class".

Dispossessed, will we, Americans, embrace totalitarianism now?  Or cling to freedom?

Justice Under Economics

Whose-Man?

James Madison observed that “government is instituted no less for the protection of the property than of the persons of individuals.”  Mr. Madison understood that, of all property, what is most precious is one’s person:  if government protects anything, it ought, above all, to protect our persons from the conquest of others, and from the conquest of government.  Vigilance is vital because the contest for conquest continues today:  for force, for unity, for unanimity, ideas claim man as a possession:  whose is man?

Whose is man?  Does he belong to the collective that is society?

Whose is man?  Is he the property of a state?

Whose is man? Is he an asset of the economic order or organization in which he labors?

Whose is man?  The stakes of this contest for possession are momentous.  Wary or not, willful or not, our persons may end up as possessions.

Whose is man?  This question is as old as man.
 

Whose is man?  “MINE!” cry the tyrants and demagogues from time immemorial.

Whose is man?  “OURS!” cry executors of excess in law, tax, regulation, government, religion, technology, education, medicine, and commerce.

Whose is man?  Is he the possession of a state, a monarch, and/or a church?  Inquisitors affirmed.  Then they stripped and extradited or tortured and burned their human refuse.

Whose is man?  Can one man be the property of another--fungible for economic exchange?  Slave-traders and slave-holders agreed.  Then they entrapped, exported, and sold and bought their “chattel” into human bondage.

Whose is man? If man belongs to the collective that is society, or is the property of the state, or is an asset of the economic order or organization in which he labors, may he not then be acquired, used, and disposed of as dictated by the caprices of his master(s)?  If we accept this conclusion, we must embrace all of the depravity that it will entail, including genocide.

Whose is man?  If we reject the conclusion that man is a political or economic or social possession, we must reject all of its premises including ideas:  a) that man is supreme—even in sums, b) that man is vile and must be coerced to goodness, c) that mortals can surmount self-interest for the sake of a more salutary society, d) that conscience, not natural consequence, constricts choice, and e) that all-embracing economic incentives and all-enjoining cultural customs will suffice to bring about permanent peace and personal prosperity.  Otherwise, we are simply being seduced by hypocrisies and half-truths.  Some say that glorious ends will justify repugnant means.  But Nazi and Soviet history show that the means and the ends are indistinguishable.

Whose is man?  This author is not nearly vain enough or egotistical enough or creative enough to propound an idea of his own that he believes others ought to be forever possessed by.  Moreover, collective humanity has already plumbed the best ideas.  His, then, is the task to attach his opinions to what is right and to detach his views from what is wrong; to popularize what is true and good and to denounce what is false and evil.

Whose is man?  Are men, as the founders of the American Republic suggested “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (ie. property)—rights that are and ought to be above the conquest of man and state?

Whose is man?  Essential freedoms, endorsed by the Constitution, including freedoms to speak, write, worship, and assemble, depend on our answer.

Whose is man?  Is he a child of God--as Jesus declared (John 5:2)?

Whose is man?  Is he the offspring of God (Acts 17:28-30) and heir of God (Romans 8:16-17) as the Apostle Paul declared?

Whose is man?  Given the choice, will you choose to be ruled by the creature(s) or by the Creator, our Father, who gave us life, liberty, property, choice, conscience, family, long-suffering, and mercy through Jesus Christ?  The choice is yours.  It is this author’s opinion that those who seek to detach us from our dependence on God would cause us only error, servitude, and misery.

Whose is man?  If crises come, if circumstances conspire, will we assent to the arbitrary disposition or confiscation of the property or persons of others for personal gain?  Tacitly, didn’t we recently assent to an arbitrary disposition and/or confiscation of property to purportedly avert a financial crisis?  Whose property was dispensed, after all, to the failing banks?  And who owns the bailed-out banks now?

Whose is man?  When virtually every public decision is now made or justified in the name of efficiency, productivity, and the Holy Economy, are we not all in danger of being deemed assets only?  Would it be just or moral to dispose of such assets?  Who is pompous enough to decide of whom to dispose?  Deemed assets, may the remainder then exercise free expression, worship what is non-economic, and assemble “unproductively”?  Secular economics (ie. Keynesianism) might suggest only what is efficient, but will it accord with what is just or moral or Constitutional?

Whose is man?  If our only unity is gain, if gain eludes us, will we sacrifice the property or persons of others (if only in extremity) to economy, or science, or ideology, or community, for personal or communal gain?  What depravity would then ensue?

Rather, let us do what is just and observe the way of the Lord of life and liberty and trust in His divine purposes, protection, and provision.  To Him, we are not possessions—we are His children.  He loves us.  He wants us to “possess…(our own) souls” in liberty (Luke 21: 19).

God bless you!


Whoseman