The Bible & Liberty

Before I get into the actual bulk of the post, I would like to retroactively wish you all a Merry Christmas. I hope you all had a good holiday and will have a Happy New Year. I know I had a good Christmas. I got what was perhaps the greatest gift in my life– a sitar! If I may direct you to this post, a sitar was number two on my list. I also got a few Pink Floyd and Muse records and various books. I still have no idea how to even begin playing the sitar, nor do I know anyone in my area who actually teaches it. Although I guess everything’s on the internet. But enough of this, I digress.

This is the sitar I got for Christmas!

This is the sitar I got for Christmas!

Now let’s get back to the post. One of my uncle’s much-appreciated gifts to me was an anthology of various liberty-oriented writings “from Lao-Tzu to Milton Friedman”, called The Libertarian Reader. It contains somewhere around 70 short books, articles, essays, etc. I figured every week I would read one and respond to it or delve more into its topic.

Some of you well-versed libertarians might be guessing from the title of this post that the first entry is 1 Samuel 8 from the Holy Bible. Regardless of whether or not you’re Christian, atheist, or voodoo, it is a very relevant piece even today. To those of you who don’t have the Book lying around, it reads,

Israel Requests a King

1 As Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons to be judges over Israel. 2 Joel and Abijah, his oldest sons, held court in Beersheba. 3 But they were not like their father, for they were greedy for money. They accepted bribes and perverted justice.

4 Finally all the elders in Israel met at Ramah to discuss the matter with Samuel. 5 “Look,” they told him, “you are now old, and your sons are not like you. Give us a king to judge us like all the other nations have.

6 Samuel was displeased with their request and went to the Lord for guidance. 7 “Do everything they say to you,” the Lord replied, “for it is me they are rejecting, not you. They don’t want me to be their king any longer. 8 Ever since I brought them from Egypt they have continually abandoned me and followed other gods. And now they are giving you the same treatment. 9 Do what they ask, but solemnly warn them about the way a king will reign over them.”

Samuel Warns against a Kingdom

10 So Samuel passed the Lord’s warning to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 “This is how a king will reign over you,” Samuel said. “The king will draft your sons and assign them to his chariots and his charioteers, making them run before his chariots. 12 Some will be generals and captains in his army, some will be forced to plow in his fields and harvest his crops, and some will make his weapons and chariot equipment. 13 The king will take your daughters from you and force them to cook and bake and make perfumes for him. 14 He will take away the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his own officials. 15 He will take away a tenth of your grain and your grape harvest and distribute it among his officers and attendants. 16 He will take your young men and women and demand the finest of your cattle and donkeys for his own use. 17 He will demand a tenth of your flocks, and you will be his slaves. 18 When this day comes, you will beg for relief from this king you are demanding, but then the Lord will not help you.”

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel’s warning. “Even so, we still want a king,” they said. 20 “We want to be like the nations around us. Our king will judge us and lead us into battle.”

21 So Samuel had repeated to the Lord what the people had said, 22 and the Lord replied, “Do as they say, and give them a king.” Then Samuel agreed and sent the people home.

The Bible, which until historically recently was used somewhere in most debates on government, political philosophy, and morality, explicitly told people, that unlike the Egyptian belief that the pharaoh is descended from the sun god Ra, there is nothing divine about the state. Undoubtedly, many European rulers conveniently forgot about this little passage, but this one chapter has been very important in the Judaeo-Christian tradition of the distrust of centralized power.

Although religion has in many cases been twisted by the ruling class, whether that be the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire or certain Republicans, Christianity is at its core more libertarian than any other major religion. To prove that I, being Christian, am not biased, I shall list my reasons below, with evidence from the text of the Bible. But before I start, I would just like to state that I do not believe that religion should not be involved in politics whatsoever, because much of the time the most Christian politicians are not very Christ-like at all.

I’d like to start with the Christian view on war and peace. Jesus was perhaps one of the most hard-core pacifists in history. In the famous Sermon on the Mount, he declared, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” [Matthew 5:9]. More anti-war passages are to be found in the gospel of Matthew: “He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword” [Mt 26:52] and “In everything do to others as you would have them do unto you” [Mt 7:12]; the latter know as the Golden Rule. The former is especially relevant today to the wars in the Middle East. Even 2013 years ago (or 2019, depending on what year Jesus was actually born– but this is irrelevant), Jesus and his disciples recognized the possibility of blowback in war. Michael Scheuer, former chief of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center, says that our problems in the Middle East are a direct result of our involvement there. I do not mean to criticize anyone’s views too harshly, but it is beyond stupid to believe that people will not want to exact revenge on a government that bombs there innocent people and props up dictators. Let us imagine, for a moment, that the U.S. is a small, impoverished country and Pakistan is a world power. We have someone here that Pakistan wants to kill, for whatever reason (this reason doesn’t matter in this case). Some Pakistani man in a bunker controls a PIA (Pakistani Intelligence Agency) drone and kills a number of Americans, many of them innocent. Now imagine you learn that one of those who died is your father, mother, sister, brother, daughter, son, spouse, or friend. Would not you want to take action against this evil government? This brings us to the Golden Rule. Just as Jesus says that we must do unto others as we would have them to unto us, the United States should not attack a foreign power if we would not have them do so unto us. Let he who is without sin cast the first drone!

Now what about the Christian view on big government? As evident from the 1 Samuel 8 passage above, Christians are to be distrustful of big government. Paul says in his letter to the Church in Ephesus, “All of us used to live that way, following the passionate desires and inclinations of our sinful nature.” [Ephesus 2:3] Notice how it starts with ‘All’? This shows that government is not immune from evil just by being government; that it is just made up of humans and any human may be sinful. If the whole Original Sin part of Christian theology is true, then that means that the government too is made up of sinners, and they will inevitably misuse their power. More on corrupt power can be found in the Parable of the Trees in the Book of Judges. This creative little story reads,

The Parable of the Trees

8 Once upon a time the trees decided to choose a king. First they said to the olive tree, ‘Be our king!’ 9 But the olive tree refused, saying, ‘Should I quit producing the olive oil that blesses both God and people, just to wave back and forth over the trees?’

10 Then they said to the fig tree, ‘You be our king!’ 11 But the fig tree also refused, saying, ‘Should I quit producing my sweet fruit, just to wave back and forth over the trees?’

12 Then they said to the grapevine, ‘You be our king!’ 13 But the grapevine also refused, saying, ‘Should I quit producing the wine that cheers both God and people, just to wave back and forth over trees?’

14 Then all the trees finally turned to the thornbush and said, ‘Come, you be our king!’ 15 And the thorn bush replied, ‘If you truly want to make me your king, come and take shelter in my shade. If not, let fires come out from me and devour the cedars of Lebanon!’ [Judges 9:8-15]

I am sure that regardless of political orientation, people will agree that power can and will attract corrupt rulers.

But what about all the scripture that talks about sharing wealth? How do those fit into a libertarianism? Many socialists use the fact that in the Acts of the Apostles, it said that those in the Christian community shared what they had. These Christian socialist forget that A) the sharing was voluntary, and that B) In the Ten Commandments, it explicitly says, “Thou shalt not steal.” In fact, Acts is very libertarian. Peter and John were speaking to a large crowd of about 5,000 people, and because of this were arrested by the authorities and put in jail until morning. When told that they shall not speak of Jesus, they voiced their disobedience, saying, “Do you think God wants us to obey you rather then him?” Civil disobedience is about as libertarian as you can get!

Finally, what about those socially conservative passages? While certain parts of scripture are against certain acts, Christians are forbidden to correct sinners by force. John Chrysostom, a Church father during the early days of Catholicism, said pretty clearly, “Christians above all men are forbidden to correct the stumblings of sinners by force. It is necessary not to make a man better by force but by persuasion.”

Christianity has obviously not had a perfect record in the liberty department, but what sets it apart from other faiths is that it more than any other respected the individual, and valued freedom.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Political

What I want for Christmas this year

It’s almost that time of year. Just in case I don’t post anything tomorrow, I want to wish you all now a Merry Christmas. The best part of Christmas is giving, but I figured I’ll just post what I’d love to get for Christmas.

1. An ASIC Bitcoin Mining Machine

2. A sitar

3. A rifle (I’ve never shot a gun before, but I hear hunting’s pretty fun)

4. An iPhone (5 or before; I don’t like the thumbprint sensor)

5. Any one of the following Pink Floyd records: Piper at the Gates of DawnMoreMeddleObscured by CloudsThe Final Cut, or The Division Bell (I have all the other ones)

6. Any Muse record (I don’t have any of those yet)

7. Mercury (II) Thiocyanate. Hg(SCN)2  (just because)

8. Any lucid dreaming mask that senses REM (e.g. NovaDreamer, REM-Dreamer, etc. Not Remee)

9. The Collected Works of Frederic Bastiat

10. Practical Anarchy by Stefan Molyneux

11. Tao Te Ching English translation

12. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein

13. Free to Choose by Milton Friedman

14. Human Action by Ludwig von Mises

15. Man, Economy, and State by Murray N. Rothbard

16. Any book on Austrian economics

17. Grand Theft Auto V

18. An iTunes gift card

19. Gold

20. A 3DS (I know I’m too old, I just really want to play Pokémon Y)

21. SNES

22. Any good video game

23. Any Assassins Creed game other than Assassins Creed II or Assassins Creed Revelations (I already have those two)

24. A doge

25. For all the children of the world to join hands and sing together in the spirit of harmony and peace

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night (I know it’s 10:30 in the morning on Christmas Eve, but who cares, you know the sentiment I was going for)!

 

1 Comment

Filed under Miscellaneous

Why a libertarian society would be better than the current one (by issue):

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

America has come far in securing liberties for every citizen. From fighting off the tyrannical British, to the abolition of slavery, to the civil rights movement, and more recently LGBT rights, the United States has always been a beacon of freedom in the world. Over time, however, the government grew and liberties eroded. Americans forgot what unfreedom meant, and in doing so, began to trust in the government. Only now they trust in it too much. Founding Father George Washington once said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” The keyword there is forceEver before Anarcho-Capitalists and other Voluntaryists, he and America’s other founders understood very well the value of non-aggression. The problem with America today is that we have not be careful with the fire that is government.

But as government grew, so did reaction to such big government grow. Throughout the 1900s, the libertarian movement gained popularity and flourished. Austrian economists such as Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek furthered the cause through their works, giving a case for a restrained government, and civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. fought the system on social issues. The movement really exploded in 1971, when the ones who would be the founders of the Libertarian Party realized, upon examining Nixon: the Republican Party is not the small-government party anymore; we need to fight for freedom in social, political, and economic issues.

Here I will give a case for why a libertarian society would be better than our current system, where we have strayed from the liberty that gave us the quality of life we have today. I will go issue by issue, starting with…

Property- Libertarians believe that one may use their property for their enjoyment in any way they wish, unless that infringes upon the rights of others to do the same thing.  And we’re not just talking about material property; we believe every person is their own property and is sovereign over themselves. And property includes money; we believe in a free market of voluntary exchange where one may use their money in any way they wish and use any commodity as money. This is in contrast to American society today, where property is riddled with restriction and regulation such as controls on wages, prices, profits, production, etc. and legal tender laws. On an everyday basis, Americans’ rights to private property and freedom of trade are being violated. If we were to restrain these violations, people would be able to live their lives as they want, not as some central ruler wants.

Self-defense- Since we believe everyone is their own property, we believe in whatever measures they take to protect themselves and their property so as long as they respect the rights of others. The non-aggression principle is opposed to the initiation of force, but if one person is initiating force by violating another’s life or liberty, we believe that the victim (or anyone working on behalf of the victim, say, a private police force) has the right to violate the boundaries of the aggressor only as much as it takes to have the aggressor stop violating the rights of the victim (any force used greater than that in retaliation is itself an initiation of force). This is opposed to America today, where there is a constant push from the left to regulate and restrict the ownership, manufacture, transfer, and sale of firearms. In all honesty, most of the left’s pressure to take action against guns is done with good intention. They feel that the danger of having a firearm outweighs the use of them as a tool of self-defense. This is however, a mistake; every day somewhere around 30 people are murdered by someone using a gun. When this is multiplied to a year, you get about 10,950 people dead a year. This is a tragedy, but it overlooks the fact that annually, anywhere from 65,000 to 2.5 million people use guns in self defense each year–  under Bill Clinton the Department of Justice put that number at 1.5 million. While the possible range of use varies greatly, even the lowest estimate is still almost six times higher than the murder rate, and 98% of the time the victim merely has to brandish the weapon. And we weren’t given the Second Amendment for personal self-defense only; it was also meant for us to fend off tyranny, whether that come from a foreign power of from our own government. If people were given the right to unhindered self-defense, the nation would be a much safer place.

National Defense- Libertarians believe that we should have strong military- powerful enough to defend the country if a foreign power were to initiate an act of aggression against the United States. That said, we believe that the U.S. should stay out of entanglements with alliances and we should stop policing the world. Before the U.S. went into Iraq, Al-Qaeda was not much of a presence there. Since we have invaded however, recruitment has exploded. In fact, one thing that rallied so many Middle Easterners to Al-Qaeda’s cause was the fatwa titled Jihad against Jews and Crusaders. This document attacked America for its constant military involvement in the region. These terrorist sects got so big over there in reaction to U.S. foreign policy. I am most certainly not blaming America for jihad. The guilty party is obviously the one that carried out such horrible attacks. No terrorist is justified doing what they do, although the U.S. can minimize blowback by scaling down involvement. A libertarian society would be a peaceful society.

Marriage- Libertarians believe that no one has the right to tell you who you can marry and to restrict one’s liberty based on gender identity and/or sexual orientation and preference. We believe that the government should not even take this account at all in their actions. We believe that homosexual and bisexual people should be treated no differently from heterosexual people than blue-eyed and brown-eyed people are. As long as both parties are consenting, they should be able to choose how to run their relationship. Most libertarians, in fact, believe that that the government should not be involved in marriage at all, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. Nevertheless, we believe that as long as government is in the marriage business, no one should be treated differently based on these factors. In American society today, there are countless restrictions on personal relationships imposed by conservatives mostly (that said, the Democrats didn’t start supporting gay rights until somewhere around the year 2000. Let liberals not forget that it was Bill Clinton who signed into effect the DOMA). In a libertarian society, people would have the right to choose their partners themselves.

Healthcare- I’ll keep this one short, because I think the answer’s pretty obvious. Believing in the free-market, libertarians also believe in a free-market healthcare system. We believe that people should be able to decide how much health insurance they want and what kind of healthcare they want, if they even want any healthcare. In just 9 days, the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare) will take full effect. I don’t think I even have to explain all the problems that will create. While Obamacare is supposed to increase the availability of health insurance to more than 10 million people, the American Enterprise Institute estimates 100 million people will lose their insurance whether they “liked their health insurance” or not. In a free society, people would have the ability to make their own healthcare decisions.

Privacy- Libertarians believe in the Fourth Amendment. We are against NSA-type massive surveillance. Anywhere that had or has this type of spying in place didn’t end up very free (see: Soviet Russia -or- STASI). While the National Security Agency was purported to have been created to prevent terrorist attacks, a White House panel member says has “stopped no terrorist attacks.” The same panel went on to say that the NSA is “not essential to preventing terrorist attacks.” So why does the Obama Administration maintain these programs? Edward Snowden, the ex-NSA contractor who leaked the information that started the controversy, says, “These programs were never about terrorism; they’re about economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation. They’re about power.” No major advance in liberty could ever have been made unless they started in secrecy. In a libertarian society, people would have the right to do as they please without there leaders spying on them.

Crime- Libertarians believe crimes should be considered only to be actions that use force or fraud or actions that put others at significant risk. We believe that a “victimless crime” is not a crime at all, and that people should be able to decide their own actions and accept responsibility for said actions. We believe that the use of voluntary actions that only affect oneself, such as the use of drugs, should be up to the discretion of the individuals partaking in said actions. Unlike post-Nixon America, where police can raid your house, just like raiding that of a murderer, for you smoking some plant while you sit at home watching some TV and eating (a lot). If people were allowed to do anything as long as their actions didn’t violate the liberty of others, it would be a much freer society.

There’s a bunch more things that I didn’t cover nor do I feel like covering (I’m not a political writer– why do you think the article’s written so crappily!). I just wanted to lay down what I believe for anyone who has enough time on their hands to read some random person’s unknown blog. But basically this is why, contrary to what you may have learned from school, the media, etc. growing up, more freedom is better.

5 Comments

Filed under Political

I’ve started learning code. Wish me luck!

Alright, so with the becoming everyday more and more computer-oriented and digitized, I figured it would be handy to learn how to code. There is the possibility today to use the one’s coding skills entrepreneurially and make some money off it. I’m not talking about reinventing something like Facebook, but who knows, it could be helpful.

I wasn’t sure how or where to start, so I went over to Reddit.com’s subreddit for the subject: /r/learnprogramming  to find out more. From what I gathered, Python would be one of the best languages to learn for a beginner like me. I then found my way over to www.codeacademy.com, and registered to start my journey into programming. I’ve looked for other sites that could help, like treehouse or code.org, although treehouse costs money, which my 15-year-old self does not have. And as for code.org, I just feel it is not as good at teaching as Codeacademy. I plan to use the both of them in conjunction, though, in case one can teach my what the other can’t. I also signed up for my high school’s course ‘Intro to Programming’, although that doesn’t start until after midterms when we get back from Christmas break (sorry, I just want to go off topic for one second, they call it “holiday break.” Now I’m not one of those ‘War on Christmas people’, but Hanukkah was wayyy early this year, so if anyone is celebrating a holiday right now, it’s going to be Christmas. But sorry, let’s get back to talking about programming.)

So far I have learned variables, and datatypes such as integers, floats, and booleans. I have also learned about whitespace, comments, and arithmetic operations. I am about to learn how to make a tip calculator using what I have just learned. If any of you know programming (if I actually even have any readers) and you would suggest anything to help me on my quest for knowledge of coding, I’d appreciate that information in the comments. Well, thanks for reading, I’m going to sign off and get started on the calculator.

 

3 Comments

Filed under Miscellaneous

In the modern world the stupid are cocksure, while the intelligent are full of doubt.”

– Bertrand Russell

Leave a comment

December 21, 2013 · 6:22 pm

The most important thing in art is The Frame. For painting: literally; for other arts: figuratively– because, without this humble appliance, you can’t know where The Art stops and The Real World begins. You have to put a ‘box’ around it because otherwise, what is that shit on the wall?”

– Frank Zappa

Leave a comment

December 20, 2013 · 11:23 am

Minimum Wage Increases: Too Good To Be True?

Image

Image Credits to Henry Payne

Recently, there has been much debate on whether or not to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to a new, higher $10 or $11 minimum wage, some workers even calling for $15. These meager salaries, they say, are just not enough to get along. Liberals and many conservatives alike have called for a “living wage”. President Obama and Senate Democrats began pushing for such hikes in workers’ salaries since February this year when they proposed $9, but revised their plan, boosting the wage up to $10.10. This they say, would bring “58 percent of the nation’s 10 million-plus working poor out of poverty.” This assumption, however, is flawed. It assumes that companies would employ at the same rate as they do now and not lay anyone off. Basically, it rest on the assumption that a government decree can suspend supply-and-demand and other basic economic phenomenon. The minimum wage does not work as intended because artificially overvaluing a commodity, whether it be milk or bread, or a worker’s labor, causes people to buy less of it.

Let’s say, for a moment, that I am not talking about a salary, but the price of a commodity. Let us say that I am a baker. I may sell my bread at $3 a loaf, because that’s how much it is worth. Now, let us say, a politician comes along, with completely good intentions, believing that bakers deserve more money for every loaf they sell. He raises the minimum price of a loaf of bread to $4 per loaf. While this may appear to both politician and public as a blessing from the government, what it does in reality is hurt both the consumer (in this case, the customers of the bakery) and the producer (me, the baker). Tim used to come around every Thursday to the bakery with $15 with which to buy bread. Before the new law, he could purchase 5 loaves, and I would be paid $15 dollars. Now he can only purchase 3 loaves, and only pay me $12.

You may be wondering, what the hell does this baker analogy have anything to do with the minimum wage? My answer to that is that it has everything to do with minimum wage, for wage is, in fact, a price. An employee’s wage is that price that he charges the employer for his work. Since wages are prices, the same principles affect both. Let us say now, that my bakery has been very successful and I’m going to hire $100 an hour’s worth of new employees. If I pay each $7.25 an hour, hire 13 new employees. Now the minimum wage is raised to $10, and I’ll only hire 10 new workers, or $15, and I’ll only hire 6.

What a minimum wage does is replace low wages with unemployment. Just like my loaves of bread, the job market cannot evade the law of supply-and-demand. The great thing about the free market is that even if someone is unskilled and is only able to produce a small amount of money, the market lets him do that. But you cannot make the worth of a man’s work greater by making it illegal for anyone to pay him less. What you are doing is making it illegal for that man to work. There are other ways to go about raising wages. One’s salaries are determined by how much wealth they create. Therefore, in order to raise the value of one’s work, they should increase how much wealth the create– increasing productivity. By innovating, inventing, and working more efficiently, one can increase how much they generate.

If someone is actually being paid less than how much their work is worth, they can simply not work for that employer. If the employer is paying to little, people will decide not to work for him, they will move into other industries or unionize against said employer. Having a central leader decree how much whoever anyone gets paid is the worst way of raising wages.

Photo Credits: Frontiers of Freedom

Leave a comment

Filed under Political

Hello, world.

I’m not quite sure how to start off this kinda thing– this being my first blog. I guess I should introduce myself.

My name is Milton Floyd. Well, to be honest, it isn’t really. It is a pen name, for I did not want to use my real name. If there is a Milton Floyd out there, sorry for using your name.

The purpose of this blog is nothing more than for it to be a place for me to write. I’m not even much of a writer or anything, I just figured it would be nice to have an outlet to express my views on politics, philosophy, music, religion, et cetera, as well as writing about normal everyday topics.

The idea of me having a blog didn’t really sound right to me a year ago. I absolutely hate a good deal of blogs. And most of the people I personally knew who wrote them were either pretentious assholes or teenage girls writing about teenage girl stuff.

Then, some months ago, while I was browsing reddit (which I do too much of– I must stop) I wrote a libertarian-leaning comment on a political thread. Another user, writer for a libertarian blog, asked if I wanted to contribute weekly articles. I accepted and I got to work. Unfortunately however, I only lasted two articles until I got too busy outside of writing, and starting procrastinating even while I was busy with other stuff, and it was a hectic time as there was much testing going in school, so I stopped writing. While home from school over the weekend, I got bored and figured I wanted to do that writing thing again, so here it is.

One difference from said other blog, however, is that this one is not exclusively political. I will be writing about my thoughts on politics as well as many other aspects of life.

One more thing before I go, this blog is not quite written for or to an audience. I am not an author who writes for their readers, so if you find this boring the X button should be on the top right corner of your window. This being said, I hope you like it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Miscellaneous