Tag Archives: justice

Roderick Long On Equality Before The Law

Posted on by

Roderick Long on what sort of equality libertarianism entails:

“But if neither legal equality nor equality of liberty is sufficient for a free society as we understand it, in what sense can it be from our equal creation that we derive our right to liberty?

For the answer to this question we must turn from Jefferson to Jefferson’s source, John Locke, who tells us exactly what “equality” in the libertarian sense is: namely, a conditionwherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another, there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection….[3] Continue reading →

Et Tu, Ron Paul?

Posted on by

Victor Aguilar at Axiomatic Theory of Economics voices a silent worry I’ve been having recently (apologies if this upsets libertarians and Paul fans, among whom I still count myself):

Note: I don’t know who Aguilar is, have never heard of him, don’t endorse any of his views, since I don’t know them, and only post this because he seems to echo a recent fear of mine about the promotion of Zarlenga and Zarlenga-esque ideas in all sorts of venues, including what I always thought of as the libertarian Daily Bell.

“Stephen Zarlenga writes:

Infrastructure repair would provide quality employment throughout the nation.  There is a pretense that government must either borrow or tax to get the money for such projects.  But it is a well enough known, that the government can directly create the money needed and spend it into circulation for such projects, without inflationary results.

First, incorporate the Federal Reserve System into the U.S. Treasury.

Second, halt the banks privilege to create money by ending the fractional reserve system.

Third, spend new money into circulation on infrastructure, including education and healthcare.

Ron Paul (2009, pp. 204-205) writes:

While a gold standard would be a wonderful thing, we shouldn’t wait for one before we end the Fed…  An end to the money-creating power and a transfer of remaining oversight authority from the Fed to the Treasury would be marvelous steps in the right direction.

Aguilar:

So we see that Ron Paul’s proposal is essentially the same as that of Stephen Zarlenga and his man in Congress, Dennis Kucinich. Like Paul, Zarlenga also believes that a gold standard is a wonderful thing, provided that it does not have to actually be implemented.  Since Paul has no concrete plans for implementing a gold standard, he and Zarlenga are united in their desire to incorporate the Federal Reserve System into the U.S. Treasury as quickly as possible.

The only difference is that, once the Federal Reserve System is incorporated into the U.S. Treasury, Paul vaguely hopes that Timothy Geithner will freeze the money stock while Zarlenga hopes that Geithner will spend new money into circulation on infrastructure.  If I had to guess, I would say that Geithner, once given this enormous power, is more likely to spend the money, though not necessarily on infrastructure, than to freeze the money stock.

Ron Paul (2009, 203) writes,

“In an ideal world, the Fed would be abolished forthwith and the money stock frozen in place.”

Aguilar:

Idyllic is the right word.  There is no reason for Paul to think that Geithner will do this for him.  The Secretary of the Treasury is appointed by the President and the President panders to the voters.  And they certainly do not want the stock of money frozen.  If infrastructure is the new word for pork, then they want nothing more than to get some.

“If there’s anything worse than a secret Federal Reserve, it’s Congress controlling it,” says Sen. Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina.  I agree.  I dislike the United States having a central bank (I advocate free banking) but, given the existence of the Fed, I certainly would not put it in the hands of a bunch of squirrelly politicians.

Richard C. Cook writes:

I worked with Steve [Zarlenga] on his first draft of the American Monetary Act. The time came when Steve and I began to meet with Congressman Dennis Kucinich, briefing him and others in Washington on monetary ideas.

So much has happened since then. So many more people have become aware of the evils of the debt-based monetary system. We have seen Congressman Ron Paul ignite a national wave of revulsion against the Federal Reserve System. There is now even hope that the American Monetary Act might be introduced on the floor of Congress.”

Aguilar:

As for eliminating the Fed and giving the Treasury Department free rein to print money, I have already examined Zarlenga’s proposal in my 2008 paper and I specifically spoke of Cook here.  There is no need to duplicate that material here just because Ron Paul has joined them….”

My Comment:

What this tells me is that there can be collaborations with the left on civil liberties and foreign policy, but not on economic freedom, which, for me, actually precedes political freedom.

My money represents my work and my time…and my work and my time represent my life. Through them my engagement in the world unfolds. They are how I come to understand the world in the most real way.

Not in the superficial and  arrogant way that one “understands” the world only to meddle in it, as someone from the political class would. To them, the world is a black-box they engineer.

Hands off my world. Hand off my money. Hands off my work. Hands off my life.

I support Ron Paul, because I believe him to stand for these things and to fight for these things. If, ultimately ,for some reason can’t…. then for me at least there is no need to endorse any one else’s platform. It would be better to forget politics, since obviously there’s no one else who’s even broaching these issues. It’s that simple.

If Aguilar turns out to be right about this, then, regretfully, I’ll have to become a “mere” libertarian. With a small ‘l’. I’d sooner look to an alliance of counter-parties to the US government to teach the banking mafia the hard lesson they need in economics and justice than follow even libertarians blindly down a dead-end.

Bernard Stiegler On Justice And Shame

Posted on by

French philosopher Bernard Stiegler writes about the need to have an ideal that informs the competition of the market place. This ideal would prevent competition and efficiency from degenerating into what he calls shamelessness, a state he associates both with globalization and with the suppression of individuation in modern societies:

“Imitation cannot be the first or unique principle of a new political and economic community. It is precisely to the degree that relations between countries allied in the same political community are not reduced to economic exchanges and competition, but instead presuppose a common interest above particular interests, that one can distinguish between a political union and a simple league of economic interests like the Hanseatic League or the Alena today, as well as countless other zones of special economic exchanges. Continue reading →

Forgiveness Without Repentance Is Un-Christian

Posted on by

Several readers had questioned my rejection of the common understanding of forgiveness as it appears in Christian theology. In response to that, I’m posting what I consider a proper interpretation of forgiveness:

“A very dramatic example of confronting the offenders is seen in the life of John the Baptist, Matt. 3:7-10. Some of those who came to be baptized were clearly suspect and John sent them away unbaptized telling them to get a track record of repentance, then consider baptism. It was not just some words of repentance that John demanded before accepting them, he wanted some action commensurate with the confession to back it up.

In our day and age, we are so shallow in these things, we simply get some quick nod of the head about repentance and baptize them immediately. We would never do what John did, and I venture to say that many Christians are extremely uncomfortable with the fact such action on John’s part is even included in Scripture. It is an embarrassment to many fine Christian people that John did such a thing, and they secretly wish that it had not been recorded.

God expects us to take the right course of action even though it is difficult.”

That’s from the ministry of Gordon Rumford.

I’m quite sure that my philosophical and religious notions are a world apart from Pastor Rumford’s, but on the moral correctness of his position I’m in no doubt. I’ve verified that not just from argument and reasoning, or from the study of comparative religious ethics, or from my own personal experience, but also from lifelong observation of actions and consequences.

These are the real reasons why people think forgiveness can be granted when there’s been no acknowledgement of  wrong-doing, no repentance and no restitution:

1. They’re not reading the New Testament in proper context, but taking passages selectively as they wish. They need to examine the whole texture of the Bible (that is, the Torah) teaching, on which Jesus’ teaching was based.

(Update: I am adding a link here to the doctrine of Teshuva or repentance, expounded by Rabbi David R. Blumenthal, Professor of Judaic Studies, Emory University, as evidence.

Quote:

In rabbinic thought, only the offending party can set the wrong aright and only the offended party can forgo the debt of the sin. ……Teshuva is part of the structure of God’s creation; hence, the sinner is obligated to do teshuva and the offended person is obligated to permit teshuva by the offender.

The most basic kind of forgiveness is “forgoing the other’s indebtedness” (mechil). If the offender has done teshuva, and is sincere in his or her repentance, the offended person should offer mechila; that is, the offended person should forgo the debt of the offender, relinquish his or her claim against the offender. This is not a reconciliation of heart or an embracing of the offender; it is simply reaching the conclusion that the offender no longer owes me anything for whatever it was that he or she did. Mechila is like a pardon granted to a criminal by the modern state. The crime remains; only the debt is forgiven.

The tradition, however, is quite clear that the offended person is not obliged to offer mechila if the offender is not sincere in his or her repentance and has not taken concrete steps to correct the wrong done. Maimonides is decisive on this subject: “The offended person is prohibited from being cruel in not offering mechila, for this is not the way of the seed of Israel. Rather, if the offender has [resolved all material claims and has] asked and begged for forgiveness once, even twice, and if the offended person knows that the other has done repentance for sin and feels remorse for what was done, the offended person should offer the sinner mechila” (Mishne Torah, “Hilchot Chovel u-Mazzik,” 5:10). Mechila is, thus, an expectation of the offended person but only if the sinner is actually repentant. ….

…The principle that mechila ought to be granted only if deserved is the great Jewish “No” to easy forgiveness. It is core to the Jewish view of forgiveness, just as desisting from sin is core to the Jewish view of repentance. Without good grounds, the offended person should not forgo the indebtedness of the sinner; otherwise, the sinner may never truly repent and evil will be perpetuated. And, conversely, if there are good grounds to waive the debt or relinquish the claim, the offended person is morally bound to do so. This is the great Jewish “Yes” to the possibility of repentance for every sinner. “

Lila: Note that this is only one of three levels of forgiveness and it’s the only one that is obligatory, if the conditions are met. The other two levels, selich (approaching the offender with mercy and empathy) and kappar (purification or wiping out of sin, which can only be done by God) are not. Indeed, kappar is impossible for human beings.

2. They’re not placing the Gospel statements about forgiveness in the context of the sound teachings of other religions and of non-religious ethics, with which true religion should not be in severe conflict.

Thus Islam:

“The Arabic word used for self rapprochement is An-Nafs Al-Lawamah which refers to blame oneself and to feel sorry for ones sins. So this is recommended and good in the sight of Allaah and necessary to have the sin forgiven by Allaah.

Ceasing to commit the sin immediately. If the sin was against Allaah, then he should (1) stop doing it if it was an unlawful act, or (2) hasten to do it if it was an obligation that he abandoned doing. And if the sin was against a created being (such as humans), then he should hasten to free himself from it, whether by returning it back to him or seeking his forgiveness and pardon.”

3. They’re not taking into account prudence, reason, courage, and other moral virtues as being as necessary as kindness to moral development.

4. They’re not considering the duality of mercy–judgment, which is a cornerstone of Old Testament teaching (which itself is the foundation of Jesus’ ethic).  Mercy without judgment is not only not correct, it is an impossibility.  This is confirmed from the imagery and symbolism in the practice of magic in the western esoteric tradition, where the masculine form is invoked in contemplating mercy, so that the image of mercy/compassion doesn’t devolve into mere sentimentality. (More on that in another post, as it is a complex topic).

5. They’re disguising their cowardice and their fear of the repercussions of being outspoken, especially toward those more powerful.

6. They’re psychologically incapable of standing up for themselves and in need of therapy to become more assertive.

7. They have an excessive and immoral regard for “keeping peace” at all counts.

8. They’ve been abused or have low self-regard or do not consider injustice to themselves as injustice but part of religiously ordained suffering or “submission,” under authoritarian understandings of the Bible.

9. They have a streak of masochism that derives some psycho-sexual gratification or pseudo-religious exaltation from being injured.

10. They’re using public forgiveness as a technique of persuasion, as in 4th generation warfare (Gandhi was a master of the practice).

11. Their spiritual vanity is so great that they think they can out-Christ Christ, who certainly required his followers to confess their sins and repent.

12. They don’t like the notion of “judgment” and consider it unhealthy.

13. They’re confusing Christianity with some schools (and not the deepest, I should add) of modern psychology.

14. They’re emotionally and psychologically shallow.

15. They’re confusing Christianity with cultural Marxism, in which the notion of guilt and individual responsibility for wrong has been shucked off entirely to structural and societal causes.