We don’t use the word nationalize any more. We can try an experiment and read the new term “conservatorship” back into history. In fact, we might say that Stalin and Lenin put Russia’s industries under a kind of conservatorship. Or we might say that Mao pushed a kind of land conservatorship, or that Hitler’s policy was one of national conservatorship. Marx’s little book could be retitled The Conservatorship Manifesto.FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/8520/the-social-imperative-of-sound-money/
The Social Imperative of Sound Money
Previous post: The Glories of Change
Next post: Antitrust Law in Action
{ 20 comments }
I sometimes wish there was a way of reaching politicians with this kind of economic analysis from an austrian point of view but it would probably be filtered out as spam due to “sound money” and similar wordings. Sadly it does not only look like an american trend to adapt as much socialism as possbile but rather the whole world going nuts.
Torben,
Politicians KNOW exactly about Austrian economics. They KNOW what they are doing. They willfully commit those crimes anyways.
You don’t need to teach them, they already know yet they commit fraud anyways.
They are not ignorant, they are guilty.
Reply to Torben,
If you look at everything from graduate public administration programs to think tank papers, it is quite clear that they are ignorant. Perhaps willfully, but ignorant nonetheless.
I am totally disgusted by this article. Has the Mises Institute become a religious institution now? What is all this quoting of biblical scripture? Has Lew gone insane?
I will be controversial here and say that religion is just like fiat money. Both are tools used by the state to oppress the population. I am an Austrian, and that means I value freedom above all else. To have to see that L. Rockwell is a religious man, and to see him quoting scripture for proof that sound money is “against God” makes him exactly the same, philosophically, to any one of the current neo-con government officials who are invading other countries in the name of religion, and suppressing individual freedom in the name of religion.
The ironic thing is that Lew refers to Mises’ book ‘Socialism’ in the article. From the Mises Institutes’ review of the book it states:
“It is also a critique of the implicit religious doctrines behind Western socialist thinking, a cultural critique of socialist teaching on sex and marriage, an examination of the implications of radical human inequality, an attack on war socialism, and refutation of collectivist methodology.”
I will say this with all of my spirit and all of my conviction: If the rest of the Mises Institute’s intellectuals and academics stand idle while the Mises Institute becomes a religious think tank, headed by a dogmatic preacher man, instead of a rational, atheist man, then I will say that the Mises Institute is finished long term. No think tank that advocates for freedom and free markets can be outwardly religious.
Religion should be attacked exactly like fiat money should be attacked. They both cause deaths, statist oppression, anti-science, and above all, anti-mind.
I honestly cannot believe that the Mises Institute has become religious. It surprises me to no end. I thought that the Mises Institute was the rock solid basis for knowledge and enlightenment in our age of illusion and state worship. To see now that the Mises Institute is no longer hesitant to be outwardly religious makes me extremely sad and upset. I think to myself “Not you too!”
I find it absolutely amazing that after all the horrible things that have occurred throughout our history directly as a result of religious convictions, that the Mises Institute is apologetic to it. You are, because if you weren’t, then you wouldn’t just quote a few passages of scripture and ignore the rest. You would quote *all* of them. Just look at these few passages:
Child killing:
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son … Then shall his father and his mother … bring him out unto the elders of his city … And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.
– Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (AV)
God did tempt Abraham, … And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest … and offer him there for a burnt offering…
– Genesis 22:1-2 (AV)
Slavery:
… all who are under the yoke of slavery … who have believing masters … must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. If any one teaches otherwise … he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy…, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind…
– I Timothy 6:1-5 (RSV)
Imperialism:
When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
– Deuteronomy 7:1-2
Finally, and most pertinent to a **FREE MARKET** of all things:
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
– Exodus 35:2
If you are going to quote scripture to show where morality comes from, then at least be consistent.
I am sure that L. Rockwell will agree with me when I say that anyone calling themselves fighters of freedom, which by the way he alludes to when he says he is “sickened” by the lack of free market advocates in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that we must fight tyranny and oppression wherever it is to be found. Religion is one of those places. Religion and fiat money are two sides of the same coin. Both are illusions, both kill people, and both should be fought by the real lovers of freedom.
Robert:
“Religion and fiat money are two sides of the same coin. Both are illusions”
You are more correct than you know, at least about fiat money. It is definitely an illusion, in the sense that it doesn’t exist.
Reply to Robert:
Christianity is not your basis for criticism, but the old covenant of God with His people.
Now, besides ignoring the historic facts which support without argument, that capitalism flourished in the west under reformed christian doctrine (out of the reformation), you take old testament Scripture out of context and use them incorrectly (hopefully out of ignorance) – revealing your atheistic bias. If Christ is Truth and Truth sets one free, then you have nothing to fear but ignorance. The new Testament is a great read, revealing the God of love you seem to misunderstand.
No anthropomorphic analysis will work either, in response – these things are Spiritually discerned.
B
B
Isn’t it logically inconsistent to arrive at “freedom” by outlawing or destroying an individuals right to practice in a religion?
If the person holds that private property is the root of beneficial social interaction, then whether they practice a religion is not is critical. If the religion is not allowed to supersede private property rights, then you aren’t in any danger from the religious people.
I also think that New Testament law supersedes Old Testament law, so you aren’t giving the whole picture in your diatribe above. “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is the New Testament law.
You don’t have the right to make a religious person be an aethiest, just like they don’t have the right to make you be a religious person. That is freedom.
Robert goes to great lengths do demonstrate his ignorance of history. Atheism murdered around 100 million people in the 20th century. How many did religion kill? And as Brian points out, all modern liberty came from the Protestant reformation. Atheists didn’t give us religious freedom. Christians did. Protestant Christian in the Dutch Republic gave us capitalism by emphasizing the sacred nature of property in the Bible and by creating the institutions to protect property.
Robert: “The ironic thing is that Lew refers to Mises’ book ‘Socialism’ in the article.â€
Many Christians today champion socialism as Christian economics, but they are just as ignorant of history. By the way, Mises was very antagonistic toward religion until he moved to the US and met Christians who fought for freedom as he did. He hadn’t experienced that in Europe, where most Christians had gone over to socialism. He became an admirer of the Protestant theologian Karl Barth, who by today’s standards would be considered a fundamentalist.
Atheists have no rational for liberty, just the desire. Only Christians have a consistent, logical basis for liberty and it’s found in God-given rights. Without God, mankind is free to enslave and abuse others as he wishes. The Acton Institute, acton.org, has good material on the Biblical basis of freedom and property, which are the same thing.
Lew: “I find it sickening that there are so few voices outside the Austrian School that will stand up to this policy.”
Great article! Thanks! Liberty is directly related to sound money. That sounds so simple and dogmatic, but it is actually the distillation of many centuries of economic thought. Still, it gets discouraging to realize how few of us there are.
Atheism murdered around 100 million people in the 20th century. How many did religion kill?
Atheism murdered 0 people in all of history. Religion? Millions…including those “100 million” (closer to 300 million) you quote above.
Mike Sproul:
“You are more correct than you know, at least about fiat money. It is definitely an illusion, in the sense that it doesn’t exist”
Yes it does. Money is created by fiat, i.e. by decree, by government.
To brian murphy:
“Christianity is not your basis for criticism, but the old covenant of God with His people.”
No, my criticism is religion in general. Religion is based on faith, which means belief without reason.
“Now, besides ignoring the historic facts which support without argument, that capitalism flourished in the west under reformed christian doctrine (out of the reformation), you take old testament Scripture out of context and use them incorrectly (hopefully out of ignorance) – revealing your atheistic bias.”
I actually laughed out loud at this baseless claim of yours. Capitalism does not *only* flourish under Christian doctrine. China has moved towards a free market, they are flourishing more and more (although there is a lot they still need to do). The Chinese are mostly Taoists and Buddhists.
“If Christ is Truth and Truth sets one free, then you have nothing to fear but ignorance.”
Except that Christ is not truth, he is imaginary. Christianity is nothing but a regurgitation and alteration of other religions, e.g. Paganism. The story of Christ is exactly the same as the story of every other “savior” in ancient religions. For example Horus, Mithras, and a host of other figures in religious doctrines followed virtually identical paths in their stories, i.e. born of a virgin, born on December 25th, dead for three days, rose from the dead, performed miracles, etc. Christianity is merely the latest incarnation of what began as story telling among primitive peoples based on the movement of the stars and the Sun.
Besides, people who follow faith and not reason can be a dangerous bunch indeed. Christians are currently leading our government, going overseas and killing people who follow other religions they don’t approve of. If our government were atheists, then there would be no reason to want to kill people who follow other religions.
“The new Testament is a great read, revealing the God of love you seem to misunderstand.”
The New Testament is a horrible, scary and violent series of gospels, where I think it is child abuse to read them to children. Would you like me to quote some scary New Testament passages as well? Morality does not come from the Bible. If it did, then how did the human race survive before it was written? Morality and ethics are within us because we are human, not because we are subjected to religious books by religious zealots in the churches and in schools. Morality is an aspect of man. If the Bible is where we get our morality from, then how do you explain me being moral even though I am an atheist, how do you explain the untold billions of people who are not Christians yet are moral as well? The Bible is nothing but superstitious storytelling made by people who couldn’t explain the world around them because there was no advanced science to show them why the Sun warms the Earth and why the tide rises and falls. I wouldn’t ask a doctor from 2000 years ago to help me with my health problems, just like I will not ask a priest from 2000 years ago to help me with morality and ethics.
To fundamentalist
“Robert goes to great lengths do demonstrate his ignorance of history. Atheism murdered around 100 million people in the 20th century.”
No it didn’t. Hitler was a Roman Catholic and Stalin’s communism *was* a religion. He didn’t kill over 44 million Soviet civilians in the Gulags in the name of atheism, he did it in the name of communism. In addition, his own daughter said that she was told by Stalin that Christ existed. He even gave “Stalin’s Prize” to a clergyman in 1951. Now surely, if Stalin did in fact kill people in the name of religion, how do you explain that?
–Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics
“How many did religion kill?”
Well, recently, religion has killed over 1 million people in Iraq.
“And as Brian points out, all modern liberty came from the Protestant reformation.”
No, modern liberty came from the founding fathers, who were not religious.
“Atheists didn’t give us religious freedom. Christians did.”
Only if you are Christian.
“Protestant Christian in the Dutch Republic gave us capitalism by emphasizing the sacred nature of property in the Bible and by creating the institutions to protect property.”
Free market capitalism came before that.
“Many Christians today champion socialism as Christian economics, but they are just as ignorant of history.”
I think you may be more ignorant of history that you think.
“By the way, Mises was very antagonistic toward religion until he moved to the US and met Christians who fought for freedom as he did. He hadn’t experienced that in Europe, where most Christians had gone over to socialism.”
Same thing is happening here in the US, in case you hadn’t noticed.
“He became an admirer of the Protestant theologian Karl Barth, who by today’s standards would be considered a fundamentalist.”
Barth’s ideas on economics did not stem from his religion. Really, you sound like someone who claims to not be racist, solely because they have a minority friend.
“Atheists have no rational for liberty, just the desire.”
Woah, you are totally lost here. The argument for liberty is based on irrefutable axioms of human existence, not religion. Read Rothbard and Hoppe.
“Only Christians have a consistent, logical basis for liberty and it’s found in God-given rights.”
I am not Christian, but I have a consistent logical basis for liberty. My rights are not granted to me by God, they are inherent in me simply for being alive and human. You are not for liberty because you cannot accept the fact that people of other religions also desire liberty and deserve liberty. To think that only Christians have a basis for liberty is totally anti-libertarian to non-Christians. Are you saying that a Jew will never know about liberty? Rothbard was a Jew, and he knew more about liberty that you or I.
“Without God, mankind is free to enslave and abuse others as he wishes.”
Not true. To think that is extremely anti-human. Are you saying that without people worrying about God, they will do no good, because they are predisposed to evil? You do not think very highly of mankind. People who do not think highly of mankind cannot possibly understand liberty, because liberty only makes sense in social situations. Read Human Action.
“The Acton Institute, acton.org, has good material on the Biblical basis of freedom and property, which are the same thing.”
Except for non-Christians.
Calm down Robert – Defenders of liberty come from all walks of life including ‘GASP’, those who beleive in God – Tom Woods, Jeff Tucker, Ron Paul, Bill Anderson, Frederic Bastiat, Hans Sennholz, Gary North, etc. Your true colors have been shown by this diatribe: a true statist who would love nothing more than the destory faith and religion altogether. You seek to destory what everybody has LIBERTY to pursue. We should be in one camp for liberty, true liberty, no matter if we believe in nature or natures God.
Peter: “Atheism murdered 0 people in all of history…”
Historians call the 20th century the bloodiest century in the history of mankind. Atheist socialists in Germany, the USSR, China, and Cambodia murdered close to 100 million people by the estimates of historians.
To Robert:
“My rights are not granted to me by God, they are inherent in me simply for being alive and human.”
If you aren’t here because of God, then aren’t you here merely because a long chain of chemical reactions occurred throughout the universe leading to this moment? How does that give us inherent “rights”? Wouldn’t that mean the trees that were cut down to build your house had their rights violated as well? They’re existence was made possible by the same means as ours. Wouldn’t it mean that everything we see around us has it’s own inherent rights, and that we have no right to interfere with them? Wouldn’t that mean that our declaration of our rights is completely arbitrary and utterly meaningless?
If your existence is nothing more than a result of chemical reactions, then how is anything really meaningful? How can you justify anything you or anyone else says or does as right or wrong? Because of some “feeling” that it is that way? Feelings change all the time, from moment to moment. Because of some “irrefutable axioms of human existence”? Why does that matter if it’s just the effect of the cause of chemical reactions, just matter and energy moving around through space?
If there is a God, which I believe there is (I think it would take more faith to believe there isn’t one…look around you, here and at the entire universe…”you are without excuse”), whether you’re Christian or of some other faith, or atheist, the laws that God created apply the same. You can be Jewish, Hindu, atheist, or whatever and still discover our inherent-rights. However, trying to explain them away as something that we have because of the molecules that make us up or that something like rights can come from evolution doesn’t even make sense. That would mean our rights are merely made up in our head, and I could find no reason to adopt them, when I could just be greedy and ignore other people’s rights for my own benefit. If there’s no God to be held accountable to, then anything goes.
Life without God is utterly empty and meaningless. There can be no real reason, just circular-reasoning or infinite-regress of reasons…flimsy and arbitrary at best.
And just because Lew Rockwell quoted a few verses does not mean that he’s forcing you or anyone else to adopt his faith. I suspect he added that for other people that believe the words of those books, to show that God has told us that sound money is good, and unsound money is bad. And to expect that anyone can ever do or say everything that matches your view is quite unreasonable.
If you don’t believe there’s a God, that’s your problem. It has the potential for hurting only you, as long as you still believe in following what some of us believe to be God’s rules of property rights (which is the only way to have a possibility of peace…something God promoted). If you come to the conclusion that there’s no reason to believe in property rights (why would there be?), then obviously any peace between you and anyone else is at risk.
I’m not trying to turn this discussion into trying to prove that God exists. I think God Himself is the only absolute proof, everything else is just evidence. I just wanted to share my thoughts as to why atheism is inherently unreasonable (since it’s a common attack of atheists to say that belief in God is unreasonable), and mention that your expectation of what Lew should and shouldn’t say, or that it shouldn’t be offensive to you or whoever is unreasonable.
Robert: “No it didn’t. Hitler was a Roman Catholic and Stalin’s communism *was* a religion.â€
That’s typical of atheist propaganda. You change the definition of an atheist to whatever suits your argument and guarantees that you win. If you want to start playing around with definitions, then I define all religious people who commit atrocities as atheists. The fact is that Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were atheists by any reasonable definition of the term. They murdered people in order to promote their atheist vision.
Robert: “No, modern liberty came from the founding fathers, who were not religious.â€
More atheist anti-historical propaganda. Liberty existed long before the founding of the US and most of the founding fathers of the US were very devout Christians.
Robert: “Are you saying that without people worrying about God, they will do no good, because they are predisposed to evil?â€
No. People will be good or bad for many different reason. I’m saying that those who try to fabricate their own moral system from scratch, as Rothbard and Hoppe have done, don’t have a rational basis for their system for two reasons: 1) No man has moral authority over other men. So unless a moral code can be shown to come from God, it has no authority. 2) After providing the logic of property, which is very good, Rothbard/Hoppe make the logical leap of assuming property is an absolute.
Lew,
It was an excellent article. The fact that you made references to the Old Testament does not in any way, shape or form diminish your argument.
The fact that the Fed just pumped another $70 billion into the system to forestall the inevitable only solidifies your position.
As for those who are essentially accusing you of proselytizing, that was not your intention, and I am not going to take it as such.
As for everyone fighting, I can’t thing of a single religion or philosophy that is practiced to perfection; and that is simply because as humans, we all have our faults. So, instead of taking a stand against each other, perhaps our time is better served taking a stand against those who would seek to impoverish us.
Atheism murdered around 100 million people in the 20th century.
It was the State that killed those 100 million, not atheism.
Robert:
The mainstream view of fiat money is that it is unbacked, and has value only because it is limited in supply, while people demand it for trading purposes. The issuer of this type of money gets a free lunch. Rival banks will issue competing moneys to get a piece of that free lunch, and that will reduce the demand for the first money–with no stable solution reached until the so-called fiat money has zero value.
To ajax:
“Calm down Robert”
I am calm.
“Defenders of liberty come from all walks of life including ‘GASP’, those who beleive in God – Tom Woods, Jeff Tucker, Ron Paul, Bill Anderson, Frederic Bastiat, Hans Sennholz, Gary North, etc. Your true colors have been shown by this diatribe: a true statist who would love nothing more than the destory faith and religion altogether. You seek to destory what everybody has LIBERTY to pursue. We should be in one camp for liberty, true liberty, no matter if we believe in nature or natures God.
In your list of people who had/have faith, in no case were/are their arguments for liberty based on faith. They were/are based on reason and economic theory.
To Greg
“If you aren’t here because of God, then aren’t you here merely because a long chain of chemical reactions occurred throughout the universe leading to this moment?”
Yes.
“How does that give us inherent “rights”?”
Read Hoppe.
“Wouldn’t that mean the trees that were cut down to build your house had their rights violated as well?”
Rights are not inherent in inanimate objects because they cannot object.
“They’re existence was made possible by the same means as ours.”
Yes, evolution.
“Wouldn’t it mean that everything we see around us has it’s own inherent rights, and that we have no right to interfere with them?”
No, because not everything has a consciousness. The fight for liberty is a human endeavor, for humans, by humans.
“Wouldn’t that mean that our declaration of our rights is completely arbitrary and utterly meaningless?”
No. Faith does not bring more meaning into our lives, it only allows some people to reinforce their prior beliefs, which may or may not be based on reason and logic.
“If your existence is nothing more than a result of chemical reactions, then how is anything really meaningful?”
Because we are here, because we have only one life, because of the fact that life is so precious, because it is simply amazing to be able to be alive just once considering what has to take place in order for life to even exist. I find meaning in my life, not from a book written 2000 years ago by primitive people who were more concerned with controlling other people’s lives than with true liberty.
“How can you justify anything you or anyone else says or does as right or wrong?”
By traditional legal principles discovered by a process of trial and error over the lifespan of humanity on Earth. If you think that right and wrong comes from the bible, then you would be in favor of rape, genocide, torture, infanticide, and all other horrors of humanity, because the bible sanctions these acts.
“Because of some “feeling” that it is that way? Feelings change all the time, from moment to moment. ”
No, because of reason and logic.
“Because of some “irrefutable axioms of human existence”?”
Yes.
“Why does that matter if it’s just the effect of the cause of chemical reactions, just matter and energy moving around through space?”
Because it is reality. If you live according to reality, you will live a happier, more fulfilling life. If you live according to only faith, then you will only live a life of unhappiness and pain, because faith is an attempt to live according to your wants that may clash with reality, which is a battle you cannot win.
“If there is a God, which I believe there is”
There isn’t.
“(I think it would take more faith to believe there isn’t one”
Not true. Faith is not required. Just look around you and observe using your 5 senses and your mind. It doesn’t take much to refute the existence of a divine creator.
“…look around you, here and at the entire universe…”you are without excuse”), whether you’re Christian or of some other faith, or atheist, the laws that God created apply the same.”
Laws are not created by a God. Laws are a human abstraction that allow us to deal with reality and be happy.
“You can be Jewish, Hindu, atheist, or whatever and still discover our inherent-rights.”
Only by logic can you do this. It won’t be your faith that leads you to this conclusion.
“However, trying to explain them away as something that we have because of the molecules that make us up or that something like rights can come from evolution doesn’t even make sense.”
It does if you understand Darwin and biology.
“That would mean our rights are merely made up in our head, and I could find no reason to adopt them, when I could just be greedy and ignore other people’s rights for my own benefit.”
Again, read Hoppe. He is on to something amazing that can prove our rights are inherent. He is the Mises Institute’s best.
“If there’s no God to be held accountable to, then anything goes.”
You have a very negative and immoral view of mankind if you think the *only* reason we do good is because of fear of some imaginary punishment. If anything goes without belief in God, then how did mankind ever become the dominant species of this planet before the advent of the ten commandments? Are you saying humanity was completely terrible before that? If ancient scholars, who actually wrote the ten commandments, were able to derive these rules on their own, which they actually borrowed from the Egyptian book of the dead and other truly ancient writings, how is it that they knew these rules mattered? Could it be because these rules most closely match the nature of mankind and naturally derived rights that had already existed for thousands of years? The evidence (you know, what faith tries to shun) shows that the nature of man exists, that certain methods of conduct work, and some do not, and that these methods of action can be discovered through deduction and reason, not faith. If faith led us, then we would be all advocates of rape, torture, and all the other horrible things that the bible condones.
“Life without God is utterly empty and meaningless.”
I cannot speak for everyone, but for me the fact is that life is more precious than it is to my parents, who are both devout Christians, who both believe that life can be sacrificed “for a greater good”, as if there is any good greater than life. I put my life as the number one meaning in all of existence. Religious people, such as Muslim extremists, are the ones who think that life on Earth is utterly empty and meaningless, because they are willing to end their own real life in order to gain access to an imaginary life.
Religious “fundies” like you are simply unable to understand that atheists consider life to be full of meaning and full of splendor, because, like Marxists, you are unable to escape your self-imposed restrictions on your views of existence. Since you cannot look at life in any other way other than through a book written 2000 years ago, you think that other ideas do not exist. They do, they have, and for longer than religion has been around.
“There can be no real reason, just circular-reasoning or infinite-regress of reasons…flimsy and arbitrary at best.”
What is flimsy is your expectation of expecting me to believe something without thought or evidence.
“And just because Lew Rockwell quoted a few verses does not mean that he’s forcing you or anyone else to adopt his faith.”
I never said that was his intentions. I merely commented on the fact the he thinks morality and rights come from in the bible.
“I suspect he added that for other people that believe the words of those books, to show that God has told us that sound money is good, and unsound money is bad.”
God didn’t tell you this, economics theory did.
“And to expect that anyone can ever do or say everything that matches your view is quite unreasonable.”
I do not expect people to. I only commented on his unrealistic assumption that morality and ethics come from the bible. They don’t.
“If you don’t believe there’s a God, that’s your problem.”
It’s my benefit, because since I stopped going to church after I my parents finally relented, my life has become more fulfilling, more happy, and infinitely more rewarding for me and the people around me. The world is much more rich and wonderful after having escaped the chains of oppressive and static faith. Life is dynamic, it is changing, it cannot be happy nor can it advance if it is restrained by the primitive beliefs of ancient peoples.
“It has the potential for hurting only you, as long as you still believe in following what some of us believe to be God’s rules of property rights (which is the only way to have a possibility of peace…something God promoted).”
In prior ages, when religion was the dominant beliefs of the rulers and the people, property rights were violated in the name of religion. One had to pay gold to the divine King anointed by God, and if they didn’t, they were imprisoned or killed.
The bible is not a source for property rights, it is a source of absolute misery and pain if its words are implemented. Real property rights are derived from the knowledge of the nature of mankind.
“If you come to the conclusion that there’s no reason to believe in property rights (why would there be?), then obviously any peace between you and anyone else is at risk.”
I believe in property rights via reason and logic, not faith. Religious fundies of the world do not believe in property rights because religion is collectivism.
“I’m not trying to turn this discussion into trying to prove that God exists.”
Then why are you trying to convince me that a God exists?
“I think God Himself is the only absolute proof, everything else is just evidence.”
There is no proof for the existence of God. If there is, the people who have this alleged knowledge certainly have not been able to convey this to others by proof. They merely want others to believe without proof, exactly like you are doing with me. Religion is simply a disease of the mind, an evolutionary relic.
“I just wanted to share my thoughts as to why atheism is inherently unreasonable”
You have not done so.
“(since it’s a common attack of atheists to say that belief in God is unreasonable)”
Ah see? You are trying to make me into a mold that you can understand and feel you can disprove. Instead of reading what I say, and responding to my points, you become a preacher wannabe and say things I have already heard a million times before by other religious fundies.
“and mention that your expectation of what Lew should and shouldn’t say, or that it shouldn’t be offensive to you or whoever is unreasonable.”
I merely made the comment that the bible is not the source for knowledge of human rights, morality, ethics, and certainly economics theory. My guess is that he is trying to convince the religious fascists in Washington that they are not acting religious enough because they are breaking the bible’s law of no money manipulation. It’s a classic case of someone using a tyrant’s own weapon against them in the hopes of making them act in a certain way that is favorable. That is not the right way to go about it. The best way is to show the ruler and the people that the weapon is not real, and that the only way to make the tyrant act more peacefully is to show everyone that the weapon is in our minds, which means the only thing we need to do is enact ideas that work. Even if Lew were able to convince the fascists in Washington that the bible forbids monetary manipulation, would the world be better off if they agreed and relented, but substituted money manipulation for genocide of the “unfaithful”? No? Why not? It’s in the bible, and it says genocide is a moral and ethical act. Is it any wonder where Bush and Cheney get their popular and political support to murder millions of Muslims, i.e. the “unfaithful”?
Excellent article Mr. Rockwell. I’ve sent it out to my mailing list even if it’s three months old. I wish I could have gotten into the discussion earlier.
Seems this thread went into a discussion of religion, but the quotations from the Old Testament were apt and on target. Your only intention in quoting them was to show that sound money was “moral” and nobody can disagree with that. Similar quotes could be found in the New Testament and other religious writings. I know of no culture or society that does not believe it is immoral to steal. People need to be taught that government printing and spending of fiat money is nothing less. We are all being “legally plundered”.
Robert, I hope you check back to this thread. The rest I have to say is for you.
In Christianity (as jason-liberty pointed out) the overriding principle that all other commands and teaching whether they be Old Testament or New Testament ones are subset to is, “love your neighbor as your self.” It is the rule that Christ said summarized “all the law”. If any law or command is against a person’s best interests (the true definition of love) it should be discarded in favor of the principle itself.
Thus slavery, the lower status of women, the keeping of the Sabbath and other Old Testament practices meant only for Jews within the Old Covenant Theocracy should be eliminated in favor of the one command, “love your neighbor.”
It was the ideas of equality found in the New Testament that eliminated slavery, gave rise to the status of women and freed people from being under Old Testament Law. It was not Atheism nor Agnosticism that did this. It was Christ’s teachings. In fact all the freedoms we cherish in the United States have their roots in Christ and his ethic. Those that attack Christ and his teachings are blinded in their ignorance of how this one man has changed their world and made all the good things they experience possible.
It seems unfair that the worst so called “Christians” (though they never followed Christ to love their neighbor) are compared to the best Atheists or Agnostics. Atheists are consistent in doing this and never seem to understand how illogical that is. But the fact is, Atheists, Agnostic, Christians or otherwise; if they love their neighbor, are following everything Christ taught about morality. It’s perfectly fine to point out the hypocrisy of those who claim to be Christian but don’t follow his ethic, (including George Bush) but it’s idiotic to throw the baby out with the bath water. I’ve never heard any Atheist give a good argument against Christ or his ethic to “love your neighbor as yourself”.
As to Christianity being a religion of belief without reason, nothing could be farther from the truth. The existence of God is pretty much a given now that science has uncovered the “anthropic principle” in just about everything in nature. It’s hard for me to believe that the Big Bang, and it’s resulting finely tuned universe, came about from nothing but mere chance. Evidence of design is so evident in every aspect of scientific inquiry it doesn’t take a genus to figure it out. (To his credit, Einstein said he proved the existence of God though he wasn’t able to come to the conclusion he was a personal God. Evidence of design was scarce in his day.)
As to Jesus’ resurrection from the dead there can be no doubt. It was empirically tested. He was seen, touched, heard (and I imagine could have been tasted and smelled) by many witnesses and their testimony was recorded by at least four different authors. No better scientific experiment has been conducted and no just court of law can be found who would not go with the evidence as written.
Faith is required not for a belief in God or Christ’s resurrection, but for what is promised in the New Covenant. Faith is required for us to know that if we put our trust in Christ and join the New Covenant we will have our sins forgiven. Forgiveness is not something that can be empirically tested, hence the necessity of faith. Christ demonstrated his power to forgive by performing signs of healing and other miracles. The logic is that if he can do one then he can do the other. We just have to trust what he said about forgiveness is true.
Christianity is based on the historical facts attested to by the witnesses. It is not without reason and neither is the faith in the gospel promises.
As to Capitalism flourishing under other religions in China, I ask, “Who taught it to the Chinese?” Not Taoists or Buddhists. (Oh and perhaps you didn’t know that millions of Chinese are actually Christian, teaching and living Christ’s ethic to love one another. You think that might be a positive influence?) It’s not proper to attack religion in general and then in the same paragraph say how capitalism is flourishing in various religious countries to defend your own argument. You can’t have it both ways.
As to other “fictions,” Hitler was no Christian, in fact he murdered millions of them, and Communism is not a “religion” but is quite Atheist with a desire to wipe out all religion off the face of the earth. Time to be honest. Who’s believing in convenient illusions now?
As to your request to “prove God,” I refer you to Hugh Ross at Reasons to Believe. I’ve found a lot of truth at this site. A lot of what I thought were biblical inconsistencies, primarily in Genesis, are explained here.
< http://www.reasons.org/>
Good luck on your quest for truth. ( And if you can, try forgiving the Christian who obviously hurt you deeply. Such animosity can only come from betrayal. And if you are ever open to it, try “prayer for your enemy”. It’s the only thing I know that will work on deep resentments like that. I hope the best for you.)
Comments on this entry are closed.