Ron Paul's Anti-Fed Crusade is Rooted in a Theocratic Reading of the Bible

[bobbyw24]

In the Tea Party’s short life, the Federal Reserve has been a target of its oppositional rage, spurred by Tea Party godfather Rep. Ron Paul’s persistent calls to eliminate it.

While Paul’s anti-Fed crusade is widely thought of as economic libertarianism, the roots of this combat lie in a theocratic reading of the Bible, arising out of the nexus between Paul (and now his son, Senator-elect Rand Paul), Howard Phillips and his Constitution Party, and Gary North and the Christian Reconstructionists.

For decades, the elder Paul, Phillips, and North have shared the libertarian economic philosophy of the Austrian School, which advocates a strict free market approach to an economy they portray in terms of individual choices and agreements rather than systemic forces. With respect to the Federal Reserve System in particular, they have argued against its fractional reserve banking, and its manipulation of interest rates to control economic ups and downs.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/ar...%E2%80%99_fed/

[Sola_Fide]

BUMP



10000000000% true. Most people here probably don't even know how influential the theonomic movement was in bringing sound money to the forefront.


Sound money is Biblical. There are so many warnings about debasement and theft in the Scripture it would be hard to list them all.

[Theocrat]

I agree with that article. Many of the principles underlying the criticisms of the Federal Reserve come from Scripture, such as:

• "Thou shalt not steal... Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." (Exodus 20:15, 17)
• "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in mete-yard, in weight, or in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt." (Leviticus 19:35, 36)
• "A false balance is abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is his delight." (Proverbs 11:1)
• "And there was a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brethren the Jews. For there were that said, We, our sons, and our daughters, are many: therefore we take up corn for them, that we may eat, and live. Some also there were that said, We have mortgaged our lands, vineyards, and houses, that we might buy corn, because of the dearth. There were also that said, We have borrowed money for the king's tribute, and that upon our lands and vineyards. Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought unto bondage already: neither is it in our power to redeem them; for other men have our lands and vineyards." (Nehemiah 5:1-5)

[LibertyMage]

I agree with that article. Many of the principles underlying the criticisms of the Federal Reserve come from Scripture, such as:

• "Thou shalt not steal... Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." (Exodus 20:15, 17)
• "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in mete-yard, in weight, or in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt." (Leviticus 19:35, 36)
• "A false balance is abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is his delight." (Proverbs 11:1)
• "And there was a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brethren the Jews. For there were that said, We, our sons, and our daughters, are many: therefore we take up corn for them, that we may eat, and live. Some also there were that said, We have mortgaged our lands, vineyards, and houses, that we might buy corn, because of the dearth. There were also that said, We have borrowed money for the king's tribute, and that upon our lands and vineyards. Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought unto bondage already: neither is it in our power to redeem them; for other men have our lands and vineyards." (Nehemiah 5:1-5)

Religious texts are treatises on life in general. They will ultimately contain commentary on every aspect of life that was relevant at the time of the writing. With the amount of grief caused by inflation throughout the history of the planet, why should we not expect religious texts to speak about it?

[bobbyw24]

It is an interesting piece that should be read by all interested in ending the Fed

[fisharmor]

I don't know how comfortable I am making a strictly Christian judgment against the Fed... obviously it has its utility, but I think it's ultimately more useful to point out that Christianity doesn't have a monopoly pronouncement on the immorality of central banking.
Fact is, Judaism and Islam both look quite unfavorably on this nonsense, too.

As a Christian, I sure do wish more of my brothers and sisters in Christ would take a second to review this - but perhaps a double-edged attack is more appropriate.
People should know not only that their particular religion forbids this, but also that ultimately the only religion on earth which comes out in favor of it is statism.

Unfortunately, since most nominal Christians are really just statists with Jesus overtones, I don't think a direct religion-based argument would work very well. When your religion demands that you sacrifice your children to the state, and your religion handles the whole funeral (together with your local complicit clergyman to add the Jesus flavor), and creates shrines to their mortal remains so that their deaths can have meaning - I somehow suspect that a strictly biblical argument against the mechanism that finances it all will stick in their heads. Such people require conversion to an entirely different religion first.

[Sola_Fide]

I don't know how comfortable I am making a strictly Christian judgment against the Fed... obviously it has its utility, but I think it's ultimately more useful to point out that Christianity doesn't have a monopoly pronouncement on the immorality of central banking.

Why doesn't Christianity have a monopoly pronouncement on the immorality of central banking???

What non-arbitrary standard from an atheistic worldview is going to tell us that debasement and theft is wrong?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

From the article:

Reconstructionist theocracy, based on the Reconstructionists’ reading of the Bible, gives coercive authority to families and churches to organize other aspects of life.

Of course... Ron Paul talks about coercion all the time.

Ron Paul talks about the Non Aggression Principle and libertarian philosophy.

Reconstructionism is a theology that arose out of conservative Presbyterianism (Reformed and Orthodox), which proposes that contemporary application of the laws of Old Testament Israel, or “Biblical Law,” is the basis for reconstructing society toward the Kingdom of God on earth.

Reconstructionism is a theology that arose out of conservative Presbyterianism (Reformed and Orthodox), which proposes that contemporary application of the laws of Old Testament Israel, or “Biblical Law,” is the basis for reconstructing society toward the Kingdom of God on earth.

According to Gary North, women who have abortions should be publicly executed, “along with those who advised them to abort their children.” Rushdoony concludes: “God’s government prevails, and His alternatives are clear-cut: either men and nations obey His laws, or God invokes the death penalty against them.”

Ron Paul is against the death penalty, does not advocate resurrecting Witch Trials, does not advocate supplanting the Constitution with the Old Testament, and has not stated his goal is heaven on earth.

This bull$#@! should be moved to the religion subforum. Ron Paul is not a bat $#@! crazy, non-believer murderer.

[specsaregood]

Why doesn't Christianity have a monopoly pronouncement on the immorality of central banking???

well islam has similar views, in fact usury is forbidden in it. Just as it used to be by most christians, which is why jewish people tended to run/own banks.

[farrar]

Why doesn't Christianity have a monopoly pronouncement on the immorality of central banking???

What non-arbitrary standard from an atheistic worldview is going to tell us that debasement and theft is wrong?

I am an atheist. I believe In natural rights. That we derive our rights from our nature as perceptive beings. And beings that are self aware. To have rights is to have ownership. To own one's self is to be self aware. If we own ourselves then we have the final say in what happens to ourselves as individuals. To not own ourselves means to be immoral by simply existing, because breathing, standing, moving, living or dying would be acting on something that's not yours. If we own ourselves, then we ought to own what we produce, save that it have originally belonged to another. Because we must use our bodies to produce, the unowned to create, and our productions to trade and sustain our lives, than to infringe on the ownership of others is an attempt on their life. Assuming that it is not immoral for to objects without self awareness to collide into one another, and as such morality is an attribute concerned solely with life, than I believe this is a rational basis for morality outside of Christianity.

Likewise Islam, the Jewish faith, arguably have a share in whatever christianity claims, and therefore it has no monopoly.

In other words, I have a moral basis founded on property rights.

However others want to rationalize the immorality of the fed is up to them as far as i am concerned. I hate it too.

[Yieu]

Why doesn't Christianity have a monopoly pronouncement on the immorality of central banking???

What non-arbitrary standard from an atheistic worldview is going to tell us that debasement and theft is wrong?

Christianity does not have a monopoly pronouncement on the immorality of central banking.

However, the options are not Christianity on one side, and Atheism on the other.

It is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism on one side.

It was stated that it is Biblical to be against central banking and for sound monetary policy. That would cover Judaism and Christianity. A recent thread pointed out that Sharia has sound monetary policy just the same. In Hinduism, under the system of karma which God has made implicit in nature as a system of rules and laws to govern our moral behavior, everyone is entitled to the fruits of their labor. In order to have the fruits of your labor, you need to have a sound monetary policy of valued commodity-backed exchange and not have a central bank which debases the currency.

So in conclusion, it is not only a Christian moral value to have a sound monetary policy with no central bankers debasing the currency -- it is a Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and Hindu moral value.

It is more easily summed up by saying that it is a religious moral value to have a sound monetary policy with no central bankers debasing the currency.

There is no need for artificial divisions of people of one religion claiming divisive superiority over their brothers who share the sacred value of worship towards God, when our goals and morals are largely the same. We are religious moral people and we all wish to please God, to the best of our understanding.

[fisharmor]

However others want to rationalize the immorality of the fed is up to them as far as i am concerned. I hate it too.

This has got to be the most respectful atheist response to a religious topic I have ever seen on the internet. I shall strive to reciprocate.

There is no need for artificial divisions of people of one religion claiming divisive superiority over their brothers who share the sacred value of worship towards God, when our goals and morals are largely the same. We are religious moral people and we all wish to please God, to the best of our understanding.

Well, I hope to be as respectful when responding to this.

Historical Christian thought doesn't have any room for these sentiments. This isn't meant to be divisive or superior or in your face. It simply is.

It's a gigantic machine with a thousand cogwheels that all work together. Part of Christian growth is recognizing the gears when you see them, and how they interlock.

Relativism is a gear that doesn't fit in the machine, no matter how much you try. Moreover, when you try to fit it into the machine, one of the first things that happens is the huge, obvious Christ cogwheel gets thrown out of the machine. And without that Christ gear, nothing turns right. The machine doesn't make any sense. It's just a pile of old, worn out junk.

When a non-Christian sees one of the gears and recognizes it as the same moral or goal as one of his, that's wonderful. We'd probably rejoice. But we wouldn't be drawing a lot of other ties. A lot of us would then quote some scripture, maybe getting into Romans 2, which states that God has written His law on the hearts of unbelievers, and that their consciences bear witness to it.

The point is, Christianity makes an exclusive truth claim. Without that exclusive truth claim, it falls apart. So it has to do it.

The reason why libertarian Christians react positively to this story is because it introduces the immorality of the Fed into that same exclusive truth claim. So here we have a bunch of people who have no problem telling other religions that they're wrong, and not just factually wrong, but going-to-hell wrong.
And the thing they're basing that apparently dickish attitude on is generally a single book, which contains the nuts-and-bolts of the exclusive truth claim.
And here we have an argument that that same book, that same truth claim, decries the Fed.
Forget Ron Paul for a second, and think about all those jerk Christians who might be persuaded to seek this and other liberty minded goals based only on this.

Christianity is what it is, and attempts to soften some of its harder elements only serve to destroy it, so it tends to defend itself against those attempts. But hopefully atheists can see also a friendly approach toward Christians which might have some effect - one that makes appeals from inside, and not just in opposition.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Ahh the Bible, the Socialist paradise... If Jesus existed today he would be called a Socialist and a communist that is a fact. Here are some quotes from the Bible...

I am going to start with Mark Chapter 10:21-25 21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

Acts 2:42-47
"They devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved".

The Believers Share Their Possessions

Acts 4:32-35

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

James 1:27

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world".

Hebrews 13}5

"Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you".

Matthew 23:25

""Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence".

Luke 12:15

"Then he said to them, 'Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions' ".

I mean literally, all over the bible is straight up Socialism. Then my favorite, I cant find the quote, but it says something about planting crops for six years and keeping for yourself and then the seventh year give your food to the poor, or something like that...... Jesus was not a capitalist....

[AxisMundi]

This has got to be the most respectful atheist response to a religious topic I have ever seen on the internet. I shall strive to reciprocate.



Well, I hope to be as respectful when responding to this.

Historical Christian thought doesn't have any room for these sentiments. This isn't meant to be divisive or superior or in your face. It simply is.

It's a gigantic machine with a thousand cogwheels that all work together. Part of Christian growth is recognizing the gears when you see them, and how they interlock.

Relativism is a gear that doesn't fit in the machine, no matter how much you try. Moreover, when you try to fit it into the machine, one of the first things that happens is the huge, obvious Christ cogwheel gets thrown out of the machine. And without that Christ gear, nothing turns right. The machine doesn't make any sense. It's just a pile of old, worn out junk.

When a non-Christian sees one of the gears and recognizes it as the same moral or goal as one of his, that's wonderful. We'd probably rejoice. But we wouldn't be drawing a lot of other ties. A lot of us would then quote some scripture, maybe getting into Romans 2, which states that God has written His law on the hearts of unbelievers, and that their consciences bear witness to it.

The point is, Christianity makes an exclusive truth claim. Without that exclusive truth claim, it falls apart. So it has to do it.

The reason why libertarian Christians react positively to this story is because it introduces the immorality of the Fed into that same exclusive truth claim. So here we have a bunch of people who have no problem telling other religions that they're wrong, and not just factually wrong, but going-to-hell wrong.
And the thing they're basing that apparently dickish attitude on is generally a single book, which contains the nuts-and-bolts of the exclusive truth claim.
And here we have an argument that that same book, that same truth claim, decries the Fed.
Forget Ron Paul for a second, and think about all those jerk Christians who might be persuaded to seek this and other liberty minded goals based only on this.

Christianity is what it is, and attempts to soften some of its harder elements only serve to destroy it, so it tends to defend itself against those attempts. But hopefully atheists can see also a friendly approach toward Christians which might have some effect - one that makes appeals from inside, and not just in opposition.

Like many Abrahamics, you confuse social morals with religious law.

The prohibitions against murder, theft, and rape are examples of social morals, social morals that the young Abrahamic religions have absorbed and incorporated into their religious moral code.

The Fed is not inherently "immoral", it is not an individual. It's policy is not made by one person, but by a multitude. It is certainly a Bad Idea all around, but hardly "immoral".

If one wished to apply religious doctrine to this debate, I would suggest the "Give unto Ceaser..." mentality, and keep religion out of politics and in the private sector where individual religious freedoms and equality can be maintained, and preserved. Religion is inherently exclusionary towards those outside of the religion, and even those outside of the denomination in power. Our current National Motto and Pledge, both put in place in the 1950's by religious lobbyists, is a perfect example of the former, and the derogatory mentality that Catholics have labored under in this Nation an example of the latter.

And to be quite frank, I don't know about the person you replied to, but I hardly find your reply "as respectful", I find it typically arrogant and condescending. Sorry if that offends, but there it is.

Humanity got along quite well for 100,000 years plus before Christ hit the scene, and the nearly three quarters of the world's population who do not look to Christ today get along quite fantastically without your "Christ cog".

[Fredom101]

Do we really need religion to tell us the Fed isn't serving us economically?

[jclay2]

Do we really need religion to tell us the Fed isn't serving us economically?

No, but it helps to convince Christians of the immorality of the institution and bring them into the movement.

[georgiaboy]

thanks for introducing me to this religious dispatches website. all sorts of interesting reading there.

though I agree with some of the analysis surrounding the subject of the article, it had some hit-piece aspects (newletters, really?) to it that will keep me from sharing it widely.

though true enough that sound money and honest weights & measures are indeed biblical, they're also logical economically, and implementing these politically does not equal reinventing our republic as a theocracy. Ron Paul does not advocate a theocracy.

[txaslftist]

Horse $#@!.

This is another attempt to either glom onto Ron Paul and thereby legitimize religious buffoonery or deligitimize Paul by association with religious buffoons.

The founding fathers were very clear about the terrible consequences of central banking, the constitution is clear the money should be gold and silver, and those arguments are sufficient to explain Ron Paul's opposition to the Fed (that and a host of sound Austrian economics principles).

Bringing religion into it is unnecessary and divisive.

[jmdrake]

Horse $#@!.

This is another attempt to either glom onto Ron Paul and thereby legitimize religious buffoonery or deligitimize Paul by association with religious buffoons.

The founding fathers were very clear about the terrible consequences of central banking, the constitution is clear the money should be gold and silver, and those arguments are sufficient to explain Ron Paul's opposition to the Fed (that and a host of sound Austrian economics principles).

Bringing religion into it is unnecessary and divisive.

Talk about an overreaction......

The article isn't saying that you have to be religious to be anti fed. It is suggesting that Ron Paul's religious views may be part of his reasoning on attacking the fed. There is precedent for that view. Ron Paul is anti war based on the religious "just war theory". That doesn't mean you have to be religious to be anti war. I wouldn't call the just war theory "religious buffoonery". Would you?

Same thing with the fed. Lately I've been thinking about fiat currency in terms of the quote from Jesus to "render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's and unto God that which is God's". Some use this to justify taxes. But another way to look at it is that as long as you are dependent on "Ceaser" for your money, taxes are unavoidable. But if there were competing currencies (something that Ron Paul supports) the current borrow-tax-and-spend regime is much less certain.

[farrar]

Talk about an overreaction......

The article isn't saying that you have to be religious to be anti fed. It is suggesting that Ron Paul's religious views may be part of his reasoning on attacking the fed. There is precedent for that view. Ron Paul is anti war based on the religious "just war theory". That doesn't mean you have to be religious to be anti war. I wouldn't call the just war theory "religious buffoonery". Would you?

Same thing with the fed. Lately I've been thinking about fiat currency in terms of the quote from Jesus to "render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's and unto God that which is God's". Some use this to justify taxes. But another way to look at it is that as long as you are dependent on "Ceaser" for your money, taxes are unavoidable. But if there were competing currencies (something that Ron Paul supports) the current borrow-tax-and-spend regime is much less certain.

Well, I can see how the left would feel uncomfortable with him or the right would feel more comfortable with him, if they thought he rationalized everything with religion. Most of us here don't care one way or the other, and if we do it certainly doesn't drag us over to the Marco rubio camp. But liberals and conservatives often times put more weight on that sort of thing than we do (at least politically). I could be a political ploy targeted at raising or diminishing support on one of the two sides, but I wouldn't bet my bottom dollar on it.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

YouTube - True News 5: The Truth About Voting

[ChaosControl]

Uh, what the heck?

Nothing against Christianity, but some of that stuff is just as disturbing as the authoritarian left's insanity.

[AxisMundi]

In the Tea Party’s short life, the Federal Reserve has been a target of its oppositional rage, spurred by Tea Party godfather Rep. Ron Paul’s persistent calls to eliminate it.

While Paul’s anti-Fed crusade is widely thought of as economic libertarianism, the roots of this combat lie in a theocratic reading of the Bible, arising out of the nexus between Paul (and now his son, Senator-elect Rand Paul), Howard Phillips and his Constitution Party, and Gary North and the Christian Reconstructionists.

For decades, the elder Paul, Phillips, and North have shared the libertarian economic philosophy of the Austrian School, which advocates a strict free market approach to an economy they portray in terms of individual choices and agreements rather than systemic forces. With respect to the Federal Reserve System in particular, they have argued against its fractional reserve banking, and its manipulation of interest rates to control economic ups and downs.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/ar...%E2%80%99_fed/

Just out of couriousity, is this some "theocratic reading" as stated by Ron Paul, or is it some religious organization attempting to make the claim and assign it's own values to this?

[StilesBC]

What an utter pile of horse $#@!. Absolutely outrageous.

Arguments for sound money have absolutely zero to do with god or religion. It is about the right to own private property without it being debased (stolen from). This is a legal contention. Plain and simple.

Even Huerta de Soto, pious as any modern Austrian economist, rarely if ever evokes religion in his treatise on sound money, "Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles."

Seriously folks, I am warning you: if you give any credence to free market ideology being "faith based" rather than rooted in a careful scientific understanding of human action (which it is), you will destroy its legitimacy in the minds of millions of potential converts.

I am completely okay with sharing the movement toward individual liberty with those of faith. And I will always defend the rights of people to say and believe as they wish. But shall individual liberty become conflated with religion in a manner that is anything but secular, it will surely whither and die.

Invoking religion in place of Hayek's capital structure, or Mises' calculation argument completely de-emphasizes the latter, which undoes the work modern day Austrians have been doing to bring these ideas to the forefront of academia.

Can we please keep these ideas separate?

[Fredom101]

What an utter pile of horse $#@!. Absolutely outrageous.

Arguments for sound money have absolutely zero to do with god or religion. It is about the right to own private property without it being debased (stolen from). This is a legal contention. Plain and simple.

Even Huerta de Soto, pious as any modern Austrian economist, rarely if ever evokes religion in his treatise on sound money, "Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles."

Seriously folks, I am warning you: if you give any credence to free market ideology being "faith based" rather than rooted in a careful scientific understanding of human action (which it is), you will destroy its legitimacy in the minds of millions of potential converts.

I am completely okay with sharing the movement toward individual liberty with those of faith. And I will always defend the rights of people to say and believe as they wish. But shall individual liberty become conflated with religion in a manner that is anything but secular, it will surely whither and die.

Invoking religion in place of Hayek's capital structure, or Mises' calculation argument completely de-emphasizes the latter, which undoes the work modern day Austrians have been doing to bring these ideas to the forefront of academia.

Can we please keep these ideas separate?

Agreed, but also it is difficult to keep religion out of RP's run for office. The fact that RP is a Christian is just as dividing to the movement as if he were an atheist. On the positive side, RP is not Huckabee and running around talking about how we are a "Christian nation" and this kind of nonsense, but the fact that RP questions the theory of evolution no doubt turns of millions of people to his more solid ideas (like ending the fed, ending the income tax), and it becomes easy for those on the left to throw pot shots like this one to discredit him.

[ClayTrainor]

What an utter pile of horse $#@!. Absolutely outrageous.

Arguments for sound money have absolutely zero to do with god or religion. It is about the right to own private property without it being debased (stolen from). This is a legal contention. Plain and simple.

Even Huerta de Soto, pious as any modern Austrian economist, rarely if ever evokes religion in his treatise on sound money, "Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles."

Seriously folks, I am warning you: if you give any credence to free market ideology being "faith based" rather than rooted in a careful scientific understanding of human action (which it is), you will destroy its legitimacy in the minds of millions of potential converts.

I am completely okay with sharing the movement toward individual liberty with those of faith. And I will always defend the rights of people to say and believe as they wish. But shall individual liberty become conflated with religion in a manner that is anything but secular, it will surely whither and die.

Invoking religion in place of Hayek's capital structure, or Mises' calculation argument completely de-emphasizes the latter, which undoes the work modern day Austrians have been doing to bring these ideas to the forefront of academia.

Can we please keep these ideas separate?

Excellent post. I'm in complete agreement with you.

[Theocrat]

What an utter pile of horse $#@!. Absolutely outrageous.

Arguments for sound money have absolutely zero to do with god or religion. It is about the right to own private property without it being debased (stolen from). This is a legal contention. Plain and simple.

Even Huerta de Soto, pious as any modern Austrian economist, rarely if ever evokes religion in his treatise on sound money, "Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles."

Seriously folks, I am warning you: if you give any credence to free market ideology being "faith based" rather than rooted in a careful scientific understanding of human action (which it is), you will destroy its legitimacy in the minds of millions of potential converts.

I am completely okay with sharing the movement toward individual liberty with those of faith. And I will always defend the rights of people to say and believe as they wish. But shall individual liberty become conflated with religion in a manner that is anything but secular, it will surely whither and die.

Invoking religion in place of Hayek's capital structure, or Mises' calculation argument completely de-emphasizes the latter, which undoes the work modern day Austrians have been doing to bring these ideas to the forefront of academia.

Can we please keep these ideas separate?

It is comments like the one above which show how little of history some people know. Some of you act like there would be no outcry against a system that devalues money if Hayek or Mises had never been born. I see that as intellectual idolatry. The Bible existed way before any Austrian economist, and there have always been people in history (mainly Christians) who spoke out against the manipulation and devaluation of money in a society. John Calvin was one such person, and his theology spawned a capitalist structure in economies all over Western Civilization. Even liberal sociologists like Max Weber wrote about that.

Foregoing the philosophical absurdities which come from a secular justification of ending the Fed, the true issue is by whose authority should a system that manipulates the value of money be measured as immoral. It is not Hayek nor Mises who holds that authority. It is God by the revelation He has given to mankind in relation to how real currency (gold and silver which He created) should be used in a moral society.

Otherwise, the whole issue of ending the Fed is arbitrary nonsense. If one refuses to use the Bible as the final standard for explaining the corrupt nature of what the Fed does, then whose authority should we heed? For instance, it's not like humanists have a consensus that the Fed should be abolished. There are some humanists who believe the Fed is good, and there are other humanists who believe the Fed is evil. So where do the humanists go as the final standard of truth about the "goodness" or "evilness" of the Fed?

The basis for sound money must originate from God because it is a moral issue, not a mathematical one. I suspect many of you disagree with the OP because you have a preconceived bias that any use of the Bible to justify an economic policy is bad, no matter if its principles are moral and sound. By doing so, I believe you are belittling Congressman Paul's faith by calling it evil of him to allow the Bible to be the basis of his economic philosophy.

I met him once in his office in D.C., and when he asked me who I was reading for my political/economic beliefs, I told him R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North (among other Christian philosophers), and he was excited about it. It was exciting just being in the same room with him talking about it. He knew where both of them were coming from in using the Bible to justify their economics, and he agreed with their approach. Many of you just need to check your own religious biases because Congressman Paul has no problem with his influencing his economic stances, including his call to end the Fed. After all, religion cannot be separated from one's political or economic beliefs. Neutrality is a myth.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It is comments like the one above which show how little of history some people know. Some of you act like there would be no outcry against a system that devalues money if Hayek or Mises had never been born. I see that as intellectual idolatry. The Bible existed way before any Austrian economist, and there have always been people in history (mainly Christians) who spoke out against the manipulation and devaluation of money in a society. John Calvin was one such person, and his theology spawned a capitalist structure in economies all over Western Civilization. Even liberal sociologists like Max Weber wrote about that.

Foregoing the philosophical absurdities which come from a secular justification of ending the Fed, the true issue is by whose authority should a system that manipulates the value of money be measured as immoral. It is not Hayek nor Mises who holds that authority. It is God by the revelation He has given to mankind in relation to how real currency (gold and silver which He created) should be used in a moral society.

Otherwise, the whole issue of ending the Fed is arbitrary nonsense. If one refuses to use the Bible as the final standard for explaining the corrupt nature of what the Fed does, then whose authority should we heed? For instance, it's not like humanists have a consensus that the Fed should be abolished. There are some humanists who believe the Fed is good, and there are other humanists who believe the Fed is evil. So where do the humanists go as the final standard of truth about the "goodness" or "evilness" of the Fed?

The basis for sound money must originate from God because it is a moral issue, not a mathematical one. I suspect many of you disagree with the OP because you have a preconceived bias that any use of the Bible to justify an economic policy is bad, no matter if its principles are moral and sound. By doing so, I believe you are belittling Congressman Paul's faith by calling it evil of him to allow the Bible to be the basis of his economic philosophy.

I met him once in his office in D.C., and when he asked me who I was reading for my political/economic beliefs, I told him R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North (among other Christian philosophers), and he was excited about it. It was exciting just being in the same room with him talking about it. He knew where both of them were coming from in using the Bible to justify their economics, and he agreed with their approach. Many of you just need to check your own religious biases because Congressman Paul has no problem with his influencing his economic stances, including his call to end the Fed. After all, religion cannot be separated from one's political or economic beliefs. Neutrality is a myth.

I can't believe you are quoting a Calvinist for any capitalist institutions. Calvinists were notoriously anti-capitalist. If you read and listen to Rothbard's economic history he really lambasts the Irish Calvinists.

The basis for sound money rests both on ethical and utilitarian grounds. Even Joseph Schumpeter saw the positives with sound money and even echoed one of his famous quotes on the subject. One needs not to believe in an interventionist God to believe stealing is wrong.

PS: Ron Pauls economic philosophy is Austrian Economics not the Bible. You are really reaching Theo.

[Sola_Fide]

By doing so, I believe you are belittling Congressman Paul's faith by calling it evil of him to allow the Bible to be the basis of his economic philosophy.

I met him once in his office in D.C., and when he asked me who I was reading for my political/economic beliefs, I told him R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North (among other Christian philosophers), and he was excited about it. It was exciting just being in the same room with him talking about it. He knew where both of them were coming from in using the Bible to justify their economics, and he agreed with their approach. Many of you just need to check your own religious biases because Congressman Paul has no problem with his influencing his economic stances, including his call to end the Fed. After all, religion cannot be separated from one's political or economic beliefs. Neutrality is a myth.

Great story Theo. And still people here just don't quite get it. Ron Paul has actually read (gasp) theonomists! Ron even agrees with them (gasp!). Ron Paul quotes Gary North in End The Fed (gasp!) Ron promotes LewRockwell.com which Gary North regularly contributes to (gasp!)

LOL... It is clear that Ron, and the Austrian school in general, has had a great respect for Theonomists throughout history.

People here need to pull up some old Mises Journals where Gary North and Rothbard were contributors. Even though Rothbard was not a Christian, he had great respect for North.

[AxisMundi]

What an utter pile of horse $#@!. Absolutely outrageous.

Arguments for sound money have absolutely zero to do with god or religion. It is about the right to own private property without it being debased (stolen from). This is a legal contention. Plain and simple.

Even Huerta de Soto, pious as any modern Austrian economist, rarely if ever evokes religion in his treatise on sound money, "Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles."

Seriously folks, I am warning you: if you give any credence to free market ideology being "faith based" rather than rooted in a careful scientific understanding of human action (which it is), you will destroy its legitimacy in the minds of millions of potential converts.

I am completely okay with sharing the movement toward individual liberty with those of faith. And I will always defend the rights of people to say and believe as they wish. But shall individual liberty become conflated with religion in a manner that is anything but secular, it will surely whither and die.

Invoking religion in place of Hayek's capital structure, or Mises' calculation argument completely de-emphasizes the latter, which undoes the work modern day Austrians have been doing to bring these ideas to the forefront of academia.

Can we please keep these ideas separate?

Well said.