Rothbard's Blind Spot

[Sola_Fide]

Eh, well. I mean...you looked over my entire post and felt that this was where you could make the greatest contribution.

Many things that you say have already been addressed in these forums. There's no reason to go back over those objections. I just thought what you said here stuck out to me.

What's a god? A god is an entity that you make a sacrifice to in exchange for a blessing that's greater than your sacrifice. How's that any different from any other exchange? It's not fundamentally different. It's simply "profit" (gain > loss) seeking behavior.

I agree that the language of salvation is a language of accounting and law and business. This is the language Paul uses, and this is the language every Christian should use.

Also, your description of exchange is a very apt description of every non-Christian religion, but in Christianity, the exchange that must take place for salvation to be accomplished is something that no man could ever give to God. The Bible asks rhetorically:

Romans 11:35

“Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay them?”

And the Bible describes salvation as a free gift that no man can work for:

Romans 4:4-5

Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

God gave men laws that has made man even more guilty and more sinful before Him:

Romans 5:20

The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase.

God demands an absolute, sinless perfection from man. All men will be called to account and judged based on God's perfect law. And even one minor deviation from this law will condemn man to Hell. God gave the law to make man utterly condemned before Him. There is no act of obedience, no acting of faith, no sacrifice, nothing that man can give to God in an exchange for something.

So in essence...the economics that we support is merely another way of describing the benefits of religious tolerance. From this perspective...it's impossible to separate the church and state. All we can do is agree on the "gods" that we all benefit from worshiping and then implement religious tolerance. You give your taxes (sacrifice) to the DoD (your god) and I'll give my taxes (sacrifice) to the EPA (my god).

I think this statement belies the fact that you see government as God. I don't.

[erowe1]

If A is a pacifist...then in a pragmatarian system...he just won't give any of his taxes to any government organizations that use violence.

Which is all of them.

but he produced anarcho-capitalism while I produced pragmatarianism.

This is describing your ideas rather generously. To say you produced any kind of "ism" is to suggest that you've devised a complete, coherent, system of ideas. What you've really done is whimsically pulled some notion out of your sphincter, like that time when I was a kid and I said that schools shouldn't use grades.

[Xerographica]

And the Bible describes salvation as a free gift that no man can work for:

There's no such thing as a free lunch...that's basic economics.

The other day my neighbor brought over the best chicken, noodle, vegetable soup that I've ever had. She gave it to me...but was it free? Consider this poem by Stephen Crane...

A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."

How could it be modified to fit my situation?

Ana said to her neighbor:
"Sir I exist! Take this bowl of soup as proof!"
"Indeed, it is delicious," replied her neighbor,
"The fact has created in me
A sense of obligation."

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16

Somebody sacrifices their only son for you and you refer to it as a free gift? How does it not create a sense of obligation in you?

The conviction reigns that it is only through the sacrifices and accomplishments of the ancestors that the tribe exists - and that one has to pay them back with sacrifices and accomplishments: one thus recognizes a debt that constantly grows greater, since these forebears never cease, in their continued existence as powerful spirits, to accord the tribe new advantages and new strength. In vain, perhaps? But there is no "in vain" for these rude and "poor-souled" ages. What can one give them in return? Sacrifices (initially as food in the coarsest sense), feasts, music, honors; above all, obedience - for all customs, as works of the ancestors, are also their statutes and commands; can one ever give them enough? This suspicion remains and increases; from time to time it leads to a wholesale sacrifice, something tremendous in the way of repayment to the "creditor" (the notorious sacrifice of the first-born, for example; in any case blood, human blood). - Nietzsche

God demands an absolute, sinless perfection from man. All men will be called to account and judged based on God's perfect law. And even one minor deviation from this law will condemn man to Hell. God gave the law to make man utterly condemned before Him. There is no act of obedience, no acting of faith, no sacrifice, nothing that man can give to God in an exchange for something.

From John Holbo's book on Reason and Persuasion...

S: You could have been much more concise, Euthyphro, if you wanted to, by answering the main part of my question. You're not exactly dying to teach me - that much is clear. You were just on the point of doing so, but you turned aside. If you had given the answer, I would already be well versed in holiness, thanks to you. But as it is, the lover of inquiry must chase after his beloved, wherever he may lead him. Once more then: what do you say that the holy is, or holiness? Don't you say it's a kind of science of sacrifice and prayer?
E: I do.
S: To sacrifice is to give a gift to the gods; to pray is to ask them for something?
E: Definitely, Socrates.
S: Then holiness must be a science of begging from the gods and giving to them, on this account.
E: You have grasped my meaning perfectly, Socrates.
S: That is because I want so badly to take in your wisdom that I concentrate my whole intellect upon it, lest a word of yours fall to the ground. But tell me, what is this service to the gods? You say it is to beg from them and give to them?
E: I do
S: And to ask correctly would be to ask them to give us the things we need?
E: What else?
S: And to give correctly is to give them in return what they need from us? For it would hardly represent skill in giving to offer a gift that is not needed in the least.
E: True, Socrates
S: Holiness will then be a sort of art for bartering between gods and men?
E: Bartering, yes - if you prefer to call it that.

I think this statement belies the fact that you see government as God. I don't.

It only indicates that the basic rules of economics applies whether we're talking about religion, politics or economics. You want the most bang for your buck. If you could directly allocate your taxes would you try and get the most bang for your tax dollars? Of course. We all want our burdens to be lifted from us.

Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. - Luke 22:42

Many things that you say have already been addressed in these forums. There's no reason to go back over those objections. I just thought what you said here stuck out to me.

Of course we have to go over these objections. You know why? Because you still don't understand the opportunity cost concept. There's no such thing as the "pure" gift...

Sacrifice will always be distinguished from the pure gift (if there is any). The sacrifice proposes an offering but only in the form of a destruction against which it exchanges, hopes for, or counts on a benefit, namely, a surplus-value or at least an amortization, a protection, and a security. - Jacques Derrida, Given Time: Counterfeit Money

The next time you're taking communion...the next time you're eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood...remember that he paid the ultimate price for your salvation. What is that worth to you? How much obligation does that create in you? Who knows? All we can know is that actions speak louder than words.

James 2

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

[awake]

I don't see any blind spot, only the little red spot next to your handle.

[Sola_Fide]

There's no such thing as a free lunch...that's basic economics.

I didn't say salvation was free, as in it is something that didn't cost anything. I said it was free in that there is nothing that a man can do to work for it. There is a difference.

Somebody sacrifices their only son for you and you refer to it as a free gift? How does it not create a sense of obligation in you?

It only creates a sense of obligation if you erroneously think that you must do something in order to attain salvation.

But if there is anything so clear in Scripture, it is that man cannot do anything to attain the sinless perfection required to stand in the presence of God. Salvation is not something man must work to get, it is something God has already accomplished for His people.

From John Holbo's book on Reason and Persuasion...

S: You could have been much more concise, Euthyphro, if you wanted to, by answering the main part of my question. You're not exactly dying to teach me - that much is clear. You were just on the point of doing so, but you turned aside. If you had given the answer, I would already be well versed in holiness, thanks to you. But as it is, the lover of inquiry must chase after his beloved, wherever he may lead him. Once more then: what do you say that the holy is, or holiness? Don't you say it's a kind of science of sacrifice and prayer?
E: I do.
S: To sacrifice is to give a gift to the gods; to pray is to ask them for something?
E: Definitely, Socrates.
S: Then holiness must be a science of begging from the gods and giving to them, on this account.
E: You have grasped my meaning perfectly, Socrates.
S: That is because I want so badly to take in your wisdom that I concentrate my whole intellect upon it, lest a word of yours fall to the ground. But tell me, what is this service to the gods? You say it is to beg from them and give to them?
E: I do
S: And to ask correctly would be to ask them to give us the things we need?
E: What else?
S: And to give correctly is to give them in return what they need from us? For it would hardly represent skill in giving to offer a gift that is not needed in the least.
E: True, Socrates
S: Holiness will then be a sort of art for bartering between gods and men?
E: Bartering, yes - if you prefer to call it that.

This is a very apt description of every religion of man...where man gives to God so that God repays them. But I just showed you that the Bible rejects this religion of man, and says that no one has given to God that God repays them.

Every false religion says that God requires something from man that man is able to give.
The Bible says that God requires something from man that man cannot give, and cannot do.

It only indicates that the basic rules of economics applies whether we're talking about religion, politics or economics. You want the most bang for your buck. If you could directly allocate your taxes would you try and get the most bang for your tax dollars? Of course. We all want our burdens to be lifted from us.

Allocating taxation does not lift the burden of government from anyone.

The next time you're taking communion...the next time you're eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood...remember that he paid the ultimate price for your salvation. What is that worth to you? How much obligation does that create in you? Who knows? All we can know is that actions speak louder than words.

James 2

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

James chapter 2 is not talking about how one is made right before God. He is talking about how we can determine if a person's faith is real. "Show me your faith" is what James is concerned about. He is talking about justification before other men, not justification before God, which is what Paul is concerned with. James is contrasting a false faith (one that is not evidenced by good works), with a legitimate faith (one that is evidenced by good works).

This passage has been misunderstood and abused by works-salvationists for a very long time.

[Xerographica]

Allocating taxation does not lift the burden of government from anyone.

Why wouldn't it? Explain to me why creating a market in the public sector wouldn't help us overcome scarcity.

I didn't say salvation was free, as in it is something that didn't cost anything. I said it was free in that there is nothing that a man can do to work for it. Big difference.

James chapter 2 is not talking about how one is made right before God. He is talking about how we can determine if a person's faith is real. "Show me your faith" is what James is concerned about. He is talking about justification before other men, not justification before God, which is what Paul is concerned with. James is contrasting a false faith (one that is not evidenced by good works), with a legitimate faith(one that is eveidenced by good works).

This passage has been misunderstood and abused by works-salvationists for a very long time.

Yes, they are the ones who are misinterpreting the Bible.

Matthew 25

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

[Xerographica]

I don't see any blind spot, only the little red spot next to your handle.

Yet, here you are with plenty of green spots next to your name...yet your comment contributed absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. Use economics to explain why I'm wrong...and then we'll see if there's any merit to this rating system.

[Len Larson]

Liberty is not the result of actions by the government?

No, Liberty is the root from which emerges social order and civilization. Govt. comes later usurping the institutions established by free individuals. Examples would include the Law, Money and Defense, each an institution established by free individuals before Govt. became involved.

You mean that when the government protects the environment it's not protecting my liberty?

You've mentioned the EPA several times now. I wonder if you realize that the EPA was founded and exists for the sole purpose of protecting cronies from lawsuits, thus affording them legal protection to pollute. Prior to the EPA, property owners or injured individuals were free to sue those responsible. Now, mere documentation of compliance is sufficient to quash any case, no matter how grievous the injury.

Nothing is stopping us from building private institutions.

Hello? Is there anybody in there? Can you say govt. enforced monopoly? Just you try and establish an institution to provide sound money to the public.

I grew up being forced fed religion. I rejected religion when I was 11 and I still have absolutely no interest in listening to sermons on morality.

No you did not reject religion, you merely substituted the State as your religion. So here you are, force feeding us your State Religion disguised as Pragmatarianism and sermonizing on the "morality" of "protecting" the environment.

I'm sorry to speak so baldly to you sir, but you are a hypocrite and a fool!

[Sola_Fide]

Why wouldn't it? Explain to me why creating a market in the public sector wouldn't help us overcome scarcity.

You said that allocating taxation would "lift the burden of government" from people. How?

If I point a gun to your head and tell you to give the contents of your wallet to person A, person B, or person C...and you get the choice of which person the contents of your wallet goes to, how does this "lift the burden" of the person pointing the gun at me?

Sure, the person pointing the gun at me has "created a market" for the contents of my wallet, but how can you rationally say that the burden of my emptying my wallet to someone is lifted? I'm still burdended by the person pointing the gun at me.

Yes, they are the ones who are misinterpreting the Bible.

Matthew 25

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Yes, they are the ones misinterpreting it. And it seems you are now.

No one says that Christian people don't do good works...they do. But do Christian people do good works to get saved, or do Christian people do good works because they have been saved? The answer is that Christian people do good works because they have been saved.

We are not saved by any righteous act we perform:

Titus 3:5

he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.

Not by works:

Ephesians 2:8-9

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

Christians don't do good works to get saved, the good works we do were predestined by God. We do them because we have already been saved by Him:

Ephesians 2:10

For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Let this one sink in..

God saves men, not because of anything they've done but because He has predestined the ones to be saved before the beginning of time:

2 Timothy 1:9

who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,

[Xerographica]

No, Liberty is the root from which emerges social order and civilization. Govt. comes later usurping the institutions established by free individuals. Examples would include the Law, Money and Defense, each an institution established by free individuals before Govt. became involved.

When haven't their been kings, rulers, emperors or pharaohs? When haven't tributes, offerings or taxes not been required? There's always been liberty to some degree and there's always been coercion to some degree.

You've mentioned the EPA several times now. I wonder if you realize that the EPA was founded and exists for the sole purpose of protecting cronies from lawsuits and affording them legal protection to pollute. Prior to the EPA property owners or injured individuals were free to sue those responsible. Now, mere documentation of compliance is sufficient to quash any case, now matter how grievous the injury.

Do you think creating a market in the public sector depends on the current effectiveness/efficiency of the organizations in the public sector? Oh noes...the EPA is corrupt and harmful...let's not allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes. Let's prevent them from coming to that conclusion themselves. It will be for their own good.

Hello? Is there anybody in there? Can you say govt. enforced monopoly? Just you try and establish an institution to provide sound money to the public.

Heh, yeah, great critique. The government has a monopoly...therefore...let's not create a market in the public sector. That wouldn't solve anything.

No you did not reject religion, you merely substituted the State as your religion. So here you are, force feeding us your State Religion disguised as Pragmatarianism and sermonizing on the "morality" of "protecting" the environment.

I'm sorry to speak so baldly to you sir, but you are a hypocrite and a fool!

Is it my fault that you can't grasp the economic consequences of allowing millions and millions of self-interested, utility maximizing, purposefully acting, psychic profit seeking taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes? Yes. So I guess I am a fool. Am I a hypocrite though? I mean...I really don't think that I was trying to sell you on the value...or importance of the state. So I definitely wasn't preaching the morality of statism to you. I figured you'd be smart enough to understand that allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes would be the most effective and efficient way for them to see the truth of your own perspective on the state.