Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
—-
Naturopathic Physician
Political Philosopher & Author
—
Consultant, Speaker, Author
Naturopathic Medical Consultations
Marriage & Personal Counseling
—
(503) 255-9500
drthomas@naturedox.com
The Christian Constitutional Republic
One Nation Under God
Government of, by, and for the People
Liberty and Justice for All
by: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
Socialism, Capitalism,
Freedom, and Christianity
by: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
10/7/2009
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 3:34
From: Charles
Subject: ideological education – Capitalism vs. Socialism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_DaMKUP3Og
I actually found this cartoon to be a lucid, well-produced and entertaining work. It would be good to should show it in schools today to educate the next generation about the benefits of capitalism, and warn them about the promise versus the delivery of socialism.
Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2009, 4:21 PM
From: Thomas
Charles, the cartoon had a good message, although I found it to be a bit simplistic. Still it points out some of the extremes of the two systems. It would be good to show to students in their formative years so they could be exposed to anti-communist propaganda. Currently in the state controlled schools, the youth are indoctrinated only in the evils of capitalism and the virtues of communism. When propaganda, of any sort, is included as part of a curriculum, the various declarations, reasons, and assumptions embodied within it should be examined in detail. The issues raised should be used as starting points for debate about the subtleties of the claims of the propaganda.
Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2009, 7:21 PM
From: Charles
I'm willing to stand behind the cartoon, to point. Personally, I think the truth
of how people ought best to organize themselves and their activities on the macroscopic
scale really is simplistic.
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the highest possible degree
of individual liberty that is consistent with public safety will yield optimal collective
happiness when constrained only by obedience to a just and loving God. (Whether
it is possible under other conditions remains unknown.)
The Liberalization of Law, Part I
By: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
10/1/2009
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 3:04 AM
Subject: Founder's Quote Daily
"They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men."
– John Adams, Novanglus No. 7, 1775
"We lay it down as a fundamental, that laws, to be just, must give a reciprocation of right; that, without this, they are mere arbitrary rules of conduct, founded in force, and not in conscience."
– Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the state of Virginia, 1782
"[W]here there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community."
– Benjamin Rush, letter to David Ramsay, 1788
"[I]f the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them."
– Candidus in the Boston Gazette, 1772
Sent: Thursday, Oct 1, 2009, at 7:23 AM
From: "Thomas Lee Abshier, ND"
Charles and I had a discussion about what caused the decay and perversion of law away from the freedom, free market, small government, and Christian heritage intent of the Founders, to become what we see as a body of liberal interpretation of the Constitution and the subsequent establishment of a legal/mandated basis for big government, welfare state, control of all transactions under the rubric of "regulation of commerce", and the effective establishment of socialism and communism in the society.
He noted that there is a hierarchy of respect and modeling in the legal establishment, with Harvard (Yale) being at the top, and the vast majority of the other law schools modeling their philosophical/legal lead. The respect for the top tier law schools extends to ensure that those chosen for appointment to the federal judgeships and the Supreme Court are typically graduates of this liberal legal education. In turn, all the lower court lawyers and judges who wish to rise in the ranks, rule in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court and Federal Judges so as to prevent being overturned on appeal, and thus stay in the running for advancement in their profession. This in turn ensures the liberal interpretation of the law extends all the way to the bottom of the court system.
The professors at the top tier colleges are in many cases openly liberal, socialistic, communistic in their philosophy, and hence, when these young lawyers interpret the law while in practice as lawyers and judges, they bend the words of the Constitution as far as would be plausible in a manner consistent with their socialistic/communistic philosophy. Thus, the body of case law and precedent ruling becomes controlled by Supreme Court, which in turn provides the precedent and justification for additional more liberal rulings and case law.
But, the slide toward socialism/communism in our society has proceeded on many fronts, and cannot be isolated or fully attributed to the liberalization of the judiciary. Although, this decay is particularly damaging to the perpetuation of the Constitutional Republic, since righteous interpretation of law is the final bastion of defense against the freedom-starved condition of the welfare state, Big Brother/Nanny state, controlled economy, 5 year plans and new deals, cradle to grave healthcare, gun control, state controlled media and educational system, etc.
A return to the Founder's intent in the law schools would be good, but to fully return to the free markets and personal liberties intended by God and our Founders, will require a revival of pursuing of putting on the Mind of Christ that characterized the Revolutionary era. Government can lead or follow the populace, but to fully return to the promise of freedom, both must embrace the principles of personal effort and responsibility, limited government, and Godliness. In the meantime, the individual must pursue personal righteousness, and hold others accountable to the same high standards.
Once established, the momentum of socialism is difficult to break. The populace loses its willingness to risk, and slumps into the warm cocoon of cradle to grave direction and support. Likewise, government becomes addicted to the luxuries of power, and ego satisfaction of control. The hope of a people and government governed by the mind of Christ will be generalize in the millennium. But, in the meantime the momentum of socialism will continue for a season.
T.
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 10:25 AM
From: John
Hi Tom, that line of reasoning would certainly explain why the values at the top are propagated down the hierarchy. But it does not address why those at the top would embrace authoritarianism to begin with. If we don't know why they developed this type of thinking, then what's to prevent it happening again after things are set right?
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 3:25 PM
From: Thomas
John, you are correct to ask what was the cause of the desire for liberalism and its more virulent mature cousin – authoritarianism. The discussion should have included an analysis of why men are prone to adopt a liberal/socialistic/utopian worldview. After understanding that evolution, the next step is analyzing how liberal law becomes propagated and multiplied as the basic legal principle due to the forces fostering conformity with those in leadership of the legal community.
To summarize, that conformity can be seen as due to the inertia and development of a liberal (socialistic) body of law, followed from forces that created conformity such as getting to the top (personal power, status, influence, fame, wealth, pleasure, survival) by imitating the thoughts and actions of the leader. Ideological purity (i.e. socialism) may be secondary to the desire for personal advancement or pleasure, or it may be that those in positions of authority have achieved their high status in the legal community due to their a religious-like zeal and devotion to the socialistic dream. I discussed this concept in my essay on power and religious zeal.
Currently, given the momentum toward socialism, the liberal ideology may have been an implanted theory that young and fallow minds adopted when their critical facilities were immature with regard to the realities of life, and were hence susceptible to the naive assumptions about human nature required for belief in the utopian socialistic dream. Belief in such adult fairy tales is easy if there has been little exposure to the harsh realities of the facts of human nature. The fact is that people are motivated to exert personal effort when it is rewarded by the advancement of personal pleasure. (Note: personal pleasure can come from any source – from purely selfish indulgence, to the joy felt by offering charity).
When analyzing the the dynamics of a healthy economy, the end goal is a broadly extending prosperity. But the good of the whole is tightly tied to the ability of the individual to prosper in his self-advancement. The delicate balance required for the optimization of the many comes only when the individual is free to take risks and reap the rewards of his labor. And, the foundation of such freedom to risk and prosper is laws that allow and protect the private ownership of property, in all its forms, land, money, possessions, and intellectual. This principle is codified in the 10 commandments, “Thou shalt not steal.” Which implies the principle of ownership, else theft would be impossible.
The hidden force operating behind the mandate of government to establish laws which protect the individual’s property is the command to, “Love the lord your God with all your heart mind, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself.” Loving the Lord your God is a codification for loving the laws of righteousness established by God, which are roughly summarized by living a life governed by justice and truth.
When men live without taking advantage of another person’s weakness or ignorance, and there is full disclosure of the costs and benefits of a particular action, on all levels, individual and social, each person can make a proper decision about whether he wishes to purchase from the supplier. The full disclosure of cost is the primary driving factor in economics that directs the individual, and hence the group behavior in the allocation of resources. The producer and buyer engage in a contract of mutually acceptable value, which is the only true measure of cost and value.
The buyer is also engaged in the production of value, and has in some venue offered it in exchange for a mutually agreed upon value in exchange for cash, the fungible medium of transaction. Thus, buying and selling is a full-duplex transaction, where both parties will make their purchase decisions based upon their perception of the cost and benefit of the exchange. The truth and justice of the exchange are known only by full disclosure. The full cost of a product or service is known by examining the obvious costs and benefits such as features and price. But, the true cost must also consider the larger environmental-social effects of the transaction.
The larger the scope of the effects produced by any transaction the more difficult is the assessment of appropriate cost. It is for this reason that special interest groups, regulatory agencies, and unions have been set up to advocate for the interest of the environment-society as it relates to any specific or type of transaction. Such monitoring and advocacy is good and important in illuminating the larger transaction costs.
But, the regulation of transactions by outside forces in the interest of truth and justice can become dictatorial or socialistic. As such, the society as a whole must be dedicated to the principles of freedom, within the context of truth and justice. When a society has a strong commitment to these principles as moderated and guided by the principles of Godliness, and the Holy Spirit leading each individual, the nation is best coordinated in implementing the proper balance between freedom, and the enforcement of truth and justice.
Regarding authoritarianism, one element that drives its evolution is man's desire control his environment and thus insure survival, prevent pain, and produce pleasure. Tasting the nectar of control can easily stimulate the desire for more of the same thrill that comes for subduing people, circumstances, and forces. The desire for control can grow without limits, but engaging the addictive behavior does not actually satisfy the hunger that drives it. I have explored these concepts more thoroughly in my addiction to power essay.
And finally, a reason why liberalism is pursued is naivete. The child believes in simple principles such as equality of all in respect, wealth, security, and happiness. Such utopian principles sound lofty, but the real world requires that the individual work to obtain these goals. In fact, these are the prizes of life, not the state that life guarantees.
If there is a place where we as a nation and culture have failed, it is encouraging each child to overcome his deficiencies. In general, there is little coaching in how to be married successfully. Yes, the church, home, and community groups attempt to give some basic self-help instruction in such areas, but still we have as a society performed woefully in this area in terms of producing a nation that actually succeeds in this arena.
Likewise, those who study poorly, join gangs, use drugs, develop personality affects, and engage in uncommitted sexual relationships, are the agents of decay of the social order. The presence of the non-performing lower class provides the reason and motivation for those who desire to control society. We could demand a government that takes care of the bullies, addicts, and misfits and warehouses, welfares, or reeducates them, but the place where the problem starts is at home. The family must be the unit of motivation and accountability for deviant thought, speech, and action. And, without a Godly standard for judgment, and a firm grasp on a wise execution of training and discipline, the family will be overwhelmed by the force of the deviant’s will.
T.
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 4:45 PM
From: Charles
Authoritarianism is the natural state of mankind and has characterized our social organization since time immemorial. The elevation of God's sovereignty over mortal strongmen is an aberration that has led to unprecedented peace, liberty and prosperity in our country, but it is not at all assured that this aberration will endure, and it is definitely not the default condition of mankind.
Self-government requires government of the self, which derives from submission of the self to a just and merciful God.
Atheism must naturally lead to the erosion of those conditions that have distinguished the American experience from the rest of human history, and to the restoration of tyranny.
Regardless of what happens, it has been good while it lasted, and was worth the efforts and personal sacrifices that made it possible. In the immortal words of Humphrey Bogart, “We'll always have Paris.”
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 7:45 AM
From: Thomas
I agree with your assessment of the natural state of man in his susceptibility to engage in excessive control of other people at the expense of others and the freedoms of the governed. Likewise, I agree with your assessment that the shining possibility for freedom, with the required minimum amount of governmental control, can be created by properly regulating our passions according to the principles dictated by a broad societal expression and governance according to the principles of the Judeo-Christian God.
The experiment has been done, and we know this method works, at least in its initial stages of implementation of societal evolution and industrialization. As you note, we do not know if other methods of regulating the passions of men, and organizing the masses under another system of government will be equally or more effective. Such has been the subject of the philosophers’ debate for millennia. At this point, we only have one example of a theory proven to work, Government of, by, and for the people, as One Nation, under God. While we see history littered with many failed governmental experiments, including the failure of Marxism in a number of implementations.
The controversy about whether we should dismantle the republic and its capitalistic economy for a socialistic alternative continues because there is class disparity. The rich and poor are still with us. Those who have comparatively little feel oppressed and unfairly compensated, and the idealists among us reason that the source of social unrest is disparity of wealth between the classes. In particular, those doing the hardest labor, the common skilled and unskilled work of assembly and construction, certainly should be paid as much as the executive or owner who never gets his hands dirty or produces anything a person can actually use.
But, such idealistic reasoning fails to recognize that the work of the executive and manager provides a valuable service of directing the organization of matter (whether subtle, in the case of information, or gross in the case of manufacturing). The compensation received by those who perform these functions likewise depends on what the market will pay, which in turn depends upon the supply of those who can perform such functions. In general, the supply of those qualified to manage the flow of materials, money, and labor for a particular process are more scarce than those who repetitively perform a manual task. The laws of economics dictate the prices paid for these disparate skills based on scarcity and demand.
Utopians and socialists also argue against capitalism because of the inherent inequity and supposed injustice of a system that allows owners and capitalists to make money by simply loaning money. After accumulating wealth, the capitalists, financiers, and landed gentry could in theory maintain their wealth in perpetuity via their legacy. Such accumulation allows creation a de facto ruling and leisure class, supported on the backs of the working class, who produce the real value.
This argument assumes that the direction of capital has little or no value, and that a system which eliminated this class of labor would be more prosperous and create greater happiness for the masses.
The argument against the rich, those who have accumulated money, will be able to maintain it throughout time without wise investment and shepherding of their accumulated credit. The fact is, that every economy is dynamic, and no investment is certain in perpetuity. Only the wise steward and his progeny will be able to retain a large store of wealth for many generations.
The system is self correcting if left to play out its natural sequences, the idle, self-pleasing rich will squander huge wealth in the pursuit of happiness, and eventually exhaust their storehouse of inherited wealth. The wealthy can only maintain their place of rulership and social prominence, without wisdom, when wealth buys government, and the dynamic marketplace is replaced by laws which legislate the perpetuation of contracts beneficial to the wealthy. Such interlocking of wealth and government is just another type of command economy, an authoritarianism mediated by the influence of bribes and corruption. Without the protection of government, the foolish and self-serving heirs will be extracted from their place of honor, and returned to the labor pool to learn the lessons of serving and being served in the market.
Accumulation of wealth is not evil, nor is the maintenance of a large store of it throughout the generations. There is no impropriety or inherent injustice in an economy that allows for the reward of those who lend and finance the projects of others. Loaning of money is the process of giving others the credit to consume. In a way, the lender is giving the borrower the right to consume in his place, by giving him scrip that allows him to go into the market and be given value. The lender extends trust, expecting that the loan will be repaid, and as such the wise lender should screen, vet, and judge character if the borrower, and assess the value of the project he proposes. The lender deserves compensation, 1) for the sacrifice of delaying personal satisfaction, and 2) for providing the gatekeeper function of judging and authorizing work. If the lender judges well, and the borrower provides valuable service to the economy, the lender will be repaid in both principle and the contracted interest.
Money represents an implicit social contract for service, and sacrificing its use for immediate satisfaction deserves a market based compensation for that sacrifice. The value of that delay in consumption is called “interest”. To illustrate the importance of the delay of consumption represented by saving money and not spending it on personal desires, if the money were spent for personal needs, then labor would have been diverted from other worthy projects. Thus, society and the economy have come to an agreement with the man who is willing to save. In return for his sacrifice of current consumption, he will be rewarded with interest.
This discussion includes the concern about the issue of inherited wealth. The hard socialist believes the state is the rightful owner and director of all wealth. Those less dedicated to full state control may agree that the owner of earned wealth deserves to be compensated for his sacrifice of delayed consumption with interest and dividends. But, they argue that no such sacrifice was experienced by the heirs, and hence they have no right to a life of luxury and leisure based on the principle and interest of that inheritance. Thus the wealth of the rich should be removed from them at death and given to the state, for distribution to the poor and to support the worthy projects of building the great society.
Again, such an argument is plausible, but it violates the principles of ownership, which include the right of the man who has served, been compensated, and saved, to dispose of the fruits of his labor as he chooses. At the center of this issue is the right of a citizen to own property. If the state can tell a man what he can and cannot do with his property, then in fact he does not own it. In an economy where there is no ownership, there is no motivation to work, other than that required by coercive force.
Such systems have proven to produce little motivation for excellent performance. The current death tax is simply the largest tax that government can now levy without seriously diminishing the motivation of its citizens to save money beyond death. Death was not a taxable transaction allowed by our Constitution. Ownership, motivation, and reward for one’s labor are the issues relevant to properly resolving this question. The final expenditure a man can make, and ultimate purpose for which he could be motivated to accumulate wealth to the end of his life, is to benefit his progeny. Men have the right to make such decisions if in fact they own the fruits of their labor.
When the state owns all wealth, there is no right to decide its disposition, and concurrently the motivation to risk and produce are blunted, and societal wealth shrinks proportionately
T.
