Chick-Fil-A and Homosexual Fascism

You've probably heard of the "Chick-Fil-A" controversy by now.

It's another example of what I call "homosexual fascism."

My friend Mark McCulley has reminded me that in Query XVII of Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson said government should not get involved in these issues of conscience:

The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. [Or no homosexual "marriage."] It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.

Those who speak most loudly in favor of "tolerance" seem to be the most intolerant.

Obama: Government, Not Business, Deserves the Credit

Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event in Roanoke, Virginia are already appearing on Facebook.

Judge Andrew Napolitano adds,

The president explains his beliefs:

"There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires."

There is a true premise to this argument, even though the conclusion (government deserves the credit) is false and evil.

Leonard Read pointed out over half a century ago that there isn't a single person on the face of the earth who knows how to make a pencil.

From scratch.

Mining the elements, lumberjacking, creating the paint, building the trucks and trains, and repairing the pencil-making machines. No one person can do it all.

The process of manufacturing anything depends on a global network of commerce and trade involving the Knowledge And Decisions of millions -- no, billions -- of human beings, operating under a division of labor, and overseen by the "invisible hand" of Divine Providence. Knowledge changes a billion times a day, with the changing prices of everything on earth, signaling the relative scarcity or abundance of natural resources and human labor. Every business that makes a decision based on this ever-changing knowledge changes everything for those who depend on the productivity of that business.

There is a difference between the "individualist" and the "survivalist." Obama doesn't understand the distinction.

True and Godly "individualists" cooperate with others, but they don't use the State to impose their will on others by force. They are not "isolationists." Individualist business owners are so grateful for the help they receive from an infinite chain of suppliers that they voluntarily pay them all out of their own pocket. They are happy to admit the truth of Obama's claim: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help...."

The question is, who organized the help?

Obama wants to give credit to the government. But the government had nothing positive to do with the manufacture of pencils, refrigerators, computers, and iPhones. Billions of people worked harmoniously, helping other businesses by doing business with other businesses, bringing the products to consumers around the world.

Who decided who would do what? Who decided how much help would be provided? Who made these decisions? Based on what knowledge?

Obama doesn't understand the answers to these questions, because he's a socialist.

Too many Americans are also socialists.

If we lived in the Soviet Union under totalitarian communism, and the Government Ministry of Shoes provided shoes to all the Soviet serfs, Obama -- and way too many Americans -- would be appalled at the very idea that the manufacture and distribution of shoes should be left to the "anarchy" of a "free market." They would ask these questions:

How could you? You are opposed to the public—and to poor people—wearing shoes! And who would supply shoes to the public if the government got out of the business? Tell us that! Be constructive! It's easy to be negative and smart-alecky about government; but tell us

• who would supply shoes?
• Which people?
• How many shoe stores would be available in each city and town?
• How would the shoe firms be capitalized?
• How many brands would there be?
• What material would they use? What material lasts?
• What would be the pricing arrangements for shoes?
• Wouldn't regulation of the shoe industry be needed to see to it that the product is sound?
• And who would supply the poor with shoes? Suppose a poor person didn't have the money to buy a pair?

Obama doesn't know how these decisions are made by a global network of free trade. So he concludes that government central planners should do it all.

And he thinks they have!

Economist Murray Rothbard should have been in Roanoke to make this point to President Obama:

These questions, ridiculous as they seem to be (and are) with regard to the shoe business, are just as absurd when applied to the libertarian who advocates a free market in fire, police, postal service, or any other government operation. The point is that

the advocate of a free market in anything cannot provide a "constructive" blueprint of such a market in advance.

The essence and the glory of the free market is that individual firms and businesses, competing on the market, provide an ever-changing orchestration of efficient and progressive goods and services: continually improving products and markets, advancing technology, cutting costs, and meeting changing consumer demands as swiftly and as efficiently as possible. The libertarian economist can try to offer a few guidelines on how markets might develop where they are now prevented or restricted from developing; but he can do little more than point the way toward freedom, to call for government to get out of the way of the productive and ever-inventive energies of the public as expressed in voluntary market activity. No one can predict the number of firms, the size of each firm, the pricing policies, etc., of any future market in any service or commodity. We just know—by economic theory and by historical insight—that such a free market will do the job infinitely better than the compulsory monopoly of bureaucratic government.

 "How will the poor pay for defense, fire protection, postal service, etc.," can basically be answered by the counter-question: how do the poor pay for anything they now obtain on the market? The difference is that we know that the free private market will supply these goods and services

• far more cheaply,
• in greater abundance,
• and of far higher quality

than monopoly government does today. Everyone in society would benefit, and especially the poor. And we also know that the mammoth tax burden to finance these and other activities would be lifted from the shoulders of everyone in society, including the poor.

Obama goes way too far when he says, "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen."

All of us who own or work in businesses made these things happen, not the government. And we are grateful to Divine Providence, not the messianic state, for our daily bread -- and the ovens that baked it.

Am I a "Christian Reconstructionist?"

Yesterday Gary DeMar published an article entitled, "If You Love Liberty You Might be a Terrorist."

The article concerns a report on terrorism in the United States published by the Department of Homeland Security.

I'm not going to quote from the article. It's a short article, a good article, and you should click that link above and read the article.

The report on terrorism cites "Christian Reconstructionists and Islamists" as potential terrorists.

Gary DeMar is listed in the Christian Reconstructionism Category on Wikipedia, so he is rightly concerned about the government saying Christian Reconstructionists are potential "terrorists."

Although I claim in many places (here, for example) to be a Christian Reconstructionist, or to have a "background" in the Christian Reconstructionist movement, or that I wrote a regular column in the Chalcedon Report, some would say I am not a "Christian Reconstructionist" because I was "excommunicated" from the Christian Reconstructionist movement, both formally and informally, and am now listed in Gary North's "Who's Not" of the Christian Reconstruction movement.

But it seems that Gary DeMar still feels that I'm a "Reconstructionist." In the article above he wrote:

As one Reconstructionist put it: “Our goal is persuasion, not revolution.”

Although nearly every Reconstructionist has said something like this, the only Reconstructionist I know who has written those exact words (and Google hasn't disproven me) is a certain Libertarian candidate for Congress, in a blog post on Romans 13.

It's nice to feel "included."

---

On persuasion, see:

Persuasion, Not Coercion

On revolution, see:

Would Jesus Celebrate Independence Day?

Independence Day?

Wednesday, July 4, 2012 What a glorious morning for America! — Samuel Adams, Upon hearing the gunfire at Lexington [April 19, 1775]
Today I'll be reading some essays suggested by the Future of Freedom Foundation, found below. I'll be asking these questions: Doesn't the Declaration of Independence say we have a "duty" to abolish any government that becomes a "tyranny?" And if America's Founding Fathers concluded that the British government in 1776 qualified as a "tyranny," wouldn't the Bush-Obama regime be a mega-tyranny? Don't we have a duty to abolish the current government if we aspire to be true Americans?
Hornberger’s Blog Richman’s Blog Bovard’s Blog	Immigration Project Spreading the Word Freedom Biographies FFF Merchandise

INDEPENDENCE DAY The Real Meaning of the Fourth of July by Jacob G. Hornberger Future of Freedom Foundation What Do We Celebrate on the Fourth of July? (2007) by Tibor R. Machan Future of Freedom Foundation Recapturing the Spirit of Independence (2007) by Ron Paul LewRockwell.com The Essence of Americanism (1961) by Leonard E. Read Foundation for Economic Education Adam Smith: 1776-1976 (1979) by Benjamin A. Rogge Liberty Fund     INDEPENDENCE DAY The Founders' Rights Stuff by Rosa Brooks Common Dreams July 4th in Bizarro World by Manuel Lora LewRockwell.com A Declaration of Independence Against Big Government by Richard M. Ebeling Northwood University Three Cheers for July 2 by Andrew Trees Washington Post Celebrating the Fight for Freedom on the Fourth by Ron Paul RonPaul.com

FFF Email Update Our hard-hitting, no-holds-barred free FFF Email Update is sent to subscribers daily and includes commentaries on current events, a thought for the week, most recent additions to our web site, and an update of upcoming FFF events. Subscribe to FFF Email Update If you are interested in making a donation by check to The Future of Freedom Foundation, our address is: The Future of Freedom Foundation 11350 Random Hills Road Suite 800 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Tel: (703) 934-6101 Fax: (703) 352-8678

In Praise of American Hypocrisy

This week 300 million Americans will at least be dimly aware that there is some kind of holiday. People get off work, there are parades, picnics, trips to the beach, Bar-B-Ques, and fireworks.

"Must be something going on here."

One survey a few years ago suggested that tens of millions of Americans believe that on "Independence Day" we celebrate the freeing of the slaves.

Probably more than that number of Americans know that on the 4th of July we commemorate the Declaration of Independence.

A much small number will actually read or reflect in any serious way on the meaning of that document.

And only a handful of "fringe," "wacko" "nutcases" actually believe that the propositions in the Declaration of Independence are actually true.

For this reason, our Federal guardians have wisely prohibited our local Public School teachers from teaching students that the Declaration of Independence is actually true.

Of course, Public School students can be taught that a bunch of dead white males used to believe that the Declaration was actually true.

They can even be taught that the Founding Fathers didn't really believe it was true, but merely promoted the Document in order to prop up their businesses and protect their ownership of slaves.

But Public School students can not be taught that the propositions in the Declaration of Independence are objectively true -- regardless of whether any person or government believes them to be true.

In other words, public schools teach the Declaration of Independence as history, as a relic, but not as enduring truth.

And beyond that, public schools inculcate tyranny rather than liberty as found in the Declaration.

So the 4th of July, like Christmas, is an exercise in national hypocrisy.

But that's a good thing.

Our nation is a little bit better because of vague myths like "Independence," "created equal," and "Christmas." Better than the government-coerced celebration of a mass murderer like Stalin or Mao.

This relates to our discussion yesterday about the danger of "warlords" emerging out of a libertarian society.

The transition from our current fascism into a libertarian society will only come with a revival of the influence of Christian principles.

When we arrive at a mature Christian/libertarian nation, there will obviously be a strong grassroots predisposition against aggression, coercion, and the whole "warlord lifestyle."

But there's always a critic of the libertarian vision who will say that if we get rid of too much fascism and socialism, a "warlord society" will emerge.

The Bible paints a different picture.

In the Old Covenant, if you came into contact with death and uncleanness, you yourself became unclean. But in the New Covenant, when the unclean comes in contact with the Christian, power flows out from Christ and the unclean becomes clean.

In subtle ways that might escape the observations and statistical calculations of the sociologist, ordinary people influence others when they make decisions based on Christian principles.

It's important to remember that a "warlord society" is a collective machine, not an individual "warlord." Hitler did not kill 6 million Jews; millions of Germans put on the German uniform and killed the Jews.

If there is sufficient opposition to coercion and aggression that our society should move from fascism to libertarianism, it will be because there are numerous individuals having a decentralized, grassroots influence on others. In such an environment, where does the "warlord society" come from? Who will wear the uniforms of the warlord?

In fact, however, even a superficial libertarianism, like a superficial Christianity, tends to intimidate warlords. Culture is powerful. Those who have a genetic, personality, or education-induced inclination to act like a warlord find themselves confronted with powerful moral influences in a Christian-libertarian society and instead of letting out their warlord tendencies, they pretend to be Christian-libertarians. ( <-- That's an important link. Read the verses. The verses are talking largely about warlords. ) Only when large numbers of the members of society reject libertarianism and begin manifesting warlord tendencies in their families, businesses, media, and voluntary associations, does a "warlord society" emerge in practice.

In other words, a "warlord society" emerges on the way down from Christian libertarianism, not on the way up beyond Christian libertarianism. If we are becoming more libertarian and Christian, the danger of a warlord society is not on our path; it's behind us.

Even Hypocrisy keeps us from the pure warlord society.

It would be better, of course, for people to be sincerely converted to Christian liberty. It would be better for America if we actually knew what the Declaration of Independence really said and took risks to defend those propositions:

• That there really is a God, and His existence is a "self-evident truth"
• That our rights really are the product of the intelligent design of our Creator
            (not a gift from the government)
• That all Americans really are obligated to conform their lives to
            "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"
• That one day our actions really must pass judgment with
            "the Supreme Judge of the world"
• That all Americans should have "a firm reliance on
            the Protection of Divine Providence."
• That Americans have a duty -- not just a right
            -- to abolish any government
            that becomes a tyranny.

Most Americans do not believe in America's Birth Certificate.

But at least they like to think they do.

And they want others to think that they do.