The Trade-Offs of Bailout

There is an extensive belief that: if the government can hand out money in a crisis, why it can’t do more of that during normal times? It’s quite a common belief because nobody learns that economics is the study of trade-offs. A former student delighted the nerd in me and emailed me to help understand the consequences of such a policy of direct cash “stimulus” to alleviate the crisis. Here was my response:

The idea should raise red flags, but how harmful the results are can depend on a variety of other factors.

The basic economic logic is that because money is not wealth, simply injecting money into the economy (if there are no other mitigating factors) will increase price inflation.

However, the Keynesian explanation (the economic theory behind this sort of stimulus/bail out) does seem plausible on first glance. Advocates of this would say something like:

“Because business are not able to keep staff productive and working (both because they stay home for safety, and because their clients are staying home and not buying stuff), a direct cash payment to people will both help them survive financially, but will also encourage people to spend that money, which means that the coffee shop actually has more money coming in again, which means that they are then able to hire more workers, and so forth.”

Again, that seems to be plausible. It seems both benevolent to individuals and is alleged to spur economic growth more generally. I’ll tackle both of those two things in turn.

First…

The problem is that in economics there are always trade-offs. First of all, where is the money coming from? Well, it’s coming from either…

1) current taxpayers (“here’s your money back”)

2) from future taxpayers (debt)

3) from printing money out of “thin air” (which is a tax on people’s money because it causes the value of money to decrease…inflation).

I could argue about the problems with the first source, but I don’t think I need to. The problem is, of course, that the bailout money will have to come from the latter two because the U.S. government already spends (annually) all its tax revenue and then another half-trillion on top of that. So it will borrow (which transfers a debt burden to future generations) or print (which causes price inflation).

Actually, the latter two will be essentially the exact same thing. When the government borrows money, it gets it out of thin air from the Federal Reserve, which then “buys” the debt by “making” the money (adding zeros to the Treasury’s balance). The Fed may or may not then sell those bonds to a bank, which would pull already existing money out of circulation and mitigate price inflation, but it doesn’t have to. It almost certainly won’t in this case, since their goal is more money in the economy.

So the inflationary effects are caused by either option 2 or 3 above.

Of course, many people will likely be legitimately helped in the short run. Again, there are benefits, and there are costs.

As for the inflation issue, there is legitimate concern.

In the 2008 crisis, there were bailouts, but most of the newly created money went straight to banks, which then held on to it because they were worried about more instability, which I think really restricted the price inflation we saw then (money doesn’t cause price inflation if it doesn’t circulate into the economy). This time, if they give so much directly to Americans, I’d be concerned of at least a short run of rapid inflation (probably not hyper inflation). I can’t predict the future, because there may be forces at work I don’t see. For example, if Americans hold on to a lot of that cash for a while and don’t spend it, you may not see the price inflation right away, it may just cause a slightly higher inflation rate in the mid- to longer- term. But historically, times when governments have started injecting money into the economy directly has always caused a period of rapid, or even hyper inflation, especially when the economy is contracting the production of goods and services (producing less), as it is right now with so many people staying home. The more they give, the worse the potential consequences. Worse case in history: the Weimar government paying German workers in the Ruhr not to go to work in 1923–that caused hyperinflation worse than anything the world has ever seen. Do I think it’d be that bad here? I highly doubt it, but obviously any price inflation affects the very people intended to be helped.

And that gives us the framework for understanding the second part:

Second…

On the broader goal that this is supposed to stimulate economic growth (the Keynesian idea of “priming the pump”—technically called creating “liquidity”), or, at least, slow the economic recession, that goal is offset by inflationary effects. People aren’t made better off when prices increase, for obvious reasons.

But what about keeping businesses open and so forth? Well, yes, some business may stay open that might have closed. Some workers might remain hired that would have been fired. I grant that. Again, economics is about trade-offs.

Fundamentally, however, you have to look at other costs–what is given up. We’ve looked at inflation. Let’s look at another one, and this gets at the very core of the matter:

People buying things isn’t what causes economic growth or a rising standard of living. You could give everyone 100 oz of gold in the Middle Ages, and sure, they could all go buy more shoes, clothes, horses, etc, right away before prices caught up and the gold became less valuable. The blacksmiths and cobblers and seamstresses would have been delighted…for just a little while. But what actually causes the standard of living to rise? It was the saving and investing that allowed for innovative technological advances. When saving is channeled into research and development to create new capital (machinery, computers, etc), that’s what creates more economic efficiency and raises real (inflation-adjusted) wages.

If everyone is out spending a lot of money, they are saving less money, which means there is less available for those investments that take a while to develop or invent. Imagine if Thomas Edison had just spent all the money on fancy clothes and shoes and nice homes that sustained him and financed his research while he worked on the light bulb! No light bulb, at least from him.

Back to our previous medieval example… let’s say one person chooses to take 100 oz of gold and use it to pay for his basic necessities for a year while he works on a new fertilizer that will ultimately quadruple agricultural output, making food cheaper and less labor-intensive for everyone. That one person has done more for everyone else because he invested his money rather than spent it. That’s how the economy grows.

A couple final points:
– Inflation encourages spending rather than saving. If you know your money is going to buy less in the future, are you more likely to buy stuff now or wait to buy stuff later?
– Spending reduces the amount of money that goes into investment.

Long story short: cash like that might really help some individuals and small businesses in the short run (and who’s complaining about getting an unexpected check?). In the short run, it might also cause some serious price inflation, but even if it doesn’t (and I certainly hope not), you will certainly see higher price inflation in the mid to longer run. And ultimately a bunch of spending makes it look like there’s a flurry of economic activity, but under the surface, it’s like a college student getting a bunch of extra money and going out and spending it all. Things seem really good for a time–nice car, nice TV, etc–but really, he is no better off economically in the long term.

(And none of this looks at the consequences of adding that amount onto the federal debt. But this is way too long already.)

Corporatism in the Progressive Era

It is a common misconception that the Progressive Era of the United States was a critical turning point in U.S. business–a time when vicious big companies were brought under the wise guardianship of state regulatory agencies for consumer protection.

Why, then, were these very businesses the main driving force in the creation of these regulatory agencies?


The following selection is pulled from my upcoming book, The Tale of Two Gospels. While the book does not primarily have an economics focus, the chapter on the American Progressive Era deals a bit with the creation of the corporate state in the United States, and a selection of that chapter has been edited for use here. If you would like to learn more about the book, visit LCKeagy.com/TwoGospels.


During the latter half of the 19th century, America experienced a veritable industrial explosion, bypassing all industrial European counterparts in production several times over. By 1910, the United States produced 30% of all manufactured goods globally, followed by Great Britain and Germany, each at 10% of global output. Output surge can be seen in a sampling of these statistics. From 1869 to 1899, commodity output increased 350%, agriculture more than doubled, construction increased 250%, manufacturing increased 600%, and mining increased 800%. Steel production increased ten times over, and crude oil production increased by twenty-six fold. And despite massive population increases during this time, commodity output per person (per capita) doubled from 1865 to 1900. [1]

Gross National Product (adjusted for inflation) from 1871 to 1891 increased 80%, while real (inflation adjusted) wages increased by an average of 13% from 1865 to 1891. In sharp contrast to the belief that living conditions worsened during this so-called “Gilded Age,” the cost of living fell on average 31% during those same years. Taken together, those figures equal a 64% increase in real wages with adjustments made for price changes, even while the average number of hours worked dropped from 11 to 10. The massive increase in outputs saw prices for virtually everything fall precipitously. Average prices fell by about 2.5% per year from 1870 to 1890, and the price for essentially every household item fell (and of so-called “monopolies,” only two product prices rose: matches and castor oil.[2])

Prices fell so sharply as business battled tooth and nail to stay ahead of competition both in innovation as well as quality and prices. Even behemoth companies that relaxed their competitive edge found themselves quickly surrendering large portions of market share to new agile companies. True to human nature, the major bosses of these big companies sought ways of preserving their constantly hemorrhaging profits. Specifically, they would seek to cartelize (form a cartel): voluntarily or legally preventing individual companies from having control over prices.

The process followed a pretty typical pattern. First, the major players in an industry would try to form a voluntary cartel (called “pooling” at the time): an agreement that they would not sell for less than a given price, offer discounts, or otherwise try to undercut each other. This would inevitably fail, either because a cartel member would secretly find other ways to draw in more customers or new companies would undercut the cartel, forcing prices down once more.

So companies would turn to politics to secure their process of cartelization, pouring money and energy into lobbying for government regulatory agencies that would allow for price-fixing (preventing a price from going above or below a certain point). Of course, the politicians had to sell such plans as a public benefit or else risk electoral backlash, so regulatory legislation was typically sold as a means of protecting consumers against high prices or vicious monopolies. But once these regulatory agencies were created, they would more often than not be staffed by members of the major companies, as well as so-called expert managers who were able to argue that their regulations were established by scientific expertise. This last point was already an easy selling point; such was a trademark of the era.

In many cases, even the regulatory agencies would not serve the companies as well as hoped. This was frequently because once it was established, political money would consume the process of trying to draw the agencies to certain competing ends. For example, Theodore Roosevelt, whose major donors and allies were associates of big banker John Pierpont Morgan, would frequently use regulatory agencies to attack companies affiliated with the Rockefellers, who were major rivals to the Morgans. Meanwhile. he would virtually leave Morgan-affiliated companies alone. Or the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), set up to regulate railroad rates (with the full support of the railroad companies,) ultimately fell sway to the major shipping companies—the customers of the railroads who wanted the lower prices. So when even regulation did not prove to adequately protect the big businesses from competition, they finally sought nationalization: direct government control, which most accomplished during World War I (at least for the duration). Of course, their own “scientific” experts would still populate the government offices in charge of the regulations.

The first major industry to follow this process would be the railroad companies. Throughout the 1860s and 1870s, attempts at voluntary cartels failed over and over for reasons already stated. As railroad guru Albert Fink said in 1876, bemoaning this reality, “Government supervision and authority may be required to some extent to accomplish the object in view.”[3] When, in the late 1870s and early 1880s, Congress began discussing regulatory legislation (which would produce the Interstate Commerce Commission), railroad bosses were pleased. As John Green, the vice president of the Pennsylvania Railroad company testified before the House Commerce Committee in 1884, “a large majority of the railroads in the United States would be delighted if a railroad commission or any other power could make rates upon their traffic which would insure them six per cent dividends, and I have no doubt, with such a guarantee, they would be very glad to come under the direct supervision and operation of the National Government.”[4]  

When the bill passed in 1887, the Chicago Inter-Ocean wrote that “Perhaps the strongest argument that can be presented in favor of the passage of this bill is found in the fact that many of the leading railway managers admit the justice of its terms and join in the demand for its passage.” [5] So the ICC was created, and as the railroad boss Charles Adams said, “In the hands of the right men,” the bill “would produce the desired results.”

Seeing the (at least temporary) success of the railroad companies and having experienced their own failures in voluntary cartels, other major businesses followed suit in seeking government regulation as a means of cartelization. This would be seen in sugar, manufacturing, banking, iron, steel, petroleum and so forth. Murray Rothbard offers a great summary:

In manufacturing as well as railroads, then, mergers as well as cartels had systematically failed to achieve the fruits of monopoly on the free market. It was time, then, for those industrial and financial groups who had sought monopoly to emulate the example of the railroads: to turn to government to impose the cartels on their behalf. Except that even more than in the railroads the regulation would have to be ostensibly in opposition to a business “monopoly” on the market, and even more would it have to be put through in conjunction with the opinion-molding groups in society. The stage was set, at the turn of the 20th century, for the giant leap into statism to become known as the Progressive Period.[6]

To proceed through all the various measures taken by government officials and big business leaders would merit a much more extensive post, and the full discussion can be read about in Rothbard’s extensive The Progressive Era. But a few significant advancements in pursuit of these goals ought to be noted.

Individual companies increasingly lobbied the government throughout the 1890s and the early 20th century. Over time, however, they also began to work together. In 1900, the National Civic Federation (NCF) was organized as an expansion of the Chicago Civic Federation (CCF). The CCF had been created in 1893, and held a series of conferences in the late 1890s. One CCF conference—the Chicago Conference on Trusts (1899)—featured speakers such as the progressive economists Jeremiah Jenks and John Commons. Also in attendance were numerous governors, including then New York governor Theodore Roosevelt. At the conference, speakers called for government regulation of virtually all industry. Then, to focus their goals, they held a unanimous vote among the CCF executives to create the National Civic Federation.

The NCF was quickly headed and staffed by big business leaders and allies[7], and would go on to push for a number of goals in the cartelization process of industry.[8] A major move toward government regulation was the NCF’s National Conference on Trusts and Combinations (NCTC) in 1907, at which businessmen were the largest group and closely affiliated with then-U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt. The NCTC recommended a number of major proposals. Not the least significant of these was a recommendation that the government license and regulate corporations “in the public interest.”  This would virtually give major quasi-monopolized companies (called trusts) legality by getting a government stamp of approval and removing them from threat of lawsuit under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.[9]

Roosevelt and many of the hundreds of government representatives at the conference were delighted by the proposals, and asked the NCF to write the very legislation that would enforce these proposals. Of course, the NCF complied with a committee of business leaders to draft the bill.[10] The bill would temporarily fail when a flood of opposition by smaller businesses made the bill politically untenable. Still, the NCF would eventually pursue their goal again through what became the Federal Trade Commission in 1914, and would effectively accomplish many of the earlier goals.

Numerous other measures were taken to pursue the corporate state during the Progressive Era, including, but not limited to the creation of the Department of Commerce and Labor, the Food and Drug Administration, and so forth. Many readers today will understand these to be basic essentials of consumer protection, but their beginnings, too, were laden with anti-competition motive, and intended to protect and cartelize the major producers.[11] Also notably, the era saw the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1914. This was the bankers’ ultimate cartelization devise, drawn up by the major bankers and a few politicians in a highly secret meeting on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia. In the words of Senator Nelson Aldrich, a key figure in its creation, “The organization proposed is not a bank, but a cooperative union of all the banks of the country for definitive purposes.”[12]

Additionally, the three major Progressive Presidents—Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson—would all enact a host of Progressive reforms and measures, many helping to create a corporate state—a state closely associated with the big businesses of the time.


[1] By 1910, the United States produced 30% of all manufactured goods globally, followed by Great Britain and Germany, each at 10%. Output surge can be seen in a sampling of these statistics. From 1869 to 1899, commodity output increased 350%, agriculture more than doubled, construction increased 250%, manufacturing increased 600%, and mining increased 800%. Steel production increased ten times over, and crude oil production increased by twenty-six fold. And despite massive population increases during this time, commodity output per person (per capita) doubled from 1865 to 1900. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1960). All statistics in this section are derived from this source, vis-à-vis Murray Rothbard’s The Progressive Era on page 92.

[2] This information is cited in the article here by Thomas E. Woods, Ph.D., which dismantles the commonly held belief that monopolies in a free market are harmful. As a few added statistics, during the 1880s, the price of steel rails fell from $68 to $32 a ton (and ultimately to $17/ton by 1898), refined sugar fell from 9 cents to 7 cents, and zinc prices fell from $5.51 to $4.40 per pound. Likewise, oil prices fell from 30 cents a gallon in 1869 to 8 cents a gallon by the end of the 1880s.

[3] Qtd. in Rothbard, 67.

[4] Ibid, 72.

[5] Ibid, 74.

[6] Ibid, 107.

[7] Examples include Marcus Hanna, a close associate to John Rockefeller, the Chicago utilities boss Samuel Insull, Chicago banker (and later Treasury Secretary) Franklin MacVeagh, Andrew Carnegie, and several members of the J.P.Morgan company. Of the largest 367 corporations in the United States, one third had representatives in the NCF.

[8] One example included regulations such as mandatory workman’s competition that would impose costs on all businesses, but proportionally more on smaller businesses, cutting back on competition. The NCF also pushed for public ownership of utilities (gas, trolleys and electricity), which meant that the government would award a single company in an area the right to produce these utilities. Of course, for the company that received the contract, profit was guaranteed; it was a government-created monopoly. In 1905, members of the NCF, including John Commons, were part of a commission specifically intended to scientifically study the European method of public utilities, which ultimately formed the basis for their proposals and a series of laws enacted in states.

[9] Readers who know this history are aware that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed in 1880 ostensibly to allow the government to break apart monopolies, or trusts. It had seldom been used, partly because monopolies under the free market were nearly impossible to maintain, as we’ve seen. Theodore Roosevelt began to use the Act to sue companies—namely Rockefeller affiliated companies—as president. Roosevelt, however, was not against trusts, per se, as he was quite happy with the NCTC recommendation that the government simply regulate rather than abolish trusts that it approved of.

[10] In order to ensure that readers are not simply having to take my word for it, some of the members of the committee created to draft the legislation were as follows. Judge Gary: chairman of the board of U.S. Steel. Isaac Seligman and James Speyer: major New York investment bankers. George Perkins: significant Morgan ally. The copy of the bill was ultimately written by J.P. Morgan’s attorney, Francis Stetson and the attorney for a major railroad company, Victor Morawhetz.

[11] For example, the Chicago meat packing plants were firm lobbyists for the Food and Drug Act, as getting the federal government’s stamp of approval would make them more competitive in European markets and create higher regulatory costs for competitors. Contrary to the popular belief that meat was heavily unsanitary, however, the meat packers still had local inspectors (which European governments did not recognize; Europeans wanted state-approved meat), and no lawsuits were ever brought against the meat packers for adulterated meat. That does not mean that it was always pure or clean, but the idea of good government versus bad corporations takes on a far more complex and interesting than our cartoonish versions of history suggest.

[12] Qtd. in Rothbard, 476.

[13] Qtd. in ibid, 294.

Frozen II: A Tragic Attempt at Truth

As a parent of three, having the time to actually see a movie in the theater is a luxury seldom afforded! But over Thanksgiving Break, I actually had the chance to see Frozen II with my wife, my siblings and their spouses. And after the feature film full of darkness, sadness, elusive hope that is realized by the end, and tinged with Olaf’s brilliant ability to bring laughter in the worst of situations, we all drove home…

…As we did so, we scrutinized the film. What messages did it speak? What themes did we agree with? Which were wrong? What was the agenda?

Can’t you just enjoy a film for the entertainment value?! Many in that same car ride might scream.

No.

(A note: there will be a few spoilers here.)

Again, no we cannot. I cannot.

Frozen II is a film loaded with far more than entertainment value. It’s not a children’s movie, to be sure, but it does offer an interesting commentary on worldview that is actually a bit different than many films.

Cornerstone to the plot is a wrong that needs righting. There is nothing unusual about this; many (if not most) movies are premised this way. But what Frozen II does so bluntly that many films do not, is to take the time to establish a basis on which things are called “right” and “wrong.” To try and establish a worldview for justice as the pivotal basis for morality.

And what is that basis for justice? Answer: it is the spirits of nature—fire, wind, water and earth. It is they that determine what is good and bad, right and wrong.

This is actually quite a bit different than many films. Think about it. What do most films suggest as the standard for right and wrong? If you’ve been paying attention, you got it right: Truth is in you.

Frozen II takes a slightly, but not entirely, different tact. That it does so, I find fascinating. I find it revealing.

And I nevertheless find it tragic.

Not tragic because the look inside yourself for truth message is the more accurate, but because it is reveals the longing of the script writers—and the longing of a people and culture torn from the moorings of Christianity—to look for absolutes in a world that has for years all but dismissed them.  

It is also interesting that, on the basis of the right and wrong established by the spirits, there must be a scapegoat—a person who is able to right the wrongs of the past. Of course, everyone who has seen the movie knows that Elsa is that scapegoat: the spirits gave her power to undo the wrongs committed by her grandfather. She is able to tame the angry spirits and, in theory, bring unity between two groups that were set in war against each other by betrayal and mistrust.

It is true that a superficial look at this worldview framework might draw some parallels with Christianity. A standard of justice broken and a scapegoat created to bring reconciliation is quite alike to the Christian worldview.

But this ignores some glaring issues.

In the end, it is not truly Elsa who brings reconciliation, but rather Anna who is able to use the spirits to destroy the structure (a dam) that has caused division. Elsa, if anything, makes things worse by furthering mistrust and division by her insistence to continue on her quest alone, leaving Anna to save their kingdom and Elsa’s own life.

Sure, these seem like worldview hurdles that we can overlook easily enough, if we avoid some deeper probing. Especially when you couple it with a key theme of the movie: do the next right thing, which I find to be particularly powerful.

Still, if Anna—representing all of us who are not endowed with special powers—is ultimately the one who “saves the day,” then the message returns somewhat anticlimactically to the same ‘the power is in you’  message that we suggested the film dismissed. Turns out it doesn’t quite dismiss it, after all. The spirits still create the standard of right and wrong—and in this, we find a bit of uniqueness in its attempt at absolutes—but fulfillment comes in ‘finding yourself’. Same clichéd theme unoriginal script writers have beaten to death.

These spirits themselves are extremely temperamental, raging here and there and then suddenly calmed by some mysterious power Elsa has that even she doesn’t fully understand until she is able to do just that: find herself.

I’ll pause here to revisit one theme I think that can have profound impact, commented on before: do the next right thing, complete with a beautiful song to promote it. Regardless of the worldview framework, it is certainly a prominent theme in the movie that we ought to do what we can to bring reconciliation in broken relationships, even if the movie adopts the oversimplified view that conflicts in society are primarily one group against another (with a strong politically correct dose of proclaiming that such conflicts are the result of racism, imperialism and bigotry).

But let’s get to the heart of the matter.

To Christians, the standard of right and wrong is not the cause of temperamental spirits or even a temperamental God, but a God who is perfect, holy and just. A God who created people for relationship with Him, and then with each other flowing out of that first relationship. The brokenness in the world came not from one group imperializing or marginalizing another, but from claiming that we are our own sovereigns, in need of nothing but our own intelligence, will and self-love. Brokenness and sin came from rebellion to the One who made us.

And freedom and fulfillment come in returning to Him, surrendering to Him, receiving His forgiveness. Instead of a path to redemption in finding ourselves, or even in doing “the next right thing,” redemption comes from a perfect sacrifice—a perfect scapegoat—and our submission to Him. Taking up our crosses, and following Him. Choosing to give up our lives that we might truly find our lives (Matthew 10:38-39).

Instead of temperamentally throwing a temper tantrum until we find in ourselves the will and truth to appease him—even in doing good things—we find in our Lord a love that understands we cannot do anything to bring reconciliation on our own. So in that profound love, He sent His own Son to do the job for us with the most brutal of deaths followed by victory over death in resurrection.

How different this is from the over-played message that we become our own scapegoat, our own source of redemption, once we truly find ourselves.

Christians, we can empathize with the writers of Frozen II—and the many movies whose mold it fits. There is brokenness in the world. There are wrongs that need righting. There are histories of injustice that ripple through society. There is a longing in individuals for an elusive fulfillment that movies like Frozen II try to wrap in a search for self or even the message of doing the next right thing.

But let us not stop there: instead, let us be the counter-message in our culture that says it is not in us to do the work of redemption, but in Jesus Christ. Do the next right thing—yes, indeed!—because Christ has given us a path to true reconciliation both with Him and each other. He paid the price for it. We do not need a dangerous quest following a siren’s call to find ourselves, but rather a humility — and far greater courage, if we are honest — to lay down ourselves for the life He has already promised those who do just that.

Left vs. Right: The History of a Paradigm

Among the political terms loaded with assumption, often little understanding and certainly far less historical context are the terms that follow:

Left Wing and Right Wing.

And yet, our talking heads in the media and the elites in our government offices throw the terms around with impunity. And the assumptions that accompany these sweeping labels can often create all sorts of false presumptions—and sometimes accusations—deliberately earmarked along with the accurate ones. So it seems to me that a bit of historical clarification—as is often the case—can offer a bit more insight into the meaning of the terms today.

The terms “left” and “right” as political designations originated during one of the most violent preludes to modern revolution: the French Revolution. After the Third Estate—representing the majority of the French population—broke away from the representatives of the nobility and the clergy and named themselves the National Assembly of France, they quickly began to divide on how far to take their new revolution. Having passed a French Constitution severely limiting the king’s power and establishing state control over the Church in France, those who were generally content with the extent of their significant changes began to sit on the right side of the legislative chamber. But even so, a more radical group emerged. These were the Jacobins and their allies, and these tended to sit together on the left side of the chamber. These Jacobins would soon dominate the Revolution, leading it to the execution of the king, an attempt to obliterate Christianity in France, and a complete mass-murder of political prisoners at the hands of the guillotine in the infamous Reign of Terror.[1]

And thus emerged the “Left” and the “Right.” It is interesting that even in the infancy of these pervasive terms, both the Left and Right were radical. Though less radical than their Jacobin colleagues across the chamber, even the Right Wing of the National Assembly could hardly be considered conservative, as they, too, had been responsible for tearing down the old institutional framework of aristocratic France. State control of the Church, accomplished with the Civil Constitution of the Clergy in 1791? An official ban on all aristocratic titles, and a limitation of the power of monarch to nothing more than a rubber-stamp on legislation (without even full veto power)? Hardly much conserving the old order there, and all supported by the so-called Right Wing.[2]

Soon enough, the terms Left and Right were adopted across the Western world, and of course, today are used to describe governments and officials around the world.  

Our modern understanding of the terms was heavily influenced by Karl Marx, as many who use the designation “Left-Wing” today refer to those who support some form of socialism, whether in a classical (government ownership of factories, national resources) or a modern welfare state sense. The underlying assumption, of course, is that Left-Wingers favor egalitarianism and equality, whether socially, economically, politically, et cetera. In contrast, then, sometimes merited and sometimes not, Right-Wingers are perceived as favoring an understanding of society that at least accepts, and at most advocates for, some inequality. As an editorial aside, I must note that most self-proclaimed Right-Wingers will adamantly argue for equality of opportunity, regardless of the outcomes. But the contrast with the Left-Wingers is their belief that different outcomes will likely result, and this nearly always the result of unequal personalities, levels of intelligence, physical abilities, motivation and so forth. Very few (but not all) modern Right-Wingers will deny any basic human equality in rights or opportunities.

But back to history.

It is quite clear that the terms “Left” and “Right” wing are affected—whether accurately or not—by some significant historical episodes. Far more well-known than the French Revolution roots of the terms are the influence of the major powers of the 1920s and 1930s. Thus it is that the Nazis are considered Right-Wing and the communists under Lenin to be Left-Wing. But the difference here is more hyperbolic and more centered around “teams” than it is around substantive policy differences (both favored various extents of socialism and state control over property and the economy). Let’s explore this further.

For his part, Karl Marx believed that history is determined—driven—by the conflict of two major classes of people: the owners and non-owners (bourgeoisie and proletariats). His ultimate belief was that as a result of Capitalism, the proletariats (primarily, the factory workers) would arise, dismantle the entire capitalist structure through the creation of a “Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” and then dissolve all private ownership of the means of production (everything that goes into making things). All such resources would be shared in common: communism.[3] Vladimir Lenin thought human actors (the Bolsheviks, in his case) could speed this process along. The ultimate goal: absolute egalitarianism and no property ownership (except for personal items). If this forms the extreme left end of the “Left-Right-Wing” continuum, then anyone who leans toward egalitarianism, especially as enforced by state mechanisms, is considered “Left-Wing.”

With the rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia and the pursuit of this private-property free world, political and intellectual figures throughout Europe grew increasingly worried. Those who did so were increasingly considered Right-Wing. That such a small group of socialists (registered Bolsheviks were about 0.01% of the Russian population in 1917) could take over one of the largest economies in the world was understandably alarming.

One important note about the Left-Wing ideology emerging with the Bolsheviks in Russia was its emphasis on internationalism. By this, we mean that they were not nationalist, but rather saw communism as the ultimate and universal goal of all proletariat workers. They believed in the ultimate dissolution of political borders. For this reason, the nationalist leaders of the 1920s—Benito Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, Francisco Franco, and many others—were first and foremost opposed to Bolshevism.

And with this, their affiliation with the Right-Wing began. It was already the case that some measure of “conservatism” was being affiliated with the term “Right-Wing” in western countries, and when Mussolini and Hitler arrived on the scenes in the 1920s, some conservatives in England and France were sympathetic with their desire for a strong national unity and their fear of the totalitarian Bolsheviks. So in turn, they developed their own totalitarian regimes with a special and deliberate emphasis on culture and race as a means of creating powerful nationalistic movements. The race and cultural distinctions replaced the class distinctions of the Bolsheviks. (True conservatives in Germany during Hitler’s rise to power, naturally, were aghast at his radical re-envisioning of society. While Hitler and other fascists appealed to culture and history, they were by no means conservative.)

This is a key reason why, even today, nationalism is considered to be Right-Wing, and to many, is the defining feature of the Right (though not all agree on this point). (Ironically, the Jacobins, the original “leftists,” were some of the first most radical nationalists in history. Learn more here.) Certainly, with this designation, the umbrella of Right Wing is broad enough to encompass everyone from general conservatives who believe in the small-government liberalism (libertarianism) of the American Founders, to Americans who fit into various stereotypes of patriots, to advocates of a powerful government to enforce “conservative values,” to the radical White Supremacists, such as the KKK and other emergent groups. And in contrast, the Left Wing can embody anyone from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to college students who want to protest speakers like Jordan Peterson, to Antifa, the violent self-proclaimed anti-fascist organization. (If you find yourself arguing with me that many patriots are also Left-Wing, you are starting to get the point of this article.)

The point here is that although there are some very rough contours of definition lending themselves to the two sides (without any real uniformity), they are often more defined by their opposition to the other side.

But with such broad, vague and historically ambiguous designations, these terms can begin to mean a lot of different things to those who use them, and often affiliate people with very different worldviews and political positions—for better or for worse.

Often times, however, there are a surprising number of similarities by extreme groups on either “side.”

Let’s look at the case of the fascist Nazis and the communist Bolsheviks as a case in point. Both were radical progressives with a propensity to use violence and force for the actualization of their visions. Progressivism is a worldview that primarily believes that the coercive power of the state and social forces can improve human nature itself. In this sense, the French Revolution was a progressive revolution, as much as the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Nazi rise to power in Germany.

Although both groups anchored their progressive visions on different ultimate goals, both were highly collectivist in the sense that there was an obvious “good” side and an obvious “bad” side. The good had to be advanced and the bad eradicated, whether through true conversion, fear or extermination. Lenin wrote that people have to smash the resistance of the bourgeoisie class; they must “sweep away the old” and create “the new.” Even more clearly, a high-ranking officer in Lenin’s secret police explained it this way:

We are not carrying out a war against individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. We are not looking for evidence or witnesses to reveal deeds or words against the Soviet power. The first question we ask is—to what class does he belong, what are his origins, upbringing, education or profession? These questions define the fate of the accused. This is the essence of the Red Terror.

For Hitler and the Nazis, the enemy was not a class, but anyone less than the most advanced biological types of peoples and races. They sought to help a Darwinist view of biology along by advancing the German race. As the Marxist German theorizer Ludwig Woltmann wrote, “The German race has been selected to dominate the earth.” The Nazis fully believed that they were meant to fulfill the Darwinist arguments of Frederick Nietzsche, who wrote that “The extinction of many types of peoples is just as desirable as any form of reproduction” and that “the tendency must be towards the rendering extinct of the wretched, the deformed, the degenerate.”

Both Hitler and Lenin, and those who shared their visions, both believed in the progressive idea that human nature could be changed. Lenin’s colleague Leon Trotsky wrote:

Man will make it his purpose to master his own feelings, to raise his instincts to the heights of consciousness, to make them transparent, to extend the wire of his will into hidden recesses, and thereby to raise himself to a new plane, to create a higher social biological type, or, if you please, a superhuman.

Hitler, also, expressed a similar vision, though with different means, calling his “National Socialism … more even than a religion: it is the will to create mankind anew.”

Both the “Right-Wing” Nazis and the “Left-Wing” Bolsheviks were totalitarian visionaries. Both favored powerful states (governments) with extensive power for social engineering. And both would be responsible for millions upon millions of deaths.

In modern context, obviously the terms are seldom used in the extreme cases as this. But these historical episodes clearly influence the way that we think about these terms. Opponents of the Left Wing will often use the term among their peers as a way to invoke fear of the extremes of Leftism. Conversely, opponents of the Right Wing will often use the term among their peers as a way to invoke fear of Right-Wing Extremism.

Does this mean there is no merit in these terms? I suppose, in a strict scholarly sense, there can be some very helpful discussion formed around them, and depending on how narrowly they are defined, they can be used semi-accurately. But I am hard pressed to find much helpful about them as they are used hyperbolically without contextual discussion, both by supporters and opponents of each side. To call another person Leftist can mean a whole host of things, and so it is for those who call others Right-Wing. Just as the history of these designations hardly presented two consistently pure ideological sides, so it is the same today.


[1] I have written a more extensive history of the French Revolution as a part of my book project, The Tale of Two Gospels. Click here to access the entire chapter on the French Revolution for free.

[2] It is not my goal to comment on the desirability of these measures, but simply to explain the history.

[3] To note, Marx used the words “communism” and “socialism” interchangeably.

How Consumer Demand Determines the Price… of Everything

Hey folks! I’m diving into economics again today. As it turns out, my own classroom teaching often fuels content for a post, and given my shortness of time, I might as well kill two birds with one stone. This is a description of how consumer demand drives prices, and though it seems logical enough, most of us don’t even think about this until someone actually walks us through it.

Until Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School of Economics, really started the Marginal Revolution in the latter half of the 1800s, it was generally accepted that prices were more or less based on the value of their inputs (land, labor and capital). Carl Menger revolutionized the conception of prices with his explanation that it is not the value of inputs that ultimately determine prices, but consumer demand. And as an extension of that, the value of inputs (the factors of production: land, labor and capital) themselves are determined by consumer demand for finished goods.

Carl Menger (1840-1921)

Let’s try to explain this with an example. Let’s say that in the year 2019, Widget X becomes a major hot product; everybody wants it (or almost everybody). Let’s say that to make Widget X, it takes a very rare resource which we will call Lamboviam. Lamboviam, in our example, is as rare as diamonds, but it not used for any other product other than in Widget X. Suddenly, as the demand for Widget X spikes, the price for Widget X will go up. The producers of Widget X, excited about the profit they can make, will want to now make even more. Other entrepreneurs will also start to make Widget X, hoping to capitalize on the profits.

Of course, all this means that they will need more—much more—Lamboviam. So the demand for Lamboviam goes up, which will push its price up. Guess what that means. It becomes more profitable to mine Lamboviam. So more mining companies will be drawn to mining Lamboviam in the Lamboviam mines of northern Canada (we’re making this all up…) because they can make more money mining Lamboviam than they could mining other things (which is why they start mining more). That also, by the way, pushes up the wages for the miners themselves, because the demand for their labor has gone up.

In that way, consumer demand for Widget X not only drove up the price of the Widget, but also the price of all the inputs.

To see how this really works from another angle, now let’s look at the year 2020, when suddenly nobody wants to buy Widget X anymore; the new cool fad –Widget Y—has replaced it. As it turns out, Widget Y does not use any Lamboviam. So in 2020, nobody is buying Widget X (demand drops to 0), so what demand is there for Lamboviam? Again, none. So what demand is there for the miners of Lamboviam? None. What can a Lamboviam miner now earn? Nothing. It doesn’t matter if Lamboviam mines are incredibly dangerous and the work seems like it should be compensated with high wages for such dangerous work; if nobody is buying Lamboviam to make Widget X, nobody will pay a worker to mine Lamboviam.

(Of course, how much Lamboviam is available—ie, supplied—can push prices up or down, but demand is the ultimate driving factor, because supply is meaningless if consumers don’t first want to buy something in the first place, which is the whole point of this description.)

And in this example, we can see how it is not the value of inputs that determine price, but the demand for the finished goods that then ripples out to all the inputs, and that includes labor, as many people seem to forget.

Now just replace Widget X with something more familiar, like diamond rings. If nobody wanted to buy diamond jewelry, the demand for diamonds would be much lower (but not gone completely, as I’ll explain shortly), and hence the demand for diamond mines would be much lower, and the wages of diamond miners would be much lower. Incidentally, even if nobody wanted diamond jewelry, diamonds are also used in high-precision cutting of glass, for example, so there is industrial demand for diamonds in addition to consumer demand. But we can see how it is demand for diamonds that ultimately drives the prices for the diamonds themselves, and the other inputs.

So, you might ask, what about the dangerous conditions of diamond mining? Doesn’t that push prices up for diamonds? Yes, it does, but my main point doesn’t change. In order to attract diamond miners, diamond mining companies have to offer higher wages. (We’ll set aside right now the real issue of involuntary mining; there is some of that globally.) But why is it worth it to the company to offer higher wages to attract workers to dangerous work? Because the profit potential is still high enough that they are willing to pay more. If demand for diamonds slackens and there is not as much potential for profit (so mining companies have to pay less or fewer people in order to keep making a profit), they will not be able to attract as many miners to the dangerous work, and so will see fewer people applying to work for them (or people leaving for safer and/or higher paid work). But again, this is not ultimately based on the level of danger of the work, but from those who want the diamonds and are thus willing to pay more for the labor. Still confused? Imagine how much the dangerous work of diamond-mining will pay if nobody wants to buy diamonds anymore. $0.

I would highly recommend you watch the following video, at least from 50:38 to the end.

Want to join the rest of us nerds and learn the history of economics? Economist Bob Murphy has an entire two-part series on just that at LibertyClassroom.com.

Why I Write What I Write

The following is actually drawn from an email I wrote about why I started this project, especially from a Christian perspective that might find my “pen” better used to write exhortations on Scripture and the Christian life (which I do, as well, in other venues). I think it serves as a helpful mission statement or manifesto, if you will.

What I see is a world desperately in need of Jesus. I see a world that looks to political solutions where only spiritual solutions will suffice. I see a Christian community of conservatives that believe false narratives about the American government and that idolizes parts of it and demonizes others, and I believe there is a destructive dissonance in that approach because it abandons the simplicity of the Gospel: that all people need Christ, and that political solutions don’t–and can’t–work.

I seek to break down the idolization of political solutions because of that: they just don’t work. They never have. Like Israel begged for a king against God’s warning that they would abuse power, and He saw it as a personal rejection of His sovereignty, so we too look to government power for solutions that only Christ can provide.

I also am passionate about seeing the church fill the void in proclaiming the truth of God’s Gospel–which is wholly apolitical–where they think that the government should step in. I really do want to help people understand the reality of the political and economic sphere, the inherent brokenness in it, and to help destroy the idolatry of the “king.” To Christians, I would say and do say that this is an opportunity to return attention to the true King. 

That’s ultimately why I write what I write.

(If this resonates with you, I would STRONGLY encourage you to check out my capstone project to this end: The Tale of Two Gospels.)

Democracy: A Meaningless, Dangerous Word

“Democracy.”

The word that has come to mean anything those who use it want it to mean.

“We must spread democracy to the world.”

“How can we still accept [pick your issue] in a democratic society?”

“That’s [pick your political or social vice] a violation of our democratic principles!”

And thus democracy becomes the epitomizing word describing any given desirable social or political outcome. Don’t like a Supreme Court decision? Democracy is at stake. Love a Supreme Court decision? They’re upholding democratic principles!

In reality, the word democracy has become meaningless in its overbroad application.

Its meaninglessness is a symptom—and thus a helpful teaching tool—of a far more important reality: that the pursuit of “democracy” is not what many people who use it really want.

Let me explain.

First, let’s actually visit the definition of democracy. From the Greek, we all recall from grade school, it means “rule of the many.” In its purest form, it is majority rule, more accurately defined as majority dictatorship. In theory, then, if 51% of voters decide to enslave the other 49%, then it is their prerogative. After all, it was a majority decision. Such extreme implications aside or even mitigated for, majority rule still implies some measure of coercion by the majority of those who favor a particular law, program, et cetera.

Many people—particularly progressives— favor that definition of the word when it suits their desired outcomes, though often it does not. So if that definition will not do, they would use the word “democracy” in a way that supports a particular social agenda. If evidence or even a strict vote demonstrates that the majority does not favor a particular vision or social outcome, then the word democracy must abandon its own definition and adopt something much different. Democracy, then, becomes a term used to defend a goal, whether that goal favors a majority or a minority.

It is used to defend either dictatorship of the majority or dictatorship of the minority.

To a classical liberal or a libertarian who favors the protection of individual liberty, pure democracy has historically proven to be a threat. For example, the classical liberal movement of the early 1800s in the German Confederation, eager to see the expansion of suffrage undo the autocratic power of the government, soon found that it spurred on the first major welfare state and the accompanying taxation as people began to vote for themselves privileges at the expense of others.

To the progressive who favors some particular social goal or outcome, and coercion must guide society to that goal or outcome, democracy is simply the word used to justify the means. So long as “the majority” favors their vision (even if this could be always accurately assessed) they have no problem with the use of force to coerce the “minority” to act in accordance with that vision.

This is the dictatorship of the majority.

But almost never is the true democratic principle of majority rule what matters to them.  The progressives, masters at the manipulation of language (think of political correctness), use the word democracy to mean “equality”—usually forced, under threat of law or lawsuit. Make sure that the cake-baker suffers for the injustice of his discrimination to bake the cake for the gay wedding, they cry, lest he threaten “democracy.” For the progressive, their vision is the one that must be forced onto society because it is whatever society really needs, they claim, and in that, is “democratic.”

This is dictatorship of the progressive vision—dictatorship of the minority.

And both applications–dictatorship of the majority and dictatorship of the minority–are equally dangerous to individual liberty and to those whose views are not in line with whoever holds the banner of the state’s authority.

The Public Service of “Price Gouging”

Every time another natural disaster threatens havoc, media and layman alike come prepared with their rhetorical scourge for the price gougers: those who would dare take advantage of severe shortages to rake in a windfall in times of crisis at the expense of the helpless. Surely, it must be the most selfish of mankind who would stoop to such deplorable practices. Government, come the cries, must stop this public menace with price controls and steep penalties for violations.

Selfish desire to take advantage of a crisis may indeed be the motive of the so-called price gouger, but a focus on motives in crisis should not divert our attention from very real economic incentives and consequences. Contrary to popular opinion, the price gouger, in fact, serves as an important step in alleviating a food and supply crisis. And to stop him only encourages hoarding and delays a return to normalcy.

How can this be? To charge $10 for a bottle of water forces households to spend possibly hundreds on such an essential resource. And $500 hotel rooms inland from a hurricane’s path may cripple a low-income family’s savings. The pain felt by “price gouging”, especially by those of less means, is too obvious to ignore.

But we need not ignore it. We must instead understand the positive effects of “price gouging” and the negative impacts of price controls to prevent it. That is just my intent.

First, price gouging encourages rationing in the most equitable way.  In times of crisis, severe scarcity is inevitable; there is no way around this. Resources in crisis become a product in high-demand, which is exactly why prices rise so quickly. Fewer resources relative to the demand for those resources push prices upward, and steeply in crises. Such high prices then cause people to limit purchases of such vital resources and goods to just what they need. This, in turn, leaves more for everyone else.

To impose price controls, on the other hand, encourages hoarding. What’s to stop the first people who get to the store from purchasing far and above what is absolutely essential for their needs, leaving less for everyone else?[1] And of course, those with the greatest difficulty of reaching stores—the elderly, sick, or disabled without adequate family support, or those without transportation—are those who will end up being hurt the worst. “Appeals to people to limit their purchases during an emergency,” Economist Thomas Sowell writes, “are seldom as effective as raising prices.”[2]

In times where mass evacuations may otherwise drive up hotel room prices, price controls encourage less efficient use of space. A large family may rent two rooms for comfort rather than uncomfortably squeezing into one if prices are not allowed to rise, leaving fewer available rooms for others. At a time when space is at a premium, its most efficient use and rationing should be encouraged, not discouraged. Sowell writes, “The role of prices in allocating scarce resources is even more urgently needed when local resources have suddenly become more scarce than usual.” Likewise, he adds, “When the local population wants more hotel rooms than there are available locally, these rooms will have to rationed, one way or another, whether by prices or in some other way.”[3]

Second, so-called price gouging will be the most effective means of alleviating a shortage. If a single bottle of water in a crisis area can earn a massive profit margin, and thousands or millions of such bottles windfall profits for a water bottle company, then water bottle companies will go through great lengths to be the first to bring supplies into a disaster area. And to take a slice of the earnings, they must be one of the first, for they know that competition will soon also rush into the area and very quickly drive prices down to normal levels. (Of course, the same is true for batteries, flashlights, gasoline, et cetera.)

It is just this competition to be the first to capitalize on the high prices that drops prices again and brings vital supplies into a disaster area. Yes, there will always be a praiseworthy effort by many individuals, businesses and charities to bring in supplies, but to remove the profit-incentive from high prices necessarily delays a complete re-supply of the necessary resources needed to alleviate the shortage of a severe disaster.

In cases such as Hurricane Florence where the disaster zone is more or less predictable, the opportunities for high prices would draw in more resources even before the disaster. Sowell makes this case:

“Supplies of all sorts of things that are usually needed after a hurricane strikes…are more likely to be rushed to the area where the hurricane is likely to strike, before the hurricane actually gets there, if suppliers anticipate higher prices. This means that shortages can be mitigated in advance. But if only the usual prices in normal times can be expected, there is less incentive to incur the extra costs of rushing things to an area where disaster is expected to strike.”[4]

Sadly, the political gains of a ban on “price gouging” derived from the public praise of such policies deprives disaster areas of important economic incentives that would otherwise alleviate such a crisis faster or perhaps even in advance. The politician has much to lose from ignoring price spikes and much to gain from stopping them. Those impacted by the disaster, on the other hand, miss out on the public service provided by so-called “price gouging”, a service more equitably rationing much-needed supplies and more quickly alleviating a shortage.


[1] This is not just logical deduction, but is what has consistently been recorded as happening in cases like Hurricane Katrina and Sandy. For example, in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in 2012, the Wall Street Journal reported the following: “At one New Jersey surpermarket, shoppers barely paused for a public loudspeaker announcement urging them to buy only the provisions needed for a couple of days of suburban paralysis. None seemed to be deterred as they loaded their carts to the gunwales with enough canned tuna to last six weeks. … Shoppers take no risk in buying out a store’s entire supply at the normal price.” 

[2] Sowell, Thomas. Basic Economics. © 2015, Basic Books, New York, NY. Page 63.

[3] Ibid, 61.

[4]Ibid, 62.

Thumbnail photo credit goes to the Foundation for Economic Education.

The American “Revolution” Wasn’t A Revolution…

That’s right. It wasn’t.

Because “conservative revolution” is an oxymoron. See what I mean at the video I made on the real history of the American Revolution:

But this is just a primer! There is so much about the whole conflict that we were never taught in school or college! The course, “The American Revolution: A Constitutional Conflict” at Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom is the most thorough course on what you never learned.

If you haven’t subscribed for my emails, you really should. I send out a lot of bonus content that way in the emails, as well as the bonuses you receive just for subscribing, as you can see in the subscription box to the right of this page.

Remember, if you subscribe, you also get special discount codes for Liberty Classroom. And today, July 4, 2018, ONLY, there is a coupon code for $150 off the Master Membership, so get over and subscribe, and you will automatically receive your special discount codes!


 

A “Sort Of” Win for the Cake Baker

A “win” for the Colorado Christian cake baker?

Yes.

Sort of.

(This originally was sent out as an email. While I typically reserve special additional content like this just for subscribers, I decided this one would become a blog post.)

As I teach my Government students, it is often not the immediate decision of the Supreme Court that matters in the long run, but the implications of the decision.

On the surface, the Court might seem to be a significant win for religious (and specifically Christian) liberty supporters, like myself. After all, the Court claimed that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which brought the original charge against the cake bakers, had expressed extreme anti-religious bias against the cake-baker, and accordingly not ruled fairly.

The ruling declares that “as the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and … compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.”

So far, so good. Right?

What the opinion says here is factually correct, and for us Christians, the charge against the cake baker by the Commission is concerning. So shouldn’t we sigh a sigh of relief if the Commission is not allowed to get away with this based on their anti-Christian sentiments?

Justice Kagan, in a concurring opinion, confirmed that the Civil Rights Commission was not being neutral enough.

Does anyone see the problem with this, however?

The Court was saying, in essence that, “because the Civil Rights Commission was too biased against something we think they should not have been biased against, we will not allow them to force the bakers to bake a cake for a gay wedding.”

Or, in other words, “pick something that we feel is more neutral or a more just cause, and next time we will let you control the labor of another person.”

So, while I agree with the ruling, it leaves the door wide open, based on the values of the Court majority. And even though I firmly agree with that value in this ruling, all it takes is another Court composition to find a slightly modified decision and use the brilliantly tangled language of legalese to declare similar cases to be not too-biased. “Just be nicer,” says the Court, “don’t be so mean, and next time we might rule in your favor.” Or, “we feel like the bigoted behavior of the Commission was worse than the alleged ‘bigoted’ behavior of the cake baker.”

In other words, it missed the whole issue, which is one of property rights, as I lay out in my post, “Bake the Cake…? Property and Discrimination.”It’s a subjective weighing of the Commission’s bigotry against the alleged ‘bigotry’ of the cake baker that only takes a later court to “feel” differently about.

I have studied law and jurisprudence long enough to know that this case will not serve as a protection against similar lawsuits in the future with a more progressive Supreme Court. The language of the decision alone is hardly enough to prevent future Court decisions from getting around it easily. And, on top of that, it’s squishy enough that other Civil Rights Commissions will be happy to “give it another go”, spend plenty of money putting Christians businesses out of business and casting a chilling effect for those who might just refuse to serve someone with whom they choose not to association. More such charges will be forthcoming.

To some readers, of course, this will bolster the justification for electing presidents who appoint legally-conservative justices, such as the recent appointment of Gorsuch (who I have very-much liked, so far). That is fine as far as it goes, but that’s a band aid on a hemorrhage. The real issue is one of property rights. Unless that black-and-white and principled position becomes the topic of debate, this case is necessarily a temporary win.

It is more than likely that, as culture changes and the state becomes more powerful, more of this sort of thing will happen. Don’t forget that litigation takes years and millions of dollars. So let me change the tone right here before the end of my email.

Will we Christians be bold enough to face the legal persecution anyway? Will we fight to persuade those around of the truth of God’s love and standards? Or will we cave to “respectable opinion” in order to avoid ostracism and possible legal battles?

I’ll leave you with two articles. The first is an eye-opener and not to be read lightly; it’s not an easy read, but I think very important for my Christian readers (but not for younger readers).

State Enforced Paganism in America” (from The American Thinker)

The second is also important. If you haven’t, give it a look. (This one is safe for younger readers.) As I continue with this education and thought-provocation project, I am led more and more away from just clarifying the issues, but to challenging Christians, in light of the dismal realities, to be bold witnesses for Christ. That is what is truly important:

“Will They Know We Are Christians?”


Thumbnail photo credit goes to foxnews.com.