Moral Market Principles?

I'm greatly intrigued by a recent pair of blog posts on economics. One is by the progressive economist Paul Krugman, the other a response to Krugman by Austrian school economist Steven Horwitz. One of these economists argues that the market economy is essentially an amoral structure, while the other argues that morality is inseparable from economics. Try to guess which one said which!

Pro-life orthodoxy

A recent article from LifeSiteNews.com, a comprehensively right-wing news site, tries to nail Obama for hypocrisy:

Following reports of widespread skepticism over his professed Christianity, President Obama on Tuesday invoked the teachings of Jesus Christ as the inspiration for his public agenda, which he called part of an "effort to express my Christian faith" - and in his next breath defended the legalized killing of unborn children.

Responding to Mike Lux...four months later

You know, I never actually think of this blog being read anywhere else but on my own laptop. This is why it never occurred to me that when I wrote a critique of an article about progressives and Christianity, there would actually be a response! You can read the original article here, my critique here, and the response here. Who knew I'm actually a "conservative writer" worthy of a thorough response? In any case, sorry Mike Lux, if I had known you responded way back in May, I probably would've responded sooner. I'm sure people have been just dying to know what I have to say.

I thought it would be a good exercise, after four months of further reflection on economics and political philosophy, to respond to Mr. Lux, point by point. Not that I feel compelled to enter into a full scale debate with him; it just seems as good a way to sort out the relevant issues as any. I think what you'll see is that Mr. Lux has not been able to cross the fundamental divide between the way he and I see political life. Although I have great admiration for him to speak up for a Christian progressive political philosophy, I just don't think he's been successful at questioning his basic assumptions about what the issues really are.

Golden Calf

On Thursday I got to attend a talk by W. J. T. Mitchell at the Forum for Interdisciplinary Dialogue put on by the Jefferson Fellows at UVA. His talk was on idolatry. The tension I found throughout the presentation was between the impulse to counter idolatry and an argument defending it.

Specifically, the picture on the left (which is the work of Nicolas Poussin) became a platform on which Mitchell built a critique of the Second Commandment. There doesn't seem to be anything immoral going on in this picture, says Mitchell. The people are just enjoying themselves in front of a "totem" they have made. So maybe Moses should just drop his tablets and join the fun, eh?

Molecular Individualists

Sheldon Richman over at the Freeman has written an article, not so much defending the Tea Party movement, but attacking their detractors. His criticism is sound. The Tea Party detractors, he observes, are defending a view of political life in which the individual must submit their livelihood to a core group of experts and aristocrats. These detractors are, he says, "anti-anti-authoritarian."

If there's one thing that has me interested in libertarian political philosophy, it is this critique of central authority. It is not that we don't need central authority (Richman comments on how ironic it is that the label "anarchist" is applied to those who think the government should limit its powers to those given by the Constitution!). Rather, central authority simply ought to have a limited sphere of influence. It ought to appear self-evident that nothing can be worse for a free society than for every part of life to be politicized.

Numbers

One of the most profound thing about numbers is how absolute they are. That is, they are absolute in their relationship to one another. "Two plus two is always four" is kind of a standard thing people say when they want to make a reference to the fact that certain truths are absolute.

I believe that by meditating on certain numbers we can better understand the world we live in. With our minds we can pierce through the chaos and confusion of a world where words often fail to have absolute meaning, and reach for a world of fact and reason. It is here that we will find liberty.

So what numbers am I meditating on?

• 730 billion - that's 730,000,000,000 - the number of dollars the federal government will spend on Social Security in 2011
• 491 billion - that's 491,000,000,000 - the number of dollars they will spend on Medicare
• 297 billion - that's 297,000,000,000 - the number of dollars they will spend on Medicaid
• 549 billion - that's 549,000,000,000 - the number of dollars they will spend on the Department of Defense
• 719 billion - that's 719,000,000,000 - the number of dollars they will spend on national security, including defense plus other agencies
• 3.834 trillion - that's 3,834,000,000,000 - the number of dollars they will spend total
• 1.267 trillion - that's 1,267,000,000,000 - the number of dollars they will spend over-budget, that is, the deficit they expect to accrue for the year 2011.
• 15.299 trillion - that's 15,299,000,000,000 - the expected GDP of the United States in the year 2011
• 10.498 trillion - that's 10,498,000,000,000 - the anticipated public debt owed by the United States in the year 2011.

Contemplate these numbers with me. What might they say about the world we live in?

Religion influencing abortion views

LifeNews.com reports on a recent Pew poll that gives the shocking revelation that religion has some influence on American opinions about abortion.

A new Pew poll released on Friday shows Americans continue to say their religious beliefs have been highly influential in shaping their views about social issues, including abortion. The way in which religious beliefs play a role in shaping abortion views is more strong [sic] than for other political issues.

On the issue of abortion, 26% overall say religion is the most important influence on their opinion, including 45% among abortion opponents.

Just 9 percent of those who support legalized abortion say religion affected their conclusion about it.

Unless I am simply being uncharitable (and I confess I have been a bit grumpy in the past few days) LifeNews.com may be too nearsighted to realize the flip-side of the statistic they just quoted. That is, 55% of abortion opponents said religion isn't the most important influence on their opinion.

Let's think about this. Is it really good for the pro-life cause to place itself more and more firmly in the conservative religious camp? Do we really need to cloud the arguments of plain reason with a storm of religious vocabulary that is foreign and unnatural to many American minds?

But then, the questions that polls ask are so ill-defined. What does it mean when someone responds that religion is the most important factor in determining her views on abortion? Does that mean that person accepts whatever the Church teaches on the subject? Does it mean that person reads the Bible critically and accepts whatever she comes up with herself? Does it mean that her religion causes her to believe in certain principles that lead her logically to accept the pro-life stance on abortion?

Sometimes, I think the only hope for democracy is to ban all polls.

More pertinently, I think it's dangerous for the pro-life cause to draw its primary support from the teachings of religion. My issue is not with Christians having Christian ways of looking at the world; rather, my issue is finding a common language to talk about abortion. For most of the world, the language of evangelical Christianity is foreign, and it does not help so much as hinder dialog. We cannot afford to remove ourselves from critical conversations going on in the world at large.

Most disturbing to me is the way activist sites like LifeNews seem to pander to the religious right for the sake of winning elections. This seems like sacrificing the long run for a few short gains. Religious sentiment may be very useful at getting a certain constituency to the polls, but this does not change cultural beliefs or practices on the issue of abortion.

So what about that 55%? Are there any pro-life activist groups willing to listen to them?

I mean, besides the obvious.