24 Jul 2011

Law and Knowledge

Law, Religious 39 Comments

One of my favorite themes in the Bible is that God’s laws help us. We should follow them in order to navigate this world better. God knows things about the world that He created that we do not, and so even if a particular law doesn’t make sense to us, we should trust that God isn’t giving us bad advice.

However, unlike physical laws, when it comes to God’s laws for our relationships with Him and each other we have a choice whether to obey. You can’t violate the laws of physics, but you can sin.

Since I love this sort of thing, I was blown away by these passages from Psalm 119 that I recently stumbled upon:

9 How can a young man cleanse his way?
By taking heed according to Your word.
10 With my whole heart I have sought You;
Oh, let me not wander from Your commandments!
11 Your word I have hidden in my heart,
That I might not sin against You.
12 Blessed are You, O LORD!
Teach me Your statutes.
13 With my lips I have declared
All the judgments of Your mouth.
14 I have rejoiced in the way of Your testimonies,
As much as in all riches.
15 I will meditate on Your precepts,
And contemplate Your ways.
16 I will delight myself in Your statutes;
I will not forget Your word.

17 Deal bountifully with Your servant,
That I may live and keep Your word.
18 Open my eyes, that I may see
Wondrous things from Your law.
19 I am a stranger in the earth;
Do not hide Your commandments from me.

20 My soul breaks with longing
For Your judgments at all times.

45 And I will walk at liberty,
For I seek Your precepts.
46 I will speak of Your testimonies also before kings,
And will not be ashamed.
47 And I will delight myself in Your commandments,
Which I love.
48 My hands also I will lift up to Your commandments,
Which I love,
And I will meditate on Your statutes.


60 I made haste, and did not delay
To keep Your commandments.
61 The cords of the wicked have bound me,
But I have not forgotten Your law.
62 At midnight I will rise to give thanks to You,
Because of Your righteous judgments.
63 I am a companion of all who fear You,
And of those who keep Your precepts.
64 The earth, O LORD, is full of Your mercy;
Teach me Your statutes.


71 It is good for me that I have been afflicted,
That I may learn Your statutes.
72 The law of Your mouth is better to me
Than thousands of coins of gold and silver.


95 The wicked wait for me to destroy me,
But I will consider Your testimonies.
96 I have seen the consummation of all perfection,
But Your commandment is exceedingly broad.

97 Oh, how I love Your law!
It is my meditation all the day.
98 You, through Your commandments, make me wiser than my enemies;
For they are ever with me.
99 I have more understanding than all my teachers,
For Your testimonies are my meditation.
100 I understand more than the ancients,
Because I keep Your precepts.

101 I have restrained my feet from every evil way,
That I may keep Your word.
102 I have not departed from Your judgments,
For You Yourself have taught me.
103 How sweet are Your words to my taste,
Sweeter than honey to my mouth!
104 Through Your precepts I get understanding;
Therefore I hate every false way.
[Bold added.]

39 Responses to “Law and Knowledge”

  1. David S. says:

    This is your approach to economics too, which is why you’ll always be an inconsequential wingnut outsider. Just quit econ and found a church or something.

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      What’s incredible to me is that you’re probably under the impression that it’s Bob you discredit when you act like that.

      • David S. says:

        Comments don’t discredit anyone, but taking someone like Bob seriously does. Aren’t you going to be a grad student in econ soon? Would you mind if your adviser saw how you’re spending your time here? For your sake, eventually you’ll need to stop wasting so much time here and maybe actually look at doing some original research.

        • Daniel Kuehn says:

          I don’t expect an issue with that. A graduate program that would frown on discussing economics is not one I want to be associated with.

          If I said dumb stuff on here, that might be a concern – but then, that would come out in tests, comps, etc.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      Some of the world’s greatest economists who ever lived have been staunch religious believers, you ignorant troll.

  2. Brian Shelley says:

    This is why you can be a Christian and an Anarcho-capitalist at the same time. If you find pleasure in doing good for its own sake, good for you family, and good for your neighbors, what then is the purpose of government? When God is King, the State is redundant.

  3. Major_Freedom says:

    One of my favorite themes in the Bible is that God’s laws help us. We should follow them in order to navigate this world better. God knows things about the world that He created that we do not, and so even if a particular law doesn’t make sense to us, we should trust that God isn’t giving us bad advice.

    God’s laws contain:

    Kill anyone who doesn’t listen to priests:

    “Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.” – Deuteronomy 17:12

    Kill witches:

    “You should not let a sorceress live.” – Exodus 22:17

    Kill homosexuals:

    “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” – Leviticus 20:13

    Kill children who swear at their parents:

    “All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense.” – Leviticus 20:9

    Kill adulterers:

    “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.” – Leviticus 20:10

    Kill entire towns if one person worships another God:

    “Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.” – Deuteronomy 13:13

    Kill women who aren’t virgins on their wedding night:

    “But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.” – Deuteronomy 22:20

    Kill children for what their parents did:

    “Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.” – Isaiah 14:21

    “If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted.” – Leviticus 26:21

    Kill babies and rape women:

    “Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.” – Isaiah 13:15-18

    People MUST kill:

    “Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood.” – Jeremiah 48:10

    Kill for fornication:

    “A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.” – Leviticus 21:9

    Kill non-believers:

    “They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.” – 2 Chronicles 15:12-13

    Kill fortune tellers:

    “A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.” – Leviticus 20:27

    God will kill children for calling other people names:

    “From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.” 2 Kings 2:23-24

    Kill pacifists:

    “Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, “Strike me!” But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me.” And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him.” – 1 Kings 20:35-36

    One of my favorite themes in the Bible is that God’s laws help us. We should follow them in order to navigate this world better. God knows things about the world that He created that we do not, and so even if a particular law doesn’t make sense to us, we should trust that God isn’t giving us bad advice.

    So Murphy, just to be absolutely 100% crystal clear on what you believe. Are you saying right here and right now that “We should follow” these “laws” from “God”?!?!

    And just to confirm that Jesus and hence the New Testament is NOT a “new” law that overrules the “old” law, Jesus clearly said the old law is still law:

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” – Matthew 5:17

    Here’s MY conviction:

    The themes in the Bible are absolutely disgusting, evil, insulting, and against everything that a rational, peaceful person would consider to be what we should NOT do. I should NOT follow the bible because doing so will not enable me to better navigate the world. It will lead me straight to living a life of an evil person. What people believe themselves to know what God knows, are people who are claiming to know what they do not know. If a particular law does not make sense to me, then I should trust my own judgment and not give up my conviction to a 2000 year old text containing extremely evil and horrible advice written by crazy people.

    • Brian Shelley says:

      First, let’s eliminate the quotations that are clearly not “laws”. Stating that God killed someone with a lion doesn’t imply anything on our part. Second, when God is raising up the Medes against a tyrannical Babylon he is simply stating what is going to happen to Babylon. The Medes will slaughter them, rape their women, and kill some of their babies. This was not a command, just a comment on what the Medes were going to do.

      On the Mosaic laws, you have more of a leg to stand on since these actually were normative statements. Your repulsions, I suspect, have more to do with cultural norms of modern American life than any objectivity. It is very plausible that the future will look back at our era with horror. We abort children on a scale that dwarfs ancient barbarism. To me this is repugnant, but to others, it illicits no emotional reaction. Just because something feels more wrong to one individual doesn’t mean it is so.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        First, let’s eliminate the quotations that are clearly not “laws”. Stating that God killed someone with a lion doesn’t imply anything on our part.

        It implies that God considers it to be against his laws to disobey priests who advocate for violence.

        If you also believe that God makes you who you are, then this law also leads us having to conclude that God is doubly cruel. For he made you a pacifist, and yet he punishes you for choosing to not violate your pacifism.

        If a Christian pacifist is told by one of “God’s priests” to initiate violence against another, then no matter what he does, the bible’s passages imply his action will be against God’s laws.

        Second, when God is raising up the Medes against a tyrannical Babylon he is simply stating what is going to happen to Babylon. The Medes will slaughter them, rape their women, and kill some of their babies. This was not a command, just a comment on what the Medes were going to do.

        The passage contains the statement “For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon…”. That suggests God is commanding it. If the writer of the passage were of the Medes, then the passages would be conveyed as how you believe they have to be conveyed in order to qualify them as a command.

        On the Mosaic laws, you have more of a leg to stand on since these actually were normative statements. Your repulsions, I suspect, have more to do with cultural norms of modern American life than any objectivity.

        Wait, are you suggesting that I could only come to conclude that murdering defenseless babies and raping women is wrong, on the basis that I am “conditioned” to think this by the time and place I just happen to live? That very well may be, but that doesn’t mean that there is no right answer to whether or not these actions are moral or immoral. If I were locked in a prison without any books, then I would not be able to know the detailed knowledge of many topics, but that doesn’t mean there are no right answers in those topics, or that there are no knowable answers in those topics.

        Having said that, knowing now what I know now, makes the positive laws in this country not only superfluous in some respects, but downright evil in other respects. If I do not agree with all of America’s laws, then how will you explain my rejection of those laws? The cultural norms of my household? Nope, both my parents believe in certain laws that I consider to be evil. Conditioning in school? Nope, the schools that I went to did not teach me all the things I know now.

        At some point, you’re going to have to accept that an individual’s convictions are due to their own mind, and not the minds of others than are then imprinted on the individual like chalk on a blackboard.

        If what you are actually saying is that there is no such thing as objective moral law that is knowable to humans, then you undercut the entire bible itself, which is considered to be objective law by Christians.

        I share Rothbard’s contention, although I disagree on some minor details, that there exists an objective moral law for Earthly life that is knowable to us humans through our Earthly reason, and I share Hoppe’s contention that it is individual property rights.

        It is very plausible that the future will look back at our era with horror. We abort children on a scale that dwarfs ancient barbarism. To me this is repugnant, but to others, it illicits no emotional reaction. Just because something feels more wrong to one individual doesn’t mean it is so.

        You seem to be espousing historicism. By doing so, you undercut your own position concerning the morality of abortion. If there is no way we can know objective moral laws, which I am assuming you hold to be the case since you asserted that my position is based not on objectivity, but on “cultural norms” I just happened to have accepted from the particular culture and time I happen to live, then you could not argue that abortion is morally wrong. I know you didn’t actually argue that abortion is objectively wrong, so please don’t take the above as an incorrect interpretation of your position. All I am saying is that IF one argues that we can know whether or not abortion is morally wrong, on the basis of knowledge that logically precedes, but not necessarily temporally precedes, historical experience, then you could not even refute it using the historicist epistemology you appear to be espousing, without contradiction, for you would invariably have to presume such logically antecedent knowledge is valid in order for historicism to even make sense.

        • Gene Callahan says:

          1) Morally is not relative. It is not subjective.
          2) But it is not a matter of “objective laws.” That is a terrible misunderstanding.
          3) It is a matter of acting according to moral sense.
          4) What that sense dictates will differ vastly according to the circumstances of time and place. An action that was moral in Judea in 1000 BCE may not be moral today, and vice versa. For instance, burning heretics was OK in 1000 CE. It is not today. (I’m willing to make an exception in the case of Major Freedom.)

          • bobmurphy says:

            I understand what you are saying here, Gene, but just keep in mind that you sound like you are speaking gibberish to MF and others. Your statements here will sound to them as nutso and dangerous as MF’s statement that he doesn’t obey a law unless he “gets” it.

            • Gene Callahan says:

              Yeah, I admit the burning heretics point was a bit provocative! But here is a simple analogy:

              MF tells us that either:
              1) The exact same dress has been appropriate for all people in all times and all places; or
              2) There are no objective standards for how to dress; it’s all relativism.

              False dichotomy. An Eskimo *should* dress differently than a pygmy. It would be objectively wrong for an Eskimo to dress in a loincloth, or a pygmy in layers of seal skins.

              Similarly, the ancient Israelites got the laws they needed. The laws they *objectively* needed.

              Those are not the laws *we* need, however!

              Do any of you parents out there give the same rules to your two-year-old and your sixteen-year-old? Does that mean there is no objective basis for keeping your 2-year-old, but not your 16-year-old, from wandering the streets at 9pm?

              • Major_Freedom says:

                Yeah, I admit the burning heretics point was a bit provocative!

                People like you constantly find yourselves having those kinds of thoughts. It’s a sign of mental illness brought about by adhering to ancient texts written by other crazy people.

                MF tells us that either:

                1) The exact same dress has been appropriate for all people in all times and all places; or

                2) There are no objective standards for how to dress; it’s all relativism.

                False dichotomy. An Eskimo *should* dress differently than a pygmy. It would be objectively wrong for an Eskimo to dress in a loincloth, or a pygmy in layers of seal skins.

                Morality is not clothing. A HUMAN morality is the same for all humans.

                Similarly, the ancient Israelites got the laws they needed. The laws they *objectively* needed.
                Those are not the laws *we* need, however!

                That’s an appeal to moral relativism. Different moral laws for “us” and “them.”

                Furthermore, you also made an appeal that the same moral act should be judged differently depending on time and place. An action that an ancient Israelite made should carry a different moral judgment and/or punishment than the same action made by someone not an ancient Israelite.

                This nonsense is just you desperately trying to defend the obviously evil and immoral laws that exist in the old testament as valid (because it’s in the bible!), but at the same time hold that they should not apply to “us.”

                Do any of you parents out there give the same rules to your two-year-old and your sixteen-year-old? Does that mean there is no objective basis for keeping your 2-year-old, but not your 16-year-old, from wandering the streets at 9pm?

                That’s not what you argued. You argued that there should be different laws attached to the two 16 year olds doing the same things but in different times and places.

                As for how to square absolute moral laws with parents setting different rules for their children depending on their age, then the absolute moral law that applies here is that parents should be able to have final authority in setting (non-violent) rules for their children, depending on the parent’s determination for such things as what times they should be home.

                But we’re not children. We’re adults. As such, your analogy fails because comparing ancient Israelis and contemporary humans is not a comparison between children and adults.

                Ancient Israeli parents would also have final authority in setting the times that their children should be home, no less than contemporary parents.

                Notice how I don’t need to completely change the context in order to defend my position, but you do? It’s a sign that your position is untenable.

                Your ridiculous clothing and age relativism examples do not show what you believe they show.

            • Major_Freedom says:

              Your statements here will sound to them as nutso and dangerous as MF’s statement that he doesn’t obey a law unless he “gets” it.

              It’s “nutso and dangerous” to obey a law merely because it is law, without thinking about it for yourself. Some laws can be evil.

              Are you saying that you have never broken any of the government’s stupid laws? You follow all the laws always and everywhere?

              Never driven faster than the speed limit because traffic is flowing faster than the speed limit?

              I find it very hard to believe that you have never used your own mind to determine for yourself which laws should be followed and which laws not to follow.

              And yes, you’re right, Callahan did speak gibberish. He said that morality is both relative and not relative in the same post.

          • Gene Callahan says:

            The idea that the Bible implies timeless moral laws that apply to all times and places is easily refuted by… the Bible. The New Testament announces a *new* law: Love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus replaces the Mosaic Law of “eye for an eye” with “turn the other cheek”. Paul made it quite clear that converts were not bound by Mosaic Law. And the New Testament does not say those laws were NEVER valid; it says they are no longer valid.

            • Major_Freedom says:

              Incorrect. If the bible didn’t imply timeless moral laws that apply to all times and places, then you could not argue that the bible applies to me or anyone else living today, for I could just say “Oh the bible? That old thing? According to that disgusting murder advocate Gene Callahan, the morals in the bible are not timeless. They don’t apply to “this” time.”

              And as for your claim that the New Testament overrules the Old Testament, I anticipated that, which is why I included the following quote from Jesus:

              “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” – Matthew 5:17

              In this passage Jesus said that his laws are not an overruling of the laws of the Old Testament.

              The New Testament does NOT say that the Old Testament laws are “no longer valid.” That’s just your own beliefs brought about by a desire to not abide by them, and yet claim to not be breaking God’s laws of the bible.

              It appears that despite your craziness, since you were born into and grew up in a society where you were exposed to more sane laws that contradict the Old Testament, laws that “make sense” like “don’t go bashing defenseless babies against rocks” and “don’t rape and pillage entire towns for one person in that town worshipping another God”, you know, laws that stop crazy people like you from taking the Bible and actually putting it into practice in a legal system.

          • Major_Freedom says:

            I’ll have to agree with Murphy and say that your post is indeed gibberish, and quite frankly extremely insulting and offensive.

            First you say:

            1) Morally is not relative. It is not subjective.

            I will assume you meant to say “Morality is not relative. It is not subjective.”

            OK, fine, notwithstanding the fact that it goes directly against the bible’s absolutist position on morality, as well as common sense, I am baffled at the fact that you think you can hold that belief as well your other belief, which is:

            What that sense dictates will differ vastly according to the circumstances of time and place. An action that was moral in Judea in 1000 BCE may not be moral today, and vice versa.

            This is a plea to moral relativism and subjectivism, which is contradictory to your initial position that “morally is not relative.”

            So morality is not relative and not subjective, but morality is relative and subjective. Gotcha.

            For instance, burning heretics was OK in 1000 CE. It is not today. (I’m willing to make an exception in the case of Major Freedom.)

            You are willing to advocate for the murder of another human being who has done no violence to you or anyone else? Are you a sociopath?

            Putting aside your absolutely evil and immoral depraved mind, which is ironically masquerading as moral and good, let me just say that if you said that to my face, then Wenzel would be posting a picture of you with two black eyes instead of one.

            • Major_Freedom says:

              OK, fine, notwithstanding the fact that it goes directly against the bible’s absolutist position on morality, as well as common sense, I am baffled at the fact that you think you can hold that belief as well your other belief, which is:

              Should read

              OK, fine, notwithstanding the fact that it goes directly against the bible’s ALLEGED LACK OF AN absolutist position on morality, as well as common sense, I am baffled at the fact that you think you can hold that belief as well your other belief, which is:

            • bobmurphy says:

              MF wrote:

              Putting aside your absolutely evil and immoral depraved mind, which is ironically masquerading as moral and good, let me just say that if you said that to my face, then Wenzel would be posting a picture of you with two black eyes instead of one.

              See, this is why you atheists can’t be trusted. A guy makes a joke and you would punch him in the face? Did the NAP not make sense to you this morning?

              Joking aside MF, calm down please. You’re really flipping out in this thread. Don’t give Gene such power over you.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                I don’t trust Callahan. I think he’s crazy. If he said that to my face, then I would not take that as a joke at all. If I’m wrong, if I am the aggressor, then I’ll face the consequences and accept them.

                There is a difference between friends joking with each other, and crazy people saying the same words that in another context would be joking. If Obama said “I’m going bomb Yemen” and if my friend who I know is peaceful said “I’m going to bomb Yemen” then the former I would take as a threat, and the latter as a joke.

                You know Callahan better than I do, and so you probably know about his sick sense of humor, but I don’t have your insight. What he said was extremely offensive, and coming from him, I would take that as a threat. I do however apologize very much if my reaction was out of place and rude.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                And what’s with this “atheists cannot be trusted?”

                They cannot be trusted to be peaceful because they don’t believe in a God?

                Religious murderers are pretty much universal.

                Just this past week for example, a Christian killed something like 90 people in Norway, and in Thailand, a few radical Muslims have killed thousands of individuals.

                Your “this is why atheists cannot be trusted” comment is hilariously off-base. You may see me punching murder advocating crazy people, but you will never see me murdering innocent people in cold blood.

            • Gene Callahan says:

              “So morality is not relative and not subjective, but morality is relative and subjective.”

              Major, apparently you believe that the following two things cannot both be true:
              1) The outdoor temperature is an objective fact; and
              2) It differs from time to time and place to place.

              And, note, Bob did not say I was writing gibberish: he said you would think that. He said *he* understood what I was saying just fine.

              That’s because he is intelligent.

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      While I’m normally not too convinced by MF, he does seem to have struck on a pretty consistent pattern here.

      Kind of a strange text for a pacifist to embrace, actually.

      • Mattheus von Guttenberg says:

        He’s on a the comeback from his prior debate on savings/cash balances.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          By “comeback”, I’ll take that as coming back after riding into the sunset, because some bank robbers are in jail still thinking they won.

          I just thought of something. I had to save for a period of time first before I could buy the horse, because I needed to hold the money for time > 0 before I could spend the money on the horse.

          Savings finances everything don’t you know!

          Investment, consumption, charity, even losing your wallet requires a prior act of saving.

          Savings finance the purchase of all consumer goods and all capital goods all the time everywhere money is used. I even had to save first when immediately taking my direct deposit earnings and buying a bible from Amazon, as quickly as I could possibly do it using my two finger typing skills. As long as there is an even a microsecond that passes of me being the owner of said money, I must have saved!

          In other words, no matter what anyone did, no matter what their intentions are, as long as they take part in a division of labor, monetary economy, they are all savers, even if they never invest and only consume.

          You see, this vision of savings is so clear and so without confusion, that this is why so many Keynesians always try to make it clear to us that “savings does not necessarily equate to investment!”, and why they never say that “savings does not necessarily equate to consumption!” even though the logic would compel them to admit that. It’s because the worldview makes so much sense.

          They would have to admit that savings NEVER equals consumption, or investment, or charity, or anything else that is a transaction using money, because the pesky non-spending public keeps holding onto their cash for positive periods of time, thus creating a difference between what is earned and what is consumed and invested and given away to charity, and, most importantly, what can be TAXED. Only if people SPEND can they be taxed. If they hoard, then damn it, they cannot be taxed! We have to paint cash hoarding as an evil. Let’s listen to Keynes!

          You see, governments spend. They have no reason to hold money as cash, so economists had to create a justification for the virtues of spending, and attack the virtues of saving. They came up with the brilliant attack on savings by espousing a standard that makes it impossible for anyone to live up to the government’s ideal of investment equalling savings!

          Good thing we have the government to solve the “problem” of spending not equalling savings 100% of the time. The Keynesians say the government is justified in spending money out of thin air as long as investment does not equal savings, which is always of course. Yes yes, consumption spending could never equate to savings either, because as long as people hold their cash for any period of time at all, then all sum totals of specific spending types will never equate to savings.

          In other words, no matter how much people invested, no matter how much they consumed, as long as they hold cash for any length of time at all, then government is justified in spending. Doesn’t matter for what, because consumption, I mean charity, I mean investment has to equal savings!

          All the Keynesians need is a length of time of cash holding that they can subjectively argue is “too long.” Then its “investment doesn’t equal savings? Hahaha, it’s deficit time bitchez!!!” They also use sophisticated phrases like “liquidity trap”, and with words like “trap”, good lord, that’s scary! The government needs to do something.

          You see, the dirty little secret with savings having to equating with investment, is that the government will ALWAYS have a justification to spend under this worldview! But they won’t come out and also say what is also implied, which is that “consumption does not necessarily equate to savings, therefore the government has to spend money on consumption,” because that would blow the fraud wide open. So they only say “investment does not necessarily equate to savings.”

          It’s perfect. Not only does it implicitly attack businessmen, who tend to be viewed as “savers”, and implicitly supports workers, who tend to be viewed as “consumers,” which is a perfect punch to the groin to a public that was on their way getting back up after being smarted by Marxism, but it also serves as justification for the only spending that governments can do, which is consumption spending, i.e. spending not for the purpose of making subsequent sales (i.e. earning a profit).

          Yeah, I don’t think I’m coming back from that sunset ride. I’ll move on to where people don’t continually conflate savings with cash hoarding.

    • Luke says:

      Jesus came to fulfill the law in that he did what the law required in place of us. He sacrificed himself for us. He did not come to enforce laws like the pharisees.

      Your post showed more ignorance than anything.

    • Gene Callahan says:

      “The themes in the Bible are absolutely disgusting, evil, insulting, and against everything that a rational, peaceful person would consider to be what we should do.”

      Major, that’s what your posts are like for me!

      • Major_Freedom says:

        GOOD you immoral murder advocating freakshow!

        When peaceful, voluntarist moral arguments are perceived as disgusting, evil, insulting, and against everything that a rational, peaceful person would consider to be what we should do, then that means the person doing the perceiving are themselves disgusting and evil.

        You have proven this to be the case by advocating that I be burned to death. You’re a [censored–RPM], pardon my French.

        Bob, why oh why did you ever even work with this [censored–RPM]? He is an utterly disgusting human being. He needs psychological help.

  4. scott says:

    It is amazing how nasty things get around here when the subject turns to Christianity.

    But at least MF got off to a good start on at least one of his sentences:

    If a particular law does not make sense to me, then I should trust my own judgment

    Actually, most of us do this, most of the time, because things are not always easy to understand. I would imagine that almost everyone has realized that he ought to apply this nugget of wisdom to a great many very mundane situations, let alone trying to interpret an ancient book from an ancient and alien culture. In the last resort, its all anybody’s got, Christian or otherwise.

    • Gene Callahan says:

      “If a particular law does not make sense to me, then I should trust my own judgment…”

      Backwards, as Hayek showed. If a law does not make sense to you, you should follow it until it does. THEN, once you understand it, you might possibly be able to make some reasoned choice as to whether to overturn it.

      • bobmurphy says:

        I thought that was a surprisingly dangerous thing for MF to say too, Gene. But I was going to be a wiseguy and say something like, “Note to self: Don’t invite MF to dinner. He might decide halfway through that laws against vandalism are irrational.”

        • Major_Freedom says:

          That post you just made is VERY revealing, Bob.

          You are making the Hobbesian argument that the peon civilians are too stupid to know the correct modes of conduct, and that without the government overlords, such peons would start committing perpetual acts of aggression against each other.

          You are literally saying that the only reason why anyone would choose to abide by a particular mode of conduct, instead of its opposite, is that there is a threat of violence from the government if I did do the opposite.

          How about my own mind? I know that destroying your home would violate your property rights, and as such, I won’t do it. Even if the laws says I am allowed, I still won’t.

          It’s why I won’t seek government guns to enforce copyright laws, even though it is legal to do so.

          It is why I won’t buy any government bonds, even though it is legal to do so.

          It is why I won’t form a daily picket line outside your home holding signs that say all kinds of vile crap like the crap Callahan spews out about calling for people to be burned at the stake, even though it would be perfectly legal for me to do that.

          It is why I won’t call the police on you if I see you driving faster than the speed limit, because I see that you are driving safely in my judgment, even though it would be legal for me to do so.

          Yes Murphy, I do choose to think about laws first, and only then do I decide whether I should follow them. If that sounds scary, then all I can say is that if you find me scary, then just look at your colleague advocating for me to be burned to death, and then ask yourself who you REALLY prefer to have over for dinner.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        Backwards, as Hayek showed.

        Hayek was a philosophical statist. I don’t mind being opposite to what Hayek’s position was regarding legality and enforcement, because statism is what is backwards. To be backwards to what is already backwards makes one forward.

        If a law does not make sense to you, you should follow it until it does. THEN, once you understand it, you might possibly be able to make some reasoned choice as to whether to overturn it.

        So if a law says that the first born in each family should be sacrificed, I should follow it for my own family “until I understand it”?

        You’re totally lost.

  5. Julio G says:

    I wonder why there are so many anarcho capitalist which do believe in Christianity.

    It makes you look weak Bob, because you are not being honest intellectually.

    Mises, Rand, Darwin, Dawkins et all have crushed theism, it is no longer a valid idea to believe in a primitive myth on how the world works and how the universe was created.

    Science has prooved to being superior to faith and mysticism.

    I know it can be hard to get rid of belief which your parents or teachers taught you, but you need to apply the scientific method to not only economics, but every field in life.

    This is not a critique, just something you should start considering, like Rand says, faith is the antithesis of reason, so if a religion ask you to dump reason, then you know the answer…

    Question authority and claim proof, at least to be consistent logically in every aspect. Read some evolutionary biology too, it is way better explanation of how life was made than from the old story tale of the 6 days creation.

    • bobmurphy says:

      Julio G, it’s true that I was raised as a theist (Catholic, specifically) but then I went through a period of several years where I called myself a “devout atheist.” Then later I turned back to Christianity.

      I am very familiar with evolutionary biology.

      For what it’s worth, I don’t think Mises, Rand, Darwin, etc. have crushed theism. Incidentally, you are hurting the PR campaign of most evolutionary biologists with your claim. They state that Darwinism has nothing to do with the existence of God per se, but rather the origin of species. Even Darwin himself seems to have been a theist of various flavors for most (if not all) of his life.

    • Brian Shelley says:

      Julio,

      I can not speak for Bob, but your comments come from a presumptious place. I’ve read Mises, Rand, and Dawkins. Their “reason” makes me chuckle. Frankly, Dawkins, on religion, is pathetic. Rand is little better.

      You claim to stand on the high ground of reason while extolling evolution at the same time. This is ridiculous. If the human mind evolved, our verbal and mental capacities would have evolved to give us an advantage. Namely, the advantage to win arguments. Your mind does not pursue reason, it pursues status. This pursuit of status inherently biases our minds against objectivity. My experience tells me this is not a minor defect, but a major obstacle.

      As I read and learn atheist thinkers I become more convinced of my faith. Everything points me to God, and to Christ. I haven’t heard an argument in a few years that made me nervous that I was wrong.

  6. Chris Branco says:

    @ Julio G “Read some evolutionary biology too, it is way better explanation of how life was made than from the old story tale of the 6 days creation.”

    Is that the same “way better explanation” that begins with there was nothing then a huge explosion and …ta-da…now there’s everything? Also, evolutionary trees that you see in biology textbooks are simply theory, not a “better explanation of how life was made”.

  7. Julio G says:

    Bob, I absolutely mean no disrespect, i think you are doing a good job defending the austrian school.

    But you see, you actually had to use a lot of logic, reason an evidence to become a market anarchist, else if you didn’t use these tools you probably would be a simple minded statist.

    But it surprises me that you also dont apply the same standards you used to get into the austrian school into other areas such as religion, especially catholic, which is actually easier to debunk.

    Like the other user said: “As I read and learn atheist thinkers I become more convinced of my faith”.

    Faith by definition is nothing but a belief without evidence, which is fooling yourself, and that is why it makes you look weak. On one field you use extreme logic which took you very far, on another you use the opposite which is extreme faith and actually degrade your whole ideology.

    I’m not trying to convince you into become an atheist or whatever, but to encourage you to give it more thought and read the counter arguments without prejudices, but with an open spirit to find truth.

    and as we know, the only way to find truth is through logic, evidence and reason, not because of authority, revelation or wishful thinking.

    BTW to the other reader, yes science does not claim to have all the answers, we dont need to claim that , which is actually the beauty of it, if i’m wrong and you prove it, then the old theory is no longer valid, which is not a bad thing since we saw we were wrong and that get us closer to find truth. It is different to claim that an old book mistranslated was created by a supreme being on how the universe works, than to explain how life had evolved with real solid evidence. Yes the big bang might be very well discarded in the future, but there are other natural laws that are solid and never change, and our technology is the result of it.

  8. Chris Branco says:

    @ Julio G from “the other reader”

    I could say the same, that If I’m wrong and you prove it, but there is no “real solid evidence” of evolution. I’ll stick with Saint Augustine’s explanation of faith: “Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.”