Everything About the Human Condition Explained in One Spot
Perhaps the most famous Bible verse is John 3:16, but I’ll quote 17 as well. (There are double quotation marks because it’s Jesus speaking.) “16“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.””
So what’s the problem? Why isn’t everybody saved and destined for paradise? The next few verses explain:
18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: Notwithstanding the moralizing of many loud Christians, the actual doctrine teaches that all men (and women) are sinners who deserve hell. If you truly accept the gospel account, you have no right to judge anybody else. Rather, you must confess your own guilt and throw yourself on the mercy of Jesus.
But what the excerpt from John above explains so well, the stumbling block is that some people don’t want to be honest about their own guilt.
Try to Reverse Engineer Krugman’s Threshold for Political Labeling
Here’s an excerpt from the latest Paul Krugman column:
Let me explain what I mean by saying that bad guys hacked the election. I’m not talking about some kind of wild conspiracy theory. I’m talking about the obvious effect of two factors on voting: the steady drumbeat of Russia-contrived leaks about Democrats, and only Democrats, and the dramatic, totally unjustified last-minute intervention by the F.B.I., which appears to have become a highly partisan institution, with distinct alt-right sympathies.
OK, so notice Krugman gives a hyperlink on the phrase “highly partisan” which itself is embedded in this longer phrase: “…the F.B.I., which appears to have become a highly partisan institution, with distinct alt-right sympathies.”
So, presumably whatever Krugman has hyperlinked, will show that the FBI (1) is highly partisan and (2) has distinct alt-right sympathies.
BEFORE YOU CLICK, I want you to draw a line in the sand. Figure out what you think would be sufficient evidence, justifying Krugman’s description of whatever you will eventually find, when you click that link.
For example, if an internal sting revealed that 96% of FBI agents had donated money to David Duke, then Krugman’s description would be totally fair.
So like I said, I encourage you to take a moment and think about what types of things could be lurking at that link, to justify Krugman’s claims.
Now go click the link and see what you find.
Tom Woods and I Deal With Russian Hackers
Well boys, I reckon this is it. Computer espionage toe-to-toe with the Russkies.
I realize it spoils it if I give you a heads up, but don’t miss another bonus feature at the end of the latest episode of Contra Krugman.
One Last Post on the Trump Carrier Stuff
Following up on this post, let me reframe things in the following way. NOTE: I truly am not posting these thoughts as a, “Nana nana boo boo, what a bunch of hypocrites!” I really just think this is curious/interesting, and so I’m encouraging people to dig through their intuitions and see if they can refine them into a coherent framework that still spits out their desired answer on each question.
Suppose I approach an American who is a big fan of free-market economics and libertarian political philosophy. I say to him (let’s assume a guy):
There’s a manufacturing company, let’s call it A, that competes with dozens of American manufacturing companies, that I will call B, C, D, E, … Z. Now it just so happens that right at this moment, company A faces lower taxes and regulations than do B, C, D, … and Z. It is obvious that this disparate treatment makes it harder for these companies to compete with company A. Now the question:
Should the US federal government adjust its own policies vis-a-vis company A, to remove this competitive advantage and force it to sell products to American consumers on the same playing field as companies B, C, D, …. Z? If you so desire, you can split your answer up into economics and political justice.
Given the commentary I’ve seen on social media the past month, I am pretty sure that the typical male American free-market economics libertarian would say, “Before I answer your question, you need to tell me: Is company A located inside or outside the United States? My answer depends critically on this point.”
Especially since this typical person is a fan of open borders and often complains about “arbitrary lines that bureaucrats draw on a map,” I find this response quite interesting.
Can Energy Policy “Create Jobs”?
My recent article for IER. You may be surprised by the charts.
Murphy on Jason Stapleton Program
If you feel compelled to comment on my beard, keep in mind that my office is a safe space.
The Continued Importance of Austrian Capital Theory
I can’t remember if I pushed this before? Anyway this was the talk I gave last August in Rosario, Argentina. Keep in mind for my opening joke routine that people in the crowd needed to hear the translators, since many of them didn’t speak English. That’s why I had to sloooooow it down.
Potpourri
==> On the latest episode of Contra Krugman, Tom and I are a bunch of softies and mostly agree with Krugman about the tough spot Republicans are in, vis-a-vis ObamaCare.
==> A long interview I did with Scott Horton on all kinds of stuff.
==> Dan Mitchell of CATO discusses new research showing that “fiscal austerity” via spending cuts is much better for the economy than via tax hikes. (It’s almost like, giving resources to politicians is worse than letting people in the private sector keep them.)
==> Don Boudreaux has been spilling ink on the issue of trade deficits, pointing out that a current account deficit is the flip side of a capital account surplus. As such, if a foreign company invests in the US (even to build a factory here), then by itself that action would increase the US trade deficit. So is Trump for or against? This post is nice because it shows the technicalities of these arguments and also that Don is willing to admit when he oversteps.
==> I realize that super-low interest rates have something to do with it, but FYI right now the Shiller CAPE PE Ratio is at a level only seen before in 1929, 2000, and 2008.
==> The only thing more shocking than Michael Malice’s 6-pack abs is that his article about them is very interesting.
==> Don’t worry, James Hansen now tells us we have a little more wiggle room before “it’s too late” to stop climate change.
==> I feel really bad that I’m doing this to him, but a while ago Josiah Neeley sent me this post on the “anarchist case for climate action.” I had been waiting to “do it justice” but I’m still swamped through Christmas. I’d better just post it here and hope to come back to this stuff next semester in a journal article.
Recent Comments