Southern Bread

If you enjoy a good pipe, as I do, you need to know that Congress has it’s eye on you. H.R. 4439, which was introduced in January, aims to close the “loophole” between cigarette and pipe tobacco taxes. The effect would be to raise the tax on pipe tobacco approximately 775% from $2.83 per pound to $24.78 per pound.

It’s hard to know, at first, whether a bill like this is a “juicer” bill, a help-my-big-corporate-donor bill or just stupidity. I always lean toward the first until proven otherwise, so that’s going to be my take at the moment. I won’t accept stupidity as an answer unless they prove it to me. What does strike me as humorous though, is all of the outcry in the blogosphere about this bill. People are just simply going crazy about it. But you can tell that they probably could care less about the two thousand other industries that are being just as taxed. People always get up in arms when government comes knocking on their door, but don’t seem to care when he knocks on the neighbor’s.

The justification for the bill goes as follows:

Mr. Obama and Congress increased taxes on tobacco products earlier this year…but tobacco for roll-your-own cigarettes saw a disproportionate leap, from $1.10 to $24.78 per pound.

But tobacco companies quickly adapted. The Associated Press found that as soon as the tax was on the books, companies all but shut down their roll-your-own brands and reinvented them under a less-restricted, less-taxed category: pipe tobacco. It’s still destined to be rolled and smoked, but it’s taxed at barely a tenth the rate, $2.83 per pound.

The tax implications could be huge. As much as $32 million a month could be lost in taxes if the sudden spike in pipe tobacco is just cigarette tobacco in disguise.

–AP

So, the AP estimates that the government is losing $32 million per month on tobacco taxes as a result of pipe tobacco being taxed at the lower rate. This is the “loophole.” But, surely by now we all know that it’s never that easy. Increasing the tax on pipe tobacco up to parity with other tobaccos will decimate that industry, such that the realized tax revenue will be nowhere near $32 million. They’ll be lucky to get half of that. And, everyone involved knows this. If you are thinking something along the lines of “don’t they realize what it will do to X industry?!” Of course they do. Don’t kid yourself by pretending that politicians are ignorant of the consequences of proposed legislation. Don’t be this guy:

“Many times our government passes things without first taking an extra few days to say, ‘What are the unintended consequences?”‘ Altman said. “That’s what happened here.”

–AP

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that government policies are targeted, fully thought out and all of the consequences are intended. I’m not saying that at all. But, specific legislation such as this is always targeted toward producing a particular result. In this case, the most logical intent of the bill is probably the same as it always is: to either put smaller competition out of business or just “juice” the industry for campaign donations. It’s almost always one of those two things.

The bottom line when analyzing a proposed bill that would potentially decimate a certain industry is to make sure you don’t fall into the trap of thinking it’s unintended. No, no. It’s always intentional. Someone is benefiting from it. You just have to find out who.

The other side of my thinking on Romans 13 stems from the conundrum it presents when you think about how the doctrine relates to human action. Under the traditional interpretation of the passage, we’re left with a doctrine that turns ordinary, non-doctrinal decisions into mere externalities, which then become doctrinal conditionals by inheritence. In essence, this view creates a regress of negative externalities upon all issues related to itself. That can’t be correct because it’s logically incoherent. Let me try to explain this more clearly through a couple of examples.

The first thing that comes to mind is the simple act of changing jobs. Let’s say that in the last year, your particular industry experiences a major increase in taxes and regulations that leaves you making far less money. Should you look for a new job? Well, if you take Romans 13 in the traditional sense, it would be wrong to do so. You would be trying to usurp God’s authority as he carries out his plan through the hand of government. After all, that’s exactly what it says:

[2] Therefore, whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

But, that doesn’t make any sense. Changing jobs is a common sense thing to do based on a set of conditions. It doesn’t matter how those conditions, such as reduced pay, hostile work environment, etc., come about. That’s incidental. A hostile or dangerous work environment is a condition in and of itself. How that condition arises – whether by government, change of management, natural disaster, etc. – can’t be a conditional that valid adherence to a doctrine requires, because of the possibility of conflicting conditionals. For instance, what if you are employed by the government? In that scenario, two conditionals(one that violates the doctrine and one that fulfills it) now coexist.

The same problem arises when you think about moving. Let’s say you live right on the Eastern border of Alabama. One day, the Georgia legislature decides to eliminate their state income tax. Moving 30 minutes away to Georgia could save you a few thousand dollars a year. Can you move? Are you violating Romans 13 if you do by not subjecting yourself to the governing authorities?

Here’s a clearer example. Let’s say that you live in Hawaii and you’re independently wealthy. You decide to buy an island in the pacific and move there. The island has no government. It’s government is you. Now, did God ordain you as the government of that island? Who do you submit to? Yourself? Is everything you do right by default?

See the problems here? The traditional view of this passage creates so many interdependent conditionals that it’s impossible to fulfill. As I said last time, I think the best interpretation of this passage is that Paul is saying that God ordains what good government is. If you find yourself under such a government then submit to it. If you find yourself under a “government” that violates what Paul describes, you are not under any obligation, because that isn’t the government he is talking about.

One point that comes up often is, if I’m truly an anarchist, yet claim to be a follower of Christ, how do I deal with Romans 13. And, that’s a very fair question. Romans 13 seems to eliminate anarchism as an option for believers, by virtue of it’s description of the proper attitude of Christians toward their government. I’ve neglected to cover this topic here before because of how important of an issue it is. I wanted to make sure I had done enough due diligence on it so as not to lead anyone astray. But, I think it’s time to cover it.

I’m going to go with a bottom-up approach, using John Macarthur’s hermeneutic rule that you always take the plain reading of a passage as it’s actual meaning unless the passage itself forces you not to. Then you work your way out to solve any conflicts with other scripture. This may seem odd, since the usual inclination is to work from that larger context down to the smaller so as to preserve contextual meaning. But, in this case, the problem with this passage isn’t contextual.  It’s internal.  I’ll do my best to explain.

Here’s what Romans 13 says (verse numbers in [brackets]):

[1] Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. [2] Therefore, whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. [3] For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; [4] for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

[5] Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. [6] For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. [7] Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

[8] Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

–Romans 13, NASB

The plain, and most widely accepted interpretation of this passage is that Paul is telling us to submit to “government” because God has put “government” in place. Therefore, if we rebel against “government”, we are essentially rebelling against God’s very plan.

It’s my contention that this can’t be the meaning of this passage. The reason it can’t is because, if that’s what Paul is indeed saying, then he is lying or he is ignorant. And, neither one of those is a hermeneutical option for believers. This is one of those passages that seems to have a very clear meaning, but when you work it out in your mind, you find that the clear meaning is fraught with problems. Let me lay out the problems you will have to accept if you take the standard interpretation:

• In verse 3, the standard interpretation will require you to live in a fantasy world where good deeds are always applauded by government and bad deeds are always punished.
• Verse 4 will required you to believe that all war that is waged by the state, and all capital punishment, is justly administered.
• Verse 5 seems to indicate that taxes are the primary method by which God has chosen to fund these governments that he has put in place.

Verses 3 and 4 are what blow up the whole standard interpretation of this verse.  Paul simply can’t mean what it sounds like he means here.  If Paul is really saying that government always celebrates good and punishes evil then he is delusional.  But, we know that’s not the case.  Paul himself was unjustly imprisoned and killed by Rome, and he saw the rampant imperialistic wars that Rome waged all over Europe to enslave it’s people. He knew, more than most, how rampantly corrupt government is, and how unjustly it treats it’s subjects.

And, in our own time, we have seen one murderous regime after another during the 20th century.  From Stalin to the Holocaust to Pol Pot, we know that government doesn’t operate in the way Paul describes here.  Instead, they punish good and reward evil all the time.  He knew better than to make a statement like that.  And, that’s why I can’t accept that, that’s what he meant.  There must be some other interpretation that doesn’t require Paul to be clearly denying reality(i.e. insane).  So, what could that be?

Well, what Paul is describing here is “government.”  That word is the critical point to understanding all of this.  Remember the law of non-contradiction:  A is NOT equal to non-A.  Therefore, if the thing(government) that Paul is describing is not identical to the thing we are thinking about (government as we know it), then we aren’t talking about the same thing.  Paul is talking about something different.  Put more plainly, what Paul is talking about here is not the thing we know as government.  It can’t be, because the properties he ascribes to “government” don’t match the properties we see in “government.”  He means one thing.  We mean something else.

It’s plain to me that he’s talking about what government is supposed to be.  He’s describing government in it’s truest form.  It’s pure form.  But, not everything that claims to be a certain thing really is.  What North Korea calls it’s government isn’t a government.  It’s a gang of dictators that are holding that country hostage.  Just because they label themselves as a government doesn’t mean that they actually are one.  I can call myself the President of Uganda.  That doesn’t mean that I actually am.

And this leads to the correct interpretation of this passage:  when government fulfills it’s role, it’s ordained by God, and we are subject to it.  When government violates it’s role as Paul has defined it, that government is no government at all.  Therefore, it can’t be ordained by God, because it’s something different than what Paul describes.

This is getting really long, so I’ll pick it back up next time to talk about the problem of movement that you encounter if you accept the standard interpretation.

It’s very easy just to laugh at the “idiot” when he raises a question that seems totally foreign to our own experience with a given subject. But, that’s a reflex we would do well to conquer. For, what happens when, later, a little research proves the idiot’s question to be more than tangential? Uninformed mockery is one of the dumbest activities to engage in. It’s rhetorical suicide. Bernanke, evidently, is not aware of this.

After Ron Paul raised questions about possible past Federal Reserve misdeeds including allegations of involvement in Watergate payoffs, Ben Bernanke answered smugly: “These specific allegations you’ve made, I think are absolutely bizarre.”

The crowd reflexively laughed at Dr. No’s perceived looniness and pundits have already depicted his concerns as “wild” and “odd.”

Well, it seems that Paul may have been onto something . . . or at the very least raised legitimate questions that deserve investigation. A few minutes on Google News produced this 1982 story from the Milwaukee Sentinel by Richard Bradee of the paper’s Washington bureau:

“Police who searched the room the Watergate burglars used found $4,200 in $100 dollar bills, all numbered in sequence. Proxmire asked the Federal Reserve Board where the money came from. As he explained in a letter to the late Rep. Wright Patman (D-Tex.), chairman of the House Banking Committee: ‘I got the biggest run-around in years. They ducked, misled, lied, and gave me the idiot treatment.’”

–David Beito, The Beacon

Rowman has a great post over at Liberty vs. Leviathan that fits well with what we talked about yesterday:

In Roe at 37, Daniel McCarthy, of The American Conservative looks at the pro-life movement in the aftermath of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and nails one of the main reasons the pro-life cause has gained so little ground since that horrible decision:

“If you want to be politically effective, you will probably have to use a major party — but you have to use it, not let it use you. Unfortunately, the people who have the purest motives, who are most habitually inclined to trust the honorable intentions of others, wind up as fodder for the likes of Scott Brown once they get involved in the bloodletting that is politics.”

And commenter Thomas goes even further and takes the position (with which I agree) that the pro-life cause will continue to make little progress as long as it’s political fortunes are tied to the GOP:

“Publius Cato has a point about the GOP on abortion. I will take this further: if the Republicans DID do anything about abortion, they would lose their #1 political issue in the depressed parts of the South and Midwest where they win by gathering 80% or so of white working class votes which don’t agree with their globalist, oligarchic (and liberal-inegalitarian) economics. They need the abortion issue to persist indefinitely or else they are done.”

While I’m not sure of his demographics, the point is that the GOP is so dependent on the pro-life vote that it can’t afford for the abortion issue to go away. Maybe that’s why there are so few cosponsors for HR 2533 – Sanctity of Life Act of 2009, authored by Ron Paul. Pro life lobby where are you?

–Rowman, Liberty vs. Leviathan

From where we left off last time, Nock then turns his attention toward the idea of the “recession” or diminution of state power, and whether or not it’s possible. In discussing this, he hits on a topic that’s truly relevant to my ongoing point on this blog. Namely, that there is no point in voting for “Democrats” or “Republicans.” The idea of left and right in politics is meaningless tripe. He puts it this way (know that when he says “recession”, he means the lessening of state control/power. He’s not talking about economic recession.):

4. Political party differentiation is a myth

There is also an impression that if actual recessions do not come about by themselves, they may be brought about by the expedient of voting one party out and another one in. This idea rests upon certain assumptions that experience has shown to be unsound; the first one being that the power of the ballot is what republican political theory makes it out to be, and that therefore the electorate has an effective choice in the matter. It is a matter of open and notorious fact that nothing like this is true.

Our nominally republican system is actually built on an imperial model, with our professional politicians standing in the place of the praetorian guards; they meet from time to time, decide what can be “got away with,” and how, and who is to do it; and the electorate votes according to their prescriptions. Under these conditions it is easy to provide the appearance of any desired concession of State power, without the reality; our history shows innumerable instances of
very easy dealing with problems in practical politics much more difficult than that. One may remark that in this connexion also the notoriously baseless assumption that party-designations connote principles, and that party-pledges imply performance. Moreover, underlying these assumptions and all others that faith in “political action” contemplates, is the assumption that the interests of the State and the interests of society are, at least theoretically, identical; whereas in theory they are directly opposed, and this opposition invariably declares itself in practice to the precise extent that
circumstances permit.

However, without pursuing these matters further at the moment, it is probably enough to observe here that in the nature of things the exercise of personal government, the control of a huge and growing bureaucracy, and the management of an enormous mass of subsidized voting-power, are as agreeable to one stripe of politician as they are to another. Presumably they interest a Republican or a Progressive as much as they do a Democrat, Communist, Farmer- Labourite, Socialist, or whatever a politician may, for electioneering purposes, see fit to call himself.

One may well be inattentive to their words; their actions, however, mean simply that the recent accretions of State ower are here to stay, and that they are aware of it; and that, such being the case, they are preparing to dispose themselves most advantageously in a contest for their control and management. This is all that “reorganization” of the Republican party means, and all it is meant to mean; and this is, in itself, quite enough to show that any expectation of an essential change of regime through a change of party-administration is illusory. On the contrary, it is clear that whatever party-competition we shall see hereafter will be on the same terms as heretofore. It will be a competition for control and management, and it would naturally issue in still closer centralization, still further extension of the bureaucratic principle, and still larger concessions to subsidized voting-power. This course would be strictly historical, and is furthermore to be expected as lying in the nature of things, as it so obviously does.

–Nock, Our Enemy, The State

I know that was a long excerpt, but I thought it was necessary since he packed so much in. He is getting here, to the heart of what I’ve tried to explain before, but have done such a lousy job of. He’s explaining that the espoused differences between the two parties are actually just different ways to obtain the same end: more state power and less social power. I think where people fall for the trick, is in the creative employment of moral language used by the candidates. So, when Mike Huckabee stands up and says that he thinks Roe vs. Wade should be repealed, it’s not that what he says is “meaningless.” It’s that, he’s just not that concerned with actually doing anything about it.

Political footballs are footballs for a reason. Because they stay in play at all times. If somebody takes all the balls and throws them out of the stadium, you can’t play any more. The main concern of politicians is the management and structuring of their own position within the power structure of centralized control. This is what Nock refers to as “reorganization.” And, after that point is settled, the politician moves on to the accumulation of more control and influence inside their now established realm of influence. The morality, or lack thereof, of a certain political football such as abortion, taxes, social services, etc. is no more meaningful to the politician than what breakfast he will eat.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I distinctly remember saying that Scott Brown was just like every other politician walking the planet, and that there is no difference between the two parties. Man, it didn’t even take a month for this dude to vote for robbing us of another $15 billion dollars. And, on some stupid “jobs” bill. Those things aren’t even worth the paper they’re written on. Show me a “jobs” bill that’s ever produced a single job. He might as well have crapped $15 billion down Teddy Kennedy’s toilet.

WASHINGTON—Freshman Republican Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.) is to vote with the Democratic majority and support a crucial procedural motion on a $15 billion piece of legislation aimed at spurring job creation, an aide to the senator said Monday.

The move by Mr. Brown to break with most of his party’s members in his first ever vote in the Senate is a significant development.

–WSJ

Remember when we were kids and were taught that policemen are your friends? That, anytime you needed help you could look for that blue uniform and badge? Well, those days are long gone. Cops are no longer anyone’s friend but the State’s. It seems all they care about these days are their taxpayer funded lifetime pensions. Screw the citizens. It’s our job to pay their salary and submit to every random whim that comes out of their mouth. It’s their job to give us speeding tickets, rape our wallets and make our lives more complicated. And, this is exactly what 61 year old Minnie Carey found out when she asked a simple question to the cop who told her to move: “why?”

Four women, two of them well into middle age, were discussing funeral plans for a friend when an Atlanta police officer told them to move.

Three did but one asked “why.” In answer to her question, Minnie Carey, then 61, was handcuffed, put into a police wagon and taken to jail, where she was held for nine hours.

The Citizen Review Board found that Atlanta Police officer Brandy Dolson had violated APD policies and had falsely arrested Carey.

“I was blown away,” Carey told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “I had heard about people in the community being harassed by the police … It really didn’t shock me as much as it probably would have if I had not heard of people going to jail for no reason. I figured I was just another one.

“But I had the right to ask ‘why’ I had to move,” she said.

The Citizen Review Board – resurrected after the 2006 fatal police shooting of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston in her home – voted in a recent meeting to sustain Carey’s false arrest claim and the allegation that the officer had violated the department’s arrest policies.

–Rhonda Cook, Atlanta Journal-Constitution

It should be no surprise that this type of thing happens over time. For a moment, push all of the propaganda out of your mind and just think about this in generic terms. What happens when you give one group of people the exclusive right to use physical force over another group of people? Remember Lord Acton’s famous words about absolute power. Well, it doesn’t just corrupt politicians. It corrupts police officers in an even more base way. Policemen have, by law, a monopoly on the use of force to make us comply with virtually anything they want us to. And we, again, by law, must disarm ourselves in their presence. That type of power cannot remain un-corrupted for long.

Continuing where we left off last time:

3. The state turns misfortune into a political asset.

A third index is seen in the erection of poverty and mendicancy into a permanent political asset.
Two years ago, many of our people were in hard straits; to some extent, no doubt, through no fault
of their own, though it is now clear that in the popular view of their case, as well as in the political
view, the line between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor was not distinctly drawn.
Popular feeling ran high at the time, and the prevailing wretchedness was regarded with
undiscriminating emotion, as evidence of some general wrong done upon its victims by society at
large, rather than as the natural penalty of greed, folly or actual misdoings; which in large part it
was. The State, always instinctively “turning every contingency into a resource” for accelerating the
conversion of social power into State power, was quick to take advantage of this state of mind. All
that was needed to organize these unfortunates into an invaluable political property was to declare
the doctrine that the State owes all its citizens a living; and this was accordingly done. It
immediately precipitated an enormous mass of subsidized voting-power, an enormous resource for
strengthening the State at the expense of society.

–Nock, Our Enemy, The State

Remember that this was written in 1935. So, when he says, “Two years ago, many of our people were in hard straits,” he means the Great Depression. He is talking here of the appropriation, by the state, of an actual state of being. They actually began, around that time, turning poverty and misfortune into political footballs to be tossed about for the purpose of vote buying and political power grabs. This, at once, has the effect of putting the lie to the notion that the state cares anything about ending poverty. Of course they don’t. Why would they want to end such a potent political tool as that. It would be like banning abortion. They never will, because as soon as they do, they would lose that issue as a way to buy votes. It’s much more valuable as a tool. Morality be damned.

This is also, so far as I’m concerned, the major flaw in the thinking that drives much of the “social gospel” movement’s leadership. I’ve posted on this before. Many, or them seek to expropriate the power of the state and apply it toward social ills, such as poverty. This can’t work, because of what we just covered. The state has no desire to end poverty. But, it does have an interest in making you think it does. That’s the whole game in and of itself. So, trying to get the right guy in office, or protesting, or whatever is just a complete waste of time. By definition, it can’t work. And, also by definition, you will always be made to think that it is working. So unless you enjoy being lied to and playing the fool, it’s a really bad idea to attempt to ally any aspect of the church with the state.

I just finished listening to Albert Jay Nock’s book, Our Enemy, The State. It was, perhaps, the finest disquisition on the inherent dangers of the state I’ve ever read. And, what’s odd is that one of the main points of the book was that government isn’t inherently bad. What’s bad is “the state.” He draws a very clear and compelling distinction between government and the state. And, even though the book was written in 1935, it reads like a modern treatise on the history of our lost liberty. In that regard, I see him very much like a 20th century John C. Calhoun. He saw what was coming by logical mandate. Knowing what he knew about the state and it’s relationship to it’s citizens, history could unfold no other way.

Let’s go through his main points:

1. State power is drawn from social power.

It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it
has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from
time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be
drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with
so much less power; there is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a
corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.

–Nock, Our Enemy, The State

This is an interesting comment. We all know that all state money comes from only two sources: confiscation(taxes) and inflation(printing money). But, he is saying that state power is derived the same way, through a sort of confiscation of societal power. And, just as taxes result in it’s victim being financially poorer, so does the confiscation of a citizen’s “power.” And, by power he means the citizens ability to exercise his/her efforts toward solving a personal or societal ill. Take, for instance, the beauracracy involved in starting a business. There are all sorts of papers to fill out, licenses to apply for and fees/taxes to pay. In the carrying out of these exigencies, the state has placed barriers in front of you in regards to exercising your power(in this instance, your labour) to provide for your own welfare. He expounds on that next.

2. This consumption of social power by the state robs society of the will to exercise that power.

It is largely in this way that the progressive conversion of social power into State power becomes
acceptable and gets itself accepted. When the Johnstown flood occurred, social power was
immediately mobilized and applied with intelligence and vigour. Its abundance, measured by
money alone, was so great that when everything was finally put in order, something like a million
dollars remained. If such a catastrophe happened now, not only is social power perhaps too
depleted for the like exercise, but the general instinct would be to let the State see to it. Not only
has social power atrophied to that extent, but the disposition to exercise it in that particular
direction has atrophied with it. If the State has made such matters its business, and has
confiscated the social power necessary to deal with them, why, let it deal with them. We can get
some kind of rough measure of this general atrophy by our own disposition when approached by a
beggar. Two years ago we might have been moved to give him something; today we are moved to
refer him to the State’s relief-agency. The State has said to society, You are either not exercising
enough power to meet the emergency, or are exercising it in what I think is an incompetent way,
so I shall confiscate your power, and exercise it to suit myself. Hence when a beggar asks us for a
quarter, our instinct is to say that the State has already confiscated our quarter for his benefit, and
he should go to the State about it.

–Nock, Our Enemy, The State

Here, he is fleshing out his previous idea about the depletion of social power by the state as it takes on more and more activities that are considered social issues. He gives an example that is contemporary to his own time, so I’ll do the same. This phenomenon is perhaps no more clearly illustrated than what happened in Kauai, Hawaii last year. After waiting on the Department of Land and Natural Resources to fix a park road for months, the residents of the area repaired the road themselves. The DOLNR had estimated that it would cost $4 million dollars and take two years to repair the road. Instead, the area business owners and residents did it in 8 days and with only donations.

What should have never been the business of the state to begin with had paralyzed this community for months. But, why? Why would they wait for someone else to do something for them. Because of the atrophy of will that occurs when the state absconds with power that it never should have had. The more power that is accumulates to itself, the less society desires to exercise that particular power on it’s own. Even if it legally can.