COVID-19 and the Idea of Omnipotent State

While I was contemplating on the development of the trend that surrounds COVID-19 and economic shutdown, I came up with a following reflection:  

"Just an observation: I find the anatomy of the unfolding of the events since the start of covid-19 especially in relation to the character of the State both alarming and interesting. During the first two months, March and April, the posture is one of being an all-powerful and an all-knowing entity. Then around 19th of May, disappointment regarding covid-19 response became widespread and it was followed by a recognition of limitation on the part of the govt. That is somehow good and healthy to a sane society. By the end of May, there was a divergence between what is happening in the US and here in the PH. In the US, the narrative shifted from lockdown to racism, riots, and looting. Here in the PH, the rhetoric reminds us of post 911 terrorist attack. It seems to me, that due to widespread disappointment, the political and the bureaucratic class are now being exposed for all their pretensions to power and somehow their status are either being questioned or threatened. Thereby, advocates of big government have to think of some drastic measures to safeguard their interest, and of course doing all of them in the name of public safety, law, and order. God forbid that instead of freedom advancing, we will see in the days ahead, a continued and sustained attack on our freedom of expression and movement."

After posting my reflection on Facebook, my friend made a comment:  

"Magandang tingnan yung development ng estado sa OT in the case of ancient Israel. My initial observation is that: the concept of the state was somehow a late comer, instead a religious consciousness came first, and then the concept of the rule of law. It's only later that the institution of monarchy was established, and even then something that was problematized by the prophet Samuel. This observation indicates that the state in ancient Israel was never regarded as absolute and unlimited in its claims. That the Torah was given first serves to delimit and claims of the state, its legitimacy within divine ordering was framed within the provisions allowed by the covenant articulated by the Torah."

And then I replied:  

"No problem with the concept of the State in the Old Testament. As far as I know, the prevailing worldview from the dawn of human history, which includes the concept of the State is basically religious. And so the idea of the power of the Torah to delimit the power of the State in ancient Israel is consistent with such worldview. Quoting Hugo Winckler, such worldview according to Bavinck remained until the advent of 18th century, where the supranatural foundation (including the religious) of such worldview has been challenged and replaced in favor of the empirico-scientific. I suspect that in the passing of time, with the new worldview, the concept of the State has also undergone a radical change."

And then I shared with him my recent reading on welfare state 

"Just recently, I was reading a 40-page journal article on the Origins of the Welfare State in America. It was interesting how Murray N. Rothbard connected an ideology that includes postmillennial pietism, Statism, and corporate socialism to economic interests advanced by big businessmen seeking favor from the government to achieve cartelization and a growing legion of educated intellectuals and technocrats who want to restrict entry into their field via forms of licensing. Such ideology took control virtually all Protestant churches from 1830 onwards. The combination of these two forces according to Rothbard, paved the way for the existence of the welfare state. Both wealth and public opinion-molding power are at their disposal." 

"What follows afterwards is interesting. Protestant postmillennial pietism was secularized until the late 19th century. The goal was to use the power of the government 'to stamp out sin and to create a perfect society, in order to usher in the Kingdom of God on Earth.' From such goal, a concept of government evolved from a 'paternalistic mender of social problems' to a 'more and more divinized' and 'more and more seen as the leader and molder of the' society." 

"Rothbard identified a long list of names including the revivalist Charles Finney, activist women from a middle to upper class background, John Dewey, and others that contributed to the evolution of the Progressive Party launched by the Morgans in 1912. This Party spearheads the statist coalition that includes academic progressives, Morgan businessmen, social-gospel Protestant ministers, and activist women who became influential social workers who prepared the way for the success of FDR’s New Deal from 1933 to 1939. On side note, it is also interesting that Ludwig von Mises already had this concept of omnipotent State during his time. In fact, he even wrote a book in 1944 with that title describing the German State during the time of the Nazis." 

And the another friend raised a a follow-up question:

"May I know how we should perceive the empirico-scientific (what exactly characterises it) and how it challenged and replaced the power of the Torah to delimit the power of the state of ancient Israel?"

And here is my reply:

"That's actually the language of Herman Bavinck in his book The Philosophy of Revelation. Relying on Winckler, he was arguing that in the entire history of humanity, there are only two general worldviews, which he describes as "supranatural" and "empirico-scientific." The latter, from the combination of two terms themselves, you can see obviously that basically, it is naturalistic. It considers any claim beyond the realm of nature as primitive and unscientific. The concept of the Torah within that framework can be explained in naturalistic terms. To insist that the Torah is a product of divine revelation and therefore has the power to serve as a corrective to the excessive exercise in political power doesn't make sense. Such power of the Torah is only acknowledged within the supranatural worldview. But of course, this kind of thinking is no longer new. In the postmodern age, we are now witnessing the crashing of the foundation of the empirico-scientific worldview and a return to the supranatural where revelation is again recognized. But you know, even in information age, ideas need considerable time before they reach public consciousness. Still, existing institutions and policies work on the basis of the modern project."

The Capitalists, the State, and Justice

Hans-Hermann Hoppe clarifies in the The Ethics of Entrepreneurship and Property the role of both the capitalists and the State in relation to justice. In Hoppe's article, we can see four basic facts:

Fact # 1 - A capitalist's profit and loss are indication of the extent of his contribution to social welfare. 

Notice how Hoppe describes the capitalist's contribution to society: 

"What can be unambiguously stated about a capitalist’s profit or loss is this: His profit or loss are the quantitative expression of the size of his contribution to the well-being of his fellow men, . . . . The capitalist’s profit indicates that he has successfully transformed socially less highly valued and appraised means of action into socially more highly valued and appraised ones and thus increased and enhanced social welfare. Mutatis mutandis, the capitalist’s loss indicates that he has used some more valuable inputs for the production of a less valuable output and so wasted scarce physical means and impoverished society."

"Money profits are not just good for the capitalist, then, they are also good for his fellow men. The higher a capitalist’s profit, the greater has been his contribution to social welfare. Likewise, money losses are bad not only for the capitalist, but they are bad also for his fellow men, whose welfare has been impaired by his error."

Fact # 2 - A capitalist's actions and profits are considered just if there is "mutual beneficial exchange," "mutually agreeable terms," and respect for the property of others. Violating these conditions would make the actions and profits of a capitalist unjust. 

Again, observe how Hoppe explains this situation:

'The capitalist’s actions and profits are just, if he has originally appropriated or produced his production factors or has acquired them – either bought or rented them – in a mutually beneficial exchange from a previous owner, if all his employees are hired freely at mutually agreeable terms, and if he does not physically damage the property of others in the production process. Otherwise, if some or all of the capitalist’s production factors are neither appropriated or produced by him, nor bought or rented by him from a previous owner (but derived instead from the expropriation of another person’s previous property), if he employs non-consensual, “forced” labor in his production, or if he causes physical damage to others’ property during production, his actions and resulting profits are unjust."

Fact # 3 - The State makes the social justice question elusive and complicated. 

At this point, Hoppe identifies two implications from the very nature of the State itself. 

"Complications in this fundamentally clear ethical landscape arise only from the presence of a State. . . . Logically, the institution of a state has a twofold implication. First, with a state in existence all private property becomes essentially fiat property, i.e., property granted by the state and, by the same token, also property to be taken away by it via legislation or taxation. Ultimately, all private property becomes state property. Second, none of the state’s “own” land and property – misleadingly called public property – and none of its money income is derived from original appropriation, production, or voluntary exchange. Rather, all of the state’s property and income is the result of prior expropriations of owners of private property."

"The state, then, contrary to its own self-serving pronouncements, is not the originator or guarantor of private property. Rather, it is the conqueror of private property. Nor is the state the originator or guarantor of justice. To the contrary, it is the destroyer of justice and the embodiment of injustice."

Fact # 4 - The capitalist's response to an unjust and Statist society can be considered just or unjust depending on his participation in the expropriatory acts of the State, in the regulation and redistribution of private property of other capitalists. 

Under a Statist environment, a capitalist is torn between two responses, to be "a champion of justice" by legitimately depending his property against the State's expropriation or to be "a promoter of injustice" by participating in the expropriation of the property of those he considers as competitors. 

See how Hoppe elaborates these two responses:

1. A capitalist as "a champion of justice" by defending his property:

"The capitalist is ethically entitled to use all means at his disposal to defend himself against any attack on and expropriation of his property by the state, exactly as he is entitled to do against any common criminal."

"More specifically: For the capitalist (or anyone) in the defense and for the sake of his property, it may not be prudent or even dangerous to do so, but it is certainly just for him to avoid or evade any and all restrictions imposed on his property by the state as best he can. Thus, it is just for the capitalist to deceive and lie to state agents about his properties and income. It is just for him, to evade tax-payments on his property and income, and to ignore or circumvent all legislative or regulatory restrictions imposed on the uses he may make of his factors of production (land, labor, and capital). Correspondingly, a capitalist also acts justly, if he bribes or otherwise lobbies state agents to help him ignore, remove or evade the taxes and regulations imposed on him. He acts justly and above that becomes a promoter of justice, if he uses his means to lobby or bribe state agents to reduce taxes and property regulations generally, not only for him. And he acts justly and becomes indeed a champion of justice, if he actively lobbies to outlaw, as unjust, any and all expropriation, and hence all property and income taxes and all legislative restrictions on the use of property (beyond the requirement of not causing physical damage to others’ property during production)."

2. A capitalist as promoter of injustice:

"On the other hand, and again exactly as in the case of any common criminal, the capitalist’s defensive actions are unjust, if they involve an attack on the property of any third party, i.e., as soon as the capitalist uses his means to play a participatory role in the state’s expropriations."

". . . . a capitalist acts unjustly and becomes a promoter of injustice, if and to the extent he employs his means for the purpose of maintaining or further increasing any current level of confiscation or legislative expropriation of others’ property or income by the state."

"Thus, for instance, the purchase of state-government bonds and the monetary profit derived from it is unjust, because such purchase represents a lobbying effort on behalf of the continuation of the state and of on-going injustice, as interest payments and final repayment of the bond require future taxes. Likewise and more importantly, any means expended by a capitalist on lobbying efforts to maintain or increase the current level of taxes – and hence of state-income and spending – or of regulatory property restrictions, are unjust, and any profits derived from such efforts are corrupted."

"Confronted with an unjust institution, the temptation for a capitalist to act unjustly as well is systematically increased. If he becomes an accomplice in the state’s business of taxing, redistributing and legislating, new profit opportunities open up. Corruption becomes attractive, because it can offer great financial rewards."

"By expending money and other means on political parties, politicians, or other state agents, a capitalist may lobby the state to subsidize his losing enterprise, or to rescue it from insolvency or bankruptcy – and so enrich or save himself at the expense of others. Through lobbying activities and expenses, a capitalist may be granted a legal privilege or monopoly concerning the production, the sale, or the purchase of certain products or services – and so gain monopoly profits at the expense of other money-profit seeking capitalists. Or he may get the state to pass legislation that raises his competitors’ production costs relative to his own – and so grants him a competitive advantage at others’ expense."

"Yet however tempting, all such lobbying activities and resulting profits are unjust. They all involve that a capitalist pays state agents for the expropriation of other, third parties, in the expectation of higher personal profit. The capitalist does not employ his means of production exclusively for the production of goods, to be sold to voluntarily paying consumers. Rather, the capitalist employs a portion of his means for the production of bads: the involuntary expropriation of others. And accordingly, the profit earned from his enterprise, whatever it may be, is no longer a correct measure of the size of his contribution to social welfare. His profits are corrupted and morally tainted. Some third parties would have a just claim against his enterprise and his profit – a claim that may not be enforceable against the state, but that would be a just claim nonetheless."

Note: 

To distinguish between the justice and injustice of the acts of capitalists, it's good to read this transcript, while listening to this audio. By doing this, comprehension and memory retention are higher I think.

Source: The Ethics of Entrepreneurship and Property by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Animosity Against Comprehensive Redemption

Statism, Pietism, and Christianity present three rival worldviews. Statism has many forms: communism, Mohammedanism, and interventionism known in the past as fascism. 

Pietism agrees with and opposes Statism at the same time. It agrees with Statism when it comes to the application of humanism in politics and economics. It opposes Statism in areas of life when the laws made by the State becomes a threat to its survival. Pietism is the dominant faith in Christianity today. It is also known as monastic or escapist Christianity. 

Biblical Christianity gives us a different vision of the world and history. The impact of Adam's sin is universal. It includes man and all his affairs even the realms of economics and politics. 

However, as a result of Adam's sin, mankind has been subjected under the worst form of slavery, the slavery of sin. But the Son of God came into this world to liberate mankind and the entire creation from the power of sin. And since the work of redemption is already complete and Jesus is now sitting at the right hand of the Father, reigning until the time that all his enemies will submit under his rule, the duty of the church is to proclaim this message of redemption. 

Photo Credit

Jesus Christ claims that all power in heaven and on earth are already His. On the basis of this authority, Jesus has given the church a commission to disciple all nations, to proclaim the whole counsel of God. This means that the gospel starts in personal transformation, but it doesn't end there. Personal transformation should affect families and societies and all the institutions in them. This is how I understand comprehensive redemption.

Unfortunately, the idea of comprehensive redemption has numerous enemies. Foremost among them are the statists, Marxists, and pietists. See how Gary North describes such animosity: 

So whenever the church begins to declare God's holy standards of civil rule, the state is outraged. "How dare you! It is your job to keep the people quiet," says the present ruler. "It is not your job to speak out on political questions. They are of no concern to the church."

The revolutionaries are equally outraged. "It is your job to preach revolution, not reform," says the Marxist liberation theologian. "It is not your job to preach peaceful change, the reconstruction of society by the preaching of the gospel, and the decapitalization of the state. No, the goal is to capture the state, strengthen it, and make it even more powerful."

The escapists are also outraged. "Look, we come to church to have our spirits soothed. You keep bringing up unpleasant topics. There is nothing we can do about any of the world's problems outside the four walls of the sanctuary. Preach Jesus, and Him crucified-and be sure to leave Him hanging on the cross, where He belongs."

The preaching of the full-scale gospel scares those who believe in political salvation, as well as those who believe in irresponsible, world-denying salvation. The message of the Bible is simple in principle: comprehensive redemption. Everything is to be brought under the dominion of Jesus, through His people who represent Him as ambassadors and judges on earth. Everything. This means that Christ redeemed (bought back) the whole world. It means that there is no neutrality between Christ and Satan. Christ's rule must be established over everything before He delivers the kingdom up to His Father (1 Corinthians 15:24).



Source: Gary North, Liberating Planet Earth, 1987, pp. 91-92

Notes from "The State" by Bastiat

Note # 1

"The State! What is it? Where is it? What does it do? What should it do? We only know that it is a mysterious being; and, it is certainly the most petitioned, the most harassed, the most bus­tling, the most advised, the most reproached, the most invoked, and the most challenged of any being in the world."

Note # 2

"...you have designed Uto­pias, and if so, that you are look­ing to The State for the realiza­tion of them."

Note # 3

"The hundred thousand mouths of the press and of the platform cry out all at once—"

• Organize work and the workmen. Cover the country with railways. Irrigate the plains.
• Reforest the hills.
• Establish model farms.
• Educate the youth.
• Assist the aged.
• Equalize the profits of all trades.
• Lend money without interest to all who wish to borrow.
• Restrict commerce.

Note # 4

"The mission of The State is to enlighten, to develop, to ennoble, to strengthen, and to sanctify the soul of the people."

Note # 5

"...it has been proven that The State has no means of granting privileges to some without adding to the labor of others."

Note # 6

"The State is the great fiction through which everybody endeav­ors to live at the expense of everybody."

Note # 7

"The State quickly perceives the advan­tages it can derive from the role entrusted to it by the public. It will be the judge, the master of the destinies of all. It will take a lot: then much will remain for itself. It will multiply the number of its agents, and increase its functions, until it finally acquires crushing proportions."

Note # 8

"I contend that the personifica­tion of The State has been in the past and will be in the future, a fertile source of calamities and revolutions. There is the public on one side, The State on the other, considered as two distinct beings; the latter obligated to bestow upon the former, the former hav­ing the right to claim from the latter a flood of human benefits."

Note # 9

"The State has two hands, one for receiving and the other for giving—a rough hand and a smooth one. The activity of the second is necessarily subordinate to the activity of the first."

Note # 10

"It is utterly impossible for it to confer a specific benefit upon some of the individuals who make up the community, without inflicting a greater injury upon the community as a whole."

Note # 11

"Our demands, therefore, place The State in an obvious dilemma! If it refuses to grant the requested benefit, it is accused of weak­ness, and incapacity. If it tries to grant their requests, it is obliged to load the people with in­creased taxes—to do more harm than good—and to bring upon it­self general displeasure from an­other quarter."

Note # 12

"To live upon credit, that is, to exhaust the future, is cer­tainly a temporary method of reconciling them—an attempt to do a little good now, at the expense of a great deal of harm in the fu­ture."

Note # 13

"Citizens! At all times, two political systems have been in existence, and each can justify itself with good reasons. According to one of them, The State should do a lot, but then it should take a lot. Ac­cording to the other, this twofold activity ought to be limited. We have to choose between these two systems."

Source: 

The State by Frederic Bastiat published at The Freeman on April 1, 1965. 

Detroitification, Statism and Progressivism

I assume that most Filipinos are not aware about the significance of the recent bankruptcy of Detroit city. For them, it is purely an American affair. 

I personally believe that there are lessons to learn from Detroit's downfall. In this post, I just want to identify three:

The Reason for Detroit's Bankruptcy. I find at least three interpretations as to the cause of Detroit's ruin. The most popular interpretation is the one propagated by the likes of a Nobel Prize Winner, Paul Krugman. For him, it is the fault of the free market and Detroit is simply a victim of free market forces. Yes, he accepted that bad governance contributed to the destruction, but primarily, free market is the one to be blamed. 

The owner of a blog, Mont Pelerin World does not see the role of free market in Detroit's failure not unless you equate free market with the automobile industry. To him, three forces caused the bankruptcy. Together with automobile industry, the other two forces are horrible government and labor union. 

Another writer, Robert Morley shares a different opinion. For him, the key to understand the situation of Detroit is to grasp first the reason for its previous prosperity. Morley accepts the importance of the dynamics inherent in free market economy, but they don't provide the complete explanation. The role of God and the keeping of his commandments are central in his understanding of Detroit's prosperity. And since God's commandments have been broken in terms of tax increases on businesses and productive individuals and the act of redistributing wealth., bankruptcy is an inescapable result.

Clarity in understanding the cause of Detroit bankruptcy is relevant not only for US economy, but also for other countries as well. This is especially true in our days when mainstream media keeps on feeding the public that capitalism is largely to blame for global economic woes. Not many people are able to distinguish between state "capitalism" and free market capitalism. 

The Role of Expanding Power of the Government. The failure to distinguish between two types of capitalism is due to inability to see the role and impact of government interference to the economy. Interventionism is the common term used by free market thinkers to describe this act of economic interference. Interventionism is an essential feature of statism. 

Broadly speaking, statism stands for a political ideology that the government has the ultimate source of power and authority when it comes to the formulation of social and economic policy. Daniel Hannan claims that statism is actually responsible for the Detroitification of the USA. I cannot avoid to think that perhaps, behind the smokescreen of poverty and corruption as the two primary problems in the Philippines, statism is its ultimate political source.

The Role of Progressivism. This is the third lesson I think we have to learn from Detroit's downfall, that ideas, particularly bad political and economic ideas lead into ugly results. 

Actually, this article is an offshoot of a thread in a Facebook group. I started a thread asking the question, "If there is any, what lessons can we learn from Detroit bankruptcy?" As the interaction grew, one commenter responded, "I think progressives are heading to statism." I affirmed his answer and another commenter asked, "What's your basis for saying that statism is the direction of the progressives and who are these progressives?" The first commenter replied, "You already engaged with them in previous discussions. The progressives are all "'cause-oriented groups' and those identified with the left."

I find the questions of the second commenter difficult and so I read further looking for answers. And I came up with two ways to answer his questions: based on personal observation and based on the history of progressive movement in the US taken from three articles.

Personal Opinion

First, based on my personal opinion, progressives are usually identified with the political left. However, since the collapse of Russian version of socialism in 1989, socialism took a progressive form and identifying progressives right now is not an easy task. But there are hints to recognize them. Simply pick up a newspaper and look for sentences or phrases advocating government's action to interfere in national economy, I think you can find a progressive promoting a statist solution. Sentences like these are now common place: " I urge the government to institutionalize _________"; "The government can expand the program further to provide capital to poor families", and; "Mr. _______ has asked the Aquino government to create a/an _________."

First Article

C. Jay Engel of Reformed Libertarian wrote the first article. He said unlike in the past, it is not easy these days to identify labels whether it be political or theological for there are stories behind those labels. 

His understanding of the history of progressive movement started in 19th century. The battle in politics during those times was between leftists (classical liberals advocating limited government, which is also synonymous now with libertarianism) and rightists (conservatives advocating big government, which I call statism). Unfortunately, the liberals neglected their intellectual roots. And due to the influence of Darwin's theory borrowed and applied by Marx in understanding society, the belief in the attainment of an ideal world through socialism became popular. In short, in 1901 to 1914, liberalism was abandoned and replaced by progressivism. 

The classical liberals who had been replaced were constitutionalists and since they were thrown out of their political house, in time they found a home among the conservative camp who strongly opposed progressivism. So based on Engel's story, "progressives took over the title of liberalism and the true liberals found a way to call themselves conservatives based on their commitment to the American tradition of life, liberty, and property." So now, in the US, liberalism means progressivism and answering the question of our commenter, we can say that progressives in the Philippines are those who propagate in the country the ideas of US liberalism.

Second Article

Walter Williams wrote "Liberals, Progressives and Socialists".  Following Ludwig von Mises' analysis, Williams thinks that both communism and Nazism are two different forms of socialism. He was surprised why the crime of Nazism received international condemnation and yet the communist form of socialism appeared to be exempted from such despite the high rate of its victims, which was estimated to reach 138 million. He suspects that it is due to high regard given to Mao Zedong among American intellectuals. I suspect the same thing when it comes to Marx's ideas.

Williams added, perhaps contemporary leftists, socialists and progressives would argue that their agenda is far different from that of the Nazi, Soviets and Maoists. But as for him, the test for a tyrannous government is not only confined in the existence of death camps and wars of conquest, but the belief in the "primacy of the state over individual rights."

He left a warning: "The unspeakable horrors of Nazism didn’t happen overnight. They were simply the end result of a long evolution of ideas leading to consolidation of power in central government in the quest for 'social justice.' ” At present, in the US, there is a "massive consolidation of power in Washington in the name of social justice." So for him this is the appropriate question, which I think is also applicable to the Philippines: "Which way are we headed tiny steps at a time — toward greater liberty or toward more government control over our lives?"

Third Article

This article caused me headache. It is very long and I find it hard to make sense of all the details in it. Murray Rothbard wrote this, "The Progressive Era and the Family" and he gave a complex and more detailed historical background of progressive movement. 

For Rothbard, to confine the origin of progressivism during 1900 to 1914 does not provide the complete picture. He mentioned two movements that are not usually associated with progressivism - these are mercantilism and revival movement.

Based on Rothbard's narration, the revival movement during the 1830s played a big role in the birth of progressivism. This movement was opposed to "creedal Calvinist churches that stressed the importance of obeying God's law as expressed in the church creed." For this movement, creeds, rituals and liturgies are not important. Rothbard called this movement new "Pietism" and it has two different forms - "salvationists pietists" of the South and the "evangelical pietists" of the North, the territory of the Yankees. 

Since this movement removed the law of God as expressed in church creed from its previous place in society, but considered social sanctification as its mission, the remaining option to accomplish this mission was to use the power of the state. Exactly at this point, Rothbard described "evangelical pietists" as "natural 'cultural imperialists,' people who were wont to impose their values and morality on other groups; as such, they took quite naturally to imposing their form of pietism through whatever means were available, including the use of the coercive power of the state."

Rothbard mentioned some of the important features in the Progressive movement. They are the following: 

• Use of both pietistic and scientific arguments to achieve the pietist goals

• Social gospel movement

• Increase of government contracts to business

• Taxpayer-financed welfare state

• Expansion of the power of the public school 

• Expansion of the power of the state over the family, and 

• Eugenics movement 

Rothbard's story is very interesting, but long. I just selected sections in it relevant to the questions of the second commenter: 

"Progressivism was, to a great extent, the culmination of the pietist Protestant political impulse, the urge to regulate every aspect of American life, economic and moral—even the most intimate and crucial aspects of family life. But it was also a curious alliance of a technocratic drive for government regulation, the supposed expression of 'value-free science,' and the pietist religious impulse to save America—and the world—by state coercion." 

"All these trends reached their apogee in the Progressive party and its national convention of 1912. The assemblage was a gathering of businessmen, intellectuals, academics, technocrats, efficiency experts and social engineers, writers, economists, social scientists, and leading representatives of the new profession of social work." 

"In short, the Progressive Era re-created the age-old alliance between Big Government, large business firms, and opinion-molding intellectuals—an alliance that had most recently been embodied in the mercantilist system of the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries."

So I think, if we find it difficult to identify progressives today, it is not because they are few. I think they are everywhere....

Related Article:

A Brief History of Progressivism

Francis Schaeffer on Humanism

In "Conflicting Worldviews: Humanism versus Christianity", Francis Schaeffer combined two themes into one speech. He contrasted two conflicting worldviews and presented his understanding of biblical position on military preparedness. The reason why I am including this post in this blog is due to the relevance of Schaeffer's speech to Statism, which is the most powerful tool of humanism. This in return is a serious threat to personal and economic liberty. 

Necessary Distinctions

Before presenting the contrast between Christianity and humanism, Schaeffer clarified first what he meant by humanism. He distinguished it from both humanitarianism and humanities. Since the meaning of humanitarianism is obvious, I think only the meaning of humanities deserves a concise description. To him, it is related to the study of human creativity connected to classical learning. He argued that Christians should show interest in these two fields and not to confuse them with humanism.

The Contrast Between Two Worldviews

The contrast between Christianity and humanism has something to do with ultimate reality. For Christianity, the ultimate "reality is the infinite-personal God who truly is there objectively whether we think He is there or not" (p.15). To the God of Christianity, "not everything is the same, and, therefore, there are absolutes, right and wrong, in the world" (ibid.).

On the side of humanism, impersonal matter or energy is the ultimate reality, which is totally neutral when it comes to value system. In the end, this would mean that man has the final say in everything. 

The Shift into Humanism and Its Consequences

Schaeffer delivered this speech in 1982. He said that "about eighty years ago" (that's around 1902), US already shifted from Judeo-Christian consensus into a humanist consensus. As a result of this shift, numerous problems have occured. 

Revelation has no place in humanism. Certainty of knowledge is also out of the question. There is no final value system where anyone can appeal to and there is no basis for human individuality and importance. This leaves us nothing, but "with only personal, arbitrary, relative values" and "arbitrary law" (p.16). And such law comes from "the decision of a small group of people, and what they decide at a given moment" (ibid.) for common good. This group of people could be the Supreme Court or anyone else. For Schaeffer, this explains why acts that were considered abominations before are now accepted. 

Abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and absence of free expression of religion are all natural outcomes of humanistic worldview. The frightening thing is that both the civil government and the courts have been increasingly used as instruments to propagate humanism. The government "has done it by its laws and court rulings" (p.18). 

Marxism is the most popular form of humanism. It also subscribes to the idea that only matter or energy is the ultimate reality. The conclusion of this kind of ideology is destructive to human individuality and only exalts the good of the State. The elite plays a significant role in setting up arbitrary laws for the State. 

After mentioning the power of the State, Schaeffer further identified two major results of humanistic worldview that are destructive to human individuality. These are "domestic oppression" and "international expansion and oppression" (p.20). Concerning domestic oppression, Lenin's statement was shocking. According to Shaeffer, for Lenin, the reason for the failure of "early attempts at revolution in France...was that their revolutionaries had not killed enough people" (ibid.). 

On Pacifism and Resistance

The first theme is done. Schaeffer proceeded to the second theme. He asked the question, what should be the Christian's biblical response in view of humanistic oppression both domestically and internationally? For him, pacifism is inconsistent to biblical realism and previous lessons in history. This would certainly lead into disaster. 

Schaeffer was calling for Christian resistance against any form of tyranny. In this, he agreed with Jacques Ellul's analysis of colonialism and Nazism. Citing Ellul, Schaffer agreed that Christians should not have waited until 1956 to respond, but should have exposed the evil of colonialism in 1930. Likewise, Christians should also have warned the world in 1934 or 1935 against the danger of Nazism. But instead of resistance, Christians during those years were all in unison advocating pacifism. And we are all familiar with the disastrous outcome of such unrealistic response. 

Personal Response

Reading Francis Schaeffer's speech made me realize the connection between humanism and all forms of tyranny. The existence of absolute standard rooted in Judeo-Christian worldview has no place in a society dominated by humanism. Unfortunately, society cannot survive without a basis for its actions. So the alternative is to come up with arbitrary laws, which are oppressive and destructive of human life and individuality. 

I think Schaeffer's description of the US is also true in the case of most countries today. I just could not comprehend how humanism has advanced since then. I think it's far more advance now than we could ever think of. I suspect, humanism has even reached within the Christianity's camp. 

Schaeffer mentioned about the use of both the civil government and the courts to spread humanism. This is the essence of Statism and since it is the most powerful humanistic tool, Christians ought to study its existing machineries and expose them for their true color. I see this as the only way for us to avoid the mistakes committed in the past that led to destructive results. 

Source: Schaeffer, F. A. 1982. "The Secular Humanistic Worldview versus The Christian Worldview and the Biblical Perspectives on Military Preparedness."

Statism or Anarchism

“The balance of earthly sovereignties between the one (the State or church) and the many (individuals, voluntary associations) is mandatory if we are to preserve both freedom and order. The Bible tells us that God is both one and many, one Being yet three Persons. His creation reflects this unity and diversity. Our social and political institutions are to reflect this. We are to seek neither total unity (statism) nor total diversity (anarchism). Biblical law provides us with guidelines by which we may achieve a balanced social order. We must take biblical law seriously” (Gary North, Wealth and Poverty: Four Christian Views of Economics, 1984, p. 57).

Note: It was originally posted and mirrored in Acts of the New Commonwealth last March 27, 2013.