Excerpt from The Death of Secular Humanism

The competition that poses a threat to the West today is not economic competition. Economic competition is peaceful. The expansion of the division of labor increases everyone’s wealth. What poses the main threat is demo­graphic competition between Islamic immigrants and Europe’s secularism. This creates competition for control over the legal order, which inevitably has to do with legalized coercion: civil sanctions.

Unless Europe experiences a Chris­tian revival, its culture will not exist in 2100. Islam will have achieved in the bedroom what the Ottomans did not achieve on horseback, 1500–1700:victory.

It is time to stop worrying about secular humanism, which is losing its cultural grip as the various media decentralize. Its institutional monopoly is breaking apart. It is time to start wor­rying about Islam and the civilization it brings.

Another war is in progress.

This war will be even more serious because the stakes are visibly higher. This was true in 650. It will be true in 2050.

Source: The Death of Secular Humanism written by Gary North and published in Faith for All of Life, March/April 2006

Central Planning and Decentralization

"Centralization was the prevailing political structure in the history of the world. Egypt used the people to construct a society, using the energies of the masses to implement the goals of the State, governed by the Pharaohs. The pyramid, the tower, and Nebuchdnezzar's colossus are visible manifestations of centralized political planning. God works to disestablish centralized political regimes. His blueprint for life is decentralization, with the individual working and having freedom in the family, church, business, and civil government. No one man or institution is to rule over all other aspects of society. The way to a just order is not found in anarchy where man is a law unto himself, in socialism where the State owns the means of production, in an oligarchy where a planning elite rules and overrules, or in a democracy where the people can change the direction of a nation by whim and fancy. God has established a decentralized society best described as a Constitutional Republic where the best are elected to office and yet are still responsible to the vote of the people."

Source: Gary DeMar, Ruler of the Nations, 1987, pp. 37-38

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

Dr. Benjamin Carson's Perceptive Speech

Much of the speech's content sounds familiar to me. I have been hearing and reading it for some time from many different sources. It's good to know that messages like this is now gaining public attention. How I wish that it will not just end as a talk but will lead to concrete libertarian steps in the coming months and years. 

It's a very perceptive speech. The first side comment and joke that caught my attention is about the 4th branch of the US government, special interest groups. And then he cracked another joke about lawyers. President Obama got it. And then he spoke about moral decay and fiscal irresponsibility, two main causes for the collapse of Roman empire, and also very visible in the US right now. He also mentioned deficit as the biggest problem of the US, complex taxation, and some qualifications about health care. The lighthouse and eagle parables are humorous, but present precise pictures of the state of US economy and politics. As the most powerful warship cannot sail against the lighthouse, there is no way the white house can win over economic law. And then he mentioned about the reason why like the eagle the US can fly, it has both "left wing" and "right wing." What I like most is his courageous declaration that the US has to remain as "one nation under God." This to me should remind humanist, atheist, and statist that removing God from the life of US as a nation, from public arena is a goal that will certainly fail. 

Why are you supporting the "greedy capitalists"?

A fellow theological educator thought that in my writing, I was supporting the "greedy capitalist class." I agree that much of what he said were consistent with Austrian analysis such as his identification of the 1970 crisis with Keynesian capitalism, that the investment of common people suffered in 2008 crisis, and his suspicion about economic recovery at present. 

However, he was mistaken to think that deregulation exists. For Austrian economists, it is simply a camouflage or a statist political propaganda for more restriction. 

Concerning welfare, I do not know any Austrian economists that identify it as the cause of 2008 crisis. It is my personal belief that we are still about to see that in the approaching "economic tsunami." I just hope that mainstream economists are correct that US still has time to rectify the fiscal gap resulting from this program. 

As for taxation, I think since the time of Mises, nothing has been changed substantially. The US has been following progressive taxation for so long, and I think the statements of Mises in Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow are appropriate. He describes it as "insane" and should not be followed by other countries. He called it double taxation and progressive: 

"The problem—as you know—is domestic capital accumulation. In all countries today there are very heavy taxes on corporations. In fact, there is double taxation on corporations. First, the profits of corporations are taxed very heavily, and the dividends which corporations pay to their shareholders are taxed again. And this is done in a progressive way" (p.84).

"Progressive taxation of income and profits means that precisely those parts of the income which people would have saved and invested are taxed away" (ibid.).  

"This policy of the United States is worse than bad—it is insane" (ibid.).

And finally, as to the charge of supporting the "greedy capitalists," personally, I distinguish between two types of capitalists. Just like my friend, I also detest the capitalists who use political means to grow their wealth. This kind of wealth accumulation may be "legal" but morally unjust and is the source of economic turmoil, the increase of income inequality, the phasing out of the middle class, and the huge gap between the rich and the poor. However, there are capitalists who gain their wealth through legitimate business activity, those who provide low cost or quality products through market competition. This way of achieving wealth is legitimate and just. The problem with the advocates of interventionism is that they fail to distinguish between these two types of capitalists. Instead, they claim that the market is being abused by the capitalist class as a whole to exploit the poor. And so to prevent such exploitation, the government has to interfere. The outcome of such interference will be more unsatisfactory than the previous condition. Such state of affairs justifies more and more of government intervention until the market is completely eliminated. Through interventionism, crony capitalism is winning the day. 

In 1953 debate between Rev. Opitz and Dr. Bennett, the former warned and emphasized that as long as politicians are interfering in the market, "injustice and the resulting economic dislocations" will never disappear. It is because the only action that politicians can do in economic sphere is to "grant privileges", which means once again that they can only "confer advantages on some at the expense of others." He challenged Dr. Bennett to scrutinize the real origin of what the professor mentioned as "the tyranny of private centers of economic power." Doing this, he would certainly discover that such private institutions rely on the favor of politicians either in the form of a "tariff" or a "subsidy."

Personal Response to the 1953 Debate Between a Libertarian and a Liberal

A 1953 Debate Between a Libertarian and a Liberal Part 1

A 1953 Debate Between a Libertarian and a Liberal Part 2

Both men agree in advocating for freedom, maintaining social order, upholding limited government, and in expressing concern for the economy and people's welfare. However, though both affirm the principle of limited government, they differ as to its extent. For Dr. Bennett, education and interfering in business particularly in times of economic crisis are parts of his concept of limited government. Rev. Opitz does not want the government to interfere in these spheres. Doing so, would lead to destructive ends. 

The major difference between the two is in the method to achieve their goals. For Dr. Bennett, the State plays a key role in realizing his concepts of freedom, order, and welfare. For Rev. Opitz, the State must stay away from the economy and focus instead on its legitimate function, the protection of life, liberty, and property. 

After reading the positions of both men, I see that clarity in the role of the state is critical in this debate. I don't have the privilege of knowing more about the position of Rev. Opitz on this matter. On the other hand, after knowing the arguments of Dr. Bennett, it convinced me all the more about the soundness of the libertarian case. It appears to me, that the man lacks basic understanding how the economy works. I do not doubt his sincerity about his faith in the state to address problems related to the economy. But due to his intellectual gap, he fails to see the role of the state in creating the problems that it later claims to solve. Moreover, though Dr. Bennett mentions that the state is a servant of society, but in most cases, it appears that he equates the interests of the state with that of the society. 

This debate was published in 1953. Perhaps, Dr. Bennett won that day. After 61 years, following the policies similar to Dr. Bennett's, the US is now facing an economic tsunami. It has a total of $17.9 trillion debt and $222 trillion unfunded liabilities. But despite of this, the libertarian case is still ignored. . . .

References:

Faith and Freedom May 1953 Issue

US Debt Clock

US 222 trillion total fiscal gap/unfunded liabilities

A 1953 Debate Between a Libertarian and a Liberal Part 2

This is the second part and the conclusion of the debate between Rev. Opitz and Dr. Bennett. 

Rev. Edumund A. Opitz

Rev. Opitz divided his reply to Dr. Bennett into four parts: right of self-defense, helping some by hurting others, tyranny of power, and the planned economy. 

Rev. Opitz accepts that Dr. Bennett also wants to limit the power of the government. However, when the professor mentioned about the need "to work here experimentally rather than dogmatically" in order to limit the power of the government, for Rev. Opitz, this confirms that in the mind of the theology professor, that moral principles applicable to individuals "do not apply when individuals act on behalf of government." "In short, the state is beyond the human judgments of good and evil which are relevant to individuals."

1. Right of self-defense

After giving his opening statement, Rev. Opitz explains the meaning of the "right of self defense." This is related to habving an "a priori moral principles", which are relevant to politics. Rev. Opitz elaborates more:

"If the individual has any inherent, God-given right to be on this earth at all, then he has the corollary right to defend his life. This is true of all men equally. They are within their moral rights to use force if need be to defend themselves against violence initiated against them. If men individually have this moral right, they may severally delegate it provisionally to an agent. This agent, government, has the moral right to use force only as the delegating individuals have a right; namely, defensively to neutralize force. This accords with the basic principle that no man has a right to impose his will on another, and with its corollary that every person has a right to resist the imposition of an alien will over his own."

"Government is the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion. A law is not a mere suggestion; it has a penalty provision as a rider. There is no need to pass a law to make people do what they do naturally or can easily be persuaded to do. Every law supersedes the wills of some individuals, forcing them to do what their own will and conscience would not lead them to do; or, conversely, restrains them from doing what they want to do or think they ought to do. It is morally right to use legal force to frustrate criminal action for the protection of peaceful citizens. But the use of legal force against peaceful citizens is something else again. It impairs the moral principle which should guide political action."

After giving his brief exposition of "a priori moral principles", he identifies that there are groups of men who seem to be unaware about the "coercive nature of political action." They include people who implement the act of coercion itself and people like Dr. Bennett who advocates for the "extension of government functions, regulations, and controls."

2. Helping some by hurting others.

In advocating for social goals using political means, there are people who will never be convinced as a matter of principle for they think that such policy is "morally and economically unsound." However, though they do not give their consent, they will be forced to follow the will of those who advocate for such social aims due to the support of the state. As a result of this, they are deprived of their freedom of choice. If these people will insist and will fight for their principle "to the bitter end", they may end up as victims of violence from the hands of the agents of the state.

Rev. Opitz believes that Dr. Bennett does not advocate this, but this is the logical end of his position. If Dr. Bennett therefore is opposed to such an end, he should stop advocating for such type of political action. 

At this point, Rev. Opitz explains what he means by "helping some by hurting others." He accepts that collectivists and central planners have noble aims. They want to help the people. But their chosen political means would helping some people at the expense of others. 

The government serves as a tool of freedom if it protects the rights of each citizen. In implementing this function, it is legitimate for the state to use of coercion to individuals who harm others.

When Dr. Bennett mentions about the "blind working of economic processes", for Rev. Opitz, the former is referring to a different kind of coercion. He then explains the real meaning of the phrase:

"What you speak of as 'the blind working of economic processes' is really the resultant of millions of individuals making voluntary decisions as to how they will dispose their limited energy so as to maximize their material and spiritual satisfactions." 

A central planner can coerce these voluntary decisions by force. Doing this, it will result into both "economic chaos" and "spiritual disaster" due to human pride. 

3. Tyranny of Power

For Rev. Opitz, the only action that politicians can do in economic sphere is to "grant privileges", which means once again that they can only "confer advantages on some at the expense of others." He then challenged Dr. Bennett to scrutinize the real origin of what the professor mentioned as "the tyranny of private centers of economic power." Doing this, he would certainly discover that such private institutions rely on the favor of politicians either in the form of a "tariff" or a "subsidy." If not, this anomaly exposes the failure of the government to implement the laws against "predation." Rev. Opitz emphasized that as long as politicians intervene in the market, "injustice and the resulting economic dislocations" will never disappear. 

Rev. Opitz criticizes Dr. Bennett's way of fighting totalitarianism. People who embraced a portion of totalitarian philosophy can never fight this ideology. The meaning of the phrase "ineffective state" is not clear to the mind of Rev. Opitz. For a libertarian, an "effective state" for Dr. Bennett is a government that created numerous regulations to extend its arm on "economic activities such as housing, insurance, medical care, electrical power, and so on." A libertarian oppses this. An "ineffective state" is not needed in these economic activities. The best thing the state can do is to keep away from these realms. If not, the state will become a tool of injustice. What the libertarian wants is a state that is "sufficiently virile and alert to perform adequately the functions within its competence."

4. Planned Economy

Rev. Opitz frankly declraes that a "collectivist or planned economy philosophy has a grave defect." He describes this defect:

"It tends towards a fixation, at the level of comprehension in social affairs men have now attained. It gives legal sanction to practices which trouble the sensitive conscience, and it places legal obstacles in the path of the gifted innovator." 

On the other hand, a libertarian philosophy is "open-ended toward life." It acknowledges human limitation. For a libertarian, no one has the right to impose his will on others. 

Once the idea of "extended and accelerated functions" of the government is accepted, people "will be politically directed and controlled in ever-widening areas of their lives." And the logical end is "a society in which whatever is not forbidden is compulsory." Laws will restrict the citizens freedom and will limit their alternatives. 

In a libertarian philosophy, the goal is to provide enough space for people to develop their fullest potential. If people will abuse such freedom by harming others, this is the right context to use the "coercive apparatus" of the state to defend the person's life and property "against the murder, the thief, the libeller, the fraud." People are free to commit crimes, but they will face justice as a consequence of their action. 

A peaceful society can be achieved through the "system of the division of labor, the marketplace, the free exchange of goods, services, and ideas." Such society always receives threats from private acts of violence coming from people who do not want to follow the law or from the government itself that perverts its true function.

Dr. John C. Bennett

Dr. Bennett divides his response by clarifying first a misunderstanding, and then he proceeds to enumerate the major issues that separate them.

1. Clarifying the misunderstanding

The misunderstanding centers on the idea of "a priori moral principles". Dr. Bennett denies that his refusal to accept the applicability of "a priori moral principles" to politics does not mean that he believes that the moral principles applicable to indviduals are not relevant to government. He argues that the application is not as easy as Rev. Opitz perceives it and not because of the absence of permanent moral principles, but due to the tension in the principles that will be applied. 

The most common tension is connected to the relationship between justice and freedom or order and freedom. Above all principles, love for neighbors is the principle that should guide Christian conduct. The reason why the application is complicated is due to the fact of conflicts in interests and sometimes due to the varied needs of our neighbors themselves. As a consequence, most Christian actions are to be implemented in a complex and rapidly changing situation that "a priori moral principles" are incapable of. 

Dr. Bennet does not believe that the state is beyond the standard of right and wrong. He accepts that the state has functions different from that of an individual. And because of this, the situation of the state is more complex than the situation of an individual. This makes the application of moral principles difficult. A Christian citizen who happens to help either in the formulation or implementation of government poliicies has to consider the welfare and dignity of those who will be affected. This noble motive and the need for humility before God, we cannot therefore allow any concept or social order to become "absolute or frozen." Instead, we should be sensitive to the needs and interests of others. These are the "moral resources" where we need to derive our concrete actions for every situation rather than depend on a precise "a priori principles."

2. Primary issues

The first issue has to do with Rev. Opitz' lack of interest in community and the common good. Dr. Bennett noticed that the libertarian advocate did not mentionthe importance of community and common good. For the theology professor, the statement of the apostle Paul about "being 'members one of another'" is relevant not only to the church, but to the larger community as well where we belong to, Besides the fact of human interdependence, Dr. Bennett dreams of a society that share "common values." He is referring to a society that is not divided between the very rich and the very poor and families in it that do not lack minimum "protection against the hazards of unemployment, sickness and old age." Dr Bennett is talking here about "common good" that can only be achieved through "common action." The state plays a significant role in achieving this. 

The second issue concerns the threats to common good and welfare of individuals. The problems of modern society are so complex that cannot be solved by independent individual actions. At this point, Dr. Bennett argues that Rev. Opitz' idea of "laissez faire" is no longer relevant to modern time. Dr. Bennett picks unemployment as an example of problems that the market is incapable of solving. The solution cannot be found in "decentralization" or "individualism". Only the state is capable to address this. In the end, Dr. Bennett's recommendation is for cooperation between the market and the state, which is better known as the "mixed economy." If this solution will fail, the remaining alternative is "tyrannical collectivism."

The third issue is about the nature of freedom. In the mind of Dr. Bennett, Rev. Opitz emphasizes only the freedom of those who are already well established socially and economically and neglects the freedom of the majority. Only the state has the ability to depend the weak from the strong. 

The fourth issue is about the insufficiency of private charity. Private charity cannot be relied on in giving of opportunities, rights and freedom due to the size of the problems. Instead, it is better to consider them as matters of justice. Christian generosity is proven by its "willingness to be taxed or to cooperate in the interests of justice." 

Dr. Bennett is not convinced that his proposal is theft. He argues that the wealth of an individual is a product of a social process where the members of the community contribute to its growth. And besides, the society has responsibility to provide opportunities for the less fortunate similar to the opportunities enjoyed by those in the upper level of social ladder. 

Dr. Bennett ends his response with a word of warning: "Insofar as you are successful in preventing experiments in the solution of the real problems of our economy and of our people you and your movement will help to destroy freedom."


Source: Faith and Freedom May 1953 Issue

A 1953 Debate Between a Libertarian and a Liberal Part 2 (Tag-lish Version)

Ito ang ikalawa at konklusiyon ng debate sa pagitan nina Rev. Opitz at Dr. Bennett. 

Rev. Edumund A. Opitz

Bilang naatasan na unang magpahayag ng kaniyang posisyon, hinati ni Rev. Opitz ang kaniyang tugon kay Dr. Bennett sa apat na mga paksa: right of self-defense, helping some by hurting others, tyranny of power, and the planned economy. 

Tinanggap ni Rev. Opitz ang posisyon ni Dr. Bennett ukol sa pagbibigay ng hangganan sa kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan. Subalit nang banggitin ni Dr. Bennett ang pangungusap na "We have to work here experimentally rather than dogmatically" na may kinalaman sa kaparaanan kung paano lilimitahan ang kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan, para kay Rev. Opitz, ito ay nagpapahiwatig lamang na base sa pananaw ni Dr. Bennett na ang "moral principles by which individuals are judged do not apply when individuals act on behalf of government." "In short, the state is beyond the human judgments of good and evil which are relevant to individuals."

1. Right of self-defense

Pagkatapos banggitin ang pambungad na pananalita, tinalakay na ni Rev. Opitz ang nais niyang tukuyin ukol sa "right of self defense." Ito ay may kinalaman sa pagtatakda ng "a priori moral principles" na kung saan ay lubhang napakahalaga sa larangan ng politika. Ganito ipinaliwanag ni Rev. Opitz ang moral principles na ito:

"If the individual has any inherent, God-given right to be on this earth at all, then he has the corollary right to defend his life. This is true of all men equally. They are within their moral rights to use force if need be to defend themselves against violence initiated against them. If men individually have this moral right, they may severally delegate it provisionally to an agent. This agent, government, has the moral right to use force only as the delegating individuals have a right; namely, defensively to neutralize force. This accords with the basic principle that no man has a right to impose his will on another, and with its corollary that every person has a right to resist the imposition of an alien will over his own."

"Government is the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion. A law is not a mere suggestion; it has a penalty provision as a rider. There is no need to pass a law to make people do what they do naturally or can easily be persuaded to do. Every law supersedes the wills of some individuals, forcing them to do what their own will and conscience would not lead them to do; or, conversely, restrains them from doing what they want to do or think they ought to do. It is morally right to use legal force to frustrate criminal action for the protection of peaceful citizens. But the use of legal force against peaceful citizens is something else again. It impairs the moral principle which should guide political action."

Pagkatapos ng pagpapaliwanag sa "a priori moral principles", binanggit ni Rev. Opitz na may dalawang grupo ng mga tao na walang kabatiran sa "coercive nature of political action." At ito ay ang mga tao na nagsasagawa ng coercion mismo at ang mga taong tulad ni Dr. Bennett na nagtataguyod ng "extension of government functions, regulations, and controls."

2. Helping some by hurting others.

Dagdag pa ni Rev. Opitz, sa pagtataguyod ng isang mithiing panlipunan gamit ang kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan, may mga tao na hindi kumbinsido dito bunga ng paniniwala na ang ganitong mga hakbangin ay "morally and economically unsound." Bagamat hindi sang-ayon ang mga taong ito, sila ay mapipilitan na sumunod sa kapasiyahan ng mga tagapagtaguyod ng mithiing panlipunan dahilan sa nasa kanilang panig ang kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan. Bunga nito, sila ay naalisan ng karapatan upang maisakatuparan ang pinaniniwalaang mithiing panlipunan. Kung magpupumilit ang mga taong ito na manindigan sa kanilang prinsipiyo "to the bitter end", sila ay maaaring maging biktima ng karahasan o maaaring maging dahilan pa ito ng kanilang kamatayan mula sa kamay ng mga kinatawan ng estado. 

Naniniwala si Rev. Opitz na hindi ito ang tinataguyod ni Dr. Bennett, subalit ito ang hahantungan ng kaniyang paniniwala. Kung magkagayon, kung salungat si Dr. Bennett sa hantungan na ito, dapat niya na ring tigilan ang pagtataguyod ng hakbanging politikal na nagdudulot nito. 

Sa puntong ito binanggit ni Rev. Opitz ang ibig niyang sabihin sa "helping some by hurting others." Tanggap ni Rev. Opitz na marangal ang layunin ng mga collectivists o ng mga central planners. Nais nilang tulungan ang mga mamamayan. Subalit ang kaparaanan na kanilang ginagamit, walang iba kundi sa pamamagitan ng hakbanging politikal ay nangangahulugan lamang ng pagtulong sa ibang mga tao na siya namang nakakapinsala sa iba. 

Ayon kay Rev. Opitz, ang pamahalaan ay instrumento lamang ng kalayaan kung pinoproteksiyonan nito ang mga karapatan ng bawat mamamayan. Sa pagsasakatuparan ng tungkuling ito, maaaring gumamit ang pamahalaan ng coercion sa mga indibidwal na nagbibigay pinsala sa kanilang kapwa. 

Nang banggitin ni Dr. Bennett ang tungkol sa "blind working of economic processes", para kay Rev. Opitz, ibang uri ng coercion ang nasa isipan ng propesor. Ipinaliwanag ni Rev. Opitz ang tunay na kahulugan ng nabanggit na phrase: "What you speak of as 'the blind working of economic processes' is really the resultant of millions of individuals making voluntary decisions as to how they will dispose their limited energy so as to maximize their material and spiritual satisfactions." Maaaring biguin ng isang central planner ang kalayaang ito sa pamamagitan ng pagamit ng puwersa. Ang pag-agaw ng kalayaan ay magdudulot kapwa ng "economic chaos", at "spiritual disaster" dulot ng pagmamataas. 

3. Tyranny of Power

Sa ikatlong paksa, tinalakay ni Rev. Opitz ang "tyranny of power." Ayon sa kaniya, pag dating sa ekonomiya, ang tanging magagawa ng mga politiko is to "grant privileges" na ang ibig sabihin ay "it can confer advantages on some at the expense of others." Sa puntong ito, binanggit niya ang phrase na ginamit ni Dr. Bennett tungkol sa "the tyranny of private centers of economic power." Hinamon niya si Dr. Bennet na suriin ang itinuturing na "private center of economic power", at sa tuwina ay masusumpungan na ang mga pribadong institusiyong ito ay umasa ng pabor sa mga politiko either in the form of a "tariff" or a "subsidy." Kung hindi naman, ito ay tumutukoy sa kabiguan ng gobyerno na isakatuparan ang mga batas laban sa "predation." Binigyang diin ni Rev. Opitz na habang nakikialam ang mge politiko sa merkado, hindi mawawala ang "injustice and the resulting economic dislocations."

Pinuna rin ni Rev. Opitz ang rekomendasyon ni Dr. Bennett ukol sa paglaban sa totalitariyanismo. Para kay Rev. Opitz, hindi magagawang labanan ng isang yumayakap kahit na bahagya lamang sa pilosopiya ng totalitariyanismo ang puwersa ng totalitariyanismo. Hindi rin malinaw para kay Rev. Opitz ang ibig sabihin ni Dr. Bennet sa phrase na "ineffective state." Sa tingin ng libertarian, ang "effective state" sa pananaw ni Dr. Bennett ay ang estado na maraming nilikhang mga regulasyon upang saklawan ang mga "economic activities" tulad ng "housing, insurance, medical care, electrical power, and so on." Ito ang lubos na tinututulan ng isang libertarian. Hindi kailangan ang "ineffective state" sa mga economic activities na ito. The best thing the state can do is to keep away from these realms. Sapagkat kung hindi ito gagawin ng pamahalaan, ito ay magiging instrumento ng "injustice." Ang nais ng isang libertarian ay isang pamahalaan na "sufficiently virile and alert to perform adequately the functions within its competence."

4. Planned Economy

Sa huling bahagi ng kaniyang tugon, tahasang binanggit ni Rev. Opitz na ang "collectivist or planned economy philosophy has a grave defect." Isinalarawan ni Rev. Opitz ang depektong ito:

"It tends towards a fixation, at the level of comprehension in social affairs men have now attained. It gives legal sanction to practices which trouble the sensitive conscience, and it places legal obstacles in the path of the gifted innovator." 

Sa kabilang banda, ang libertarian philosophy ay "open-ended toward life." Kinikilala nito ang limitasyon ng tao. Para sa isang libertarian, walang sinuman ang may karapatan na magdikta ng kaniyang kapasiyahan sa iba.

Sa oras na tanggapin ang "extended and accelerated functions" ng pamahalaan sa lipunan, ito ay mangangahulugan na ang mga tao "will be politically directed and controlled in ever-widening areas of their lives." Ang "logical end" nito ay isang lipunan na ang mga bagay na hindi ipinagbabawal ay magiging sapilitan. Ang kalayaan ng mga mamamayan ay sasaklawan ng mga batas at pakikitirin nito ang kanilang mga alternatibo. 

Sa libertarian philosophy, ang layunin ay bigyang laya ang mga tao upang maisagawa nila ang kanilang buong kakayanan. Kung aabusuhin ng tao ang kalayaang ito na ibubunga ng pagsalanta sa iba, dito nararapat gamitin ang "coercive apparatus" ng pamahalaan upang maipagtanggol ang buhay at ari-arian ng isang tao laban sa mga mamamatay tao, mga magnanakaw, mga mapanirang puri, at mga manlilinlang. Malaya ang tao na gumawa ng krimen subalit haharapin nila ang hustisya bunga ng kanilang mga desisyon.

Ang isang mapayapang lipunan ay makakamtan sa pamamagitan ng "system of the division of labor, the marketplace, the free exchange of goods, services, and ideas." Ang kapayapaang ito ay nakatatanggap ng banta sa tuwina mula sa mga pribadong gawain ng karahasan ng mga mamamayan na ayaw sumunod sa batas o mula sa pamahalaan mismo na naligaw sa pagsasakatuparan ng kaniyang tunay na tungkulin. 

Dr. John C. Bennett

Hinati ni Dr. Bennett ang kaniyang katugunan sa dalawang bahagi: paglilinaw sa maling pagkaunawa at pagtalakay sa mga pangunahing isyus na naghihiwalay sa kanilang dalawa ni Rev. Opitz. 

1. Paglilinaw sa maling pagkaunawa

Ang maling pagkaunawa ay may kinalaman sa nabanggit ni Rev. Opitz na "a priori principles". Itinanggi ni Dr. Bennett na ang hindi niya pagtanggap sa "a priori moral principles" na binanggit ni Rev. Opitz ay hindi nangangahulugan na ang mga moral principles na sumasaklaw sa mga indibidwal ay hindi angkop sa mga polisiya ng pamahalaan. Ang paglalapat ay mahirap gawin hindi dahil sa kawalan ng permanenteng moral principles, bagkus ay sa pagkakaroon ng tensiyon mismo sa mga prinsipiyo na dapat ilapat. 

Ang pinakapangkaraniwang mga tensiyon ay may kaugnayan sa pagitan ng hustisya at kalayaan o kaayusan at kalayaan. Higit sa lahat, ang pinakamahalagang prinsipiyo na dapat na magsilbing gabay sa pagkilos ng mga Cristiano ay walang iba kundi ang pag-ibig sa kapwa. Kung bakit nagiging kumplikado ang paglalapat ng mga moral principles ay sa dahilan na may mga pagsasalungatan sa mga interes at kung minsan ay sa pangangailangan mismo ng ating kapwa. Bunga nito, karamihan ng mga hakbanging Cristiano ay kailangang ilapat sa mga kumplikado at patuloy na nagbabagong mga situwasyon na hindi kayang punuan ng anumang " a priori moral principles."

Hindi naniniwala si Dr. Bennet na ang estado ay lampas sa pamantayan ng tama o mali na sumasaklaw sa buhay ng mga indibidwal. Tinatanggap niya na ang estado ay may mga tungkulin na kakaiba kaysa sa mga indibidwal na dapat isakatuparan. At dahilan dito, mas komplikado ang situwasyon ng estado kaysa sa situwasyon ng indibidwal. Bunga nito, mahirap ilapat ang mga prinsipiyong moral. Ang isang mamamayan kung siya ay isang Cristiano na tumutulong sa paglikha o paglalapat ng mga patakaran ng pamahalaan, kaniyang isasaalang-alang ang kapakanan at dignidad ng mga taong maaapektuhan. Dulot ng ganitong motibo at kababaang loob sa harapan ng Diyos, hindi natin maaaring ituring na ang isang konsepto ukol sa balangkas ng lipunan na maging "absolute or frozen." Sa halip, patuloy tayong dapat na maging sensitibo sa mga pangangailangan at mga interes ng iba. Ito ang mga "moral resources" na dapat nating pagbatayan ng mga konkretong desisyon sa bawat situwasyon sa halip na umasa sa mga tiyak na "a priori principles."

2. Mga pangunahing isyus 

Ang unang isyu ay may kinalaman sa hindi pagbibigay diin ni Rev. Opitz sa komyunidad at sa "common good." Pinansin ni Dr. Bennett na halos walang binanggit si Rev. Opitz sa kaniyang tugon ukol sa kahalagahan ng komyunidad at common good. Para kay Dr. Bennett, ang mga pananalita ni apostol Pablo ukol sa pagiging "bahagi ng bawat isa" ay dapat na isabuhay hindi lamang sa iglesia kundi sa higit na malaking komyunidad na ating kinabibilangan. 

Bukod sa interdependence ng sangkatauhan, pangarap ni Dr. Bennett na magkaroon ng "common values" sa lipunan. Ang nais niyang tukuyin dito ay isang lipunan na hindi nahahati sa labis na kayamanan at labis na kahirapan at mga pamilya na hindi kinukulang sa proteksiyon laban sa kawalan ng hanapbuhay, karamdaman o pagtanda. Ang tinutukoy dito ni Dr. Bennett ay ang "common good" na matatamo lamang sa pamamagitan ng sama-samang pagkilos. At sa kaniyang pananaw, napakahalaga ng papel ng estado upang maisakatuparan ang mithiing ito. 

Ang ikalawang isyu ay tungkol sa mga malawakang banta sa common good at sa kapakanan ng mga indibidwal. Napakakomplikado ng modernong lipunan na ito ay hindi kayang lunasan ng mga indibidwal na kumikilos ng kaniya-kaniya. Sa puntong ito, pinuna ni Dr. Bennett ang paniniwala ni Rev. Opitz ukol sa "laissez faire" na sa tingin ng propesor ay hindi na angkop sa modernong panahon at imposible ng balikan. Binanggit ni Dr. Bennett ang suliranin ukol sa kawalan ng hanapbuhay. Hindi ito kayang lunasan ng merkado. Ang lunas sa pananaw ng propesor ay wala sa "decentralization" o "individualism". Napakahalaga ng papel ng estado upang masawata ito. Sa bandang huli, ang mungkahi ni Dr. Bennett na solusyon ay kooperasyon sa pagitan ng estado at ng merkado, na mas higit na kilala sa tawag na "mixed economy." Kung mabibigo ang kooperasyon na ito, ang kahahantungan ay walang iba kundi "tyrannical collectivism."

Ang ikatlong isyu ay tungkol sa nature ng kalayaan. Para kay Dr. Bennett, ang binibigyang diin lamang ni Rev. Opitz ay ang kalayaan ng mga taong nakakaangat na sa buhay at kinakaligtaan ang kalayaan ng higit na nakararami. At tanging ang estado lamang ang may kakayanan upang ipagtanggol ang mga mahihina laban sa mga malalakas. 

Ang ikaapat na isyu ay may kinalaman sa kakulangan ng private charity. Para kay Dr. Bennett, ang pagbibigay ng mga oportunidad, mga karapatan at kalayaan ay hindi dapat ipagkatiwala sa private charity. Ito ay sa dahilan na ang private charity ay hindi sapat sa laki ng suliranin. Bagkus, higit na mainam na ang pagbibigay ng mga oportunidad na ito ay dapat na ituring na bahagi ng hustisya. Ang pagiging bukas-palad ng mga Cristiano ay makikita sa pagsang-ayon na mabuwisan o magpakita ng kooperasyon para sa kapakanan ng hustisya. 

Hindi kumbinsido si Dr. Bennett na ang pagbubuwis sa ganitong paraan ay paglabag sa ikawalong utos, ang pagnanakaw. Ang kayamanan ng isang tao ay produkto ng proseso sa lipunan na kung saan ang komunidad sa kabuuan ay nakatulong sa paglago nito. May katungkulan ang lipunan upang magkaroon ng mga oportunidad ang mga kapus-palad tulad ng mga oportunidad na tinatamasa ng mga nakaririwasa. 

Tinapos ni Dr. Bennett ang kaniyang katugunan sa isang babala. Ayon sa kaniya, kung magtatagumpay si Rev. Opitz sa pagpigil sa paglalapat ng lunas sa tunay na suliranin ng ekonomiya at ng mga mamamayan, wawasakin ni Rev. Opitz at ng kilusan na kaniyang kinabibilangan ang kalayaan.


English Version


Source: Faith and Freedom May 1953 Issue