Capitalism looks at developing countries in the same way that Britian looked at colonized countries. They were places to steal resources from. The bible tells us “not to show favoritism” and to consider the least as equal with the greatest. Here in America we waste so much we have to take other’s portion.

Since conservatives believe in not spending more than we have capital for, I wonder if they will submit that same ideology to natural resources? Only use what you can produce.

My reply:

Capitalism does not look anywhere and the reality is that while some companies have unfortunately decided to exploit the resources (which includes human capital) of other nations such a practice is not in accord with traditional capitalism because it is not sustainable in the long term.

Conversely, it is remarkable that if given the choice nations unilaterally turn to capitalism as the exclusive economic system for pulling themselves out of poverty. Take India, China, Russia, etc. as examples and contrast this with the corrupt practices found in many African nations where it is not capitalism that is at fault but the corrupt governments that do not allow free trade.

Further, conservatives who believe in spending more than we have capital for are, by definition not conservatives.

And finally, the whole concept of “use only what you can produce” is a red herring simply because in an economic system. Particularly a free-market economic system demand regulates and drives supply and supply is determined by degree of scarcity of resources. All that to say that the whole concept of “raping the environment” by taking more than we need is, by definition, false.

Simply put, supply and demand subjugates no one. Economic forces in a free-market capitalistic system harm no one.

Faulty businesses can and do harm people but markets and governments are responsible for keeping them in check. Likewise markets (consumers, aka us) and governments also play a big role in the whole free market system.

However, at the end of the day we are not dealing with a zero-sum game where if i make a dollar you loose a dollar. One of the beauties of a free market system is that everyone wins because everyone is getting something they desire.

Law of supply and demand does wonders. If the price of water/gas were to rise in proportion to the degree of scarcity that people claim then demand would necessarily be diminished in direct proportion to the corresponding rise in price.

To me:

I don’t think we are against PROPER use of resources, but in America, we want to drive gas guzzlers as long as we can pay for them, not understanding the excess consumption of gas bleeds the overall resource pool down for everyone. We want to water our lawns and wash our cars as long as we “pay the bill” not thinking that the water pool for our neighbors shrinks also. So we over consume and have to buy from the middle east. We almost run out of water here in the ATL, but we cry about our dirty cars and whine about our brown lawns.

It is a mindset that we our superior, and as long as we have the money, we make the rules. It is an anti-Christ mindset. We use more than we produce.

How can you square over cumsumption with a conservative philosphy?

My response:

As for the supposed anti-Christ mindset of “we have the money, we make the rules” I would like to point out that the Bible clearly states that A.) the borrower is a slave to the lender B.) economic systems that are based more on money simply changing hands (usury, interest, etc.) are heavily discouraged in Scripture C.) a hallmark of a free market system is the freedom of both parties such that neither party is forced to do business with the other.

As to your question of how I would square “over consumption” with my view on conservatism I would simply say that I do not believe there is such a thing as “over consumption” in the sense that we produce/consume too much in terms of raw economic output or input. Now individually you might be able to make that case in certain circumstances but I fear a big problem that comes into play when discussing an economic system is that too often people fall into the trap of defining the system (universal) by it’s individual parts/players (particulars).

For anyone who is wondering, I consider capitalism to be the best economic system we’ve come up with simply because it does the best job of accounting for human depravity and is the most fair when it comes to the unequal distribution of scare resources. In sum, it is built and based on freedom which is a principle that finds it’s root in God’s own character.

Under federal law, employer-provided health benefits for domestic partners are counted as taxable income, if the partner is not considered a dependent. The tax owed is based on the value of the partner’s coverage paid by the employer.

In other words, paying for a domestic partner’s healthcare is not treated the same as paying for your own healthcare. It is the same as paying for a random stranger’s healthcare. In other words this is not a tax.

But Google thinks it is. Why? Because it’s vogue to frame gay rights issues in terms of infractions of civil rights.

So what are the problems with this?

The following is an exscript of a conversation I had on Facebook regarding this issue. One caveat I need to point out is that when I wrote the following I was under the impression that Google’s new policy was to purchase the healthcare coverage for their homosexual employees’ partners as opposed to simply providing extra pay. Even so, the discrepancy in pay still makes valid much of what I argue below.

A friend starts off:

very progressive, I’d support it if I were in their company

Me:

Even if that means you make less just because you are married (for real, not a pretend same-sex civil contract)?

Even if I weren’t opposed to this for ideological reasons, I would still be opposed to it for financial reasons.

Friend #1:

We all make less to pay for the subsidized health of all employees, and I don;t see their union as any less valid than my own.

Me:

No, this is above and beyond what the insurance company’s costs. This is Google 1.) deciding public policy and 2.) imposing that public policy on it’s own workers

I hope someone actually sues them over this because I can’t see how this wouldn’t be an unfair practice.

And its not a question of which union is “more valid”. It is a question of whether a homosexual union can ever constitute a valid marriage in the first place.

Friend #2 joins in:

You don’t actually make less for being married. You make less for being in a domestic partnership because of increased healthcare costs, and this removes that inequality.

Me:

Yes, there is certainly a marriage penalty, and things like this don’t help that societally destructive imbalance any.

Friend #2:

Marriage penalty? Actually, people who are married pay LESS for healthcare, not more. I’m not sure how that counts as a penalty. And I still don’t understand why removing that inequality (and not by reducing pay or otherwise harming the married people in question, by the way) is in any way unfair. It seems like a case of marriage going from separate and special rights to equal rights, and that seems right to me.

Me:

I don’t think you understand. There IS no “healthcare inequality” here. Well, not until Google instituted their company policy that is.

Let me put it this way. Say I start at Google making $50,000/y as a married man. For whatever reason I decide to divorce my wife and find a gay lover and call it “marriage”. Now I am entitled to make $50,000 + whatever is needed to cover someone who is not my spouse and has no legal obligation or attachment to me.

This actually incurs more than just the medical cost of the “spouse”. Additional costs are incurred for any “children”. And insurance premiums skyrocket accordingly (because such coverage of non legally bound individuals carries with it a certain amount of legal liability in itself) which has a negative effect across the board for everyone.

So actually the married man at Google is not only getting stiffed the additional matching contribution (which, believe it or not, is real money as it counts towards your gross income) and being asked to tacitly endorse am immoral (yes, I realize that is debatable among some) risky lifestyle (which is a determination made by both the CDC and healthcare companies themselves) but is also being required to help foot the bill for the added risk and legal fees.

So from my simplistic scenario above I have a few more questions that should help obviate the very real discrimination going on here:
1. Why is it only homosexual partners that get to enjoy this benefit? What about non-married boyfriend/girlfriends?
2. Why could I not divorce my wife and enjoy the benefits afforded to non-married “partners”?
3. If no legally binding relationship is required; Are any and all non-married persons now eligible for coverage under this plan?

This may be a trend, but it is a very bad trend both economically and socially. Hopefully we as a society will wake up from our foray into moral relativism before it is too late.

The problem I note with such thinking is that if it were true that America were 80% Christian, then we ought to expect to see a country that resembles Oliver Cromwell‘s Puritan England more than ancient Rome with it’s hedonistic pleasures and excess.

I think the heart of the problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding between a state’s civil religion and true adherents of a religion.

Per Greg Boyd’s assertion in his book, Myth of a Christian Nation, I would argue that all nations posses what I will hence forth term a “civil religion”.  Now this civil religion may take the form of an established religious system such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. or it may take the form of an ideology elevated to the level of religious devotion like Hitler’s particular brand of socialism or Stalin’s implementation of communism.

Whatever the state decides to use, however, the end result is something that fills a particular and needed niche required to, among other things, draw citizens together under a shared cultural system and provide the motivation required to risk life and limb in support of the state and it’s ends.

In many cases this has been achieved (sadly, even in so-called Christian nation-states such as medieval England, France, Italy, Spain, etc.) through the notion that the state (or representative thereof) itself somehow possesses divine attributes. Either it’s leaders themselves are seen as divine or various aspects of the state (most notably the military).

While the existence of a civil religion is nothing historically new nor in itself cause for alarm. It is certainly necessary for a state to have something to draw its citizens together and inspire to perform acts that are potentially very costly. Civil religions can and do pose a problem when it comes to a discussion about what a religion that has been co-opted as the civil religion actually teaches.

To be more specific, Christianity is currently the civil religion of the United States of America. While this does come with some fringe benefits (such as a long legacy of laws historically based on Judeo-Christian values) it poses some severe problems  when talking with someone, such as my friend I mentioned earlier, who is understandably easily distracted by the plethora of additional and ancillary encrustations that have grown up around Christianity in order to make it fit the bill as the civil religion of our nation.

Things like viewing our nation’s military as “saviours” often on par with Christ himself, or so the hoopla would lead you to believe in some cases.

Or viewing our man-made governmental system as if it were akin to the “divine right of kings” so that we assume that our method of governance is easily reproducible and ought to be applied everywhere in every culture. Because freedom is a right, right? And the highest good is liberty (which we’ve come to define is being able to do whatever the heck we want).

In a couple of days most churches across our land will put on a production wherein our nation’s independence will once again take center stage.

Now don’t misunderstand me, I love America and think this country is indeed exceptional. I will celebrate our nation’s achievements along with most of my fellow citizen. However I will not be celebrating my nation’s independance in the context of worshipping a God who transcends nations.

I often wonder this time of year how many churches refuse to get caught up in civilian affairs.

If yours is one, or if you know of one, let me know in the comments below. I want to know there is hope out there that some are not contributing to the confusion caused by melding Christianity with the state. I want to know there are people interested in seeing Christianity become something far more than merely just another civil religion.

Being a programmer I deal with copyright and intellectual property issues quite a bit. In fact, most of Americans today deal in some form of knowledge working or another¹. Many (like myself) derive their entire living from their production of intellectual capital².

So when we speak of copyright, we must first understand that it effects everyone. Even if you are not involved in the production end of intellectual capital, you are very likely to be on the receiving end of the purchase of a product based primarily on intellectual capital³. In fact, the US Chamber of Commerce has this to say about the intellectual property produced by the United States:

The intellectual property (IP) generated by U.S. companies is critical to America’s prosperity and leadership in the global economy. America’s IP-intensive industries employ nearly 18 million workers, account for more than 50% of all U.S. exports, and represent 40% of the country’s growth (Department of Commerce).

With this much riding on it, you would think that we had solved all the philosophical and legal questions surrounding intellectual property. However we haven’t. On the contrary, the merits and applications of copyright law are constantly being contested in court while, at the same time, the cultural understanding of intellectual property is constantly being fought in the court of public opinion.

In all of this, however, the Christian church has remained surprisingly silent.

But before we begin to delve into the philosophical and theological aspects of copyright and intellectual property, it would be helpful if we took a step back and examined how we got here.

History of copyright in America

Etymologically, the term “copyright” didn’t even exist until the 19th century. And then, it’s primary meaning centered around physical written works.

The United States was one of the first countries to ever address the issue of copyright. The copyright clause in the US Constitution (article 1, section 8, clause in the section enumerating the explicit powers of the US Congress states:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

We’ll come back to this in a minute when dealing with the philosophical and economic implications of copyright but before we do I want to point out that, at the time of the penning of the US Constitution, America was a major purchaser of books.

In Niel Postman’s book “Amusing Ourselves to Death” we are told that authors such as Charles Dickens were hailed as celebrities when they visited America and that they only realized a fraction of the proceeds from the sales (which were largely unauthorized) of their works.

Legal intentions

The initial legal intentions (at least from a US copyright law standpoint) of copyright are clearly stated in the copyright clause above. Those intentions were essentially to encourage the production of intellectual capital (creative works) by granting a limited monopoly on original intellectual property. After the limited time period, which was originally roughly 20-30 years, the capital was to be made public domain and freely available to all.

Unfortunately, successive extensions to US copyright law have increased copyright protections into the hundreds of years. And since corporations can now claim the status of individuals in many legal aspects, there is a real concern that copyright protections for some content has been effectively rendered indefinite.

Here is a helpful graph to illustrate how copyright terms have lengthened over time:

Theological treatment of copyright

Exodus 20:15 states “Thou shalt not steal.”

For many people, this is where the discussion of copyright ends. However I believe a closer comparison of the Biblical understanding of stealing, and particularly the restitution required if the command is broken, will quickly expose why, in my opinion, violation of copyright cannot be easily dismissed or characterized as stealing.

To begin with, the overarching theme of justice found in Scripture is that of restitution. In fact, the notion of “an eye for an eye”⁴ were quite unique to the Hebrew community at a time when most governments provided disproportionate and unequal punishments for varying crimes. In the middle-east today, for example, it is not uncommon to hear of a man loosing a hand for stealing a loaf of bread.

Leviticus 6:1-7 tells us

The LORD said to Moses: “If anyone sins and is unfaithful to the LORD by deceiving his neighbor about something entrusted to him or left in his care or stolen, or if he cheats him, or if he finds lost property and lies about it, or if he swears falsely, or if he commits any such sin that people may do- when he thus sins and becomes guilty, he must return what he has stolen or taken by extortion, or what was entrusted to him, or the lost property he found, or whatever it was he swore falsely about. He must make restitution in full, add a fifth of the value to it and give it all to the owner on the day he presents his guilt offering. And as a penalty he must bring to the priest, that is, to the LORD, his guilt offering, a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value. In this way the priest will make atonement for him before the LORD, and he will be forgiven for any of these things he did that made him guilty.”

With physical objects such as clothing, food, cattle, etc. the application of this command is easily seen. If I steal a physical object such as a car, I have deprived the original owner of the use of the car. The object is now in my possession and not in the possession of the rightful owner. Thus it makes sense, with physical objects, “to look for them”⁵, to “preserve them”⁶, to “transfer them”⁷.

Comparatively, intellectual property is, by it’s very nature metaphysical like numbers and formulas in mathematics, ethical principals, laws of nature, etc.

Like information⁸, intellectual property cannot be created⁹, quantified, contained, or destroyed.

One could argue that loss of information due to memory or storage failures effectively destroys information. However I would simply point out that the information itself is not what was destroyed, merely the means of easily recalling that information. Mathematical principals such as long and complex quadratic equations would still exist even if the whole of the human race collectively forgot them. This is one of the reasons that scientists are credited with making “discoveries”. No one thinks that Isaac Newton created the laws of gravity, he merely discovered them.

Stifling effects of copyright overindulgence

While limited copyright laws are desirable and necessary in order to encourage the production of all kinds of intellectual capital, there are very clear negative effects if a nation or culture does not limit the scope and application of copyright laws.

The first casualty of an overindulgence in copyright is the shrinking of the number of works freely available in the public domain. This not only means a famine by way of works that should have long ago made their way into the public domain for further development and innovation. But it also means that works that are no longer actively supported by their original copyright holder are left in a sort of limbo where they are not in the public domain but their licenses are not clear and so no one will risk doing anything with the work. This is a terrible waste and something that leads inexorably into the second causality caused by our current copyright laws.

The second, and arguably greater, casualty of an overindulgence in obtrusive copyright laws is a hindrance to innovation. The very thing copyright laws were designed to encourage in the first place!

Conclusion

In light of this, I am forced to conclude that violating copyright laws cannot be equated with stealing in the Biblical. Intellectual property is essentially a misnomer since metaphysical information cannot be quantified, contained, destroyed or created.

However, lest we fall into the trap of thinking that willful violations of copyright are Biblically sanctioned I want to hasten to point out that we are called in Romans 13 to be obedient to the laws of the land (no matter how absurd) and that in whatever we do we are to live above reproach¹⁰.

What this means from a practical point of view is that if you choose to violate another person or company’s copyright you are incurring the risk of that person or company taking you to court.

Additionally, if you decide to profit from your endeavors (the threshold for criminal prosecution is $250,000) you also run the risk of being prosecuted by the state.

Besides, why would you want to contribute to the problem?

Yes, even so-called piracy manages to perpetuate the copyright dilemma by signaling copyright holders of a demand for their content. The only thing copyright holders are likely to do in such an event is to find better ways of protecting their intellectual property, either via Digital Restriction Management, encryption¹¹, or direct legal action¹².

A much better approach is to deliberately choose to use free and open source software and consume content created under a creative commons license. This approach has also already been a strong contributor to the final solution of changing the climate of copyright in America.

1. See this presentation for some fun statistics.
2. Here is an interesting article on how knowledge workers are changing the demographics of our cities.
3. Like music, movies, television, software, video games, etc.
4. Exodus 21:24, Lev. 24:20, Deut. 19:21
5. Luke 15:8
6. Deuteronomy 8:4
7. 1 Kings 21:2-3
8. Which is what I would argue is all that intellectual property amounts to.
9. At least not in the sense that one creates new objects where none had previously existed.
10. Matthew 5:16, John 15:8, 1 Peter 2:12, 2 Corinthians 9:13, etc.
11. which brings a whole host of other legal concerns thanks to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or DMCA
12. Copyright infractions that do not involve the perpetrator profiting by $250,000 or more are considered civil offences. This generally means that if legal action is taken, the resulting court case becomes a contest of who has deeper pockets. And as the recent RIAA cases, not very many people are willing to go through the expense of proving themselves innocent.

My friend Wintry Knight recently turned me on to an excellent American economist, statistician, and a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, Milton Friedman.

Here is a short clip of Milton answering a rather pointed question regarding our responsibility to the poor wherein Milton explodes the myth that Capitalism and the free markets are somehow against helping the poor. Milton also points out in this short clip how most poverty and disparity in America can be directly traced to socialistic programs.

Here’s another video where Milton explodes the myth that Capitalism is inherently immoral or utilitarian by placing “the bottom line” above the value of a human life.

And finally, here is a video where Milton explodes the myth of that capitalism and slavery (or class oppression) are necessarily related. Milton also discusses how slavery is ultimately antithetical to capitalism as it ends up costing more and discouraging increased production or innovation.

But is it really?

Preliminary studies have shown that abstinence-only education actually does work.

It’s not the entire answer, however. A more complete answer would include 1.) strengthening our cultural view of marriage (as opposed to trashing it in almost every area of pop culture) 2.) de-sexualizing our children and 3.) combating the myth that “kids are going to do it anyway”.

The fact is that producing kids who don’t feel the need to jump into the sack with someone the minute they hit puberty is not a last cause. It just takes a few more good parents and a recognition that we are not merely animals controlled by our desires.

Wayne Grudem recently delivered a two-part lecture on the ownership and use of weapons (self defense) and the death penalty from the perspective of what the Bible teaches. I encourage you to download these lectures to your MP3 player and listen to them when you get the chance. For those of you who are of the same persuasion as Greg Boyd in that Christians ought to be 100% pacifistic in their disposition, I believe you will be quite surprised to discover what the Bible says on the subject.

• On self-defense MP3, PDF outline [WK's notes]
• On the death penalty MP3, PDF outline [WK's notes]

More talks by Wayne Grudem, including more lectures from his book “Politics – According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture“, can be found here.

Now I don’t agree with Boyd on everything he says (specifically his insistence on complete pacifism). But I do agree with his main premise that wedding Christianity too tightly to any political party of “version of ‘the kingdom of the world’” is detrimental to everyone, especially followers of Christ. In order to preserve the beauty of the kingdom of heaven, I agree with Boyd that we should make a clear and distinct separation between our Christian beliefs (what we believe to be true and right and wrong) and public policy (how we think those beliefs ought to be implemented in a diverse society which includes Christians as well as non-Christians).

Douglas K. Adu-Boahen - What I mean is that this discussion has been barren from any deep discussion of the only real factor that matters – the Bible, which is God’s Word. All this talk of philosophical concepts is boring, boring, boring – let’s go to God’s Word and let it speak unless of course, you feel it is insufficient for this discussion, which I hope you do not.

Here’s my response:

Douglas, what you are expressing is something that I believe JP Moreland addressed in his paper titled “How Evangelicals Became Overcommitted to the Bible and What Can Be Done about It.”

“this discussion has been barren from any deep discussion of the only real factor that matters – the Bible”

No, the only real factor that matters is Christ, which the Bible tells us about but the Bible itself is not, strictly speaking “the only real factor that matters”.

“All this talk of philosophical concepts is boring, boring, boring”
I’m sorry you feel this way, however I don’t see how you can avoid philosophical discourse in your interpretation of Scripture. Any claim to have achieved this nirvanic state of interpretational bliss ought to be treated akin a claim to divine revelation.

“let’s go to God’s Word and let it speak unless of course, you feel it is insufficient for this discussion”
I’ve held the Bible to my ear for quite a while and have yet to “hear it speak”. However, when I read the words on the page I cant help but to ponder and filter those words through my mind and philosophical presuppositions.

No, the answer here is not to attempt a claim at premature conversational victory by claiming the hermanutic high ground. The answer, as I’ve said earlier, is to admit our philosophical presuppositions and then discuss how those systems answer the apparent contradictions in the text between God’s sovereignty and mankind’s freedom.

In short, Bibliolatry is defined as akin to idol worship characterized by Douglas’s statement that “the only real factor that matters – the Bible”.

I get highly annoyed when people speak of issues such as abortion as if they were purely the invention of the religious right and devoid of any other supporters than “the crazy Christians”.

So to help put things in perspective, here are several secular sources who, like Christians, thought that abortions were a bad idea. Boldness liberally applied by myself.

“There are five kinds of evil Karma which are difficult to extinguish, even if one were to repent of them. What are the five kinds of offences? The first one is killing the father, the second one is killing the mother, the third one is abortion, the fourth one is to injure the Buddha, the fifth one is to create disharmony among the Sangha assemblies. These five types of evil and sinful karma are difficult to extinguish.” -The Dharani Sutra of the Buddha

“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.” -Hippocratic Oath – Greek, 4th century BC

“The law enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing humankind.” -Josephus, 1st century Jewish historian

“Do not abort a foetus or kill a child that is born.” -The Didache – the first manual of the Christian Church, AD 100 (Ok, this doesn’t exactly fit the criteria of a secular source, but it does show that this isn’t a recent tirade of the religious right.

“You shall not kill your awlad [born or unborn children] due to fear of poverty. We provide for them, as well as for you. Killing them is a gross offence.” Quran 17:31¹

“It seems to me clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime.” -Mahatma Gandhi

“They are killing the baby in the womb. How cruel! In this age of unwanted population, man is losing his compassion. That living entity must again take on that same life form to complete its designated life term in that body. And the killer must return to pay for damages.” -A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada, founder of the Radha-Krishna movement

1. Come on, this is even more potent coming from one of the most blood-thirsty religions on the planet.