This chap is a funny character. He does regularly quote Margaret Thatcher as having denied that you have to be right wing or a Tory to be Christian - at which point those of us conservative Christians who happen to be anything but a Tory are relieved. I think a bit like advertising George W Bush is a Christian is bad publicity for the Christian faith, so too is advertising Thatcher was a Christian, given the general regard with which she is held in by much of the population (that doesn't vote Conservative).
Anyhow, he often writes, and I usually want a "dislike" button somewhere for his frequent lashings out at the left, since the tone of his stance is that one can't possibly be on the left and be a conservative Christian - a stance I do manage to take.
This article though, on multiculturalism, is perhaps the best of the lot. I find it hard to believe that multiculturalism is purely a phenomenon of the last 13 years - and Wikipedia partially supports me on this.
I'm not sure exactly what the Archbishop is proposing, it is hard to tell. He can't be saying end all immigration (although his comment on Peterborough is the usual right-wing hyperbole on immigration). He seems to be saying stop the ghettos emerging that apparently exist in Birmingham dominated by Muslims. He writes about them as if ghettos (defined basically as no-go areas in towns and cities) have only started existing since the Labour Party embraced multiculturalism.
I'm sure he probably doesn't really need reminding that they have always been with us in inner-city UK. I can remember many in Manchester where I grew up (incidentally in the mid-1990s before Labour's Multiculturalism came about). We haven't really got rid of them so why he thinks we can get rid of these ghettos I'm not really sure.
However, my main thought on this is that Cranmer in this article strays closest to being a parochial Anglican (i.e. someone focussed on the UK and worldly matters rather than Christianity) when talking about "bring a stranger in one's own land". This I noticed earlier in an article on a left-wing Vicar who dared to say something less than supportive about the Royal Marriage. Cranmer noted that the vicar's boss was not God but instead the Queen. I'm sorry, but a Bible-believing Christian minister's boss is not the King or Queen of England, but the Lord Jesus Christ, as is the case for any Bible-believing Christian.
Yes there are social problems in the UK, but are they really associated indelibly with immigration? I'm not even slightly convinced. We are all fallen sinful human beings regardless of where we are from, and we will always fail to get on. This doesn't mean we should put a stop to immigration, describe ourselves as strangers in a foreign land (does Cranmer think that the foreigner should be thought of as the stranger? Doesn't seem much like what Jesus would do to me).
Monday, January 17, 2011
Monday, November 22, 2010
Social Justice and Libertarians
I'm helping a friend organise a seminar at a Christian "retreat" (for want of a better word) next weekend on Social Justice: God's heart for the poor. It's thought provoking.
It reminded me of how I usually look at Biblical passages: They seem to be the complaints of the poor and oppressed and although the oppressors are not necessarily made clear (other than often those that are oppressing David and others militarily), it has always struck me that it chimes with a lot of what the Left rails against profit maximising business.
The hope is that in this seminar we avoid a bit left vs right distinction, but I suspect it may well come up. I think those on the left are guilty of overdoing their aversion to the word profit - the motive to create money-making opportunities needn't always be bad, and often the alternative is worse - concentrate power in the hands of sinful politicians as opposed to corporation owners.
However, I think the right is equally guilty of a panacea-like view of markets: They are perfect, and should not be meddled with. For better or worse, I regularly look at the Cafe Hayek blog (which has the most irritating picture of a waiter - do all Libertarians look as annoying as that?!), which is generally a succession of letters written by Don Boudreaux to various US newspapers. This one in particular is consistent with the general feel: Bill Gates has no more power over my life than I do over his.
Libertarians, to make a sweeping statement, are unable to accept the proposition of market power in the absence of government intervention. They won't accept that in local areas companies are able to act as effective monopolies. They won't accept that companies are creative and manufacture ways to manipulate customers in the name of higher profits and returns; for them, the market activity of the company is entirely benign, because the market will always correct for nasty players (e.g. Microsoft) by nicer, more innovative players (e.g. Apple - for a naive take).
I find it hard to support either viewpoint and I guess that's why I'm pretty near the centre. Markets are far from perfect and basic economic theory talks about how the disparity between a socially optimal market outcome and a privately optimal one can be stark. But also, just the existence of that externality, in economics jargon, isn't necessarily enough to justify government failure on top of market failure. Railing against profits as the left do can be just as dangerous.
I think the Bible's passages on Social Justice make it clear: It's not ungodly to be rich - it's the mindset you have about it. If you place your entire being - hopes and all that - in your wealth as opposed to the Lord, then you'll be in trouble. But if you have put your trust in the Lord, as the book of James points out, this has to manifest itself in terms of actions - doing something about the poor and oppressed (and not just pontificating about whether they should or shouldn't exist - a trait of the right I think), who will always be with us in a fallen world.
It reminded me of how I usually look at Biblical passages: They seem to be the complaints of the poor and oppressed and although the oppressors are not necessarily made clear (other than often those that are oppressing David and others militarily), it has always struck me that it chimes with a lot of what the Left rails against profit maximising business.
The hope is that in this seminar we avoid a bit left vs right distinction, but I suspect it may well come up. I think those on the left are guilty of overdoing their aversion to the word profit - the motive to create money-making opportunities needn't always be bad, and often the alternative is worse - concentrate power in the hands of sinful politicians as opposed to corporation owners.
However, I think the right is equally guilty of a panacea-like view of markets: They are perfect, and should not be meddled with. For better or worse, I regularly look at the Cafe Hayek blog (which has the most irritating picture of a waiter - do all Libertarians look as annoying as that?!), which is generally a succession of letters written by Don Boudreaux to various US newspapers. This one in particular is consistent with the general feel: Bill Gates has no more power over my life than I do over his.
Libertarians, to make a sweeping statement, are unable to accept the proposition of market power in the absence of government intervention. They won't accept that in local areas companies are able to act as effective monopolies. They won't accept that companies are creative and manufacture ways to manipulate customers in the name of higher profits and returns; for them, the market activity of the company is entirely benign, because the market will always correct for nasty players (e.g. Microsoft) by nicer, more innovative players (e.g. Apple - for a naive take).
I find it hard to support either viewpoint and I guess that's why I'm pretty near the centre. Markets are far from perfect and basic economic theory talks about how the disparity between a socially optimal market outcome and a privately optimal one can be stark. But also, just the existence of that externality, in economics jargon, isn't necessarily enough to justify government failure on top of market failure. Railing against profits as the left do can be just as dangerous.
I think the Bible's passages on Social Justice make it clear: It's not ungodly to be rich - it's the mindset you have about it. If you place your entire being - hopes and all that - in your wealth as opposed to the Lord, then you'll be in trouble. But if you have put your trust in the Lord, as the book of James points out, this has to manifest itself in terms of actions - doing something about the poor and oppressed (and not just pontificating about whether they should or shouldn't exist - a trait of the right I think), who will always be with us in a fallen world.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Confusing
So it was announced that a terror suspect in the US was convicted on only one out of 281 offences he was tried for in a US civilian court, and that this is a problem for Obama because Republicans are criticising the policy to try these guys in civilian courts.
Criticising based on the fact that when challenged to prove the offences these guys are charged with, the US was unable to convince a judge and jury about the charges levelled against them. That is as opposed to trying them in a military court presumably where "secret" evidence, or evidence procured by illegal means, could be used.
The main reason I write about this is because I'm a little perplexed about this move by right-wing folk in the US - supposedly the home of the Christian right. I wonder which side they are on in this?
Criticising based on the fact that when challenged to prove the offences these guys are charged with, the US was unable to convince a judge and jury about the charges levelled against them. That is as opposed to trying them in a military court presumably where "secret" evidence, or evidence procured by illegal means, could be used.
The main reason I write about this is because I'm a little perplexed about this move by right-wing folk in the US - supposedly the home of the Christian right. I wonder which side they are on in this?
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Fairly Typical
This Cramner chap is a strange one. I'll move past his sycophantic ravings about Thatcher (I don't quite get how venerating one person to that level of glory is consistent with being a Christian - but then I'm really not sure where this guy stands).
Anyhow, it seems to me he is guilty of, like a lot of right-wing Christians, of spotting the faults on the left without accepting the same happens on the right too. This article on a couple in Nottingham who can't adopt because they are Bible-believing Christians and hence have un-PC views on homosexuality makes me angry.
For a number of reasons. First that it has come to this, that perfectly good couples are persecuted for a belief they happen to air and be up front about, whereas gay couples can adopt and slander Christians. There is something up there. But doesn't the Bible teach us to expect persecution as Christians?
What also angers me is: The constant attribution of all the legislation and societal norms that have led to this situation to Labour. Really? It may have happened that Labour passed the bill, but I don't see the Tories running in to repeal it right now, particularly now they are in power. You can point me all you like to websites showing some prominent Tories voted against such legislation, but the fact is power corrupts, and I seriously doubt the Tories would have acted any different had they held power in that 13 year gap.
The other rather obvious fact is the PC brigade didn't suddenly start in 1997, and stop once Labour were voted out earlier on this year. It does seem funny to me that right after the election, Theresa May suddenly changed her public beliefs on homosexuality.
I'm not writing here in any way to post something necessarily constructive, that somehow the left is better. The left though, is just as full of sinners as the right is, and I think that's the point I'm at pains to make, a kind of point that it seems Cramner and a number of my right-wing friends would try and deny.
Anyhow, it seems to me he is guilty of, like a lot of right-wing Christians, of spotting the faults on the left without accepting the same happens on the right too. This article on a couple in Nottingham who can't adopt because they are Bible-believing Christians and hence have un-PC views on homosexuality makes me angry.
For a number of reasons. First that it has come to this, that perfectly good couples are persecuted for a belief they happen to air and be up front about, whereas gay couples can adopt and slander Christians. There is something up there. But doesn't the Bible teach us to expect persecution as Christians?
What also angers me is: The constant attribution of all the legislation and societal norms that have led to this situation to Labour. Really? It may have happened that Labour passed the bill, but I don't see the Tories running in to repeal it right now, particularly now they are in power. You can point me all you like to websites showing some prominent Tories voted against such legislation, but the fact is power corrupts, and I seriously doubt the Tories would have acted any different had they held power in that 13 year gap.
The other rather obvious fact is the PC brigade didn't suddenly start in 1997, and stop once Labour were voted out earlier on this year. It does seem funny to me that right after the election, Theresa May suddenly changed her public beliefs on homosexuality.
I'm not writing here in any way to post something necessarily constructive, that somehow the left is better. The left though, is just as full of sinners as the right is, and I think that's the point I'm at pains to make, a kind of point that it seems Cramner and a number of my right-wing friends would try and deny.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Margaret Thatcher and the Loony Left
For better or for worse (I point some of this out just to indicate to those who think I just read what I want to see/hear) I read a blog called Cramner. I find it informative if a little bit irritating - and that irritation is not just because of the fact the blogger takes a right-of-centre view on things, but just as much if not more due to his writing style.
Anyhow, apparently some Labour Councillor up in Sunderland has covered herself in glory by hoping that Thatcher "burn in hell" on the back of Thatcher's current state of weak health. So this Cramner chap takes her to task pointing out that, apparently, Thatcher is a Christian.
I'm too young to really know all that much about Thatcher other than that, in the parts I grew up in, she was universally hated, and so the possibility she is a Christian intrigues me. The downside, of course, is trying to read more about this since almost anything written on her is either sycophantic or hate-filled, it seems. Any tips will be gratefully received on reading material; if you're a Tory I may treat your tips with a little more scepticism than I might otherwise...
One thing I note from what Cramner writes is that Thatcher it seems never went as far as to claim you couldn't be anything other than a right winger and a Christian. So I guess with all great figures, those that come afterwards distort what they said or think to some extent.
Anyhow, apparently some Labour Councillor up in Sunderland has covered herself in glory by hoping that Thatcher "burn in hell" on the back of Thatcher's current state of weak health. So this Cramner chap takes her to task pointing out that, apparently, Thatcher is a Christian.
I'm too young to really know all that much about Thatcher other than that, in the parts I grew up in, she was universally hated, and so the possibility she is a Christian intrigues me. The downside, of course, is trying to read more about this since almost anything written on her is either sycophantic or hate-filled, it seems. Any tips will be gratefully received on reading material; if you're a Tory I may treat your tips with a little more scepticism than I might otherwise...
One thing I note from what Cramner writes is that Thatcher it seems never went as far as to claim you couldn't be anything other than a right winger and a Christian. So I guess with all great figures, those that come afterwards distort what they said or think to some extent.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Whose Liberty?
I was just reading one of the n-million letters a US libertarian economist Don Bordreaux fires off each day/week which as usual has some dig at something someone has said somewhere in the US media.
The linked letter basically says certain liberals oppose property rights by advocating things like nationalisation of industry or, presumably, any kind of government intervention since that is predicated on taxation which is coercion.
I think this is the starting point for many Christians who stand on the right of the spectrum (although not necessarily the Tory Christians I know, I'm thinking people like Cramner and other libertarians I know). Taxation is coercion and we should thus oppose it as Christians because it denies those from whom the taxes are taken the freedom to decide for themselves what they do with that money.
A tiny part of me is sympathetic to that view. Very tiny though, because my real concern is: Whose liberty are we protecting by stopping taxation on more affluent people in order to fund some kind of state-led action of one form or another? Are we protecting the downtrodden employee who really has absolutely no "choice" about what to do because there are no other employers around should he quit his job? What freedom does this person have if there are no labour laws and regulations (that are enforced) keeping checks and balances on what employers can and cannot do? Particularly if, should he decide to quit and try to look for another job, there is no safety net for him and his family to fall into should he not be able to find another job instantaneously?
So do we by having some state intervention in the mechanics of labour markets protect the liberty of many people at the expense of the liberty of others?
The linked letter basically says certain liberals oppose property rights by advocating things like nationalisation of industry or, presumably, any kind of government intervention since that is predicated on taxation which is coercion.
I think this is the starting point for many Christians who stand on the right of the spectrum (although not necessarily the Tory Christians I know, I'm thinking people like Cramner and other libertarians I know). Taxation is coercion and we should thus oppose it as Christians because it denies those from whom the taxes are taken the freedom to decide for themselves what they do with that money.
A tiny part of me is sympathetic to that view. Very tiny though, because my real concern is: Whose liberty are we protecting by stopping taxation on more affluent people in order to fund some kind of state-led action of one form or another? Are we protecting the downtrodden employee who really has absolutely no "choice" about what to do because there are no other employers around should he quit his job? What freedom does this person have if there are no labour laws and regulations (that are enforced) keeping checks and balances on what employers can and cannot do? Particularly if, should he decide to quit and try to look for another job, there is no safety net for him and his family to fall into should he not be able to find another job instantaneously?
So do we by having some state intervention in the mechanics of labour markets protect the liberty of many people at the expense of the liberty of others?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
The Spending Review
Since I'm starting up a blog on issues regarding why Jesus was not a right winger (main premise - to show how baseless the assertions that Christians should only back right-wing policies rather than make Jesus out to have been a leftie), I should comment on yesterday's events in Parliament.
Those that know me know that I vote Labour at the last election (and the one before that, and the one before that. Before that I was too young to vote), but this doesn't mean that thus I support everything a Labour minister utters (in fact, I have issues with a lot of it), and nor does it mean I oppose Tory policies on principle.
As mentioned in previous posts, I want to have a stab at interpreting the Bible using economic theory to guide the policy implications that come out of it. Many other people, I believe, do not do this and thus arrive at assertions that all Christians should support right-wing policies (small government, etc).
The reason why I don't want to comment so much on the Spending Review is that it relates a lot to how things are done in the UK economy, which is not necessarily how they should be done - since I'm only just starting to write and think about exactly how they should be done I'm not about to start making such bold assertions.
But the small comment I will make is this - and this is consistent with what I've always said about Tory policies on deficit reduction: They are much too much, much too soon. Dress them up as you will (apparently 400,000 people leave jobs in the public sector a year anyway - but are replaced usually), they are cuts to a weak economy. There is no attempt to work ourselves out of the mess - it's entirely belt tightening.
Anyone who has had debt problems will know that you don't solve them just by belt tightening. Any start-up company will tell you they didn't pay off their initial creditors when they hadn't established themselves as going, viable entities. So why does it make sense to cut back so drastically spending in a weak economy?
You'll note: I'm not saying that some cuts will be useful - undoubtedly I'm sure I'll come across things the state is doing that I don't think it should (e.g. the Post Office). What my concern is about is the timing of these cuts.
The response from others is: We'll grow faster because of these cuts, there will be less crowding out. We'll abstract from the absence of any evidence on a strong crowding out effect and just say: Who are you kidding? The half-million and more jobs that are going, these are folk that will be spending less - and paying less in taxes, and claiming more in benefits. So it's not immediately clear how much the saving will be anyway. Then there's the multiplier effect - the jobs in small businesses reliant on local councils for contracts - small businesses that may go under as a result. I can keep on going.
It simply does not make sense to cut right now. Despite the "there's no money left" assertions that many throw out frequently, the fact is there IS money: The government is able to borrow at very cheap rates of interest (rates that are not going up either). That's not a justification for government borrowing and spending per se, but if we push the economy into recovery by a bit more borrowing that is a much better basis on which to cut than the current one.
Those that know me know that I vote Labour at the last election (and the one before that, and the one before that. Before that I was too young to vote), but this doesn't mean that thus I support everything a Labour minister utters (in fact, I have issues with a lot of it), and nor does it mean I oppose Tory policies on principle.
As mentioned in previous posts, I want to have a stab at interpreting the Bible using economic theory to guide the policy implications that come out of it. Many other people, I believe, do not do this and thus arrive at assertions that all Christians should support right-wing policies (small government, etc).
The reason why I don't want to comment so much on the Spending Review is that it relates a lot to how things are done in the UK economy, which is not necessarily how they should be done - since I'm only just starting to write and think about exactly how they should be done I'm not about to start making such bold assertions.
But the small comment I will make is this - and this is consistent with what I've always said about Tory policies on deficit reduction: They are much too much, much too soon. Dress them up as you will (apparently 400,000 people leave jobs in the public sector a year anyway - but are replaced usually), they are cuts to a weak economy. There is no attempt to work ourselves out of the mess - it's entirely belt tightening.
Anyone who has had debt problems will know that you don't solve them just by belt tightening. Any start-up company will tell you they didn't pay off their initial creditors when they hadn't established themselves as going, viable entities. So why does it make sense to cut back so drastically spending in a weak economy?
You'll note: I'm not saying that some cuts will be useful - undoubtedly I'm sure I'll come across things the state is doing that I don't think it should (e.g. the Post Office). What my concern is about is the timing of these cuts.
The response from others is: We'll grow faster because of these cuts, there will be less crowding out. We'll abstract from the absence of any evidence on a strong crowding out effect and just say: Who are you kidding? The half-million and more jobs that are going, these are folk that will be spending less - and paying less in taxes, and claiming more in benefits. So it's not immediately clear how much the saving will be anyway. Then there's the multiplier effect - the jobs in small businesses reliant on local councils for contracts - small businesses that may go under as a result. I can keep on going.
It simply does not make sense to cut right now. Despite the "there's no money left" assertions that many throw out frequently, the fact is there IS money: The government is able to borrow at very cheap rates of interest (rates that are not going up either). That's not a justification for government borrowing and spending per se, but if we push the economy into recovery by a bit more borrowing that is a much better basis on which to cut than the current one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)