Thoughts on life, love and faith by Plasticmind.

5 February 20071. Michael:

Hmmm. This article really provoked me (hence the long response). I generally react badly in situations involving someone defending PCC with that tired old "nobody forced you to come here" line. Of course that statement seems logical, but it still doesn't sit well with me. (I'll explain why in a minute.) But this particular piece constitutes a double whammy, since it combines PCC with the illogic of Libertarianism.

The central argument of Mr. Rosen’s article, as I understand it, is that PCC has a natural right to exist since it represents a community of voluntary members who submit to agreed upon rules, but which would cease to be legitimate were it to be given power over the country as a whole. The article proposes the governance of a country (a large community) on the basis of allowing every property owner to behave in his own self-interest as he sees fit; but smaller communities should be governed by the strict enforcement of the consensus opinion of constituent members, since Rosen assumes that membership in such smaller communities is necessarily voluntary. In essence, he says that when it comes to colleges, you should get out of the kitchen if you can’t stand the heat.

My response is twofold:

First of all, I reject the premise of Libertarianism, because most people don't know what is in their own best interest most of the time, and because the Libertarian worldview denies the truth of a fallen world, rendering itself illogical. Self interest is a zero-sum game. Somebody's interests always get trampled; and the genius of having government is that it invests the responsibility of arbitrating between self-interested individuals in someone outside of the fray who is able to weigh the interests of each one against the greater good. The trick is to make sure that government has frame of reference that ensures that its judgments are equitable and serve the broadest common good. In our system, that is achieved through consensus. The common people determine the common good together and then use a government apparatus (police etc.) to enforce compliance. Libertarianism would replace that system with a kind of “freedom” in which no one can tell anyone else not to smoke dope; but without the apparatus of government to look out for the common good, it would spiral into neighborhood arms races in which each interested party would have to keep tabs on the dope-smoking, automatic-rifle-owning neighbors to ensure that his interests don’t get carted out the front door. It turns into survival of the best-armed.

But aside from my general discomfort with Libertarianism’s consequences, my second, more visceral problem with the article is that the author is confused about the limits and definition of “voluntary” membership in a community. First of all, he is forgetting that membership in a larger community, the United States, for example, is just as voluntary as membership in the PCC community. We call it “voting with your feet.” If you can’t stand the heat in the U.S., either try to change the enforceable consensus opinion or get out of the kitchen. Stings, doesn’t it. The truth is that if Mr. Rosen buys the PCC theory, this is the logical conclusion. One could say that just as Mr. Rosen would be leaving behind the investment of his property were he to opt out of this country, a second-semester junior may find it a bitter pill to throw away the investment of time and treasure over a disagreement with the PCC administration.

I certainly did.

But this is why a PCC-style college administration is just as bad an idea as he thinks a PCC-style government would be—not because it institutes regulation, but because it ignores the fact that its membership is not wholly voluntary and so it ignores the consensus opinion of most of the interested parties. Unlike a simple property owner, from whom no one would take away the right to regulate in-home affairs, a school is also a merchant offering a variety of goods for sale, which the students buy in installments. Nothing about college is completely voluntary as soon as the student has made an investment in the school. There is an increasingly painful profit/loss equation in every decision involving such a community. PCC’s take-it-or-leave-it attitude ignores the fact that students become interested stakeholders in the community as soon as they write a tuition check and deserve the deference given to customers (as opposed to guests).

Unfortunately, whereas good government is disinterested and defends the common good as established by consensus—even when that consensus is unpleasant to some members of the community, (as would be the case were everyone to vote for Arlin Horton in ‘08)—PCC’s frame of reference is so skewed as to render its judgments inequitable and its definition of the common good twisted. Rather than operate based on the consensus of all stakeholders, it is autocratic, operating in conflicting spheres of authority, since it claims to be a college (a merchant), but behaves like a homeowner (a legitimate dictator). Its definition of the common good parades as divine inspiration, and that, my friends, is the core of why it would make a terrible government model and a really distasteful college administration.

The ideal government is not one that shrinks from regulating, but one that does so logically and without partiality.

6 February 20072. Jill:

Yes, remember how many times we were told that being there wasn't a right, but a privilege? Maybe the school could say that if there were no tuition and the it gave out degrees on a pro bono basis. There is no privilege involved in getting what you pay for.

"Does anyone really believe they can change the hearts and minds of individuals by force?" The the basis and goal of government (i.e., the law) is not to change people's hearts, but to keep them in order. That is the principle of the law in the Old Testament. It was not to bring the Isrealites to God, but to keep them safe, or in order, or healthy--hence it being called "the Schoolmaster". The only way OT law helped people see God was in that it showed them their sin, or where they fell short. The government is not an officer of love and grace. Should it be? Shouldn't that be where we come in? This doesn't apply to PCC--I'm just thinking in terms of the government. I mean, it doesn't matter what my heart says about being able to drive above the speed limit--I just need to drive the speed limit in order to protect myself and others.

I believe the college has become "puffed up" in thinking that it doesn't need little reprobates (like me, or whoever else they didn't approve of) who disagree to attend and help their business grow. I think part of the problem is that they advertise the college to be a ministry, but, in fact, run the college like a business. Either way, the attendees should be treated with respect and dignity. What other ministry do you know of where a miscreant would be tossed out on their ear for making a mistake? Or tossed out because of a rumored mistake? That is not ministry.

However, what business do you know of that lops off its "customers" right and left because the customer doesn't agree with everything the business does? That isn't good business practice either. I suppose when the business thinks it only needs certain customers, it doesn't care if its practice is faulty or not.

6 February 20073. Jill:

Really, I should have used the word "shareholder" like Michael. I think that is a better description of what the students are than "customer."

6 February 20074. Marlo:

I think Michael was getting to the point when he mentioned dictatorship...because that is much more how PCC is run than libertarian. A duo-dictatorship with servants who have bought into their belief and are willing to carry out their evil plans no matter how insane they seem. Also, a duo-dictatorship who cannot see the forest for the trees and refuse wise counsel.

6 February 20075. Eric Sundwall:

Michael,

' the Libertarian world view denies the truth of a fallen world, rendering itself illogical. ' Is this some sort of religious thing ?
What does this mean ?

The Wikipedia version is as follows: In English-speaking countries, libertarianism usually refers to a political philosophy maintaining that every person is the absolute owner of his own life and should be free to do whatever he wishes with his person or property, as long as he respects the liberty of others.

This is the standard conception it it usually follows that violence is unacceptable. The logic of self interest at this point usually follows. Thus one is justified to pursue one's interest as long as it does not infringe upon another.

6 February 20076. Michael:

Eric,

I appreciate your point, however what I meant by my comment, (which does approach libertarianism from a Christian point of view) was that libertarian philosophy ignores what I believe to be a fact: people are incapable of pursuing their own interests without infringing on the interests (and usually rights) of others. Picture, for example, a snow covered road. Without the guidlines to hold them back, every driver does whatever is in his own best interest, which means driving in the middle of the road and creeping out into intersections even when it means blocking the cross-traffic. Libertarianism proposes that when left to themselves, people naturally yield part of their interests in order to avoid infringing on others (which would make the world run more smoothly.) And yet a look outside my snowy window right now reveals the truth. People are all over the road. No one is yielding an inch without someone in authority to hold them back. That is what I meant by "fallen world." Orthodox Christian philosophy views the originally perfect world as broken by human willfulness, (which is why I believe, by the way, that people do not even always know what is in their own best interest anyway.) People are self-destructive by nature and libertarians forget this in their utopianism.

6 February 20077. Eric Sundwall:

Mike . . .

If you think so . . . that seems a dismal human condition if true. Hobbesian even. Life is short, brutish & nasty.

Perhaps it's juz Amerikans who are so conditioned in your example ? About six years ago I went to Venezuela and those people drove great with no controls. I recall a traffic circle in one of the port cities and it was complete chaos. Yet they were all very careful not to hit us or each other. They navigated mudslides and took caution not to bust up their 1978 Malibus and 1972 LTDs. They used traffic lights only if they needed them. It was in their interest not to bust up their cars.

In this country we've got a lawyer on every corner waiting for a phone call about an accident. We have hyper active/concerned communities that is the safest they have ever been as humans on this planet. Yet their kids are swapping prescription drugs faster then some good fun with some mates in between the cosmic insanity. They continue to spend at will as the world extends us credit.

A great deal on modern libertarian economic theory is done in the Austrian tradition (Mises Institute is associated with Lew Rockwell somehow). While based on the non-aggression principle, it does look at other precepts in terms of economics and can be quite illuminating. At your own peril, of course.

In terms of the institute example, this is perfectly consistent with these principles. I sense some bitterness from those not happy with the tone or approach of said place. I often assert that no other field other than academics would have their clients suffering such inferiority complexes, guilt etc. Now if you want to go into the relationship between libertarians who are basically anarchists and their often close intellectual attachments of the rational athiests that might hinder some of my recent progress elsewhere . . . . . .

9 March 20078. Scott Rosen:

I'm not sure if anyone will end up reading this post since it's attached to a thread that's about a month old, but I figured I'd respond anyway.

First of all, I'm amazed that this article still generates an incredible amount of feedback despite the fact it was written over two years ago. I still get e-mails about it!

Second of all, I appreciate all of the feedback and enjoy intelligent discussion of political-economic issues, so I was delighted to read your constructive criticism of the article.

If anyone is interested in continuing the debate, I'd like to raise three main points to initiate the discussion.

1) Does libertarianism deny man's sinful nature? The answer is it depends. Libertarianism, like any other ideology, has various adherents. John Locke is often credited as the founder of classical liberalism, a forerunner of political libertarianism. The view that man is essentially good as the basis for limited government is also often ascribed to him. Likewise, Ayn Rand celebrated man as a heroic creature and rejected God and the Bible. Even libertarian inspired conservatives like Ronald Reagan spoke of the goodness and industry of man (Americans specifically). All of this seems to indicate that libertarianism specifically rejects the notion than man is naturally wicked.

However, I think this is the byproduct of confused definitions. Certainly, man is a sinful creature in need of a Savior, but is he a fundamentally chaotic character unable to produce, trade and interact with other without the oversight of a coercive centralized entity with a monopoly on force? That's quite a different question. (Recall, the nicest person in the world who never would pose a threat to anyone else is still a sinner under condemnation unless he/she has accepted Christ.)

Utilitarian libertarianism is not as concerned with libertarianism for the sake of the unlimited freedom to do what you'd like. It is more result oriented. On an issue such as the drug war, the question is not whether one has the right to do with his/her body as he/she wishes. The question is: Does drug prohibition actually prevent narcotic consumption while imposing reasonable costs on society? The economics of black markets and a boatload of empirical evidence seem to suggest this is not the case.

One final point on this issue: Even if one were to say that evil man does require coercive oversight, who's charged with that oversight? The state, of course, and who runs the state? Angels, robots, flawless computer programs? Of course not - It's sinful man! (And usually the worst of lot - the most duplicitous, ambitions, and amoral - are at the top of the pile.)

2) Does private property create chaos? An appropriate response would take an essay in itself, but free market economists refer to the private sector as the anarchy of production. The private market is actually very logical and orderly. Markets send signals, which direct utilization of resources, prices, and the number of firms in a particular industry.

What you've raised in the above comments is analysis of a roadway system without rules, but this really isn't a critique of the free market. The mistake that many critics of libertarianism make (and in truth is encouraged by certain libertarians) is that opposition to governMENT equals opposition to governANCE. Of course, there are rules in regard to the use of private property - Just take a look at the back of your stub the next time you go to a baseball game.

Under your analysis, you insinuate that libertarianism means the abolition of rules in regard to the operation of public utilities. This is erroneous. Sure, there should probably be stop signs, traffic lights, and rules governing conduct on the roads. Now, is it necessarily logical for speed limits to be 55 or 65 mph on a certain roadway? Maybe, maybe not. We can't know for sure because a central authority holds a monopoly over most roadways. What libertarians support is the privatization of the roads, and yes, there would be rules of conduct for those roads (just like there are in private theaters, apartment complexes, office building, etc.) I go into this in a little bit more depth in the beginning of this article if you're interested: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/rosen-scott6.html

Now, I know your first instinct in addressing this point will be to question the feasibility of privatized roads - While I (and others) have good responses to the inquiry, I'd urge you not to divert the discussion. My central point is that your example of chaos on the roadway does not appropriately address the governance of public or private property in a market system. What libertarianism simply wants to do is shift the governance away from public authorities to private ones, which bring me to my third point...

3) PCC as a Private Entity - My article in no way was intended to defend Pensacola (or disparage it for that matter). The thesis could really be summed up in one sentence: Private individuals should be able to create institutions which reflect their values. My article WAS specifically directed towards social conservatives who seek to use the federal government to create a conservative-Christian America that most Americans would find intolerable (to my regret, I might add). I could have, however, just as easily used Bob Jones, Ave Maria (right-winged Catholic school), or Brigham Young (right- winged Mormon school).

I’m sympathetic to your dissatisfaction with PCC, but wouldn't you concede that there IS a market for a hyper-fundamentalist school? I don't seek to presuppose your beliefs, but aren't there students (or at least parents of students) who do want to attend such a strict environment? If so, what's wrong with there being a school to satiate that demand? I'd say the same thing about Liberty University - Sure, plenty of fundamentalists would probably consider Liberty to be far too permissive (and not without cause), but most non-Christians would consider it to be far too right-winged. Should these conservative though more moderate fundamentalists have a right to organize themselves in an environment of their choosing regardless of what secular leftists and hyper fundamentalists may believe?

Now, you may want the US government to encourage prayer in school, ban abortion, outlaw homosexual sodomy, etc., but a) It won't work (not really the focus of my article b) It won't happen because, as I noted, not only do most secular Americans have limited objection to women wearing pants (or shorts or mini-skirts for that matter), most Americans think waiting until marriage for sexual relations is passé. However, under a private system, you don't need to convince everyone else of the virtue of your ideas in order to run your institution, community, or life the way you'd like. Whatever else you'd like to say about PCC, they're doing just that.

Under a free market (and even under current US law), PCC can run their school the way they see fit, and you can scream from the mountaintops that PCC is an awful place to be. How's that for Christian liberty?

Best,
Scott Rosen

29 April 20079. SGT Mark A. Moberly:

"If one is to believe the exit polling data from the recent presidential election, President Bush owes his victory in no small part to conservative Christians." If this is true, it's about time that Christians got out & voted in force for the right candidate. (yes, I'm a Bush voter as opposed to anyone in the Homo-loving ABortion lovin' bottom feedin' group called Democratic candidates on the national level). I don't think that this is true. I believe that as scripture says, "...the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord." I also believe the heart of the voters is in His hand also. Put that in perspective with all this useless wasted internet space that's been used over Libertarianism. I am a soldier on my 2nd deployment to Iraq, this time I have volunteered. I am also a '95 grad of PCC & did 2 years of postgrad work in theology as well. Now mull that over in your minds. I believe & know without a doubt that we are in Iraq & having a 'conservative-bent' minded Pres. ('cause lets be honest, the guy aint truly right-wing from where I sit) because GOD WILLED IT! ! ! It's too simple, if your even a little up on your prophecy. GET A GRIP all you guys/gals writing in this comment line, the world is on the brink of nuclear holocaust & many of those nukes are pointed at us!!!!!!! We just may be that one third of the world's population that dies, over in the Western Hemisphere. Put that in perspective. Put that in your pipes N smoke it, or put that feather in your hat, whatever, but think about it - - libertarianism is meaningless & useless. Our forefathers'd turn over in their graves is someone read this whooey to 'em!!!!! Our forefathers were GOD-FEARING BIBLE READING FUNDAMENTALISTS> & some of you are saying, or thinking, 'oh, here he goes with the forefathers bit ,sheesh....' .....well, shame on you, and you might as well take "in GOD we trust" off of our coinage/bills now!!!!! America is headed for a mighty bigtger fall, & you'd better be ready in your soul to meet your maker, judgment day cometh folks!!!!!! 9/11 was just childs play next to what could be done on our soil by terrorism. Suitcase nukes & bio weapons of such awesome magnitude are available to these Satanic maniacs called Islamic Jihadists that would make the hair on your neck stand up if you knew about how close we are to attack in this method. Are you properly in perspective now?!!?! Yeah, you'd better thank God again tonite before you lay your pretty free head on your pillow next to your spouse that God saw fit to put Bush on the throne & not that utterly stupid bunch of nutcases in the Dem party that hug trees(Pantheists) & love sodomy openly(the damned like those of Sodom & Gomorrha) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I for one choose to vote where my vote counts for a little, with the Repubs.--too bad there's no Reagan when you need one....My favorite quote from our late beloved ender of the cold-war will end this posting; Reagan said to terrorists, "...you can run, but you can't hide!" We need another pres. with the cajones to say those types of things & not be consumed with big business to be made on the war(or those around him) & go in & get the job done, the real way-- but, that kind of man isn't around, not in God's plan anyway........Prophecy is at work.

8 May 200711. pensacola christian college blog:

Hi. I am posting a link to an online resource blog for Pensacola Christian College. It is not a messageboard. http://pensacolachristiancollege.blogspot.com