Plato's Republic

Again, I've gone to the archives. Hopefully this format proves better than the only occasionally reliable Blogger search.

Book I

Book II

Book III

Book IV

Book V

Book VI

Book VII

Book VIII

Book IX

Book X

On Liberty

I've gone back into the archives to provide links to the first set of discussions PJ and I had. May this someday prove useful, to someone.

1) Introductory

2) Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion

3) Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being

4) Of the Limits of the Authority of Society Over the Individual

5) Applications

Instructive Reflections

Church, Ecumenism and Politics: New Endeavors in Ecclesiology, is a collection of lectures and papers by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. This slender volume takes a theme similar to that of his book, The New People of God, first published (in German) in 1969: "the question of the nature of the Church and her structure, the questions of ecumenicism and of the relation between the Church and the world." The threefold division given in the book will be followed in my review.

The first part, On the Nature and Structure of the Church, contains a useful chapter, "The Primacy of the Pope and the Unity of the People of God"; it offers insight into the Cardinal's understanding of the responsibility of the pope, which responsibility is now his. The pope's relation to the Church, as an individual, is not only biblically sound—we find Paul speaking, as Paul, for the members of his community, and addressing other communities through their leaders, such as Peter—it also provides a framework for responsibility. Ratzinger uses Reginald Cardinal Pole's observations to work his way towards a pope who leads and guides his Church even in, perhaps especially through, personal suffering. As Pole observes: "The office of the papacy is a cross, indeed, the greatest of all crosses. For what can be said to pertain more to the cross and anxiety of the soul than care and responsibility for all the Churches throughout the world?" Ratzinger was reflecting on this cross long before it became his as pope.

Part two deals with Ecumenical Problems. Given the recent actions by the author, as Pope Benedict XVI, in respects to the struggling Anglican Church, "Problems and Prospects of the Anglican-Catholic Dialogue" is most enlightening. Although it will be some time before the effects of the olive branch offered to Anglicans by Pope Benedict are known, this section makes clear that when the pope acted, he did so with immense awareness of the issues at stake. In the appendix to this section, Ratzinger draws on the great Catholic convert, the Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman. He notes, "In Newman's day, every kind of interpretation of the Thirty-nine Articles was permitted except for an explicitly Catholic one. Conversion for Newman became imperative once the Anglican hierarchy had explicitly rejected as unacceptable his attempt at a Catholic interpretation." Although personal interpretation was supposed to be given significant freedom, it required limitation, without which a believer would be totally cut off from tradition. This conundrum, which is at least as old as Luther's discovery of alternative Protestant theologies, confronts Anglicans today.

The final part, which comprises almost half of the book, it titled Church and Politics. Ratzinger's meditates on "Europe: A Heritage with Obligations for Christians." He points out problems with three "counterimages" of Europe: a pre-Christian paganism; what is often dubbed post-Christian, but what he calls "post-European"; and Marxism. The first image resonated with practitioners of National Socialism, which was "a renunciation of Christianity as alienation from the "beautiful" German "savagery"." The second elevates tolerance by excluding religion from the secular realm; in the process rational law dissolves into anarchy. This leaves opens the door to tyranny, since anarchy wearies of lawlessness and readily consents to force as a substitute.

The third image, Marxism, comes up with some frequency. Time and again, Ratzinger tactfully and gently corrects its errors. Rather than discuss Marx's economic theories, Ratzinger points out the problems of Marx's eschatology. Since human beings as such are secondary to the goal of communism, their dignity is not sacred. "In practical terms, those who act according to party logic, and only those, act in keeping with freedom. When party logic demands arrests and terror, then it goes without saying that such action, too, is in keeping with freedom, because, after all, it is consistent with the logic that leads to freedom." Such thinking cannot protect the rights and dignity of every human being.

Church, Ecumenism and Politics is engaging and informative. It offers valuable insight into the thinking of Pope Benedict XVI on matters of particular and far-reaching significance, which indicates that the Church is in very able hands.

Milton

From Sonnet 15:

For what can Warrs, but endless Warr still breed,
Till Truth, & Right from Violence be freed,
And Public Faith cleard from the shamefull brand
Of Public Fraud. In vain doth Valour bleed
While Avarice, & Rapine share the land.

Sometimes even the puritans get it right. I've been distracted by fine literature, but it's important to remember that Americans are still killing and being killed in at least two countries. And the bleeding shows no signs of abating anytime soon.

State of the Union

The new president bores me to tears, so I neither watched nor read his speech. I see little evidence that Obama understands the problem caused by our fiscal and monetary policies, and absolutely no evidence that he has the will to go about the crucial task of deleveraging our massive debt.

On the other hand, Ron Paul has some interesting things to say, as always, concerning where we are heading. A sample:

It is impossible to predict the time when confidence will be lost, but it can come quickly. Resorting to buying other paper currencies will not be of much help. When the dollar crashes, most likely the purchasing power of all currencies-since all countries hold dollars as a reserve-will go down as well.

This means that dollars and other currencies will go into buying consumer items, precious metals and other physical properties. Consumer prices will soar, as well as interest rates. The central bank will lose control; and the more they inflate, the worse the confidence becomes. The interest rates will respond to these efforts by rising sharply.

If the Fed tries to reverse the run on the dollar, interest rates will also soar, and the pain on the American citizens will be of such proportion that political chaos will result. Either scenario leads to political and social chaos-the third event, and the most dangerous.

Keep them stateside

Too many wars fail to pass muster as just and necessary ones. Yet these are the type our government has been fighting lately. Opponents of these wars may get discouraged; indeed, it is difficult to avoid doing so. Yet the opposition to our wars is strong, and it is growing.

Lamentably, this growing opposition has effected no change as yet. The current president has won his Nobel Peace Prize, but he has done so while continuing the war in Iraq and escalating the war in Afghanistan. The Democrats in Congress are more considered with passing a shoddily assembled health care bill than doing anything to change our foreign policy, and the voters seem willing to go along with the President--for the time being, anyway.

But there is some good news to report. Certain states, including the one in which I live, are in the process of passing bills which restrict the Federal Government's ability to deploy the National Guard overseas without permission from the states. We don't really know if these bills will pass, or, if passed, they will be held up by courts if challenged by the Federal Government. These bills are nonetheless a step in the right direction.

As Steve Burns puts it:

Just take a look at our current situation: The United States exists in a permanent state of war, can even be said to be addicted to war, and all decision-making about the question of war has now been placed in the hands of one man: the President. Whatever we think of the current occupant of that office, this is clearly a dangerous, unhealthy and undemocratic state of affairs...

Congress no longer even bothers to declare war, even though it is the only body given authority by the constitution to do that. Instead, it passes "Authorizations for Use of Military Force" which are either based on blatant falsehoods, like the Iraqi Authorization, or are an unconstitutional abdication of Congressional war-making powers to the President, as with the Afghanistan Authorization, which says, in effect, "You go wherever you think you need to go, and for as long as you need to, Mr. President, in pursuit of the people who did 9/11, and we'll just sit here and sign the checks."

Make no mistake about it: the American people will not continue to fight these wars forever. And I don't mean that we'll win these wars and then suddenly return to a humbler foreign policy. Too many people make too much money off of war for it to simply end. But for that same reason, the American people will eventually tire of sending their sons and daughters to die in defense of vague causes in wars that never really end. The attempts by the States to reign in the Federal Government are a good start, and merit our full support.

On square circles

A quick bit from Thomas Woods before I get back to my books:

The only answer that appears possible is this: the Church insists that thus-and-so must be done because justice demands it, even though it will make people, particularly those it was designed to help, materially worse off. However, no ecclesiastical document I have ever seen has taken this position. As I have said, these documents carry the assumption that their suggestions will accomplish their stated ends and increase the well-being of the least among us. That assumption, in turn, implies that the only thing standing between today and a more prosperous future is sufficient political will rather than constraints imposed by the very nature of things. That merely assumes the very thing that needs to be proven. And it begs the question yet again to declare that authority has spoken and the matter is closed – the very matter at issue is whether these subjects are of a qualitative nature to be susceptible of ecclesiastical resolution in the first place. If the law of returns, for instance, is an objective fact of nature (which it is), then the pope himself cannot declare it to be false, or expect success from policy prescriptions that ignore it, any more than he can fashion a square circle. It is no insult to papal authority to exclude the possibility of square circles.

As far as I can tell, Woods is the foremost Catholic champion of free market economics. I have no idea what kind of success he will have in causing members of the Church to rethink their policies, not because they are not well-intentioned, but because praxeological reasoning insists that their objectives are incompatible with their methods.

Anyone who is interested in the extent to which free market ideology is compatible with Church teaching would do well to read Woods's: The Church and the Market. I do not believe that his position is the only orthodox one--nor do I have any reason to think he believes as much--merely that it is firmly within the bounds of orthodoxy. And if it is true that the continuing economic debacle has shaken man's faith in markets, it is also true that the crisis compels men to ameliorate their ignorance about the economy. The works of Thomas Woods contribute positively toward that end.

Betting on inflation

Despite protestations to the contrary, the recession continues. Among those who realize the fragility of our financial system, there is no doubt that the elites have failed to produce the sustained recovery which they insist is already upon us. Playing with numbers can only do so much; in the end, the people know a recession when they are living through it. GDP means nothing to the man who has lost his job, or the housewife trying to feed her family on a salary which is losing its purchasing power. It is a matter of when--not if--the people compel their leaders to dispense with the lying.

But there is another question which is arguably more important. Will the United States experience inflation of deflation in the coming months. Most of the Austrians are in the former camp, but there are other hard money types--Robert Prechter, for instance--who find the isolationist argument unconvincing. Of course, the neo-Keynesians fear deflation above all else, and Bernanke will do his best to inflate his way out of the latest mess. The question is whether or not he will be able to do so, or if he is pushing on a string.

I want to get to an argument in favor of an inflationary scenario in a bit, but it's probably worthwhile to explain why the question is being asked in the first place. It's strange that people who agree on many aspects of economics would disagree about which scenario may be soon upon us. But with a bit of explanation, it should become apparent why disagreement exists. For more information about the topics I briefly cover below, I highly recommend Chris Martenson's Crash Course.

Due to our fractional reserve banking system, every dollar deposited in a bank need not remain in that bank; much of it can be loaned out, even if it is a demand deposit. This is the "money multiplier", which ensures that the money in circulation is far greater than that which can be returned to creditors should they attempt to withdraw their money from the bank. There is much talk about solvency, but in reality all fractional reserve banks are insolvent. This isn't problematic so long as the economy is booming, but all banks are prone to runs during bust times. The FDIC exists to insure bank deposits, so as to prevent runs, but as the FDIC is itself bankrupt, the trouble remains.

Now, when the government bails out a bank, it does so in the hopes that the bank will begin to lend out the money, thereby generating another boom. In reality, the bank knows that it is already over-extended; that many of its mortgages, for instance, are drastically over-valued and will not be paid; and that the threat of a bank run is more real than ever. Thus, rather than lend out the additional money, they keep it as a reserve, to shore up the problems which are inevitable in fractional reserve banking. This is what the deflationists call pushing on a string; no matter how much money the Fed gives to the banks, the money will not cause inflation if it sits idly rather than being lent out.

Gary North is well aware of these arguments, but he points out that the Fed can still force banks to lend, thereby causing inflation:

The FED could get every banker in the country to pull back all excess reserves ($1 trillion these days) tomorrow and lend the money. It does not have to issue an edict. It does not have to take over the banks. All it has to do is charge 10% per annum on all excess reserves. Probably 1% would do the trick...

Just raise the price of not lending until banks are fully lent out.

This argument makes a good deal of sense. The question now becomes whether or not Bernanke is liable to take such a step. In the short run--that is, until it becomes untenable to maintain the fiction that the recession is behind us--he is unlikely to do so. But given Bernanke's belief that deflation is what turned an ordinary recession into the Great Depression, it is unlikely that he will be content to allow banks to refrain from lending. I might be missing something here, but North's argument seems to lend considerable strength to the inflationary case.

War weariness strikes the right

Prediction which rests on the assumption that recent trends will continue in perpetuity are often fallacious. For instance, while presently the political right is undeniably more likely to clamor for war, this has not always been the case. Indeed, as Justin Raimondo details in his book, Reclaiming the American Right, there is a long tradition of opposition to war by non-leftists. Today, the libertarians--led by Ron Paul--and many, though not all, of the paleo-conservatives-- exemplified by Pat Buchanan--have made principled stands against recent wars. Regrettably, most right-wingers have failed to follow these shining examples.

But if the wars continue for long enough under leftists, a backlash will eventually emerge. This opposition will not be as principled as those taken by members of the anti-war right, or rather, it will probably stem from different principles--though in many cases it will be purely pragmatic. But it will come. As Obama continues to dither over his decision as to how many troops he will send to Afghanistan, it is possible that we will see a swell of dissent, not from the left, which has been lamentably AWOL on the anti-war effort, but from the heretofore imperialist right.

Two cases present themselves, both courtesy of WorldNetDaily. Now, I frequently disagree with many of the columnists who write for WND, and while I appreciate their genuine journalism, a not insignificant number of their stories bear too close a resemblance to pieces in the Weekly World News for my taste. Nonetheless, they publish three of my favorite columnists, and they refuse to debase themselves in the manner of the sycophants of the mainstream press.

In any event, here are Pat Boone and Joseph Farah demanding the troops be brought home.

First Boone:

I want to emphasize that perhaps 75 percent of American Muslims don't necessarily approve of suicide bombings and jihadist activities – but it's in the nature of the religion and culture not to expose or repudiate the extremists. And so it grows. The problem is not just Islam; it's the jihadist ideology that has infected it.

And so, as a lifelong staunch conservative and active supporter of our brave military, I call loudly: BRING OUR TROOPS HOME – AND NOW!

You can't fight or change an ideology with guns or bombs; in some ways, you fuel and inspire it. These warped jihadists, like Maj. Hasan, are the reverse of God-fearing patriotic Americans. They have been brainwashed to believe that their concept of God will honor and reward them for killing as many innocent men, women and children as possible! We've never faced anything like this before. Never.

His insistence that we cannot "change an ideology with guns or bombs" is basically correct, assuming we refuse to go down the Roman route of enslaving everyone. Still, he misses something which actually helps his argument. Our very presence in the region has been cited by Osama Bin Laden as a reason for his jihad. Every time U.S. forces mistakenly bomb another wedding party, or accidentally kill a civilian, Bin Laden has an easier time finding recruits. This is not to say that merely leaving the region will dispel all hatred for the Great Satan. It's too late for that. But the longer we remain in the region, the further Bin Laden's poisonous ideology will spread.

Second, Farah:

I do not believe Barack Obama is capable of achieving anything remotely resembling victory in either Iraq or Afghanistan – at least not victory for the United States of America.

A president incapable of recognizing that war came home Nov. 5 at Fort Hood is certainly incapable of waging foreign wars.

A president incapable of recognizing that terrorists are among us could never be counted on to do the right thing in remote places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

A president whose own worst enemies are the Republican Party, Fox News Channel and the tea party movement couldn't possibly ever understand the nature of real combat.

It's time to bring the troops home now!

I understand, to an extent, Farah's anger. I have not seen any evidence that Obama is capable of making difficult decisions. He is a tolerably good--if wildly overrated--speaker, and he shows signs of political acuity--though these two have disappeared, or at least diminished in recent months. It may be argued that given the record of The Decider, the mere ability to make choices is not enough; we only profit if the decisions are good ones.

Anyway, Farah's mistake is in assuming that presidential leadership is capable of stealing victory from the jaws of defeat in that graveyard of empires. The reality is that it doesn't matter how many troops we send. Shooting jihadists is an achievable goal for the U.S. military. Building a civilization in the desert, with most of the population either opposed or indifferent to the endeavor, simply isn't a practicable goal.

Given that victory is impossible, it is absolutely imperative that Obama brings the troops home as soon as possible. Here's hoping this sentiment sweeps through the rest of the right.

The Next Great Depression

Interest in economics appears to be inversely proportional to the strength of the economy. When wealth seems to be expanding—when houses can be bought, flipped, and resold quickly and at great profit, or when IPOs of Internet startups make everyone involved filthy rich—only contrarians and pessimists question the soundness of what is universally regarded as a good thing. But when the boom turns to bust, it becomes imperative to understand where things went wrong. Doe-eyed economists, who were as blind-sided by the downturn as those who foolishly followed them, scramble to retain credibility. Meanwhile, more skeptical commentators are provided with an opportunity to make their case against a system built on debt—at least until credit expansion brings about the next boom.

Vox Day is a self-described contrarian, whose prognostications of doubt about the health of the global financial system go back to at least 2002. In The Return of the Great Depression (RGD), Day cautions against “the consensus view that the economic contraction of the last eighteen months is essentially over.” This optimism fails to take into account the actual state of the economy, and is instead built on “definite hope.” He presents six economic scenarios for the coming decade which merit contemplation, ranked in order of decreasing likelihood to occur as follows: Great Depression 2.0, The Great Recession, Whiskey Zulu India or Hyperinflation, The Jobless Recovery, Fallout 4 Live or Doomsday, Saint Bernanke and the Greenshoots or Immaculate Recovery. His case for a second Great Depression is regrettably convincing, as are the ten reasons he gives as to why the current depression will be worse than the first.

RGD begins with a look at the Japanese recession of 1989, which is about to enter its second decade. The reason this recession is relevant for those trying to come to terms with our present economic crisis is that the actions taken by the Japanese Government in an attempt to stave off recession are disturbingly similar to those taken by the Bush and Obama administrations. “In nineteen years, neither monetary nor fiscal policy has managed to pull the Japanese economy out of the crater created by the Heisei boom.” The implementation of demonstrably inadequate policies portends a prolonged and painful recession for the U.S., and, indeed, much of the world.

For the most part, RGD is easy for the layman to follow. Some knowledge of economics would be useful, and is in fact provided by a helpful glossary of terms, but Day intends for his book to be read by “economic actors, not the economists who study them.” The sheer number of statistics and charts may prove overwhelming, but they also help illustrate one of the author's points. In attempting to accurately grasp the state of the economy: No One Know Anything. This doesn't make econometrics worthless, but it does mean that we need to be skeptical about facts and figures bandied about by talking heads—especially when these come courtesy of government bureaucrats.

To give just three examples from the book: Consumer Price Index (CPI), GDP, and unemployment figures are very unreliable. The formula used to compute CPI, which is used to determine inflation, was changed in the early 1990's. The new figure may understate inflation by as much as seven percent. GDP, too, possesses dubious utility as a statistical metric, since a decrease in imports causes the GDP to rise. Similarly, unemployment figures fail to take into account those who have ceased seeking employment. Paradoxically, a rise in unemployment may be seen as good news, since those who had given up looking for a job have resumed their searches, increasing unemployment numbers.

If Saint Bernanke and his fellow central bankers have actually ended the current recession, government intervention will see a boost of popular support, while the doomsayers, Day among them, will be justly ignored. On the other hand, if Day is correct, the coming depression presents an opportunity to diminish the role central bankers, bureaucrats, and politicians play in the economy. A freer, more prosperous world depends on radical adjustments to the structure of our economic system. Although the picture it paints is rather dark, RGD ultimately provides a useful blueprint for a better economic future.