Re: [asa] Creation Care Magazine

At 10:52 AM 12/27/2007, David Opderbeck wrote:

>Janice said: I am not advocating FORCED
>"emissions trading". If people living within
>various States want to voluntarily engage in it
>with their neighboring States, they can also
>figure out how to best manage their own transaction costs, themselves.
>
>Ok, so you accept emissions trading. I'm not
>clear what you mean by "forced" emissions trading, however.

@@@ I'm talking about unconstitutional, federal
government involvement in States business.

> It isn't possible to have an emissions trading
> regime without a governmental authority setting
> emissions caps and establishing the ground
> rules for trading credits. Without caps, there
> are no credits, and without credits, there is no market.

@@@ "We the People" are "the government" on all
levels. We get to decide who we want to have
standing in representing the authority that is
vested in us. Our government is OF the people,
BY the people, and FOR the people. The smaller
the government, the closer to the people it will
be. Large bureaucracies are anathema to good
government and/or efficient business
operations. Small government and small business
can turn on a dime, getting rid of policies that
don't work and immediately implementing policies
that do -- that is unless the central planners
force themselves into the picture.

> If your point is simply that state governments
> rather than the federal government should
> establish regional markets, that might work,
> but that also presents major spillovers and
> political economy problems when emissions end
> up in states that are excluded from the trading bloc.

@@@ Those kinds of problems are solvable. Plus,
if one doesn't like the conditions in the State
in which he lives, he may CHOOSE to move to a
State that better reflects his likes and
dislikes. If the Fed unconstitutionally enforces
a one-size-fits-all solution on each State, my
choice is taken away - there is no other State
that I can move to to get away from it.

> So, you end up with a few states enforcing
> their "state's rights" against other states
> that are powerless to enforce theirs. Seems to
> me this kind of thing is exactly why the
> beloved founders accepted the arguments of the federalists.

@@@ James Madison was a federalist, and is
known as the Father of the Constitution. The
"enumerated powers" that the Framers gave the
necessarily "strong" federal government (which
they wisely divided up into different branches)
is quite short, specifically because they wanted
to impede the efforts of those who are always
waiting in the wings looking for an opportunity
to control the lives of others. I think one of
the things the anti-federalists didn't want us to
have is a standing army because they rightly
feared (from past history) that - given the right
conditions - it could wind up being a threat to
individual freedoms. An armed population deters that threat.

"In Germany during the first part of the
twentieth century,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Adolf_Hitler>Adolf
Hitler viewed federalism as an obstacle, and he
wrote in
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Mein_Kampf>Mein
Kampf as follows:
"<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/National_Socialism>National
Socialism must claim the right to impose its
principles on the whole German nation, without
regard to what were hitherto the confines of federal states."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

>Janice said: If you don't believe you have the
>Scriptural backing to defend yourself by all
>means necessary that's your right. I believe
>otherwise. Jesus didn't have to reveal (preach) self-evident truths.
>
>So some "self-evident truths" of natural
>revelation trump Jesus' teaching in the Sermon
>on the Mount? I guess I'd agree that is a
>conclusion many of the American deist founders
>would have found salutary. Just ask Thomas
>Jefferson, who literally took a scissors to his
>Bible to cut out the miraculous bits in the Gospels.

@@@ No comment.

In another email to the ASA list, you suggested
that one place the ASA could have a beneficial
influence is by sponsoring or co-sponsoring a
conference on "responsible apologetics".

Would Christian apologists like J. P Moreland be invited to participate?:

  "Not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and
an evil of omission can be just as evil as an
evil of commission. For instance, any man who
refuses to protect his wife and children against
a violent intruder with the most effective means
available to him fails them morally." ~ J. P.
Moreland paraphrase from memory.

~ Janice

>On Dec 27, 2007 10:32 AM, Janice Matchett
><<mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net>janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > My cable went down last night, so this is the
> first chance I've had to get back on line since
> then. Sorry for the delay in responding. (See response below)
> >
> >
> > At 04:57 PM 12/26/2007, David Opderbeck wrote:
> >
> > Janice said: Private property rights along
> with the right to the self-defense of them is
> adhered to by those (including the Framers) who embrace the biblical worldview
> >
> > Indeed, Jesus preached alot about self
> defense and the right to bear arms. Wasn't
> that in the Sermon on the Mount? Or was it
> that thing about Peter cutting the guy's ear off? ~ David O.
> > @@ If you don't believe you have the
> Scriptural backing to defend yourself by all
> means necessary that's your right. I believe
> otherwise. Jesus didn't have to reveal (preach) self-evident truths.
> >
> > "We hold these truths to be self-evident" If
> self-evident then they are provable in nature
> and they are. "The Right of Self-defense is the
> first law of nature" and this can be shown in
> that predators like tigers have claws and
> eagles have talons which are used both to
> obtain food and for self-defense. They are a
> means to sustain life and to defend it.
> >
> > "Life, liberty, and property do not exist
> because men have made laws. On the contrary, it
> was the fact that life, liberty, and property
> existed beforehand that caused men to make laws
> in the first place." ~ Frederic
> Bastiat <http://jim.com/bastiat.htm>http://jim.com/bastiat.htm
> >
> > The U.N. denies the self-evident proof in
> nature and is saying that their view of how the
> World should be is correct and therefore nature is wrong.
> > UN report proclaims self-defense is not a
> right -
> <http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/08/un_report_procl.php>http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/08/un_report_procl.php
>
> >
> > "Not resisting evil is an evil of omission,
> and an evil of omission can be just as evil as
> an evil of commission. For instance, any man
> who refuses to protect his wife and children
> against a violent intruder with the most
> effective means available to him fails them
> morally." ~ J. P. Moreland paraphrase from memory.
> >
> > James Burgh wrote in 'Political
> Disquisitions' "The possession of arms is the
> distinction between a freeman and a slave."
> Prominent revolutionaries who subscribed to
> Burgh's writings included George Washington,
> Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and John Hancock.
> >
> > I invite people to voluntarily hang this sign
> in their front window: "This is a gun-free
> home". Unless they're willing to do that, don't
> think I'm going to look kindly on anyone who
> wants to use the arm of the government to, in
> effect, force me to hang that sign in my window.
> >
> >
> >
> > Janice quoted: "Free market environmentalism
> is what the economists at the Property and
> Environment Research Center (PERC) have been
> studying and promoting for over 15 years"
> >
> > Not surprisingly, at least some of the stuff
> on this site supports emissions trading (see
> <http://www.perc.org/perc.php?subsection=5&id=406>http://www.perc.org/perc.php?subsection=5&id=406)
> -- the true Coasian alternative to Pigovian
> taxes or direct regulation with respect to
> environmental problems. So again -- by
> advocating "property rights" are you advocating
> emissions trading? If not, how to you manage
> the transaction cost problem? ~ David O.
> > @ I am not advocating FORCED "emissions
> trading". If people living within various
> States want to voluntarily engage in it with
> their neighboring States, they can also figure
> out how to best manage their own transaction costs, themselves.
> >
> > As you well know, the federal government
> (EPA) has already unconstitutionally (and quite
> unnecessarily - as the empirical evidence
> plainly shows) stuck its "one-size-fits-all"
> nose in the various State's business. Until
> that tool of the central planners is
> effectively dismantled, the SPECIFIC
> "emissions trading" idea being proposed at PERC
> is the closest thing to a free-market solution
> available at this juncture. It merely amounts
> to making the best of a bad situation.
> >
> > This is the sort of "bad situation" that
> always arises when the __central ("GEEZE! It
> worked on paper!") planners__ get the chance
> to put their utopian ideas to work in the
> "real" world inhabited by "real" people:
> >
> > "..To convert a barn into a house in Britain
> today you must survey it for bats before you
> apply for permission to convert. The bat survey
> must be done by an "accredited" bat group and
> only in the summer months. Guess what? Bat
> groups are very busy in the summer and charge
> very high fees. If the survey says there are
> rare bats in the building you may be refused
> permission to convert; as it turns out, the
> bats, not you, own the building. So what
> happens? People respond to incentives. Most
> barn owners resent and detest bats. I'm told
> playing Wagner at full volume clears a building
> of bats in short order. A simple scheme of
> small tax rebates for owners of barns who add
> bat-roosting boxes to their houses would
> achieve good will as well as bat babies. But it
> would not make paid work for bat groups.
> >
> > PERC inspired me to see the world
> differently. The vision of free market
> environmentalism is inspiring because it is
> optimistic, and the solutions it suggests are
> voluntary, diverse and (for the taxpayer)
> cheap. The only things standing in its way are
> vested interests of politicians, bureaucrats,
> and pressure
> groups. ..."
> <http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=434>http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=434
>
> >
> > Many more examples of the idioticrats in
> action are found here:
> <http://www.ecoworld.com/index.cfm>http://www.ecoworld.com/index.cfm
> >
> > Clearing the Air: The Real Story of the War
> on Air Pollution By Indur M. Goklany
> >
> <http://books.google.com/books?id=doZAq3OcFSIC&dq=clearing+the+air+the+real+story+of+the+war+on+air+pollution+washington+dc+cato+institute>http://books.google.com/books?id=doZAq3OcFSIC&dq=clearing+the+air+the+real+story+of+the+war+on+air+pollution+washington+dc+cato+institute
>
> >
> > * More:
> >
> > Frederick Bastiat "The Law"
> <http://jim.com/bastiat.htm>http://jim.com/bastiat.htm
> "..Men naturally rebel against the injustice of
> which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is
> organized by law for the profit of those who
> make the law, all the plundered classes try
> somehow to enter ­ by peaceful or revolutionary
> means ­ into the making of laws. According to
> their degree of enlightenment, these plundered
> classes may propose one of two entirely
> different purposes when they attempt to attain
> political power: Either they may wish to stop
> lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it. ....
> >
> > "As long as it is admitted that the law may
> be diverted from its true purpose ­ that it may
> violate property instead of protecting it ­
> then everyone will want to participate in
> making the law, either to protect himself
> against plunder or to use it for plunder. ....
> >
> > "And, in all sincerity, can anything more
> than the absence of plunder be required of the
> law? Can the law ­ which necessarily requires
> the use of force ­ rationally be used for
> anything except protecting the rights of
> everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond
> this purpose without perverting it and,
> consequently, turning might against right. This
> is the most fatal and most illogical social
> perversion that can possibly be imagined. It
> must be admitted that the true solution ­ so
> long searched for in the area of social
> relationships ­ is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.
> >
> > Now this must be said: When justice is
> organized by law ­ that is, by force ­ this
> excludes the idea of using law (force) to
> organize any human activity whatever, whether
> it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce,
> industry, education, art, or religion. The
> organizing by law of any one of these would
> inevitably destroy the essential organization ­
> justice. For truly, how can we imagine force
> being used against the liberty of citizens
> without it also being used against justice, and
> thus acting against its proper purpose?
> >
> > The Seductive Lure of Socialism
> >
> > Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of
> our times. It is not considered sufficient that
> the law should be just; it must be
> philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the
> law should guarantee to every citizen the free
> and inoffensive use of his faculties for
> physical, intellectual, and moral
> self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that
> the law should directly extend welfare,
> education, and morality throughout the nation.
> >
> > This is the seductive lure of socialism. And
> I repeat again: These two uses of the law are
> in direct contradiction to each other. We must
> choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.
> >
> > Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty
> >
> > Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly:
> "Your doctrine is only the half of my program.
> You have stopped at liberty; I go on to
> fraternity." I answered him: "The second half
> of your program will destroy the first."
> >
> > In fact, it is impossible for me to separate
> the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I
> cannot possibly understand how fraternity can
> be legally enforced without liberty being
> legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.
> >
> > Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as
> I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.
> >
> > At this point, I think that I should explain
> exactly what I mean by the word plunder.
> >
> > Plunder Violates Ownership
> >
> > I do not, as is often done, use the word in
> any vague, uncertain, approximate, or
> metaphorical sense. I use it in its scientific
> acceptance ­ as expressing the idea opposite to
> that of property [wages, land, money, or
> whatever]. When a portion of wealth is
> transferred from the person who owns it ­
> without his consent and without compensation,
> and whether by force or by fraud ­ to anyone
> who does not own it, then I say that property
> is violated; that an act of plunder is committed.
> >
> > I say that this act is exactly what the law
> is supposed to suppress, always and everywhere.
> When the law itself commits this act that it is
> supposed to suppress, I say that plunder is
> still committed, and I add that from the point
> of view of society and welfare, this aggression
> against rights is even worse. In this case of
> legal plunder, however, the person who receives
> the benefits is not responsible for the act of
> plundering. The responsibility for this legal
> plunder rests with the law, the legislator, and
> society itself. Therein lies the political danger.
> >
> > It is to be regretted that the word plunder
> is offensive. I have tried in vain to find an
> inoffensive word, for I would not at any time ­
> especially now ­ wish to add an irritating word
> to our dissentions. Thus, whether I am believed
> or not, I declare that I do not mean to attack
> the intentions or the morality of anyone.
> Rather, I am attacking an idea which I believe
> to be false; a system which appears to me to be
> unjust; an injustice so independent of personal
> intentions that each of us profits from it
> without wishing to do so, and suffers from it
> without knowing the cause of the suffering.
> >
> > Three Systems of Plunder [ snip] ~ Frederick
> Bastiat "The Law" <http://jim.com/bastiat.htm>http://jim.com/bastiat.htm
> >
> > ~ Janice
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 26, 2007 4:39 PM, Janice Matchett
> <<mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net>janmatch@earthlink.net
> > wrote: At 03:43 PM 12/26/2007, David Opderbeck wrote:
> > Janice said: The key to sound environment
> management is property rights. Unless, as Coase
> pointed out, there are high transaction costs
> (as when there are many individual property
> owners whose rights need to be cleared -- e.g.,
> where there are numerous individual residences
> near a factory) or impediments to bargaining
> (as in the international context where politics
> interfere), right? And this would include
> strong enforcement mechanisms, including easy
> access to the courts for individuals whose
> rights are violated, correct? Or are you
> advocating tradeable emissions credits, which
> are the sine qua non of Coasian environmental
> economics? @@ "..... Vaclav Klaus , President
> of the Czech Republic, and someone who suffered
> under communist tyranny, has put it thus: "When
> I study and analyse environmental indicators
> concerning my own country and when I compare
> them with the situation in the communist era,
> there is an incredible improvement. The
> improvement is not because of 'collective
> action' you advocate (it existed in the
> communist era), but because of freedom and of
> free markets." It's not easy to articulate the
> principles of free market environmentalism.
> When the air and water is fouled by pollution,
> the natural emotional reaction is to blame the
> polluters and demand regulations. By extension,
> the polluters are assumed to be motivated by
> profit, which in-turn is demonized. But it's
> not so simple. Profit creates wealth, and
> wealth funds environmental restoration. Central
> planning - communism - destroys wealth,
> destroys incentives, and the practical result
> is abominable pollution, worse than anything
> we've ever seen in the capitalist west, and
> harder to correct. Free market environmentalism
> is what the economists at the Property and
> Environment Research Center (PERC) have been
> studying and promoting for over 15 years. When
> we began publishing EcoWorld in 1993, we
> quickly came across the work PERC was doing and
> we've been following them and learning from
> them ever since. Their message is more
> important now than ever, as the emotional
> juggernaut called global warming threatens to
> drown out reason and demands immediate and
> extraordinary measures. Incentives are not easy
> to formulate, and require governments to
> referee. But regulations and takings are even
> more problematic - in the extreme they lead to
> environmental devastation exemplified by the
> failed communist economies of Eastern Europe.
> The question is one of emphasis, and free
> market environmentalism recognizes that private
> property, ownership, stewardship, incentives,
> and the profit motive properly channelled is
> superior to central planning. This recent
> report by noted author Matt Ridley attests to
> his conversion to free market environmentalism,
> something that even - indeed especially -
> today's global warming alarmism should not
> consign to the list of endangered ideologies. - Ed "Redwood" Ring
> >
> > Much more:
> <http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=434>http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=434
> ~ Janice ... (Private property rights along
> with the right to the self-defense of them is
> adhered to by those (including the Framers) who
> embrace the biblical worldview. It is the
> unchanging backbone of the Constitution. Our
> government is set up by "we the people" and
> public servants are sworn to uphold and defend
> that Constitution on our behalf.) ~ Janice ...
> (Private property rights along with the right
> to the self-defense of them is adhered to by
> those (including the Framers) who embrace the
> biblical worldview. It is the unchanging
> backbone of the Constitution. Our government
> is set up by "we the people" and public
> servants are sworn to uphold and defend that Constitution on our behalf.)
> >
> >
> > On Dec 26, 2007 2:41 PM, Janice Matchett
> <<mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net>janmatch@earthlink.net
> > wrote: At 12:49 PM 12/26/2007, Michael Roberts wrote:
> >
> >
> > Should we club together and get Janice a
> subscription? ~ Michael@ Why would I want a
> subscription to a cult magazine wherein I can
> tell you _exactly_ what will be in the various
> issues even before they're published? I can
> also tell you _exactly_ what inconvenient
> truths the well-known Marxist _globalist_
> collectivists at EEN won't be publishing in any
> of the issues. Here's a sample: Hosea 4:1-3:
> "Hear the word of the LORD...because the LORD
> has a charge to bring against you who live in
> the land: "the land mourns because there is
> only cursing, lying and murder, stealing and
> adultery ...." Isa. 65: 17-23: "Behold, I will
> create new heavens and a new earth. The former
> things will not be remembered, nor will they
> come to mind. ... They will build houses and
> dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and
> eat their fruit. [No one will steal what they
> produce from them and give it to someone else
> in exchange for their vote]. No longer will
> they build houses and others live in them, or
> plant and others eat. .... my chosen
> individuals will long enjoy the works of their
> hands. Individuals will not toil in vain [for
> a 'collective'] .." says the LORD. Rev. 20:
> 12-13: "And I saw the dead, small and great,
> standing before God... And they were judged,
> EACH INDIVIDUAL, according to HIS [individual]
> works..." Rev. 21:1-8: "Then I saw a new
> heaven and a new earth, for the first earth had
> passed away. Also there was no more sea. .. .
> . He who was seated on the throne said, 'I am
> making everything new!' .. the cowardly,
> unbelieving, abominable, murders, sexually
> immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars
> shall have their part in the second death
> [complete/total separation from what they hated
> ( ie: all that is good) for eternity]." ~
> Janice ... who knows that one of the "good
> things" they hate is private individual
> property rights. The key to sound environment
> management is property rights. Hosea 4:1-3:
> "Hear the word of the LORD...because the LORD
> has a charge to bring against you who live in
> the land: "the land mourns because there is
> only cursing, lying and murder, stealing and
> adultery ...." Isa. 65: 17-23: "Behold, I will
> create new heavens and a new earth. The former
> things will not be remembered, nor will they
> come to mind. ... They will build houses and
> dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and
> eat their fruit. [No one will steal what they
> produce from them and give it to someone else
> in exchange for their vote]. No longer will
> they build houses and others live in them, or
> plant and others eat. .... my chosen
> individuals will long enjoy the works of their
> hands. Individuals will not toil in vain [for
> a 'collective'] .." says the LORD. Rev. 20:
> 12-13: "And I saw the dead, small and great,
> standing before God... And they were judged,
> EACH INDIVIDUAL, according to HIS [individual]
> works..." Rev. 21:1-8: "Then I saw a new
> heaven and a new earth, for the first earth had
> passed away. Also there was no more sea. .. .
> . He who was seated on the throne said, 'I am
> making everything new!' .. the cowardly,
> unbelieving, abominable, murders, sexually
> immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars
> shall have their part in the second death
> [complete/total separation from what they hated
> ( ie: all that is good) for eternity]." ~
> Janice ... who knows that one of the "good
> things" they hate is private individual
> property rights. The key to sound environment
> management is property rights.
> <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1944220/posts?page=9#9>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1944220/posts?page=9#9
>
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve
> Martin To: David Opderbeck Cc: asA Sent:
> Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:24 PM Subject:
> Re: [asa] Creation Care Magazine Hi
> David, Thanks. That looks interesting. I
> also noticed that we (the ASA) are a partner
> organization. See:
> <http://www.creationcare.org/partners.php>http://www.creationcare.org/partners.php.
> Not sure what exactly the partnership
> entails. thanks, On 12/26/07, David
> Opderbeck <<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote: Of possible
> interest to list members: I got a subscription
> to Creation Care magazine for Christmas (
> <http://www.creationcare.org/magazine/>http://www.creationcare.org/magazine/
> ). Seems like a great publication -- Steve
> Martin (CSCA)
> <http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com>http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 27 12:53:05 2007