Posts Tagged ownership
This week at Common Sense Concept, I explore the essential primacy of property rights in reaching productive and sustainable environmental solutions. More specifically, I focus on the tragedy of the commons and how God has called us to dominion in order to avoid such manifestations.
As I argue, many Christians prefer a more passive and detached approach to environmental stewardship, opting for advocacy and observation rather than ownership and control. In this view, human engagement with the ecological system is most often an exploitative invasion akin to the Hexxus-possessed tear-down of Fern Gully. Thus, we tend to retreat and assume an attitude that limits productive engagement altogether.
In reality, God has called us to a form of stewardship that is interactive and transformational. Environmental stewardship is not a spectator’s sport.
The fact that God calls us to dominion (as displayed “in his image”) indicates that successful stewardship will only come when we exhibit overarching sovereignty and control. God does not tell us to cohabitate with the animals and feed them butter and bread with sugar sprinkled on top. He does not tell us to merely observe his creation and then go about our normal “human” business (though observation is indeed a marvelous thing). We are not to be mere spectators, or even mere protectors. Rather, God calls us to active ownership of creation by which we can take control of it and transform it for the better.
To discuss the natural implications of such a view, I leverage some useful insights from Steven Hayward, author of the new book, Mere Environmentalism: A Biblical Perspective on Humans and the Natural World.
Here’s an excerpt from the book:
Owning parts of nature — whether habitat or actual rare species — sounds counterintuitive to the secular mind (though plainly not to the Old Testament Fathers), but Read the rest of this entry »
The internet has been buzzing about a recent Pew Research Poll in which participants were asked questions about their overall religious knowledge. The study’s most publicized conclusion was that atheists and agnostics know more about religion than most religious peoples (particularly Christians).
Here’s a description from the study’s Executive Summary:
Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.
The immediate reaction would be to poke fun of self-proclaimed Christians — and plenty of that is in order — but there’s also an assortment of valid critiques of the study. One of the best comes from Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, who properly emphasizes the difference between knowing God and knowing about God. I disagree with Hirschfield on a few points, but as I reviewed the Pew study for myself, I couldn’t help but wonder, “Is God really going to be that upset if Christians don’t know whether Shiva is part of Buddhism or Hinduism?”
There’s a valid point to be made on that level, namely that relationship with the one true God is overarching and all-important; all other knowledge is secondary. However, I am not persuaded that Christians shouldn’t also pursue knowledge about the one true God, or knowledge about any other gods, for that matter. Indeed, in some sense, the two pieces are necessarily interconnected. For example, how do we know if the God we are serving is legitimate? How do we know whether the Bible is really true? Or, even if we know the Bible is true, how do we know if the God(/god) we are serving actually lines up with the one in the Bible?
On some level, we need to go the next step in our spiritual decisionmaking, and that will usually include taking significant intellectual ownership. But what does the Pew study really say about the Church on this matter? Are we as Christians really not taking enough intellectual ownership in our Read the rest of this entry »
Historian Thomas E. Woods has a new book out titled Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, in which he argues for a return to the Jeffersonian idea of nullification.
The concept of nullification is simple, yet powerful: That individual states can and should refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws; and that the states, not the federal government, should have the final word on constitutional interpretation.
I have yet to read the book, so for now I’d simply like to use this as a springboard for discussing the merits of federalism when it comes to societal innovation.
Woods’ primary argument for nullification is that it provides a check on the federal government, but nullification can also enhance competition among the states.
As an example, Woods points to Virginia and Kentucky’s nullification of the Alien and Sedition Acts. In this case, the argument for nullification was that the acts were in violation of the First Amendment. Even though nearly every Northern state disagreed with Virginia and Kentucky, nullification allowed them to take a Read the rest of this entry »
If you haven’t heard yet, Republican candidate Rand Paul made some controversial remarks about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul’s basic argument was that we should prohibit racial discrimination by the government, but we should not intrude on the right of private businesses to practice bigotry.
The media firestorm over Paul’s comments seems to have subsided (for now), but the massive reaction affirms how many people believe it is the role of the State to be the sin police.
Pastor and theologian Douglas Wilson was recently asked to comment on the controversy, and his response brings up many issues worth thinking about.
Watch the video of his response here:
Wilson begins by saying the reaction and hype was spawned by a root problem in our society:
The problem that plagues us in our political discourse is that we don’t understand the difference between sins and crimes.
What Wilson means is that we always rush to pass laws to prohibit things we don’t approve of. For Wilson, this common perspective comes from a misplaced worship Read the rest of this entry »
The video highlights the Manakintowne Specialty Growers, a family-owned farm that grows fresh herbs and greens for restaurants and markets throughout Virginia.
You can watch the video here:
Communist leaders were infamous for their dreams of utilizing the State to create wondrous agrarian paradises, but while such grandiose visions may look quaint and picturesque on a propaganda poster, not everyone loves to grow stuff. One thing that’s obvious from watching this video is that free enterprise reserves the farming for the farmers, and it’s fun to see their passion.
Also, many critics of free enterprise point much of their criticism toward big businesses, forgetting that every business starts Read the rest of this entry »
The video tells the story of a married couple who took the risk of starting a coffee and wine shop called Grape + Bean.
In response to the video, Inertia Wins blogger Ryan Young asked the perfect question: “What’s at stake for entrepreneurs?
Every day people take risks to start new businesses. Some risks are certainly bigger than others, and some endeavors are certainly more worthwhile than others. But who is to say which endeavor is worth what?
The beauty of the free market is that no central planner can dictate whose idea is more beneficial and whose isn’t. We, as a society, are in control. And thus, entrepreneurs must tailor their products to society if they wish to be successful.
In the video, the couple talks about how they put their livelihood and their family stability on the line by launching Grape + Bean.
But why? For what? Were they inventing a new means for time travel? Were they creating the Read the rest of this entry »
Given the recent goings on with the health care “reform” passed yesterday, I thought I’d offer some brief comments on the situation. These are simply initial reactions, and I’d love to hear yours as well.
First, in my opinion, the health care “reform” passed yesterday will most likely result in the following physical (or earthly) consequences:
- Increased red tape in health care industries (i.e. increased costs, decreased competition) — This reminds me of the damage Nixon did to the system when he passed the Certificate of Need (CON) law in 1972. By establishing more regulation and rules, there will be even more barriers in the way when it comes to creating new hospitals, cutting costs, and delivering services. Wealthy health care giants won’t mind (they never have), because like Nixon’s policy, it shuts out any start-up competitors.
- Increased mandates for employers — Rather than shifting the system away from employer-based health care, mandates will be imposed on employers who will not be able to afford the requirements without either raising their prices, laying off workers, decreasing product quality, or a combination of all three.
- Perceived necessity for a public option — Once any of the above occur, people will begin feeling the ill effects of all the government manipulation, but they will still think the free market is to blame. Once again, Obama will tour the country lamenting the free market still isn’t working, after which he will make another attempt to persuade the American people toward the necessity of a public option.
- Even more limited health care options — We currently have very little real-world liberty in our health care system. In most cases, we are virtually forced to take the health care options offered by our employers (another byproduct of government manipulation). We have some choice (to sign up or not), but for many, answering “yes” to health insurance is followed by only one or two (if any) realistic options. There are two possible outcomes of this bill, neither of which Read the rest of this entry »