The Bible is an anti-libertarian document

    Not to coin a phrase, but we are all libertarians now. It is important to people – everyone - that they be allowed to do whatever they want and think whatever thoughts they want. At the same time, people like the idea of belonging to something larger than themselves. Among those larger things are polities, institutions, movements, and traditions. Polities, movements, institutions, and traditions, it should not need to be pointed out, traffic in things like the rule of law, order, and rules of purity. All of the above class some things as wrong, other things as right, and define membership in those terms. Crimes of omission, commission, and opinion all come into play.

    People long to do whatever they want. They don’t want anyone to tell them what to do or what to say. But they also long to order their lives in accordance with a concept of right and wrong, and join forces with others who have a same or similar concept of right and wrong. People are in search of a constitution, a commonwealth, that suits them. The contradiction is blatant.

    The Bible clashes with a libertarian point of view. The Bible is a conglomerate of texts assembled at the intersection of ancient polities, movements, institutions, and traditions. It is full of liberty-restricting provisions and considerations in the service of the long-term viability of said polities and traditions. The Bible simply is an illiberal book. At times it takes an anthropologist to point this out. In her still important critique of Jacob Neusner’s The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism, Mary Douglas pointed out that the rule-making that is part and parcel of biblical exhortation and, specifically, of Torah, both in and beyond the Bible per se, is coercive in intent. That is, biblical instruction is about a polity's self-definition over against the perceived identities of competing polities; in other language, it is about vocation and election. Douglas on Lev 18: “to declare adultery and all improper sex impure, is not that a blow struck in defense of marriage and the family?”¹ It is such a blow, and those who value individual freedoms above all will look elsewhere for a constitution and a res_publica. They will look for a framework that privileges and protects a more expansive concept of res privata than that found in biblical literature, Judaism, and Christianity.²  

    If libertarians get bent out of shape by the responsibility clause³ of the “Affordable Health Care Act,” then the very numerous responsibility clauses in the Bible must throw them for an absolute loop.

    Perhaps, just perhaps, a libertarian might argue that not all responsibility clauses are created equal. Perhaps there are responsibilities a government or religion might propose as incumbent on everyone. Perhaps it is all right for governments to make some responsibilities incumbent on all, such as taxes, and military service in a time of invasion. Perhaps it is all right for religions to propose a very broad set of responsibilities to any who will accept them, and regulate membership to a particular organization on the basis of adherence to them.

    Perhaps. But in that case, I want to hear arguments to that effect from a libertarian point of view. I am a convinced communitarian. I believe in social construction, and see the public square as the place to argue for particular social constructions. Still, I want to get along with libertarians. It would help if they provided arguments for their position, rather than slogans such as “don’t tread on me,” and “give me liberty, or give me death.”

Notes

¹ Mary Douglas, “Critique and Commentary,” in Jacob Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1973) 137-142; 141.

² The amazing thing about the Bible, to be sure, is that it has authority apart from any coercion beyond the pristine force of its language. On that topic, go here.

³ The affordability clause is that part of the AHCA which requires that everyone buy health insurance. To be clear, it seems idiotic to require people to buy anything. If that part of the AHCA intends to enforce a social responsibility, not unlike that of paying into Social Security and contributing to Medicare, then it would have been wise to legislate it as a tax, rather than base the responsibility clause’s constitutionality on the commerce clause. So, at least, it seems to me. 

Comments

[smijer]

If this part of the AHCA intends to enforce a social responsibility, not unlike that of paying into Social Security and contributing to Medicare, then it would have been wise to legislate it as a tax, rather than base the responsibility clause’s constitutionality on the commerce clause.

Good luck getting that passed!

Anywhow... would it be fair to say that the Bible is a collection of documents that, on balance, present an illiberal point of view? It sounds wierd to me hearing the Bible called a document in the singular. And, am I wrong in thinking that maybe certain passages from certain authors are more compatible with a libertarian point of view than others?

[JohnFH]

Hi smijer,

Perhaps your pessimism is well-founded. On the other hand, the path chosen by the Obama administration seems destined to do the cause of equity in health care more harm than good. The provisions of the act have already been gutted on more than one level, its key provision stands a fair chance of being ruled unconstitutional, and it is turning out to be a liability for the electoral fortunes of those who supported it.

On occasion, honesty is the best policy. As in: the kind of health care delivery system Americans know and love, especially if it is going to be available to those with pre-existing conditions at reasonable rates, requires that everyone kick in a fair share for a basic level of care.

As far as the Bible is concerned, you are right to point out that a plurality of points of view are represented. But can any of these points of views be fairly described as liberal or libertarian? Not that I know of.

The biblical emphasis, across the board, is on solidarity. I would be interested in knowing what passages come to your mind, if any, that support e.g. market-based capitalism (liberals and libertarians share a commitment to it).

I associate a defense of laissez faire capitalism with Harold Lindsell, an evangelical like me, but I don't think his arguments are strong.

Others who defend capitalism from a reasonably traditional faith perspective include Michael Novak, with his "democratic capitalism," and Bob Goudzwaard, with his social-democratic capitalism. Catholic social teaching is rich in accommodations. But the intended result is never the sort of Wall Street based capitalism liberals and libertarians stand for.

Perhaps it needs to be added that many self-identifying liberals are illiberal in the classical sense.

For example, someone like Obama is not a liberal; Reagan was closer to that. Obama is better classed as a social democrat. Which is why no self-respecting libertarian would vote Democrat, expect perhaps out of fear of social conservatives, the greater of two evils as it were.

I always make a point of asking self-identifying liberals what principles they espouse which limit their commitment to individual freedom. I also like to ask what kind of social contract the rule of law should embody on their understanding. Will it surprise you if I note that I rarely run across a liberal capable of offering a coherent response to said questions? I often end up having to do it for them.

The lock that "freedom" has on the American mythopoeic imagination is vise-like. It inhibits thoughtful discourse.

[smijer]

On occasion, honesty is the best policy.

My pessimism remains. I can't say I disagree with your substantive criticisms of the health care law. Since you and I have spoken last I have tried to distance myself from partisanship and ideology... I think the costs (in cognitive roadblocks) are not worth the payoff (in political self-determination). So, I've taken a sabbatical from politics.

To answer your question briefly, I did not (and do not) have any particular passages in mind. I was just skeptical that a collection of literature that large would not have within it perspectives that lend reasonable support to modern libertarian economic views.

I appreciate that you a humanities guy, but I do not think that the lock "freedom" has on the mythopoeic imagination is what most inhibits thoughtful discourse. I think maybe that the mythopoeic imagination is allowed to take the place of (or precedent over) some sort of consequentialist ethical calculation is closer to the root of the problem.

Frankly, I'm glad that coercion is viewed as an evil in the U.S. I would rather experience the ills that come of too little coercion than those that come of too much. On the other other hand, mutuality does not have to follow a coercive model. Maybe the mythopoeic imagination is in want of a more cooperative model of mutuality?

[JohnFH]

A pedigree for libertarian economic views is difficult to find in ancient sources, biblical and non-biblical. Said views would have been considered, I believe, an excuse for rapacious behavior.

Cooperation and mutuality, on the other hand, are easy to support from biblical literature.

As for your sabbatical from politics, well, I hope you take a sabbatical from your sabbatical. Unless I have you completely mis-pegged, you are a consequentialist who is not allergic to the question of cui bono. If a consequentalist asks that question insistently, she or he almost inevitably becomes an advocate of the common good, and a communitarian, with a new set of problems to consider.

I'm glad that coercion is viewed as an evil in the U.S.

I'm a pastor, and therefore, in and out of prisons. I would say instead that the U.S. is a (1) very coercive society, (2) in denial about it, and (3) nonetheless and perhaps precisely for that reason a society largely incapable of embodying a positive concept of authority.

A mess if you ask me, though not as bad as the mess in Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or North Korea, if those are the terms of comparison.

[smijer]

I'm a pastor, and therefore, in and out of prisons. I would say instead that the U.S. is a (1) very coercive society, (2) in denial about it, and (3) nonetheless and perhaps precisely for that reason a society largely incapable of embodying a positive concept of authority.

A mess if you ask me, though not as bad as the mess in Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or North Korea, if those are the terms of comparison.

Very well said. There are times when coerciveness is sincerely frowned upon here - and it was those that I meant to affirm. But your point is spot on and well taken.

I am some approximation of a consequentialist, yes. And halfway to being a communitarian (Front Porch Republic is my favorite political blog). But, the other half is pessimist, I'm sorry to say.

[Shaun]

For his day the great king Cyrus was pretty libertarian. Heck, he probably valued individual freedoms more than many modern rulers. The laws that permitted those freedoms were used by God to facilitate the return of the captives. Scripture is very much against pluralism, or religious freedom. But ironically God used that pluralism to once again save His remnant.

That’s my shot at defending libertarianism with the bible. (well, at least biblical history) I’m just a lay person and I look forward to you ‘schooling’ me Dr. Hobbins. I very much enjoy your blog.

[JohnFH]

Hi smijer,

Front Porch Republic looks like a refreshing political blog. Thanks for pointing it out.

To return to the question of coercion, our prisons are full of people who have ruined their lives and the lives of others through irresponsible behavior, behavior society is loathe to stigmatize until the consequences thereof, in specific cases, are ruinous or perceived to be ruinous.

In place of the soft coercion of stigmatization of specific examples of irresponsible behavior, a form of coercion which must be applied early and often to be effective, we seem to prefer the hard coercion of prison time for millions of individuals. It's this tradeoff I object to.

My question for non-theistic communitarians, and for you insofar as you fall into that category: on what grounds do you put the interests of the common weal ahead of your own interests?

[JohnFH]

Hi Shaun,

That's a creative attempt to ground libertarianism in biblical literature. As you say, however, it is more of an argument from history.

History has taught many Jews and Christians and many of their institutions to value the right of other believers and people in general to disagree with them in all sorts of ways.

All well and good, but the Bill of Rights and similar documents do not flow from libertarian first principles. The Bill of Rights is compatible with a wide spectrum of political positions: liberal, social democrat, libertarian, and social conservative, for example, but not socialist or communist in the strict sense.

[Angela Erisman]

Also the Persians were not, in fact, as freedom-loving as they are depicted in the Bible. See here, for a start:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-l-wright/cyrus-cylinder-and-a-dream-for-the-middle-east_b_1322262.html

[JohnFH]

Hi Angela,

The relationship of biblical texts like Isa 41:25-42:4 and 44:24-45:8 to Persian propaganda is a very interesting topic.

I think it's possible that the "coastlands" (Miletus, Smyrna, and others of the Ionian league) may well have hoped for Cyrus's law and order (torah and mishpat) as Isa 42:4 seems to suggest - that is, they were sick and tired of Lydia, an aggressive power if there ever was one (the founder of the dynasty, Gyges, is behind Gog of the Bible).

To make a long story short, Jacob Wright is spot on when he notes that the Persian empire practiced a politics of benefaction. That was an improvement over the Assyrian and Babylonian empires. Babylon was likewise a recipient of a politics of Persian benefaction. Yes, the Cylinder glosses over the battle of Opis. When necessary, both carrots and sticks were used. I would want to be careful not to exaggerate the differences between various ANE imperialisms (including that practiced by the dynasty of David over against Philistia to the west and Edom, Moab, and the Ammonites to the east), but I would also not want to simply conflate them.

Wright is also correct to note that by Nehemiah's time, the Persian empire had long outworn whatever welcome it initially received. As for the Ionians, not to mention Athens and its league, the situation soured very quickly indeed.

I am aware of course that Kratz and Albertz redate much or all of the Cyrus materials in Isa 40-48 to the time of Darius. It's an interesting hypothesis, but I remain convinced that the "swooping bird" and "man of His/My plan" (Isa 40:13; 46:11) is none other than Cyrus.

History teaches its own lessons. More recent exemplars of "uomini della provvidenza," Mussolini and Putin for example, make us very guarded toward language of the kind adopted in Isa 40-48 vis-a-vis Cyrus.

Nonetheless, it would have seemed reasonable at the time to think that providence had grasped the right hand of Cyrus for benevolent ends, not only to those in Judah, but to those connected with the court-in-exile in Babylon of which Jehoiachin was the titular head.

[Jon]

I think this blog might help matters.

http://libertarianchristians.com/

I'm a Christian libertarian and I have to agree that libertarians aren't very good at articulating our views. I'm not sure I like the catchphrases used by fellow libertarians either. "Don't tread on anyone" would be nicer, if still bizarre.

Libertarianism is really at heart just the non-aggression principle expounded on. It's an individual's life, liberty and property not being infringed by others. Those others of course including government.

I think people confuse us with libertines often, and I can see why. With a pretty simple principle like non-aggression, it does mean that people are free to do a lot of stuff we may think is completely wrong. But I don't see how we here on Earth can justifiably interfere unless it's affecting someone else. We should surely follow God's laws, a much narrower path, but should we force others to do the same?

I hope this helps clarify the position. I'm sure there's a lot more to be said on this. I particularly have struggled with Romans 13 concerning how Christianity and libertarianism can live together, but I'm certainly down with the premise of libertarianism, and I'm sure non-aggression appeals to all Christians.

[JohnFH]

Hi Jon,

I am impressed by your humility and attempt to clarify. It is clear that for most people libertarianism is all about, as you say:

an individual's life, liberty and property not being infringed by others. Those others of course including government.

But if you wish to be a Jewish or Christian libertarian, you need to make it clear how you are going to balance a concern for the individual's right to life, liberty, and property with a concern for the common good and the need to extract the weak from the jaws of the strong.

You need to indicate under what conditions you are willing to put the interests of a polity, institution, movement, or tradition before those of the individual, or your own.

If you don't do that, your libertarianism is effectively cancelling out large pieces of what has always been understood as part of a believer's responsibility.

Jeremiah went so far as to tell those in exile to seek the peace and prosperity of the city of their captors (Jer 29:7). What I ask libertarian Jews and Christians to do is articulate a plan of action, based on libertarian first principles, to do that very thing.

I'm waiting.

[Jon]

JohnFH,

Thanks for your reply. Here in England, most people haven't even heard of libertarianism, so the intellectual conversation to be had is a lovely change from trying to explain the basics to uninterested friends.

The common good is a rather abstract term. I'm not sure how I could conceive of violating an individual's rights for the good of a whole community.

If you were to mean something in the way of taxation (stealing?) for helping the poor, I'm unconvinced this is a good idea. As Christian's we should not need to be taxed, we should be striving to emulate Christ in our actions and be giving already. I think Charity by force loses it's meaning.

As for the jaws of the strong, I don't see any conflict if there is no violation of the weaker parties rights? Maybe the strong hoard resources and wealth, though I do not see stealing it away from them or meeting them with force to be at all better.

We should not stand by when we see injustice, but to initiate force is not the right approach. I'd love to see the church get in the business of social justice much more than government, with nice peaceful charity, motivated by love and compassion.

As an individual I think it's fine to waive my rights where I deem applicable. But to violate other's? I can't think of a justifiable situation right now. Perhaps you could think of one.

I'm not sure what the problem is for libertarians in Jeremiah 29. It seems to me that those in exile are told to love their enemies and wait for God's plan. Nothing odd there.

As captives, in a libertarian view, they are justified in fighting back, but God makes clear that he wants them to work for peace. In any case, we should listen to God first and foremost, rather than our political leanings.

I'm not sure I'm adding anything really new here, you'll have probably heard this all before, but I hope it helps.

[JohnFH]

That's good, Jon, if you find the conversation helpful.

Here's the rub as I see it. If taxing individuals is seen by libertarians to be a kind of stealing - it *is* from one point of view, since it involves taking something from someone against their will with the threat of grave harm should the taking be resisted - then libertarians are going to argue against taxation.

Adding insult to injury as far as I am concerned, if they are Christians or Jews, libertarians sometimes end up arguing for charity as an alternative to taxation.

On the contrary, it seems to me, there is a place for coercive pooling of resources for particular ends that serve the common good. It's not that things like Social Security and Medicare are flawless means to that end; quite the contrary. But all available alternatives would seem to work even less in practice.

Paradoxically, the People's Republic of China is a living example of what a society looks like with a relatively weak social safety net. Is that the direction libertarians would like to see England and the United States go?

The question of violence brings us back to passages like Psalm 72 and Romans 13. In both passages, and most clearly in the first, the use of coercion by the state is understood to be a gift of God for the sake of the defenseless.

That there needs to be limits to the use of coercion is clear, but it is not clear to me on what grounds libertarianism distinguishes between good and bad coercion. How can it, with a weak to non-existent concept of the common good?

Finally, it would seem to be perfectly unrealistic for acts of charity to be sufficient in the absence of acts of justice, the latter backed up by the threat of violence and, where necessary, with the use of violence.

Some Christians have argued nonetheless that believers should not be involved in violence. The Anabaptist tradition is a powerful witness to that train of thought. I do not want to disparage the tradition in the least. At the same time, I am not impressed with so-called pacifists bejeweled with the typical products of Babylon the Great, from Ipods to Jeans to Nike snickers.

I can take the Amish and the Mennonites seriously, but not a latte-sipping pacifist.

[Benjamin Smith]

I've been studying the work of Giorgio Agamben, recently: I'm hoping to read'Homo Sacer' soon, which is supposed to be very good at exploring the internal contradictions of liberal democracy.

I must say, I find the idea of extreme libertarianism (anarchism?) kind of thrilling in a scary way. It would certainly make things more authentic.

[Mitchell Powell]

I wish I had more time right now, but I've got to rush off to a Talmud class and I still haven't memorized my portion of Berakhot quite as well as might be desirable, so I'll keep it short for now.

As what one might call a recovering libertarians, I get that the societies envisioned in the Bible, and indeed any functional society, is coercive at points. Even some of the hard-core libertarians that soft-core libertarians look up to are willing to be explicit about this (i.e., Hans Hermann Hoppe).

But I wonder, when I see large social welfare schemes, whether it is possible that these schemes represent not a rejection of libertarianism's false claims, but rather an extension of them, a sort of super-libertarianism, if you will. After all, what else is the culmination of libertarianism than the claim that not only may one live however one chooses, but one may in addition force all others to pay for them? (I realize that this is also a contradiction of libertarianism, but libertarianism wasn't founded on real consistency.)

I see the healthcare mandate, for example, more as the expression of a hyper-libertarian mindset than as anything that even vaguely resembles biblical-style coercion, along the lines of Paul's command to starve out the lazy.

Finally, some respect for individual property (though the extent will of course be debated) does indeed represent coercion in the healthy sense.

I think I will draft a more complete response, post it else where, and then drop a link to it here when I've had some time to think through this more thoroughly.

[Mitchell Powell]

PS: For whatever it's worth, I am a proud member of a Mennonite Church, one that is more involved in its community than any Church that I have ever seen. With the possible exception of the pastor, I don't think there is a single male pacifist who attends.

[John Hobbins]

Hi Benjamin,

Agamben is a great read; enjoy. Anarchism of a communitarian and socialist variety has always attracted some believers. Jacques Ellul, a great French Reformed intellectual, is the first example that comes to mind.

[John Hobbins]

Hi Mitchell,

I look forward to further reflections from your side.

[Mitchell Powell]

Just one more thought -- I still haven't gotten around to any sort of systematic response, but here is one small thought anyhow. Many "libertarians," especially of the "paleoconservative," "Ron Paulite," "Sarah Palinite," "States' rights," and "localist" flavors (and I am perfectly happy to be broadly associated with this bunch) do not at core want a less coercive society. They want a society where more of the coercion is exercised closer to home: brought to bear by families, churches, and local governments.

To the extent that such people willingly stare their own coercive mechanisms in the face and construct them in a thoughtful and loving manner, to that extent I am willing to label myself libertarian, paleo, fiscal conservative, or what have you.

[John Hobbins]

Hi Mitchell,

I think your comments are helpful. Much of the political conversation and polarization in the United States hinges on questions of the kind you raise.

If I am most concerned about having the freedom to school my children as I see fit, to worship/not worship according to my own lights, and to construct and enforce a hierarchy of values at the local level at significant odds with the same in another location, politically speaking, I don't have a place to rest my head, but I will probably see the Republican party as more attentive and more welcoming to my concerns than the Democratic party.

If I am most concerned with protecting myself, those I love, and potential victims around the world from mistreatment by loci of traditional authority - parents, but not school teachers; evangelical pastors, Catholic priests, and the Boy Scouts, but not Wiccan priestesses and New Age guru; prudish and close-minded local school boards, surly local police, and a trigger-happy military, but not crusading district attorneys and environmental lawyers - I will definitely see the Democratic party as more attentive to my concerns than the Republican party.

Meanwhile, in red and blue states, our prisons overflow with moms and dads who are behind with court-ordered payments associated with split custody, repeat DUI offenders, and two bit drug offenders. A consensus across the political spectrum does not object to expensive and drastic means of state-organized coercion in said circumstances. I might take another look at paleoconservatism if it found it within itself to go paleo and rogue on issues like these.

[Lamont]

John--

What do you mean exactly by 'libertarian?' Political system? Philosophical ideology? There's lots of flavors in use. How about a bullet list of the top five principles of 'libertarian' as you mean it here?

What do you feel is the difference between libertarianism and individualism?

How about a bullet list of communitarian principles as well?

Lamont

[Mitchell Powell]

Dear John,

You are absolutely right about the prison system. Some right-wingers who are much more enthusiastic about Deuteronomy and Hebrew law than your average modern Christian have floated about proposals for emptying or vastly reducing the size of our massive prison state. I have in mind here Gary North's Victim's Rights, for instance. Of course, his outlook is so clearly theocratic and so vocal about a view of law and grace that many Christians would consider Judaizing that straight-up North-style government is not currently a viable option in a pluralistic society.

As I see, here's the bottom-line problem with the prison system: the modern negative attitude toward the death penalty places us between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, "conservatives" tend to be those who advocate for a stronger prison-state. This comes with massive social and economic costs.

On the other hand, "liberals" tend to advocate reduced prison sentences. When prison is basically the only means for restraining public evil that our society has adopted, reduced prison sentences endanger the public.

I live in a Muslim neighborhood, filled with gracious and hospital people who just happen to have a far more positive view of the death penalty than most. Our community recently received notice that a child rapist is moving in. Doubtless he is officially rehabilitated, but Muslims working whose children ride to and from the public schools are flabbergasted that this man is allowed allowed access the streets they children play in. Are they to coop their children up all day in the small apartments that they live in so that this man can have his freedom? From my experience my neighbors have been exceeding kind people, but they recognize that at some point one chooses: is kindness to be extended to children or to those who rape children?

At a certain age and a certain level of incorrigibility, the Old Testament allowed for a son to be put to death at the request of his parents. So long as our society can see that provision in strictly negative terms, I have doubts about our ability to deal with our prison problem.

Meanwhile, Christopher Glazek, in the article "Raise the Crime Rate" in n+1 magazine, believes that it an alliance between certain members of the "hard right" and "hard left" is the only way to solve our prison problem. I am inclined to agree with him:

Prisoners and ex-cons, the most abused population in United States, will have to rely on political extremists, on both the left and the right, to turn the page on what will one day be recalled as one of American history’s darkest chapters.

http://nplusonemag.com/raise-the-crime-rate

[John Hobbins]

Hi Lamont,

Jon's definition of libertarianism serves the purpose of this thread well: it's about "an individual's life, liberty and property not being infringed by others. Those others of course including government."

For the purposes of this thread, communitarianism might be defined as follows: it's about the community's life, liberty, and property not being usurped by individuals, government, the military, etc. The interests of the community are defined in terms of its most-at-risk members.

Communitarianism in the above sense is found on countless pages of the Bible.

In my view, there is more wisdom in the communitarianism of the Bible than in that of libertarianism, liberalism, and soft and hard forms of socialism.

If I am right about this, it might give pause to someone like you. Especially to someone like you, who is, if I remember correctly, convinced that the God of the Bible is a moral monster. Or perhaps I misunderstood your past drift. You are free to clarify.

[John Hobbins]

Hi Mitchell,

It is a sign of an enormous collective pathology that the chief form of politically correct punishment in the United States is a "time out" that may last anywhere from a few weeks to a lifetime.

39 lashes might well be more effective, less violent all things considered, and less damaging to the psyche than long time outs spent in the company of a radicalizing community of others in time out.

Nor is this an argument for or against corporal punishment. Detention is a very concrete and very destructive form of corporal punishment.

Along the same lines, I am also in favor of a careful and controlled use of spanking by positive authority figures in a child's life. Corporal punishment within limits stands a chance of being effective where timeouts are not. The subject of course is difficult and sensitive and for that very reason, in need of being reopened.

On the other hand, as you intimate, the only people who dare question the status quo on such topics are, almost to a woman and a man, extremists of the right or the left.

I am not an extremist in either sense. I pick my battles carefully in the political arena. It is true that extremists who otherwise disagree sometimes join hands and accomplish a lot of good. I don't see that happening at the moment, not on these issues, but that does not mean it shouldn't.

[Mitchell Powell]

You may not be an extremist, but you ask many of the same questions. And, in my mind, that allows you to partake in many of the virtues of extremism and helps you to avoid some of its vices.

Whether it is those called extremists or those called moderates who finally wake up to the dysfunctions of our prison system and do something about it, it cannot happen too soon. And if it is only budget considerations that will reopen the issue, then so be it.

I first read about the biblical use of lashings when I was about seven years old. Whether or not reinstituting such a thing might be a good idea, it does have a certain appeal. Several of my childhood friends might have been able to live with their fathers. And as to the idea that biblical-style corporal punishment is dehumanizing, there are many ways to dehumanize. I don't see a need to turn back history and turn the world into a thousands-of-years-old agricultural society, but I don't think the world's largest prison state can look down its nose at a legal system that lacks prisons either.

(Someone from Mali has arrived and is visiting my neighbors downstairs. It's amazing how well African languages can carry.)

[Lamont]

John--

Thanks for your reply.

Lamont