March 14, 2026 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

The Fed Is the Problem: A Review of Thomas E. Woods’ “Meltdown”

Introduction

Having reprinted an article last month from a webpage that I created for a short time some years back, I want continue in that vein this month. Given the political rhetoric surrounding affordability, the continued rise of inflation, and the ever-soaring $38-trillion dollar debt that future generations face in this country, I can’t think of a better book to revisit than Tomas E. Woods’ Meltdown, which I reviewed in August of 2009. I published that review on a now defunct webpage titled Analysis of Power. I still like that title, and I continue to engage now and then in AOP through this webpage, Contemplations. Although Meltdown dealt with the stock market collapse and bailout debacle of 2009, I strongly believe that what Woods presents in his work still needs to be heard today, loud and clear. In this country, we are still not heeding the lessons that should come with our folly of looking to the State to cure our economic ills, and in turn, to supposedly provided a life for us. What follows is a reprint of my book review from 2009.

Woods, T. E. (2009). Meltdown: A Free Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse. Washington DC: Henry Regnery.

Introduction

If there was ever a timely book to hit the market, it is Thomas E. Woods’ Meltdown. Like a bullet piercing its target, this book epitomizes the reality behind Frank Chodorov’s claim, economics is not politics. Indeed, as Woods so aptly demonstrates in this work, the political realm has so fouled up the economy, whether or not we will ever get it back on track is no mere academic question. If policy makers want to embrace legitimate economic knowledge, then they should study Meltdown. The major problem, however, with their reading it (besides not understanding it), is their having to take the blame for the economy in the first place. Additionally they would have to accept the cure – getting their butt out of people’s lives. Unfortunately, there are no actions more contrary to a politician’s mindset. One only has to listen to the pseudo praises about the present uptick in the market being due to the omniscient wisdom of the present administration. One wonders why people are intent on believing that the present market bubble at 9200+ represents a more sound economy than the bubble the previous administrations created when the market soared past 10,000. Woods explains why the present economy is no more stable than it was before the Meltdown. I will focus my review mainly on the first three chapters, not because the other chapters are less important, but because they speak directly to the present moment. Chapter 4 of Meltdown expands on Woods’ thesis that the Fed is the major culprit in the present as well as other economic crises. Chapter 5 presents an excellent historical overview of the Great Depression, explicating the major myths surrounding that event, particularly the idea that the free market caused the Depression and that the New Deal ushered in more sound economic times. Chapter 6 deserves special attention of its own with Woods’ sound scholarly discussion of money, where it comes from, the role it serves, and how the actions of central banking debase money. This chapter clarifies the misconception people have about inflation and deflation. In the final chapter, Woods asks the question, given where we are at with this present economic climate, What Now? Meltdown is a superb application of the Austrian theory of the business cycle to the present economic crisis. After reading it, I fail to see how anyone could blame those working in the free market for the present economic crises. For the mess we are in now, we have only the State to thank.

The Culprits: Chapters 1 & 2

Woods’ scholarly work takes you step-by-step through the faultless application of the Austrian theory of the business cycle, put forth by Ludwig von Mises and expounded by others (1). The first two chapters of this work explicate what Woods designates as the culprits behind the present meltdown. Rather than being the free market (which is anything but a monolithic entity), Woods delineates several political actions and institutions that created the downfall of the market. The culprits are: 1) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; 2) Community Reinvestment Act (CRA); 3) the government’s artificial stimulus to speculation; 4) the Federal Reserve and artificially cheap credit; and 5) the to big to fail mentality.

Government Action: The Great Oymoron

First, it is important to realize that these culprits cross political lines. There are little, if any, differences in the ways that either the Republican or the Democratic Parties have handled the economy through inflationary measures utilizing the Federal Reserve along with strangling much market activity in certain private sectors through regulation. As Woods explains, only politicians can foul things up with regulation, and then view the problem as too little regulation. In his opening chapter, “The Elephant in the Living Room,” Woods describes the belief systems held by politicians that only they can fix things. And if things go awry, that means they need to do more fixing. However, it’s the fixing that gets things broke. As he explicates throughout his work, of all the culprits listed above, the elephant in the living room is the Federal Reserve System (Fed for short). The Fed is anything but a free market institution. As Woods explains, the Fed is an arm of the federal government planning . . . created by an act of Congress . . . and dedicated to central economic planning (p. 8). The boom-bust cycle, or the bursting of the bubble as economists and investment planners describe it, is the result of the Fed’s manipulation of interest rates that floods the market with cheap money, producing a systemic problem throughout the market that leads to malinvestments that inevitably lead to a crash. As Woods explains, and further delineates in his book, the main action that has to be taken to end devastating boom-bust cycles involves, not a reforming or overhauling of the Fed, but its outright abolishment.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

If there was ever an insult to the notion of free market institutions, it is designating the two government-sponsored entities (GSE’s), Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, as free market institutions. Their proper names respectively are the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. They are nothing more than behemoth corporations created by Congress. The accounting that takes place as loans are shifted to the GSE’s is interesting indeed. Many people simply do not understand what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do and how they accomplish a bubble in the housing market. People mistakenly believe that these GSE’s perform mortgage loans for home buyers. On the contrary, using tax-payer money, Fannie and Freddie purchase loans from the banks after a bank has loaned to a consumer, and from that point on, the loans are no longer on the ledgers of the lending banks. Fannie and Freddie then proceed to bundle the loans and sale them to investors. But since the loans are no longer a part of the lending banks’ ledger, they can make more loans and begin the cycle all over again. Woods explains that this process inflates housing prices because of its artificial diversion of resources into mortgage lending. In other words, if the GSE’s were not purchasing these loans from banks, the banks would have to let the market dictate how many loans they could make, and the housing prices would be based on simple supply and demand and subjective evaluation.

Contributing to people’s misunderstanding of their workings is the fact that Fannie and Freddie are somewhat of a mystery. No one clearly understands their status: are they public or private? Woods explains:

As GSE’s, their exact status as public or private entities has always been ambiguous – they enjoy special tax and regulatory privileges that potential competitors do not, but their stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Their securities are designated as “government securities” and can be held by banks as low-risk bonds. And for years, Fannie has had a special $2.25 billion line of credit with the U.S. Treasury. (p. 14)

What small business wouldn’t love a line of credit like that? These GSE’s are anything but private firms. Woods details how politics rule the day over the GSE’s activities. More recently, during the Clinton administration and throughout the Bush administration, Fannie Mae became involved in the manipulation of interest rates for helping disadvantaged groups become proud owners of homes they never really owned. The Clinton administration turned up the pressure on Fannie to expand credit to people ranging from low to moderate income. The unfortunate mixture of economics and politics raised its ugly head as it came to light that Fannie contributes a healthy source of campaign contributions to the Democratic Party, and that the GSE’s had been operated by prominent Democrats for years. Amidst all the talk about golden parachutes for CEO’s in the market, there was some screaming silence about the $100 million dollars that Franklin Raines, Clinton’s budget director, walked away with after a short period of operating Fannie Mae.

Woods’ description of the GSE’s raises one simple point among others. In looking to the bursting of the housing bubble, one cannot ignore the role of the government via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. More importantly one cannot ignore the gross inefficiency whenever government intrudes itself into a private sector.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and Affirmative Action in Lending

It is important to realize that although Woods delineates several culprits that contributed to the meltdown that recently occurred in the economy, from his perspective and economic reasoning, which is Misean and Austrian, the major problem is the Fed. Many people wanted to solely blame either the GSE’s or the CRA for the economic downfall. Although they contributed their share, nothing in the economy that transpired could have occurred without the easy money flooding the market via manipulation by the Fed.

That said, the CRA played its role in loosening lending standards that led to the housing bubble that in turn led to the financial institutional meltdowns. According to Woods, although the CRA originated during the Jimmy Carter administration, it received a boost under the Clinton administration, and opened banks up to harsh lawsuits amid accusations of racism. Chodorov’s maxim speaks clearly here as no longer could banks look at individuals’ ability to repay loans, but instead they had to take into consideration their race. If a certain percentage of minorities did not receive loans, the Boston Fed deemed the credit standards used by banks as arbitrary and unreasonable measures of creditworthiness (Boston Fed Manual quoted by Woods, p. 18).

Woods further explains that although the CRA had a limited impact on the meltdown, the lending standards comprised by the CRA pervaded the entire mortgage-lending sector. Combined with the CRA, Fannie, Freddie, and HUD pressured banks to loosen their lending standards. Add to this the Fed’s credit expansion powers, and what you have is a housing bubble. Politics once again intruded upon economics with thugs from ACORN blocking businesses’ driveways, making business impossible for banks until they catered to demands to make billions of dollars of loans they would not have made otherwise in a free market. One wonders about the benevolence of such an action as borrowers of these loans began to default and lose their homes. Instead of expressing outrage at the government’s role in the housing debacle, the very culprits that gave rise to the problem blamed banks and predatory lending practices. When banks were strong-armed by threats of being labeled racist and intimidated by ACORN hoods, one also must wonder who the real predators are. They were nowhere to be seen or heard when people began to default on their homes. Why would they be? They could pass the blame off onto the market.

Government Artificial Stimilus

According to Woods’ analysis, although the CRA and subprime lending contributed to the housing bubble, these factors may have indeed been overemphasized by some people. When the Fed flooded banks with reserves to lend, practices such as 100% loans became common, especially among minority groups. Of course, such relaxed standards also expanded to those in higher-income brackets. Why not? The Fed had made the money available. But home prices increased, and so did foreclosures, with large increases in both the subprime and prime loans. So the notion of predatory lending to minorities and low socio-economic class borrowers did not fit the facts. Everyone jumped into the game, regardless of race and income, and signed the dotted line for homes they really could not afford. In the final analysis, Woods explains that foreclosures occurred mostly due, not to subprime loans, but to adjustable rates, a practice that Alan Greenspan encouraged people to take on.

Many people blamed the private rating agencies whose job is to rate the creditworthiness of the mortgages, hence the call for more regulation after the collapse of the housing sector. However, all these loans took place, first in institutions that are already highly regulated, the banks. And second, these problems occurred right under the SEC’s nose. Woods explains that the SEC actually controls these private rating agencies, and undue oversight would occur if they balked at politically popular lending. But through it all, the easy money that the Fed created for the banks sounded the death knell for the housing sector,

The “Too Big to Fail” Mentality

Personally, I know having heard this early on from Bush, other politicians, and talkshow hosts, I lost count many times I heard the words, too big to fail and systemic risks. Woods’ analysis is spot on about how this mentality creates moral hazard. The belief basically sends messages to business entities that you are too important to fail. Major firms are given the assurance that they will be protected from bankruptcy. Consequently, these firms make decisions that they would not otherwise make in a pure free market where the taxpayers are not brought on board to save their butt from bad business decisions. Such guarantees lead to a belief in an eternal boom. As Woods explains, when markets collapse, the Fed rushes to the rescue. The excessive expansion, however, would not have happened in the first place if the Fed had not made credit so easily obtainable.

The Federal Reserve

Although Woods discusses the Fed fifth before finishing the too big to fail mentality, I summarize his discussion of it last here because his take on the Fed is the thrust of his argument and follows from the Austrian theory of the business cycle (1). The Austrian theory of the business cycle most definitely sees the central banking system, the fractional reserve system, and the Fed as the major culprits in creating a. bubble that will sooner or later pop. Although Woods discusses the Fed as one of the six culprits in creating the housing bubble (his title of Chapter 2 is “How Government Created the Housing Bubble”), he expounds on central banking and the Fed as major forces of economic woes throughout our country’s economic history. Woods states that although the other five culprits are important in understanding the housing bubble (and by extraction, the meltdown in the financial sector as well), they by themselves cannot account for the sheer scope of the housing bubble and depth of the crash (p. 25). As a full explanation of these phenomena, Woods challenges us to understand why business cycles occur.

The Austrian theory analysis claims that the government’s manipulation of the money supply produces an unsustainable boom that ineluctably leads to a bust. To have a clear understanding of the business cycle, one must also understand the distinction between consumption and production goods (the latter also called higher order goods by some economic theorists). When the Fed manipulates the money supply and floods the market with money, a false signal is sent to business entrepreneurs to invest in longer-term projects such as raw materials, construction, and capital goods. These higher order goods are used to produce consumption goods. If people have legitimately produced a pool of savings, then business entrepreneurs can more safely assume that money and demand are available for long-term projects. However, there is a difference between money that is actually saved by people and money that the Fed generates and floods into the economy. At a time when people are consuming or do not have savings, the Fed’s manipulation of the money supply diverts resources into projects that are not driven by true consumer demand and are, thereby, not sustainable. The Austrian theory of the business cycle claims that this false signal generated by the Fed produces a systemic error throughout the economy,

Woods explains that in this recent economic meltdown, the money generated by the Fed found its way into the housing market, and combined with lax lending standards, and the role of the GSE’s, the result was excessive home purchases and speculation regarding the housing industry. As previously stated, the government, after fouling things up, is wont to blame others for the mess it created. Predictably, the government blamed predatory lending, when the government itself provided the money to be lent, and greedy speculators, when a bubble created by the government drew speculators into the market. With what appeared to be a solid economic reality that would go on and on, why wouldn’t speculators enter the sector? That is what they do. Woods says it clearly: Cheap money draws people into speculation who do not belong there, who know little about the market involved, and who see in it as an irresistible get-rich-quick-scheme.

As far as predatory lending is concerned, Woods further eplains that with the new money created by the Fed, the banks lent it to individuals who previously would not have been cleared for a loan. Although good entrepreneurship comprises understanding the market and where it’s headed, fiat money makes it extremely difficult to distinguish between a sound project and a.bubble project (p. 27).

Expanding on the Problems that Government Creates: Focus Chapter 3

In Chapter 3 of Meltdown, “The Great Wall Street Bailouts,” Woods discusses the recent and present bailouts that the government provided for firms like AIG, Fannie and Freddie, and other industries, what was eventually called the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. He takes on Paulson and Bernanke’s explanation of the economic crisis and the ways they sought to save things. Woods works with the facts, taking us through each bailout and the nationalization of businesses. He once again expounds on the notion of too big to fail and argues that the fate of Lehman Brothers should have been the fate of those firms and industries that received a bailout. When companies are fed the notion that whatever they do will not lead to bankruptcy, moral hazard is created, and these companies make business decisions that they would not otherwise make, believing that the taxpayers have their back.

Utilizing the Austrian theory of the business cycle, Woods argues that firms need to suffer the market consequences of their decisions. While the government is telling people all will be well if they keep borrowing and spending, logical economic thinking signals that a bust is a time to step back from spending and increase savings and contract rather than expand credit. Woods explains: Excessive, imprudent lending and credit creation led to the economy’s depressed condition in the first place by misallocating so much capital into unprofitable and even absurd lines of production. The economy needs time to restructure itself, for market participants to sort out which investments are sound and which are squandering capital, and for asset prices to be brought back into line with reality, in order for rational economic calculation to proceed once again. Banks should do exactly what they appear to be doing: restoring sane and sensible lending standards and scrutinizing loan applications more carefully (p. 42). Such a process is exactly what the Austrian theory of the business cycle calls for. Businesses that make bad investment decisions need to liquidate, declare bankruptcy, and let other healthier businesses take over any usable assets they possess.

Woods goes on to discuss the moralist hit that short-selling took, explaining that it is a normal market phenomenon and that banning it has more perverse effects than good. One of the more enlightening sections of this chapter for me is Woods discussion of deregulation. He claims that while attacks on deregulation were unfounded, those who argue that deregulation is not the problem with the present crisis are likewise in error. The issue here is the banking system. As long as the banks are insured by taxpayer money, says Woods, then they should not be allowed to take greater risks than what their insurance of deposits allow. But these risks were exactly the problem exacerbated by the CRA, Fannie, and Freddy. So the risks that these banks took through relaxed lending standards were the failure of regulation, not deregulation. True deregulation would cut taxpayer ties to the banks altogether.

Woods discusses the inevitable consequences of the bailouts – more bailouts in the future. With the string of bailouts that occurred, the precedent has been set, and the private sector will be poorer than it otherwise has to be. Finally, Woods raises the question: What happens when the bill comes due? Fiat money generated by the Fed does not exist in an endless supply. Somewhere the house of cards will get shaky. Whatever else the government did wrong, the major malevolent consequence is that its actions have siphoned off resources from true wealth producers – true entrepreneurs. Resources are diverted into firms and industries that should otherwise fail. Woods states: . . . there is no shortcut to wealth. We cannot become prosperous by pushing interest rates lower than the market would have set them. There is no monetary magic wand that can make everyone rich. The interest rate was at the level the market established for a reason, and when governments and their central banks artificially interfere with it, they mislead investors into destructive courses of action they would not otherwise have taken. They encourage investments in lines that make no long-run sense. They encourage consumption at a time when investors are starved for capital (p. 60).

Conclusion

There is so much more that one could expound on in this timely work. And although Meltdown clarifies for people the business cycle and the role of the Fed in producing our economic woes, it does much more than that, bringing economic sense to areas about which most people are simply unaware. The free market versus the government, money and its role in business, consumption, production, inflation, deflation, and the common but distorted rhetoric around what we have all been taught about the Great Depression. The seven chapters of Meltdown weave a tapestry of insight into the economic world of free enterprise and its doomed fate at the hands of the State.

So what do we do with this knowledge? Woods, in his final chapter titled “What Now?” delineates several important courses of action if we want to see the economy get back on track and this country once again become a haven for liberty. First, Woods explains that we need to reverse our notion that spending and consuming is what is good for the economy. Rather than merely consuming, we need to produce. In order to produce, businesses need to save so as to invest in production. Second, businesses need to fail rather than receiving a bailout at hands of the taxpayer. Bankruptcy, Woods explains, is a legitimate path for dealing with malinvestment and business failure. The world, really and truly, will not come to an end if bankruptcy proceedings are carried out for a number of businesses. Third, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should go away; they should be abolished. Woods suggests that both GSE’s should go through bankruptcy proceedings themselves and their assets auctioned off to private mortgage guarantors (p. 148). Fourth, Woods calls for an end to bailouts and government spending. The incessant government spending depends on fiat money generated by the Fed and the central banking system, and ultimately much higher taxes, regardless of what politicians say. Government spending is nothing more than constant indebtedness. Along those lines, fifth, Woods declares that government needs to cease its manipulation of money through the Fed. The manipulation of money is inflationary, and through legal-tender laws, alternative sources of money are not available when the dollar is being abased. Sixth, (the one I like the best), abolish the Fed. This final action would also lead to seventh, shutting down the Fed’s ability to lend money, and eighth, ending its monopoly over money. Woods points to von Mises and Hayek, and their call to separate money from the State. As Chodorov succinctly put it: economics is not politics.

References:

(1) Ebeling, R. M. (ed.) (1996). The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle and Other Essays. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute.

John V. Jones, Jr. Ph.D/March 14th, 2026

ANALYSIS OF POWER/Economics

February 14, 2026 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

Frank Chodorov – The Individualist

Introduction

I am posting a blog article that I wrote several years ago (January 2009 to be exact) from a different blog site that I had set up at the time. That site no longer exists. Over the years, I have stated more than once that my political leanings align with libertarianism. I rarely discuss politics on this site, and I never support a political candidate on this webpage. The reason for that stance is not to come across as neutral or apolitical. I am not neutral, and I for sure embrace a political philosophy. That philosophy is neither progressive nor neoconservative. Given the rise of saber rattling neoconservatism and the hazardous emergence of the warmth of collectivism, I wanted to restate my libertarian principles here. In the midst of cleaning out my files, I came across this article I had written in 2009. I see no reason not to restate it here. One of my favorite libertarian (Classical Liberal) writers is Frank Chodorov. His thought underpins this article

Chodorov the Individualist

Frank Chodorov explicated the idea of individualism as passionately and rationally as anyone I have read to date. And I believe that the individualist spirit that contributed to what was once the freest country in the world is waning, and has been for sometime. At 60-years old, I come to this conclusion late in life. And I wish I could have learned the lessons about living much earlier in life. All the data, experiences, people, and facts existed for me to learn solid lessons about life. But like so many others, I passed them by, paid them no mind, and even in a period of my life, demeaned what they stood for. Well, I hope the old adage, it’s never too late to learn, is in fact an accurate assessment. I know difficult times are ahead for me because I didn’t learn the lessons early in life that I should have, lessons I want to explore in this essay. I am going to have to change a lot of old patterns, much wrong thinking, and sloppy ways of living. and I hope that those of you who happen upon this webpage and are reading this blog are willing to journey with me, bearing with me as I seek to carve out ideas where much greater minds than mine have already tread. If I use as a compass the thoughts and ideas of von Hayek, von Mises, Rothbard, or Chodorov, hopefully that will keep me from going too awry.

As Chodorov so insightfully claimed, the road to collectivism is an easy path for most to follow, and today its siren song loudly wails. I established this website [humanaction.us at the time; today my thoughts have not changed but rather deepened regarding Classical Liberal principles] to espouse principles of individualism, a much maligned notion in today’s postmodern thinking [note the conflation of individualism with what is thrown around as rugged individualism]. I wish I could claim that I have always lived in line with the values I wish to propagate through Analysis of Power [the subtitle of the webpage I published at the time], however, I have not. Only in recent years have I come across the writings of F. A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and more recently, Frank Chocorov. I have dedicated my website and E-Journal to Chodorov [today, what undergirds what I delineate on this page are my Christian spiritual beliefs]. His writings resonated with me in a way that is both inspiring and challenging. I am far from the destination that Chodorov designates as the individual. Yet I hope to reach that destination and live there. Both the URL and the title of my E-Journal reflect my beliefs in Austrian economics and individualism.

Frank Chodorov was the consummate individualist. In this inaugural issue, I want to highlight some of the themes that Chodorov developed more fully in his writings. So I inaugurate Analysis of Power with an apropos essay that outlines what is to be an individualist. Several themes stand out in Chodorov’s writings. I survey them below; any misstatements of Chodorov’s ideas are solely due to my ignorance.

The Right to Live

With everything under the sun today pronounced by the public-at-large as a right, I hate throwing around the concept of rights. But properly understood, it is a powerful, and more importantly, a truthful concept. There is nothing more basic to the individual than the right to live. For whatever reason, apparently the spirit to live has been poured into each one us. (Today I would more strongly point to the Imago Dei as that reason, and the only reason). If there are those among us who do not want to live, then we conclude rather quickly that something is drastically wrong with them. But the right to live is nothing more than an abstraction if we just stop at the phrase, the right to live. What does such a right actually entail? First of all, it is important to recognize that the right pertains to each individual. It is axiomatic, a given. It is not a right that belongs to me but not to you. It is not a right that belongs to some but not to others. It is not a right that belongs to the collective but not to specific individuals. Such a statement on a collectivist level would be meaningless. As an abstraction, however, a dangerous extension is inherent in the notion of the right to live. The right is not carte blanche. So we need to understand what is inherent in the right to live.

Liberty from Government

We talk about many forms of freedom today. You hear politicians wax eloquently about freedom, oppression, injustice, and social justice. However, when we listen closely to what they mean, we get a clearer understanding of what they are trying to sell. We hear such phrases as freedom from poverty, freedom from illness, or freedom from economic injustice. The sales pitch from demagogues who spew forth these phrases is that government is in place to provide all of us with these espoused freedoms (particularly if we vote for those spewing forth these platitudes). However, I have come to believe that such freedoms have little to do with what our Founders meant by liberty, a term that I prefer to freedom because the latter has been tainted by collectivist rhetoric. (I would add both neoconservative and progressive rhetoric). Our Founders, with all their flaws, and because they understood human flaws, established a Republic in which liberty was understood to mean, not freedom of government to make our lives for us, but but freedom from government, power, the State, (to guard against) that at its whim it would intrude upon our lives. It provides a framework within which people can pursue and carve out their lives as they see fit, so long as what they see fit to do does not prevent others from pursuing and carving out their lives.

The place of government in people’s lives is an issue that distinguishes individualists from collectivists. From an individualist perspective government is to provide a minimal rule of law that enforces contracts, protects private property among its citizens, and, on the level of the State, defends the borders from invasion. A corollary to collectivism, radical egalitarianism, has gripped the mind of the United States, and now many people look to government to educate them, provide them with health care, and to redistribute income in the name of social justice. We hear promises of politicians to make our lives better, to bring about a better society, to usher in better times, and to make us all equal. How many times have we heard the rhetoric and then come to understand that, for the most part, we have to be the ones who make our lives better? (This is not a denial of our social embeddedness and our need of working in conjunction with others.) I believe an important question regarding all these promises hinges on the notion of hubris: How can one person or one group of people actually know what is better for everyone else? For the individualist, not only is such knowledge impossible, but also it takes a sizable hubris-filled ego for someone to believe that he or she possesses such knowledge. If people believe such things about themselves and the knowledge they possess, then why shouldn’t they want power?

As a radical (I might drop this adjective today because of its conflation among people with so-called rugged individualism.) individualist, I believe that government not only lacks the ability to make people’s lives better, but also, even it could by some stretch of the imagination fulfill such a mandate, it lacks both the Constitutionality and moral authority to do so. Once someone provides a life for someone else, the provider has taken from the providee all sense of dignity that constitutes a free human being – unless the provider is an all-powerful being.

Limited Government

Liberty from government logically dictates what the Founders meant by the idea of limited government. Individualism is opposed to collectivism in all its forms. The only legitimate collective activities are those in which individuals freely choose to involve themselves. For an individualist, government in any form is coercion. Hence, an individualist tends to view government with suspicion and believes it should be severely restrained in all its activities, carrying out its minimal roles of protecting life and private proper, enforcing contracts, and protecting against fraud, all minimal activities that contribute to people’s ability to carry on commerce and trade. Beyond these activities, government begins to encroach on individual liberty. From the Classical Liberal perspective, government is granted limited power to protect citizens and to establish a framework whereby they carry out the pursuit of carving out a life for themselves. Government provides no guarantee that individuals will find such pursuits successful. It cannot guarantee that individuals will not encounter hardships and fail at their endeavors. It cannot guarantee that people can have the kind of lives they desire. Government, at its whim, cannot provide a life for an individual. To carry out such guarantees, government would have to use the very rewards of people’s labor it is called upon to protect. The Welfare State (and I would add the Warfare State) represents a prime example of such coercion, where property is taken (confiscated) to provide secure retirement, medical benefits, education, and a host of other so-called rights. Government – power – the State – possesses nothing by which to make such guarantees. Government, to make such guarantees, must take (confiscate) from those who produce. Consequently, such guarantees are fraudulent from the start.

Laissez-Faire Economics

Liberty from government and severely restricted or restrained government obviously dictates that government remove itself and stay out of everyday human affairs, particularly the free exchange of ideas, goods, and service. If an individual is to reap from his efforts and secure some type of living, then he should not turn to government to direct his steps in the endeavors he chooses to pursue. If he does, he forfeits the fruit of his labor to the power that so directs him. People choose their affairs, act in accordance with their desires, and do business and commerce with one another to obtain their desired ends. Their business plans, their business decisions, and what they acquire through their efforts are not submitted to the State for approval. The only say that the State has over such efforts regards fraudulent activities and the protection of property accrued through mutually beneficial commerce. Those who carve out their existence in this life do not owe government for such a privilege. Nor do they owe the collective in the name of some fabrication called the common good. Entrepreneurs by their very activities of producing, providing services, creating jobs, contributing to people’s standard of living impact the community for the good. That they carry out such activities for profit motive does not detract from the fact their work impacts society for the good. And they owe no one an apology for their profit motive.

In today’s climate taxes are viewed as the price that businesses must pay for their success and wealth. Never mind that such wealth and profit create jobs and a higher standard of living for people. Never mind that entrepreneurial capitalism has created a standard of living heretofore unknown throughout history for an enormous population of people. Those who complain about high taxes are labeled selfish, not caring about society, and not wanting to contribute their fair share to the community. The collectivist mentality (I would also label this the Statist mentality) is seen at its fullest in empowering the State to intrude upon business activities in the name of the common good.

The individualist says to the State, hands off. The State is to keep its parasitic hands off what people have produced for their own welfare. The State is to stay out of the way of entrepreneurs who best can decide to carry out their affairs, even when those decisions may not work out the way entrepreneurs desire. And when and if those decisions do turn sour, the one who is an entrepreneur to his core does not cry and whine to government for a bailout. When times are lean, tough, and difficult, the individualist shouts as loud as when times or bountiful and fat – Laissez Faire!

Personal Liberty and Responsibility

If I may choose a phrase from the existentialist’s handbook, an individualist defends personal liberty and responsibility. As free individuals, we can choose to carve out our lives as we see fit. There is a fine distinction, however, inherent in the right to carve out a life versus the right to a life I think I should have. The distinction turns upon the difference between opportunity and results. No other person can guarantee me that I will achieve in life what I want to achieve. In a free society, a rule of law allows me the right to give it a shot. But it does not promise me that the results I want will be forthcoming.

We live today in a culture populated by people bathed in a sense of entitlement and work life by playing the victim card. We blame everyone and everything for our plight, for not having the kind of life that we want. This mindset in turn sets us up for silver-tongued orators who guarantee us that they have the promise hand-in-hand. We vote for presidents like we are searching for a messiah. We expect to hear and see all the sweet and honey-filled promised morsels we hope to find in life. If we don’t have all the money we want, then we blame those who do have the amount of money we would like to have. Somehow or another they took it from us. It is inconvenient to get sick, but it is unfair to have to pay for getting well. And so we hear and are drawn like Odysseus to the sweet siren call of nationalized health care. People want an education, but it is unfair to have to pay for it. Nirvana in learning is straight ahead in subsidized education. A nice comfortable retirement is a dream, but it is unfair to have worked all one’s life and not have it, whether one had the foresight and fortitude to save for it or not. So now we will increase that magnanimous blessing called Social Security. What a deal! (Of course, our omniscient and omnipotent orators who know what we need and have the power to bring it all about for us are not retiring on Social Security. Do I smell demagoguery here?)

Private Property

If we have the right to live and the liberty and responsibility to make choices and try to bring about the life we want for ourselves, then we must have an avenue to accrue something from what we produce. Whether this accrual be pay, goods, property, or all three, what we have accrued is ours because we have worked for it. (Actually all three are private property – privately owned through personal effort.) Such accrual is the product of our labor; thereby, it is our private property. If I have the right to live, then I work, and my production is the means by which I carve out my living, preparing a life for myself. Although I do not believe that I have a right to a job (a confusion of today’s entitlement mindset), or the right to a particular results (a confusion of today’s radical egalitarianism), I work for what I earn or produce. And I can accrue the production of my labor and create property for myself. The very basis of my freedom – my right to live – is my private property. If it is confiscated from me, then the thief has robbed me, not only of my private property, but also of my right to live. The Founders of this country understood property in these terms, and were particularly leery of the government becoming a thief. Hence, they warned the populist about the power (dangers) of taxation. Since 1913, the government holds first rights to our property, carried out by a procedure called the income tax. From the viewpoint of an individualist, the income tax, as well as all taxes, is seen as confiscation. Income tax is legalized thievery, power – the State – stepping in to claim a part of one’s labor for its purposes. And one had best tow the line and fork it over. There are many forms today by which private property is constantly under assault by the State: eminent domain, inheritance taxes, professional licenses, property licenses such as car tags and inspection stickers. All these devices are legalized ways by which the State has step-by-step encroached upon citizens’ private property. To the degree that we lose control of our private property, we begin to lose the grip on our individual liberty.

Noninterventionist

Isolationism in foreign affairs is a term that carries negative connotations today. However, I proudly accept the label. Other libertarians prefer the term noninterventionist, but to me they mean virtually the same thing as long as one understands that these terms refer to government activities. Isolationism does not mean that individuals cannot freely choose to carry on commerce and do business around the globe, or Mars if they find someone there and can get the goods to and from them. Such activities emerge from inalienable rights that go into the pursuit of living. Isolationist or noninterventionist strategies refer, instead, to becoming entangled in the political controversies and conflicts of other nations. In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned us of such meddlesome activities. Yet in the 20th Century and into this one, America has found itself engaged in conflict after conflict around the globe, spending billions of taxpayer dollars in the process (as well as the countless loss of life). Our military is ensconced all over the globe from the Middle East to Germany. Our military is positioned as a standing army for some countries, such as South Korea. It is one thing to make friends and develop respect for other countries and cultures on the basis of mutual exchange and commerce; it is another thing altogether for a government to become the policemen of the world. If our allies relish the kind of liberty we possess, then somewhere along the line, they need to stand up and be prepared to defend themselves from those who would take such liberties from them. A Biblical Proverb speaks poignantly to misguided interventionism:

Like one who takes a dog by the ears,/Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him. (1)

We need to rethink our understanding of national defense and not emotionally load galavanting around the globe with notions of patriotism. The true patriot does not allow the State to willy-nilly define defense or our national interests in a way that places brave men and women in harm’s way based on political expediency, nation building, and government power-broker deals that tend to always produce more international problems than they ever solve. We have witnessed these events over and over again in the billions of dollars we spend defending countries that refuse to defend themselves, and the more billions of dollars of so-called foreign aid that have disappeared into no-telling whose pockets – power begetting power.

Entrepreneurial Spirit: Personal Wisdom

If people are to carve out a life for themselves, then it behooves them to develop the kind of skills they need to get the job done. The problem with collectivism and the types of reformers it produces is that such crusaders become too meddlesome in other people’s affairs. I am drawn to the idea that the best way to any general reform is for one to embrace self-development (2). What skills do you need to establish the kind of life that you want? If you desire to achieve a certain lifestyle, then what do you need to develop in yourself so as to achieve what you desire? More to the point, what values do you hold? Are you living in alignment with those values? If not, what do you need to change? Do you truly value what you say you do?

Entrepreneurs are people who pursue a fulfilling life by putting their ideas to work. They know what they want in life, they know what they value about living, and they know what they need to obtain from life what they desire. They are honest with themselves about what skills they possess and which ones they do not possess. When it comes to what they lack, they find ways to fill in the gaps and develop their needed skill set so they can produce and benefit from their labor. They don’t play at being successful. They work at it with everything they have in them. If they do not do these things, then they are not successful, and they probably are not meant to be entrepreneurs.

Being an entrepreneur is something to which I aspire. However, I am not sure I have what it takes to become the kind of person I have described here. Many of us want to play the entrepreneurship game, but we do not want to do what it takes to succeed the way entrepreneurs succeed. We want the results that come to good entrepreneurs. But we do not want the process or effort that goes into making a good entrepreneur and producing the kind of results we desire. The process is hard, difficult, fraught with setbacks, disappointments, and sometimes failures so that one has to pick up and begin again. And above all, it takes vision that many people may not have and risks that others do not want to take. To aspire to entrepreneurship means asking difficult questions as to whether or not one has what it takes to be an entrepreneur.

Today achievement is something that is belittled, demeaned, and viewed as an idea that is elitist. Radical egalitarianism has won the day. Entrepreneurs are punished for their successes by the tax code and the attitude the culture at large has toward them. They achieve because they are exploitive cries the collectivist. They achieve and continue to achieve because they are privileged rages the egalitarian.

Only when individuals come to understand that they are responsible for their lives and must develop the skills they need to live, will they truly become individuals. Otherwise, we fall into the mediocre thinking that dreams and pursuits are not worthwhile. Or worse, we walk with our hands out, our palms up, our dignity emaciated to receive a life that someone else promises us. One may not be an entrepreneur, but that doesn’t mean that one cannot be an individual and claim his or her place in life. We may work for entrepreneurs, benefit from them in a myriad of ways, and find our place in life in a way that suits who we are, what skills we possess, and what desires we have. In the end, we have one thing to do: live (3). We need to choose how best to live for ourselves. To do otherwise is to forfeit who we are and what we are all about as individuals.

Conclusion

On a personal note, I penned this blog article in January of 2009. For years I struggled as I turned my back on my faith as a Christian. Close to the time I wrote this article, God had begun working on me to get me back on track with my faith and what it truly means to have faith in the atoning work of Christ and to have a personal relationship with God through Christ. Although I would change very little about this article if I were to write it now, I want to highlight a couple o f things, one pertaining to the concept of individualism, and second pertaining to my faith in Christ.

As I alluded to in the article, the notion of individualism has been much maligned, more so today than when I wrote this article in 2009. So I want to say a quick word about what individualism is not. First, the notion of individualism as put forth by those such as Chodorov, libertarians in general, and Classical Liberals, in no form or fashion claims that an individual is totally independent of others, not socially embedded or connected, or does not rely on the social fabric and interconnection with others. There is no such reality as pulling oneself up by one’s boot straps by which one is totally isolated from and independent from others. Embracing the philosophy of individualism does not mean that one does not ask for help from others when such help is needed. Nor does it mean that one does not offer help where help is needed. Individualism means that one is responsible for ones own choices and actions as well as for ones self-development. Self-development is never done in total isolation. Whatever rugged individualism happens to mean by those who throw around such caricatures, it has nothing to do with the Classical Liberal understanding of the sanctity of ones individual life. Such caricatures are nothing more than gaslighting and conflation, creating a false dichotomy seeking to provide an argument against nothing that the concept of individualism ever claimed in the first place. Those who have spewed forth such claims have been taken to task by individualists themselves.

Regarding my faith in Christ, if I were to write this article today, I would focus more on the providence of God in our lives and the spiritual gifts with which He blesses us. Psalm 139 speaks to how God intimately knows us and that He has made us who we are. A large part of discovering our skills involves coming to know how He made us and resting in that understanding. Additionally, life is played out by increasing our wisdom, as well as the pursuit of wisdom through diligence, which many of the Psalms address pointedly. In seeking to become diligent, we must also rest in the truth of God’s providence (Psalm 46:10). We must, by God’s grace, be honest about who we are as we gain in wisdom of how He made and gifted us. Since the time I authored this article in 2009 until now, I’ve come to realize that I do not, in fact, have what it takes to be an entrepreneur. That is not who God made me to be. When we realize such truths about ourselves, we can either kick at the goads against them, or by God’s grace embrace them, seeking to live as God would have us live. I am truly thankful for the gifted individuals by and through whom God has blessed the world. If you possess the skills of an entrepreneur, then I hope you follow your calling out with every ounce of energy you possess. Above all, I hope and pray that you will be called by God to believe in Christ as your Savior.

References

(1) “Proverbs 26:17.” In the Holy Bible NASB, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

(2) Chodorov, F. (1980). “The Articulate Individualist.” In C. H. Hamilton (ed.), Fugitive Essays, (pp. 317-322). Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Press. (Originally published in Analysis, August 1946).

(3) Chodorov, F. (1980). “Henry David Thoreau.” In C. H. Hamilton (ed.), Fugitive Essays, (pp. 309-316). (Originally published in Analysis, November 1945 & February 1949).

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D/ February 14. 2026

ANALYSIS/Analysis of Power

January 14, 2025 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

Wildfires: Ideas Have Consequences

Introduction

To date due to the wildfires in California, over 180,000 people have been evacuated from their homes, close to 24,000 acres of land have been scorched, approximately 7,000 structures have been destroyed, and there at least 16 dead with numerous persons still missing. Regardless of the title of this article, I hope to present something here that is much more than a blame game. There is some blame, but it is blame in which we all share. More importantly, from a Christian perspective, we need to continually keep the people in California in our prayers, and we need to call for compassionate aid so that those who have experienced these devastating fires can begin the restoration of their lives in as much as that is possible. Presently, legacy news continues its politicizing of everything under the sun. Although there are some political lessons to be learned here, our learning opportunities must go beyond political affiliation. Above all, this is a time for compassion and grace in which the church can lead for meeting the needs for those on whom these catastrophic fires have fallen.

Reflecting on What Is Lost

Take some time for a while to reflect on the catastrophe that swept across California. What is lost? Our first response would most likely accent the homes that people had built, lived in for many years of their lives, all representing the carving out of families’ lives. But what did those homes contain? Think of your own home. Clothes and appliances come to mind. But there is more than that. Reflect on what you hold as valuable in your home: personal gifts, family pictures, cherished mementos, and all that is held dear that represents ones ties to others and the meaning that these memorabilia hold. Then there are the memories themselves: family reunions, rooms built for children and others, celebrations of birthdays and anniversaries. For those who are in Christ, the rooms and solitary places where family members prayed, read Scripture, and engaged in personal meditation. Memories of children growing up are now left to memory alone. Recollections of neighborhood friends and get togethers are swept away with a Santa Ana wind and scorching flames. Personal collections – coins, stamps, art, etc. – are now lost to the flames. And then there are those families who lost love ones to the devastating fires, ones with whom they cannot reunite. As a hobby my mom created pottery. She owned a kiln, would make dishes, and then would paint them. After her death, I inherited all of her work. I am sure that many of the families in California owned knickknacks along similar lines, those things on which a price cannot be fixed. All gone now with the winds of fire. Those of us who have not experienced such devastation cannot fathom what people in California are going through at the moment. This is a time to pull alongside people and support them in all the ways we can. We need to cease politicizing the moment along shallow lines of political party and affiliation.

Ideas Have Consequences

How do we account for the political side of what is now transpiring in California without overly politicizing the situation? First, the blame game must come to a halt. There is no one person or political party that is to blame for California’s plight. As a culture and society, we are all to blame to some extent for what is occurring in that state at the moment. We have become a people, regardless of affiliation, who looks too much to the State to give us life. Individuals for decades sounded an alarm, warning people of the catastrophe that is now taking place on the West Coast. Several of the areas in which people lived lacked the water that was necessary for firefighters to do their job. The kindling and brush that were too close to homes needed clearing decades ago. To pontificate that people shouldn’t have been living in theses areas is nothing but full-blown bloviating. People built their homes and lives in Malibu, the Palisades, and Altadena. These were homes, not just structures. They have lost more than what can be summed up in materialistic terms.

We live in a time where the State ha become the supposedly provider and savior of humankind. In the state of California people relinquished their property rights to those in power. The trade off is that people lost their property. When one reflects on all that was lost, as discussed above, property is more than what we commonly construe that term to entail. What lies ahead is not just a few days or months to normalize. For people to reclaim what they have lost and regain some sense of normality will take years if not decades. We are on the cusp of a new administration coming into power. What I would ask of this administration is what I would ask of any human being. Set aside the political bickering and blame game and present yourself to be a servant of the people who have experienced the harrowing wreckage of their lives. California is a loud and clear ringing bell sounding the warning that the State is not a god. The unconstitutional power that the State has arrogated to itself needs defeating. It is not only the people in California who have exalted the State to a position of ultimate power. We live in a time of Statist power. We are all guilty. Statist power is antithetical to Constitutional natural rights. The time is now to rid State power from our lives, taking back the rights on which this nation was built.

For those of us in Christ, we can pray, serve, and support the rebuilding efforts that must take place – that must begin now – in California.

[Note: At the publishing of this article, the death toll in California has risen to 24.]

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D./January 14th, 2025

ANALYSIS/Current Events

December 14, 2024 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

The Trials of Daniel Penny

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil. — Isaiah 5:20

Introduction

Daniel Penny has had his trial. But it’s not the trial we have been reading and hearing about in the news media. Individuals face many types of trials. In a culture of woke-ism and a perverted sense of what some call social justice, people can find themselves accused and even legally charged for actions, as well as the very words they use, actions that should in no way under the country’s constitution be considered a legal matter. When such challenges to common sense and decency occur, then people find themselves faced with the trials that life bring their way. Trials that are more real and honest than those so called jury trials in today’s institutions of justice.

The Context

The scene of the incident took place on a New York subway at the Second Avenue station. Jordan Neely, a homeless man, entered the subway and begin making threats toward people, stating that he was homeless, hungry, and wanted a job. He was heard to say, I don’t care if I go to prison, and then, someone is going to die today. Several of the subway passengers feared for their safety. Daniel Penny stepped forward and from behind took Neely down to the floor in a chokehold. Others helped Penny secure Neely until the authorities arrived. He was held in the chokehold for several minutes. (Some claim that Penny held him down for six minutes; Penny claimed that it was less than five minutes.) Neely was transported to a nearby New York hospital where he was later pronounced dead.

Enter Manhattan DA’s

What would we do without woke DA’s politicizing justice to the point that the word just no longer has any meaning? Following Neely’s autopsy at the hospital where he died, the Manhattan medical examiner determined that Neely had died as a result of homicide. The toxicology report indicated that synthetic marijuana was found in Neely’s system. In addition he was known to be a homeless man who suffered from schizophrenia. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg sought to bring charges against Penny, including second degree manslaughter and negligent homicide. The case was prosecuted by Manhattan DA Dafna Yoran. The presiding judge, Maxwell Riley, had previously denied that charges against Penny be dropped. The trial ensued. The real trial of life, however, came when an individual who sought to prevent violence on a subway found himself charged with manslaughter and negligent homicide.

What Is Justice?

The fate of a civilization stands or falls based on its foundational principles. One of those principles is the idea of justice. People may claim that Penny had his fair trial and was found not guilty. But one must ask, did Penney’s trial truly represent any form of justice? What happens in a society when one steps forward to prevent a situation from escalating into possible violence is then charged with a violent crime? Ensconced in this society is the already woke politics regarding the homeless that leaves people like Neely on the streets without any decent help and care. Penny faced a trial all right, but rather than being in that Manhattan court room, it was a trial caused by that very institution of justice that has as its job description to protect citizens from violent assault. Neely was not mentally competent, but he could have injured someone that day on the subway. The situation should have never seen the light of day if the politics that be would allow for proper care of the homeless. Daniel Penny was not to blame for anything. And yes, there was a time when he would have not been charged at all. And that truth has nothing to do with Neely’s race or homelessness. It has everything to do with the disgusting woke-ism and political correctness of today’s culture.

Political Hype

The hue of cries has already begun to ring loud and clear from the woke crowd. BLM claims that Penny should not be called a hero – that coming from a group of people who burn and destroy private property in the name of protest. Others have labeled Penny a vigilante, proffering America’s thirst for vigilantism. The Wikipedia title for this incident says it all: Killing of Jordan Neely. The politically correct and woke will ring their bell loud, but what they say will have little, if anything, to do with justice. A civilization must ask itself if it can continue to be a civilized society with the sense of justice displayed in the Daniel Penny trial.

Conclusion

The stark injustice thrown at Daniel Penny has kicked off the trials he faces in life. What is equally sad is that the true injustice that Neely suffered has been lost in the politically correct hype and woke-ism of the day. The plight of the homeless is a reality that politicians have failed to answer since JFK emptied the state psychiatric hospitals back in the 1960’s. Compare and contrast Penney’s situation with another recent incident. Ben Johnson was gunned down, shot three times point blank in what appears to be a premeditated stake out and murder. However, Johnson in today’s flood of woke-ism and political correctness suffers the unfortunate position of being a millionaire working for an insurance company. People have hit the social media scene claiming that Johnson deserved what he got, and that the shooter is a hero. Would it really surprise anyone if some of these people celebrating Johnson’s murder were the same ones criminalizing Daniel Penny? Pick and choose – or socially construe – your own version of vigilantism. In a civilization where justice is a politicized social construct, what kind of justice can people expect or even hope for? Penny’s trials are ahead of him. Although found not guilty, his life has been irreparably altered by being charged with criminal intent for trying to protect people. His jury trial should have never seen the light of day. There was nothing just about what Daniel Penny had to experience with Manhattan’s legal system. The next time citizens in New York ride a subway, they should think about that.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D./December 14th, 2024

ANALYSIS

November 14, 2024 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

Dominion: A Kingdom of Priests

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood – and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His Father and His God – to whom be the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (Revelation 1:5-6)

For they do not speak peace. But they devise deceitful words against those who are quiet in the land. (Psalm 35:20)

Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to the God the Father. (Colossians 3:17)

Introduction

America has held its election. So now what? The tendency among many of us is to think that once the results of the election is in, we can now set back, rest on our laurels, and hope for the best. Unfortunately such thinking is the by-product derived from the belief system that government exists to do something for us. Now let the ones elected do their thing. Such a mindset has shaped this country with the rise of progressivism, particularly since the Great Depression and FDR. Today the State machine is chocked full of unelected bureaucrats that devise rules and regulations that inundate our lives. What should our response be going forward now that the American people have responded somewhat strongly to the last four years of progressivism?

A Judaeo-Christian Perspective

Writing from the perspective of a Judaeo-Christian worldview, I would like to challenge Christians to counter this tendency. Government, whatever that is, does not exist to do things for us. That is especially true for those of us who have placed our faith in Jesus, the Christ. As the verse from Revelation (1:5-6) that forms the heading for this blog tells us, Jesus has redeemed us, not only for salvation, but also to be a kingdom of priests to His God and Father. This means above all, that we are to exercise dominion over our culture. Unfortunately, the church has taken a position of passivity regarding its dominion mandate. There are various reasons for this, which can form the subject matter for other articles. [e.g. see Church & State.] But what exactly does it mean to exercise dominion?

The Dominion Mandate

Dominion is synonymous with government, absolute authority, and sovereignty, but within the confines of self-government. While passivity might characterize many Christians in respect to their view of politics and the State, another misunderstanding of sovereignty leads some Christians to believe that all laws should reign at the national level reflecting Biblical law. Theonomy is a loaded term that can unfortunately lead to misunderstanding Christians’ view of government. First, whether one believes it or not, God is sovereign, and He does rule the nations. (Christ is the ruler of the kings of the earth.) The time will come when His sovereignty will be fully realized, here on earth and throughout eternity. As Christians, how are we called to live in the meantime? We need to navigate the channel between passivity that has led to our institutions being handed over to the culture at large, and the notion that we are to establish a heaven on earth via State power. We should most definitely be active in political matters. The culture at large is fine with Christian passivity, telling many Christians that they for sure should do their thing and stay out of politics. (There is a difference between theocracy and theonomy.) When Christians voice their political views, many in the culture will cry separation of church and state, which is a gross misunderstanding of the separation clause as written in the Constitution. Note the scream of Christian Nationalism today from those who caricature Christians who are politically engaged. On the other hand, some Christians hold a view of dominion that seeks to seize power of the State in the form of some coercion. The latter is a minority compared to those Christians who want to remain aloof from politics. But one would not realize that fact listening to the verbal attacks on the church from the progressive crowd.

We Are a Kingdom

As Revelation 1:5-6 tells us, those whom God has called to be in Christ have been made to be a kingdom through His atoning work. We are a kingdom of priests. We are to exercise dominion over the earth. Rather than seizing State power, kingdom work is to be carried out by believers through the body of Christ, the church. What we should demand of the State is our constitutional rights to do just that – to worship as we believe, to impact our culture through what we believe and how we live, and to be the salt and light that will draw people to the church. Such of way of living out our beliefs, however, is far from being passive regarding our political contexts. For example, we should stand and fight for those Christian business men and women who have been sued, taken to court, and fined for seeking to operate their business lives in alignment with their Christian beliefs. We should seek an end to abortion in a manner that saves the lives of the unborn while also aligning with the Constitution. We should have the freedom to live out our beliefs in the commonwealth so as to impact our culture for our beliefs. We should take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. Dominion means living out our Christian beliefs in every area of life – work, education, family, etc. as Colossians 3:17 calls us to do. The church is to be a beacon of light for the culture. The light draws people to itself by what it is, the light. As the body of Christ, the church, we should be living out what we believe in every area of our lives. Then we will be exercising dominion, and only then will we draw people to the Light that makes up the church. Dominion is not a passive idea, nor is it a call to seize political power by coercive force. I think many Christians understand the latter, but too many Christians embrace a passivity toward political matters.

Progressivism Is not Passive

Living quite in the land is not a bad thing. Neither is it a passive preoccupation. As we have witnessed over the past four years, and with other administrations as well, progressives in politics are anything but passive. In recent years we have witnessed a rise of political clout targeting Christian engagement in the political realm. Again, think of florists and bakers who have lost or who have come close to losing their businesses because they sought to align their business operations and services with their Christian values. Note the imprisonment of peaceful protestors who have made their beliefs known at abortion clinics. Witness the onslaught of the nonsensical caricature of so-called Christian Nationalism. Mark the aggressive nature of the public education establishment toward private education (specifically Christian private schools) and parents who homeschool their children. Some states mandate that homeschoolers should be forced to use curricula designed for public schools, the very thing from which parents want their children separated. Private Christian colleges should take a page out of Hillsdale College’s playbook and refuse government subsidy for education. Parents who homeschool or send their children to private schools (Christian and secular) should demand an end to having to pay school taxes that uphold institutions from which parents desire to remove their children. Progressive politicians are not passive. Nor should the body of Christ acquiesce to State mandates regarding their children’s education. Living quiet in the land is not subservience to those who seek to determine what values families should hold or how they live, raise, and educate their children. Progressives talk the game but they don’t walk what they talk. They speak peace – equity, equality, love, justice – but they devise deceitful words against those who are quiet in the land. Those who hold different values from the progressives are targeted as oppressors. It is they that want to determine what values people should hold. We as Christians should not play their game.

Conclusion

America has held its election. The question now becomes what will we do going forward. Will we continue to look to the State for an answer to all our dilemmas? As Christians I hope we choose to self-govern and exercise dominion in the culture, not by the coercive power of the State, but by the way we live reflecting the power of Christ that dwells in us. For the moment, progressivism and its agendas has been cancelled. Don’t think for one minute that progressives will go passive. The body of Christ needs to demonstrate that while we want to live quiet in the land, we will not acquiesce in passivity. We will exercise dominion in its true Biblical meaning. Elections come and go. Impacting the culture by the way we live in Christ in a long-term endeavor. Our passivity has handed over our institutions to a culture that is at best antagonistic toward God’s precepts, and at worst actually despises God’s law, actively setting the power of the State against anything that demonstrates that people want to engage their culture through God’s commandments.

God commanded a mandate to exercise dominion. Such a mandate is not a passive activity, politically or otherwise.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D./November 14th, 2024

ANALYSIS OF POWER/DOMINION MANDATE

October 14, 2024 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

Birthing The State

Introduction

I was reflecting on a title of a book written by Murray Rothbard, What Has Government Done to Our Money?, and begin to wonder how we as a nation had reached the point where we make the distinction between the government and us. If anyone has read Rothbard, he too is an enemy of the State, and makes clear in his writings that what we think of as government today is indeed a tyrannical State. Our language uncovers our thinking – our beliefs – in a way that shows our nakedness regarding our subservience to the State.

Removed Far from the Founders

It is easy today to make fun of and dismiss the saying, government by, for, and of the people. But what those words signified at one time entail the legacy that the founders hoped to bequeath to future generations that would come after them. The so-called government was not to be separated from and rulers over the people. No reason to spend much time on that bit of history. We lost what it meant a long time ago. Listen to our language today. The government needs to do something about [name the problem]. The government is our security [domestic and international]. The government should provide security for people in their older age [ social security]. The government should provide affordable healthcare for its citizens [Medicare/Obamacare]. The government should educate our children [public education]. So on, so on, ad nauseam the public trough is extolled. As Rothbard points out in many of his writings, the belief system that such language uncovers had given us not a government, but an all-powerful State. In what ways have we, the people, handed our livelihoods over to the State?

The Military Industrial Complex [MIC]

George Washington, in his farewell address, warned the citizens about entanglements in the affairs of other countries, particularly regarding foreign conflicts. Yet today we have military bases in numerous countries throughout the world. We engaged in a useless conflict with Mexico in the late 18th century, and following W.W. II, we engaged in one police action after another from Korea to Afghanistan, nation building not only to our demise in terms of loss of life, but to the nonsensical goal of forming a Pax Americana over the globe. Globalism clearly raises its ugly immoral head both in progressive and neoconservative ideologies. The MIC determines our foreign policy around the globe. As Randolph Bourne put it, War is the health of the State. Critics claim that George Washington didn’t live in a time of globalism, internet, and nuclear weapons. Rather than a criticism of Washington, this is even more a rationale to remain free from political and military entanglements around the world. So-called isolationists are not calling for a return to the agrarian society of Washington’s time. It’s simply called taking care of your own backyard and minding your own business.

Health, Wellfare, and Social Security

We have likewise created the nanny State through the belief that the government should take care of all our health, medical, and retirement needs. Don’t look now, but the government is thirty-five trillion dollars in debt. To take care of all that people call on the State to do for them is unfathomable in terms of, not only dollars, but also in the ability required of a centralized Sate. Hence, the State has become the number one employer in the country. Yet with all its touted expert bureaucrats, it can do nothing but plunge the nation deeper and deeper into debt. Since there is no possible way to continue to soak the people to pay for the promises of politicians handed out to their constituents, then the State via the Federal Reserve turns on the money machine, cranking out dollar bills, flooding the economy with unearned money that drives the prices of what people really need higher and higher, creating more and more need. The government has become the people’s god.

Education

The government should provide education for our children. Given the belief system of the country as it now stands, public education has become a disaster. The so-called educational experts dictate to the parents what their children are to be taught in the neo-indoctrination camps. Unfortunately such curricula include gender identity along with other forms of wokeism. Note how intensely public educators attack private education and homeschooling, especially when those institutions are grounded in a Judeo-Christian ethic. From the perspective of the State, children do not belong to their parents; they are wards of the State. Until people truly threaten public educators with their right to remove their children from such State institutions, placing them in private educational facilities, homeschools, or homeschool co-ops, public education will continue to drift father away from its original educational goals, moving deeper and deeper into the social indoctrination camps they have set themselves up to be.

End the Fed

Ron Paul hit the bullseye. End the Fed is a worthy slogan aimed at removing the State from the regulatory role it plays in its dealings with private business, especially small, privately owned businesses. Entrepreneurs have become severely hampered, if not outright crippled, by federal, and even state, regulations. We need to heed what happened in Germany’s hyper-inflationary period in the 1920’s. With a thirty-five trillion dollar debt, inflation continuing to destroy the strength of the dollar (regardless of what politicians say), and entrepreneurial activity being obliterated, we are facing a similar situation that haunted Germany in the years following W.W.I. We may want to play ostrich, choosing not to believe that such a plight cannot happen in America, but such a plight is not external; it is internal. We have created the State, believing that it can and should meet all our needs, as if bowing before an oracle, rubbing a genie bottle, or approaching a gift dispensing machine. Such a worldview is just that, a worldview, and a false one at that.

Conclusion

So what has government done to our money? Rothbard is right. The government has become a State, not one that invaded us, but one we birthed because of the worldview we hold. As a Christian, I believe that only a Judeo-Christian ethic can be the foundation for a truly prosperous and moral civilization. I don’t hold out much hope for this nation. But that is due to my own lack of faith. I call on those of us who truly believe in the name of Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God to pray for our nation and to do our own part in our our own settings via the local churches to counter the rise of the State that we have brought about.

John V. Jones, Jr, Ph.D./October 14th, 2024

ANALYSIS

September 14, 2024 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

Face of the Nation II: A Constitutional Crisis

Introduction

Our original Constitution was designed to guard a form of government known as a republic. A republic supposedly protects its citizens against those who would prefer to be rulers rather than representatives. Since the rise of progressivism, culminating in the power of F. D. Roosevelt, the Constitution has been under assault from those who desire a strong centralized form of government. However, while it would be easy to blame progressives in power for the demise of a constitutional republic and the rise of absolute democracy, we the people are as much, if not more, to blame for the condition this nation finds itself.

Government as God

It is difficult to pinpoint the exact time in our history when people’s view of the government changed from that which needed its power to be kept in check to an institution that exists to meet all the people’s needs and desires. Perhaps its historical mark is with FDR, but most likely before when the progressive era actually begin. Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt marked some of the earlier beginnings of progressive ideology. With the rise of progressivism, government came to be viewed as an institution to be commandeered by bureaucratic experts who knew better than the people concerning their needs. However, again, the people themselves had to buy into this notion. Ask people today, particular in the areas of security and economics, when problems arise, then the government should do something. Such a mindset has affected both our domestic and foreign policies. Government is called upon to solve all our problems. From Social Security to DEI regulations, the all powerful State is the panacea needed to create the good life with equity for all.

Constitutional Crisis

In order for the Nanny State to become the all powerful caretaker, the U. S. Constitution as originally written must be undermined or shredded all together. Over the decades, we have watched states’ rights dwindle as the power of the centralized State increases. Rather than allowing states, counties, and municipalities to determine their own laws and regulations, people look to a federal law to commandeer all states. Moreover, there are movements to replace the electoral college with popular vote going the winner of the presidential election. A professor from UC Berkeley, for this very reason, has called for the Constitution to be rewritten. Basically, what this would mean is that New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston would elect the president every four years. An absolute democracy is the antithesis of a republican form of government. What centralized planners and absolute democrats are saying is that people in certain parts of the country do not deserve representation.

Foreign Policy

Under a centralized all-powerful State, a country’s foreign policy turns from defense into imperialistic expansionism. History points this out with Woodrow Wilson’s move to have the U.S. enter W.W. I. Then came FDR’s manipulation that led to U.S. involvement in W.W. II. Historically, the expansionism on the part of the U.S. has continued from the Korean War through Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan to the Mideast. Presently, we face a showdown with Russia. Although the progressives from the Democratic Party appear to be the movers behind domestic policy, the Neo-conservatives, found mainly in the Republican Party are the movers and shakers behind our foreign policy. Both parties, however, tend toward progressive measures in both domestic and foreign policies. Listening to the previous presidential debates, one is at a lost in hearing anything that resembles a desire to return the country to a republic form of government.

Economics of Inflation

Keynesianism is tailored for an all-powerful centralized State. If it’s the government that is to solve all our problems and carve out the good-life for us, then economic-decisions should be in its hands as much as possible. This is accomplished via government spending, whereby bureaucratic government workers and politicians determine how people’s money is to be spent for what. The only problem with this scenario is that the State does not have any money of its own. What it spends it must have already taken from others. Politicians, however, cannot be re-elected if they preach higher taxes. So where does the State turn to obtain more dollars to spend – the government printing press. Consequently, more dollars flood the economy, dollars that have not been produced via entrepreneurial activity, the result being, not only an unfathomable growing debt approaching 35-trillion dollars, but also a cheapening effect on the dollar for which people work. In turn, we see prices go up in every sphere from groceries, to general services, to automobiles, to home costs, etc. At present, the dollar is in a devastating destructive decline. Some countries are already seeking to disconnect their currency from the dollar. The next Federal budget will witness 20% of government spending simply to pay the interest on the debt. As long as people believe that it is the State’s business to solve economic problems, government interventionism into private businesses will continue to grow exponentially. If you are someone who takes a few minutes out of everyday to meditate, reflect on the number 35-trillion, and see if you can actually fathom what that means in terms of dollars and government debt.

Political Correctness Gone Awry

Anyone who watched the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, followed by a male boxer identifying as a female pound to ground hamburger the female Olympic boxers understands the lengths to which postmodernism and political correctness has taken various cultures. More seriously, such woke-ism is now becoming law per DEI regulations, for now regarding political institutions, state schools, and universities. It could be simply a matter of time before such regulations encroach upon private businesses. We witness the beginnings of this political maneuvering in some large corporations. Additionally, lawsuits attacking Christian businesses, such as bakers and florists, signaled a beginning move in the direction of the State’s dictatorial hegemony over private businesses. Some Christian bookstores have already closed their doors in fear of what DEI regulations may mean for their businesses.

Conclusion

The previous presidential debates, as well as the two candidates involved, provide no comfort for those who desire the reduction of an ever-encroaching all-powerful State. Both candidates are more than willing to spend other people’s money. Both appear to be too friendly toward the Military Industrial Complex. Although Trump will most likely push back against woke-ism and political correctness, the Republicans surrounding him have shown no overwhelming desire in that direction, save a handful. Both parties are made up of government full-timers that keep their position by spending other people’s money. Until the people of this country decide whether or not they want to live under the Constitution as originally written, we will continue to drift towards an all-powerful State, a failed Foreign Policy, and an economics of inflationism that destroys that for which people work.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D./September 14th, 2024

ANALYSIS OF POWER

August 14, 2024 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

Articles from the Mises Institute

For this months’s blog article I supplied some links to some articles written by Dr. Daniel Lacalle and Dr. Wanjiru Njoya, both independent scholars themselves and both who write for the Mises Institute. Mises Institute is a libertarian educational think-tank located in Auburn, AL near the campus of Auburn University. The Institute trains students in Austrian Economics as established by Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and others. The content of the many articles from the Institute go beyond what is understood as the dismal science of economics, demonstrating that a sound theory in economics allows us to understand the culture in which we live, the dangers of power that have been allocated to the State, and what a personal and meaningful life can entail. As a Christian, I find what is proffered in Austrian Economics can be readily grounded in a Judeo-Christian worldview.

Since we are in an election year, I believe the two articles to which I have linked readers to are timely but do not even scratch the surface of what can be learned through the educational efforts of the Mises Institute. So my hope is that those of you who read the articles by Drs. Lacalle and Njoya will be lead to explore all that the Mises Institute has to offer.

I placed the links for this month’s readings on the page, Analysis of Power. You can go to that page to read the articles and glean some information regarding the two authors.

Next month, 09/14/2024, I will provide part two of my take on the Face of the Nation. Until then, good reading, and for sure explore the Mises Institute website.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D/August 14th, 2024

ANALYSIS OF POWER (AOP)

July 14, 2024 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

“Pursuit” of “Happiness”

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . . (Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776).

Introduction

As Carl Trueman (1) has pointed out, we live in an age in which feelings have become the test of truth. If one feels a certain way, then that is his or her truth, not be denied by anyone else. This is especially true in terms of the identity question – as to whom or what one chooses to identify. With this exaltation of feelings and emotions, the word happiness, in terms of its meaning, has lost its true significance as used by the framers of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. In much the same way, the word pursuit has been emptied of its more powerful meaning. In the words of the Declaration of Independence stated above, several things stand out about which I want to comment in the blog article. First, regardless of what this postmodern age pretends to claim, there is such a thing as truth, and more importantly, self-evident truths. Second, the question emerges: What did the original framers mean by the words pursuit and happiness? Third, we cannot speak of self-evident truths apart from there being a Creator.

The Emptying of Words of Their Full Content

Russ Harris (2), in his work, The Happiness Trap, addresses the empty pursuit of what we tend to think happiness is today. We frame happiness as an emotion of feeling good. Many people have replaced what the framers meant by happiness and have exalted as a right to feel good constantly. When they do not feel good about their lives, then something is declared to be wrong, whether it be with other people and how they respond to them, or with society or culture as a whole. Harris considers this an empty chase of something that it is at best a fleeing emotion. In his Acceptance and Commitment Approach (ACT) to therapy, he relates true happiness to the building of one’s life on a set of values that one holds. Without a set of values that guides one’s life, happiness is simply an empty pursuit with no ground for its meaning. Although I agree with Harris that building a meaningful happy life should be grounded in the values we hold, values themselves must too be ultimately grounded in that which is real.

The Framer’s Take on Pursuit and Happiness

In his article from the Epoch Times, Jeff Minick (3) addresses the fact that people can define happiness as some sort of financial prosperity, possessing things, and holding some kind of status in society. Although these can be real pursuits, many find that in obtaining them, what they in fact possess is intangible and slips through their fingers like water, never stable or fully satisfying. Minick then turns to what the framers of the Constitution meant by the words happiness and pursuit. Drawing on James Rogers’ work, The Meaning of “The Pursuit of Happiness,” Minick declares that the original framers meant something more tangible that accrues in the pursuit of happiness. Rather than mere prosperity, happiness to the framers meant well-being in general. Such well being would emerge only in a virtuous life. True well-being in life could not be obtained apart from virtue.

Likewise we tend to think differently from the framers regarding the meaning of the word pursuit. Minick points out that typically we think of the word as an endless chasing after something, an object or a person. We also think of it in terms of pursuing or chasing after our dreams, whether our dreams have any grounding in reality or not. Go after your dream is a modern mantra, not related to one’s skills, abilities, or means to obtain said dreams. Again, Minick drawing on Rogers’ work points out that Rogers credited Arthur Schlesinger Sr. authoring a book chapter on what the word pursuit meant in the time of the framers. We might come closer to the meaning of pursuit when we say things like, he is pursuing medicine, or she is pursuing lawyering. Hence, pursuit can mean occupation or some kind of practice. Some kind of vocation is highlighted here. Pursuit then means the building of one’s life along a vocation, based on practice, skills, knowledge, and wisdom of the means to pursue one’s desired ends. We are talking about a meaningful life.

Pursuit of Happiness Is Grounded in the Transcendent

Minick quoting Rogers, the happiness of people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality. The framers pointed to the Creator as the foundation for our rights and liberty. As a Christian, I believe that unless our goals, aspirations, and pursuits are grounded in the Biblical truth concerning God and Jesus Christ whom He sent (John 17:3), then they will fall short of the true happiness we were designed to have. God has given us the means to the ends to a truly happy life. We are commanded by Him to pursue wisdom. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all knowledge (Proverbs 1:7). Biblical wisdom is the pathway for our building a purposeful and meaningful life. There is no meaning or goodness apart from God (Psalm 16:2). We can debate whether all the framers were Biblically-based Christians or not. But what they wrote and meant by the pursuit of happiness, as Minick points out, stands on the solid ground of piety, religion, and morality. Apart from this ground, there is no building a solid virtuous life of meaning.

[References: (1) Trueman, C. (2022). Strange New Worlds. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Publishers. (2) Harris, R. (2022). The Happiness Trap. Boulder, CO: Shambhala Publishing. (3) Minick, J.(2024). What Does the “Pursuit of Happiness” Mean? [In Epoch Times, June 24th, 2024, Online Edition].

John V. Jones, Jr, Ph.D./July 14th, 2024

ANALYSIS/CHRISTIAN THOUGHT

June 14, 2024 by J. V. Jones, Jr.

Face of the Nation I

Introduction

We find ourselves in that four-year cycle where we are faced with an election once again. Although I delineate below the concerns that I believe the nation faces, and that therefore we should closely attend to what politicians specifically say about these concerns, I have come to believe that for whom we vote in elections will have little effect on these concerns that I delineate in this blog article. Neither political party has demonstrated that it cares nor even understands how major concerns we face in this nation are transforming this republic into a Statist authoritarian rule of political elites. There are few, if any, individuals running for office who claim as their passion to rid people’s lives of an ever encroaching State into every nook and cranny of individuals’ personal pursuits. What the nation faces is a constitutional crisis. Does any particular politician call for a constitutional cure that will restore the republic form of government under which we are supposed to live? I have categorized ten concerns that I believe the nation faces. I will discuss five of those ten concerns on this month’s blog article. The remaining five I will discuss for September’s blog entry.

The Economics of Inflation

The economic stability of the nation has been in the forefront of peoples’ thinking since the debacle of 2008 and the absurd quantitative easing that followed. Simultaneously and unfortunately people continue to look to the government for livelihood and security. Following the 2008 recession the governmental response to the pandemic of 2020 led to numerous business failings with drastic effects for the economy from which the country is yet to recover.

Inflation and Hyperinflation

The major threat to our economy simply put is government spending. The notion of a $34-trillion dollar debt doesn’t appear to concern either party as promises from government to provide health, wealth, and security continue to flow from D. C. The Federal Bank’s printing machine continues to print money so as to stimulate the economy. Keynesianism is on overdrive in the government’s response to insure the economy will flourish. And increased taxation becomes a threat to all forms of wealth and property while the middle class continues to carry the burden of the country’s woes. These monetary and fiscal policies continue to negatively hammer the value of the dollar for which people work. On top of that we are fed the nonsense by government officials that there is no inflation. One wonders if such bearers of economic news have ever gone to the grocery store, noticed the price of automobiles, or have sought lately to purchase a home.

History is replete with the lessons of the dangers of government spending, particularly that of the Weimar Republic in 1923. The printing machine mentality cannot continue without ushering the nation’s economy into a hyperinflation mode, which is the very sign of an economy on the verge of collapse. Presently, small businesses are treading deep water. The hurtles for small business startups are difficult due to expenses, taxes, and the shrinking value of the dollar. Unfortunately, corporations who are in bed and partnered with government have become what supposedly defines capitalism. Hence people call on a more powerful State to fix things. In an economy ensconced in hyperinflation, no politician wants to proffer the necessary solutions because the remedy would frighten people beyond fathoming. Four books that speak to the deadly concerns of hyperinflation are: The Fuhrer (Konrad Heiden); Waste Paper: The German Hyperinflation of 1923 (Simone Ricci); Germany 1923: Hyperinflation, Hitler’s Putsch, and Democracy in Crisis (Volker Ullrich); and When Money Dies: The Nightmare of Deficit Spending, Devaluation, and Hyperinflation in Weimar Germany (Adam Fergusson). The U.S. economy faces an unfathomable government debt and the devaluation of the dollar, and it is on the precipice of destructive hyperinflation. Listen for any discussion of this economic reality from would-be presidential candidates for the 2024 election. Then listen even closer for any stated remedies.

Foreign Policy

No doubt Israel’s conflict in the Gaza and the Ukraine war will be discussed in vague rhetorical terms among Democrat and Republican debate strategists. Although Hamas started this latest war with Israel via the butchery that Hamas is known for, it will be interesting to see if any politician addresses the reaction from Israel that has led to much more than is alluded to by the phrase collateral damage. Likewise, will any questions and/or discussion arise regarding the limit to which the U.S. should support Zelensky in the Ukraine under the rubric that he is a democrat? More importantly, will any presidential candidate touch on the historical position whereby the U.S. has sought not be entangled in foreign affairs? (This last notion may appear totally rhetorical, given this nation’s involvement in foreign conflicts since Korea to the present.) But do we, as a nation, have a principled foreign policy by which we seek to live?

Having stated the above, our foreign policy appears to be a muddled mess, given our position on Russia, while the nation’s politicians play soulmates with China. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been, and is, one of the most vicious collectivist regimes for over seven decades. Although there might be some nod to supporting Taiwan, is the U.S. truly supporting Taiwan with its friendliness toward mainland China and the CCP? June 4th, 2024 marked the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. The elder Bush, rather than supporting those who were butchered by the tanks and guns of the CCP, sought friendly relations with China. Given that China is purchasing land in the U.S. in warp speed, what is our Foreign Policy toward the regime of the CCP? The annual Shangri-La Dialogue occurred on May 31, 2024. The CCP is straightforward in how it views its own position in the world, and how it sees other countries. In this latest round of dialogues, the CCP is adamant that Taiwan and the Philippines fall under what China calls the South China Sea control. The CCP offers stern warnings against Taiwan and the Philippines if they do not accept their position in the South China Sea. Likewise, they threatened the West (Europe and the U.S.) if it seeks to support either Taiwan or the Philippines [Balding, Epoch Times, June 6, 2024]. If Putin as an ex-KGB guy still represents the haunts of the Soviet regime, then the CCP is certainly not our friend. Presently, I think it has to be taken as a given that both Russia and the CCP have as their goal the collectivist control of the world. How might the U.S. build on a principled Foreign Policy that takes a strong stand against these two regimes?

Education

The homeschool movement has been in full force for several decades now. The pandemic which witnessed the closing of schools enhanced the desire of many parents to rethink public education and move toward homeschooling. The upsurge of woke ideology simultaneous with the decreased academic standards related to the three-r’s has also moved parents toward the desire for homeschooling, homeschool co-opts, and private education, thereby removing their children from government schools. Unfortunately, the teachers’ unions for public schooling are politically connected and entrenched in their ideology. Although a large number of parents desire to make moves toward homeschooling and private education, they are still forced to pay school taxes to support public education. The school voucher system has been touted as one remedy for the sad state of education in the U.S. although such a system leaves in place government control of schooling. Listen for what politicians say regarding the rights of parents to have their children exit the public education system to either homeschool them or place them in private schools. Then listen for any support for public education that compromises their position. Better yet, listen for any statement whatsoever from the politically elite on education.

Border Crisis

Since Biden and the Democrats have opened the flood gates to (and yes I’ll say it) illegal immigration, the number of immigrants crossing the southern border of the U. S. has grown exponentially. Although, libertarian in my perspective, I have come to question most libertarian stances on open borders, especially in a day when terrorists of one stripe or another can so easily gain access into the country. Moreover, our immigration policy that now extends the government dole to those entering the country lacks any common sense or basic morality when the taxpayer is on the hook for subsidizing immigrants. At the very least before we can consider a libertarian position on open borders, subsidizing of immigrants must come to an end. One wonders how many would consider the risk of sneaking across the border if there were no government subsidies waiting for them. A true libertarian society based on free market and private property values must not assess the border crisis today along mere ideological lines. The amount of taxpayer money going to illegal immigrants on top of the already wretched inflation that has hit people’s pocketbooks is asking too much for the public to support. Should we be glad that people want to emigrate to this country? By all means. But we need a solid economic policy that creates the kind of society they hope to find here. Barring that reality, we need to hear what politicians have to say about illegal immigration.

Internet Politicization

The Dot.com revolution promised people a free market where ideas could be generated and debated, providing alternative pathways to legacy media and the news offered there. Unfortunately, many who tread in the political elite class view liberty as a problem to be placed under their control. Candidates running for any political office should address the politicizing of the internet that has undermined the freedom that the Dot.com revolution promised. The internet needs to remain the freest and most wide open resource for individuals to generate and search for ideas that speak to all areas of life. The State, however, is extending its ever-growing tentacles to control what is written and stated on various websites. Youtube, Facebook, and others have negated content that doesn’t fit a particular political ideology. We witnessed this most blatantly in the censoring of website material that was critical of the government’s handling of the so-called pandemic. Not only was such information and perspectives censored, they, in turn, were labeled misinformation, and, if possible, criminalized. We also witnessed certain financial venues refuse to work with those websites that were designated as misinformation. Although I believe strongly in the right of owners of such venues as Facebook and YouTube to determine their content, they should not become an arm of the State’s desire to censor material that criticizes the State. Simply put, some individuals may post things online that are egregious in their content. A free market should determine their fate. Perspective candidates need to speak, to not how they want to see the internet operated, but to whether or not they want to let the internet continue to be the free market source of ideas and an alternative source to legacy media.

Conclusion

The nation is bitterly divided today along political ideologies that have no apparent resolution to coexist in a society that allows the free exchange of ideas, all of which should be protected by Constitutional rights that are basic such as the freedom of speech, the freedom to worship, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom to disagree openly. Presently, we face a Constitutional crisis. This nation needs to decide what the Constitution truly represents. The five concerns above should be principally addressed by perspective candidates. Come September, I will discuss an additional five concerns, beginning with our Constitutional crisis.

[Reference: Balding, C. (2024). How China Views the World. [In The Epoch Times, June 6, 2024. Online edition.]

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D./June 14th, 2024

ANALYSIS OF POWER