Here Comes My Baby: Isaiah on Social Security

Today, a friend posted a satirical argument from the Borowitz Report, Republicans Propose Replacing Social Security with Groupons. The article was of course hilarious, but I couldn't help but respond:

The Amish advanced the argument that Social Security is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and I think they were exactly correct. I have been saying for some time now, that egalitarian redistribution of wealth in general, as part of "welfare", violates liberty of conscience and freedom of religion. The Amish merely applied that argument to Social Security specifically.

How to Fix Social Security, Amish Style

Valentine Byler vs. the IRS: "Pay Unto Caesar - The Amish & Social Security"

To quote the Amish themselves:

We, as representatives of the Old Order Amish Mennonite Church, do herein express our deep appreciation, and with grateful hearts do we recount the favors and consideration accorded our forefathers in the past...

We believe in a supreme being and also the constitution of the USA, and we feel the Social Security Act and Old Age Survivors Insurance [OASI] is abridging and infringing to our religious freedom. We believe in giving alms in the church according to Christ’s teaching.

It has been our Christian concern from birth of our church group to supply those of our group who have a need, financial or otherwise... Our faith has always been sufficient to meet the needs as they come about, and we feel the present OASI is an infringement on our responsibilities; as a church we feel grieved that this OASI has come upon us...

We Bishops, representatives of the Old Order Churches of the USA are appealing to you to prayerfully consider and reconsider this favor. In God we trust.

After this exchange, pondering the subject of Social Security, and thinking about a letter of support to the Amish from a writer in Dallas, Texas, reading,

May I congratulate you on having the intestinal fortitude to stand up for your beliefs. While I am aware that your action stemmed from a love of your religion rather than from defiance, I hope that your example may serve to point out to some of us just how far our benevolent Government will go to reach its goal of making dependents of us all. There seems to be no place for a person who asks merely to be left alone, and to provide for himself and his family.

...I was reminded of Isaiah 42:7, "To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house."

Meanwhile, I was listening to Cat Stevens sing "Here Comes My Baby", and I realized that one could listen to the song, as if it were God singing it to humanity, echoing the immediately following verse from Isaiah 42, namely verse 8, "I am the LORD, that is My name; and My glory will I not give to another, neither My praise to graven images."

So without further ado, I offer, as a religious-political expression, Cat Stevens's "Here Comes My Baby", accompanied by Isaiah 42:6-8:

I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and have taken hold of thy hand, and kept thee, and set thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the nations; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house. I am the LORD, that is My name; and My glory will I not give to another, neither My praise to graven images.

אֲנִי יְהוָה קְרָאתִיךָ בְצֶדֶק, וְאַחְזֵק בְּיָדֶךָ; וְאֶצָּרְךָ, וְאֶתֶּנְךָ לִבְרִית עָם--לְאוֹר גּוֹיִם. לִפְקֹחַ, עֵינַיִם עִוְרוֹת; לְהוֹצִיא מִמַּסְגֵּר אַסִּיר, מִבֵּית כֶּלֶא יֹשְׁבֵי חֹשֶׁךְ. אֲנִי יְהוָה, הוּא שְׁמִי; וּכְבוֹדִי לְאַחֵר לֹא-אֶתֵּן, וּתְהִלָּתִי לַפְּסִילִים.

Israeli Torah-Theocracy: Simple Libertarianism

If you check the halakhah (Jewish law), it says that ANY gentile can live in Israel as long as he keeps the Noahide laws (the laws of basic, righteous conduct, expected of gentiles). And what do the Noahide laws say? Do not hurt your neighbor; do not commit crime. So basically, as long as you're a libertarian, you're allowed to live in Israel, according to the halakhah.

If the halakhah also demanded that Noahides be monotheistic (the first Noahide law is that you cannot be an idolater), and that gentiles cannot wield power in Israel (only Jews are allowed to wield political power in Israel, according to the halakhah, even if gentiles are allowed to live in Israel), it was likely because being a monotheistic Jew was the safest guarantee of being a libertarian.

The same way that religious tests of office in Puritan New England were meant to keep pro-monarchy Anglicans out of office (who would have surrendered the whole community to the king if they got into office), so too, the restriction to monotheists (for gentiles' habitation in Israel) and Jews (for office in Israel) was meant to make sure that only libertarians would populate and run the country.

These are my own thoughts, but I am inclined to agree with Rose Wilder Lane's The Discovery of Freedom: Abraham "had taught his increasing family that men are free." (p. 73) "Abraham said that none of these gods exist. He said that God is the One Creator-and-Judge. God is The Right, he said; Rightness creates the universe and judge's men acts. (As water judge's a swimmer's rightness in swimming, God judges rightness in living.) But God does not control any man, Abraham said; a man controls himself, he is free to do good or evil in the sight of God." (p. 74) "When you think of the pagan world as it was in the historical time when only the Israelites held this truth, you see their preserving it as the great achievement of all history." (p. 75) "They were a very small group, surrounded by powerful pagan empires; Egypt in the south, Armenia, Persia, Chaldea, Babylonia, Assyria, in the north and east, and in the west, Rome. The most promising young Israelites were always falling in love with pagan girls. The pagan achievements awed them all. When you see the incredible walls of Baalbek or Tadmor, in ruins as they are now, and even with the memory of New York's towers behind your eyelids, you are struck dumb. The simple Israelites who saw these gigantic cities in their magnificence, dwarfing their thronging populations, must have been stunned. They would have melted humbly into those pagan multitudes, if their strong men had not stood in the way and driven them back with threats, telling them that they were like no other people, that they were set apart, chosen to know the truth and hold to it. They wanted to be 'like all the other nations.' But to be like any other people, they must forget that men are free. That is the truth they held. Therefore, of course, they were anarchists. They lived and prospered for centuries, with no government whatsoever." (pp. 77f.)

Regarding all inhabitants of Israel having to be monotheist, cf. John Locke's "A Letter Concerning Toleration", that Biblical Israel punished idolaters because, in a unique fashion, God was the immediate Legislator.

Disingenuous Cherry-picking: The Fallacies in Citing Alexander Hamilton and the Supreme Court

Thomas E. Woods responds to Paul J. O'Rourke's claim that Ron Paul does not know the Constitution. Basically, O'Rouke had cited Alexander Hamilton's broad interpretation of the "general welfare" clause and the 1798 "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen" (which was an act of socialized healthcare), to argue that Obamacare is constitutional and that Ron Paul is wrong for arguing that the "general welfare" is not a broad, unlimited grant of power. Woods in turn refutes O'Rouke, but I just want to add a few remarks to what Woods says.

For the statists (such as O'Rouke), it seems that as long as you can find any opinion permitting government action, that action is alright. If Alexander Hamilton interpreted "general welfare" as a carte blanche, then who are we to disagree? The fact that others, such as Madison, disagreed with this interpretation of "general welfare", and the fact that the Federalists in general had succeeded in getting the Constitution ratified only assuaging the fears of the Antifederalists and convincing them that the federal government would have only limited, enumerated, delegated powers (which means "general welfare" cannot be a carte blanche), is seen as irrelevant by them.

Similarly, they'll cite Supreme Court decisions, as if a Supreme Court decision contradicting the Constitution is more valid than the Constitution itself. They'll say, "See, the Constitution permits X, because Judge So-and-so said so!" But the possibility that the judge was wrong, never occurs to them. The entire case law method of law is thus fundamentally moronic. What is authoritative is the Constitution, not anyone's personal opinion of it. Court decisions ought to be cited insofar as they are (thought) to express valid interpretations of the Constitution, not as having any authority in and of themselves.

The statists will cite actions of the Federalists like Adams and Hamilton, and say, "See, the Framers did it!" Now, I must admit, this IS a valid argument. When they make this argument, they are at least on reasonable territory. O'Rouke cites Adams's coerced insurance for sailors, and implies the rhetorical question, are we going to say that Adams, one of the Framers, did not know the Constitution? The argument is a seriously reasonable one. But there's still a problem: Madison's and Jefferson's Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions claimed, very vehemently, that Adams was eviscerating the Constitution. Regarding the "general welfare" clause, Madison's Virginia Resolution says,

That the General Assembly [of Virginia] doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases...

So contra O'Rouke, yes, it is very possible that Adams did not understand the Constitution! Alternatively, I would say, the Framers themselves were more more correct than they knew, when they said men are sinful and liable to abuse power. In fact, when Jefferson was president, he imposed a trade embargo which New England thought unconstitutional, and the New Englanders quoted his own Kentucky Resolution right back at him in justifying their disobeying him. So I would say that it is far more significant when a Framer thought the Constitution forbade something, than when he thought the Constitution permitted it. כחא דהתרא עדיפא ("the power of permission is superior"), a permission is more novel (and thus more suspicious) than a prohibition. To forbid the government an exercise of power, is always the safest and most reasonable route, ספק דאורייתא לחומרא ("in a case of doubt about a Torah law, be strict"), in a case of doubt, we should be strict. To be lenient and permit the government an exercise of power, is suspicious and novel, and it is always possible that the official in power is either maliciously abusing his power, or else his own aspirations have clouded his judgement and he honestly believes his exercise of power is legitimate when it is in fact not. But when anyone interprets the Constitution as limiting the government's power (Madison: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."), it is much more reasonable for us to take it at face value and as accurate and true.

These people will cherry-pick permissive legal opinions the same way that some lax and lazy Modern Orthodox Jews will, but with one difference: when a lax person cherry-picks an obscure leniency, he is affecting only himself, and if his cherry-picking is sinful, at least he is hurting only himself. But it is perverse to cherry-pick a lenient opinion for the government, because this means the government will use that leniency to exercise power over others. It is perverse to be lenient at someone else's expense.