The problem is that religious values, being based on faith instead or reason, are completely arbitrary.

They therefore cannot be “misused”, by definition, as determining what constitutes “use” necessarily involves knowledge of what those values *are*. Since religious values are made up (“faith-based”), they can be literally *anything*. All one needs to do is invent, choose or adapt (“re-interpret”) existing ones to fit the pre-existing “use” (read: wish or whim) which needs to be justified.

Case in point:

As for self-sacrifice, the reason for it is simple: It makes you feel good about yourself. Even secularists recognize this.

The concept “misuse” is preposterously inapplicable to “religious values”, as the latter lack the required identity to determine “use” in the first place.

Which ones?

Myrhaf,
I don’t expect to disprove the first part of your statement. I’ll leave that to God.

As for faith, I agree with you. Blind faith in God is for those without the vision to see Him in this universe. Frankly, I pity them.

As for self-sacrifice, the reason for it is simple: It makes you feel good about yourself. Even secularists recognize this.

Mind you, I only recommend self-sacrifice on the personal level, not on the government level. Using self-sacrifice as an excuse for governmental altruism is “passing the buck”. To those who suggest government should be altruistic, I say, “Do it yourself.”

I suggest you begin Crisis and Leviathan at Part 2, which begins with Chapter 5. That is the historical discussion. The first four chapters present the author’s theory of why the state grows larger and sometimes doesn’t in response to crises. I have completed the historical section, which was excellent, and have just begun reading Part 1 now in order to complete the book. I will let you know if it is worth reading.

Part 2 does work perfectly well as a stand-alone review of the history of the growth of the regulatory state.

-GB

The bimetallic standard vote I referred to in the previous comment took place prior to 1900.

He also mentions the controversy over the gold standard, and whether to use a bimetallic standard with silver. This was evidently put to a vote of some kind, and Americans rejected it, Garret saying they wanted sound money.

Roosevelt ran on a platform of sound money, and then turned around and confiscated all the gold in private hands, in another of his great deceptions.

It is a survey of American regulatory history from the Civil War onward. Most of that period saw a ratcheting of government controls ever greater, spurred on by military and economic crises. After each one of them, such as the Great Depression, World War II, etc., government controls were partially repealed, but a new layer of controls remained. Moreover, the ideological justification for controls was strengthened, so that when the next crisis hit, the magnitude of controls imposed during the next crisis exceeded the level of prior crises.

But there is a mystery in all this. During the Civil War, severe controls were imposed including an abandonment of the gold standard, the first imposition of the income tax, and military conscription. But why was all of this repealed within 20 years after the end of the Civil War, culminating in an explicit, legal adoption of gold as our money by the end of the century?

Higgs also observes that the Panic of 1893 was one of the more severe economic recessions, akin to a mini-Depression in severity. But, despite appeals for the federal government to provide direct monetary relief to individuals and to debase the currency in an effort to inflate out of the crisis, why did none of this happen? Why was the President and Congress able to hold firm to a nearly laissez-faire approach, despite the pressure?

The author struggles for an answer and vaguely pins it on “ideology.” However, the answer is clear. What strengthened the spines of our politicians in the late 1800s, and what weakened the spines of conservatives today is something very powerful. You named it, and that is what changed in the minds of intellectual leaders between the 1800s and the 1900s.

The battle that must be fought is clear.

But I am encouraged that the Raiders ended the season 5-11. That tells you how pathetic they were earlier in the season.

There is much wisdom in this. Conservatives don’t get this. I have heard so many Conservatives argue that just because the Bible calls for charity that doesn’t mean that this fact implies that the gov’t should do it; ie Christian charity does not imply the welfare-state. But this doesn’t wash. Ethics will determine politics. If you preach altruism as a virtue, someone (or gang of someones) will insist that it be enforced politically.

Larry Auster argues this all the time, in effect saying that liberals – because they are secularists and therefore have a “reductionist” approach to scripture – misread the Bible and Christ’s teachings. True Christianity would not endorse socialism to his way of thinking. This is naive at best. In Auster’s case its alot worse. But this goes beyond Auster and his Traditionalism as most fiscal Conservatives make this argument and its worthless against the consistent altruism of the Left as we have seen.

A lot of otherwise well meaning, productive people do it. They can, for most purposed, lead good lives, only turn around on a dime and support some form of tyranny. It’s not the lack of philosophy, but the unquestioned acceptance of unmentioned premises. Ideas will always affect you whether you choose to acknowledge them or not. And if you don’t, you’re at the mercy of anyone who is more consistent than you are, not to mention circumstances in general.

Whenever I decide to analyze someone’s ideas, this becomes apparent. Not surprisingly, bad ideas tend to rush the fastest toward a vacuum.

People need values in order to live fulfilled lives; they are mistakenly turning to religion for those values.

Religious values are like the old NRA bumper sticker: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Religious values are tools like guns. It is HOW you use them that determines your results.

And just like guns, if you misuse religious values, you’ll end up with the wrong results.

For example, can you tell me the difference between a secular Democrat who bases his politics on altruism, and a religious Republican who bases his politics on the Bible? There is none. They both go for the same results (as you correctly pointed out). They just use different tools.

P.S. On an unrelated note, how about the Raiders kicking Gruden’s Bucs out of the playoffs? It took us a few years, but revenge is sweet.