The error both fair traders and Acton fall into is the same, and it isn’t an economic error but a moral failing. Both arrogantly assume that a subsistence peasantry is a mean and ugly thing and a blight on the modern enlightened world. Both seek to destroy said peasantry either by enslaving them to markets or entitlements.

There’s much truth to that. Two things in response. First, as I said in the discussion, I’d rather err on the side of the fair trade model than the free market model. In the end, even if the farmer’s become enslaved to entitlements, they’re likely better off. Second, I think there are ways to work within the Fair Trade model without rearranging the culture of farming within the communities. Companies like Dean’s Beans focus on doing what the farming communities need, not what the company thinks the communities need.

Need a more concrete example? Look no further. I find Mimi Smartypants to be at times very funny or very frustrating. This post falls under the category of frustrating.

Here’s the part where I whine like a spoiled baby with serious entitlement issues: This finding-good-childcare thing is really hard. And really expensive. If it’s hard for me and LT, who are Internet-connected and savvy about hunting down referrals, conducting background checks, and evaluating our options, I can’t imagine what it is like for people without the time or resources. If it’s expensive for a one-child, two-parent family where both adults make a decent salary, I can’t imagine what it is like for families with more children and less income. After these last few weeks of stressing about it I am ready to either make a hefty donation to a daycare advocacy group or start calling senator’s offices myself, so if you know of any particular causes I should support, send me an email. Or if you just want to join me for a beer and bitch about the situation, send me an email as well. The personal is the political is drunk angry women sketching plans for the revolution on cocktail napkins.

I resist the urge to get out my very tiny violin. But, again, here is Koyzis’ point played out the real world. Being unwilling to take part in the rather un-feminist world of child-rearing (as many of her prior posts will attest to), Mimi wants the government to pay for her child-care because, well, it’s their job. Her argument is wrapped in the logic of economics — how can a two parent, two wage-earner family be expected to make a decent salary and pay someone to raise their child? Here’s where I sound like a curmudgeon — deciding to raise a family should take priority in one’s life. It’s not something to be shoehorned between work and a social life. Parenthood is about sacrifice — we very explicitly choose to put aside things we love in the service of someone who relies on us for her every need. The pragmatist in me has something to say about this too — if daycare is so expensive, is it a wise choice economically for both parents to work? If nearly every penny from one wage-earner’s monthly salary goes to someone to tend to the children, why not just stay home?

Do I think that all parents who send their child to daycare are evil? No, not really. That is their decision. Do I think a single wage-earner family, with the other staying at home to raise children is an ideal situation? Absolutely. Do I think the State should legislate it? Not really. I’ll re-use this quote from the old Jebbie:

But in the main, I do not think there is any real hope for “reform” of the late-liberal state. I think the best answer is to resist disorder personally, and if one is truly successful at this, it will spill over into one’s family and one’s immediate community. Hunker down and wait for the big crash per MacIntyre* and Eliot.** See what’s salvageable from the rubble.

Awhile back, I mentioned a case coming before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding eminent domain — they power of a government to take private property for “public use” development. Today, the high court ruled in favor the New London government, allowing the city to take private property (even against the wishes of the land owners) for public development. Their argument? A local government knows what’s best for local economic development. Of course, who is first beneficiary of property taken via eminent domain? The private developers. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was clear about this in her dissent:

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

My politics are pretty hard to pin down, especially when viewed within the red/blue lenses most folks like to wear. I may lean toward big C Conservatism, but this decision makes me uncomfortable for rather libertarian reasons — I’m just not comfortable with the idea of a government having the power to take private property for “economic” development. As O’Connor pointed out, perhaps many years down the road, those who were displaced will feel the positive economic effects of their government’s action, but those private developers who gain business will always be first beneficiaries (I hear those trickle-down economists arguing already — “but the development will create jobs!” My response? Why not just randomly raze and rebuild parts of the infrastructure every few years to create more jobs?). And of course, those families being displaced by the New London government will probably not be enjoy the development, since it will include a hotel, an office park, and a health club. Looking out for the best interests of the citizens indeed.

American exceptionalism was never more clearly expressed than by Secretary of War Elihu Root, who in 1899 declared, “The American soldier is different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the world began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order, and of peace and happiness.” At the time he was saying this, American soldiers in the Philippines were starting a bloodbath which would take the lives of 600,000 Filipinos.

…

Bush?s national-security strategy and its bold statement that the United States is uniquely responsible for peace and democracy in the world has been shocking to many Americans.

But it is not really a dramatic departure from the historical practice of the United States, which for a long time has acted as an aggressor, bombing and invading other countries (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Grenada, Panama, Iraq) and insisting on maintaining nuclear and non-nuclear supremacy. Unilateral military action, under the guise of prevention, is a familiar part of American foreign policy.

Zinn also points out that while many of Bush’s critics are on the left of the political spectrum, exceptionalism is hardly a conservative practice. Progressives and liberals, notably Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt, were not afraid of waging war in the name of freedom. Alternately, there are plenty of conservatives who shudder at the current direction of U.S. foreign policy, from isolationists like Buchanon to, well, curmudgeons like Wendell Berry.

And of tangential interest, Zinn’s discussion perhaps offers another perspective on the on-going discussion of pacificism and just wars on Gideon’s site.

Religious liberty is only as strong as the rights of miniorities. Take away the rights of parents to advocate their own faith to their children and the next thing you know you?ll have evangelical kids forced to sit in school classes that openly attack the faith taught in their homes. Wait, that?s happening already, isn?t it?

But the point remains the same. Parents have a right to pray with their kids and even preach to them. If Christians ? even very conservative ones ? want that right they should defend that right for others.

Christians should be appalled that a judge has attempted to define what mainstream religion is, and what belief systems are appropriate to teach children. While many evangelicals promote the idea of teaching Christianity in public schools and further shrinking the separation of church and state, they often too short-sighted in their goals. The Christian Church is a terribly complex beast, and denominations and churches regularly split over issues like singing Psalms or women praying aloud during a worship service. Certainly, most of them believe in God, and believe that Christ died for our sins, but the similarities often end there. Government should not be in the business of telling us what belief systems are valid.* Isn’t this what Kuyper fought against?

* At this point, many will argue “but what about a faith that promotes the sacrifice of innocents? Well, faith should not infringe upon the rights of others. certainly the slope here becomes slippery, but it is one we must tread nonetheless.

I found myself nodding in agreement with many of the notions put forth by Henrie — an emphasis on community and family, and social good. Then there is the economic perspective — a “third way” between capitalism and socialism as defined by Wilhelm Roepke, with the Market bound within social institutions to avoid the inevitable pitfalls of the Market, consumer materialism and social instability. Despite his snarkiness about the 1990s under Bill Clinton, Henrie sounds unconvinced of the Neo-Cons desire to bring democracy to the Middle East. Henrie also believes that the current emphasis on national defense is compatible with Conservative thought — I stopped nodding my head here, though it had more to do with my own feelings toward national security matters rather than any commitment to Conservativism.

Back to Crooked Timber. I guess in my own partially-informed way, I’ve been waiting for this civil war as well. What I wonder, however, is whether the Traditionalist Conservatives will strike out on their own and attempt to wrestle power from the Neo-Cons in the Republican party to bring more continuity to the party’s platform. Despite my interest in Conservative political philosophy, I can’t quite bring myself to be a Republican, as the party’s corporatism and near-religious commitment to Darwinist economic policy (ironic, no?) doesn’t sit well.

GM: You say that software doesn’t steal content, people steal content. So what do you think of the RIAA’s strategy of suing individual file-sharers?

MC: I have no problem with it at all. If you steal, you are wrong. You should have to deal with the consequences. We have plenty of laws on the book to make sure that happens.

I agree. While file-sharing and copyright infringement intersect, the problem spaces are entirely separate. I do, however, think the RIAA is an iron-fisted tyrant.

GM: Does the Betamax precedent apply to the Grokster case, even though people are using digital technology like Grokster to amass libraries, not just to tape shows and enhance viewing convenience?

MC: Yes. People amassed libraries on tape as well. You can pick up any movie-collector mag and see the ads to buy a VHS or DVD of any TV show ever made. That’s a big library, and those ads have been there for at least 10 years. The industry doesn’t care.

Again, he’s right.

Say what you will about Cuban and his management style, but you can’t deny he’s smary guy.

Richard Mouw has a modest proposal: let’s really talk about “moral values” in the Public Square by using Jesus’ call to action — the Beatitudes. But what intrigued me most was Mouw’s source:

Actually the idea is not original with me. I got it from an unlikely source when it comes to spiritual matters: Kurt Vonnegut. Vonnegut, a gifted novelist not known specifically for his religious insights, made some good theological sense last year in a column he wrote. He noted that there is a lot of talk lately about making the Ten Commandments visible in public places, but no one ever seems to mention the Beatitudes as having any meaning for our public life. Why not? he asks. After all, the Ten Commandments are from Moses, but if you really believe in Jesus you should want his unique teachings to get some publicity. So, proposes Vonnegut, let?s put ?Blessed are the merciful? signs in our courtrooms. And let?s have a big ?Blessed are the peacemakers? billboard in the Pentagon.

Would the average Christian think they could learn something from Vonnegut?

The subject of his discussion is the much-maligned corporate whipping boy, Wal-Mart. It’s much easier to catalog their ills than it is to defend their practices, and even Dignan admits he doesn’t like them, but he defends them, as free market capitalists are wont to do. He rightly concludes:

On the whole, I am very unimpressed by criticisms of Wal-Mart wages and impact upon local communities. It is entirely within the power of the people of this country to bring Wal-Mart to its knees. Yet, Wal-Mart continues to grow and prosper. What does that tell us about the choices that America is making?

But it’s here that I have to cry foul. Dignan is right — it is incumbent upon consumers within a free market economy to effect change by using their power as consumers. We very well could put Wal-Mart out of business, but that requires a group effort, something that many conservatives abhor. There are many churches that have tried to wield economic power this way, and they may have been at least slightly effective, but I think this sort of action still misses the point. Conservatives (especially Christians) refuse to judge economic behavior in the name of the Free Market. Sure, they will, as Dignan does, point out the perhaps Wal-Mart doesn’t treat its employees well, but, they’ll say, those people can work elsewhere. And, of course, they are right. But, I believe that is beside the point.

Conservatives (and conservative Christians, especially) are very willing to use the government to intervene when a particular behavior ruffles their moral sensibilities (see homosexuality and homosexual marriage). They believe that people cannot make the proper decisions about these matters, and therefore the government, in the interest of the greater good of society, should step in. All bets are off, however, when the subject is economics (except in the cases of monopolies and massive corporate corruption). The market will take care of itself, they say. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. If you don’t like your employer, work elsewhere.

I find it a bit hypocritical that conservative Christians are willing to turn the other way on economic matters, yet when the subject is homosexuality and gay marriage, the government has to intervene. Such faith in the invisible hand of the free market seems almost idolatrous. I am not necessarily promoting heavy government intervention in the marketplace (though I just might be), but I am promoting Christians being more vocal about issues of economic justice. I would like to hear Christians being critical of corporations rather than consumers (as Dignan does). Again, Dignan isn’t completely wrong — people do need to make better choices in their lives — but the blame needs to be distributed fairly. Fighting for economic justice is more than simply educating consumers.