St. Maximos' Hut

One of the Texas Tech students at the water law symposium blogged about Maude Barlow's speech as well with some interesting comments here.

It is a pretty interesting blog generally and worth a look. Sonya Jones describes herself as a "law student on a Jeffersonian mission." She's got a nice range of op-eds published on a wide variety of topics (links on the blog).

One take away from the Texas Tech Water Conference (a very well run, interesting conference) that I just left was that many people saw economics as a point of view, more or less on a par with Hopi creation stories and Genesis' account of Creation (to use 2 examples from my panel). There was a general "can't we all just get along and use the best of each point of view" undercurrent to many comments.

I find this troubling. We may disagree about the moral impact of markets in total, but as far as I can see statements like "demand curves slope downward" and "people respond to incentives" are factual statements (capable of being empirically verified by observation, experiment, and reasoning). Such statements are ignored with the same effectiveness as the statement "gravity exerts an effect on objects" is ignored.

Now it may be that subjecting objects to markets has effects on how we treat them that we don't like. But one effect of making something like water subject to markets is that a lot more of it gets to where people want it - and the problem of water is largely a problem of getting supply to the place where it is demanded.

Recognizing man's fallen nature, can we do better than to appeal to the self-interest of others in obtaining the necessities of life? I haven't heard an explanation yet that justifies a positive answer to that question.

This goes to the argument in Thomas Woods' The Church and the Market that says that moral arguments that do not recognize economic realities are not effective moral arguments. I find this position compelling.

Thus it seems to me that we ought to be able to demand that opponents of markets bear the burden of proof on showing how alternative institutions will provide a superior outcome on both moral and practical terms.

Protestant trading cards?

An intriguing set of thoughts from "Just A Woman".

This morning, as I sip coffee from my “Caffienated Christianity” coffee mug while wearing my “God Speaks” t-shirt, I wanted to share a few thoughts about numbers. No, not Numbers—numbers as in those related to Christian publishing.

I have been contemplating the business of Christianity in the context of an article I have just written on the proliferation of Bible translations and formats. I don’t want to give away the goods on the piece, as I am sure that competing editors even now are engaging in close-combat for the privilege of publishing it. However, here are some things to think about while browsing at Amazon or CBD.com for that “must have” Bible translation or Christian book.

No one actually knows how many Bibles are sold annually by all publishers, because many guard their sales figures — but the total is believed be in the tens of millions. The Gallup organization estimated that the United States market alone for the sale of Bibles is at least 20 million copies, with millions more being distributed free.

Hard numbers are anecdotal, and annual reports do not typically break out of sales of Bibles as a separate category. Nonetheless, publisher Thomas Nelson, which offers a full line of Bibles, reported net income of $16,165,000 in 2004.

Beyond Bibles, the figures are astounding. Once again, precise dollar figures for sales are elusive, but sales through Christian Bookseller Association member stores and distributors came to $4 billion in 2001.

By 2004, roughly 2,200 titles of Christian books were scheduled for publication, an increase of more than 80 percent from 1,200 a decade ago, according to Carol Johnson, editorial vice president at Bethany House, a major player in the field.

And fiction now accounts for 15 percent to 20 percent of the Christian book market, up nearly fourfold from about 5 percent in the early 1990s.

Think for a moment about Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye, the authors of the extraordinarily popular, apocalyptic series Left Behind (Tyndale House). Their 12-book series — capped off by the release of Glorious Appearing in March 2004--sold more than 40 million copies since the first installment was released in 1995. There are films and book tie-ins galore.

In fact, New York publisher Kensington, a one-time specialist in gay and lesbian titles (not to mention books for all those Wiccans who follow a “neo-pagan, Earth-centered religion”…ok, witchcraft), is reportedly about to change gear and publish three romantic novellas by the king of apocalyptic Christian fiction, LaHaye. (“Selling Rapture,” The Guardian, 7/9/2005).

Want to get in on the action? Try the Christian Writers' Market Guide 2005 : The Reference Tool for the Christian Writer (Christian Writers' Market by Sally Stuart, which the Midwest Book Review bills as, “An essential reference for anyone seeking to be published in the Christian community.” But, you’ll have to shell out $16.49 over at Amazon (although it is eligible for free shipping).

Of course, there is plenty for kids, including book-related action figures like Bibleman (“Armed with the Sword of the Spirit, the Breastplate of Righteousness and the Helmet of Salvation, this caped Christian stands ready to battle evil.”), Moses, and Our Lord Himself (available in light or dark skin versions).

As an Anglo-catholic, I certainly like my books-lots and lots of books. And, I do have some religious statuary about-tasteful statuary, that is. But I have to confess that I find the industrial approach to the faith once-delivered to the saints a bit worrisome. After all, even the “alternate lifestyle” folks and witches are moving into the biz for economic reasons.

Jeremy Lott, a Baptist preacher’s kid writing at Reasononline, offers an interesting observation in the context of the Reformation:

To many evangelicals, who after all are Protestants, the gaudy excesses of the industry trigger vague cultural memories of ancient controversies over relics and indulgences. The Reformers viewed the marketing of religious artifacts and get-out-of-purgatory-free passes as a sign of decay. It’s a pretty good bet that John Calvin or Martin Luther would be none too thrilled by the Jesus, Mary, and Joseph action figures or the Christian self-help books (as one author put it, "It’s like a regular motivational book with Bible verses sprinkled in").

(Jesus Sells, Feb. 2003)

Thinking about all of this caused me to turn to Numbers—the one with a capital “N”. In Chapter 11, we find the people in the midst of their desert wandering and none too happy with a limited menu. These folks had free food in abundance: the manna that fell from the sky, fed and sustained them. Yet, the people were in an a la carte frame of mind, remembering fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic that they had in Egypt.(11:5) Never mind that pesky slavery business.

After a sufficient amount of complaining, the advocates for expanded consumer choice get to “have it their way”. They find quail more abundant than chicken at a Rotary Club barbecue. But, “while the flesh was yet between their teeth,” they suffer a very permanent case of indigestion.(11:33)

My point in all of this is not to condemn the market for things Christian. I am all in favor of people having options in the marketplace, but, maybe I’m just getting penurious in my old age. As I look around my own study and see all of the books, even a selection of “Christian fiction”, I can’t help wondering that some of the budget might have been better allocated than providing support to the Christian publishing industry.

Might it be the case that one less Bible commentary might mean money for one more missionary priest? Could one less translation of Holy Writ equate to a couple of KJVs or NKJVs in the hands of someone who never has read it?

And as for us, how about a little attention to that unopened Bible on the bookshelf? Perhaps, safety does not lie in numbers, especially when it comes to faith. Reading one book, the Book, and finding out what it actually has to say might be a bit more profitable than reading a dozen books telling us what it says. Or, might there be something there to truly give help for our selves, rather than offer self-help? After all, why eat quail when you can have manna?

Just a couple of thoughts as I wait for UPS to bring that latest box from Amazon. And I didn’t even need to use my Moses action figure.

Belatedly I added the excellent Evangelical Ecologist, which I have known about for awhile but been too busy to add, and the entertaining and fascinating Eclectic Econoclast, a Canadian econ site with really good stuff, that I just found, to the blog roll. Check them out.

By the always interesting David Kopel - a draft is available here.

An interesting set of thoughts about sacred texts/objects and their abuse by heathens. Via Instapundit.

As a fan of the common law, I thought about whether or not there should be a cause of action here. My conclusion: no - unless the text being desecrated is my property. If so, then I can sue you for violating my property rights. Otherwise, I should either buy it from you to keep you from desecrating it or shun you as a rude person. But no rioting in response.

I am at a water conference at Texas Tech University. One of the keynotes today was by Maude Barlow, a Canadian water rights activist.

Barlow is a passionate, engaging speaker. But she's making arguments that make me want to yell out "We're all gonna die!" - her views would lead to the deaths of millions from water shortages because she advocates a complete socialization of water (complete with "a tax on financial speculation" to pay for all the public water in the Third World). She persistently attempts (pretty effectively too as a speaker) to claim the moral high ground without addressing any of the consequences of her views.

This sort of argument is wrong, morally wrong, because it denies a reality just as real as gravity - creating an unregulated commons, or worse a commons controlled by a Leviathan government, will not work. How do we know? We look at the experience of the twentieth century - non-market societies failed every single time.

We'll see if I can figure out how to address this tomorrow when it is my time to speak.

There was a tremendous response from a San Antonio attorney, whose name I will add later.

Which raises a serious point: given the extraordinary amount of attention paid to protecting sacred objects of indigenous peoples in a variety of western societies, why is it not seen as equally offensive to trivialize Christian symbols?

Andy's brief discussion of THE CHURCH AND THE MARKET raises the question concerning what the Gospel says to people participating in market economies. In many ways, I think the answer is the message is the same to people who participated in the medieval economy or any other economic structure. The Gospel warns against relying on wealth rather than God, against exploiting the poor, and so on. The big difference between market systems and other systems is the success of markets in bringing people out of poverty. That is, the concerns addressed to the wealthy relate to more people now than under other systems. The sprititual dangers of materialism and consumerism are real dangers, and affect the majority of people living in the West whereas in Jesus' day, related to a minority of the population. (This is not to argue that there aren't spriritual dangers facing those who are poor as well.)
Yet, one caveat is needed. We are wealthy by standards of consumption, but not necessarily with respect to things the wealthy were accused of by the OT prophets. The prophets accused the wealthy of exploiting the poor and of perverting the legal system for their own advantage and against the poor. We know that the relationships in market economies tend to be positive-sum games, so that we cannot conclude that the rich are rich only by exploiting the poor. We should also recognize that the typical middle-class American is not rich enough to "buy" justice. If I were arrested for a crime, whether guilty or not, I could not afford to hire the "Dream Team" that OJ hired.
Another issue has to do with actions at work. Here, what one says is probably related to one's view of vocation. For example, a Lutheran, two-kingdoms approach, would argue that there are ways of behaving appropriate to different vocations and one should act within those bounds. Even though the Gospel tells us not to judge--a judge has to judge to carry our his or her job. A person who rejects the Lutheran approach may attach other criteria on people's actions at work. (I know of no approach that would permit cheating or exploitation).
I look forward to reading more of Andy's thoughts and the thoughts of others on the subject.

I finished reading Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy on a recent plane trip. Lots of interesting stuff here and a very thorough defense of the free market. The argument is primarily of the following form:

We know that certain things are true about the world from economics. For example, we know that when prices go up, the quantity demanded goes down. If a church-endorsed policy will make the price of labor go up, we therefore know that the number of employed will go down. If the intent of the church endorsement of the policy is to help those seeking employment, we can therefore say that the endorsement is misguided.

This seems like a powerful critique in some respects but still missing a component. It is powerful because there are economic relationships that we do know about and, as Woods approvingly quotes Etienne Gilson, as a result "piety is no substitute for technique." Thus we ought to criticize as attempts to legislate "a living wage", for example, because such efforts will harm people (those who cannot find jobs) as well as help some (those with jobs who get higher pay). Moreover, we ought to point out these issues to church leaders who are opining on economic matters without understanding them. (A considerable portion of the book is a refutation of critics of free market economists for being bad Catholics for criticizing church pronouncements on economic matters).

The missing bit - and recommendations from readers are solicited - is a thorough exploration of the message of the Gospels for people in a market economy. (I'm not criticizing the book on this ground - it just isn't what Woods set out to do).

As I digest more of it, I will post additional thoughts.

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein notes that if Judge Alito is confirmed, there will be a Catholic majority on the Supreme Court for the first time.

Two particularly intriguing points raised by Bernstein and the comments to his post: (1) David suggests that declining anti-Catholic feeling is partly due to the convergence of Catholic and non-Catholic beliefs and practices:

Post-Vatican II, the Catholic Church is less foreign, both in prayer (in that mass is now in English), sociologically (because Catholics no longer differ that much from other Americans in where they send their kids to school and how many children they have), ...

The economic literature on religion suggests that losing distinctive characteristics is a bad thing from the point of view of maintaining a church as an organization. If the price of reduced prejudice is indeed assimilation in terms of changed practices, that could be a very high price to pay.

(2) as one of the comments to David's post noted, " if nothing else this thread is going to demonstrate that anti-Catholic sentiment is alive and well." Many of the comments to Bernstein's post are interesting, but far more than I expected do reveal some degree of anti-Catholic prejudice.

My colleague Jonathan Adler has a (as usual) incisive analysis of Judge Alito's nomination in today's WSJ.

On the possible implications for religion cases, Jonathan says:

One area we may expect to see differences between the two [Judge Alito and Justice Scalia, with whom he is often compared] is on the First Amendment. Judge Alito's record suggests that he is more sympathetic to religious liberty claims, and more willing to hold that purportedly neutral government regulations unnecessarily impede upon the right to live in accord with one's religious ideals. He has ruled favorably in challenges by Muslims and Native Americans who argued that local laws impermissibly burdened the exercise of their faiths. There are also indications a Justice Alito could take a more expansive view of constitutional protection for free speech, including religious expression. In several cases he has voted to protect public school students' rights to express their own religious views.