Married for Money: The Unnatural Union of Government and Business

See above.

"I for one am not so naive to believe that if we remove the power of "the state" that folks will automatically do what is right by everyone;"

I never thought they would. And I don't intend to get rid of the state. The state's role is to protect life, liberty and property. If it follows the rule of law, it will do so for all citizens equally. The state goes astray and causes harm when it prefers one group over another instead of treating all citizens equally.

"there's no legal way to keep people from organizing to protect what they see as their interests, and considering that politicians want to stay in office they have to cater to them or else face defeat."

Yes there is: make it illegal for Congress to favor one group over another. The writers of the Constitution never made that explicit in the Constitution because they assumed that politicians would follow the rule of law, and they did for the first century and a half of the country with a few exceptions. But the writers of the Constitution never dreamed that Americans would let their politicians abandon the rule of law that had given them so much success and freedom in exchange for bribes from interest groups.

If politicians have no power to aid one group over another, then those groups will have no incentives to bribe politicians.

"not because government is bad per se (it is morally neutral)"

In 1 Samuel 8:11-17, God specifically warns against any government but Him. God states that it is a rejection of His authority to place anyone before Him as the leader. In the above verses and in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, He tells what will happen when anyone but Him is running the show.

Government is not morally neutral, it is a product of the fall of man.

Good point. If men were angels, we would need no government. But even if we were angels we would need business.

That must be considered, however, in the immediate context. Ancient Israel had clamored for a human king to lead the nation into battle, just like every other nation, so He gave it one. Besides, Israel was a theocracy and specifically ordained of God -- the only civil nation on the face of the earth that was.

This is a very well written piece. LaVonne makes some excellent points not often heard here at God's Politics. There's a lot here that people on the left and right can agree on. Her points about government being a check on big business and limiting government by devolving governmental power to different branches and levels could have been written by any number of classical "liberals" (what early conservatives used to be called). LaVonne's philosophy has strains of some who write for the American Conservative, Rod Dreher and, dare I say it, some in the tea party movement.

Our government, whether it's being run by Bush or Obama, is way too cozy with big business. I think many on the left share this view and should find common cause with those on the right who do so as well.

Thats just it, there is no 'free market'. There never will be. Powerful people will always push for 'free markets' when it forces smaller, weaker governments to allow them in to destroy whatever cottage industries have been developed in those countries, but then turn right around and force other governments to levy taxes and tarriffs and huge regulatory burden on their competitors. But to think that we, as Christian's, have no power to influence our governments to do things differently, or better! Thats just letting them win. We dont have to put our full faith in government in order to demand that the government that represents us actually listens to us. We might have to vote on more than 1 issue though, and see through the manipulation coming from both parties. We might have to compromise with Christians who dont prioritize things the way we do to find common ground. When people say things like 'The socialist "Christians" were all unbelieving modernists" it just isnt helpful. I think you should go back and read people like C.S. Lewis (not just the Narnia Series, but 'Surprised by Joy', and others). He was a socialist (all Britains were, as it was absolutely necessary to fend off communism, again read Neibuhr), but he was not an unbeliever. And there are plenty more like him. But, if not being a young earth christian fundamentalist who believes that they have a 'literal interpretation of the bible' in one breath, but then states that you cant read Gen 1:1 and 1:2 with 'linear thinking' in another breath makes one an 'unbeliever' then, really, there is never going to be common ground between you and those 'others'.

The main reason the US has a higher standard of living than most European countries is that we have more wealthy people and our middle class is wealthier.

Part of that is that we're more focused on wealth, services and possessions -- in other words, we seem to be more materialistic.

That means that our bloated government is making the poor poorer than they would be with a smaller government.

Uh -- truth be told, the poor don't pay that much in taxes; with the EITC many don't pay any at all, at least on the federal level. Having worked for close-to-minimum wage until 1997, I started noticing my increased tax bite only when I got a decent, relatively high-paying job.

That will never happen without reducing the power the state has over the economy. As long as politicians hold the power to favor one group of businesses over another, they will sell that power to the highest bidder. Adam Smith warned of exactly that type of marriage. The temptation is too great for mere mortals. We cannot give them that kind of power and expect them to resist the temptation. They are not gods.

I assume that you are a Christian, and if that be the case that statement is way off theologically. I for one am not so naive to believe that if we remove the power of "the state" that folks will automatically do what is right by everyone; in fact, the reason we have government in the first place is that people WILL do evil.

Let's also keep in mind that, given the perspective that you espouse, the Constitution fosters the very kind of corruption that you decry, if for no other reason thatn it allows for lobbying. After all, there's no legal way to keep people from organizing to protect what they see as their interests, and considering that politicians want to stay in office they have to cater to them or else face defeat. But here's the problem: Virtually all of us belong to some group that wants "special treatment," whether we like to admit it or not.

See above.

The Bible says the exact opposite. In the escaton, we WILL have government ("and the government shall be upon His shoulders") but does not promise anything about the future of business.

"I for one am not so naive to believe that if we remove the power of "the state" that folks will automatically do what is right by everyone;"

I never thought they would. And I don't intend to get rid of the state. The state's role is to protect life, liberty and property. If it follows the rule of law, it will do so for all citizens equally. The state goes astray and causes harm when it prefers one group over another instead of treating all citizens equally.

"there's no legal way to keep people from organizing to protect what they see as their interests, and considering that politicians want to stay in office they have to cater to them or else face defeat."

Yes there is: make it illegal for Congress to favor one group over another. The writers of the Constitution never made that explicit in the Constitution because they assumed that politicians would follow the rule of law, and they did for the first century and a half of the country with a few exceptions. But the writers of the Constitution never dreamed that Americans would let their politicians abandon the rule of law that had given them so much success and freedom in exchange for bribes from interest groups.

If politicians have no power to aid one group over another, then those groups will have no incentives to bribe politicians.

The state's role is to protect life, liberty and property. If it follows the rule of law, it will do so for all citizens equally. The state goes astray and causes harm when it prefers one group over another instead of treating all citizens equally.

That is in fact impossible because people already do not treat each other equally as it is regardless of law and even make laws allowing or even mandating such. Remember that chattel slavery was legal in half of the states when this nation began, and in many of those same states we had "Jim Crow" laws, which represented in theory (but not in practice) equality. You can talk about "equal protection" all you want, but that represents a utopian fantasy.

But the writers of the Constitution never dreamed that Americans would let their politicians abandon the rule of law that had given them so much success and freedom in exchange for bribes from interest groups.

To do that, however, from the get-go you would have to have had a much stronger central government less accountable to such interest groups. You can have one or the other but not both.

"Remember that chattel slavery was legal in half of the states when this nation began, and in many of those same states we had "Jim Crow" laws, which represented in theory (but not in practice) equality."

And both were a major violation of the rule of law treating all citizens equally. Many people noted it at the time, too.

"You can talk about "equal protection" all you want, but that represents a utopian fantasy."

So you want to reject the rule of law because humans can't implement it perfectly with no flaws whastoever? The principle is based on God's treatment of mankind in the Bible. We should strive for it and we can do far better than we are. But it's not a utopia. This country did it quite well, though not perfectly, for 150 years.

"To do that, however, from the get-go you would have to have had a much stronger central government less accountable to such interest groups."

That produces exactly the opposite effect. Look at any empire where the government had absolute power, such as Rome, or the absolutist monarchs of Europe. Corruption was at the max. Wealthy people purchased monopolies on everything from the ruler. And the people starved. Prosperity to the common people came only with the restriction of state power.

You ought to read anything you can find by Douglass North, one of the founders of the New Institutional School of economics. He deals mostly with economic history. He has proven that prosperity for the masses has come in direct proportion to the degree that state power has been limited.

C'mon! Americans are more materialistic than Europeans? You've got to be kidding. Besides, materialism doesn't cause wealth to grow; it consumes wealth. Only savings and investment cause wealth to grow.

"the poor don't pay that much in taxes; "

That's not how it works. The poor won't get wealthier by paying no taxes. The only way for the poor to gain wealth is through higher wages. Higher wages require higher worker productivity. Productivity requires investment in new equipment, which requires savings, usually the savings of wealthy people. Higher taxes reduce savings; progressive taxation reduces the savings of the people who do the most investing. Taxes on the rich make workers poorer in the long run because the rich invest less, businesses us old equipment and productivity suffers.

Good point. If men were angels, we would need no government. But even if we were angels we would need business.

And both were a major violation of the rule of law treating all citizens equally. Many people noted it at the time, too.

That's not how their apologists thought -- and still would not if they were here today.

So you want to reject the rule of law because humans can't implement it perfectly with no flaws whatsoever?

Hardly; however, law is basically the ordering of relationships, and when the relationships change so can law -- and laws do change when that happens. During the citizens band radio craze of the late 1970s the FCC implemented restrictions; when it no longer became a fad the restrictions were eased. We simply cannot govern this country under the same parameters that existed in 1776, when nearly three-quarters of the population lived on farms.

Look at any empire where the government had absolute power, such as Rome, or the absolutist monarchs of Europe. Corruption was at the max. Wealthy people purchased monopolies on everything from the ruler. And the people starved. Prosperity to the common people came only with the restriction of state power.

You don't have that in Europe today, however, and those states even today have far, far more centralized governments than the U.S. -- in fact, there's more poverty here than there. Indeed, the modern "welfare state" -- what Americans often denounce as "socialism" -- began at the turn of the last century, and some folks have said that it was based on Christian principles.

There is hardly any difference between the US and Europe. It's a myth that the US is capitalist and Europe is socialist. The US is more socialist in some areas and slightly less so in others. And no, there is not more poverty here. We are about equal, except that the US allows more poor immigrants in than does Europe. The main reason the US has a higher standard of living than most European countries is that we have more wealthy people and our middle class is wealthier. Our poor have about the same standard of living. That's based on IMF data adjusted for purchasing power parity.

The big leap forward in standards of living came about when Europe abandoned the traditional absolutist state, as North calls it, and adopted the modern, open state. The Dutch Republic was the first, followed by England and the US. Today, both Europe and the US have the open modern model with few differences between the them. European unemployment tends to be about twice as high as ours, but there are differences in the way it's calculated. But based on history before the change, and on communist states since then, greater state power equals greater poverty for the masses and enormous corruption.

Socialism was invented by an atheist, Henri de Saint-Simon (see wikipedia) who believed all evil in the world is caused by private property. Marx, another atheist, adopted Saint-Simon's system and claimed to make it scientific.

The people who claimed that socialism (or the welfare state) was based on Christian principles were unbelievers. They were the mainstream Protestant churches such as the Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Lutheran, etc., who had adopted the "liberal" theology that came out of Germany in the mid-19th century. That theology taught that Jesus was not God, did not have a virgin birth and did not rise from the dead. The Bible is mostly error and salvation became poverty reduction for them and nothing else because everyone is going to heaven.

Before that, capitalism was widely acknowledged as being based on Biblical principles. That idea began with the Church scholastics of the middle ages and early modern period and continued as Protestant thinking until around 1900 when the "liberal" churches adopted socialism as "Christian" economics.

Also, there is a great deal of research available on the optimal size of the state based on percentage of gdp that the state takes in taxes. The larger and more powerful the state, the greater is its share of gdp. The optimal is measured as the highest standard of living. That research shows that the optimal total tax is around 25% for all gov, state, local and federal. Today the gov's take is around 50%. That means that our bloated government is making the poor poorer than they would be with a smaller government.

This is a very well written piece. LaVonne makes some excellent points not often heard here at God's Politics. There's a lot here that people on the left and right can agree on. Her points about government being a check on big business and limiting government by devolving governmental power to different branches and levels could have been written by any number of classical "liberals" (what early conservatives used to be called). LaVonne's philosophy has strains of some who write for the American Conservative, Rod Dreher and, dare I say it, some in the tea party movement.

Our government, whether it's being run by Bush or Obama, is way too cozy with big business. I think many on the left share this view and should find common cause with those on the right who do so as well.

I think the problem is far more serious than the word "cozy" describes. Corporations own politicians. Google for "regulatory capture." It's not a leftwing conspiracy theory. It's standard political economics. I took a class in regulatory economics back in the 1980's at a state university and the main topic was regulatory capture. Regulatory capture is the well known process by which the industry being regulated gains control of the regulatory agency.

The Bible says the exact opposite. In the escaton, we WILL have government ("and the government shall be upon His shoulders") but does not promise anything about the future of business.

"And the government shall be upon His shoulders... And of His reign there shall be no end."

I don't think that God would take a product of the fall of man and decree it to be infinite.

Say, rather, that "Government" as a concept is invented by God, but the implementation is fallen, and particular current governments are products of that fallen state.

I am not picking nits. Argument that Government is a sinful human invention and is intrinsically evil is both unbiblical and dangerous.

C'mon! Americans are more materialistic than Europeans? You've got to be kidding. Besides, materialism doesn't cause wealth to grow; it consumes wealth. Only savings and investment cause wealth to grow.

"the poor don't pay that much in taxes; "

That's not how it works. The poor won't get wealthier by paying no taxes. The only way for the poor to gain wealth is through higher wages. Higher wages require higher worker productivity. Productivity requires investment in new equipment, which requires savings, usually the savings of wealthy people. Higher taxes reduce savings; progressive taxation reduces the savings of the people who do the most investing. Taxes on the rich make workers poorer in the long run because the rich invest less, businesses us old equipment and productivity suffers.

That refers to Christ's millenial reign on earth when most people will still be ungodly. The same passages also say that he will rule with a rod of iron, which would be totally unnecessary if men were angels.