Christianity, Politics, and the Spirit of Anti-Christ

Full disclosure Part 1: I am a Christian. I believe Christ came into this world to restore our relationship with God. I believe he lived and performed miracles, was crucified, died, and rose again on the third day. I believe he ascended back to God and will, in some form or fashion return. I also believe the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God and that having a restored relationship with God requires belief in Christ and confession.

Full Disclosure Part 2: I am a libertarian. I believe that individuals 

and collections of individuals should be free to make decisions regarding their lives without seeking the approval of myself or a majority of our fellow citizens. I believe government is necessary to protect the rights of individuals from being infringed, that it should do so equally and without respect to the various qualities of those individuals. I also believe that free economic exchange among individuals has proven to be the most effective mechanism for raising individuals and societies out of poverty. Therefore, I believe governments should be very cautious in interfering in these exchanges.

Full Disclosure Part 3: I believe that my faith should guide how I view politics, the use of political power (i.e., force), and my fellow citizens. I believe reversing this perspective, viewing my religion through the lens of my politics, distorts my understanding of God, my understanding of my responsibilities to my fellow human beings, and my understanding of the limits of political power.

Having set the stage with these disclosures, I want to address what I believe has emerged as the spirit of anti-Christ within the American Church.

I realize this will be viewed as a very provocative, even inflammatory statement. So let me explain what I mean by the “spirit of anti-Christ.” This is the perversion of the relationship between religion and political power. In essence, the effort to promote Christianity, the kingdom of God, or Christian principles via the power of the state. To be sure, this is not new in Christianity. Certainly American Christians are not the only ones to have been deceived by the notion they could somehow usher in the “Kingdom of God” through the law. It has been a strain within Christianity that has been alive at least since the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine and the subsequent declaration of Christianity as the official religion of the empire.

So this deception is not new. And although most of my comments will focus on what is considered the “religious right” in American politics, it holds true for the much smaller less organized and less influential “religious left” that has begun to emerge over the last couple of decades.

 As a Christian, I believe my perspective on any topic of human interaction or spirituality must first begin with the words and actions of Jesus. Given that His message was not a political message, but rather a message of restoring our relationship to God, Jesus did not say a great deal regarding political life. It simply wasn’t the focus of His mission.

However, what He did say, I believe, should cause all Christians, and especially American evangelical Christians to pause and reflect. In the Gospel of John, Chapter 18, Jesus has been taken before Pilate. The Jews have accused him of blasphemy for claiming to be the Messiah. Pilate asks Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Christ responds, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

In this short passage we can obtain profound meaning. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. And since it is not of this world, the worldly instruments and strategies for advancing it are also not of this world. In fact, relying on them can prove disastrous. The history of Christianity is filled with the atrocities of using the power of the law to bring about God’s kingdom. From persecuting pagans, to the medieval practice of selling indulgences, to the Spanish Inquisition, and the Salem witch trials, and more, when Christianity is advanced via the law, great suffering and injustice is the result.

Yet, this temptation to seek to use the power of the law to accomplish godly purposes has been almost

too powerful to resist. From almost the time Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity there was a pull to use the powers of government to enforce Christianity upon the populace. It is this idea – the idea we can or should advance Christianity via the civil law that is the true spirit of anti-Christ – that has plagued Christianity since Constantine.

Jesus told Pontius Pilate that if His kingdom was of this world, His followers would fight for Him, because that’s what the followers of political leaders do. But his kingdom is not of this world. And he does not expect, nor need, his followers to fight for him. Jesus told his followers to take up their cross and follow him. What does this mean? It means we should live as he did, and in so doing, demonstrate the love, grace, mercy, and power of the One we follow.

But eschewing political power is easier said than done, especially in a democracy, where, unlike in Jesus’ time, citizens can impact the policies of the government. As Christian leaders, especially evangelical leaders, saw changes happening in society that troubled them, they again reverted to trying to impact society through the law. Christian leaders began actively endorsing and supporting certain candidates based on those candidates’ pledges to support “our Judeo-Christian values” – through new laws, of course. Once again, we would ignore Jesus words and attempt to demonstrate our fealty to him by fighting for him.

This “fighting” for Christian values too often led us to sacrifice any real adherence to such values on the altar of political victory. Christian leaders would endorse candidates who had only the most marginal relationship to Christian teachings, who demonstrated behavior quite the opposite of those teachings, or who only cared about Christian values for the votes they brought. But we were told doing so would “reclaim America for Christ.”

The American political landscape in 2016 is a direct result of this anti-Christ approach to politics. Neither the Democrat nor the Republican nominees project anything that can be remotely tied to the principles of Jesus. One seeks power at all costs. The other seeks fame at all costs. Neither seem disposed to seek Christ at all. And yet we are told that as Christians we must choose one bad option over the other. Once again, evangelical leaders across the country have prostrated themselves before political power, denying the spiritual direction of the one they claim to follow.

Indeed, evangelical voters have been one of Trump’s major voting blocks. These voters propelled him

past his primary opponents with relative ease. The spirit of anti-Christ has consumed us. We will willingly sacrifice all that Jesus taught us to “Make America Great Again.” In fact, now that our hypocrisy has been shown, we have many trying to make an argument that it is our Christian duty to support Trump; that only he can stem the tide of secularism in our country; that only he can restore us to our virtuous and prosperous past. Evangelical Trump apologists are even trying to use Old Testament examples (because there is no way to use the words of Jesus) to make the argument that God uses ungodly people for his purposes. These are delusional words to justify their complete surrender to the spirit of anti-Christ.

If we Christians truly desire to have a profound and meaningful impact on society, we will abandon this course we have been on for the past several decades. We will stop looking to political power and those who wield it as the path to building the kingdom of God. Instead, we will return to the words of Jesus. We’ll take up our cross daily. We will show love, grace, and mercy to our neighbors and our communities. We will seek justice for all our citizens. We will demonstrate the power of what we say we believe through our daily interactions with our fellow human beings. We will spend more time reading our Bibles and less time watching cable news networks or listening to talk radio. We will learn to understand that political power cannot accomplish what we seek – it can only destroy it.

It is not my place to tell anyone what candidate they should support. However, if you are voting for any candidate because you believe they are going to protect, advance, or promote Christian principles, I believe you have been deceived. Jesus did not call us for that purpose. He called us for a greater one.

What most people don't understand about free market capitalism

Free market capitalism has been the single most important factor in reducing wide-spread poverty and deprivation across the globe. Unfortunately, neither its detractors (not surprisingly) nor many of its supporters (disappointingly) fully understand how free market capitalism works. This inclines many of them to want to use government to either “fix” it, or to “help” it. Rarely is either accomplished.

In an effort to more clearly explain how free markets work, I’d like to correct some rather common misconceptions I see or hear regularly. First, and perhaps most importantly, supporting free market capitalism is not the same as being anti-government. In order for free markets to function properly, a government must perform some basic functions very well. Chief among these functions is having a system in place that clearly identifies and supports property rights. Capitalism depends on the ability of individuals to own, improve, and sell property. But only governments can create the legal framework for property rights that can be enforced throughout society. There can be no free markets in governments that cannot give protection to individual property rights.

In addition, governments must also be able to enforce contracts between individuals and corporations.

The enforcement of contracts allows a multitude of very positive transactions to occur that otherwise would not. These transactions increase the overall welfare of society. Therefore, having a legal system in place that can enforce agreements between private parties is another essential government function necessary for free markets to exist and function properly,

Besides these two fundamental functions of government, free market capitalism also benefits when the government creates certain health and safety regulations as well as certain anti-trust and fraud penalties. And while there is room for disagreement as to what specific regulations can or should be imposed, it is clear that free markets can benefit from certain governmental regulations.

So, free-market capitalism is not anti-government. Nor is it pro-“Big Business.” Adams Smith, in his seminal work, The Wealth of Nations, pointed out that business owners (especially those of very large concerns) were as likely to try to impede free markets as to foster them. This is because free markets are ruthless in their operations. They do not play favorites. Established businesses will often try to convince governments to enact various regulations not for “health and safety” purposes, but in order to limit the amount of competition they face. One of the roles of legislators, then, according to Smith, was to protect free markets from the inevitable efforts of the leading “capitalists” to distort markets in favor of their particular business and at the expense of the overall society.

Another interesting misconception I often come across is that capitalism creates poverty – as if poverty did not exist prior to the emergence of capitalism as an economic system. In one sense this is true. “Poverty” as we understand it, certainly did not exist in the centuries before capitalism. What did exist was massive deprivation and destitution. As Nobel Prize-winning Economist Milton Friedman pointed out, it was only through the emergence of capitalism that large numbers of people were able to emerge out of subsistence living and begin to see real improvement in their living standards.

Corresponding to this misconception is another – that capitalism creates “income inequality.” Again, to believe this one has to ignore all of the recorded history in which wealth inequality existed prior to capitalism. In fact, capitalism introduced a major innovation that, while it doesn’t eliminate wealth inequality, helps to ameliorate it. That is income mobility. In free market capitalism, as opposed to any other economic system that has existed, individuals are not confined to their socio-economic status permanently. Through creativity, industry, perseverance, or even plain luck, they can improve their situation. Equally important, those who start off at the top can also lose their position – again free market capitalism plays no favorites.

There is also a tremendous amount of confusion about what free markets can and cannot accomplish. Free markets are extremely good at allocating scarce resources that have alternative uses, as economist and author Dr. Thomas Sowell has noted. They are successful at this because of a ruthless efficiency in transmitting information among the millions of buyers and sellers within the market. This information, communicated through prices, regulates the supply and demand of the various goods and services within society. There has not been system devised that can perform this function as efficiently as market capitalism.

However, markets have trouble with certain goods or services. Often referred to as “common” goods,can be helpful by creating public policies that require the parties to the transaction to “internalize” the cost of it to third parties.

these are functions that are necessary within a society that markets generally cannot provide. Usually because there is no way to ascribe property rights to the service. Examples would include public safety, national defense, public assistance, and certain environmental problems. These are where governments must step in and generally provide the good or service. Markets also have trouble with externalities. That is, incorporating the costs of a transaction that impacts third parties (pollution, second-had smoking, etc. are good examples of this). This is where government action

It is important to understand, however, that government’s ability to effectively correct “market failures” is also limited. Primarily by a deficiency in the information needed to be as effective as necessary. Public policies to impact economic performance are almost always after-the fact. Economist Robert Guell identifies three important constraints on effective government intervention in market activity.

First is the “recognition lag.” This is the amount of time it takes government officials to recognize there is a problem that may need government action. For example, the official definition of a “recession” is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. This means that half a year must pass before policymakers can even be sure there is a problem. This is followed by “administrative lag” which is the time it takes policymakers to actually devise a “solution” to the problem (which can also take months). Finally, there is the “operational lag” which is the amount of time it takes (often several more months) for the agreed upon solution to be implemented.

As Guell points out, the economy is not standing still waiting on policymakers to identify, create, and implement their solution. And in many cases, by the time the solution reaches its implementation phase, the problem has been corrected already. The information conveyed through markets is done so much more efficiently and with much fewer obstacles than information conveyed through government bureaucracies.

While free markets cannot, by themselves, solve a variety of social problems such as racism, sexism, drug addiction, etc., they can help reduce these. By forcing business owners and managers to choose between their bigotry and hiring the most productive employees, or serving the most customers, free markets can have a positive impact. And to the extent that they bring people of diverse backgrounds together to be equal participants within the market, further improvement in these areas can be found. However, it must be acknowledged that there is nothing inherent in free markets that will force bigots to reform.

However, the central insight of Smith’s exposition of capitalism was its benefit to society. Free market capitalism isn’t good because it allows a few people to get extremely rich, or that it allows companies to hire people, or that it allows new businesses to grow and develop. It is good because it is the best economic arrangement for increasing the living standard of the entire society. If you doubt this, simply as yourself this question, in which of the following years would I rather be poor:  2015, 1915, 1815, 1715, 1315, or 1015? When you think about it, it’s a pretty easy question to answer – especially if you live in a free-market, capitalist-based economy.

Whether you are evaluating the living standards of the poor, the amount of wealth inequality within

various societies over these time periods, or the ability of those who are most poor to rise out of it, 2015 by far, offers the most hope for the poor. And in countries that are based on some version of free-market capitalism, the poor live in far better conditions and have greater opportunity for social mobility than their counterparts living under other economic systems – regardless of the year.

In short, free-market capitalism offers the greatest opportunity for continuing to increase living standards, offering social mobility to those at all income levels, and spurring innovation. However, free markets, rather than being opposed to government, actually rely on governments to perform certain important functions. While they can help alleviate certain social problems, they are not a panacea for all social ills. Other institutions, both governmental and non-governmental, are needed to successfully address these problems.

Most importantly, free market capitalism is about benefiting society at large, not just a few people or corporations. If allowed to function properly, the ruthless efficiency of free markets will constantly challenge capitalists to improve their products, services and/or processes or risk extinction. This process of “creative destruction” as economist Joseph Schumpeter labeled it, is what continues to improve the living standards of the entire society.

Some Musings on the Constitution and Federalism

Spent the last two weeks teaching the Constitution and about Federalism. Some thoughts that come to mind after contemplating these topics:

1) State "Sovereignty" - You hear a lot about this in certain conservative circles. However, there are only 14 states I am aware of that can make any legitimate claim to any true pre-existing sovereignty before entering the U.S. The rest have been the complete creation of the U.S. government. Our own, dear state of Oklahoma, can least of all claim any sense of sovereignty - as its existence is entirely due to the national government. The state governments have no real claim to political sovereignty outside the national government. This doesn't mean that the notion of federalism is irrelevant. It does mean that their are a lot of people who don't really know what "sovereignty" means or how it is applied to political entities.

2) States' Rights - I believe in the federal system created by the Constitution. I believe

there are certain responsibilities that are best left to state and local governments. However, I believe attempts to deny equal treatment under the law, or to limit the civil liberties of groups of citizens, cannot be justified under the banner of "states' rights." One cannot have a "free country" if citizens of that country can be denied their rights by smaller units of government. "State's Rights" has too often been the cry of those who wish to deny civil liberties to various groups. Federalism is the notion of enhancing liberty through a balance of power that is subdivided between various institutions and levels of government. Unfortunately, too many have confused the two. However, true federalism cannot tolerate the notion of an unequal enjoyment of civil liberties within the country.

3) The limits of democracy - The creators of the Constitution did not believe the democratic process was the best method for making decisions in all cases. They believed in the consent of the governed, and that the people should be the ultimate authority, but not that "the people" should be making every decision. Hence the creation of a "representative" system. One in which the people chose some of the leaders of the country, while others were selected by officials who were elected by the people (most notably the Supreme Court, the President, and members of the Senate). Over the years, we have become more enamored with the democratic process as a decision making device, and less inclined to acquiesce to representation. Whether or not this is a positive or negative development for citizens can be debated elsewhere. But I think the shift is important to note, and its advantages and disadvantages acknowledged.

4) Constitutionalism - The very idea of a constitution implies a couple of things. First, it

implies limits on the power of the government. The specific listing of certain authority or responsibility in the hands of a government implies there are others that fall outside its sphere of authority. Second, and perhaps more importantly, constitutionalism implies there are certain decisions that cannot be made by the majority. The Bill of Rights was created to reinforce this concept. Democracy, in and of itself, is not a guarantee of individual liberty. The majority can, and will, trample the rights of minorities of all sorts, if allowed to do so. Constitutionalism is the idea that constraints on the power of majorities have been erected. Additionally, as Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, the federal courts were to be a guardian of the peoples' liberties against a Congress (or executive branch) ready and willing to trample them.

Too often in political discussions we throw terms around that we don't really understand or haven't fully considered. We appeal to the Constitution without actually reading it. This habit is counterproductive. Without having a some basic understanding of common principles, it's very difficult to find common ground on issues.

It's time for Christians to divorce ourselves from the law

"But now we have been released from the law, for we died to it and are no longer captive to its power. Now we can serve God, not in the old way of obeying the letter of the law, but in the new way of living in the Spirit."  Romans 7:6 (NLT)

I admit, this is not a new issue within Christianity. Paul, writing to the early church, addressed the Christian's relationship to the law in several passages in the New Testament. During the first century after Christ's death, many Christians who converted from Judaism were insisting that Christians must follow the Jewish religious laws, whether the Christian was Jewish or not.

In Galatians Chapter 5, Paul writes:

"So Christ has truly set us free. Now make sure that you stay free, and don't get tied up again in slavery to the law."  (NLT)

Again, in Ephesians Chapter 2, Paul states:

"For Christ has brought peace to us. He united Jews and Gentiles into one people when, in his own body on the cross, he broke down the wall of hostility that separated us. He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new people from the two groups." (NLT)

And in Colossians Chapter 2, Paul asserts:

"So don't let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths...Don't let anyone condemn you by insisting on pious self-denial or the worship of angels...Their sinful minds have made them proud, and they are not connected to Christ, the head of the body." (NLT)

As these passages reveal, there was no shortage of Christians who wanted to enforce their brand of Christianity on others through the religious laws. Paul addressed such attempts directly, stating the Christ was the standard by which Christians should live, not the law. He quickly dismissed the notion that fealty to the law was a guarantor of salvation. So one would think that this issue would have been quickly put to rest.

Not so fast, my friend...During the early period of Christianity, prior to it being recognized by the Roman Emperor Constantine as an "official" religion, the Christianity was in little danger of being able to rely on the law as a means of coercing others. Just the opposite was the experience of most Christians, who were persecuted not only by the Romans, by by the Jews, as well as many others - under the law, of course.

However, when the collapse of the Roman Empire occurred, the Church became the only real social institution that provided stability in what was the chaotic period of the Dark Ages. During this time, the Church began to revert back to a reliance on the law. Only this time, it was in a position to use the civil law to enforce the Church's religious creeds.

The resulting corruption within both the leadership of the Church and the leadership of the civil authorities is what ultimately lead to the Reformation. And yet, while the Reformation was a movement against the corruption that resulted from the intertwining of Christianity with the law, many of the leaders within the Reformation movement, including Luther himself, and Calvin, afterwards, still viewed the enforcement of Christian principles through the civil law as the appropriate way of bringing God's kingdom to earth.

Even as large numbers of people sought to escape the religious persecution of Europe by coming to North America, they did not completely leave the notion of combining religion with civil law behind. Thus many of the states, from the earliest colonial period all the way through to modern day America, created laws based on some interpretation of Christian principles. 

Today, similar  to the Reformation, we see a growing resentment to these laws and, in some cases, the inevitable corruption of both religion and civil authority they create. Many sincere people of faith are disturbed by what they see as a rejection of Christian values (often expressed as a rejection of "traditional values"). However, I'm convinced that is a misperception born out of both fear and a desire for control. 

What is being rejected is coercion, not the message of Christ. People are resenting being required to behave like a Christian, and to follow laws based on Christian principles when they are, in truth, not Christians. As Christians, we should actually welcome this development. Not because we don't want people to be Christians, but precisely because we want their faith to be genuine, not the result of a fear of punishment by civil authorities. 

Christ did not call us to coerce others into following him. Instead, he called us to live lives that would compel others to want to follow him. In Matthew Chapter 5, Christ himself said:

"Let your light so shine among men, that they see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven." (NKJV)

We cannot let the message of Christ become polluted with political overtones. Christ's message wasn't about taxes, social policy, welfare programs, or any of other of the myriad of issues a modern society and government deals with. It was about restoring the creation (humanity) to the Creator (God). It was about the dignity and value each individual inherently has as a creation of God. It was about how God earnestly desires communion with each of us. To the extent that Christians substitute this understanding of Christ's message with a reliance on the law to enforce either moral codes or social obligations, we damage that message and we create resentment from the very people we should be drawing to Christ.

For too long we have done exactly that. Let us now come full circle and follow the example of Christ and the words of Paul. Let us abandon the notion of requiring Christian behavior on a secular world, and let our lives be lived in a way that draws people to the love, grace, and mercy of Christ, and to a God who continues to desire communion with each of his creations.

Why I support a new Constitutional Convention

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of Constitutional power.” - Thomas Jefferson

I recently finished reading Mark Levin's book The Liberty Amendments which details several proposed amendments the talk show host and attorney advocates.  In addition, Levin advocates for a new constitutional convention in order to consider these amendments. I must admit, I have always been skeptical about the notion of another convention. I traditionally viewed such a process as threatening some of the fundamental principles of government that are established in our Constitution. I have viewed a second convention as a  means those who are less enamored with limited government would use to restrict individual liberty and enlarge the government's control over our lives.

However, after not only reading The Liberty Amendments, but reviewing much of what the Framers of our Constitution said at the time of and following its creation, I've realized something. My reverence for the document created in 1787 (which I still believe to be the best construction of government created by human beings) has undermined something even more important to the Framers - the notion of self-government. As Professor Peter Mancall from the University of Southern California has pointed out, the Constitution is the result of nearly a century of political experience and thought that focused on the principle of self-government - the right of a people to choose how their institutions would function and determine the limits of the power of those institutions.

Thomas Jefferson was just one of the Founders who articulated the primacy of
self-government over allegiance to the Constitution, stating:

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions...But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times."

But Jefferson wasn't the only one viewing the Constitution as a result of self-government, which was the real principle to be upheld. John Marshall, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, noted:

"The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is a creature of their will, and lives only by their will."

John Adams also concurred, stating:

"...these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses...Thirteen governments thus founded on the authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery..."

And while those at the convention in 1787 wisely built in a provision for amending the Constitution without having to call for another convention, they clearly anticipated the need or desire for future conventions by building a mechanism to call one into Article V of the Constitution.

However, over time, fealty to the principle self-government gradually become synonymous with fealty to the Constitution itself. Something completely foreign to the notion of the Framers. Today, we live in a surreal political universe in which conservatives resist allowing the people to practice self-government by stridently opposing another convention, while liberals consistently attempt to break free of many of the Constitution's restraints on government power while claiming loyalty to the document, and a public who is woefully ignorant of what the Constitution actually says, and even less knowledgeable of why the Constitution arranges our political institutions as it does.

This only comes about by denying the people the right to practice true self-government, in essence, to revisit

the fundamental law of the nation and make those changes that seem necessary. The process of a convention, whether it produced any amendments that could achieve the necessary vote of three-fourths of the states or not, would be very beneficial to our political society. If changes were made, they would have the legitimacy of the people behind them, which would serve as a greater check on the willingness of public officials to ignore or violate them. If no changes were made, then the Constitution, as currently exists, would have been reaffirmed and granted a new legitimacy by a new generation of Americans. Again, the effect would be for elected officials to be much more hesitant to be seen as violating the principles within the Constitution.

Either way, the legitimacy of the people expressing their will through this process will give greater legitimacy to whatever emerges from the process, and politicians will have less room to negotiate around whatever limits are placed on them and the institutions in which they serve. More importantly, self-government will become a practical exercise rather than a historical event. It will be real to the current generation of Americans in a way it has not been since the Founding generation. A greater knowledge of what the Constitution would say, a greater understanding of why it would say it, and a greater fealty to it from all would emerge, as it became, once again, a  creation of "We the People."

Opposition to this process maintains a schizophrenic political reality in which we claim adherence to the Constitution, while becoming ever more ignorant of the document itself, and while our political figures (on both the left and the right) seek ways around its more restrictive elements. In effect, we are valuing the creation (the Constitution) more highly than the creators (the people).  This is not a situation that can exist indefinitely. Equally important, it is a rejection of what the Founders of this country truly believed about the importance of self-government.

Why Americans really don't value liberty

Liberty is an American ideal. It motivated the move towards independence from Great Britain. It also animated the thrust to win the Civil War and extend its benefits to others who had been denied them. Even in political and social discussions today, we hear the word used to justify all sorts of actions, behaviors, or political positions.

But the reality is that we have long abandoned any real allegiance to the notion of real, genuine, personal liberty. The start of this movement away from liberty began in earnest in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries with the rise of the progressive movement. This political ideology began to reject the notion that allowing individuals the ability to make their own choices in every area of their lives led to a better society.

Indeed, progressives were advocates of extensive social planning (it's intellectual elite favored eugenics among other activities to create the "perfect" human society). It's primary tenet was the primacy of "society" over the individual. Leaders of progressive thought openly supported communist ideology in Russia as well as the National Socialists (Nazis) in Germany. In their opinion, society could no longer be entrusted to the individual decisions made by it's individual members. Planning, form "enlightened" central planners, was needed to curb the "excesses" of liberty.

While the extremes of progressive thought could not be achieved in the U.S. to the extent it was in Russia or

Germany, much of it certainly took root in the U.S. over the course of the 20th Century. At the local, state, and national levels, bureaucratic agencies of all sorts sprung up to manage liberty's extremes.

Where this notion particularly gained traction was in those areas of decision making that were perceived to be (and in many cases genuinely were) born out of ignorance, hatred, or separatism. In short, our perception changed from allowing individuals to make any decision they chose and reap the rewards or suffer the consequences of those decisions, to using the law to ensure people only made whatever "society" believed were good decisions.

This coercive approach to try to guarantee good decisions has continued to spread from what some would consider the most baneful of decisions (refusing service someone of another race, religion, or sex) in the mid-20th Century, to now attempting to prevent even some of the most mundane and personal decisions (whether to purchase soft drinks or health insurance). These sort of regulations are, of course, always artfully presented as ways to improve some aspect of "society."

Quite frankly, this is not a totally new phenomenon within the United States. Whether it was slavery or the subjugation of women, the Alien & Sedition Acts, the Japanese interment camps of World War II, or current debates over the ability of people to freely choose who they will choose as a spouse, another American tradition has been to attempt to deny the very liberty those in control want for themselves to others in society - always in the name of "protecting society."

The fundamental problem with liberty is that is is messy. True liberty allows people to make all sorts of decisions, even bad decisions, that others don't necessarily agree with. Yet, the enduring legacy of the progressive movement is that we have all, at some level, bought into the notion that "planned" arrangements are always better than spontaneously generating ones. At the beginning of the 21st Century, Americans simply are intolerant of "messiness" - i.e., liberty.

We see this play out in all areas of life in modern America. Home education scares those in public schools

because "who is in control?" We have planning commissions in all major cities to make sure that growth is "sustainable" and according to the best interests of the community. We pass laws mandating how much employers must pay their employees, as well as laws that tell employees the minimum they are allowed to work for. And we mandate individuals engage in commerce for governmental purposes or to ensure some sense of social values.  We even have governments at all levels attempting to control how much of which types of foods or drinks individuals can choose to consume.

What we don't realize is that as we attempt to legislate away the ability to make bad decisions, we eventually get to the point that we also legislate away to make good decisions as well. Taking away someone's ability to be a complete jerk leads to taking away someone's ability to be a complete saint. There simply is no getting around this trade-off.

The ability to make good decisions and bad decisions is a necessary prerequisite for liberty to exist. But we are quickly rejecting the notion that people should be allowed to make their own decisions, especially if we believe those decisions to be wrong. Hence the use of the law to force "good" decisions. Liberty is messy and we live in a world that no longer tolerates messiness.

I don't know that this course can be altered. But I do know it will have consequences beyond what most of us can foresee or understand. True liberty simply doesn't seem to be a genuine American value any longer.

Article VII of the U.S. Constitution

Article VII of the Constitution sets the criteria by which the newly created Constitution would be adopted.  Whenever nine states ratified it, the Constitution would come into effect for those states approving it.  The article called for ratifying conventions in the states, rather than allowing state legislatures to vote on it.

In addition, this article contains the signatures of those individuals who participated in the creation of the Constitution.  Below is a listing of the individuals who signed the document.  The Constitutional Convention completed its business on September 17, 1787.  New Hampshire was the ninth state to ratify the Constitution and did so on June 21, 1788.  The first Congress under the Constitution met in March of 1789.

Delaware                      Maryland                                 Virginia
George Read                  James McHenry                        George Washington*
Gunning Bedford, Jr.        Daniel Carroll                             John Blair
John Dickinson               Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer       James Madison, Jr.
Richard Bassett            
Jacob Broom


North Carolina              Georgia                                   New Hampshire
William Blount                William Few                              John Langdon
Richard Dobbs Spaight    Abraham Baldwin                       Nicholas Gilman
Hugh Williamson


Massachusetts              Connecticut                             New York
Nathaniel Gorham           William Samuel Johnson            Alexander Hamilton
Rufus King                      Roger Sherman

New Jersey                                  Pennsylvania
William Livingston                          Benjamin Franklin
David Brearly                                 Thomas Mifflin
William Patterson                           Robert Morris
Jonathan Dayton                            George Clymer
                                                     Thomas FitzSimons
                                                     Jared Ingersoll
                                                     James Wilson
                                                     Gouverneur Morris

* Served as President of the Convention