“I foresee the day when rights will subsume responsibilities, where the poor and the despised will become wage slaves of the elites; and the mercantilism that we have fought against and the tyranny that we have stood against will be swallowed by the average American citizen.  And they will call that ‘freedom’.”

Update: This has been pinged a couple of times.  I realized that I forgot to cite the source I gleaned this from.  It comes from a lecture by George Grant from the 1999 Association of Classical and Christians Schools (ACCS) Conference titled “Dumb and Dumber: The Desperate Need for Covenantal and Christian Education.”  It is available from Word MP3 here.

I had my “the Emperor has no clothes” moment regarding public education during my junior year of college.

I was a product of the government schools, and I was studying to be a public school music teacher when I took my first class with the education department at the university. The professor would present educational issues with a false dichotomy: Should educational issues be solved by status quo traditional government means or by ultra-progressive Marxist government means? The question of whether this was the government’s domain at all never came up until I posed it halfway through the semester.

At the same time, I was getting to know a local homeschooling family who aided me immensely in becoming a more consistently biblical Christian. I had read the Bible cover to cover for the first time the summer following my freshman year, but still had an admittedly idolatrous view of what the government’s role in society should be which was left over from my compulsory indoctrination days. By witnessing their lives and approach to education compared to the approach and results of the educrats, I became ideologically “converted” from a government paradigm of education to a family paradigm of education. I’m sure many of you, my fellow homeschoolers, have had similar experiences when you realized that the system you grew up with (and possibly supported) was a fraudulent and unbiblical sham.

I address this letter to Christian homeschoolers with the knowledge that homeschoolers (as a general demographic) have a greater desire to live their lives in a manner consistent with the whole counsel of God than do evangelicals at large. Christian homeschoolers generally have better critical thinking skills and have already developed a healthy suspicion of government. This is why I can write this letter in hope that you will prayerfully consider my arguments for why Congressman Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate whose values are consistent with homeschooling, (and specifically why the views of Mike Huckabee, whom HSLDA has endorsed, aren’t).

Homeschoolers have never had a more faithful and consistent friend in Washington than Ron Paul. While other representatives need to be called and prodded to remember the rights of homeschoolers when legislation affecting education comes up, Ron Paul already knows the right answer without needing to be reminded. He shares our views and principles on educational liberty genuinely rather than seeing us as yet another special interest group he needs to placate (as the overwhelming majority other “homeschooling friendly” congressmen do). He opposed the disastrous “No (Public Schooled) Child Left Behind (meaning ‘left without a huge federal subsidy’) Act” (which Governor Huckabee enthusiastically supported). He wishes to abolish the federal Department of Education (while Huckabee is eager to expand it). A Ron Paul presidency would be the first step in the direction of educational liberty unknown since before the Fillmore administration that would hopefully end with HSLDA no longer needing to exist. If educational liberty is your primary issue as a voter, you need read no further.

Ron Paul’s stellar credentials for Christian homeschoolers do not end at educational liberty. Ron Paul (being the Champion of the Constitution and all) has repeatedly introduced legislation that would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of federal courts and overturn Roe v. Wade with a simple majority in both houses and a signature from the president. This legislation wasn’t supported even by other Republicans. Why is that? Forgive me for being cynical, but I believe that the majority of Washington Republicans want abortion to remain a Washington issue forever in order to win votes by fear-mongering and political posturing without ever delivering. While they have done this over 40 million unborn children have been slaughtered. Ron Paul’s solution to this problem would immediately make abortion illegal in a majority of states without needing to stack the deck in the Supreme Court. This, however, is not politically desirable for those whose principles are subservient to their desire for political power. Abortion, like other forms of murder, should be punishable under state law rather than federal law. Ron Paul would like to see abortion be illegal in each of the 50 states, but he believes that it is a state issue because he has studied history. He knows that using the central government to usurp states’ powers for your own ends has backfired before and will continue to backfire in the future. The central government is a fickle mistress and a fearful master. When the political pendulum swings back in the other direction, the precedent set by the federal government to assume power that the 9th and 10th amendments of the constitution forbid it will have catastrophic consequences.

On every other domestic issue, I encourage you to do your own research and compare the positions of Ron Paul to those of the other Republican candidates. You’re homeschoolers, so I trust that you can do your own research and come to the correct conclusion on your own. When you do this research, you will find that Mike Huckabee, the favored candidate of HSLDA and many within the evangelical movement is not a conservative at all. Mike Huckabee is a right-wing progressive. This is “compassionate conservatism” taken to its reductio ad absurdum. Gov. Huckabee believes that the government should use the forces of coercion and compulsion to solve every problem and issue under the sun: from space exploration to education to energy to world hunger and AIDS. You’re not capable of making decisions for yourself. Let the State save you and make these decisions for you! But you as homeschoolers will know better. You will be able to realize that the emperor has no clothes on.

This brings me to the last issue, which for many homeschoolers has been the deal breaker: foreign policy.  We homeschoolers believe that government social engineering is dangerous and immoral.  Affirmative Action, the Great Society, prohibition, government schools, and the myriad of other “progressive” social engineering movements of the last century have not only failed to achieve their stated consequences but have been disasters that only made the problems they were designed to solve worse. If social engineering is evil and doesn’t work here in America, what makes you think it will be morally acceptable and work halfway across the world?  We laugh at the Darwinists when they use that type of reasoning.  Does it improve the situation if the armed forces are acting as the social engineers?  Back when Clinton was president, Rush Limbaugh would emphasize that the purpose of an army is to kill people and break things. If social engineering was a bad idea in Somalia and Bosnia under Clinton, how is it a good idea in Iraq under Bush?  If the United States Government is not to be trusted on the above domestic issues, how does it suddenly become trustworthy when it engages in international affairs?  If we deny that the purpose of the military is to act as international police we have to admit that the Bush/Huckabee/McCain/Giuliani/Limbaugh/Hannity definition of “victory” is impossible using military means. Only converting these nations to Christ will conquer Islamic fundamentalism and neutralize the threat of terrorism.  It’s time for the military to move out and the missionaries to move in.

The military should not only withdraw its troops from Iraq, but also from all of the other 130 countries it currently occupies with military forces.  You heard me correctly, I said ONE HUNDRED THIRTY COUNTRIES, as in 65% of all the countries in the world.  In case you were wondering, the other countries do not hate us because of our liberty or wealth-they hate us because they are quartering our soldiers.  How would you feel if China or Russia or Iran decided they were going to build a military base in your country? Exactly.

When you look at interventionist U.S. foreign policy as just another government program, hopefully you will come to agree with me that the Empire has no clothes and join me in support of Ron Paul in the Republican primary.

“As the size of total government increases, the likelihood that any given action will be simultaneously mandated and prohibited increases exponentially.”

This includes not only laws passed by a legislative body but also all of the regulations that government departments make up on their own, and the capricious coercions that petty bureaucrats and police officers enforce which aren’t written down anywhere.

With the sheer word count of laws and within the United States federal laws and departmental regulations, I highly doubt that any single person has read all of the laws currently on the books, and that’s just one level of government.  As this trend increases, it benefits the government, as they are able to arbitrarily harass anybody who they don’t like and bring them up on charges under some obscure statute.  Local petty tyrants (police and “customer” facing employees of government agencies) are able to demand bribes as they see fit because you’re always out of compliance with some law or regulation.

Of course the only solution to this madness is repentance.  Revolts and revolutions often cast out one demon and create a vacuum that replaces the one demon with seven.  Those who will not kiss the Son will look to the state as savior.  No matter how many volumes of laws you write, no matter how much you multiply them, they will be just as impotent to save as Baal was on Mt. Carmel.

In contrast, the Mosaic law code is something that you could read in one sitting.  It provides general precepts and specific case laws with enough detail that the wise can determine what the just course of action is for any given situation.  If only the Christians in this nation could say with the psalmist:

Princes have persecuted me without a cause: but my heart standeth in awe of thy word.

I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil.

I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love.

Seven times a day do I praise thee because of thy righteous judgments.

Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

LORD, I have hoped for thy salvation, and done thy commandments.

My soul hath kept thy testimonies; and I love them exceedingly.

I have kept thy precepts and thy testimonies: for all my ways are before thee. (Psalm 119:161-168)

If we trusted God and delighted in His law as we ought to, then Duchemin’s Law of Bureaucracy would be moot.

-Miss Scarlet, Clue (1986)

If something is inherently capitalistic in nature does that make it inherently good?

Perhaps I was a bit hasty in characterizing Walter Block as a very persuasive debater in my introductory post about Defending the Undefendable.  Block’s first chapter “The Prostitute” was underwhelming at its best and highly offensive at its worst.  I do not believe that prostitution should be illegal.  I believe that good arguments can be made against outlawing prostitution.  I just don’t think Block made any of them.  Instead of attempting to show that prostitution should not be subject to criminal sanction, Block tries to show that this is a legitimate good and somehow beneficial to society.

Block’s first argument attempts to compare prostitution to a Norman Rockwell painting where a milkman and a pieman trade wares.  Both people have made the transaction voluntarily, without force or fraud, so this is in essence the same type of situation.  Here Block makes the same mistake that many Christians do in failing to distinguish between sins and crimes.  It’s almost a “libertarian positivist” type of thinking.  If no coercion or fraud is involved it must be good.  By what standard?  Good for whom?  Block also advances an essentially utopian view of prostitution where abusive pimps are the exception rather than the rule and the prostitute can voluntarily leave the trade at any time.  He implies that any correlation between abuse and prostitution is merely coincidental.

My disagreement with Block here is metaphysical.  He must believe that sex is somehow a neutral action just as the market is amoral.  Neither of these can be supported by Block’s arbitrary worldview.  The Bible tells another story.  Sex outside of marriage is inherently sinful.  It always leads to degradation rather than glorification in all circumstances.  Block fails to prove that if a trade is not coerced, it is necessarily a good thing.  Why can’t you have a situation where a trade takes place and yet both parties end up worse off than before?

Although no Christian should ever participate in prostitution as a buyer or a seller, the solution is not to make it illegal.  The women who brought the baby before Solomon to judge between them in the famous case (I Kings 3:16-28) were both prostitutes.  In this passage where Solomon is portrayed as the wisest of kings, he did not punish them criminally for being prostitutes.  He also did not remove the child from the custody of its mother because she was a harlot (much to the chagrin of contemporary social service types).  As is readily apparent, perverted people will still engage in prostitution regardless of whether it is legal or not.  Scripture should be our standard of whether prostitution ought to be criminal or not.  The prohibitionist is trying to be wiser than God.  As the gospel permeates the world and the nations are discipled, prostitution will pretty much disappear due to decline of both supply and demand.  This will be accomplished by the church and not the civil magistrate.

Block tries to show that not only should we not make prostitution illegal, but we should not criticize it either.  That’s kind of preachy for what I thought would be a defense of the “amoral” market, and he bites off more than he can chew.  Block presses his error of conflating sins and crimes by implying that because this “trade” shouldn’t be prohibited, it shouldn’t be considered wrong either.  This is well beyond the scope of the philosophy he presented in the introduction, but he doesn’t seem to care.  He argues that many dating patterns resemble prostitution.  Here I’d tend to agree with him, but as an argument against the dating patterns rather than for prostitution.

Then Block trashes marriage by trying to use the same argument.  All relationships are trades; therefore marriage is morally little different than prostitution.  “The marriages in which the husband provides the financial elements, and the wife the sexual and housekeeping functions, also conforms clearly enough to the model.  In fact, all voluntary human relationships, from love relationships to intellectual relationships, are trades. In the case of romantic love and marriage, the trade is in terms of affection, consideration, kindness, etc. The trade may be a happy one, and the partners may find joy in the giving. But it is still a trade. It is clear that unless affection, kindness, etc., or something is given, it will not be reciprocated (Block, 6).”  Block’s reductionism here is repugnant.  I did not vow to marry my wife only if affection and kindness were reciprocated.  I vowed to unite my life with hers in sickness and health, richness and poverty, for better or for worse.  I vowed to enter into a relationship that mysteriously images the relationship between Christ and the Church.  Even if (for the sake of argument which in no way corresponds to the most joyous reality of my actual marriage) my wife never reciprocated anything, I would still be compelled to love, protect, and cherish her.  My duty to be a faithful husband is in no way impacted by what I receive in return.

Block concludes “Several social commentators have correctly [sic] likened marriage to prostitution.  But all relationships where trade takes place, those which include sex as well as those which do not, are a form of prostitution.  Instead of condemning all such relationships because of their similarity to prostitution, prostitution should be viewed as just one kind of interaction in which all human beings participate. Objections should not be raised to any of them—not to marriage, not to friendship, not to prostitution (Block 6-7).”  This is as preachy as an Al Gore documentary.  How anything like “should” exists within Block’s worldview is still beyond me.  This first chapter was truly disappointing.  I expected better.

In DtU, Walter Block attempts to show that all non-coercive elements of a market economy have an economic value and benefit society.  He looks at the most extreme cases: the pimp, the drug addict, the blackmailer, the denier of academic freedom, the person who yells “fire” in a crowded theater, the (non-government) counterfeiter, the slumlord, and the stripminer among others.  These extreme cases can be used to make an a fortiori argument for the free market.  If even these “economic scapegoats” are beneficial to a free market economy, then less controversial professions would also be beneficial.  As Dr. Block states in the introduction, “This book is a defense of the marketplace. It singles out for special praise those participants in the free enterprise system who are the most reviled by its critics. It does so because if the price system can be shown to be mutually beneficial and productive in these extreme examples, then the case for markets in general is strengthened even the more [Block: xv].”

I read the foreword by Murray Rothbard, the commentary by F.A. Hayek, and Block’s own introduction to the book.  I can already see that this will be a thought-provoking and entertaining read, but I can also anticipate where I’m likely to disagree with Professor Block.

First, Block contends that the free enterprise system must be seen as amoral–neither moral nor immoral.  As a Van Tillian Calvinist, I cannot let this slide.  Block argues that the free market is an amoral tool just like a gun or a typewriter.  Even those instruments are only neutral until a man lays hold of them and uses them (either in obedience to God toward the end of glorification or in disobedience toward the end of degradation).  In the nature of the case, every action executed within a market has human involvement and consequent ethical ramifications.  If every particular action within an economic system is either moral or immoral, how can the system as a whole (which is the set of all these particulars) suddenly become amoral?  If Block wants to look at these things hypothetically, then my critique would be that his approach ends up becoming Utopian rather than grounded in reality.  Ironically, this critique of Utopianism can also be levied against Marx’s “scientific socialism” which is on the opposite extreme ideologically.

You will not have a free enterprise system if every action or person is immoral. What is going to stop immoral people from using coercion?  Isn’t the non-coercion principle arbitrary?  Why shouldn’t you use coercion [if there's no God who will judge all men at the last day]?  The fact of the matter is that you will only have anything resembling a free enterprise system if you have a foundation built upon the Triune God who revealed himself in the scriptures.  If we do not let the Word of God depart from our mouths and we are careful to obey it, then we will have the prosperity and success of what is essentially the free market economy which I anticipate Block will ably defend.  If we build our foundation upon a would-be autonomous system like libertarianism, then we’ll get something that essentially resembles what we see around us today.  The only reason why Block can make any of his arguments is because he is borrowing capital from the Christian worldview.

That being said, I think that mature Christians will benefit greatly from reading this book.  In many cases the things that Block defends here are sins (no associated penal sanction with the commandment) in the Bible rather than crimes (which have an associated penal sanction).  When we attempt to make things like prostitution and drugs illegal (in our own attempts to be autonomous), we almost always do more harm than good.  Many of these issues truly are problems, but the only true solution to them is the preaching of the Word, the diaconal ministry, and the faithful administration of the sacraments to convert souls.

In some cases (the inheritor, the advertiser, the denier of academic freedom, the scab, the employer of child labor, and especially the rate buster) there may be no sin at all, and I imagine I’ll agree with just about everything Block says.

If you are not well-grounded in a Scriptural Christian worldview, get well grounded in that worldview before reading this book.  Walter Block is a very intelligent man and a very persuasive debater.  If you aren’t steeped in Scripture, this book may have the same subtle influence (“hath God really said…”) as the serpent in the garden.  Libertarianism, like any philosophy that is explicitly anti-Christian, can only end in weeping and gnashing of teeth if applied consistently in the real world.  I would argue that libertarianism and consistent Christianity look very similar in a lot of the external particulars, but only Christianity can provide an intelligible foundation for them.  In most cases, libertarians want all the benefits they can get from living in a Christian society without actually bending the knee and confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord.

At least that’s my impression from reading the introduction.  I’ll issue any retractions as I am convinced I need to make them.

Chapter reviews:

Chapter 1: The Prostitute

Abraham Lincoln is the preeminent politician of modernity.  He was such a skillful, slick politician that nearly 150 years after his reign of terror, he still has the majority of the world fooled.  Lincoln wanted a war so he could consolidate power.  Every nefarious, warmongering assault on liberty and justice that the Bush/Cheney regime was guilty of pales in comparison to Lincoln.  Lincoln had a tremendous influence on the bloodthirsty 20th century totalitarian tyrants.  They learned from the master how to implement total war, curtail civil liberties, silence the opposition, maneuver themselves into wars, and increase their political power.  He ranks as my all time least favorite U.S. President.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution provided unbelievers an alternative to the creation account that had a façade of being “scientific.”  The implications of his entirely bogus and completely unscientific assertions led to a devaluation of human life that produced the unprecedented body count of the 20th century.  Darwin’s theories were thoroughly discredited shortly after his publication of On the Origin of Species, etc. but the truth never really mattered.  Evolution has always been about public relations and propaganda.  The evolutionists must run to the State to enforce and mandate the propagation of their theory because they know they can’t win honest debates.  Darwin wouldn’t have attained the fame he did unless T. H. Huxley shamelessly pimped his theory.  To this day the evolutionists use politics and manipulation to maintain their stranglehold on academia.  People who are critical of The Theory (all hail) had better keep their mouths shut or they will be denied teaching jobs, admission to graduate schools, professorships, research grants, and tenure.  The body count continues to rise, and the only reason people hold to The Theory is so they can delude themselves into thinking they have an intellectual reason for not submitting to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

While I was gone, there has been a major coup for those of you who love the State.  I’m not surprised.  President Bush has been so horrible while in office that he guaranteed a big Obama victory.  McCain got Bob-Doled.  Hard.

McCain wouldn’t have been much better than Obama (not at all better on most issues and even worse on a few), but at least with one party having the White House and the other controlling Capitol Hill, there would have been the possibility for gridlock.  The Obama presidency /  Republican congress combination would have yielded the most gridlock unless McCain died in office, but instead there will barely enough people to filibuster and that only if the Republicans grow a collective backbone.  I’m not holding my breath.  Government is a scary thing when it can get things “accomplished” without opposition.

I’m mildly amused about the emails I get from conservative groups about how we need to “resist” the new administration.  Funny that these things didn’t happen when Bush was suspending habeas corpus, say.  I think that an Obamanation can be worse than the Bush administration, but I don’t believe that it necessarily will be worse, especially if the legislature turns Republican in 2010.

Thankfully Hillary wasn’t elected, so the likelihood of homeschoolers being imprisoned forever without a trial during the first 100 days of the Administration is slim.

Sadly, there is little to be excited about in terms of small government people being elected to office.  Ron Paul ran unopposed and was reelected to Congress, but Bob Conley got clobbered by Big State Republican Lindsey Graham, and BJ Lawson lost big to the evil David Price.

For the most part, I will just resign myself to being oppressed by my government like a peasant being burninated as his thatched-roof cottage is set ablaze by Trogdor the Burninator.  It’s not the end of the world, contrary to what the Chicken Little types say.  There have been worse rulers before.  There will be worse rulers again.  Jesus Christ reigns over the world from the right hand of the Father Almighty now as He did before.  His kingdom will know no end.

If Obama starts requiring people to worship him, I might grab a pitchfork (guns likely being outlawed by that time).  God has a sense of humor, especially when it comes to discrediting false messiahs.

President: (Options are Obama/Biden (D), McCain/Palin (R), Barr/Root (L), and write in)

Obama/Biden isn’t even worth considering.  Pro abortion, functionally Marxist.  I have no faith that he will cease US interventionism abroad.  McCain/Palin are also not worthy of consideration.  McCain is a war monger who is an economic ignoramus.  I have no reason to believe that he will turn things around on abortion.  (That will be one of the first “bi-partisan” compromises he makes when he’s about to nominate a judge.)  Barr is by far the best of the three policy wise, if he can be believed.  Rather than the common “I’m personally against abortion, but..” line it appears that he’s publicly against abortion but his wife had one in 1983.  He went to Washington and was easily corrupted by the small power of being a congressman.  I shudder to think what would happen if he had access to presidential power.  Throw in the fact that he’s former CIA, and it becomes clear that I’m making a write in vote here. Vote: Ron Paul (write in): I know he’s no longer an active candidate for the office, but if you’re voting for a guy who won’t win anyway, I see no sense in voting for the lesser of two goods.  (Honorable mention Chuck Baldwin.)

U.S. Senate: (options are Kay Hagan (D), Elizabeth Dole (R), Christopher Cole (L), and write in)

Another case where the Republican and Democratic candidates are not even worth consideration.  Dole is horrible, and Hagan will be worse.  I spent a long time researching Chris Cole.  I do have some serious reservations about voting for him in that he is openly homosexual and supports gay marriage.  In looking at his positions, he believes that abortion is a state issue and opposes any federal involvement in the issue at all, whether it is funding, promotion, or banning at the federal level.  He does not disclose what he thinks the states ought to do.  As such, I think he would be far more likely to help end federally protected abortion than the “Pro-Life” Republicans in the federal government who want to keep abortion an issue forever by not stopping it.  He is really solid on everything a senator might vote on.  He wants to eliminate the fed, just about every federal department, and the income tax.  He essentially has the same positions as congressman Paul on federal issues with the exception of gay marriage where he believes in a very limited role of the Federal government anyway.  As Luther might say, I’d rather be ruled by a homosexual who rules like a Christian than by a Christian who rules like a homosexual.  Vote: Christopher Cole.

U.S. House District 13: (options are Brad Miller (D) and Hugh Webster (R))

I thought for sure that I was in B.J. Lawson’s district (4), but I found out to my horror when I received my ballot that I’m in district 13, where the candidates are Hugh Webster and Brad Miller.  Miller is horrible.  He voted for the bailout and is about as statist as they come.  Hugh Webster is a typical conservative who believes that liberals are the problem rather than bipartisan statism.  His biggest issue is to stop illegal immigration (presumably by making the state stronger.  His second biggest issue is that “it is imperative that we fight the War on Terror on foreign soil.”  Energy is a “national security” issue, and abortion isn’t even important enough to him to make his issues page.  No thanks, I’ll pass on this one since I do not have the opportunity to write-in.  Vote: Nobody

NC Governor: (options are Bev Purdue (D), Pat McCrory (R), and Michael Munger (L))

All of the negative adds between Purdue and McCrory are right.  They’re both crooks.  Purdue is worse on paper, but McCrory is more corrupt.  Michael Munger is by far the best of the three.  He’s really solid on annexation, eminent domain, and corporate welfare.  He’s good on election reform and victimless crimes.  He’s not great on education, believing that a government controlled system with the appearance of choice but still supported by coercive taxes (also known as “charter schools”) is the answer.  He’s bad on marriage, and horrible on abortion, which is a state issue.  Vote: Nobody

NC Lieutenant Governor: (options are Walter Dalton (D), Robert Pittenger (R), and Phillip Rhodes (L))

This was my hardest decision on the ballot.  I was able to dismiss Dalton after looking at his campaign page for about 30 seconds and Pittenger after 20 seconds.  (Pittenger’s website was easier to navigate.)  Phillip Rhodes has some really good positions—some of the best I’ve seen in a candidate running for office.  He is my favorite candidate whose name is actually on my ballot.  He is in favor of amending the NC constitution to get rid of the reconstruction-imposed stipulations, such as the eternal ban of secession.  He’s great on all the things that Munger is solid and good on, and better on education (believes on working toward a separation of school and state) and marriage (none of the government’s business, period).  However, on the abortion issue, he’s a wuss.  Now, it isn’t likely that Rhodes will win, or that Roe v. Wade will be overturned during his tenure in office if he does win.  However, I can’t bring myself to vote for a pro-choice candidate.  So it is with a heavy heart that I will have to leave this portion of the ballot blank.  Vote: Nobody

NC Attorney General: (options are Roy Cooper (D), and Bob Crumley (R))

Roy Cooper is on a crusade against “price gouging” gas stations.  He also demonstrated just enough backbone to take a stand on the Duke Lacrosse issue once it was absolutely no risk politically for him to do so.  Crumley rides an anti-gang, anti-immigration hobby horse and thinks more laws and law enforcement is the answer.  Vote: Nobody

Auditor: (choices are Beth Wood (D) and Leslie Merritt (R))

Beth Wood has endorsements from the AFL-CIO and the National Organization for Women.  Her auditing “won’t be politically motivated.”  Yeah.  Right.  Merritt was one of only three statewide Republican candidates to receive an endorsement from the NC Republican Liberty Caucus.   Vote: Leslie Merritt

Commissioner of Agriculture: (choices are Ronnie Ansley (D) and Steve Troxler (R))

I spent some time reading these guys’ websites.  They are pretty much indistinguishable.  Both seem to believe that government is the answer, so neither of them get my vote.  Vote: Nobody

Commissioner of Insurance: (choices are Wayne Goodman (D), John Odom (R) and Mark McMains (L))

This is a political office?  Really?  Good grief!  Goodman is Dwight Schrute.  The only way I’d vote for anybody here is if they vowed to abdicate once taking office or to work toward repealing all state regulation of insurance and then abdicate.  Sadly, Mr. McMains must be one of those Big State Libertarians.  The only position of his that is remotely Libertarian is the idea of repealing the workers compensation insurance laws. Vote: Nobody

Commissioner of Labor: (choices are Mary Fant Donnan (D) and Cherie Berry (R))

Anybody who is running on a platform other than elimination of the position will not get my vote.  Vote: Nobody

NC Secretary of State: (choices are Elaine Marshall (D) and Jack Sawyer (R))

Marshall is the incumbent and is endorsed by the AFL-CIO and the North Carolina Association of Educators.  I know whose interests she has in heart.  Oh, and she also posted hundreds of thousands of social security numbers on the NC Secretary of State website.  No thanks.  Jack Sawyer is the first Republican I’ve encountered on my ballot that actually wants to decrease the size of government and remove burdensome regulations.  I will give him my vote, but keep an eye on him if he’s elected.  Vote: Jack Sawyer

Superintendent of Public Instruction: (choices are June St. Clair Atkinson (D) and Richard Morgan (R))

As I have said elsewhere, a government-controlled school system is worse than a government-controlled press.  Both candidates want to increase the role and cost of the government in education rather than reduce it.  Vote: Nobody

NC State Treasurer: (choices are Janet Cowell (D) and Bill Daughtridge (R))

Cowell is endorsed by all the bad guys (AFL-CIO, NARAL, NC Academy of Trial Lawyers, etc.).  Daughtridge is certainly better, but he’s all about corporate welfare subsidies. Vote: Nobody

NC State Senate District 16: (choices are Josh Stein (D) and John M. Alexander Jr. (R))

Stein is a leftist.  Alexander is a “moderate” big-government Republican in the McCain mold.  Very similar to the presidential “choices.”  I’m similarly nonplussed.  Vote: Nobody

NC House of Representatives District 35: (choices are Jennifer Weiss (D) and Eric Weaver (R))

Weiss is a buddy of former Speaker of the House, felon, and current white-collar inmate Jim Black.  Weaver is worth a look.  I disagree with his positions on education and illegal immigration, but otherwise he’s solid.  I agree with him on enough that he gets my vote. Vote: Eric Weaver

County Commissioner District 4: (choices are Stan Norwalk (D) and Kenn Gardner (R))

Norwalk wants to find even more ways to tax people to “pay for growth”.  Gardner voted to increase property taxes and has some alleged shady conflict of interest issues.  He’s also in favor   Vote: Nobody

County Commissioner District 5: (choices are Harold Webb (D) and Venita Peyton (R))

You know, at first I thought based on the legion of typographical errors that Venita Peyton was going to ask me to wire money offshore in order to get an inheritance for some lesser prince halfway around the world.  But on the issues, she’s better than Kenn Gardner and she realizes that more government isn’t the answer and most of the important work to improve communities is done by private institutions rather than public ones, especially the church.  As you may have noticed, my vote is not easily gained, but I’m giving it to Venita Peyton.  Vote: Venita Peyton

County Commissioner District 6: (choices are Betty Lou Ward (D) and Larry F. Tilley (R))

Pretty bleak here.  Tilley is another pro-public education Republican who wants to raise taxes but spend the tax dollars “efficiently”.  Vote: Nobody

Register of Deeds: (choice is Laura M. Riddick)

One option?  I feel like I’m in the Soviet Union.  I couldn’t find out Riddick’s positions on anything, so I’m not voting for her.  I’m sure she’ll still garner the one vote necessary to win from somebody.  Vote: Nobody

NC Supreme Court Associate Justice: (choices are Robert H. Edmunds, Jr. and Suzanne Reynolds)

A pro-police state Republican versus a Democrat endorsed by the usual suspects.  I don’t buy this “Non-Partisan offices” shtick for a minute.  Vote: Nobody

NC Court of Appeals Judge (Martin Seat): (choice is John C. Martin)

This NC voter guide is lame.  Nothing about the candidates judicial philosophy.  I wish they had debates or something I could find on the Internet.  Martin is running unopposed.  He’ll win without my vote.  Vote: Nobody

NC Court of Appeals Judge (Wynn Seat): (choices are Jewel Ann Farlow and James A. Wynn)

Judge Wynn is endorsed by all the hard-left special interests.  Farlow pledges to be a strict constructionist and follow the law as written.  (I hope she is more of a Thomas Jefferson strict constructionist than a George W. Bush “strict constructionist.”)  I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt.  She isn’t as overtly Police State as Edmunds.  Vote: Jewel Ann Farlow

NC Court of Appeals Judge (Tyson Seat): (choices are Sam J. Ervin, IV and Kristin Ruth)

Well, things get more and more interesting.  Here we have 2 Democrats running against each other.  Kristin Ruth gets most of the really hard left endorsements, but Ervin gets the NC Trial Lawyers endorsement and the State Troopers association.  Never vote for a judge who has been endorsed by the State Police. Vote: Nobody

NC Court of Appeals Judge (McCullough Seat): (choices are Cheri Beasley and Doug McCullough)

Beasley is endorsed by all the usual suspects on the left.  McCullough is the only candidate in the voter guide who included the word “liberty” in his personal statement, and is also not ashamed of his decisions.  He provided hyperlinks to decisions he has written, so he must not be ashamed of them.  I don’t necessarily agree with him on everything, but he seems to have a high regard for juries and is reluctant to overturn jury decisions.  Vote: Doug McCullough

NC Court of Appeals Judge (Stephens seat): (choices are Dan Barrett and Linda Stephens)

Stephens is endorsed by the teachers’ union and the State Troopers.  Barrett is campaigning on a platform of a conservative judicial philosophy that won’t attempt to legislate from the bench.  Vote: Dan Barrett

NC Court of Appeals Judge (Arrowood seat): (choices are John S. Arrowood and Robert N. Hunter, Jr)

Arrowood has the endorsements of the lefties.  Bob Hunter boldly states on his front page: “It has been my experience that the golden rule is the moral basis of all law.”  Now, I don’t think he’s necessarily a theonomist or anything, but he isn’t ashamed to state that just law has its basis in the Bible.  That’s a move in the right direction, even if he gets some of the particulars wrong.  Vote: Robert N. Hunter, Jr.

NC Superior Court Judge District 10B: (choice is Howard E. Manning, Jr.)

Manning was the presiding judge over Leandro v. North Carolina.  While he ruled that the state public schools were doing a poor job, he only set the stage for a bigger government role in education.  Boo!  Vote: Nobody

District Court Judges:

There are several judges running unopposed.  The NC Democratic Party endorses Monica M. Bousman, Eric Chasse, Lori G. Christian, Jane P. Gray, Robert Rader, and Deborah Sasser.  I won’t vote for them.  I can’t find enough out about Jennifer Miller Green to know whether to vote for her.  I didn’t like anything I found about Jennifer Knox.  With Brewer and Miller, I favor Miller slightly, but it’s really six of one, half a dozen of the other.  I enjoyed reading Walter Rand’s questionnaire for the Independent Weekly.  He appears to be the closest thing to a libertarian judicial candidate.  I’m not really interested or impressed by Jacqueline Brewer or John J. Miller III.  Voting for: Walter Rand

Soil and Water Conservation Supervisor: (choices are Fred W. Burt, William Cole, Robin M. Hammond, and Marcia Lieber)

Last and probably least on my ballot is the position of Soil and Water Conservation Supervisor.  All of the candidates are big on government.  But (cha-ching) there is a write in option on this spot.  Because I wasn’t able to vote for BJ Lawson for Congress (grumble, grumble), I will write him in as Soil and Water Conservation Supervisor.  Lawson’s big on sustainability and small on government, so he’d be perfect for the job.  You may argue technicalities like Lawson not living in the district and thus being ineligible to serve for this position, but it’s my vote and you can cry about it.  It’s a symbolic vote.  Vote: B.J. Lawson (write-in)

And there you have it.  Hopefully I’ve voted for few enough people this time that I won’t regret whom I voted for.  Aside from the judges, Merritt is probably the only one with a likelihood of winning.

Because the freedom of the press is so widely accepted by Americans, I find it amazing that out of those 99% who believe in the freedom of the press, 80% or more of them believe that the government should directly control the education of children.  If it is a danger to a free society to have adults subjected to propaganda, how much more of a danger is it to have impressionable children subjected to a government-controlled curriculum for six hours a day for a minimum of ten years?  This is exactly what is happening.  Children in the public schools are provided with textbooks that are of the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats, and for the bureaucrats.  The curricula are designed and supervised by educational bureaucrats (“educrats”).  In my home state of North Carolina, there are almost as many educrats in the public school systems as there are teachers, and they earn far more than the teachers. From the days of Horace Mann, the public education movement has been one of attempted social engineering.  Mann prophesied that public schools would eradicate crime (how’s that one working out) and poverty.  The government school movement has a distinctively messianic character, and like all false messiahs, it disappoints.  Although, I don’t think that public schools are failing in their actual intended purpose.

The purpose of the government school is not to produce a population that is highly literate, capable of critical thinking, or logical.  The purpose of the government school is to have each generation more supportive of an ever larger and more intrusive government.  Now, they still do let good teachers teach here and there (I’ve had several of them), but these teachers are becoming fewer and further between.  Logic and rhetoric are nowhere to be found in the average government school.  Once I started studying economics on my own, I became convinced that public schools try to make the subject as dull and brutally boring as humanly possible so that students have no desire to understand economics.  I don’t know what else you’d expect from a government institution, but with the exception of the homeschooling and Christian schooling movements, nobody seems to have a problem with the idea of public schools.

The different political parties argue about how government-controlled education should be implemented, but almost nobody argues about whether the government should be involved in education in the first place.  It is precisely because education is so important that the government should keep its grubby mitts out of the whole business.

The primary argument advanced by the guilt manipulators in favor of government education is that without it the poor would not be educated.  Well, before the public school movement there were several private, charitable Christian schools that did just that.  Rather than simply being recruiting grounds for gangs, these schools were able to educate poor immigrants into literate, productive members of society.  What is going on with the poor cannot fairly be called education, and the level of literacy seems to be inversely proportional to the amount of money that the government throws at it.  I can’t conceive of a better way to express your contempt for the poor than to compell their children to attend government schools.  Again, you see the schools achieving their intended (but not publicly stated) purpose of keeping generations of people dependent upon the government for just about everything.

I haven’t even mentioned the tax burden of this mess yet.  The government points a gun at your belly and forces you to financially support these schools whether you believe in them or not, whether they are turning out literate or illiterate people.  Who cares whether you’re devouring widows’ houses; it’s for the educra…I mean children.  In a situation where educational liberty thrived and schools were only supported by donations and tuition, the bad schools would go out of business while the good schools opened up a new branch in the next town.  As things currently stand, the bad schools get their budgets tripled for failing to educate their students.  Now tell me what incentive there is to produce reasonably informed, literate, logical people in a system like that.  When business fails, it gets smaller; when government fails, it gets bigger.

Government control of the schools is far worse than government control of the press, because within 2 or 3 generations, public schools accomplish a functional control of the press that the American people never would have otherwise consented to—or at least it would if there wasn’t a sovereign God controlling all of history for the good of his saints.  This will not succeed because the public schools are merely idols for destruction in the long run.  They cannot save any more than a block of wood can.  The educrats can moan and cut themselves with knives and lancets, but in the end there will no voice; there will be no one to answer; no one will save them.