The Road to Serfdom

By F.A.Hayek

with Introduction, and edited by,

Bruce Caldwell

To begin with, there is a very long introduction by managing editor, Bruce Caldwell. Caldwell brings us a lot of information which is extremely necessary to gain the proper context for the book, and he does an excellent job in bringing the reader up to date with Hayek's times, and providing a greater depth of understanding to much of what follows. I think it fair to say that if you fail to read the introduction, you will not grasp the importance of what follows as readily as you would if you had.

The Road to Serfdom is a book about the economy. However, it is not a book about the economy the way that we think economic books should be. Instead, it's a book about how governments spend money. It's a book about the economy of government - how governments choose to spend money, and how that translates into an ideological position of the people.

Since time immemorial, governments have been taking money from the people that they govern, and spending it in ways that they believe will best benefit and solidify their political power. With the exception of the U.S. Government in the first 200 years, there has never been a government which had limitations of their power built into a Constitution. I say "in the first 200 years" because it has become clear that this is no longer the case.

When we look at families, and how they spend money, we can get a picture of their ideological outlook on life. The toys they buy, the vacations they engage, the books they read, the vocations they pursue: all of these point to a philosophy of life, and how they view the world as they believe it should be.

Governments are basically the same, except that instead of the parents, we look at the leaders and elites of government: the toys that they buy, the books that they read, the vacations that they engage, and the votes that they procure for the people. How governments spend money indicate a generalized philosophy of the people, whether they are willing participants in that philosophy or not.

Hayek's book is about this economy of government, as an examination of their values by examining how and where they spend their money. Socialist governments spend their money much differently than capitalist societies. And in correlation to that, socialist governments harbor societies which are significantly less free than those run on capitalist notions.

Hayek's perspective was from events prior to, and leading up to the 2nd World War, as he had seen how socialistic agendas had ruined his homeland of Austria. Yet even with all the attendant evils of the 2nd World War looming large above the Western world, Hayek still saw that there were many in positions of power and elitism, who were embracing the very ideologies which were responsible for bringing such dictatorial governments to power.

When F.A. Hayek first published this book in England in March of 1944, America was fully embroiled in the 2nd World War. The Soviets had advanced into Poland, and the Allies landed in Anzio; the Soviets captured Odessa, and Rome was captured by the Allies; the Allies invaded Normandy, and the US Army captured Cherbourg; the Allies liberated Florence, Paris, Marseilles, and Toulon, and the Germans abandoned Bulgaria, and the Soviets captured Bucharest.

It would seem that the powers of good had overcome the powers of evil; that the socialist takeover attempt had been thwarted by the capitalist powers of the world. Communism was on the run, and ultimately would be defeated by the end of 1945. But even with the war looking better from our perspective, and with socialistic regimes being crushed and repudiated on the battlefield, there seemed to be an embracing of these same fiscal and ideological policies (which had clearly brought about this war) by the Western powers.

Hayek sought to warn and counsel the people against such notions, and to show them how embracing socialistic policies would require that our governments must pursue more direct and powerful means of carrying out their socialistic mandates. All governmental social policies require power to redistribute wealth - this is a fact beyond dispute. The degree to which a people allow such power in the hands of governmental officials is the degree to how much freedom they will relinquish for such "benefits" as will result from such an arrangement.

Hayek quotes Max Eastman, who was initially a supporter of socialism but later turned crusader against socialism and a supporter of individual rights, as saying: "socialism is certain to prove, in the beginning at least, the road NOT to freedom, but to dictatorship and counter-dictatorships, to civil war of the fiercest kind. Socialism achieved and maintained by democratic means seems definitely to belong to the world of utopias." (pg.79)

This book is Hayek's attempt to show how it is that well-intentioned, socialistic-minded individuals did not understand that by empowering their governments to pursue social projects that they were surrendering their freedoms in ever increasing steps. Most of the people that supported Hitler's rise to power did so in the belief that he epitomized a change that all people would come to embrace willingly. Just like today's economy, Hitler promised to eradicate unemployment through social programs and public spending on road projects, etc.

Today's renewed interest of Hayek's The Road to Serfdom will prove to be a powerful tool in enlightening the people of the dangers of pursuing socialistic policies which only build the power structure of power-hungry politicians, and create an upside-down society. Indeed, Hayek's belief was that most socialists were misguided, but sincere in their pursuit of redistribution of wealth for the sake of those less fortunate, but that they were simply unable to grasp the reality of where such a road would lead to - hence the title of his book.

The prescience of his claims ring oh-so-true, and we see that he puts ignorance squarely to blame for those on the left embracing this redistribution of wealth. He states in no uncertain terms that those who march forward with this agenda do so without a clue as to the eventually dangerous repercussions that will ensue. He claimed that you could yell at them till you were blue in the face, and that they still "will not believe until the connection has been laid bare in all its aspects" - In other words, until it was far too late to turn back. (pg.82)

The chapters are fitted into a progressive manner which outlines the road signs and the intersections of the Road to Serfdom, with each chapter building upon the previous, and helping us to see the danger of the route which leads us to totalitarianism.

I heartily recommend this book to all who purport to love freedom, and invoke a challenge to everyone to openly acknowledge the inherent differences between socialistic and capitalistic governments.

Evolutionary Icons to rival that of any church

Icons of Evolution

by Jonathan Wells

Jonathan Wells' research has uncovered a conspiracy of deliberate deception by those who hold the power strings in science halls.

"Icons" brilliantly exposes the false presentations of the 'creme de la creme' of evolution, leaving this theory of the examination of dead things dead in the water.

If you want to understand how it is that evolution is in dire straits, then this is the book that will expose it.

"Icons" is not a highly technical book, and does not require college-level expertise to read. Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, you cannot deny that these icons will never be used again like they were before.

Where did it all begin?

A Case Against Accident & Self Organization

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book (Certainly, I received more pleasure than an evolutionist). The book was meant, IMO, to examine the possibility of life arising purely by chance, as opposed to one guided by an intelligent hand.

Dean Overman has an excellent grasp on the issues, and is able to command the proper usage of scientific terms. Equally, his grasp on mathematics in explaining the issues is firm.

Overman has examined many of the scenarios which have been offered up as explanations by naturalistic minds, in their endeavor to exclude any possibility of a supernatural Creator.

If you are looking for a book that validates the mathematical possibility of life arising purely by chance, then you will need to look elsewhere. It is not brutal in its assessment, but rather thorough.

Virtually anyone can understand the material offered in this book, even the more 'difficult' math. Overman does a decent job in keeping the material at the level of understanding of the general public.

Intercommunion: Inconsistent, Unscriptural, and productive of evil

My pastor is a "strict" communionist, and so this subject greatly interested me in learning more as I do not share his views on the matter. I wanted to know if I was wrong, or if he had learned and accepted this doctrine uncritically.

To understand this book, one must know and understand some of the history of J.R. Graves. History records that he was an extremely contentious man, and that he pursued the implementation of his peculiar doctrines with a passion equal to that of the apostle Paul.

As I read the book, I was amazed that his views had gotten hold of so many good men. The book gives us an open window into his thinking, and reveals that he taught views which were not Biblical. For example, on page 19 and 20 he states that Christ taught that His kingdom was of THIS WORLD. This is a most absurd claim that runs contrary to Christ' own words.

In the book, Graves states: "Christ, in definite terms, declared that his kingdom was present; and [that his kingdom was] upon the soil of Judea, and [that specifically, his kingdom was] within the jurisdiction of King Herod."

Yet, in Christ's own words, Jesus declares that He is not of this world. Speaking to antagonistic Jews, Jesus said: "You are from beneath; I am from above: you are of this world; I am not of this world." (John 8:23)

Again, in John 18, Pilate was questioning Jesus, and he demanded to know if He was claiming to be the King of the Jews. Jesus answered him, saying: "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would I call my servants to fight, so that I would not be delivered to the Jews..." (vs.36)

There is a reason that Graves misquotes Jesus here: he hates the concept that there is a universal aspect to all those Christians - past, present and future - who belong to Christ. Rightly understood, all of those who belong to Christ constitute the citizens of His kingdom. But such a kingdom is spiritual, and not earthly bound.

In order for Graves doctrine of "strict" communion to be true, it must have a foundation built upon the Bible. There is no foundational material in God's Word to support such a view, so Graves deliberately misquotes Jesus to say that His kingdom is OF THIS WORLD. What this does is to allow Graves to further claim that since Jesus' kingdom is of this world, that it is represented in the LOCAL church ONLY. If someone should try to explain to Graves that there is a universal aspect to the church of God, then Graves can quickly dismiss their criticism by saying that communion is ONLY to be represented in a local assembly, because there is no such thing as a universal aspect to the church.

His argumentation (and book) is quite extensive, but merely an exercise in repetitive claims based in great part upon the concept that there is no such thing as a universal aspect to the Church of God.

The book was primarily written as an apologetic against paedobaptism, and so the greater part of its work is toward that end. It was during the majority of the 19th century that tensions between Presbyterians and Baptists were the greatest, and yet many paedobaptists and Baptist churches were sharing the Lord's Table. Graves saw this as unscriptural, and he sought to inform his Baptist brethren of their error.

While there is Scriptural warrant for closing the table to paedobaptists, this book does not have the Biblical answer. This book is based upon several doctrines which are in error, not the least of which are the concepts supportive of Landmarkism.

The book is "valuable" as a resource for understanding the teachings of the father of Landmarkism, and as a view into Baptist history, of which Graves is most certainly a part. But the buyer should use extreme prejudice in examining the statements of Graves.

To Change the World.....or Not?

To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility Of Christianity in the Late Modern World

by James Davison Hunter

It is impossible to adequately critique the myriad claims that Hunter presents and become points of debate – there are far too many. Instead, I must attempt to point out the most obvious points of contention, and seek to explain those errors as concisely as space permits. This is, after all, a book review, not a book itself!

Throughout Hunter’s book, he rails against the dominant (read: “Evangelical”) tactics of culture changers by stating unequivocally that the tactics they employ are a waste of time. In the end, the question is really, does Hunter offer a more effective alternative than the “dominant” method which he rails against. It’s also valuable to attempt to ascertain just why it is that conservative Christians draw the central focus of his attacks.

His “new” way is not offered as a means of culture change, but simply as a means of living out the Creation Mandate (pg. 4). And, of course, living out the Creation Mandate should not be confused with pursuing a course of action which includes evangelizing as its main raison d’être.

It is precisely these subtle differences – these nuances in rhetoric – (between “the Creation Mandate” and “the Dominant View”) that the Conservative Christian must pick up on if he is to truly understand what the purpose of the book is. Hunter seems to go to great lengths in masking his explanations in language which is deliberate in what it says without saying.

At one point in his book, he actually decries the present-day practice of highjacking words, only to engage in that very practice. For example, the Great Commission’s (GC) definition morphs into various meanings as his purposes in editing change. In one part of the book, the Creation Mandate (pg.4) morphs into the GC. In another part, the GC is referred to as the Formation (pg 236). In other places, public becomes “secular” and private becomes “religious.” It then becomes clear that the reasons for the recension of definitions are to frame his argument by the utilization of traditional words and phrases that would otherwise convey a more conservative meaning. These words and phrases are then redefined to approximate his own peculiar understanding.

In truth, as you read his book, you would get a distinct sense that he is criticizing the old way of changing the culture in order that he may present a newer, better, way of changing the culture. Even the pseudomorphous title of the book, To Change the World, gives you the feeling that Hunter is interested in doing just that. But, in reality, Hunter views the forces of culture change as largely outside the realm of human control. By the end of the book, it should be clear to any Conservative Christian that Hunter’s main focus is to reduce the influence of the Conservative Christian voice in the public square. It is, after all, repeated ad nauseum throughout the several chapters, that Evangelicals are to be hated for their rhetoric and attempts to influence laws which reflect a historical, Judeo-Christian foundation.

Instead, Hunter’s views regarding cultural change appear to be relegated almost entirely to the whims of secular forces and institutions, with religious persuasions primarily operating at the periphery. He does acknowledge that religious forces do have a part in the Grand Scheme, but that all things being equal, there are greater forces that must coalesce to achieve such changes. At the very least, Hunter maintains that no Movement can, in and of itself, control the direction of cultural change in any specific direction, but that any changes are ultimately greater than any singular ideology such as Conservative Christian philosophy, which would place any possibility of directed change outside of the realm of reasonable plausibility.

Still, Hunter seems to hold out the hope that there is a better way, and he promises that it will be forthcoming in the third essay. But “better” does not translate into “a means to change the culture”, and by the end of the book, it should be abundantly clear that Hunter believes that nothing can achieve cultural change on the order that Christians are attempting. In fact, as you finish reading the third essay, you realize that a Practice of Faithful Presence is not intended to actually induce any cultural change – certainly not on the order of scale that Christians have historically attempted to achieve.

Indeed, Hunter states unequivocally that it is “dubious” to believe “that the world, and thus history, can be controlled and managed.” He even goes so far as to compare Evangelicals (by allusion) to the Crusades when he says that “Indeed, history is filled with the bloody consequences of this logic and the logic is very much present, even if implicit, on all sides and in all factions of the ongoing culture war.” (Are we to believe that the left and the progressives are being compared thusly? Really?)

Conservatives take the greatest brunt of Hunter’s attack (for reasons that should be self-explanatory). He emphatically contends that there is nothing that will ever be accomplished in changing the culture by the means that Conservatives have attempted throughout history. After analyzing Andy Crouch’s approach to culture change, Hunter states that “When all is said and done….[Crouch’s] perspective also falls far short in providing an adequate account…” of how cultures change. He then states that “Once again, we are left with the need for an alternative.”

Such statements may lend themselves as being fully capable and willing to offer an alternative means of how Christians can effect a change in culture in a positive manner with much more significant results. Yet his Practice of Faithful Presence is not intended as an alternative means for culture change – and this should be clearly understood.

Certain significant details are discovered regarding Hunter’s bias, such as his socialistic tendencies, and his other leftward leanings, but ultimately, if you want to know where Hunter stands on any issue, you will be left in the dark. I maintain that this is deliberate (obviously), and is nothing more than typical fanfare for those on the left. Anyone who tries to claim that their position is “non-biased” is not being honest with others or themselves, and it is clear that Hunter falls into this category.

In the end, Hunter’s book details a focused railing against, primarily, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. While Hunter does engage those on the left (liberals, progressives, and the neo-Anabaptists), it is his intense dislike of the practice of those on the right – who engage the culture through politics – that remains as the central focus of his writings. This tactic is not new (to bundle your criticisms against both left and right while having only those on the right as your main target).

For that matter, there is another similar work that came out in the last couple of years which uses the exact same tactic – Lord Save Us From Your Followers, by Dan Merchant – a book and movie. Indeed, I found it interesting that Hunter stated that one of the main reasons that Christians should not engage in politics is because they have the potential to abuse power. He states: “The potential for stupidity, irrationality, cruelty, and harm is just as high today as it has ever been in the past. God save us from Christians who are well-intentioned, but not wise!” Notice that Hunter admonishes us similarly to Dan Merchant: “God save us from Christians who are well-intentioned, but not wise!” “Lord, Save Us From Your Followers!”

Some may criticize me for being too hard on Hunter – that Hunter does indeed present a better way. But I say that his “better way” is really a smokescreen for an ulterior motive. Not to mention that he admits that the Practice of Faithful Presence has been around for many generations – his presentation is not anything new, and he states that “the world enjoys a long tradition” of this working philosophy (pg. 284). Hunter mocks the Evangelical when he facetiously restates what the evangelical mind might say: “If you have the courage and hold to the right values and if you think Christianly with an adequate Christian worldview, you too can change the world.” To which he quickly retorts: “This account is almost wholly mistaken.”

To “prove” that Conservative’s modus operandi is “wholly mistaken”, Hunter cites a few statistics showing how little Christianity has been able to effect any lasting cultural change despite being a significant segment of society. Such an argument is rife with faulty assumptions, not the least of which is that even though America is made up with a majority who believe in God, it is only a minority that actually can be referred to as “Evangelical.” In fact, Evangelicals only make up about 25% of the total population of Americans.

Hunter’s primary focus for explicating the dominant view of culture change is found in his criticism of Chuck Colson’s book, How Now Shall We Live, which he broadly cites. Hunter shows how it is that the dominant (Conservative) view is centered on the operating thesis that all cultural change must be tied to the understanding that cultures can only change by changing people first (bottom-up change). As you change enough people, this in turn will convert the culture of society in the desired direction.

Hunter views this tactic as a huge error (“almost wholly mistaken”). I maintain that the error is in his perspective, and not in anything that Conservative Christians are doing. Hunter’s perspective is a leftist point of view, and as is typical for those on the left, they fail to understand that any true, and lasting, change for any society can only be effected by changing the hearts of the people. That is why Colson maintains that you must start from the bottom and work your way up into the culture.

Colson (as well as all other Conservative writers), perhaps ignorantly, fails to point out in his writings any historical understanding of how Christianity has risen and fallen in significance throughout the ages – as Hunter so artfully details in his first essay. Perhaps because of this lack of detail by Colson, Hunter feels justified in stating that it is ignorance and naïveté on Conservatism’s part for believing that changing individuals could ever hope to change culture in a positive manner.

In reality, it is Hunter who is in error, because he fails to understand that the ideas which Colson defines in his book, and the focus on Colson’s view is on a LASTING change. Sure, you can effect change by other means (perhaps politically) such as what Hunter suggests, but if it is not genuine, and it is not genuinely spread throughout the populace, then any cultural change will be fleeting in nature – and that is the central thrust of Colson’s thesis.

Hunter fails to see (or acknowledge) this distinction (between real and nominal change), and that, coupled with his historical understanding of how cultures have changed in relation to the Christian religion, show him that the dominant view is wrong. But the dominant view is only as wrong as its inability to bring about change to every person possible. The dominant view is also just as right as its ability to bring about change to every person possible.

What this means is that, in spite of any success of the dominant view (or lack of it) to bring about cultural change, the vision for achieving any lasting change remains the same, and fails to lose any truth even if it does not achieve fruition. A failure to effect any large-scale cultural change cannot change the truth that if you change the majority of a population’s perspective on morality, then you can effect a change the direction of their cultural progress.

Hunter then goes on to expand on his offering of a new and better way, by outlining eleven propositions as “an alternative view of culture and cultural change.” This part is masterful and detailed. Hunter presents to us those aspects of power and influence, both within and without Christian circles, which contribute to a change in the culture. Understood properly, each of these 11 propositions must converge and be present in order for change to be seen in a culture.

Certainly, there is much room to debate the details, but it is sufficient for this review to note that his account regarding the historical presentation of cultural change in relationship to Christianity is worthy of respectful consideration, because it is well thought out, and follows closely to common sense and logic.

But, in the end, it is clear that in order for the culture to change directionally by will, that there must be a concerted, and conspiratorial, effort at play. In reality, it would seem much more likely that cultures change in ways that reflect the moral focus of the people. In other words, as the basis for a people’s morality changes, so too does their culture and what they value change. This one correlation can not be denied: as the status of the elite’s moral tenor has changed, so too has the culture’s moral tenor changed.

In the last 40-50 years, there has been a dramatic moral shift to the left. That Hunter glosses over and does not offer any logic to explain how or why this could have happened, shows that he does not truly understand the significance and influence of moral good in society. If we operated under Hunter’s assumptions, we might believe that the Boy Scouts are non-effective, because they can not possibly be an influence for good in this culture. In reality, if we were to remove, weaken, or otherwise deaden the influence of good in American culture, we could expect to see an explosion of immorality. As it is, this has already happened, because Christians do not stand up against the tide of immorality which has literally taken over our culture.

It is important to understand that Hunter’s rant is not against those on the left (despite his inclusion of critiques of them) but against those organizations which dominate in the culture-changing business. That’d be those on the right. Hunter is actually quite explicit in whom he is attacking, and he tells us early on that he is really attacking those who dominate in “ways of thinking about culture.” He then spends a significant amount of ink exposing those on the right as being the holders of such dominant thinking. Andy Crouch, in his review of Hunter’s book, states likewise that “Hunter's greatest interest is clearly Christianity's theologically conservative varieties…”

If you think about it, Hunter presents three dominant views:
• Conservatives/Fundamentalists/Evangelicals
• Liberals/Progressives
• Neo-Anabaptists

Of these three views, only one stands in stark opposition to the worldly system – the first. The other two share many of the same ideals and perspectives as those of the world regarding politics, war, abortion, euthanasia, human rights, social justice, capitalism, environmental issues, etc.

If you were to silence the voices of all three Christian groups, the only one whose ideals would suffer from a failure to present, would be the first group of Conservative/Fundamentalist/Evangelicals. The other two groups would continue to enjoy the propagation of their ideals.

In essence, what we have in this book is another Gramscian attempt at changing Christian culture, whereby he argues for his own “culture war” in which he seeks to give anti-capitalist elements and ideas a front seat, and to thereby gain a dominant voice in the fight for the soul of America’s Christians. Ultimately, this would hopefully result in changes in how Christianity is portrayed not only amongst ourselves, but in mass media, education, and other mass institutions.

As Pat Buchanan stated so eloquently: “Who is in your face here? Who started this? Who is on the offensive? Who is pushing the envelope? The answer is obvious. A radical Left aided by a cultural elite that detests Christianity and finds Christian moral tenets reactionary and repressive is hell-bent on pushing its amoral values and imposing its ideology on our nation. The unwisdom of what the Hollywood and the Left are about should be transparent to all.” (http://www.theamericancause.org/patculturewars.htm)

Reading Hunter’s book reveals Hunter’s own elitism and detestation of Conservative Christianity. It is clear that Hunter finds that Christian moral tenets are reactionary and repressive. What is Hunter’s answer to the barrage of immorality? Silence Christians in the Public arena. Instead, he would relegate our influence to the smallest aggregation of people – the workplace, or local club that we attend. Not the larger community, or the city/town, or the county, or the state level.

Another important point to understand is that, as you read his book, it becomes abundantly clear that Hunter is a skilled rhetorician, and that he (in the words of Andy Crouch) uses “considerable nuance” in framing his arguments. For that matter, nearly the whole book is couched in “considerable nuance.” This is a tactic that individuals utilize to hide their own position and world-view, and present themselves as a non-biased interloper who forays into the battle zone as one who has the answers to bring peace.

Yet Hunter would be hard-pressed to lay out his world-view for all to see, because it would expose him as one who leans far left, and has a biased axe to grind – namely, that Conservative Christians control the moral conversation, and he will change that if he has anything to say about it.

A quick comparison of Hunter’s ideas to those of the biblical history is in order. The basic premise of Christianity, as put forth by Jesus, and later by Paul and the other apostles, is that the preaching of the cross changes lives. When enough lives are changed simultaneously by the preaching of the cross, we have witnessed huge changes in the culture in which those initiations occurred. This is a fact that is undeniable, yet it is one in which Hunter has discounted entirely. He has stated unequivocally that such cultural changes are nigh impossible and that such claims that culture can be changed in this manner are “almost wholly mistaken.”

Yet we know that the Bible proclaims that it is the biblical ideas that make up the Gospel message that have the power to change beliefs; and that if you change beliefs, you change habits; and changed habits contribute to a changed community; and a changed community gives rise to a changed culture. After all, the culture is the summation of its constituent parts, of which humans make up the basic components of the culture that they participate in.

Now, we can argue over the specifics of how culture is directionally changed, which is what Hunter’s book somewhat shows, but it is a bit ridiculous to deny reality and to lay claim that ideation has no part, or certainly no significant part, in transforming cultural mores and habits, or that Christianity does not influence society and culture for the good.