friedman on cultural differences

Posted on March 19, 2014 by christopher fisher

From an article about the standard of living differences between Scandinavia and the US:

A Scandinavian economist once stated to Milton Friedman: “In Scandinavia we have no poverty.” Milton Friedman replied, “That’s interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either.” Indeed, the poverty rate for Americans with Swedish ancestry is only 6.7%, half the U.S average. Economists Geranda Notten and Chris de Neubourg have calculated the poverty rate in Sweden using the American poverty threshold, finding it to be an identical 6.7%.

It is important to keep cultural influences in mind when doing cross county comparisons.

Posted in Economics, Statistics | 1 Comment

Jesus – lower than the angels

Posted on March 19, 2014 by christopher fisher

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.

In Hebrews, Jesus was said to have been made “a little lower than the angels”. Calvinists, such as Gene Cook, have interpreted this to mean: “Jesus set aside his godhead while retaining the attributes such that he became lower than the angels.” To be “lower than the angels”, in the Calvinist mindset, is to not be God. As one pastor told me:

“..[Jesus] gave up the independent use of those attributes but he never gave up any of the attributes, per se, otherwise he would cease to have been God. You can’t continue to be God and not have the attributes of God.”

Thus Jesus must “set aside” his Godhood to become man. The Calvinist goal with Hebrews 2:9 is to find some understanding that lets Jesus retain what Calvinists believe is important for Godhead while still maintaining that this verse has meaning.

Not only is the Calvinist/Augustinian interpretation on face value absurd and gnostic, but it neglects the very context of Hebrews. The context is that although man is below the angels, God has given dominion to man. The text is playing off of the fact that although man is “lower” (less powerful) than the angels that man has dominion over the angels. Likewise Jesus has dominion over the angels:

Heb 2:5 For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels.
Heb 2:6 But one testified in a certain place, saying: “WHAT IS MAN THAT YOU ARE MINDFUL OF HIM, OR THE SON OF MAN THAT YOU TAKE CARE OF HIM?
Heb 2:7 YOU HAVE MADE HIM A LITTLE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS; YOU HAVE CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND HONOR, AND SET HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS.
Heb 2:8 YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET.” For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.
Heb 2:10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

It is in this context that man’s status of “being lower than the angels yet having dominion over them” is contrasted to Jesus “being lower than the angels yet having dominion over them”. Lower is in the context of power. Jesus did not have power in and of himself. Angels have inexplicable power. In 2 Kings 19:35, one angel kills about 200,000 people in one night. There is a gapping power void. Jesus was lower than the angels in power. The author of Hebrews plays on this one feature to make his point.

The entire thrust of the whole passage is to prove to his audience that Jesus was superior to the angels. Jesus would be in charge of the apocalypse, not the angels. Apparently, in the time of the author there were rumors that Jesus a powerless messenger. Hebrews counters that idea. One would think that if the author was trying to communicate the strange idea that Jesus was “setting aside” his Godhead to make himself “lower than the angels” that this point would be explicit as to heighten the overall point of the chapter. Instead, what is present is a desperate attempt to show that Jesus, although less powerful than the angels, would be superior to them in the coming apocalypse. The context does not fit an Augustinian understanding.

Because Godhood is not synonymous with omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience or any other Greek concept, Jesus can be lower than the angels yet be divine. As Will Duffy pointed out to me, the entire passage undermines the basic concept of immutability, the heart of the Augustinian concept of God. The Augustinian obsession with extra-Biblical attributes forces them into strange interpretations of these texts.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, God, Jesus, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience, Open Theism, Theology | 1 Comment

eyes to see

Posted on March 16, 2014 by christopher fisher

There seems to be a reoccurring figure of speech in antiquity: Having not eyes to see or ears to hear. Plutarch (46–120 AD) in his Moralia uses this phrase:

While we minded our meat and our bellies, we had neither eyes to see nor ears to hear; but now the table is taken away, we are free to discourse among ourselves and to enjoy one another;

The reader can understand what is happening here. While the food is in front of the guests, the guests would rather eat than interact with each-other. The figure of speech is not that the guests have non-functioning eyes or that the guests are unable to understand. The figure of speech is that the guests have other preferences.

The Bible also uses this phrase in several locations. The figure of speech seems to be the same or similar to Plutarch’s usage:

Deu 29:4 Yet the LORD has not given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day.

It seems that the process of God explaining his purposes is the mechanism that enables people’s hearts, eyes, and ears. God is telling the people the meaning of past actions and is calling the people to turn to Him.

Isa 6:9 And He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
Isa 6:10 “Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed.”

In this verse, God lays out the mechanism for “giving people” closed eyes and closed ears. God is telling his prophet to preach so long and hard that people begin to tune him out. The mechanism is “annoyance” and “saturation”.

Eze 12:2 “Son of man, you dwell in the midst of a rebellious house, which has eyes to see but does not see, and ears to hear but does not hear; for they are a rebellious house.

In this verse, the author is criticizing people who have eyes and ears, but have chosen not to listen. This is very much in line with Plutarch’s use of the idiom.

Act 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
Act 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

In this verse, the mechanism is again clear. People do not hear or see because they are saturated with preaching (“their ears are dull of hearing”). People have shielded themselves from salvation.

Rom 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

This could be a reference to several verses. Most likely it is referencing Isaiah 6:10. The context fits it nicely. God has preached so long and hard that Israel is numb. In verse 11, Paul details one last attempt to change the people in spite of their dullness. The context is fervent attempts to convince people to change.

In short, the phrase “no eyes to see or ears to hear” most likely is a figure of speech meaning that people are sick of hearing something (or are not in the right mindset) and choose not to pay attention.

Posted in Bible, Figures of Speech | 1 Comment

the crucifixion was not a fixed event

Posted on March 15, 2014 by christopher fisher

There is an excellent exchange between Bob Enyart and Gene Cook. Enyart asks Cook about sin being for the glory of God. Calvinism asserts that whatever comes to past does so to maximize the glory of God. This leads to horrific conclusions:

Enyart: To the Calvinist, God is the one who foreordained that that child would be sodomized on video and that not three times sodomizing him in an hour would be good, but it needed four for God’s glory and His pleasure. And this is applying filth and perversion to God and the reason it is done is because God’s goodness and love are sacrificed for the raw quantitative knowledge and power that we’ve conceded to the Greeks…

Enyart: So Pastor, the child porn video, Calvinism asserts that God has decreed, well can you answer that first…

Cook: I got something much worse than child porn…

Cook: Nailing the son of God to a cross…

Enyart: You assert God has decreed that a five year old boy would be sodomized for how many minutes on what video sold to who. That that was God’s plan… Do you assert that God foreordained how many minutes a five year old boy would be sodomized on a child porn video. What that God’s plan?

Cook: Bob I have already affirmed that whatever comes to past… I am saying every detail of human being…

[Cook then refocuses the conversation to Jesus and the crucifixion]

The Calvinist, and even other flavors of Augustinian Christians, point to Jesus’ death on the cross as a predestined event that was horrific and was planned for the glory of God. Gene Cook, in the above debate, specifically claims multiple times that the crucifixion is worse than child rape. He uses this to attempt to justify God using child rape for God’s glory.

Other Augustinian Christians claim that the crucifixion as a fixed event that was predestined from before the world was created and as proof positive that God must know the future in minute detail. After all, events leading to the cross have countless inputs from the actions of free will creatures. The crucifixion could not be known for 100% certainty if man has free will.

The answer is in the Bible. The crucifixion was not a fixed event. When God has plans, free will actions by His creation often change His plans. In Jonah, God prophesies destruction but then changes His plans based on the people’s repentance. God responds. That is the theme of Jeremiah 18.

Jesus, himself, believed the crucifixion was not a fixed event. Here is Jesus praying:

Mat 26:39 He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”

And later:

Mat 26:42 Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.”

Jesus did not want to die on the cross and petitioned God to change God’s plan. Jesus sought to find out if God was “willing” to change His plan. Jesus, in this text, both appears to not know exactly God’s overarching plan or if his own request would be granted.

Jesus was under the clear impression that there was a possibility that God would choose a different plan. Jesus was not stuck in a fixed event mindset. Jesus did not believe the crucifixion was predestined in the Calvinist sense of the word. This is even after Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection (Joh 2:19). It seems that Jesus wanted his own prophecy to fail.

We also learn from this that Jesus even believed that God would allow God’s own will to be superseded by Jesus’. This would not be unlike the several times that God chose Moses’ mercy over God’s own plans to destroy Israel. Sometimes although God has other plans, He will adopt the plans of those He loves. Jesus was ensuring that God did not do that in this particular case. God should only change His plans if that is what God wills. That is why he adds: “not as I will, but as You will.”

Jesus earlier stated specifically that he has the free will to chose death:

Joh 10:17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again.
Joh 10:18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

Elsewhere, Jesus again shows that the event was not fixed:

Mat 26:52 But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
Mat 26:53 Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?
Mat 26:54 How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?”

In Matthew, Jesus is quick to point out that God has the power to deliver Jesus from crucifixion and alter the scriptural fulfillment. Jesus knew that all he had to do was ask for the slightest help and God would change His plans, save Jesus, and Jesus could live. Jesus, when making this statement to his disciples, is pointing out that he is willingly allowing the Roman authorities to capture him. The Roman authorities can only do so, because God did not stop them. Jesus emphasizes this point straight to the faces of the Romans:

Joh 19:10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
Joh 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Jesus, here, is stressing a few points. The Romans only have captured Jesus because God allowed them to do so (this is the same concept as when Jesus stated that he could call on twelve legions of angels). And, the deliverers have the greater sin. Jesus is pointing out culpability. The deliverers could have chosen to not deliver Jesus. The Romans were not particularly knowledgeable or intent on capturing Jesus themselves. The Sadducees orchestrated Roman involvement and Jesus’ arrest. The Sadducees then have the greater guilt. The Romans have the lesser guilt. God forced no person’s actions, they could have done otherwise, and everyone will be judged based on their level of involvement.

So, God allowed Jesus to be captured, tortured, and crucified. God could have saved Jesus, but did not. Does that make God evil? The answer is simple: Jesus chose his suicide mission voluntarily. If a military general asks for volunteers to lead an assault, the general may know they will all die. The general has a purpose (maybe taking a town) and may even have the power to spare those troops (pretend he can just level the city with a nuke). But sometimes there are objectives that would be lost with more forcible avenues (such as nuking a prized factory or bridge). The general can allow the troops to volunteer for the suicide mission (even having the power to stop it), but that does not make the general culpable for the deaths. The enemy is culpable. They are the ones with guns, choosing to fire, and not choosing to surrender. The general has even less culpability if those who chose the suicide mission could ask the general at any time to cancel the mission.

God was not going to force the crucifixion at all costs. We see that from Jesus. Instead, God had a plan. Plenty of evil people willingly played into God’s plan. And Jesus, on his own volition, chose to partake in this plan. The plan could have been modified or canceled by Jesus as any time. And God forced no human to take part. They were all to be judged based on their own levels of involvement.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, God, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Open Theism, Theology | 9 Comments

predatory pricing and public schools

Posted on March 14, 2014 by christopher fisher

Predatory pricing is when one organization under-prices their goods or services at below cost in order to drive competition from the field. This is seen by many laymen as an effective tool that works to build monopolies. Without any concrete examples, this myth persists.

Bryan Caplan recently posts an excellent article explaining that even in a zero priced predatory pricing scheme, competition still cannot be driving from the market. His example is public school, which offers schooling for free. Even with a zero price point for the consumer, government schools still only capture only 90% of the market:

After practicing predation to the utmost degree, public schools have only captured 90% of the market.

This is particularly striking when you realize that public schools – unlike normal businesses – can afford to practice predation indefinitely. When a normal business practices predation, competitors naturally wonder, “How long can the predator keep this up?” For private schools, in contrast, there is no light at the end of the tunnel. They keep serving 10% of the market even though they know in their bones that public schools’ predatory pricing will continue without interruption.

My favorite example of an attempted predatory pricing scheme is of bromine in the 1900s.

Posted in Economics, History, prices | Leave a comment

understanding psalms 23

Posted on March 8, 2014 by christopher fisher

In Psalms 23, David is praising God. David compares God to a shepherd. In the Israelite culture, a shepherd was more like a marine. Shepherds were brawlers who honorably watched their flock against wild animals. That is the image David is using for God:

Psa 23:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
Psa 23:2 He makes me to lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside the still waters.
Psa 23:3 He restores my soul; He leads me in the paths of righteousness For His name’s sake.

In the first three verses, David emphasizes God compassion. A good shepherd ensures the flock is well feed and happy. David compares a shepherd leading a flock to God leading the way for righteousness. The imagery is that God is leading (not pushing from behind) and David is willingly following. The end path is righteousness.

Psa 23:4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; For You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.

The next image is a juxtaposition against the green pastures. Multiple times in David’s life he was almost killed. Saul attempted to kill David throughout 1 Samuel and David may have only survived through divine intervention. A good shepherd protects his flock. David parallels the strength of a shepherd with the strength of God. David takes solstice in God’s weapons (the shepherd’s rod and staff). David knows that even though he might be in a dangerous position, God will deliver him (as God had done consistently in the past).

Psa 23:5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; You anoint my head with oil; My cup runs over.

David speaks again of his encounters with his enemies. David’s army on several occasions were in close proximity to that of Saul’s. Even when David’s enemies were at arms length away (1 Sam 24:4), God supplied David with resources. David points out that this is because David is God’s anointed. The image is that God is so liberal in His blessings that much of the blessings spill over and cannot be possibly used. David is truly blessed.

Psa 23:6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me All the days of my life; And I will dwell in the house of the LORD Forever.

David’s character was very eccentric. David would sometimes dance before God and sometimes fight giants with only a sling (trusting in only God for the victory). David was confident that God would bless him throughout his entire reign. David dies of old age in 1 Kings 2.

Posted in Bible, God, Omnipotence, Theology | Leave a comment

when God beats shepherds

Posted on March 8, 2014 by christopher fisher

Jer 25:34 “Wail, shepherds, and cry! Roll about in the ashes, You leaders of the flock! For the days of your slaughter and your dispersions are fulfilled; You shall fall like a precious vessel.
Jer 25:35 And the shepherds will have no way to flee, Nor the leaders of the flock to escape.
Jer 25:36 A voice of the cry of the shepherds, And a wailing of the leaders to the flock will be heard. For the LORD has plundered their pasture,
Jer 25:37 And the peaceful dwellings are cut down Because of the fierce anger of the LORD.

In Jeremiah 25, God explains His power by predicting that He will kill a bunch of shepherds. To the American mindset this is an odd image. After all, when people remember the Psalm “The Lord is my shepherd” they tend to think of a meek goat herder, loving and caring for his flock. To modern Americans, killing shepherds is not powerful. If anything, it seems a little brutal.

But the Biblical image of a shepherd is different than the American mindset. Shepherds were seen as powerful warriors (or brawlers). Joel Hoffman in his book And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning mentions that the modern image of a Marine better fits the view of an ancient Shepherd (the toughness of a marine and the duties of a herder). Shepherds were known to kill bears and lions (1 Sam 17:34-35, Amo 3:12). In Exodus 2, Moses beats up a bunch of shepherds and everyone is impressed with him. God calls Cyrus (a military leader using force to implement God’s will) a shepherd (Isa 44:28), and David even compares God with shepherds (Psa 23).

In Jeremiah 25, the fact that God can make a large group of shepherds scatter is a claim for God’s power. God can defeat the mighty. This places an entirely new perspective on the times that Jesus calls himself a shepherd.

Posted in Bible, God, Omnipotence, Theology | 1 Comment

God does not have someone for you

Posted on March 7, 2014 by christopher fisher

god has someone for everyone

Christians are often embroiled with fatalism. I have heard entire sermons about how God has one special person planned for every single boy and girl. In addition to ruining the lives of countless Christians, this doctrine is not Biblical. The texts used to support this (just like Rebekah being picked for Issac) always tend to boarder on figures of speech or only show isolated instances for people that have special relationships with God. The Bible also has very strange instances in which odd things go on in marriages (such as Jacob marrying both Rachel and Leah). If the fatalist view was correct, some unlucky guy never got to marry the girl picked out for him OR two unlucky girls both paired with a guy for whom two wives were picked out. It gets weird. Fatalism is not Biblical.

The Bible does not hold this fatalistic approach to marriage:

Paul gives widows the liberty to remarriage whomever “she wishes” (1 Cor 7:39). Paul advises people not to marry at all (1Co 7:8). Jesus is confronted by a scenario where seven brothers married the same lady (Luk 20:29). This handing down of wives to surviving brothers was ubiquitous in the Jewish culture. Jesus allows divorce (Mat 5:32), and Paul allows divorce (1Co 7:15). And Paul also warns Christians not to marry unbelievers (2Co 6:14). In each of these cases, fatalism is not assumed into the text although this would have been the perfect place to add “by the way, God has your special person chosen for you”. The Bible treats marriage as open, where any number of people could be sufficient for a spouse.

This is illustrated in a post from The Art in Life:

Do you remember those awesome Evangelical 90’s/ early 2000’s where Jesus was kind of like our boyfriend and we all kissed dating good-bye because we just knew that God was going to bring us THE ONE and then life would be awesome? And THE ONE would most likely be a worship minister, or at the very least a youth pastor, and we would have to be in college when we would meet at some sort of rally to save children from disease or something. We would know that he was THE ONE because of his plethora of WWJD bracelets and because (duh) he had also kissed dating goodbye and was waiting for me, strumming Chris Tomlin songs on his guitar as he stared into whatever campfire was nearby. We would get married and it would be awesome FOREVER…

But then my theologian biblical scholar father shattered my dreams by informing me that God doesn’t have a husband for me, doesn’t have a plan for who I marry. NOT TRUE I scolded him, attacking him with the full force of Jeremiah 29:11 that God “knows the plans he has for me, plans to prosper me and not to harm me, plans to give me a hope and a future,” and obviously that means a hott Christian husband because God “delights in giving me the desires of my heart.” He slammed through my horrible (yet popular) biblical abuse by reminding me that the first verse applied to the people of Israel in regards to a specific time and just didn’t even dignify my horrible abuse of the second verse with a rebuttal. Nope, he said, a husband is not only not a biblical promise, it is also not a specific element of God’s “plan for my life.” God’s plan is for us to be made more holy, more like Christ… not marry a certain person.

And then he gave me some of the best relationship advice I ever got: There is no biblical basis to indicate that God has one soul mate for you to find and marry. You could have a great marriage with any number of compatible people. There is no ONE PERSON for you. But once you marry someone, that person becomes your one person.

The full post is worth reading.

Jason Staples also counters this fatalistic view:

Marriage involves a lot of work and compromise, and a certain disillusionment spawned by the discovery that the person one married was not created exclusively for one’s own pleasure is a certain result. So the message of “wait until you find your soul mate and then you can live happily ever after” has become, in my view, extremely harmful to the Evangelical church, leaving many disenchanted and jaded people in its wake, people who did not experience the joys of a perfect marriage and the rest of a “blessed life” the way they expected. (And that each party enters the marriage expecting the other to be “perfect for me” works out perfectly if we’re trying to create especially selfish expectations rather than the commitment and compromise foundational to a strong and lasting marriage.) The result? The same divorce rate in the church as in the rest of society, despite a stated contempt for divorce.

Posted in Human Nature, Theology | 4 Comments

john the baptist gives advice to soldiers

Posted on March 7, 2014 by christopher fisher

Luk 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

In Luke 3, the text quotes significant messages from the ministry of John the Baptist. John’s ministry was to “prepare the way for the Lord”. The text records his response to a few soldiers about how they should behave. We need to remember the Jews had special exemption from the Roman government for forced servitude in the military. These soldiers speaking to John were most likely volunteer Jewish auxiliary troops for the Roman Empire. Rome, contrary to modern depictions, did not have a large Roman military presence in Israel at the time of Christ.

The word for “violence” is sometimes translated as “extort money from”, but I think that translation fits “violence” (or “intimidation”) better. The context could go either way. The immediate context does deal with money “tax collectors not taxing more than authorized” and “being content with wages”, the overall message is about the end of the world. The entire message is in a world where the Romans have put down several prophets similar to John the Baptist for similar teachings. While some Roman soldiers (Jewish Auxiliary troops) might have engaged in theft, the accounts of the time focus on Roman oppression from the established powers. The soldiers were often used to suppress Jewish revolts. Due to this persecution and the soldier’s allegiance to Caesar, Jewish auxiliaries were seen as traitors. The same goes with the tax collectors. This is probably what compelled the soldiers to ask John in the first place. John the Baptist was held in high regard and they were looking for his perspective on the matter.

The same word for “violence” is used in Polybius’ Histories described a terrible tyrant:

Summoning their sons or husbands on absurd pretexts he intimidated them, and on the whole behaved in a most outrageous and lawless manner.

In any case, John the Baptist did not seem to think of Jewish auxiliary troops as traitors. John did not oppose military service, as so many Pharisees of the day. John the Baptist did tell them to do no harm and to be content with their wages. This is a good lesson for both American police and military personnel: the police which have a stigma of abusing innocents, and the Military which is paid exceptionally well (better than most people realize).

Posted in Bible, Jewish History, Morality, Theology | 2 Comments

reason.com and music critiques

Posted on March 3, 2014 by christopher fisher

Thaddeus Russell exposes the anti-market and pro-fascism elements in a few hit songs. Reason first explains the massive improvement in the lives of the poorest Americans, thanks to consumerism:

By the end of the 19th century, the material conditions of the poor were radically transformed. Most bought their clothing from stores and most owned clothes whose sole function was to make them attractive. They ate food that had come from all over the country. They drank cold beer and ate ice cream. In cities they shopped at department stores. In the country they purchased goods via catalogs and mail order. They read dime novels whose sole purpose was to provide them with fun. They attended amusement parks, movie theaters, and vaudeville shows. They went dancing. They rode on trains. Most importantly, when the poor acquired these new pleasures, they usually did so with no apparent shame.

During this revolution, self-appointed champions of the poor admonished their charges for indulging in what liberals today derisively refer to as “consumerism.”

Russell goes on to use both Macklemore’s Thrift Shop and Lorde’s Royals as examples of this hatred of consumerism, hatred of luxury for the poor. Reason points out that Lorde exhibits the left’s fantasy for power over other people:

Smarter and deeper than the hedonistic masses is indeed what liberal critics of the poor have always believed themselves to be. Perhaps this is why, as Lorde puts it, “We crave a different kind of buzz.” She sings, “Let me be your ruler. You can call me Queen Bee….Let me live that fantasy.”

Also good from Reason is their critique of Rage Against the Machine.

See also, this brilliant parody of Thrift Shop:

Posted in History, Leftists, Standard of Living | Leave a comment