Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!



Assorted

How to be happier

Keep long lists, and short accounts

*****

As I pad down the hallway to my home office, sometimes I’ll look down and remember that the laminate planking I’m walking on was laid down with the help of friends. I’m not the best with a hammer or saw, so while I did some of the sweating, my friends brought the skill. I was so very thankful at the time, and now whenever I remember it’s a warm feeling still.

As of late I’ve been remembering these friends more often because of a curious book. It’s about a guy who set out to personally thank every person involved in getting him his morning brew. There’s the barista, of course, but a farmer had to grow the beans, and then there’s all the people in between – it turns out there are an astonishing number of people involved in a simple cup of coffee. Who picks the blend? How many are involved in the actual roasting? Someone had to design the lid (there’s quite some engineering to it), and then there’s the coffee cup sleeve – there wasn’t always a sleeve – and when we remember that coffee is about 1 percent beans and 99 percent water, then there’s a whole municipal water department to thank too. And who makes the pipes that carry the water? We haven’t even gotten into the boats and trucks involved and all the crews who man and make them.

A long list to be thankful for

This guy wanted to personally thank everyone involved but quickly realized that might amount to millions. So he narrowed it down to the one thousand most directly involved.

G.K. Chesterton said that, “When it comes to life the critical thing is whether you take things for granted or take them with gratitude,” and this book was an eye-opener for just how many blessings I’ve been taking for granted. If thousands – millions – are involved in making a cup of coffee, how many could I thank for everything I find even on my short journey from bed to shower each morning? How many designers, engineers, miners, and factory workers were involved in making the Kindle that wakes us up each morning? And what about our bedding, the bedroom carpet, bathroom tiles and that long-shower necessity, our tankless water heater? I normally clomp past it all, but I could choose to start each day just looking around in amazement. As Chesterton reminds us, “gratitude is happiness doubled by wonder.”

The author of this book is a sometimes-blasphemous atheist (which is why I’m not sharing his name - I don’t want to promote him) but even as an atheist he recognizes that his disposition to grumpy ingratitude isn’t good… for him.

“…gratitude is the single-best predictor of well-being and good relationships, beating out twenty-four other impressive traits such as hope, love, and creativity. As the Benedictine monk David Steindl-Rast says, ‘Happiness does not lead to gratitude. Gratitude leads to happiness.’”

But why is thankfulness next to joyfulness? He doesn’t seem to know, but we do. God created us to glorify Him and then gave us innumerable reasons to do just that. And because He loves us, He so fashioned mankind that when we do what we were made to do, it is good for us. And He’s so gracious that even when we do a half measure, thanking the people around us, but forgetting the God Who made us, it is good for us still.

Sometimes we need a Jordan Peterson or Elon Musk – someone outside the Church – to remind us of what we have, and what unbelievers don’t. I was struck by that here, when this author shared,

“…I’ll occasionally start a meal by thanking a handful of people who helped get our food to the plate. I’ll say, ‘Thank you to the farmer who grew the carrots, to the truck driver who hauled them, to the cashier at Gristedes grocery story who rang me up.’”

This fellow is “praying” to people he knows will never hear him because he feels such a need to express gratitude. To quote Chesterton again, “The worst moment for an atheist is when he is really thankful and has no one to thank.” When I look around the dinner table at the food that’s there once again, and the family gathered around, and when I really stop to think of all I’ve been given here, my heart can’t help but swell, but now there’s another blessing I can bring to my giving, loving Father – I can thank God that I can thank God!

Keeping short accounts

But if Christians have so much to be thankful for, why aren’t we more joyful? Why am I too often grumpy, sullen, and short to the people God has gifted me?

Part of it is that we take so much for granted. We easily forget what we have, so there’s something to keeping a thankful journal. Around Thanksgiving each year my wife gets some notecards and encourages us each day to draw something we’re grateful for, and then we put the cards up on the hallway wall. It’s quite the display by month’s end.

But even more of it is taking for granted the biggest gift we’ve been given: forgiveness.

In his booklet How to Maintain Joy in Your Life, Jim Wilson shares how, upon his conversion, he experienced joy liked he’d never had chasing after the world’s substitutes. But as this Navy midshipman set out on his Christian journey, he found that joy diminishing. And it continued diminishing for the next three years. Sitting in the stateroom of an American destroyer stationed in the Sea of Japan, he was struck that for the 3 years since his conversion he hadn’t really been confessing his sins. Oh, sure, he’d confessed some sins, but there were many he hadn’t taken to God for all sorts of reasons. When he confessed his sins, God forgave him, and once again he started feeling that same joy.

Guilt is a weight. But, thanks to Jesus, it’s one we don’t have to carry. Guilt is also God’s way of getting our attention. As it says in Hebrews 12:11:

“No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.”

Jim Wilson was trained by that discipline, but like the rest of us, he was a slow learner.

“I would again disobey, get disciplined, and lose my joy. This time, instead of not confessing, I would confess after a while… ten hours, a week, 2 weeks.”

Eventually he realized that he didn’t have to wait to confess his sins – he could “keep short accounts.” Then, instead of a series of ups when he was forgiven, and downs when he wouldn’t go to God (or at least not yet), he started to experience ongoing joy.

“Sometimes I went for a while before confessing, but generally I would confess right away or within a couple of hours. I’m not saying I have not sinned in those years…. But I have a low tolerance for discipline. I do not like it. As long as I am unrepentant, the discipline stays on me, the hand of the Lord is heavy. I can remove the discipline of the Lord by repenting now.”

For those of us who’d prefer to stay miserable, he concludes his booklet with a list of what you can do instead of confessing your sin. You can justify, excuse, or hide it. You can blame someone else, procrastinate, or stand on pride. A favorite for many is “generalization,” where you readily admit “mistakes were made” without really getting into the dirt of what you did. But tricking yourself doesn’t trick God, and you can’t enjoy Him if you are hiding from Him.

Conclusion

If you want to be happier, it isn’t complicated.

Open your eyes wide, and see the world as it really is. There are troubles, but then there is God, and He continues to bless us beyond any measuring. And the biggest of those blessings is that we can know for certain – we can count on Him – that when we come to our Father with our sins, He will always and forever forgive.

That’s got me a little verklempt but I can assure you, they are happy tears.



News

Saturday Selections – Jan. 11, 2025

Music as the fingerprints of God (6 min)

George Steiner here is lecturing on the wonder of music and is not trying to argue that music points us to God. But he does believe it points us beyond materialism – our response to music shows that we are more than what we are made of.

" speaks to us that there is something else which, paradoxically, belongs to us profoundly but somehow touches on a universal meaning and possibility that we are not only an electrochemical and neuro-physiological assemblage; that there is more in consciousness than electronic wiring."

Evolution can't explain eggs

This is a bit of a technical one, but even if you get only the gist, you'll understand just how amazing the seemingly simplest things around us really are. It's only because we take God's engineering for granted that we can overlook the wonder that is an egg shell.

Evolution has to explain how they could come to be in some step-by-step evolutionary process? As if.

Trudeau is gone, so who is going to replace him?

The Liberals are about to run a leadership campaign, but have this worry:

"One of the key concerns that is out there is that the party could be prone to something approaching a takeover, or could be prone to a lot of people who don't give a hoot about the Liberal party who might be termed single-interest activists signing up and having a very real impact on the selection of our next leader."

Is anyone plotting a pro-life takeover? Should we be?

Abortion was the leading cause of death worldwide in 2024. And it wasn't even close.

45 million unborn babies were aborted last year – so relayed Jonathon Van Maren. That number is more than the population of all of Canada.

In the US abortion accounts for 60% of all African American deaths.

To put this number in a different context, COVID killed approximately 7 million in total over 4 years and in response we shut down the world. Six times more die each year from abortion and no notice is paid.

Who will stand up for the unborn? Will you? Will any politician? Will you vote for a politician who won't?

The danger of being a sermon critic

As Tim Challies explains, if you focus on what you think should have been there, you run the risk of missing the fruit that is there.

Amazing information packed inside you (12 min)

This video makes the point your DNA coding is more incredible than even the most complicated computer code, but it also kind of reduces us to just that information.... as if we could make a human if we only managed this same level of programming. So, as you watch, recall that we are more than our matter, being both body and an immaterial, eternal soul.

 


Today's Devotional

January 14 - Power over fear

“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom.” - Luke 12:32 

Scripture reading: Luke 12:22-34

So many in the world today begin this New Year with fear in their hearts. This life and the things of this world are all they care about and all they have. Consequently, they're afraid that their life might be >

Today's Manna Podcast

Manna Podcast banner: Manna Daily Scripture Meditations and open Bible with jar logo

Jesus' work continues: Acts

Serving #722 of Manna, prepared by William Den Hollander, is called "Jesus' work continues" (Acts).











Red heart icon with + sign.
News

A Big Win for Free Speech from the US Supreme Court

A decision on Friday from the highest court in the United States is a major win for the fundamental freedoms of Americans. The justices ruled 6-3 in favor of Colorado web designer Lorie Smith, in the case 303 Creative v. Elenis. Smith owns the 303 Creative business which creates custom wedding websites. As a Christian, she wanted to only provide this service for weddings that honor God’s design for marriage, between one man and one woman. But the state of Colorado didn’t allow this, even though their state officials understood that Smith was willing to work with customers who identify as LGBT, as long as her work didn’t violate her faith. (Colorado is also the state that has repeatedly gone after baker Jack Phillips over his decision to not design cakes for gay "marriages" and gender "transitions"). Smith challenged the Colorado law and lost at the U.S. Court of Appeals in July of 2021. She appealed to the Supreme Court, which has now sided with her. “The decision means that government officials cannot misuse the law to compel speech or exclude from the marketplace people whose beliefs it dislikes” explained Kristen Waggoner, the president of Alliance Defending Freedom, which argued this case before the Supreme Court. “That’s a win for all Americans – whether one shares Lorie’s beliefs or holds different beliefs. Each of us has the right to decide for ourselves what messages we will communicate – in our words, in our art, in our voice – without interference from the government.” The decision points to the immense importance of the Constitution, and judges willing to uphold it, in the face of legislatures who are keen to use the force of the law to push their views on the public. And it also marks a very different trajectory from Canada’s Supreme Court, especially with the recent loss of Justice Russell Brown....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Justice delayed is justice denied: Supreme Court Justice Russell Brown resigns

In the midst of a misconduct investigation, Supreme Court Justice Russell Brown has chosen to resign his post on Canada’s top court. The investigation was triggered by allegations of inappropriate conduct by Brown after an altercation in Arizona earlier this year. In a social setting, after a speaking engagement there, Brown was accused of making unwanted advances on a couple of women. In a public statement, Brown pointed to the slow misconduct investigation, the strain on him and his family, and the impact on the court’s proceedings, as leading to his decision that it was “for the common good” to resign. Accompanying the statement, Brown also released evidence to affirm his innocence in the matter. While we aren’t in a position to judge Justice Brown’s guilt or innocence, we can consider the process. Brown was put on leave Feb. 1 and resigned on June 12. In his public statement he noted: “At this point, it is impossible to know how much longer this delay would continue…. Given the progress so far, it is not unreasonable to think that this process may continue well into 2024.” In Ecclesiastes 8:11, the Preacher tells us that: “When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, people’s hearts are filled with schemes to do wrong.” The National Post’s Jamie Sarkonak echoed the thought: “The Supreme Court and the Canadian Judicial Council have shown troublemakers exactly what needs to be done to de-bench a judge.” Canadian news website The Hub shared the reactions of other legal experts including Yuan Yi Zhu, an assistant professor of international relations and international law at Leiden University, who was very critical of the disciplinary process for Canadian judges. "From Chief Justice Wagner’s decision to place Brown on an immediate leave of absence without official explanation on the basis of a flimsy complaint filed by a man who had assaulted his colleague, to the Canadian Judicial Council’s unbearably sluggish preliminary investigation which took the better part of half a year, to the numerous leaks from well-informed insiders to favoured journalists, the whole process has been designed to be as exhausting and wounding to Justice Brown as possible. "There can be no better illustration of what American law professor Malcolm Feeley described as 'the process is the punishment.' Even if Justice Brown had been fully exonerated at the end of the open-ended process, his reputation would still have suffered, not to mention the fact that he would have been barred from exercising his chosen profession for the duration of the investigation, which could have run into years." The justice’s resignation has also shaken the Christian and conservative legal community. Andre Schutten, Director of Law and Policy for ARPA Canada, told Reformed Perspective that Justice Brown’s resignation “is a major setback for our nation’s legal culture.”  Schutten explained that Justice Brown was “faithful to the law, and respected and guarded the rule of law. He was a constitutionalist and believed ardently that the law must be something more than the ruler’s whims. Where a majority of the Supreme Court pursued their own policy preferences and bent the law to reflect that, Justice Brown was loyal to the constitution, even when such loyalty was not in vogue.” Schutten is concerned by what this means for the highest court moving forward, saying that it doesn’t bode well for religious freedom in Canada and is “another step toward judicial policy-making that is decidedly progressive.” Sean Speer, The Hub’s editor-at-large, shared that conservatives sometimes overstate their lack of influence in Canada. However, “the one area though where conservative despair has been justified is the judiciary. The ‘living tree’ view of the Constitution has been the dominant (even the sole) judicial philosophy at law schools and on the bench for more than a generation.” The “living tree doctrine” says that the Constitution’s meaning wasn’t determined by those who wrote it, but is created by the judges who read it, that like a tree it should change and grow with the times. Speer went on to explain that there has been a change in recent years, with “a new generation of law students and scholars… capable of challenging the prevailing legal monoculture.” And he pointed to Brown as a key figure in this movement. "His judicial dissents, including in high-profile cases like References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, gave this emerging cohort of conservative legal thinkers and practitioners a credible and different way to think about individual rights, the division of powers, and the role of the court… "His departure from the bench, therefore, represents a regrettable blow to these efforts. That future now feels farther away especially since he’ll predictably be replaced by another 'living tree' exponent. "It’s important however, particularly for the young people involved in the legal movement that Brown came to personify, that it must ultimately be bigger than one person. While his resignation creates a significant void, it cannot bring an end to these efforts. Quite the contrary. It reinforces the need for more Russell Browns." Schutten came to a similar conclusion, noting that Brown’s resignation underlines again the importance of Christian engagement in the law. “For too long, Christians abandoned the field to secularists and we shouldn’t be surprised that the result is so few principled judges. The Christian community must recommit to serving their nation also in the courts of law, inspiring, encouraging, and assisting the next generation of Christian leaders to pursue law as a calling while ensuring those Christian lawyers think christianly about the law.” The resignation paves the way for Trudeau to appoint a sixth judge to the nine-judge bench that already had the National Post’s Tristin Hopper deeming it “the most activist Supreme Court in the world.” While that’s not an encouraging thought, Christians can remember that one day we will see perfect justice exacted by the Chief Justice of the world’s Supreme Court, before whom every knee will bow....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Pro-life - Abortion

The Supreme Court did not find a right to abortion

Is the “right” to abortion found anywhere in Canada’s Charter of Rights? To hear Prime Minister Justin Trudeau talk of it, you would think so. He regularly refers to abortion as a “right,” as do other abortion activists. In doing so, they are attempting to equate abortion with other Charter rights, such as freedom of expression and the liberty of the person. Many equate the supposed “right to abortion” with section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which recognizes: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. They then cite the Supreme Court decision in R v. Morgentaler (1988) as the source of this “right” – this is the decision that struck down Canada’s legal restrictions on abortion. But a careful reading of Morgentaler does not support the conclusion that Canadian law includes a right to abortion. That’s an important point for Christians to understand and be able to explain to others. While there are no legal restrictions on abortion in Canada, there are no constitutional or judicial reasons that there couldn’t be. To equip us to make that point, we’re going to take a close look at the Morgentaler decision and then at Section 7 of the Charter of Rights. The scope of the 1988 Morgentaler decision When looking at the Supreme Court’s dealing with section 7 in the 1988 Morgentaler decision, we need to make two notes. First, while five of the justices struck down the 1969 abortion law being challenged, they did so for three separate reasons. This means that while they agreed that the previous abortion law was unconstitutional, their reasons varied. Drawing conclusions from the decision must then be done with qualifications and by drawing from the various reasons. Second, the legal question of the rights of a pre-born child was deliberately sidelined by the Supreme Court and left to be determined by Parliament. The Supreme Court Justices understood that their role was limited to evaluating Parliament’s specific legislative framework (which then required pregnant women to obtain permission for abortion from “Therapeutic Abortion Committees”), not the general topic of abortion. Chief Justice Dickson, quoting Justice McIntyre, put it this way: “the task of this Court in this is not to solve nor seek to solve what might be called the abortion issue, but simply to measure the content of s. 251 against the Charter.” Section 7 and women in the Morgentaler decision The 1988 Morgentaler decision struck down the previous law on the basis that it interfered with the “life, liberty, or security” of the person in a manner that was not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice – they said the abortion law of the time violated section 7 of the Charter. The interests considered were not solely those of women choosing to have an abortion, but also the physicians who performed unauthorized abortions and faced imprisonment under the law. In terms of what rights women had to abortion, Chief Justice Dickson (writing with Justice Lamar) didn’t address the issue, focusing instead on the procedural elements of the law and the impact of the Therapeutic Abortion Committees on women’s health. Meanwhile, Justice Beetz (writing with Justice Estey) held that Parliament had carved out an exception to a prohibition on abortion, but had not created anything resembling a right to abortion. He explicitly stated: “given that it appears in a criminal law statute, s.251(4) cannot be said to create a ‘right’ , much less a constitutional right, but it does represent an exception decreed by Parliament.” Justice McIntyre (with Justice La Forest) similarly concluded that, except when a woman’s life is at risk: “no right of abortion can be found in Canadian law, custom or tradition, and that the Charter, including s. 7, creates no further right.” Justice Wilson, writing alone, gave the most expansive definition of women’s interests under section 7, finding that the guarantee of “liberty” included “a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting their private lives.” This idea of autonomy of “choice” for women was not endorsed by the other six justices and was not without limits, even in Justice Wilson’s own estimation. Ultimately, the 1988 Morgentaler decision: did not assume a right to abortion did not create a right to abortion, and cannot be interpreted as implying a right to abortion. Current Supreme Court Justice Sheilah Martin notes that although they struck down the abortion law in 1988: “the Supreme Court did not clearly articulate a woman’s right to obtain an abortion… and left the door open for new criminal abortion legislation when it found that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the fetus.” All the justices in the 1988 Morgentaler decision agreed that protecting fetal interests was a legitimate and important state interest, and could be done through means other than the law at that time. Even understanding section 7’s “liberty guarantee” as including the freedom to make “fundamental personal choices” does not end the debate, especially when such a choice directly impacts another person’s Charter guarantees. While the courts have failed to extend Charter protection to pre-born children to date, they have consistently affirmed Parliament’s ability to legislate protection of fetal interests. Unlike the Supreme Court, which is limited to hearing individual cases based on a confined set of facts, Parliament is able to hear from a variety of voices and act in a way that considers broader societal interests. The Supreme Court has shown deference to Parliament knowing that Parliament is in a better position to make such determinations. While Parliament has considered various legislative proposals that would create a new abortion law, none of them have passed, leaving Canada with no abortion law. Canada is the sole Western nation without any criminal restrictions of abortion services. Every other democratic country has managed to protect pre-born children to some degree. So Canada stands alone in leaving the question unanswered – not because there is a right to abortion, but because of the inaction of Parliament. As we defend life from its earliest stages, it is important to understand where Canada is as a country and what changes need to be made to our law. While there is much that can be improved in Canadian law, we do not have to fight a pre-established Charter right to abortion. It should be our goal, and the goal of Parliament, to recognize the societal value in protecting vulnerable pre-born children. Tabitha Ewert is Legal Counsel for We Need a Law. For the extended version of this article, along with extensive references, see We Need a Law’s position paper “Under Section 7 Abortion is not a Charter right.” ...







Red heart icon with + sign.
Adult fiction, Book Reviews

Time will run back

by Henry Hazlitt 368 pages / 1951 As novels go, this is intriguing. As economics textbooks go it is downright amazing. Like 1984... In Time Will Run Back author Henry Hazlitt envisions a future in which the communists won and have been in power for more than 100 years. As Henry Hazlitt himself acknowledges, his novel bears some similarities to 1984 (published two years earlier) since both take place in a dystopian future in which the government manages every aspect of citizens' lives. But Hazlitt didn't read 1984 until after he had finished the first draft of his own book, so no plagiarism was involved. Instead, as Hazlitt puts it, authors like Orwell, Aldous Huxley (and his Brave New World) and himself were: plagiarizing from the actual nightmare created by Lenin, Hitler and Stalin....All the writers had done was to add a few logical extensions not yet generally foreseen. In Hazlitt's envisioned future the government has not only taken over the capitalist West, but they've wiped away any memory of capitalism, even editing Karl Marx's books so that no one could deduce from them what sort of economic system it was that Marx was writing against. Into this setting Hazlitt places the ultimate outsider. The world dictator's son, Peter Uldanov, has grown up far away from his father, isolated on a Bahama island. When his mother and father split, he agreed to let her take Peter, so long as she agreed not to teach Peter anything about history, politics or economics. So when the world dictator calls his now adult son to Moscow and informs Peter that he is to succeed his father as dictator, father first has to bring son up to speed in these three key areas. Peter's education takes up the first third of the book, though there is some palace-intrigue as well: the second-ranking member of the ruling Politburo is eager to see Peter dead, but doesn't want to be caught doing the deed. ...and Screwtape Letters This first third bears more than a passing resemblance to C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters, with Peter's teacher filling the role of the elder Screwtape explaining to his younger devilish charge why they do things the way they do them. For example, at one point Politburo member Adams and Orlov, the editor of the world's state-approved and only remaining newspaper, explain to Peter how what is carried in the paper has nothing to do with the truth, but instead has to do with what is useful for the masses to hear. It turns out "what is useful" can be hard to determine. "It is for the Politburo to decide, for example, whether we shall say that the production record is very bad, in order to exhort and sting everyone to greater output; or whether we shall say that it is very good, in order to show how well the regime is doing and to emphasize the blessing of living under it." "These decisions are sometimes very difficult," Adams put in. "We often find that a zigzag course is best. For example, if goods are shoddy and fall apart, or if too many size nine shoes are made and not enough size eight, or if people cannot get enough to eat, there may be grumbling and complaints – or silent dissatisfaction. We must make sure that this unrest does not turn against the regime itself." "Therefore," said Orlov, "we must lead the complaints. We must ourselves pick scapegoats to denounce and punish." In the middle third of the novel Peter takes on the role of the ultimate benevolent dictator. He wants to help his citizens, so he tries desperately to figure out ways to make socialism work. He has the help of his country's greatest minds, and near absolute power, so he is in the best sort of situation to make it work. But try as he might, they can't make it work. The biggest trouble Peter keeps running into is trying to figure out the value of what they are making. They have no money (since no one buys anything, but is instead given what they need) so they can't use price to calculate how valuable one product might be compared to another. And if they can't calculate value, then they also can't determine if the country is producing more overall this year vs. the last. Sheer tonnage is one proposed measure – that could use that to compare how much grain they grew from one year to the next. But even this falls short, because grain can come in different qualities. How then should they evaluate things if one year more grain is produced but of a lower quality, and in another year there is less but of a higher quality? Which was the better year? After ruling out tonnage as a helpful means of measuring output, one alternative after another is proposed only to have the shortcomings of each then exposed. The alert reader will see where this is leading: what this socialistic  economy lacks are markets in which the value of a product is assessed by consumers as a whole. In the final third of the book Peter gets more desperate and more radical in his efforts to make real improvements and give citizens real freedom, and he ends up discovering some economic principles that really help: open competition, property ownership, and the rigorous prosecution of cheats and swindlers. To help his citizens he is forced to invent capitalism! Conclusion Though the book is most obviously about communism, the warning Hazlitt offers here - that freedom and prosperity cannot co-exist with an economic system that prioritizes equality of distribution – is directly applicable to communism's democratic twin, socialism. This book sat on my shelf unread for many years because I didn't believe a world-renown economist could also be a credible novelist. I was wrong. There is a conversation here and there that gets bogged down by the economic lesson Hazlitt is trying to teach, but overall this is not just readable, but engaging and entertaining, able to stand up to comparisons with 1984 and Brave New World, which themselves are not read for their wonderful prose, but rather for their insightful investigations of human nature in the face of tyranny. So this is a readable, intriguing and important novel with a few slow bits. And as an economics textbook, there is none better – Hazlitt makes a strong and compelling case for the free market. The e-book can be had for free here. Note to Teachers: How Time Will Run Back is better than 1984 and Brave New World Though 1984 and Brave New World are important books, they both have sexual content (Brave New World more so) that can make them problematic to discuss even in the high school setting. Sex is also discussed in Time Will Run Back but in a way that parents and teachers may find more palatable: brief mention is made of how the government manages even citizens' sex lives, mandating that no one can pair up for longer than a month, lest they form familial bonds that compete with the bonds they should have to the state. But this is sex at is most boring - nothing titilating here. I believe you'll find find Hazlitt's offering a worthy substitution for either of these other two - just as engaging, as insightful, as thought provoking, and without the sexual content....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Adult non-fiction, Book Reviews, Economics

Economics in One Lesson

by Henry Hazlitt 1946 / 193 pages Universal basic income, a four-day work week, and government-funded daycare are just a few big-ticket proposals that are gaining momentum nationally, and even within our own church circles. All these proposals boil down to getting more while doing less. Promises have been made that middle and lower class families will not have to pay a cent more in taxes but the wealthy 1% will do all the heavy lifting.  In Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt argues that all these policies can’t deliver what they promise. He argues that many of these proposals only focus on a special interest group in the present and fail to consider how the proposal will affect the general populace both now and in the future.  For example, when a government announces a multitude of public “make-work” projects, at first glance these projects seem like a good idea, or at least seem like they couldn’t do any harm. The citizens get: An employment opportunity  Tangible infrastructure But Hazlitt warns that although these benefits look attractive, there are many indirect consequences that are not considered.  First, someone must pay for these employment opportunities. For every dollar spent on a public work project, a dollar will be taken away from a taxpaying citizen. Not only are the citizens as a whole worse off, there is now less money for them to create new jobs. Second, now that the infrastructure exists it is easy to assume that without that piece of infrastructure the country would be worse off – having a bridge would seem obviously better than not having a bridge. But in reality, one thing has been created instead of others. Instead of the government-built bridge there could’ve been citizen-built houses, or cars, or dresses and coats. All of these items are unrealized because the bridge is now standing. Although Hazlitt wrote this over 70 years ago, many of the issues he deals with are just as relevant as ever. We should be wary of governmental promises to ease our daily tasks. Our sinful nature yearns for an easy life; that is why these promises are so alluring to us. However, as Christians we are not called to an easy life. That does not mean that we should always seek out the hard way, but we shouldn’t become entangled in false promises of an easy way. To get Economics in One Lesson as a free pdf book, click here....