Leaders vs Dictators

Leaders vs Dictators 

A good leader believes in and respects the ¹rule of law and seeks to enforce it. He/she sees truth and law as objective realities, not something they create. 

A strong leader is unwavering in the enforcement of the law and is guided by the ¹rule of law. Unyielding enforcement of the law is not a dictatorship. 

A dictator considers themselves the law and seeks to overthrow objective morality and true law, so they can become the law-giver.

A good leader recognizes the law and acknowledges there is an ultimate ¹law-giver (God) who is the highest (ultimate) authority and not them. 

In the dictator's eyes, they see themselves as the highest authority. This, in large part, is why they seek to be a dictator i.e. to gain power. 

Ironically, this is why a dictator will accuse a law enforcer of being a dictator. The law and those who enforce it are a direct obstacle and threat to dictators who are lawbreakers seeking to establish themselves as the only absolute authority and ruler over others. 

This is also why dictators despise followers of any religion, because followers of a religion see themselves as answering to a higher authority other than those who seek to rule over them. 

Dictators do not recognize that law comes from a source outside of themselves. They believe instead they are the law or should be if they are not.

For a discussion on the basis of morality, click here.

For a discussion on what it means to "obey the authorities" in Romans 13 Click here

____________________________________________

Footnotes:

¹To understand the founding of the United States of America and what distinguished it from all other governments up to that point, we must understand common law, it's historical, philosophical and theological underpinnings. If you do not know this background you can not truly understand the USA and how it has drifted away from its original moorings but seeking to return.

What did the founders of the United States mean by common law? 

The founders of the United States—figures like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and others—understood  "common law" primarily as the English legal tradition they inherited as colonists. This was the body of unwritten law developed over centuries through judicial decisions (precedents), customs, and practices in England's courts, rather than through comprehensive statutes or codes. It stood in contrast to "statute law" (enacted by legislatures) or civil law systems (like those derived from Roman law on the European continent). 

* Core Meaning to the Founders

Common law embodied principles of justice, rights, and procedures that were seen as ancient, customary, and rooted in reason and immemorial usage. Key aspects included: 

- Rights and liberties — Protections like trial by jury, due process ("law of the land"), habeas corpus, prohibitions on unreasonable searches, double jeopardy, and safeguards for property and contracts. Many viewed these as "birthrights" of Englishmen, traceable back to documents like Magna Carta (1215), which the founders often invoked. 

- Judge-made development — Law evolved case by case through court rulings, guided by precedent (stare decisis), but judges were ideally "finding" or declaring existing law based on custom and reason, not inventing it arbitrarily. 

- Limited government and rule of law — No one, including the king or Parliament, was above the law. This included remedies in equity (fairness where strict rules fell short) alongside common law courts. 

The founders were steeped in this tradition. William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769) was enormously influential in America as a systematic explanation of it; many lawyers and statesmen studied it. 

* Context in the Founding Era

Before independence, colonists repeatedly appealed to common law rights against British policies they saw as violations (e.g., in petitions and the Declaration of Independence's list of grievances). The First Continental Congress in 1774 declared that the colonies were "entitled to the common law of England." After the Revolution, there was debate:

- Many saw it as their inheritance, adapted to American circumstances (e.g., rejecting feudal elements or monarchical overreach).

- Others, especially Jeffersonians, worried about federal judges imposing a national common law, fearing it could undermine republican government or states' rights. The Supreme Court later ruled in cases like United States v. Hudson and Goodwin (1812) that there was no general federal common law of crimes—federal power was limited to statutes and the Constitution. 

States generally received (adopted) English common law as it stood around the time of independence or settlement, modified by local conditions, statutes, and constitutions. The U.S. legal system remains a common law system today (with exceptions like Louisiana's civil law roots). 

* Relation to Founding Documents

- The Declaration of Independence (1776) grounded rights in "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and "unalienable Rights" (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). Founders often saw natural rights as underlying or harmonious with common law protections, not in conflict. Grievances against King George III frequently referenced violations of English constitutional and common law norms. 

- The Constitution and Bill of Rights built on this foundation. For example: 

  - The Seventh Amendment preserves the right to jury trial "in Suits at common law." 

  - Criminal procedure rights in the Fourth through Sixth Amendments (searches, self-incrimination, confrontation, jury, etc.) drew directly from common law practices. 

  - Terms like "judicial power" in Article III were understood against the backdrop of common law courts deciding "cases" and "controversies." 

Founders like James Wilson and John Adams emphasized common law as a bulwark for liberty under popular sovereignty, not parliamentary supremacy (which they rejected). They adapted it: America had written constitutions as supreme law, appeal to natural rights for justification of independence, and republican institutions. 

In short, when founders referred to "common law," they meant this inherited English system of customary, precedent-based law that protected individual rights and limited arbitrary power—viewed as compatible with (and informed by) natural law principles. It was not "judge-made law" in the modern pejorative sense of activism, but a reasoned evolution of customs and decisions serving justice. This background deeply shaped how they designed the Constitution and understood its terms. Debates persisted (e.g., federal vs. state application), but the core tradition endured as the foundation of American jurisprudence. 

In referring to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" what did God have to do with law in the mind of the founders 

In the minds of the American founders, God had everything to do with law—specifically as the ultimate source, author, and authority behind the moral order that undergirds legitimate human government and rights. The phrase "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence (1776) was not a vague or purely secular reference. It reflected a widespread founding-era understanding, drawn from classical, Christian, and Enlightenment-influenced natural law traditions, that law is not merely a human invention but rooted in a divine moral framework discoverable by reason and, for many, confirmed by revelation. 

* What "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" Meant

Founders distinguished (yet saw as harmonious) two closely related ideas: 

- Laws of Nature: These were the moral principles and rules of human conduct implanted in creation—accessible through reason, conscience, observation of human nature, and the "moral sense." They included self-evident truths like equality in natural rights, the wrongness of harming innocents, obligations of justice, and the duty to pursue happiness without violating others. These were not primarily physical laws (like gravity) but ethical ones governing free human behavior. Thinkers like Cicero, Locke, and Blackstone influenced this view. 

- Laws of Nature's God: This emphasized that these natural laws derive their binding authority from God as Creator and Lawgiver. God established the moral order of the universe, including human relations. The phrase pointed to God's will as expressed in creation (nature) and, for many founders, also in Scripture (revelation). As James Wilson (signer of the Declaration and Constitution, Supreme Court Justice) explained, God's law for humans is communicated "by reason and conscience, the divine monitors within us, and by the sacred oracles [the Bible], the divine monitors without us." 

In short, God was the supreme Legislator. Human laws (including the adapted English common law) had to conform to this higher law or lose legitimacy. Violations of natural law—such as tyranny—justified resistance, as the Declaration argued against King George III. 

* Key Influences on the Founders' View

William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (widely read by American lawyers, including many founders) was pivotal. Blackstone wrote that the law of nature is "the will of [man's] maker" impressed upon creation. When God created humans with free will, He laid down "certain immutable laws of human nature" discoverable by reason. This law is "superior in obligation to any other" and "dictated by God himself." Positive (human) law contrary to it is invalid. Founders adapted this to reject parliamentary supremacy in favor of higher principles. 

Other figures reinforced this: 

- James Wilson: Natural law flows from God as the source of justice and moral obligation. Only God deserves absolute obedience; governments derive just powers from consent and must align with divine moral order. Wilson saw common law as ultimately rooted in this framework. 

- Thomas Jefferson (primary drafter of the Declaration): Rights come from the "laws of nature" and are "endowed by their Creator." In earlier writings, he affirmed God as the giver of life and liberty together. While Jefferson was more rationalist and skeptical of orthodox Christianity than some peers, he still grounded rights in a Creator who designed human nature with moral capacities. 

- John Adams and others: They viewed politics as a "divine science" and saw the common law as arising from the laws of nature and dictates of God. Alexander Hamilton described an "eternal and immutable law" constituted by the Deity from human relations to God and each other. 

The Declaration mentions God four times overall ("Nature's God," "Creator," "Supreme Judge of the world," "divine Providence"), showing a theistic framework where God is active in moral governance and the affairs of nations—not a distant clockmaker who abandons creation. 

* Connection to Common Law and Government

This understanding tied directly to the founders' view of "common law" (as discussed previously). Common law was seen as an inheritance of customary rights and procedures that, at its best, reflected or at least did not contradict natural law. Judges were to "find" law aligned with reason and justice, not invent it against God's moral order. Human governments exist to secure God-given rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). When they become destructive of those ends, the people have a right and duty to alter or abolish them—because ultimate sovereignty rests with God, not kings or majorities. 

Founders were not uniform in theology (some leaned toward Christian orthodoxy, others toward rational theism or "theistic rationalism"), but virtually all agreed that: 

- Rights are unalienable because they come from a source higher than government (the Creator). 

- Moral law is objective, universal, and authoritative because it reflects God's design for human flourishing. 

- Just civil law must conform to this higher standard; otherwise, it becomes tyranny. 

This provided the philosophical foundation for independence, republican government, and limited power. It was "common sense" to them—not novel invention—drawing on a long tradition where God, nature, reason, and (for many) revelation converged on justice. 

In essence, to the founders, God was not incidental to law but its origin and sanction. Without this divine grounding, rights would be mere grants from government (revocable at will), and law would lack transcendent moral force. This belief helped justify revolution and shape the constitutional order that followed.

Trust or isolation?

When we speak of trusting others we are also talking about ⁴faith. We may understand the importance of trust but this also indicates that ¹no one operates without ⁴faith as well. The two are tied together. 

For society to function well, there must be faith (trust). It is essential for people to work well together. Without it we isolate and things come unglued, fragment, and fall apart. We increasingly see this in society as integrity in relationships continues to deteriorate, particularly among those in positions of influence, such as those in government, business, or other leadership rolls.

Relationships of every kind require faith (trust) on many levels. Trust in someone else's knowledge, wisdom, ability, intentions, character, and integrity, etc. 

And confidence (trust) by others in us as well. Trust must go both ways in a healthy relationship. It is constantly either being reinforced or eroded by one's actions. 

Ultimately, at the bottom of it all, there needs to be trust in God. This is the most vital of all. On this, everything else rests and depends.

___________________________________

Footnotes:

¹Some think faith is ⁴unnecessary. They don't need to count on - trust in - others. They can simply count on themselves and operate well alone. 

However, this is also based on faith. Faith that we have or can obtain everything necessary ²to function at the highest level on our own. Others are not necessary.

But we are limited. We don't know everything and don't have unlimited resources or the ability to obtain all that is necessary to reach our maximum potential, no matter how talented we may be or how hard we try. 

By ourselves, we aren't even sure what our highest good is. Is it having unlimited wealth, power, knowledge, influence, popularity, praise, or recognition, as the world often presents? 

What exactly is our highest good and purpose that will give us the greatest sense of purpose, meaning, and happiness in life? 

Only someone with perfect and infinite knowledge would know, and that is not us. 

Who would know and have this understanding better than our Designer, who Created and Sustains of all things i.e. the One who created everything for a specific reason and with a specific purpose in mind? 

If this all-wise and all-powerful being exists, it would be wise to find out why He made us (you) and everything else, would it not? 

²It may be ³safer to function on our own, but do we want to be safe or do we want to flourish and reach our greatest potential? 

God also created us as relational beings. First to have a relationship with Him, but also relationships with others. If so, reaching our highest good without relationships is not possible. 

It is for good reason the Bible says the greatest commandment is to love God with all you have and your neighbors as yourself. Both are about relationships.

It simply is not possible to operate well completely on our own. If you haven't watched the movie "Cast Away" with Tom Hanks, it illustrates this well. 

³In order for betrayal to occur, trust must be violated. If there is no trust, there can be no violation. This is why some refuse to trust anymore. They seek to avoid the pain of betrayal. They are acting out of fear instead of faith (trust) in God. 

But this requires isolation, which has its own set of issues. If we are designed for relationship, we can never be complete on our own.

 

In the long run, isolation prevents us from experiencing life to the fullest extent we are designed for. Those who isolate have decided that a safe life is better than the fullest and best possible life; the life God created us to have. To live a safe life is to also miss out on the greatest riches God offers.

⁴I think there is a slight distinction between trust and faith. We usually consider trust to be something we give someone after they have proven themselves trustworthy through our personal experience with them. Whereas faith may be regarded as more of something "blind," i.e. we trust someone without first-hand experience of their trustworthiness, but more from something we heard someone did in the past to or for someone else. For example, we are told Christ died for us, yet this was over two thousand years ago. We did not witness this event firsthand. But we may be compelled to believe it is trustworthy for various reasons, such as the loving behavior of someone who trusts the claims and actions of Christ, or the confirmation of Christ's claims via the archeological or historical evidence that Christ was and did what we told us he did and said.

Faith is disregarded and considered so taboo by some that they avoid using the word altogether (a carryover from "the age of reason" and our postmodern view of the world, and a disregard for all things spiritual i.e. that which is beyond the material world we can see and touch). So they replace it with words like trust and confidence. But when we peel back the layers, at the bottom of it all is faith in some form. 

While faith might have more to do with belief in something (usually God) and trust with dependence upon something or someone (not necessarily God) they are essentially the same thing i.e. only the object of our faith or trust is different, not necessarily the nature of dependence (trust) itself. 

Exchanging energy via currency?

Currency is a recognized media of value (i.e. everyone agrees on its value) that we exchange our labor/energy for (just think electrical current i.e. Current-cy). Because of this agreement everyone is willing to accept it in exchange for their labor.

We expend energy through labor to create things (or provide direct services to others) that people want or need.

We are given currency (portable, transferable, stored labor/energy) in exchange for that labor, which we can then use to acquire goods and services others labor to produce; goods and services we provide or produce that others need or want but do not have the time, skills, or interest to directly produce or labor for. 

As a society, we can more easily benefit mutually from the skills, talent, and labor (and production) of an almost unlimited number of others without having to barter by using a universally accepted ¹medium of exchange - of portable and transferable energy (i.e.currency) - 

For example, if I am a dentist and you do landscaping, I can provide dental work for you in exchange for landscaping. This works fine but only if I need landscaping and you need dental work, i.e. barter is limited to the specific things we EACH offer or need at the time that we need it.

A currency, however, is a universally accepted media of transferring your and my labor/energy. This means everybody will accept it as payment for their labor/energy and also offer it to others for the goods or services their labor/energy produces. So the use of currency is not limited to any one particular service - such as dental work - or product needed, but is unlimited in how it can be transferred and used. 

When we give currency to another, we give transportable/transferable energy/labor through a media of exchange or currency the other party agrees to accept from us. This is a mutually beneficial transaction and relationship, i.e. what some call a "win-win" scenario. 

Our energy is expended and exchanged for transportable/ transferable currency, which they in turn can exchange for goods and services created by the labor/energy of others, which they can also convert to currency.

Currency is simply a universally accepted, portable, and easily transferable media of exchanging our energy/labor (and the fruits of it) with each other whenever and wherever we need to.

Who is in control?

Here's the part most don't understand. If a central authority, such as a government, issues and therefore controls the currency (money) - such as our current fiat currency or the proposed ³CBDC - this in effect is a means of controlling the people who labor for it. 

If no Central authority is necessary to verify the value of a currency but its verification is distributed evenly through a decentralized network that no one controls (or you could say the laborers "control" together via a network) then a central authority is no longer needed. 

But most importantly, central control is no longer possible. The verification of the value of the currency is now in the hands of "we the people" and not with any single central institution or person.

What about profit? Is it good or bad?

Legitimate profit is merely surplus energy created through innovation, efficiency, and hard work. 

Innovation occurs when the laborer finds an area of demand/need/want through their ingenuity/creativity and supplies that want or need more efficiently than others (or exclusively before anyone else does).  

The basic engine that drives commerce is supply and demand. The laborer/innovator supplies what others need, want, or demand. 

Commerce is nothing more than the exchange of goods and services - through currency - that are needed and desired by others.

To provide goods and services that are needed or wanted is not taking advantage of people but actually serving them. It is treating them with value/care. In short, productivity does not necessarily involve greed. It can be driven by a desire to serve others - to treat them as we wish to be treated; to love our neighbors as ourselves. In so doing, we are carrying out the 2nd greatest commandment in the Bible. 

When profit is generated through deception or abuse of resources, this is not a natural or inherent part of profit-making but the abuse of it. There is nothing inherently wrong with profit or making it (i.e. efficiently, diligently, and creativity meeting the wants/needs of consumers better than other competitors/ providers) but only the abuse of it. 

Often, legitimate profit-making and abuse of it are mixed together as if they are one and the same. They are not. To shut down profit-making because it is abused is not the solution to the actual abuse. It would be equivalent to docking a sailboat, which is more efficient than using a row boat because the sailboat captain is always drunk and constantly wrecking the ship, causing harm or damage to others. The sailboat is not the problem, the captain steering the boat is.

Any economic system or endeavor can be (and often is) corrupted and abused simply because humanity is broken, i.e. the problem is not necessarily the means of doing commerce. We must separate and distinguish the mechanism from the abuse of it. 

All systems are subject to abuse, not necessarily because this is inherent within the system, but because of human nature's inclination to take advantage of others solely for their own benefit, i.e. selfishness vs service.

Some systems are more conducive to abuse than others. Systems that have centralized power (such as ²socialism and communism) tend to be abused most because of the selfish inclination of humanity. As the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

If you put the control of commerce in the hands of a centralized authority, abuse inevitably occurs because of our inherent inclination to selfishishness. The more power and control someone has - and the fewer there are who have it - the more likely this abuse occurs. 

This is why our system of government was set up with a separation of powers and various checks and balances. You could say power within our system is decentralized. The founders understood the corruption of centralized power firsthand through tyrannical British rule.  This resulted in the action and concern in the American colonies of "taxation without representation."

Large profits are not necessarily the result of this corruption but may simply be the fruit of greater energy, efficiency, and innovation (creativity) than others i.e. not necessarily or automatically the fruit of exploiting the consumer. 

To say it simply, the bigger and the better the job you do the more you are rewarded. Great profit can simply be that you have made a larger number of people happier by providing what they want or need better - more efficiently and less expensive- than anyone else.

The danger of centralized control.

When you can devalue the currency by creating additional currency out of thin air, you are in effect unknowingly (to the users of the currency) taking (stealing) people's energy to pad your own pocket by diluting the value of the currency others labored for e.g. to double the money supply is the equivalent of doubling the number of hours of labor required to generate the same earnings. Without an honest currency/money system, you have legalized theft. 

And as long as there are those allowed to steal from you without your knowledge and go unchecked, they will continue to do so by whatever means possible (through deception or keeping others in the dark, thereby controlling the narrative via information outlets on how money works) in order to maintain power and control over others, i.e. over our labor/energy/time etc. 

This is why the Federal Reserve system must be eliminated. It is taking the fruits of our labor/energy through deception and using it to advance the agenda of those who control the system - which is not necessarily or usually the consumers agenda. This is not only taking advantage of the producer/worker but increasing their control over others i.e. You and I. 

The media of exchange that best provides honest money is cryptocurrency. For a discussion on why click here.
_____________________________

¹One of the oldest and most common media of exchange has been gold and silver. Originally in America, we used gold and silver coins (A "dollar" was an ounce of silver. A quarter was a quarter ounce and a dime was 1/10 an ounce). The paper dollar was backed by gold or silver and could be turned in for the amount of gold or silver the "bill" designated i.e.  5 "dollar bill" or 10 dollars or a 100 etc. Eventually, we went to paper certificates of deposit that were backed by silver. Now it is merely currency by fiat (law) and backed by nothing (in fact our present currency is debt based). We use it because it is required by law i.e. it is legal tender, also known as fiat (money by degree or law).  

This doesn't mean we can not use other forms of exchange if we mutually agree. That is up to the buyer and seller of goods or services. We are free to pay each other with whatever we agree to. This means you only have to use "legal tender" to pay the government, i.e. taxes. And they will only pay you with it and not some other currency such as Euros, Yen, British pounds, or a ³true decentralized cryptocurrency, etc. 

A currency can be any universally recognized media. Because of the devaluation of the paper dollar through excess spending and printing more to cover the nation's increasing debt, more are turning to privately created digital currency known as cryptocurrency. ³True cryptocurrency has a limited number of coins created, resulting in them increasing in value against fiat currency through supply and demand, as their use becomes more widely accepted. A set number of coins does not allow them to be devalued (diluted) by constantly creating additional new coins (like we do now with paper money and every other "developed" country using fiat currency).

²those who promote such systems pretend benevolence (and maybe even naively believe it's more fair) when in fact they seek power and control (whether consciously or not… they argue someone has to run the show to prevent fraud.  Ironic when you consider the whole current fiat money system is legalized theft).

The appeal to the consumer is I'm promised I'll be cared for regardless of whether I work for it or not, by those who promote (and control) distribution. This promise is the primary way they keep us in the system and under their control. 

³CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) is not decentralized or has a set number of "coins" issued. It is therefore not true cryptocurrency. I would avoid it at all costs. There is a clear indication it will actually increase the central authorities' control over every part of our lives.

For a further discussion on the difference between controlled CBDC and true cryptocurrency click here.

For a further discussion on the difference between socialism and capitalism, click here.

For further discussion on the difference between a legitimate and illegitimate endeavor or business click here.

If interested in acquiring precious medals at 12 to 17% below standard dealers' cost click here.

To take advantage of the rapidly growing cryptocurrency market email us at bigdeal70@pm.me 

We are part of a rapidly expanding cryptocurrency exchange that is making it easier to interface our current fiat system with truly decentralized cryptocurrency. 

Does cryptocurrency have value?

Cryptocurrencies are a very hot topic these days, in great part because of many stories we may have heard about early Bitcoin owners becoming multimillionaires. Some are ¹kicking themselves for hearing about Bitcoin but not "getting in on it." Therefore they are looking for the next big crypto coin to "²cash in" on. 

But this is also due to out of control government spending and the instability of the finacial system i.e. our money.

Yet some are trying to tamp down the "hysteria" saying cryptocurrencies are smoke and mirrors and they have no intrinsic value i.e. it's just another "tulip mania" craze (a common example and analogy used).

So which is it? A great opportunity, a hedge against inflation, an alternative to a fake money system, a hyped-up scam, or maybe even a CIA/bankster honey pot?

The argument is often made that since Bitcoin (or other cryptocurrencies) hold no physical assets, they also have no intrinsic value. This assumes only tangible assets have value. 

However, many things have value that are not physical/tangible.

Intellectual property would be a classic example. Why do folks pay consultants? Because they offer information (knowledge) that can help them do business more effectively, efficiently, and easily, thereby enabling their business to become more profitable with the same effort. Is this not valuable? Apparently, some think so since business consultants make a very good living. As the saying goes in business, time is money. Consultants can run upwards of hundreds and in some cases even thousands of dollars an hour e.g. Tony Robbins. Why? They bring value to you or your business, yet no "tangible asset" is involved. Or maybe we should consider the consultant, with their knowledge and expertise, the tangle asset.

A computer app such as Microsoft's Word is nothing more than digital information programmed in such a way that it enables you to write and edit whatever you need to electronically. No more need for Whiteout or endless crumpled papers in the waste basket. This saves time as well as cost of materials.

Microsoft also paid billions of dollars for Skype - a direct messaging platform. Why!? Neither of these are physical/tangible products but ideas applied in the digital arena that offer very significant functional value to the users. 

 

You might even argue a digital program (app) is a tangible asset in the sense that it exists and has valuble benefits when used as designed, like electricity itself. No one would argue electricity doesn't have an effect or value even though it's not tangible/material in the way we normally think. 

The bottom line is anything that allows us to function more efficiently, effectively, securely, and profitability is valuable whether it's a "tangible" - i.e. a physical asset - or not. 

To say it simply, we value anything that saves us time and money. The better it does, the more we value it. 

So here are some questions to consider regarding this digital technology called cryptocurrency. 

Is there value in offering folks a way to do business transactions privately and securely, thereby preventing detection and theft? If there wasn't, we wouldn't have safes or banks (physical/tangible assets) to store our money in, would we? They are called "safes" for a reason. Just because it is a "digital safe" doesn't make it less of a safe storage of value. 

This is also why we don't like to carry around large amounts of cash, and also why there are security features for credit cards. Privacy and security are important - i.e. these features have real value - because they help us keep the hard-earned fruit of our efforts safe. Both of these are an inherent part of cryptocurrency. 

Is it valuable to have a system where everyone is able to see and verify the amount (though not necessarily the parties doing the transaction) so if anyone tries to make a fraudulent transaction (e.g. "write a bad check") it's detected and rejected by the system/technology itself i.e. no need to trust the sender or have a central "overlord" to verify things if the funds can be 100% verified (unlike an overextended credit card or bad check) by the technology itself before you send your goods or provide services? 

Who we are doing business with may be important but often only to determine if we can trust the funds are there and the payment will be good. If there is a foolproof way of knowing the funds are good, who we are doing business with doesn't really matter as far as the validity of the transaction is concerned.

Aren't we finding ourselves increasingly leery of trusting strangers? The fact is you can't do business without trust. In fact, to have any mutually beneficial relationship, both parties must be trusted or we simply won't transact with them. No trust, no business or relationship.

So what if you have a way to pay for goods and services where you didn't have to trust the one offering the funds because the nature of the transfer had features built-in assuring it was exactly the amount you were told and the funds were 100% good i.e. you knew you were getting exactly the amount you asked for or were offered when you were offered it? With cryptocurrency, the technology verifies the availability of the funds and the amount of the transaction. It is built into the coin itself (it is the nature and backbone of blockchain technology) and doesn't require the trust of the party sending it or a central party confirming its validity such as a bank. It simply needs to be sent.

Is it valuable to enable folks to be able to trust that a transaction is legit without having to take our time, energy, and financial resources to do so because we know with absolute certainty the funds are "good" no matter who they are coming from i.e. we know the "check will clear" so to speak, allowing us to utilize the funds quickly which results in being able to use our time elsewhere resulting in greater? Who hasn't lost money, credibility, trust, or customers due to a delayed transfer of funds?

Is it valuable to enable transactions to occur with minimum to no fees (most crypto transactions are strictly peer-to-peer, without using an exchange (exchanges are used to buy and sell, not necessarily transfer funds? Most transaction fees are very low allowing us to do our financial transactions at a much lower cost per transaction than with traditional institutions such as banks? You can do a transfer of literally millions of dollars from one crypto wallet to another often for less than $5 within only a few minutes, sometimes as quick as a couple of minutes. Ever had to wait for days, much less minutes, waiting for "funds to clear" with an ACH transfer or wire? Zelle is great, but you can only send under 2k at a time.  

If you can reduce your cost of a transaction by cutting out the middleman and go directly to the party you are doing business with i.e. peer to peer (because you no longer need the "middle man" due to the inherent built-in verification of the digital transaction) is that valuable? Banks, brokers, and exchanges are merely middlemen who get a piece of the action i.e. money moving from one party to another, and can take days to do so.  If you can move the money directly to the intended party, no middlemen are needed. 

Is it valuable to be able to do a transaction almost instantly with anyone in the world who accepts cryptocurrency? Especially for the one receiving the funds.

What about all the "unbanked" around the world, particularly those in 3rd world countries. Even they have cell phones. As long as you have a "smartphone" you can do all your financial transactions through your wallet installed on your phone. (Wallets are free to install). You can send or receive funds from anyone else, anywhere in the world who has cell service and a wallet on their phone. No bank is necessary because you in effect are the bank sending money to another bank i.e. another phone with a wallet app installed. 

People want privacy, security, protection, ease of use, and the most cost-effective and quickest way of doing transactions. These are all very valuable to all of us. What best provides these things will have the greatest value. True cryptocurrency (not CBDC) does all of these and more. 

If you probe a bit you will find those who scream the loudest about the lack of value of cryptocurrency are those who stand to lose the most, not unlike those who criticized the combustible engine (such as horse-pulled buggy makers) or the internet (the news business and phone companies). No one has newspapers delivered anymore. Magazines are also going by the wayside. Who uses landlines anymore? You can talk to anyone anywhere in the world for a reasonable monthly fee (or a free connection at a Starbucks or the like) through an internet connection. 

Who would be the ones who have the most to lose with cryptocurrencies? Banks, Brokers, Wall Street, and any middleman whose livelihood is tied to traditional financial services. But the biggest losers may be the Central Bank (the Federal Reserve system in the US) and the governments that depend on the collection of revenues through the traditional money system. I don't give tax advice. However, any system that could possibly allow people to bypass taxes poses a real threat to the system and the powers that be. Using government-controlled transactions via fiat currency feeds the beast of the central banking system. If you've ever tried to take food from a hungry dog with a huge appetite (and lots of puppies to feed) you'll get the idea. 

The fact that cryptocurrencies are still relatively new (only around 4% are involved with or use crypto in some way as of this article. However, with a 500% + increase in usage in 2022 (and 27% on average) it is clear that more and more people are finding cryptocurrency has real value, especially on the most remote areas without any banking available at all. 

How many would have liked to have invested in the printing press, the automobile, and the light bulb before their actual value was fully recognized? Can I see a show of hands?

What is fiat currency, and what is its value?

While many express concern over what backs crypto's value, few ask what assets back the US Dollar.

The US dollar is a fiat (money by law or decree) currency, which means it is not required to be backed by any physical commodity or asset, but rather by the faith and confidence of its users (we could legitimately call this a "con" - confidence - game). The value of the US dollar is not pegged to any specific asset or commodity (though it was tied to silver at one time up until 1971).

  

Now it is actually an IOU i.e. a "bill" which is a debt instrument. "We the people" and our labor are the pledged collateral. You could say that by using their "legal tender," we are slaves on a federal plantation. 

The US dollar is widely held and accepted as a means of exchange, store of value, and unit of account among governments, institutions, and individuals around the world, and yet, it is backed by less than nothing... it is a "Federal Reserve Note" - written across the top of every piece of paper "money" - which is not federal and has no reserves but is a "note"

i.e. a debt instrument.  

Once you understand how our current paper money system works and why crypto has actual intrinsic (if not tangible) value, I predict you will be jumping on the crypto train yourself if you aren't already on board.

For a discussion on what exactly is currency click here.

_______________________________

¹I was actually given 1/10 of a bitcoin when it was around a dollar per coin just to open up a virtual wallet. I had forgotten about it until years later when Bitcoin jumped past $60000 a coin. During that time my computer crashed and I lost the password to my wallet. So somewhere in cyberspace is a wallet (with the missing key to open it) worth 1/10 of a bitcoin at whatever the price currently is.

²This mindset of cashing in on a coin is why so many people lose their shirts. That is not a strategy it is more like gambling. But that's a separate topic for another article.

 

³another argument against crypto is it won't work without electricity, which is true but the actual data - "physical bits of information" - remains intact (just like the letters and words on a page) whether you have the power to view or transfer it or not. Once you have electricity you are back in action. Plus no one seriously thinks electricity will go away long term. Even if we had a major EMT event, solar (and other alternatives) could have us back up and running in time. If we ever had a total electricity blackout we'd have far greater issues than not being able to use cryptocurrency. 

We run on electricity - brain signals for example. The point is, electricity is all around us and we will always find a way to harness it without the system being the gatekeeper.

 

Possibly the most significant and maybe least understood feature of all cryptocurrencies is they are limited i.e. there is a fixed number of coins issued and no more. If not, it is not true crypto but only a digital alternative look alike, such as the government-proposed CBDC i.e. central bank digital currency (personally I wouldn't touch their digital currency if my life depended on it. And if you don't look into how to acquire and use true crypto, it may). 

One of the key principles of economics is supply and demand. If there are a set number of coins, as they become more scarce and their value becomes more and more recognized, they are used more and more and the price will go up because demand will go up, so you never have to be concerned over a coin being devalued through the creation of new coins. This is the opposite of our smoke and mirrors paper money (and the proposed CBDC) that can be fractionalized into oblivion. This drives the value down eventually to nothing as more "dollars" are printed. This will also be the case with a centralized and controlled "fed coin" or fed digital currency that is now being floated about. The simple solution is don't use their crap. To say it simply, true cryptocurrencies eliminate inflation (and often do the opposite i.e. go up in value). So-called inflation is actually the devaluation of paper money by increasing the supply - i.e. printing more - so it takes more of it to acquire the same goods and services over time. 

God made the nations?

There is debate within the church of the validity of nations and/or borders. Does the Bible have anything to say about this? Let's see.

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.

And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, (why?) that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him."- Acts 17:24‭-‬26 ESV

It appears from the above passage that the nation/state is a valid entity. The important question is why? 

Due to man's rebellion towards God, man seeks to unite in that rebellion whenever possible. This was the problem at the tower of Babel. Man determined to combine his resources in order to "climb to the heights of heaven" i.e. to achieve heaven on earth and bring in the kingdom of heaven (bliss) to earth without God-Christ, the rightful King. (This is the current goal of one world government - driven by corporations and those who back and control them. They seek to capture and control the economic resources of mankind, often in order to fleece them - Though some genuinely seek to serve their fellow men and women). 

This is the result of mans rebellious attempt to exalt himself, and is directly contrary to God exalting man due to man humbling himself. 

Salvation is of the Lord only. Man cannot save himself...not permanently. As a result God had to divide them up by language i.e. into different people groups, which resulted in different ¹nations. Nations were instituted by God himself in response to man's rebellion. 

Man's greatest need is to be reunited with his Creator, not uniting together in their rebellion against Him. Some seek a one world government in order to acquire unlimited power and control over all the resources of creation and other creatures. They have no regard of God's intention for His creatures or creation. 

According to the above passage reconnecting with God best occurs when we are in our separate Nation/States i.e. so... "that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him."

It appears nations and the borders needed to distinguish them is not only legitimate but the necessary and best way for humanity to reach out and seek God again.

To see if God has anything to say about immigrants or immigration click here.

For a discussion on values culture and racism click here.

For a discussion on racism and the necessity of forgiveness click here

For a discussion on what divides us click here.

For a discussion of the harmful nature of identity politics click here.

What is the nature of racial privilege? Click here for a discussion.

______________________________

¹To have different nations is to have boundaries or borders. While some object to this idea no one objects to having a fense or wall around their property or doors on their home. Why do we do this? We live in a broken world and therefore desire to protect those we value and cherish. 

To voluntarily invite someone into our home is a kind and loving thing but it's not wise if we invite people in who have ill intent towards us and our family. We would not invite liars, thieves, or murderers in our house for good reason. Heaven itself does not allow such people entry. 

Doorways are also entry ways through which we invite people we trust into the sacred dwelling place we call home so we might welcome, honor and serve them.

Render unto Caesar

The following article was originally part of a larger paper on "Obeying the Authorities." Though it is related, we felt it better to break this out as a separate article. If you wish to read the full article click here. 

What does the bible have to say regarding taxes? In this paper, we will look at two key passages; 

 

1. Peter "volunteering" Christ to pay the temple tax and 
2. A quote often heard from a minister during a Sunday sermon..."Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"...

 Matt. 17:24 and following says,

24 "After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?" 25 "Yes, he does," he replied. When Peter came into the house Jesus was the first to speak. (The idea of “first to speak” in the original suggests Christ spoke before Peter could raise the matter. Other translations and particularly "The Message" give a good sense of the original and render it,” But as soon as they were in the house, Jesus confronted him...") "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes--from their own sons or from others?" 26 "From others," Peter answered. "Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him. 27 "But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours." (NIV)

 

• The temple tax

There are several things to note in the above passage.

1. Christ's quick querying of Peter was a mild rebuke to Peter for speaking before thinking. (A common characteristic of Peter).

2. Christ used this as an opportunity to instruct Peter.

3. Kings do not collect taxes from their own but others and therefore the sons are exempt. Most Christians simply read right over this focusing on a text and ignoring the context. What Christ is saying is both Christ and Peter, who were "sons" of Israel, are not obligated to pay but are exempt from this tax. But if they were exempt this raises the question, why did Christ instruct Peter to still pay it. We will address that shortly. (It just so happens the son's being exempt is also the case in our system when you study what our tax law REALLY says. You may not be aware of this if you have not taken the time to study what the tax law actually says. It is the foreigner, the non-resident alien, the "other" who are required to file and not the sons (sons being the offspring of the country if you will, i.e. its citizens. It makes one wonder how aware the founders were of this passage when writing the Constitution. You could make the argument that they patterned our tax system after these instructions from Jesus to Peter)

4. Christ did not use his or Peters own money or even money from the disciples "treasury" to pay this tax but Peter got it out of the mouth of a fish. (As a humorous aside could we say that it takes nothing short of a miracle to pay taxes? Just a thought.) Why didn’t Christ simply instruct Peter to pay with their own money or the disciples "treasury" fund? In addition, why didn't Christ have Peter pay for the rest of the disciples and not just for Himself and Peter? This is a clear indication it wasn't required of any of them but since Peter volunteered that Christ paid it, Christ instructed him to put money were his mouth had gone, when he didn't need to.

It is also worth noting Christ instructed Peter to "fix" the problem he created through that which he was most familiar with, fishing. 

How Christ handled this whole event, as well as his querying Peter and then accepting his reply, all indicate that paying the tax in this instance was not a requirement. Christ's reason for instructing Peter to pay the tax appears to be for other reasons listed above.

First, Christ used Peter's presumption and error in judgment as an opportunity to teach Peter an important lesson. As he often did, Peter spoke without thinking, creating a problem. Since Peter created this problem Peter needed to resolve it as well, therefore Christ's unusual instructions for Peter to find a fish and get the money out of its mouth and pay the tax he voluntarily agree (without checking with Christ first) that Christ paid.

Secondly, since Peter had already committed the Lord to pay this tax by saying, "yes he pays it…" obligating both himself and Peter, Christ had Peter pay it to avoid offending someone for the sack of the gospel. (Have you ever had someone volunteer you for something without getting your permission?)

I think it's fair to say if Peter had said, "you will have to ask my Lord", rather than speaking for Christ, Christ would have responded to the inquirers the same way he did Peter by asking them, "From who do the kings of the earth collect...taxes...?" If their response was correct, as was Peter's, their own reply would have acknowledged the tax wasn't required (the sons are exempt) and therefore neither Christ nor Peter would have needed to pay the tax. But for the reasons mentioned, Christ did instruct Peter to pay it, but not because it was required to be paid.

On a separate but related matter, it is worth noting in Luke 19:2-10 that Zacchaeus the tax collector was hated by all and referred to as a sinner. Christ's response was that he had come to save those who were lost, i.e. sinners. This suggests that Zacchaeus was a better than average example. Instead of refuting the crowds' view of Zacchaeus as a sinner, he confirmed it by his reply.

There is not anything necessarily or inherently wrong with taxes or those who collect them, but it is interesting that even in Christ's day the tax system seemed to be a receptacle for the despised and unethical. Do we see any indication this may also be the case today? Zacchaeus was said to be a wealthy man yet his sole source of earnings - supposedly - was the collecting of taxes. He later acknowledged, by his willingness to pay back to those he had collected from, that he had illegally stolen from others by extracting from them more than they owed and using tax collection as a guise. Is there a pattern here we can learn from?

• Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's… 

Those who advocate that any and all taxes should be paid without question, appear to consistently rely upon the superficial translation of the following passage rather than the context in which this story is set. The key to properly interpreting this statement "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is to understand the context which clearly shows that Jesus was responding to a trap being set for him. How he avoided this trap is actually the focus of this passage, not taxes.

Mark 12: 13-16

¹³Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in  his words. ¹⁴They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth (when your antagonists seek to flatter you, beware). Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? ¹⁵Should we pay or shouldn't we?" ¹⁶But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. (i.e. their question wasn't sincere and the real reason thy were raising it) "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius and let me look at it." They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. ¹⁷Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.

To be a trap, the intent was that any answer would result in the desired outcome by the trappers. If Christ’s answer was to not pay Caesar the tax (As probably anticipated by the questioners. It is very possible that Jesus was suspected of leading a group of tax rebels who would have disapproved of their leader paying taxes to Rome), Jesus would have convicted himself of a capital crime under Roman law and the questioners would now have an excuse to bring him before Pilot for sentencing. To protest the tax in that day was punishable by crucifixion. The fact that Caiaphas raised this issue later before Pilot to persuade him to crucify Christ supports this. (Lk 23:2 "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.”)

If, on the other hand, Christ had said it was right to pay Caesar, they would likely have tried to accuse him of being unfaithful to God and therefore not truly the Son of God as he claimed but an impostor, worthy of death.

The Pharisees thought they had set a clever, inescapable trap for Christ. No matter how he answered, they "had" him, or so they thought.

However, the response by Jesus amazed them. Christ saw through their guise i.e. ¹⁶… Jesus knew their hypocrisy… and did not give them either response they were hoping for but completely eluded their question and therefore their trap. Christ, instead turned the table and simply put the problem back on them. "Whose portrait is this...?" Christ asked. In essence, he was saying to them, you figure out what belongs to whom and if a tax is due, pay it to the appropriate party.

His answer was not at all an admission of a requirement much less a command to pay taxes to the government of his day - as some often suggest when quoting this particular phrase. To just take the isolated statement, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" without looking at the context is to miss entirely why he made that statement, to begin with. He wasn’t giving a command, He was giving them an answer to their question in a way that avoided the trap they were trying to set.

Because we all tend to approach a passage with preset ideas, we have to always be on guard not to read into the passages what we have predetermined (or wrongfully told) but instead prayerfully seek to see what any given passage is actually saying. Our goal should be extracting from passage within the context as well as the text the meaning, not read a predetermined interpretation into it. As my Hermeneutics professor was fond of telling us, "a text without a context is a pretext."

Tied to this is that we are all prone to interpret the bible according to our fears and emotions. By that I mean if we are afraid of the responsibility a passage places on us (such as taking responsibility for our choices) we will interpret a passage in such a way as to avoid facing those responsibilities or subsequent fears. Instead of changing our thinking, we “change scripture” to fit what is comfortable. Interpretation of certain passages often has far more to do with our emotions than our correct understanding of a passage, i.e. our fears and emotions often color our view/understanding of things, including God's very words.

In addition, there is still the matter of WHO is Caesar and WHAT belongs to "him?" As Christians, we are not opposed to Government (when it operates according to God's word) or the necessity of raising revenue under the specific conditions clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Local authorities do maintain "law and order" by preventing evildoers from wreaking havoc on their fellow citizens (though things have often gone upside down of late when addressing the police). However, we are opposed to those in Government violating the law and raising revenues outside of what the law allows. When they do, this is theft, not unlike what Zacchaeus committed. When this occurs we are not obligated to participate in such thievery but in fact, as stewards, we are entrusted to manage the resources God gives us and to resist attempts at interfering with that responsibility. As Jefferson once said, resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. Though Jefferson was just a man, and possibly not even a Christian, I trust you agree his wisdom was sound and scripturally based.