Skip to content
Penjams
  • Home
  • Blog
    • Conservative
    • Dialectic
    • Philosophy
      • Ethics
      • Liberty
      • Voting
      • Free-will
    • Theology / Religion
    • Story
    • Other Worlds
    • – Guest Posts
    • – Serial
    • – Poems
  • Podcast
  • Links
  • About
  • Thanks!
    • Buy Me a Coffee
    • Amazon Link (Shopping from it helps out.)
    • Guest Posting and More

A Nation Walks into a Bar

Posted on December 14March 18

This post originally dropped at the author's own blog, capedpersuader.com. It is reposted here with their permission. -Pen

As far as mission statements go, Spider-Man has one of the best. I mean, who can forget the immortal words, “When you can do the things that I can, but you don’t, and then the bad things happen? They happen because of you.” Or was that, “Your father lived by a philosophy, a principle, really. He believed that if you could do good things for other people, you had a moral obligation to do those things”? That’s the one.

In all seriousness, trying to rephrase one of the most iconic lines of all literature is no easy task. One might say there is great power in that phrase, and rewording it so that it doesn’t sound trite and clichéd is itself a great responsibility. For my part, I felt that the latest take felt the most natural. It wasn’t trying too hard to articulate it precisely. It wasn’t distilled into a perfect form, that ideal thing that never really comes to mind when we need it. It was a thought –an abstract– trying to claw its way through the imperfection of this world to show us a glimpse of truth.

So too are the guiding philosophies of our nation. Many of them have been distilled into eloquent, endlessly quotable 100 proof shots of liberty. We know them by heart, even if we don’t always get the words just right. We, the individuals who carry that baton of freedom from generation to generation, have tried to uphold those self-evident truths, to live up to the examples set by the founding fathers.

But it gets exhausting sometimes, trying keep track of local politics, state politics, national politics, let alone global. It’s easy to get overwhelmed, to just want to live our lives without constant vigilance. We begin to narrow our focus to just one level, or worse, to tune out government altogether. So when a global pandemic hit, it’s no wonder that our instincts failed us. We may have doubted the severity of the crisis, or questioned the lockdown, but ultimately our inexperience with that level of threat and reservations about our adequacy lead us to defer to the medical and civil authorities.

Spider-Man, too, has let his Spidey-Sense go on occasion. In last year’s Far From Home, he was more concerned with living a normal life than keeping his guard up. When an inter-dimensional threat arose, he was all too eager to pass the buck to others. Despite his own great power, and E.D.I.T.H., the nifty drone army bequeathed to him by the late Tony Stark, he felt the best way to honor these great responsibilities was to entrust them to the only person who seemed to have any solution to the threat: Mysterio.

Turns out, the very person he turned over his weaponized inheritance to was behind the whole thing. The foes he vanquished were nothing more than projections he and his conspirators had conjured for the express purpose of preying upon Peter’s insecurities. Mysterio saw a system–powerful beyond belief and dangerous in the wrong hands–entrusted to an inexperienced youth, decided he would be a better steward of it, and manipulated the web-crawler into willingly relinquishing it.

We, too, are the heirs of a tremendously powerful system. Our form of government –its ideals and institutions– have enabled us to become arguably the most powerful and prosperous society the world has ever known. We, too, have been targeted for our perceived inability to effectively take responsibility for that system. Our elected officials believe that citizens can’t be trusted with freedom when there’s a nasty bug going around. We, too, have willingly parted with that power. We sat by while that freedom was taken from us, or worse, we continue to willingly advocate its limitation.

We, as a nation, are sitting in that bar. The villains responsible for stoking our fears are feigning reluctance as they take control of our inheritance.

Now, I have no intention of going down the rabbit hole on the virus’ origin. For one thing, that subject is very much a moving target at this point. For another, it is irrelevant to the point I’m trying to make. Whether, like Mysterio, our government or another actively played a part in the creation of the threat or not, our government has no doubt projected cataclysmic stakes if we don’t heed its warnings, and it has certainly benefited from the aid of a cadre of allies in making those projections as believable as possible.

Likewise, I don’t intend to discount the lethality of Covid-19. It is indeed a deadly disease. The real damage caused by Mysterio’s drones, however, didn’t make the projections any more real. No matter how much destruction they caused, and no matter how many people ultimately succumb to Covid-19, it’s safe to say that both earth-shattering worst case scenarios were essentially fiction.

One day we will have a pretty good handle on how this virus started and how many lives it has taken. That will be the time to discuss culpability. Chasing our tails, bickering about who or what is responsible, will only distract from the question at hand: how do we get our system back from those who have deceived us?

Some are protesting in the streets. For all the effort such demonstrations take, they amount to asking Mysterio politely for the E.D.I.T.H. glasses back. Those who would limit our freedoms have us just where they want us, where they’ve expended tremendous patience and political capital to get us. They may placate us by lifting restrictions sooner than intended, but a return to the status quo of February 2020 would leave in place whatever laws or rulings that either explicitly allowed the lockdowns or those that were so vaguely worded as to be interpreted as allowing them. Without targeting such statutes or interpretations for repeal or appeal, we leave the system in their control.

So here we are, with the Elementals apparently defeated, the curve ostensibly flattened, and our Spidey-Sense going off like crazy. We have have handed our system over to villains who believe us to be too weak, too naive, too selfish to appropriately wield it.

The truth is, we have been weak. We have continued to tolerate, to advocate, the lesser of two evils rather than face the consequences of voting our conscience.

We have been naive. We have believed generation after generation of politicians who promised to protect our freedoms while contributing to their systematic dismantling.

We have been selfish. We have believed that defense of liberty can be compartmentalized to a vote, a representative, or any army; that we can live our lives free of that continual struggle.

With great power comes great responsibility. We have been endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. The founders of our nation secured these rights, further endowing us with a system of unmatched potential. They saw something in the American people, a great power that told them we could be trusted with that potential, that we could keep it. But this generation did not build this system. We don’t understand it. We haven’t earned it. We have come to rely too much on the endowments of our forefathers and not enough on those of our Creator.

When Peter Parker realized his mistake, he also realized it was time to stop trying to be the next Iron Man; that it was time to start being his own Spider-Man. He crafted his own suit and gadgets. He remembered his responsibility, and with it returned his instincts. He confronted his deceiver and retook the power he had abdicated.

It’s time for us to do the same. Let’s pray we can do so without a fight.


The Caped Persuader is a “Devoted husband and father, homeschool teacher, would-be champion of free will, amateur philosopher, writer, & political ronin. In that order.” Find out more at capedpersuader.com and twitter.com/capedpersuader.

Don't forget to grab your free copy of the Chronicles of a Cardboard Cutout along with my eletter: Sign up 

Sound Sense

Posted on December 7November 14

Ken brings a poetic flare to things, and it makes them better. He's working what seems like a raw cross between Alexander Pope and a freestyle rapper, and it's fun. Below are a couple favs, with his blessing. -Pen

Libertarians thinking to vote Republican,
Just because they cannot stand the other man?
If a majority vote to burn the house down,
We prepare our homes for the storm unbound.
Sometimes people need to make mistakes,
To change their mind that is what it takes.
#VoteYourPrinciples

The world is a complex place,
Each experience has its own face.
Saying that your solution fits all,
Is authoritarianism’s sirens call.
Let’s each other to liberty leave,
And let reality our ideas sieve.
#VoteGold

Great to see #NolibertariansUnder1K,
When we normally to ourselves stay.
We wade into the war of broader culture,
Though our soul feels thrown into a mulcher.
The daggers well sharpened from infight,
Let us turn to exposing the statist blight.


Ken N. is “just a libertarian guy, ain't gonna lie. A bit of a crooner, I also read Spooner. Mackin' on some reeses, while I chill with some Mises.” You can follow him at www.twitter.com/shoganate.

Don't forget to grab your free copy of the Chronicles of a Cardboard Cutout along with my eletter: Sign up (•‿•)

I Will Do Mine

Posted on October 29November 14

It began with the one and only @5stringtex (aka Jeff). He just had to go and recommend us some podcasts. This free-will thinker's podcast was among them. I was excited to find it at first. It turns out the dude just got his Ph.D. in matters related to free-will, his podcast has an episode where he is sympathetic to anarchy, AND he is conservative. This was especially cool because according to our friend Nathan, conservative-anarchy combinations are not possible. Nathan must travel in strange circles, as I see conservative ancaps all the time. Then again, I see elves all the time. Maybe I travel in strange circles. 

Anyway, I largely agree with the free-will thinker, but he had to go and drop some lines claiming Christians (in the US) should not vote for third-party candidates. In this he borrows from the William Lane Craig, quoting him thusly: “… anyone who votes for a third-party candidate who has no realistic chance of winning is guilty of a dereliction of duty.” After I read that, there was so going to be words.

Words

Some elaboration on that quote’s context is in order. First, Craig’s primary interest here is the advancement of biblical values in the public square. He is not voting Trump for the personality. Furthermore, he is mostly concerned about Christians leaving an important decisions to others, about poor influence-stewardship. (Maybe we can invent a new vice and call it: po’ flu-stew!) (No? Ok.)

Finally, Craig didn’t actually say that. Many have misquoted him so, but it’s not quite right. Under the ellipses, it turns out that Craig qualified his remark. He expressed hesitancy in admitting to a mere inclination. Specifically, he said, “I must confess, Ken, that I am inclined to think that anyone who votes for a third-party candidate . . .” and so on. (Yeah, it sounds stronger with the ellipses, and I’m not saying the difference is intentional, but c’mon!) With three concerns, I commend Craig’s slight agnosticism on this point.

Concern 1: It’s not clear that Craig is right. 

First, the fear of man is a snare, and the parties know the people are hooked. The custom of not voting third-party has taught the main parties that they only need to run the least horrible option to win. Unsurprisingly, candidates have worsened until the current president is only in power because he ran against the worst candidate in American history. So, the fear of voting third-party gives the main parties such a loose leash that they all but “determine who our leaders will be.”[1] But, if enough people vote for, say, an old school conservative like Ron Paul, the Republicans may take note. (Demand, meet supply.) If you really want to choose your candidates, vote third-party, vote your conscience.

Second, there is a time for every purpose, even for Christians to invest their votes. Craig’s view depends on a clear preference being evident among the candidates, but should a Republican candidate be practically as bad as a Democrat in terms of advancing biblical values, it seems the Christian is not compelled to vote for one over the other. In fact, if he does not vote third party, he might actually fail to steward well his opportunity to invest in better candidates. Whether one thinks Americans are close to that point in the current presidential race or not depends a great deal on one’s social theory, views on abortion, and hatred of war, but either way, Craig’s inclination depends on there being a clear preference between the two candidates, and this is not going be the case in every race this year. There aren’t even two candidates in every race.

Third, the claim that Christians voting third-party are neglecting a duty to wield influence, well it forgets a lot. For example, it forgets about red states. A Christian could vote for Mickey Mouse in a red state, and it would have zero effect on the electoral college and thus the outcome. The state is voting red regardless of that Christian's vote. Not much influence. Instead of voting Mickey Mouse, the Christian could give their conscience a break and invest their vote. It may be the only influence they really have.

Fourth, the po' flu-stew claim also forgets about oaths. Some people have taken an oath to protect the constitution. They may not be free to positively support the lesser of two underminings of the constitution. They may be required to vote Constitution Party if they vote at all. In my experience, such oaths were to protect kings. Those who had taken one were to stand with their king especially in unlikely odds. Joining the least threatening of the king’s enemies in their attack would have been thought such a foolish act of cowardice as to make their eventual death a welcome mercy on their soul. Ultimately, these Christians may be duty-bound to vote third-party, to write someone in, or to not vote at all. If so, then they are not forsaking duty but fulfilling it. So it seems Craig’s inclination may be mistaken yet again, and so I recommend his measure agnosticism yet again.

Fifth, someone once said that voting was one of the lowest means of activism, second only to participating in a political poll. If this is even partly true, then perhaps it is better for the voter to invest their vote with a clean conscience and then to get busy making real change with better resources. This seems applicable to that voter mentioned above, the one with two horrible candidates, in a non-swing state, having taken an oath to protect the constitution. For that person, it is less clear that God has much of a preference, let alone if his investing his vote is a dereliction of duty, and so I commend Craig’s- you know what I’m going to say here.

Concern 2: The principle of the thing.

A few other things bother me. First, there seems to be something profoundly wrong in advocating what you gravely detest. (Duh. Right?) This is a fundamental principle to me, but also there’s something unhealthy in acting against principle, in voting for someone you don’t favor, someone you find somewhat repulsive. In that respect, it seems somewhat wrong too, and the encouraging of others to do something that is bad for their hearts bothers me. I get that there are ethical nuances involved. Still, just as policy comes before personality, so principle comes before pragmatics, and voting against one's beliefs out of fear of consequences is the exact opposite of that. There is an invisible message on every ballot that reads: “Do it, or else.”[2] Personally, I admire more the man who stands on principle and shouts, “Do your worst for I will do mine!” than the one with an argument for saying, “Ok.”

Per Martkn Luther, to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. If a Christian being compelled by conscience can’t vote R or D, then isn't it better that they just stay at home or that they vote third-party? And, who would tell him to vote contrary to his conscience? For those who wouldn’t, yep, I recommend Craig’s measure of agnosticism on this matter.

If it is better to vote for what one truly believes (more righteous, more principled, more healthy) than it is to put your hand to some evil out of fear of a worse one, then Craig’s inclination is false. And, it may well be that it is truly better to vote for what one believes, so it is not clear that Craig’s inclination is correct.

Concern 3: Pragmatics of Principle. 

Let’s grant for the sake of argument, that it is better to vote for what one truly believes. Then what can we say? Positively, there is power in principle, in sticking by your guns, standing your ground, and living in truth. The Bible says God keeps the way of the righteous, that we are, in all our ways (even in voting) to honor God and that he will make our paths straight. Besides, terrans, what would your Vaclav Havel say about those who vote against their consciences? Would he say that they had to? that they were otherwise powerless against the state’s evil? or perhaps that they were complicit with their compromise?

But so what if being faithful and trusting in God, did lead into a storm? Are we willing to say, “Though he slay me I will trust in him?” That “He gives and takes away?” Or would we be quick to call a siren’s call our duty? If God intends a man to refuse the state’s deal, the deal of a decrease in the violation he and his children's rights if he just plays along, then he should refuse, and pray, come what may.

My Take-away

All this said, I like Dr. Craig’s work and his style. The free-thinker, Dr. Tim Stratton, seems cool too, for a bald guy. He ends his post with a humble and encouraging note saying that he is not trying to settle the debate, that he's just trying to inform others of his sense of things. It's hard to fault that. (So am I.) In fact, while I understand this particular objection to third-party voting, I also commend and recommend Craig’s caution about it. Now, to read Stratton’s book so I can recommend it too.[3] 

1. Given these considerations, if we also grant a real concern about the deepstate gaming the system, then the main-party voter chooses their own candidate even less. The conscientious voter, however, would not play in their hands and would resist such tyrannical manipulation.

2. Now, the objector may say that just as the perfect is the enemy of the good, the good is the enemy of the better and that all they are doing is voting for better. Better is not a bad thing to vote for, but their vote isn’t “let’s slaughter less innocents,” but rather “lets slaughter these innocents” (overseas) That seems like a bad vote, even if it happens to be fewer right now. That makes a difference to me especially because there are more effective ways to advocate for the innocents at home than voting R.

3. Actually, I have a part two to this post on the way. I may have to get to that first. Dang it. EDIT: Part two has arrived!

Astra inclinant, sed non obligant

Posted on September 1November 14

The stars incline us. They do not bind us.
Anonymous, Some bathroom wall

Hello again. I lead with the quote to sound smart… and because I like it. It really nails the free-will debate for me. Most people know what free-will is. They don’t walk around with a definition in hand, but they have a vague idea. The opposite problem plagues the academics. They are ready with the definitions, but they're just very very wrong ones.

By free-will, I mean the kernel of that old chestnut where a person’s decisions are determined by themselves, so-called libertarian free-will (LFW). I have started a working collection of definitions for LFW, but I also think this quote helps. or at least it is interesting: 

“If I believe that something not identical to myself was the cause of my behavior—some event wholly external to myself, for instance, or even one internal to myself, such as a nerve impulse, volition, or whatnot—then I cannot regard the behavior as being an act of mine, unless I further believed that I was the cause of that external or internal event”

(Richard Taylor, quoted here)

Belief in LFW seems to be right, important, and healthy. A man just has to believe in things like that. Other examples might be love, justice, right, wrong, and virtue; and this remains even should the evidence at hand ever be neutral. These beliefs are part of being human, of being a good man. Having them is healthy and denying them isn’t. Now I am not advocating believing against reason. These truths are often known immediately, innately, and… anyway I'm rambling.

It just seems strange when some people bring up objections to LFW involving God! (Yes, I saw it happened recently, and I got a little worked up.) More on all this the next time I bring up LFW. For now, it’s time for some rest.

That lucky cut-out of mine never gets tired or sick! That could make a person jealous, but at least I'm free.

That's all for now.

– Pen

Waking Them Up

Posted on September 29January 11

Earlier this week, I made an outline of the Smith Sarwark debate. Now you get to hear some of my thoughts. You’re welcome. 🙂

First, debates can be very helpful, but they also go bad easily. I need them to be engaging to get anything out of them, so I say debates need to be important and fun and followable… enough for the intended audience anyway. Second, someone should walkaway introduced to the whole scope of the matter at hand. Walking away with just two obscure takes leaves too much to be desired.

On both accounts, this debate did pretty well. It was easy to follow, for the careful listener anyway. Some of it seemed lost on Sarwark, but meh. Also, it was not dry. Smith kept it fun. Sarwark made it a bit creepy,1 but fun and lively it was.

Interestingly, each debater fit his message. Smith, in regular clothes and speech, stood passionately for profound yet basic principles. Sarwark illustrated his points with sales, twice, and with his suit and subtly crafty rhetoric, he fit the part. Dial them up, and one can imagine Smith pounding his fist and yelling, “Give me liberty or give me death!” while Sarwark worries about the Tory-vote.

Smith spoke to (and in the spirit of) the best in civilization. Sarwark's appearance of sincerity just clashed with his wormtonguery and the stench of b.s. on his breath. Smith won the debate. However, the line of the night goes to Tom Woods. Per Smith's quote:

We libertarians are the inheritors of an exceptionally venerable tradition of ideas that is noble and beautiful, and that carries a grave responsibility. We must be true to that inheritance. Enough putting people to sleep already. It’s time we finally woke them up.

Tom Woods

1. For just one example, if Sarwark took the time to pander to the audience and pet their emotions with “You’re special,” one more time, I was going to get sick. Someone from the audience should have yelled, “Thanks mommy!” His general style was off-putting as well.

2. Sarwark’s rhetorical care, dodges, and ploys were collectively and repetitively called out as “lawyering”. Sarwark even attempted to punt the label back once.

Older PostsNewer Posts


Subscribe

Recent Posts

  • I couldn’t ruin the documentary.
  • Conservatives conserve nothing?
  • Religion Reboot?
  • Apples and Oranges
  • Pushy Puritans Don’t Get a Pass
  • When Lies Lash Out
  • Subjective Professory
  • Silence and Starsong
  • Neighboring Faiths
  • Systematic Philosophical Theology

Quotes

(Loading...)

Penjams.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

  • Subscribe
Copyright © 2026 . All rights reserved.