Dr. Thomas Sowell

c/o Hoover Institute

434 Galvez Mall,

Stanford University, CA 94305

Dear Dr. Sowell:

Let me begin by saying that my area of interest is theology, and I view economics from the point of view of Christian morality [The Ten Commandments]. Although, I have read a few books on economics (just enough to appreciate your work), I would like to share a few thoughts I have had while reading your, “Conflict of Visions”. Although I am not familiar with most of the writers that you reference, because I believe that man has a fallen nature, I would agree with the “constrained” vision, that sinful desires need to be curbed. At the same time, you identify the “constrained” vision with the forced sterilization of some thirty thousand Americans [almost 100 years ago]. Yet, from a Christian point of view I regard the people who did that as leftists because they used “evolution” to justify it, while disregarding the Ten Commandments. For that reason, and others, I believe that my vision constitutes a “third Vision,” which I would like to share, and hope that you will find interesting.

THE AGRARIAN VISION

While the “Agrarian Vision” is not as obvious in an industrial society as it was 150 years ago, it goes back to the Biblical ideal of every man being free to sit under his own vine and fig tree. As it is written, “They shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it.” (Micah 4:4) This is the vision of the millions of homesteaders who spread out over America in the nineteenth century, risking all to gain their own plot of land and farm. It is the vision of the settlers described in Laura Ingalls’ books; the vision of the family portrayed in “The Waltons” TV series; and the vision of the Amish, who value family and community over material wealth. Since both of the visions you describe are based on “rationalism,” I doubt that either vision could ever be fully consistent with this Biblical view.

In ancient Israel, the agrarian vision was safeguarded by the fact that if a family was forced by circumstance to sell their land, it would return to them in the year of jubilee. In contrast, from a Christian point of view, both serfdom and Communism are seen as a way of keeping the people who actually work the land in bondage. Instead of helping poor farmers, the Communists took their land and put them on plantations (communal farms) where they were forced to grow food for the state. Since they were not allowed to leave, or travel freely, their lot differed little from that of a slave. And, since the Communist party owned all of the capital, and would not allow competition, the agrarian vision sees Communism as Monopoly-Capitalism.

Viewed that way, the “unconstrained vision” with its idea that dictatorship (by using force and violence) can change human nature so people are no longer selfish or greedy (the dictatorship of the proletariat), seems like pure madness.

Another way that the “unconstrained” vision differs from the Biblical view is by assuming that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and that the only way someone can get rich is by taking more than their share. That view seems to be central to the Socialist worldview, although I believe that it is held by some who follow the “constrained vision”. In contrast, the Biblical vision does not see wealth as something we get away from others, but as something that God gives us through His blessing on our work – the clearest example being Abraham. Abraham did not become wealthy by getting wealth away from others, but as a result of God’s blessing. God blessed Abraham by keeping him healthy while protecting his herds and flocks from disease, theft, predators and natural disasters. As his flocks increased, his wealth increased, and that is the only way that small family farms get wealth.

Now, there is a difference between a small family farm, and a “plantation”. On a plantation one family grows wealthy at the expense of others. For that reason plantation farming is at odds with the Biblical ideal of every man sitting under his own vine and fig tree. Nevertheless, because of the plantation culture, the ante-bellum South is unique in that those who wielded political power also held to the agrarian vision. I do not know of any other place in history where that was true. And, while the agrarian vision influenced their political views and the kind of government that they set up; because bondage and slavery are inconsistent with the agrarian vision, that vision played a part in its abolition.

Let me also add that freedom according to the Biblical ideal is not freedom to do as you please (which the Bible describes as bondage to the flesh), but the freedom to, “lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (1Tim. 2:2). And, that is what all who share the agrarian vision want to do. We want the government to keep the streets safe while leaving us free to lead a godly Christian life. And, that excludes all attempts to cram acceptance of homosexuality, and other evils down our throats.

With this letter I am including an essay that I wrote some years ago, entitled “The Agrarian Standard of Values”. I hope that you will find what I have said interesting.

May God be with you

Gary Ray Branscome

branscome.org