Matt’s Marvelous Mailbag seeks to provide marginally adequate answers to much better questions about politics, economics, social life, theology, or any potpourri you see fit to have answered. Send questions to mailbag.bereans@gmail.com.  

Alright, kiddos. We’re back, and we’ve got questions in need of resolution. It’s a bit of a lighter week on the whole, but we will press on just as valiantly as before. Let’s hop to it then.

Q: Marcus Aurelius asks: “What are your top three favorite classic Disney animated movies?”

A: Here’s a dirty, little secret about your mailman. I’ve always liked the Disney movies, but, and make sure you’re sitting for this, I never got that into the Disney magic. *SHOCK* *AWE* *HORROR* I know, I know. What to do with this unlearned shell of a man…?

But, fear not mailbaggians, there’s Mickey Mouse magic enough in my repertoire to answer this question yet:

1. Tarzan: There were many Disney movies I did not watch, but this one I probably watched too many times. Put Phil Collins’s vocals aside, I simply found Tarzan to be fun.
2. The Lion King: How can you not like the Lion King is the real question. Great story, great music, and lovable characters to boot.
3. Fantasia: Yah, how’s that for a sharp, left turn? But, hey, it fits the criterion of ‘classic’ and ‘Disney’ so I defy you to tell me it’s not a valid choice. Realistically, though, this is a logical choice for me for a host of reasons. It dovetails neatly with my love of classical music, it had a killer rendition of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, and it was a masterful accomplishment for its day. Easily deserving of the third spot in my opinion.

Q: Marcus Aurelius also asks: “Why or why not are each of them a metaphor for the vilified/lionized/political/economic/social philosophy of your choosing?”

A: Well, obviously, Tarzan is a commentary on imperialism, the Lion King is a veiled attack against socialism and Nazi sympathizers, and Fantasia is a kaleidoscopic take on the irrepressible market forces of spontaneous order and social contract to create a functional society and economic progress.

They could also just be well-made family movies, but where’s the fun in that?

Q: Samwise Gamgee asks: “In light of the so called ‘Green New Deal,’ who has the responsibility to push companies to act in a manner that promotes the good stewardship of God’s creation? Should it be the government, the companies themselves, or by consumer pressure?”

A: Yes. How’s that for a cop-out?

It should come as no surprise to my readers that I’m a generally in favor of the free market over government intervention, but I don’t shut government out entirely. The reality is that each of the players you mentioned has a role to play in the stewardship process. Government is there to provide for the common safety of its citizens against external threats, companies have a responsibility to construct solid, internal controls for themselves, and consumers are there to drive the market and check the overreach of both companies and governments. With that being said, though, I definitely tend to prefer the private citizenry’s role in stewardship. One of the very irksome things I find with people like AOC is that they are either very cynical about the common citizen or very ignorant about the nature of government (quite possibly both). Nothing magical happens to people when they enter government; there’s no switch that gets flipped to suddenly make them more virtuous or wise. They still face the incentives of someone in common life, only now they have the forces of coercion and violence to make that happen. And, to be blunt about it, governments are far inferior to markets in making productive advances in society, primarily because (1) they face informational problems that markets do a much better job at handling, and (2) they lack the coordinating and calculating miracle that is the price system. I don’t need to dive into that here; just go read Hayek and Hazlitt. Social forces and market prices work exceedingly better than government intervention.

In an ideal world, we would have no scarcity of resources, and people would always do the right thing, but at that point you’re talking about the eschaton. And, class, what do we not try to do? Immanentize the eschaton. Very good, class. At the end of the day, we have finite resources, and the best method we have found so far of how to allocate those resources is the free market system. Some fresh faces in Congress have compared the Green New Deal to going to the moon, but it’s more like downing a cyanide pill with a bucket of “Duckegg Blue” paint thinner while jumping off a cliff into the mouth of a T-Rex that’s being struck by lightning and itself being swallowed by a megalodon laden with C4.

Q: Bertrand asks: “Who are your top three favorite classical composers?”

A: Now we’re talking. Let’s see…

1. Bach: I don’t think it’s an unreasonable stretch to make statements about Bach along the lines of “He invented harmony,” or “He never wrote a bad piece of music,” or “God gifted the very essence of His creative spirit to Bach.” My brother and I have a long running correspondence in which we exchange favorite pieces of classical music, and, more often than not, it just transforms into a compliment-fest for Bach. Bach wrote well, and he wrote broadly. His music is technically excellent, impeccably controlled, graceful at times, majestic at others, and always laced with divine endowment. Here’s a recent favorite piece of mine.
2. Handel: Handel wrote good music on the whole, but the real reason he is number two is because of his Messiah composition. When Easter rolls around, just take a day to sit back, close your eyes, and listen to the full piece. It’s better than most movies and comes at a fraction of the cost.
3. Debussy: Probably not the fellow who would land in most people’s top three, but I love Debussy’s gentleness on the piano. Few people knew how to use the upper register of the piano quite like Debussy, and his Clair de Lune is still one of my favorite pieces of all time. It takes a delicate touch, but the results are simply elegant.

Q: Cornelius asks: Are you a Mac or a PC?

A: I am very much a PC. In all of my experiences, I have found PCs to be markedly better at doing just about everything Macs purportedly have an advantage in, and I have only found one thing about Macs I really like – the bluetooth settings work pretty well. The fun part is that the dislike is mutual. I hate Macs, and they hate me as is being evidenced by my work Mac right now (the very fact that I am forced to work with a Mac being a cruel bit of irony if ever there was one).

For a couple years, I was ambivalent about the Mac/PC split until one day, just a few years ago mind you, I was watching the Apple Keynote address, and the Apple stooge said, “For the first time ever, you can now use full screen apps on your Mac devices.” You what?!? Windows has been doing that for nigh on fifteen years! What is the blasted point of having a slick looking piece of metal if it doesn’t do anything new, costs twice as much as a solid PC, and treats you like an infantile rube who doesn’t know the difference between a USB cable and the linguine noodles from his leftover Olive Garden?!? (Sigh…). The simple fact of the matter is that I see no genuine reason to go with a Mac unless your aim is the stealthy infiltration of a Starbucks writing group, and even then you could probably make do with a sleek, Lenovo ultrabook.

And that’s that, folks. As I said, a bit shorter this week, but that’s perfectly alright with me. Tune in next time for more mailbag goodies.