Jordan Peterson's Biblical Sacrifice and Hans Hoppe's Time Preference: Part 3 - God's Blessing

A big part of the Cain and Abel story is God's blessing on Abel's sacrifice ... and God's lack of blessing on Cain's sacrifice. In the story, God tells Cain that:

"For whether you offer well, or whether you do not, at the tent flap sin crouches and for you is its longing, but you will rule over it."

Peterson takes this to mean that Cain's heart is not in his sacrifice. He is sacrificing for gain only. He is sacrificing with sin in his heart (ill intent, not good intent). He is trying to buy into the next ponzi scheme and be in early enough to win, and he's pissed that his brother who is doing the hard work is being rewarded.

God's blessing is only granted when the heart is in the right place. Intent matters. It matters more than material actions themselves. The world is made of meaning, not of stuff. This is Peterson's main takeaway from this part of the story.

Hoppe also highlights this truth, but in his own value-free way. He notes that societies that are free of oppressive state oversight will have a healthy culture of saving, capital accumulation, and overall honesty in trade. However, if the society is one of parasitism and authoritarianism (profit through exploitation and deception), time preference becomes very high and civilization begins to crumble. The sacrifice isn't from a pure heart and it will not receive God's blessing.

Again, it's the intent that determines the structure of the society. It's not the amount of accumulated wealth, it's the way in which people interact with each other. Is it through good will, or through deception? The world is made of meaning.

Conclusion:

The value-free axioms of classical economics and the meaning rich landscape of the Biblical stories reflect each other. Or, perhaps more accurately, we could say that our observations of economic behavior reflect the deeper realities of humanity as found archetypical Biblical stories.

Remembering that economic activity is an outgrowth of human nature, and not the other way around, keeps our thinking grounded and provides humility. It keeps the rational thinker from saying how things "should" be. It reminds us that for society to be better in the future, for it to be lower time preference, we must in our lives as individuals:

- Act with good intention (God's blessing is only for the pure in heart)

- Make honest bargains with our future selves (Make an honest bargain with the future)

- Sacrifice our immediate desires in each moment (That which you value most)

When we each live our lives in this way, the society improves as a natural consequence of our actions. No political action is necessary. All that's required to build a low time preference society that becomes ever more peaceful and prosperous is to clean up our rooms, a little bit more, every day.

-David Giessel

Jordan Peterson's Biblical Sacrifice and Hans Hoppe's Time Preference: Part 2 - A bargain with the future

Cain and Abel are born into the world of time. Their parents had already been thrown from the timeless paradise of The Garden. As "The first real humans" (the first humans BORN into the world), they develop their understanding of the future beyond that of their parents'.

Peterson describes Cain and Abel's sacrifice as "making a bargain with the future." This builds on the idea of time itself, which Adam discovered when God told him he would now have to work. The only reason to work, to defer enjoyment now, is because you know you have responsibilities later. 'Now' and 'later' must be understood for the concept of work to exist. Hence the fall into time and the burden of work happening in the same moment.

The 'bargain' is a bigger discovery than time itself. It is the idea that the future isn't fixed. That it is negotiable. That it is changeable. You can bargain with it. It is not a rigid trap, it is just another dimension of experience which, when understood, offers tremendous opportunity. This is the basis of agriculture, of civilization, and of saving (money among other things).

Hoppe and Peterson's ideas intermingle here as well. Hoppe uses the phrase "in the long run" as description of bargaining with the future.

Those who realize that the future is just as real as the present can trade with it. They can trade with the future version of themselves by saving. This is low time preference. It is in fact just a simple trade between two parties - present you and future you.

An interesting thing about "the long run" or a "bargain with the future"

is that it only works out in a society that is based on honesty and trust. This trust begins within the individual. It begins with you. If the present and future versions of yourself aren't aligned in values, your present or future self is likely to deceive the other. You are likely to scam yourself over time and become impoverished instead of enriched. This is what dishonest financial institutions facilitate. They allow people to fool themselves into thinking that they can become rich without sacrifice, without work. And they end up collapsing and consuming wealth over time, just as dishonest trades in the present do.

The concepts of saving, of the future, and of time preference are the same. They are all expressions of the concept of trade in the present moment between two parties. Are both parties honest? Do both expect to benefit from the trade? Do both parties understand and intend to fulfil their obligation to the other? Are you living a life that will be good for your future-self? Will your future-self honor the commitments of your present self? Or are you trying to deceive yourself across time? To enrich your present self at the expense of your future-self.

Remember Rule 2 of Peterson's 12 rules for life: Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping. Be honest with your present and future self. Do not pit them against each other or both will lose.

-David Giessel

Jordan Peterson's Biblical Sacrifice and Hans Hoppe's Time Preference: Part 1 - That which you value most

Jordan Peterson draws immense meaning out of the short story of Cain and
Abel in Genesis. One of the main concepts in this story is the idea of
sacrificing that which you value most, embodied by Abel's sacrifice of
his best animals.  Cain, on the other hand, sacrifices a pile of vegetables.

While both brothers offer sacrifices, God only finds favor with Abel's
sacrifice. It is a bigger (actual?) sacrifice, and it is sincere. Abel
is "all in" when it comes to foregoing present enjoyment for future (or
spiritual) enjoyment. Cain, on the other hand, isn't offering his best,
so can he be said to be truly sacrificing anything?

What struck me the first time I heard Peterson articulate the
evolutionary significance of humans learning to practice sacrifice (stay
tuned for Part 2) is that it is exactly Hans Hoppe's description of Time
Preference.

Hoppe notes that the basis of savings (and all of civilization) is the
willingness to sacrifice present enjoyment for future enjoyment. Even
better, in a honest system, this sacrifice results in MORE future
enjoyment than what is sacrificed in the present. Exactly as the story
of Cain and Abel describes.

Peterson could shorten his description of "sacrificing that which you
value most" by using Hoppe's simpler phrase of "the present moment" or
"present enjoyment". Perhaps the phrase "present pleasure" would be even
stronger.

Cain wasn't really sacrificing enjoyment by burning some plants, but
Abel was burning a delicious fatted calf that I'm sure was making he and
his brother's mouths water. Cain was sacrificing the present SUFFERING
of choking down plants, but Abel was sacrificing the present ENJOYMENT
of marbled steak.

There can only be one type of sacrifice - sacrifice of what you value
MOST, right NOW. Both parts are necessary or it isn't sacrifice. When
you have plenty of money, saving doesn't feel like a sacrifice, and it
isn't. You reap a reward measured in small percentages. But the reward
you get from taking the first step in saving the FIRST dollar, the act
of forming the habit, is the ENTIRE VALUE of the savings, not just the
interest.

-David Giessel