David Hoffer

David and his wife recently moved to the central Virginia area so that he could attend a local law school. I have a good deal of respect for this gracious homeschool graduate, and I always seem to benefit from his stimulating conversation and vast range of knowledge. Enjoy:

WC: Where did you grow up?

DH: I grew up in a lovely climate of suburban sprawl, Honda mini-vans, and Williamsburgesque architecture known as Dunwoody, Ga, just north of Atlanta.

WC: What was life like before moving to Virginia? What type of work did you do?

DH: I have lived with in Atlanta for 22 years of my life. I managed to stay a student and live with my parents for 21 of those years. Most of the time I was allotted fell to the ordinary travail of schoolwork, household chores, and what-not. From the time I was twelve years old I was privileged to be able to work in lawn maintenance with my brothers, up until my wife and I moved here to Virginia.

Speaking of which, the fall after my senior year (November 2004), Elisabeth Frey blessed me with her hand in matrimony. During the months preceding and the months following, since I was not inhibited by school, I was able to devote myself to a workload of three jobs: lawn care, construction, and file clerk in a law office.

To sum up, my existence before Virginia was a primarily blue-collar one lived out in the midst of white-collar yuppie-dom.

WC: You've told me that George Grant's Gileskirk Curriculum was part of your education growing up. Tell us a little bit about that curriculum, as well as two things you learned from it that particularly stand out to you even now.

DH: Simply put, the educational model of the Trivium was an outstanding framework in which to learn. Franklin Classical school is carrying on the tradition of the rigorous education of Augustine. Gileskirk provides a strong Liberal Arts survey of the disciplines of University, from literature to science.

The two things I learned in my studies through Dr. Grant:

1) We have been the recipients of an amazing inheritance of art, literature, music, science, and history, a tradition of excellence. And all of this is the result of Christendom.

a. To know and realize this is to experience a paradigm shift that significantly refines one’s understanding and one’s calling (at least, it did mine).
b. Such an understanding then serves to break through this shell of Americanized, post-enlightenment Christianity, which has relegated the Church to the margins of life and a position of general and cultural irrelevance.

2) History is not simply a collection of dates and dead guys, to be put into the dungeons of memory, rather it is a system of models, good and bad, to be sifted through and pored over in the pursuit of true understanding based on or presupposed by Faith (“Credo ut intelligam;” I believe that I may understand).

WC: Tell us about your decision to move to Virginia.

DH: It was difficult to leave one’s family and friends and travel many miles to attend a law school that was unaccredited and virtually unknown. In the end it can only be chalked up to God’s providence.

Speaking of which, the decision to move was not comprised of only negative elements. Providence Church was definitely a large contributing factor in our plans. Knowing when we moved that we would be able to join a community of believers every Sunday with such passion and accountability for the purity of the Gospel was a great relief as a husband and future father. On top of that, Virginia is beautiful state, and the heart of the confederacy. One cannot argue with that.

WC: There is a lot of negative baggage associated with the profession of practicing law. In your opinion, what are the main reasons for this reputation?

DH: Reputation is different than character. Character is what/who you are. Reputation is what others think you are. Character is obviously the more important of the two since it influences reputation. To the question you ask, the reputation is in many times deserved (as far as lawyer jokes and disparagement of the law community).

As to why the character of the legal profession is connoted as negatively as it is, I think the answer is that like any other profession, it is tainted by bad characters (lawyers). Like humanity in general, people are bad and people are attorneys. It just so happens that these particular bad people know how to maximize other’s misery because they know the rules of America, and they play by them. We all know that there are as many bad bakers, butchers and candlestick makers as there are bad lawyers, we call to mind the lawyers more often because as a profession they charge more and generally deal with significant (and sometimes bitter) conflicts in a person’s or business’ existence.

Character and reputation interplay when a skilled lawyer or judge with a bad character pulls the carpet out from underneath an inferior lawyer or judge with a good character, the profession's reputation is harmed. Similarly, when a good lawyer represents a bad person, the lawyer's character becomes irrelevant to most onlookers. If the good lawyer wins for their bad client, even though they were doing their job, the good lawyer's good character seems bad to half-witted or ignorant critics. The primary example of this is Johnny Cochran. This is why it is so chiefly important for the lawyers with good character to make themselves the better lawyers so that the system is more fairly balanced. (As a friend of mine liked to ask: Is it Johnny Cochran's fault that a criminal was set free, or is it the prosecution's fault that they failed in matching Cochran's finesse and expertise?); thus, the need for Liberty School of Law.

WC: Just beneath the surface of all of our modern hot button social issues lies the real contention- the question of moral absolutes. Please comment on the question of the existence of moral absolutes, as well as how law relates to a fixed point vs. relativism.

DH: Moral absolutes exist. The other side of this debate is not presented by people who do not believe in moral absolutes, but people who claim not to believe in them. People who claim not to believe in moral absolutes are shoe-gazing. They have been socialized by modern pop culture to believe that self gratification is they tickets to a fulfilling life. This makes sense, as we understand that the unregenerate hates God and, consequently, hates anything reflective of God, including absolutes. This position (since it is based on the self) is as weak as wet plaster (Why waste time deliberating over something that is known by all to be true, but is denied by some because it conflicts with their pleasure-seeking agenda?)

This discussion is a distraction to the real issue in our society.

When faced with a moral dilemma, humans have a tendency to take the easy road. One day in Torts class we were given a hypothetical which led to the question of whether it is better to allow ten people to die in a train, or to "flip the switch" on the track to divert the train to safety, and allow the train to kill five people that are standing on the track, we get flustered. The question is a trick question because both results are bad. In both situations you were faced with the decision and in each you end up walking away with guilt. To overcome the guilt imposed upon you from this contrived situation, you might listen to a professor who talks about the free-love romantic Rousseau-ian perspective that claims there is essentially no right or wrong. That way, you are allowed to make a subjective decision and not feel guilty about it. How quaint.

How arrogant! Surely this is arrogance; to think that you have the ability to decide, subjectively, who should die and who shouldn’t? Is such a thought/act outside the laws of nature and nature’s God?

Moral absolutes exist because the universe cannot function without such a natural law. Just as there are absolutes in physics, there are absolutes in morals. The physical fabric in our universe is as impenetrable as the moral fabric. People may claim that they have broken through the moral fabric by openly participating in adulterous orgies or what-have-you, but no matter how proliferated and mainstream such a practice becomes, it will always be immoral. The irony is that anyone who claims that they "broke" the moral fabric acknowledges that one exists. They are not about to leave out the elephant in the living room when calculating renovations.

As to the nature of law, there is God's eternal law and then there is man's particular and changing law. God's law is absolute absolutely. The law of man has become relative (e.g. prostitutes will not be charged in San Francisco but will in Pratt City, Alabama) but God's law does not change. We are to follow the heart of God regardless of what man may say.

WC: Please comment on the statement: "You can't legislate morality"

DH: You can't legislate the way people feel (heart), but you can legislate the way people act. So, it is immoral to cheat on your wife. It is also immoral to think about cheating on your wife. As a lawgiver, one you can prevent (or deter), the other you have no control over. Why would you make a law that has no possibility of being enforced? To do so is bad lawmaking. In doing so, you only succeed in undermining your own authority. To do so is bad leadership.

Morality appears to be currently legislated (i.e. speed limits, tax code, and murder), though thick-skulled modernists prefer to think otherwise. The law must exist to make things more moral (Aquinas). The debated question is: whose morals? As Christians, we are called to take dominion of ourselves, our families, our churches, our communities and then our government, in that order. As these things happen, man's legislation will improve drastically.

WC: What type of law do you anticipate practicing?

DH: God only knows at this point. Criminal law (maybe something in the vein of district attorney) and property law are big draws for me right now. But, this is said with minimal knowledge of the other fields and that windy factor of God’s Providence.

If I have to sue, I want to sue bad people.

WC: Tell us about some of the materials, or case studies, you have come into at law school so far - has there been anything that has surprised you or caught you off guard in studying America's legal system?

DH: Law is currently governed by a philosophy of law known as positivist law basically interpreted to mean that whatever is established as law is, de facto, law. This philosophy of law was what was used by the Nazis (defense) at Nuremburg in international criminal law – the Nazis tried to justify their crimes by stating they were merely soldiers following orders; that is, they were following the law of military action and could not possibly be prosecuted for their obedience. The prosecution appealed to natural law: there are some things that cannot not be known. Which philosophy of law is primarily used now in America? That’s right, positivism. Nothing changed. The same way we justify the practice and operation of law in our community (and abortion doctors justify their vile deeds) was the same justification used to authenticate Nazi war atrocities. That is quite shocking to me.

WC: Tell us about the relationship between the culture of a particular people- that is, the overarching religious beliefs of a particular people, and their system of law. What has history taught us about that correlation?

DH: Religion precedes law- in every society (Christian = U.S.; Muslim = Mid-East; Confucianism = Far-East).

History has shown that both religious non-Christian and Christian countries are capable of oppression via the law. America, however, is different. A Christ-centered America is tolerant of all of those who abide by the law; those who do not, face punishment. America is currently a sad example of a Christian nation, but it would still appear to have a severely Christian founding. And by God's grace and the current system of law, America is sustained as the most comfortable (I hesitate saying “best”) place to live and worship. An "a-religious" society would crumble this current state.

Christ lives, reigns, and works through His Church. When the Catholic Church (meant in the creedal sense) owns up to its mission… well, that is a big condition… so I will stop there.

WC: G.K. Chesterton said, "If men will not be governed by the Ten Commandments, they shall be governed by the ten thousand commandments.” Please comment on his statement.

DH: The Ten Commandments are apodictic, meaning they express the nature of the law by choosing the chief example of a particular breach or transgression. For example, the commandment regarding adultery should serve to heed us from breaching any covenant with one another. The same goes for the rest. When we cannot follow the summary, we will need the whole tome of laws. Jesus expresses the Ten Commandments as the summary of the entire work of Scripture, which He culled down further into the two greatest commandments in Matthew 22:36-40. If we as a country would follow the letter and spirit of the Ten Commandments, we would not need the millions of other pages.

The Ten Commandments are therefore a basis for the rules in our society. Our ancestors (Judaism) and our founding fathers followed them because they had faith in God. Likewise, we must also have faith in God to follow them truly. But essentially, we can be governed by the Ten Commandments all day long.

WC: In the state of Virginia, there is a seatbelt law. Everyone operating or riding in a motor vehicle must, by law, wear their seatbelt. (Then the state uses taxpayer money to put up signs that read "Click It or Ticket"...) I find it difficult to appreciate laws that serve only to "protect me from myself". What are your thoughts on the "protect people from themselves" laws vs. personal liberty?

DH: Some people are insensitive to common sense and so reckless that they pose a danger to their community. The possibility that such a person could hurt themselves, leaving those who depend and/or care about them in a state of dependency upon the government or out of luck is such a likely one with the way our centralized system is set up (e.g. welfare), the government has an interest to protect. That coupled with the pet theory that insurance lobbies pack a lot of clout on Capital Hill, would explain the reach of such laws. Now, one still has the personal liberty to not wear a belt. He can simply pay the fine, move somewhere where there is no enforcement... or he can be above reproach and drive 2 mph under. The question, I guess, would be do we have a right to do as we please on the roadways?

Now, using taxpayer dollars to put up signs is a horse of a different color. Seemingly, it would be better for every road in America to be privatized and such signs as are deemed profitable should be paid for by the companies/communities that own the roads.

WC: We are seeing vehicle safety and security services becoming available, such as GM's OnStar service, which can do everything from unlocking your cars doors remotely, to giving you directions, to notifying emergency services after you're in an accident. One such option allows the company to find your car using a global positioning satellite system if you report it as stolen. Do you think our culture will continue to move in the direction of technological conveniences that also have a potential to erode privacy? Or is there no reason for concern?

DH: Yes, we as a society will continue to move in the direction of technological conveniences that will also have a potential to erode privacy. We seem to have agreed that whatever has been and will be paid for so-called technological progress is acceptable. If that price is the diminution of privacy and increase of government power and secrecy, then so be it. We all hold cell-phones that serve as a beacon that conveys to the world of satellite realm our current position on earth. Had we known that 20 years ago, would we have continued to buy up land and put cell-towers on it, make odds and ends to cell to burgeoning teenagers across the land? You bet. Why? Money has devalued any sense of privacy we once might have possessed.

Being a hopeful Postmillennialist, I hope there is no reason for concern, and that our society does not overreact to privacy "concerns" surrounding such devices. Overreaction = rashly expecting and lobbying for the government to handle the situation. Privacy is something we, the society, should protect for ourselves if we value it as highly as we appear to, judging from the talking heads on the news (i.e. - If you do not like the technology, don't buy it).

WC: Tell us who you believe were the 2 most influential men of the 20th century? For better or worse, they etched the two deepest marks in the last century.

DH: 1) Winston Churchill, for standing contra mundum, fighting a wall of lethargic and cowardly opinions to resist the ideology of the Nazis and save Western Civilization. This feat, coupled with his talents as a writer, painter, statesman, orator, etc. makes him one of the leading figures of the 20th century.

2) Men on the Princeton Review Board-- To paraphrase Neil Postman: The greatest impact on the way people in the 20th century gauge intelligence has been made by “quiet men in grey suits in a suburb of New York City called Princeton, New Jersey.” It was here that they developed, tested, and promoted what has come to be known as the standardized test (e.g. IQ tests, SATs, GREs). These tests have ostensibly redefined what we mean by learning, and have resulted in the restructuring of curriculum in all levels of education so that students can do well on the tests, thereby validating a school board and stimulating patrons, gifts, and grants.

Notable Mentions: Ronald Reagan, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Ludwig Von Mises, Guglielmo Marconi, Martin Luther King Jr., Albert Einstein, Henry Ford, Pope John Paul II.

WC: When you are not toting around really big law books, what do you enjoy doing in your spare time? What type of music do you enjoy?

DH: To me, a well-spent hour involves a book, my wife, and rooibos tea. If there were two hours available, you could change that to lemonade, tennis rackets and tennis balls, and a court with a nice shady tree beside it.

Musically, anything from Bob Dylan to Sufjan Stevens to J.S. Bach to Derek Webb to Nick Drake to P.I. Tchaikovsky to Leadbelly to The Magnetic Fields to Joanna Newsom to Jack White to Cole Porter to The Arcade Fire to Johnny Cash to Rachmaninoff. The great music of the world is the stuff with soul. Such music has the power to stop you in your thoughts and make you wish you had written that song.

WC: Lastly please tell us of a few blessings in your life that you would like to give God praise and thanks for.

DH: Generally: where does one start? I rejoice that God has placed me at this point, in this time, immortal till the work is done.

Specifically: I am blessed by the weekly ability/privilege to gather together with my wife in a fellowship of believers to worship the only true God. I am blessed to have ears to hear, eyes to see, a nose to smell, tongue to taste, and hands to feel the magnificent creation all about us. I am blessed by a wife whose many great abilities and good work are effected “by being what she is,” which, in the words of Chesterton, circumvents the crude requirement for polygamy (“So long as you have one good wife you are sure to have a spiritual harem”).

~