POLITICS Libertarian Anarchism (was protestors considered suspected terrorists)

[Guest guest]

>> Whatever else we read in the Bible, this is the standard that God has

>> set in the civil realm - not the Kings, not the Roman Empire, and not

>> any post-resurrection Christian governments. This is the civil model

>> which was ultimately rejected by Israel when they determined to adopt

>> the practice of the nations that were around them, ***and the very

>> nations they were displacing***.

>

> There may be some support for this being the ideal. There is, in the

> prophecies, a note about such a system returning. But, aside from it

> being radically different from the system of competing secular,

> for-profit security firms supplying all the functions of the state

> advocated by modern anarcho-capitalists,

Well first I'm not granting " all the functions of the state " are

necessarily proper to the state. They certainly have been co-opted by

the state, but they didn't have their genesis in the state nor is a

state necessary to provide them.

Having said that, where is it in libertarian analysis that ALL the

functions of a state would be handled by secular for profit security

firms? Where under libertarian analysis is it demanded they would all

be secular? And why would that be radically different than Israel?

Your use of the term " secular, for-profit " doesn't alter the basic

analysis that the system would be a restitution based code undergirded

by victim's rights, which is SPOT ON what was happening in ancient

Israel and nearly every other effective anarchic society I can think

of, even if the particular mechanisms for achieving that result

differ.

And why shouldn't these people be held to some kind of market standard

for the services they perform? Your only other option is to take by

force (or the threat thereof) money from people to support the system.

You think that is okay. I don't. It certainly didn't happen in ancient

Israel to support these functions in their society - at least not

until the Kings came along, and even then it appears the King's taxes

were over and above the tithes God required for the various other

functions of the society.

> I don't see any clear

> indications that any alternative system is a matter of injustice in

> the way Rothbard, who was an agnostic, argued.

I do, since agnostic or not, Rothbard argued using biblical

definitions and has simply carried them out to their logical

conclusion. It is your definitions, though common, that strike me as

idiosyncratic.

> In other words, while

> God may have favored the system of theocratic anarchism, there is no

> evidence that I can see whatsoever that God saw the monarchy as an

> inherent injustice

When have I ever said that God saw the monarchy " as an inherent

injustice? " ??????

What I did say is that the office of the King was less than ideal,

which is evident since when Israel asked for a king, God warned them

about all the bad things the king would DO, things that only a king

could do but didn't necessarily have to do. Why would you warn someone

against embracing something if you thought it was the ideal thing for

them to do?

What makes governments of any sort less than ideal is because it gives

them an OPPORTUNITY to engage in behavior that none of us on a

personal level could ever get away with - we would be tried and

convicted for murder (war), kidnapping (conscription), and theft

(taxation) - but it doesn't make them **inherently** unjust. It is the

behavior NOT the office which is at issue.

The kings of anarchic Ireland did NONE of those things. It would be

silly to think Rothbard or any other libertarian anarchist would

oppose something because of its name or position, especially since the

link I posted about the anarchical society of ancient Ireland appeared

in Rothbard's own journal!

One of the bottom line foundational principles of libertarianism is

that if it is forbidden to you personally, then if it is forbidden to

those who rule over you.

If it is theft if you walk up to someone and demand their money, and

then threaten to take their life or liberty if they don't pay up -

then it is STILL theft if a group of people do the same thing under

the guise of being the government. That rules out taxes.

If it is kidnapping if I force someone to go where they don't want to

go, and stay if they don't want to stay, and do what they don't want

to do, and threaten their life or liberty if they choose to go anyway

(or not do what I want) - then it is STILL kidnapping and slavery if a

group of people do the same thing under the guise of being the

government. That rules out the draft/conscription.

If it is murder if I kill someone for reasons other than self-defense,

then it is STILL murder if a group of people do the same thing under

the guise of being the government. That rules out offensive wars.

The government, no matter the form, is not above the law.

The government, no matter the form, doesn't morph into some kind of

mystical being who is no longer under the same restraints as you and I

by virtue of being the government.

The isn't just bottom line libertarianism, this is the decree of the law of God:

Deuteronomy 17:18-20

18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom,

that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book from that which

is before the priests the Levites.

19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days

of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all

the words of this law and these statutes, to do them,

20 that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he

turn not aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left,

to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his

children, in the midst of Israel.

> and the king as nothing but a thief.

When have I ever said that God saw " the king as nothing but a thief? " ??????????

Was King nothing but a murderer? That would be a strange

description of someone described as a " man after God's own heart. "

Was Moses nothing but a murderer? That would be a strange description

of someone described as " very meek, above all the men who were upon

the face of the earth. "

Was St. nothing but a murderer? That would be a strange

description of someone who said:

7 I have fought a good fight; I have finished my course; I have kept the faith.

8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which

the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me on that Day -- and not to

me only, but unto all those also who love His appearing.

2 4:7-8

And yet all these men committed murder. So did other kings by the way.

It is the behavior that is in question, not the office per se.

> Rather, the

> king is " God's annointed. "

Unless you believe in the divine right of kings, being " God's

anointed " doesn't free you from the constraints of the law.

>> Notice also that they *asked* for a King, but it was God who

>> instituted, ordained if you will, the rule of the Kings. Even though

>> he warned them of the dangers, nevertheless He gave them what they

>> wanted. As can be the case, God often meets us where we are, even if

>> it is not the best thing for us. Clearly in this instance He ordained

>> an institution that was less than ideal. Israel was no longer willing

>> to recognize His Kingship via the Judges, and so this is what they got

>> (the Mosaic law by the way predicts this would happen).

>

> There is a huge difference between " less than ideal " and criminal.

Right.

" Less than ideal " refers to the human office of the Kings instituted

under the prophet . " Criminal " refers to SOME of the ACTIVITY of

the human office of the Kings instituted under the prophet . So

yes, as you note, there is a " huge difference. "

While I believe kings, like every other human ever to walk this

planet, are capable of doing criminal things, I never equated the

" less than ideal " office of the King with being criminal. Neither does

any libertarian anarchist that I am familiar with.

> The Rothbardian viewpoint would say that the king is a criminal.

How is a person reckoned as a criminal? By the things he DOES, not by

the office he holds. He could be a priest, king, policeman, president

of the United States or my next door neighbor, if he does certain

things that are in violation of God's law, then those actions are

criminal.

Maybe the word criminal is throwing you, maybe sinful is a better

word. Criminal today, because of our flawed justice system, almost

exclusively denotes an attribute of a person, a way of life. Because

there is not proper restitution involved when we think of someone as a

criminal, we tend to think of it as describing a basic attribute of

who they are. That could be true (read St. ) but not necessarily

so. If one changes their way of life it is inaccurate to refer to them

as they once were. St. says to the Corinthians, referring to some

of their past sinful lifestyles, " and such WERE some of you. "

Even our own society at one time didn't reckon things that way. Once a

person could have paid his " debt to society, " now she is reckoned a

felon, or sex offender, or thief or whathaveyou for the rest of her

life, regardless of subsequent behavior.

So maybe sinful is a better word. Did the Kings do sinful things? They

surely did. Crimes however are simply a subset of sins of such a

nature that God has deemed worthy of civil sanctions. Did any of the

Kings ever commit crimes? Well if murder is accounted as a crime, they

surely did.

King , a man after God's own heart, committed adultery and

murder, both capital crimes under the Mosaic code. Does that make him

a criminal? Given the totality of his life, no. Does it mean he was

guilty of criminal actions? Yes.

So the Rothbardian viewpoint would say the king acted in a criminal

manner, not by virtue of being king, but because he did criminal

things as king, and there is a world of difference. No libertarian

anarchist worth his salt is opposed to a **voluntary** society that is

run by whatever mechanism that society wants.

> The Bible says the king is " God's annointed. "

see above

> Rothbard says taxes are theft. The Bible says " give taxes to whom taxes are

due. "

Which doesn't in any way change the nature of taxation. If someone

forces you to give them something you don't want to give, and they

enforce it at the point of a gun, that is robbery. Now if you want to

say that such legalized violence is okay under the New Testament

because God says government is ordained by Him, then go ahead, it is

something we are just going to have to agree to disagree on. God is

quite capable of ordaining something that contains certain aspects

which have undesirable consequences - witness the kings - but you seem

to think that makes those actions okay. I don't. Thus we are at an

impasse.

If a government agent stopped me on the street, and had the legal

authority to force me to carry his briefcase and backpack on foot for

a certain distance, and threatened me with jail if I didn't comply, I

would say that amounts to kidnapping, legal or not. .

This is precisely the legal power the Roman soldiers of Jesus day had.

They could stop a person and force them to carry their pack for one

mile. The law didn't allow them to go beyond a mile. And yet, Jesus

said if a Roman soldier forces you to carry his load one mile, go with

him two miles instead.

I don't think this is an endorsement of the Roman law by Jesus, but

rather a strategy for living under that law, as a way to be a witness

to the world. In fact a strategy for living all of life - go the extra

mile.

The same New Testament writer who wrote that the powers that be are

ordained of God, is also the same New Testament writer who willing

recognized and was willing to abide by the Roman legal structure that

authorized slavery and thus looked at men as mere property. Does that

mean St. thought slavery was okay?

I don't think so. Kingdom living is different and unique, and living

strategically that way as a witness to the world doesn't mean that we

agree with unjust laws, or won't try to change them if we get a

chance, even though we are willing to submit to them in the interim.

I think the New Testament goes out of its way to keep Christians from

being identified as **direct** political revolutionaries. It goes

against what our basic message is all about.

So we have Jesus, who says explicitly Christians don't owe anyone

taxes of any sort, nevertheless telling to pay taxes so as not

to cause offense. I don't see any re-defining of theft going on, as if

somehow Jesus is instituting a new category of legal violence that is

okay for a particular group of people to engage in, rather He is

telling His followers how they ought to behave even though they have

no legal obligation to pay taxes.

It boggles my imagination that anyone, let alone Christians, can see

the forcible taking of property that doesn't belong to them as

anything other than robbery. I'm perfectly willing to grant that most

people today think such is necessary, and I'm perfectly willing to

grant that Christians ought " to pay taxes to whom taxes are due, " even

though Christians don't owe any taxes, but I am unwilling to re-define

taxation as something it is not.

--

" If you're not on somebody's watchlist, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist