What it comes down to is this, any law you propose states this, I will kill you if you do not agree to do "X." I say this because ALL laws say this. All. Jay walking is a "crime." So, what does that mean? It means if you jay walk you risk death at the hands of government enforcers. How so? You are accosted while jay walking by the local police. You say, "Buzz off bucko!" The cop says "you are under arrest!" You say "Not even." They attempt to restrain you and you resist, you are now "resisting arrest" and in the process of subduing you force will be used to make you to comply. The harder you resist the more likely "they" are to simply kill you.
All laws imply deadly force. All laws = the death penalty. Of course they won't say you are being killed for the "crime" of jay walking, but for resisting arrest or attempting to escape or whatever, but really it's the original "crime" you are being murdered over, smoking herbs, walking where they don't want you to or building a house without permission, all punishable by death if you don't bow down and submit.
Government is Violence.
All laws imply deadly force. All laws = the death penalty. Of course they won't say you are being killed for the "crime" of jay walking, but for resisting arrest or attempting to escape or whatever, but really it's the original "crime" you are being murdered over, smoking herbs, walking where they don't want you to or building a house without permission, all punishable by death if you don't bow down and submit.
Government is Violence.
Larry -
ReplyDeleteI appreciate what you write. I've been to the precipice of Libertarianism and the Non-Intervention of Force principle.
All government is force, yes, but not all force is killing. Part of the reason for government (although I'm with you, a very minimalist one) is to enable citizens to move about their business without worrying about the baser things such as survival.
I couldn't go NIF because no man is an island. Even if you decide not to do something, you still affect someone else.
As a Christian, keep in mind Romans 13 and 1 Timothy 2. There is an earthly rule and a heavenly rule, but God ultimately rules in both. The fact that fundamentalists have used this argument to uneconomically chase down pornographers and marijuana smokers, or that the Pope in the past has punished people just for what they think, doesn't change this fact.
As a Lutheran, also consider the Book of Concord's several treatises on the use of the Law, especially the First Use, to curb sin.
If someone steals from you, is it more proper for you to go get a gun and steal it back, or to deputize someone to go get it back without the temptation for vengeance?
We must find another principle than sheer anarchy, and we must differentiate it from those who would legislate the Ten Commandments. The siren song of Ayn Rand is alluring to those disillusioned with government, but her Objectivism will lead you to Hell.
I call your Romans 13 and raise you 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 and Matthew 5:39-40 :-)
ReplyDelete"Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?"
I say leave the government to the unbelievers, it suits them. There will always be plenty of unbelievers to run things like the police and the legislature.
I'm mostly thinking out loud, none of this is totally thought out in my mind to tell the truth.
Here's an example, in even a so-called "just" war how can I justify killing a human being? Either he is a Christian and so a brother and killing him is a horrible offense, or he is not a Christian and my killing him cuts off any chance of his ever repenting and coming to the Lord in the future.
It's all terribly confusing. I think I will leave judgment and punishment up to the Lord.
As to the Book of Concord, well I'm still in the process of reading it, I don't know everything it says and don't know if I can agree with it all or not. When I joined my church I agreed to the Small Catechism, not the whole Book of Concord, at least that was how I understood it.
"I call your Romans 13 and raise you 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 and Matthew 5:39-40 :-)"
ReplyDeleteThe easy one first: Matthew 5:39-40, if you expand the context to 41 and 42, is clearly about personal behavior and not about government, unless you want to advocate that government give to everyone that begs of it. :)
1 Corinthians 6 is also about personal behavior. The directive that Christians should not use secular courts to settle disputes among fellow Christians doesn't solve the question as to whether secular courts ought to exist. Christians have disputes with non-Christians all the time, and non-Christians have disputes with non-Christians. The secular government is still an institution of God to preserve order. Romans 13 and 1 Timothy 2 are not canceled or abrogated.
I started blogging in part to get help in resolving this tension between church and state. One of the posts that came out of that is this one. It also explains the limits that I espouse in "legislating morality".
Interesting post you linked to, thanks. I actually don't deny that God uses governments to keep order, I just deny that Christians ought to be part of them. :-) I may be too cynical but I don't buy the story that the people actually have much say about the laws we have in this, or any other, country. The whole thing is rigged to keep the rich and powerful rich and powerful. Our duty is to obey the laws as far as they do not contradict the word of God and pay our taxes and generally act in a way that brings honor to God.
ReplyDeleteWe're called upon to get our hands dirty in serving our neighbor. But I agree with the following:
ReplyDelete"...I don't buy the story that the people actually have much say about the laws we have in this, or any other, country. The whole thing is rigged to keep the rich and powerful rich and powerful. Our duty is to obey the laws as far as they do not contradict the word of God and pay our taxes and generally act in a way that brings honor to God."
:)