C.S. Lewis observes somewhere that there are two different motivations for spreading the political power as thinly as possible. The first is the motive of the sunny democrat, one who believes that man is the repository of wisdom, and that before we do anything of a civic nature, we ought to check in with as many of those wisdom nodes out there as we can.
The second motivation is driven by a Christian view of man, in which the radical nature of sin is acknowledged, and we confess ourselves unwilling to deposit too much power in any one individual or institution. And why? Because Lord Acton knew his onions, and aptly said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This adage does not apply to God, obviously, who is untempted and uncorrupted by His omnipotence. It does apply, however, to all those little creatures who are still affected by the aboriginal temptation, which is “to be as God.”
The former view is trying share the power with all those out there who are worthy of it, and the latter view is trying to keep the power from accumulating in any one place. The former view is pagan, and the latter is Christian. In this latter view, given the nature of the case, we are not trying to spread as much power as possible across the entire population, but rather trying to take essential precautions by limiting the exercise of any essential power by spreading as far as we reasonably can, separating the powers and checking the balances.
Now it could well be objected — and it is quite a reasonable objection — that if man is not to be trusted, then why should we trust him with liberty? Can a sinful man not abuse his liberty? He certainly can, which is why we want to limit the damage to what he can do to himself and those foolish enough to associate with him. Precisely because he is corruptible, we don’t want to put him in charge of the life, liberty, and property of everybody else.
Incidentally, these two approaches to spreading the power represent two takes on what is glibly called “individualism.” The sunny democrat really is in the grip of individualism because he wants to extract the wisdom of the ages from the hearts of men, which is like trying to extract sunbeams from cucumbers. The Christian is not being an individualist at all because what he is after is a great number of firewalls between individuals and other individuals — the kind of firewalls that love can travel through, but pillage cannot.
As I have been writing about liberty, and the responsibility of the state to stop stealing our stuff, it is important to keep a distinction in mind between two kinds of biblical cases against the pirate state. The first is found in a straightforward prohibition — it is thou shalt not steal. It is not thou shalt not steal except by majority vote. It is not thou shalt not steal unless Ahab really wants the vineyard. It is not thou shalt not steal unless you took a class on the social contract in grad school. It is not thou shalt not steal unless the victim is in the one percent. God tells men not to steal, not just the peons.
The state is granted the power of lawful taxation and the state is capable of pillage, mostly the latter. It is therefore the state’s responsibility to learn how those two very different activities may be distinguished, and that is done when the magistrate submits to the authority of the Lord Jesus. It always comes back to that.
The second kind of case against statists with eye patches and hooks for hands is theological, the case I have outlined above. The Bible gives us a vision of the condition of unregenerate man, and what they want to do, and the blandishments they offer their favorites as they make their case for it. It is all for the children, I hear. But the end of the process is for them to take all your cash, and to accuse you of greed if you resist or question it in any way.
Now this analysis is all based on the Christian view of man, and I do confess that it is not flattering. The humanist approach just oozes unctuous flattery (“I have full confidence in the American people,” all the politicians routinely say), and is way more optimistic. If you take the eyewash they offer at face value then it certainly feels better at the time. But the end result is always a choice between acquiescing in the theft of your goods, or joining in the thievery yourself.
As I have said before, the reason Scripture prohibits Congress employing chaplains is that we may not make a den of thieves into a house of prayer. It goes something like that, I think.
Take the direction that the statists and their apologists want to go, and with an open Bible determine what direction you should go. They might call us unlucky contrarians, but we all need to learn the meaning of that admirable word withershins.
But the end of the process is for them to take all your cash, and to accuse you of greed if you resist or question it in any way. Quick check: How many people have had all their cash taken? I suppose there’s Clint Hughes’ story about the IRS trying to use paperwork to refuse to follow the law. But that’s an abuse if the system. So, how many here have had all their stuff taken, by the law? See, here’s the thing: If we only write to Tea Partiers, it may sound like this rhetoric is blasé. But I’m… Read more »
Matt: I once got a ticket for over $100 for going through “speed trap”. Show me Scriptural warrant for the civil magistrate taking my stuff because they deem I was “driving too fast.”
Not all Christians are classic liberals and certainly not all classic liberals are Christians. I think you go too far in equating the two. When the power of the state is fragmented between 300 million people then any individual has power that approaches zero. The power remains in the hands of a few who may manipulate the masses and claim that they do everything for their good. I would agree that division of power conserves liberty, but only in the case of division between powerful factions, whether that be two Roman consuls or houses of congress. Also, there have been… Read more »
First, all this about the motives of the “sunny democrat” is just a strawman. Even the sunniest democrat does not believe that democracy results always in the best outcome. See slavery for an example. It’s more accurate to say that they believe that democracy with checks and protections is the most stable and fair form of governance, which at least to me all seems pretty straightforwardly true. Second, taxation to fund programs aimed at the common good is not theft, even if you disagree with the program or that it truly serves the common good. This stupid line needs to… Read more »
@Mathew, Try again, Matt. Remember, the first, and polite, step is to state your opponents argument correctly; you did not do that. (switches to 3’rd person Kate Cho voice over tense) Notice though that Matt Petersen does not address Wilson’s point, but offers a read herring; Note the difference in tense between Wilson’s statement and Petersen’s response: But the end of the process is for them to take all your cash, and to accuse you of greed if you resist or question it in any way. Quick check: How many people have had … (switches back to first person) Why… Read more »
Matt (not Petersen) said:
Isn’t taking someone’s stuff against their will stealing? I think the onus is on you to prove otherwise, and perhaps you can, but I’d like to see what your argument is for it.
Matt says, “. Conservatives … need to abandon the Rush Limbaugh take and start actually thinking about governance and what it requires and entails.” I thought our founding fathers did a great job of actually thinking about governance and what it requires and entails. They wrote an amazing amount of stuff to go along with the constitution and declaration of independence. When you blithely go along with the ‘takers’ (on both the left and the right) who would use the rouse of ‘caring for others’ to confiscate our money – so that we will stupidly vote for them – you… Read more »
“It’s more accurate to say that they believe that democracy with checks and protections is the most stable and fair form of governance, which at least to me all seems pretty straightforwardly true.” I’ll leave the argument about “fair” for another time but what makes you think that democracy is stable? Plato certainly didn’t think so. How do the longest lasting democratic states hold up against other forms of government in terms of stability? How stable are the democracies currently being planted in the Middle East? I think we are going to see more and more how unstable democracy can… Read more »
Isn’t taking someone’s stuff against their will stealing? No. For one, they might have acquired the stuff in an illegitimate manner. For another, they might have traded the stuff but are trying to renege on the deal. But for the purposes of the current discussion, it is not stealing when the government taxes you to fund programs that are aimed at the common good. If it were, then governance would be impossible. It would be stealing if the officials were levying or embezzling some part of the taxes to enrich themselves, which no doubt happens but not by design. So… Read more »
“Second, taxation to fund programs aimed at the common good is not theft”
Let’s take education. It is considered a common good. What, then, is the difference between a man coming over to my house and taking my money by force, then using the money to fund his education, and the state taking my money by force, via taxation, and using that money to fund his education? Why is the former considered theft, and the latter not?
Second, taxation to fund programs aimed at the common good is not theft, even if you disagree with the program or that it truly serves the common good. This stupid line needs to be retired for good. If Obama tries to raise taxes to fund his newest Tuscan villa, then that might be theft. So all Obama has to do is claim that his new Tuscan villa is for the common good and then it’s not theft, right? Or is it still theft because Matt disagrees with the program or that it truly serves the common good? At least we… Read more »
Trying share the power with all those out there who are worthy of it might work if we were more discriminating about the worthy part. It might end up looking not so different from trying to keep the power from accumulating in any one place, since that seems to entail spreading some power to at least some segment of the governed anyway.
Melody, Yes, our founding fathers did a great job of actually thinking about governance and what it requires and entails – the Rush Limbaugh fan base, I’m not so sure.
e
Second, taxation to fund programs aimed at the common good is not theft, even if you disagree with the program or that it truly serves the common good. This stupid line needs to be retired for good. Matt, I have asked you twice now to explain this reasoning. This line gives free range for just about anything, and the government has taken it. I think that the original marxists thought they were acting for the common good. I think Regan believed that secretly warring against Nicaragua against the public’s knowledge was for the common good, I think that folks who… Read more »
There is two other form sof theft that are not taxation that has happened several times in our Republic–devaluing the unit of exchange and issuing debt that cannot be repaid. Regarding the unit if exchange, my numbers are not exact, they are from memory–the historically minded here can supply the real numbers. A man working today, (should the dollar survive as a currency) will have dollars worth 25 cents when he retires in 40 years. This is theft. It is subtle theft. Lenin loved it, noting that scarcely 1 in 100 will correctly define the cause in the decline of… Read more »
What, then, is the difference between a man coming over to my house and taking my money by force, then using the money to fund his education, and the state taking my money by force, via taxation, and using that money to fund his education? What’s the difference between a government waging war and any of us doing so? What’s the difference between a police officer arresting someone and me arresting someone? I say this only to point out that there is a difference, even if none of us here can pinpoint exactly what it is. So all Obama has… Read more »
Incidentally, if Obama were half the tyrant that conservatives think he is, does anyone think he would relinquish power in 2017, or allow hostile websites and blogs to exist and insult him daily? Because those are the kinds of things that real tyrants don’t do.
Soft despotism.
I guess so, but all I can say is that’s pretty darn soft.
But Matt, this is just the wake up call we are being issued here. Obama and others are convincing Christians to pay for the Villa, via “freebies” or benefits. They are offering “free” education. It is not free. We all pay for it. And we pay way too much for it. The waste in the education department is outrageous. Furthermore, it is not “good.” Christian, wake up. That free education is corrupting your child. So two points: 1. It isn’t free. Your neighbor is forced to pay for it. 2 It isn’t good. It openly opposes God’s instruction. If Christians… Read more »
Actually, Obama’s “go it alone” attitude is just one example of how it’s less soft than before. He’s no Kim Jong Un, but he’s no Slick Willy either.
“Because those are the kinds of things that real tyrants don’t do.”
The accumulation of power and control takes time and is a process of winning the support of those whose cooperation you need to exercise the tyranny.
I am not saying that Obama plans or wants to do any of those things, but “X is not acting like Stalin right now so X doesn’t belong anywhere on the tyrant continuum” is another thing that qualifies for the list of stupid lines that need to be retired. It’s logically fallacious and historically naive.
I’m not a defender of President Obama, not much. But in what fundamental way is he a despot anymore than his predecessors over the last hundred years or so? Maybe there is actually an answer to that, but I’m wondering what folks here think it is.
Where is your argument against this charge? to your 1 and 2: 1: It isn’t free in a general sense, no. It is free to the poor, who otherwise wouldn’t have it. That has value, and anyone is free to argue that it isn’t value enough to be worth the cost. 2: I just have to dispute this. It’s always tempting to believe that something somewhere (usually education or the media) is corrupting the youth and stopping them from seeing the obvious truth–that we are right about everything–but this is fear talking. You may not want to use the public… Read more »
John M. I have been alive through 12 Presidents. Asking what one was better or worse is not possible until and unless we stipulate a standard. It would be the same question and answer for any of the other 2 branches of government. The question is akin to asking whether any story of a high rise was constructed faithfully to the blueprints and existing foundation, or not. The problem that I think we are facing is one whereby we are somewhere up on the 80th floor, looking out of the windows, and saying “none of that old stuff” matters because,… Read more »
Ahhh, That is just it. It isn’t fear talking at all. It is from an insider view, from a long, long line of insider’s views. One of the corruptions is it has convinced you and the majority of parents that they could not do it for themselves. That is one of the biggest and most influential lies it maintains by the system itself. The system which employs the bottom of the college graduate pool, that has the least training, the least oversight. If it actually provided a good education, why couldn’t it’s graduates go on to teach their own children?… Read more »
The current IRS scandal looks like the leading indicator of some pretty legitimate tyranny. Replacing your citizens with immigrants is also pretty tyrannical if you are one having to compete for jobs, housing, or social services.
Matt, What enters into a man as food is quite a bit less dangerous than what comes out of a mans heart and mind. It is these latter things that are so dangerous: “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within…” Government schools, out of their hearts, teach, indoctrinate, and implant into the minds of children one of the highest extant evils, that there is no God. (Or alternatively, that is is one, and his… Read more »
Remember the charge is to the christian:
We are to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
If we hand our children over to the secularist, relativist, feminist government institution, (unless we absolutely have no other choice),
It seems very clear that we sin when we do so.
RFB “Asking what one was better or worse is not possible until and unless we stipulate a standard.” Well neither is accusing any or all of them of despotism unless we stipulate a standard. I thought a fair amount effort had been expended in this forum attempting to do just that. I still have the question, and it is a legitimate one: Is/how is President Obama, and the government with him as chief executive, fundamentally more tyrannical, not necessarily just worse in terms of policy, than, say George Bush and company or Bill Clinton and company? Or any of their… Read more »
Government schools, out of their hearts, teach, indoctrinate, and implant into the minds of children one of the highest extant evils, that there is no God. No, they don’t. I don’t know how to convince anyone of that, other than to say that millions of people, myself included, go through the whole system without ever getting the idea that they are supposed to be atheists. To paraphrase Rumsfeld (maybe), lack of preaching is not preaching of lack. That is one of the biggest and most influential lies it maintains by the system itself. The system which employs the bottom of… Read more »
Without performing in-depth research, I can only render an opinion based upon my own observations during my life (which was not the advent of history). I do not remember any President/Administration during my lifetime being so contemptuous of the other two branches of government. I am not saying that other administrations have not wielded strong executive power, and also stood in defense of the power of their own office. Nonetheless, at very least they paid lip service to the co-equal authority of the several branches of government. The current administration seems (to me) to have an in-your-face, “if you do… Read more »
“how is President Obama, and the government with him as chief executive, fundamentally more tyrannical”
1) IRS targeting of conservative groups
2) Targeting of reporters (AP scandal)
3) Obamacare delays
4) EPA regs that cripple businesses
5) Violating the Hyde Amendment – no government fund for abortion
6) Declaring/waging war without consent of Congress
7) Gibson Guitar raid
8) GM Bailout
9) Targeting Boeing for attempting to move to a different state
10) Amnesty
11) The federal reserve printing trillions (devaluing currency)
Matt,
We are not talking about what people would do without their handouts…we are talking about what Christians should do. Sinners will sin, of that we can be sure. But what we should do is follow God’s commands. That is the issue. Regardless of whether or not it is demanding or expensive. Where are our priorities?
Indeed. We should, as a people “open wide our hands to the poor”.
To ward off an objection: That institutionalized support (whether private run or government run) isn’t strictly charity is not really relevant. It’s something else besides charity. So?
Mr. Petersen,
“That institutionalized support (whether private run or government run) isn’t strictly charity is not really relevant. It’s something else besides charity. So?”
If it is not charity, then what good is it? If I give away all I have…but have not love, I gain nothing.
The chief institution that God created, as the home of grace and charity, is the Church.
What good is it for you? Probably none.
But that’s an odd way to evaluate ways to help your neighbor. “Yeah, it may be good for him, but what’s the blow-back for me?”
Matt,
“To paraphrase Rumsfeld (maybe), lack of preaching is not preaching of lack.”
I will see that one Rumsfeld and raise you One Lord of Hosts :)
To quote The King of kings and the Lord of lords, Who alone possesses all authority in heaven and on earth, “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.”
Mr. Petersen,
You are much more well versed in the rules of logical argument than I am.
The way I would address your submission of “…ways to help your neighbor” is to first ask if what is occurring is truly defined as “help”, by saying that such a conclusion is an “opinion on facts not in evidence”.
RFB:
To quote the Lord of Hosts back at you:
“The one who is not against us is for us.”
Mr. Petersen,
And in equity, I asked “what good is it?”, not whether it was good for me.
Is it objectively good?
RFB
Yes, there can be real debate about what’s helpful. Let’s make that the debate. And let’s make sure we aren’t ideologically deciding in advance–that is, let’s listen to people, yeah, even people from the left, since they are not, in advocating government programs, opposing Christ. It’s just a difference of what works.
You asked what good is it, and then quoted St. Paul saying that if it isn’t charity you gain nothing, thus limiting the scope of the earlier question.
Mr. Petersen,
I would post that any entity that forbids the open presentation and teaching that Jesus Christ is King of kings, the Creator of all, and He now commands all men everywhere to repent and be saved, is against Him.
Mr. Petersen,
The larger scope of Paul’s teaching is all instructive in behavior regarding objectively good behavior, and charity without an object of that behavior is meaningless. Yes, we act to be first pleasing to God, and then others, but the definition of that should not come from the “left” or the right, but from the Word of God.
A few things that we gain from public assistance programs are: 1. A country where people don’t starve to death. 2. Fewer homeless people. There will always be the eccentrics who prefer it, but the problem would be much worse without welfare, especially regarding disabled and elderly. 3. Greater equality between classes, so society is less stratified and segregated i.e. easier to move around in. 4. Children aren’t quite as punished for being born to the wrong parents. 5. The consequences of oppression faced by minorities, especially blacks, is somewhat mitigated. Not an exhaustive list, but you get the idea.… Read more »
@RFB – Thanks. “not so much a cataclysm, but more like today’s mark on the wall of a tide that has been rising for some time” is probably accurate but 1) That makes the current government more tyrannical only by degree 2) There’s no guarantee the tide wouldn’t have continued to rise under any president – President Obama, whatever his faults, didn’t start the trend. @david R – Thanks. 1) IRS targeting of conservative groups Fair enough – but someone may think of examples of other administations doing something similar. I don’t have any off the top. 2) Targeting of… Read more »
Once again, we are getting lost… No one opposes those who are truly in need availing themselves of charitable programs, even those imposed by the government at this moment. If someone truly NEEDs the education provided by the state, even though it is against our Lord, I think they should have it. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the average christian family who chooses to spend their money and or time pursuing other things than the adherence to God’s commands. If you except welfare when you do not need it, further complicated by the… Read more »
Well said, carole. Sorry that I’m not Kate Cho. :)
Agreed.