Against Democracy: The Biblical Argument

[patrick jane]

I agree with Enyart's basic point (just a note: I only read the OP and didn't go listen to the podcast) but here's the thing, if majorities are evil, what are the odds of actually getting a good king? I understand that its different in a hypothetical situation where God is directly telling prophets which kings to annoint, but in a secular nation like America? Even if we try to derive our ideas about morality from the Bible (which we should) most people still won't agree with that, and they won't abide a king who does long. Not to mention that most Christians would disagree with both Bob Enyart and myself on what a good government would look like (and Bob and I disagree as well.)

Democracy is a bad idea. But monarchy isn't really a good idea either.

A constitutional republic, where the constitution is actually followed, would be better, if the constitution was decent. At least then there's some type of consistent standard. But the problem is they are rarely followed, and even if they are, they always include unjust aspects.

Anarcho-capitalism is the only good form of government, if you want to call it that.

it's called - Libertarianism/Volunteerism. free market economy. in it's true form, it's the only way. :rapture:

 

[Christian Liberty]

it's called - Libertarianism/Volunteerism. free market economy. in it's true form, it's the only way. :rapture:

That is what I was getting at, thanks.

 

[Stripe]

But with your proposal you might get an evil king for decades. good deal if you are the king.

Yes. I would rather run the risk of having a good king for a short time that commit to having an evil president all the time.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Yes. I would rather run the risk of having a good king for a short time that commit to having an evil president all the time.

So you would rather have a form of government where your rights are given to you (and hence taken away from you) by men?

You should look into a constitutional republic where the citizens rights come from God. It's the best form of government that the world has ever seen (before it's populace allowed it to become a democracy).

 

[aCultureWarrior]

it's called - Libertarianism/Volunteerism. free market economy. in it's true form, it's the only way. :rapture:

That is what I was getting at, thanks.

For those of you that don't read Libertarianism, here's what pj and CL just advocated:

Total property rights, i.e. no building codes/building inspectors, no health codes/health inspectors, no zoning laws (it's your property, you can have a nightclub in a residential district if you want).

For those of you that aren't familiar with the term "volunteerism", that basically means that all forms of human association should be voluntary (no right, no wrong, it all depends on if it's a consensual relationship).

 

[Christian Liberty]

So you would rather have a form of government where your rights are given to you (and hence taken away from you) by men?

You should look into a constitutional republic where the citizens rights come from God. It's the best form of government that the world has ever seen (before it's populace allowed it to become a democracy).

Wow... I actually pretty much agree with this...

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Wow... I actually pretty much agree with this...

How about what I said about Libertarianism and volunteerism?

 

[Christian Liberty]

You agree with it...

Until a poorly made building falls down on you and your family.

Until you eat rat (that was advertised as chicken) and die from it.

Until you're a property owner and don't like the idea of a meth house next door.

I'm actually not sure what any of those things have to do with what either you or I said.

Although, these are all pretty much emotional arguments...

A building maker is responsible for the results of his product. He just isn't threatened with legal force to have his building fit some pre-determined and arbitrary set of codes beforehand.

Serving rat advertised as chicken would be fraud. If someone died from it that would be murder as well. Punishable even in a libertarian society.

That last one though... is purely emotional. I can deal with methheads. In fact, I'd rather have a methhead as a neighbor than a cop, at least the former doesn't have the legal right to bully me.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

A building maker is responsible for the results of his product. He just isn't threatened with legal force to have his building fit some pre-determined and arbitrary set of codes beforehand.

So after 500 people die in a fire due to faulty wiring and inadequate fire exists, he'll be punished.

Serving rat advertised as chicken would be fraud. If someone died from it that would be murder as well. Punishable even in a libertarian society.

That doesn't help the person that is dead now does it?

That last one though... is purely emotional. I can deal with methheads. In fact, I'd rather have a methhead as a neighbor than a cop, at least the former doesn't have the legal right to bully me.

Well, when you grow up and actually leave mommy and daddy's home, you'll have the opportunity to seek out a house that has a meth addict next door and find out what reality is all about.

 

[Christian Liberty]

For those of you that don't read Libertarianism, here's what pj and CL just advocated:

Total property rights, i.e. no building codes/building inspectors, no health codes/health inspectors, no zoning laws (it's your property, you can have a nightclub in a residential district if you want).

For those of you that aren't familiar with the term "volunteerism", that basically means that all forms of human association should be voluntary (no right, no wrong, it all depends on if it's a consensual relationship).

First of all, its "voluntarism" not "volunteerism." I let it slide the first time because it wasn't a big deal but if you're going to try to refute a philosophy you should probably know what its called.

Most of the laws you are advocating don't even pass theonomic standards. Let's start with theonomy. That might be something we can work with. I'm going to quote McDurmon and let you deal with it:

Understanding this distinction not only refutes many modern Christians who reject God’s Law as the standard for state law, but it convicts them sternly also. These same people who will fight and ridicule against biblical law, and even wrongly demean it as legalism, will turn right around and advocate politically for all kinds of unbiblical laws they think will make society better. Thus most conservative Christians support unbiblical wars including the war on drugs, social security, government education, laws against prostitution, laws against alcohol and tobacco, sin taxes, many social services including many cases of child-stealing—the list is legion. Even though some of the things such laws oppose are damnable sins, biblical law does not describe them as civil crimes, and thus God did not decree any laws or sanctions for them. Why do we think we can create a society better than God’s? We cannot, and our attempts to do so are the real Pharisaism that is helping to destroy our society.

Note that the guy who wrote this is NOT a "libertarian" by the normal definition. He's a theonomist.
http://store.americanvision.org/blo...ould-nail-jesus-all-over-again-and-he-s-right

And to correct one other thing, voluntarism does indeed say that voluntary relationships shouldn't be interfered with by force, but it does not follow that all such relationships are right. What you're saying is like saying that pacifists inherently think murder is morally OK. Would you make that claim?

How about what I said about Libertarianism and volunteerism?

Nope, don't agree with that, sorry.

 

[Christian Liberty]

So after 500 people die in a fire due to faulty wiring and inadequate fire exists, he'll be punished.

I believe that people should only be punished after they actually do something that harms someone else, rather than beforehand because their actions "might" cause harm to someone else. What you advocate is a recipe for tyranny.

That doesn't help the person that is dead now does it?

Freedom requires risk. Sorry.

Well, when you grow up and actually leave mommy and daddy's home, you'll have the opportunity to seek out a house that has a meth addict next door and find out what reality is all about.

I actually don't live at home. I'm an on campus college student now. At what may well be the most conservative college in the United States.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

First of all, its "voluntarism" not "volunteerism."

It's spelled various ways (voluntaryism is one). It's basically consensual morality (anything goes as long as their is no aggression (NAP).

Most of the laws you are advocating don't even pass theonomic standards. Let's start with theonomy. That might be something we can work with. I'm going to quote McDurmon and let you deal with it:

Note that the guy who wrote this is NOT a "libertarian" by the normal definition. He's a theonomist.

I know all about the dope peddler Joel McDurmon and his father in law Gary North who was an aid to Ron Paul and continues to be a close friend.

My question is this: How did a conservative like Gary DeMar get mixed up with a bunch of nutcases like North, Paul and McDurmon?

And to correct one other thing, voluntarism does indeed say that voluntary relationships shouldn't be interfered with by force, but it does not follow that all such relationships are right.

If the force of law is prohibited from interfering with "voluntary relationships" then the law is saying that those relationships are right.

You still haven't figured out that the law is a moral teaching: either is says that the behavior is acceptable or not.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I believe that people should only be punished after they actually do something that harms someone else, rather than beforehand because their actions "might" cause harm to someone else. What you advocate is a recipe for tyranny.

Removing responsible laws (like making certain people are safe in your building due to building codes) is nothing but anarchy.

Freedom requires risk. Sorry.

Freedom requires responsibility.

I actually don't live at home. I'm an on campus college student now. At what may well be the most conservative college in the United States.

I bet that your dorm has a drug free policy. Why do you think that is?

 

[Stripe]

So you would rather have a form of government where your rights are given to you (and hence taken away from you) by men?

Rights come from God regardless of the system that is in force.

You should look into a constitutional republic where the citizens rights come from God. It's the best form of government that the world has ever seen (before it's populace allowed it to become a democracy).

We are probably talking about very similar things in practice. :idunno:

 

[Jonahdog]

I believe that people should only be punished after they actually do something that harms someone else, rather than beforehand because their actions "might" cause harm to someone else. What you advocate is a recipe for tyranny.




I actually don't live at home. I'm an on campus college student now. At what may well be the most conservative college in the United States.

So using ACW's example, the guy who built the building that later caught fire walks away scot free and gets to build more lousy buildings. Thats a recipe for him to make a ton of $ which would seem to be what you like.
Unless of course it is your campus dorm that burns down, right?
Are you suggesting there should be no building codes at all?

 

[Christian Liberty]

It's spelled various ways (voluntaryism is one). It's basically consensual morality (anything goes as long as their is no aggression (NAP).

Legality =/= morality.

I know all about the dope peddler Joel McDurmon and his father in law Gary North who was an aid to Ron Paul and continues to be a close friend.

My question is this: How did a conservative like Gary DeMar get mixed up with a bunch of nutcases like North, Paul and McDurmon?

As far as I can tell DeMar is a theonomic reconstructionist just like North and McDurmon (Ron Paul isn't, he's a libertarian.) I'm pretty sure DeMar would agree with McDurmon on the quote I posted. As I'll be going to church soon, I'll check later.

If the force of law is prohibited from interfering with "voluntary relationships" then the law is saying that those relationships are right.

You still haven't figured out that the law is a moral teaching: either is says that the behavior is acceptable or not.

If the force of law doesn't interfere with gluttony, does that mean gluttony is right?

And no, I'm not denying that homosexuality is worse than gluttony. But you can't have this particular issue both ways. Either making something legal endorses it or it doesn't. This is a dichotomy.

Removing responsible laws (like making certain people are safe in your building due to building codes) is nothing but anarchy.

Do you even know what that word means?

Freedom requires responsibility.

Indeed. Responsibility for what you do wrong. Not what you may or may not do wrong in the future.

I bet that your dorm has a drug free policy. Why do you think that is?

Private properties can, and even sometimes should, set such policies. I am not advocating license for druggies to use drugs on other people's property without their consent.

 

[Christian Liberty]

So using ACW's example, the guy who built the building that later caught fire walks away scot free and gets to build more lousy buildings. Thats a recipe for him to make a ton of $ which would seem to be what you like.
Unless of course it is your campus dorm that burns down, right?
Are you suggesting there should be no building codes at all?

He'd be punished for the damage he caused including damage to human life. If it was accidental the crime would be mitigated to manslaughter but if it was his fault due to negligence he would still be punished.

But, yes, the government shouldn't control what people can build in advance. I doubt this was really controversial when America was founded.

 

[Jonahdog]

He'd be punished for the damage he caused including damage to human life. If it was accidental the crime would be mitigated to manslaughter but if it was his fault due to negligence he would still be punished.

But, yes, the government shouldn't control what people can build in advance. I doubt this was really controversial when America was founded.

Punished by whom, how and why? What standard would he be held to? If truly an "accident" he would not seem at fault, so why punish him? If negligent, what is the standard he would be held to? Is the punishment imprisonment, if so there would need to be a criminal standard on the books. If just $, who determines how much?

And you really want to go back to what was or was not controversial in the late 1700's? Yet you use the internet. See some irony there?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Punished by whom, how and why?

If we have a minimal state than they would do it. Long term I'd love to get to the point where we'd have a competetive and privately funded court system, the mechanics of which are discussed in a series of videos known as "law without government" (though I think the name "law without the State" would have been more accurate.) The first one is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEdSDDo

Finding the other two from there should be easy, but if you need help let me know and I'll happily help you.

What standard would he be held to? If truly an "accident" he would not seem at fault, so why punish him? If negligent, what is the standard he would be held to? Is the punishment imprisonment, if so there would need to be a criminal standard on the books. If just $, who determines how much?

I may have said "punish" but that probably isn't the right term. He would have to compensate his victim. No prisons. Prisons are both unbiblical and senseless. They do nothing to help the victim, the victim must be taken from in order to fund them, and they surround criminals with other criminals which just makes them better at crime.

Assuming only property damage was done, monetary restitution would almost certainly be imposed by the arbitrators. If someone died it gets trickier. What the punishment should be would depend on whether he was negligent. If he was not negligent and it was just a random, unforeseeable accident (say a Category 5 hurricane comes through and blows the house down) than I don't think he would be liable, either for life or for property damage. If he was negligent, I would say manslaughter and while I would say the victim's family COULD demand his life depending on how negligent he was, I would say it would be better if they accepted monetary restitution (with a period of indentured servitude if needed) rather than taking the mans' life since he didn't kill on purpose.

And you really want to go back to what was or was not controversial in the late 1700's? Yet you use the internet. See some irony there?

Not really. The Founders would not have believed it would be wrong to invent the internet, they just didn't have the technology yet. But this new idea of paternalistic and controlling government is terrible. Though, I noticed you are an atheist so you might not see the problems with that.