As soon as a government gets involved the result is always a managed / socialist economy.

In a true liberal system admittedly there will be a few losers, but in in a socialist economy everyone loses.

Given a monetary system whereby governments (via a central bank) control and issue money by fiat

I see no genuine reason for taxation. Other than to create demand for the governments worthless fiat money- which coincidently is the only meduium accepted to pay the liabilities.

What I think this all boils down to is that governments today essentially “pick winners” and that the entrepreneurs ability to succeed is too often adversely effected by the whims of government.

Worse, I agree that most people don’t intend evil or think their actions are evil. If you look through Hitler’s eyes, he was just eliminating those who made the species weaker or were just useless eaters or whatever. Stalin was preserving his state and spreading the wonderful benefits of communism to the entire world. Doctors like Benjamin Rush would bleed people because they thought they had too much of the sanguine humor and that is why they got the fever (while swatting at the pesky misquitoes). Keynes (need I say more?).

I have never said I consider the state or government as anything but an evil. At best a useful evil. Much like war itself, which is only just when defensive against a serious incursion. It is better to suffer many, many, petty evils than to give government the power to supress them. But there are some evils which need suppression, and then either we are all our own governments – being judge, jury, and executioner – or there must be a standard indicating which evils will not be tolerated collectively. Hell is not a good or good, but it was created so that the evil beings would not have to stay in heaven. Government is invoking hell upon those who are so disruptive to society as to be beyond toleration.

Is freedom a threshold thing – where unless you are above some level it is not able to preserve itself?

And what of the times freedom is thought of as an evil (freedom of thought, speech, religion…)? Will good men still defend it, and if so, on what basis – duty? tradition?

It is the tiny vices which destroy freedom. That is why I tremble when I see avarice, lust, gluttony, sloth, or the other deadly sins advocated in the name of liberty or freedom. Vices will exist as we are all fallen, but every time I fall, I realize I’m destroying my and your freedom, or at least taking the first step toward that end. When freedom is destroyed – when people have power over others, be it violent or economic or something else, the devil steps in and takes over the machinery and uses it for his ends.

The little sloth where they won’t vote for honest or freedom loving candidates or serve in a militia. The little avarice where they will bribe someone or take a bribe. The little gluttony where they want the extra few inches of property. The little pride where they are too good to do something like guard duty. The little envy that won’t help the neighbor in trouble but prefers the schadenfreude. Good people. But not saints. Not good enough to preserve freedom.

I’ve been told what amounts to the following: If I can require using any form of coercion actions necessary to the maintainence of freedom, then it is not freedom. (The $5 police tax v.s. the $500 to a mercenary company).

If good people won’t do it on their own, and you won’t admit of any coercion even when it is vital to preserve freedom, then why do you think it will be preserved?

I appreciate the tips on the readings. I am familiar with Lewis but not the others. Faith is a personal thing and I think the point Lew was making with his article is that freedom from any form of coercion allows one to beleive in whatever they desire. I know George Mason was thinking that when he wrote Article III of the Bill of Rights, what we refer to as the first amendment. However, I think Lew states, and I agree, that we need to go courageously further up the path toward freedom — totally. Including faith, money, etc. Freedom truly is a righteous ideal.

You’re exactly right when you say if one accepts the “premise”, then everything falls into place, the premise being that the Bible truly is a supernatural revelation of God to man. Rather than attempt a lengthy defense of that premise here, I refer you to a couple of authors who can do it much more completely and elegantly than I can: Josh MacDowell, in: Evidence That Demands a Verdict (2 Volumes, I think); and just about anything written by Francis Schaeffer, especially: Death in the City; and, He Is There and He is Not Silent. These address all the concerns you noted. Also, just about anything written by C.S. Lewis is worth reading in that regard.

Regards, David

Thanks for the encouraging words. I intend to keep working for freedom and I do agree with you that given the knowledge, most people would choose freedom. In a natural state, we are all barbarians. The discovery of knowledge and its trasnfer creates civilization and the barbarians amongst us will use power in a barbaric state or a civilized one to subjugate the rest of us.

As for your comment that social and cultural factors are part of the reason that people choose to be controlled — I must agree. It really comes down to lazy parenting and a lack of acknowledgement of the difference between intelligence and knowledge.

Ralph, I agree, the 16th ammendment IS unconstitutional and unethical. It was never ratified, it was enacted. How can an occupied sovreign state ratify an amendment to a compact initiated by the occuppier?

In the long run, I think there are reasons to hope. The whole classical liberal movement was about changing the politics of previous centuries from monarchies and empires to liberal democracies, and increasing the focus on the value of the individual, his freedom and rights. It’s true that liberal democracies have fallen short of the ideal, but they do at least have that ideal in mind.

I don’t think that it’s inevitable that humans choose to be controlled, but rather social and cultural factors that make people lean that way. The nature of humans is to thrive with freedom, not control.
The next few hundred years will probably involve humanity’s review of the classical liberal ideal, picking it apart and separating the contradictory ideas in it, and rebuilding it on firmer principles. While libertarianism seems to be unsatisfactory to most people, I’m convinced that the non-aggression principle is important and must be adopted if humanity is to continue making political and social progress.

Our job today seems to be one of improving on libertarianism as best we can and keeping the ideal alive. With technology like the internet, though, we may be able to discredit bad ideas and make improvements faster, and it certainly allows the ideas to be readily disseminated to those who look for it.

If Jesus advocated the continuation of God’s law, as he did in Matthew chapters 5-7, the result would have been constant division and individuation. Not only did Jesus realize this, but stated it as one purpose of his ministry in Matthew 10:34-38.

We can conclude from this that God’s law aims toward both non-coercion and freedom. If the physical mind cannot be subject to God’s law, a nation “under God” must be a nation that is not under law. A nation of necessity under law cannot be a nation under God.

Regarding the government’s power to tax, Jesus himelf made a direct connection between law, taxes, money and images when he took a coin and asked “Whose image is on this coin?”

The second commandment tells us that we are not to make any graven images or likeness of any kind, and we are not to bow down and serve them. Since God himself has decreed that we cannot be subject to His laws, can a nation claim a power that God Himself will not claim? Not according to the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

Neither can the Federal Reserve Board claim exclusive right to print images on paper that is a monopolistic “legal tender for all debt….”

The logic behid this is simple. Since all value derived from such notes is completly dependent on government coercion, or power derived from the gun, it stands in direct contradiction to the second commandment and to God’s will, since He places no coercion on obedience to His law.

Consequently, the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional.

Ralph

As for restoring our lost freedoms, those we enjoyed in the early years after the revolution, we need to become better evangelists for freedom because most of the country doesn’t agree with us. We could put forward candidates who would act as recking balls against the laws and judges who limit our freedoms, but they would fail because we’re too small in number.

With regard to your prediction:

“…my guestimate: 80% chance of collapse within five years…”

You write: “Take note and see if I’m not right!!”

Of course you MUST be right. Couching your prediction in terms of probability assures you cannot be wrong.

I just finished a (rather lengthy) reply to some of your comments, and then made a miscue which sent it all into cyberspace! So here’s a second attempt which, given my deflated state of mind, will probably be lots shorter. I’m sure you’re thankful for that!

Anyway, thank you for your polite and thoughtful commentary. To address your concerns:

“Can a theocracy operate without the evil that power brings?” Not with human beings the way they are. The human operatives must be beyond corruption. Witness the hated regime of the mullahs in Iran who presume to speak for Allah. But according to the Bible, there will be a theocracy ruled by a Man who is perfect, perfectly wise, and completely able to do all that He desires. In other words, absolute power will be joined with impeccable character.

How can we, as finite beings, contemplate the Infinite? Good question. The truth is, man, beginning from himself, can never find God or know the truth of Him. Such knowlege must come from revelation to man. Revelation, according to the Bible, comes in two forms, general and specific. The general revelation comes from inspection of the world and universe we find ourselves in and can tell us basically two things about God–that He is infinitely powerful and that He is Other, outside of the created order which we ordinarily perceive. The specific revelation contained in scripture reveals many other things about God both in propositional statements, and in narratives and illustrations. It reveals a God who is first of all personal (this is very important), and also perfect in all His qualities–power, knowledge, morality, etc. It also reveals to us what He expects of us. These expectations are both ridiculously simple and terrifyingly difficult: “Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God”; “Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself”.

The problem always was, and is, that humans are fallible. The Bible calls them fallen, that is, that they were once what they should be, and now they are not. This is a crucial point. If we approach humankind, and the world, as though they are what they’re meant to be–that they’re normal–we just won’t understand the situation. The Bible says that people are abnormal, and that the world is abnormal. Some day, a normalization will occur, and has already begun. The normalization process will reach its future fulfillment in the perfection of both human beings and the created order.

Regarding your concern with the “master-slave” relationship: I understand your concern, based upon the history of this relationship with fallen humanity. But we were actually made for this. God made us for Himself. He placed “eternity in (our) hearts” so that we wouldn’t be satisfied with anything less than the Infinite and Eternal. Money, power, pleasure, fame–all the things we have tried to substitute for Him–will not fill up the “God-shaped vacuum” within us. In the coming order, the greatest will be the servant of all. Even now, we sometimes call our government officials “public servants”, which is a little too hopeful in light of the reality. But some day it will really be true. And we ourselves will rule as servants of His. Jesus commended the centurion because he understood the concept of authority (Matt. 8) which undergirds the entire order of the universe. He basically recognized that since Jesus was obedient to Authority, He had the delegated power to drive out sickness and disease. And Jesus applauded him. Then He healed the centurion’s servant.

There’s much more to say, but rest assured that the One whose we are and whom we serve will never take advantage of us. He has nothing to gain from anything we can give him, except to be loved by us, which is His highest joy. Anyway, that’s long enough for now. I’m going to post this before I lose it again!

Blessings, David

So the libertarian action plan for the future is to wait for the American welfare-warfare state to collapse? This notion seems no more effective and is about as satisfying as Rockwell’s action plan which is, presumably, to wait for government to abdicate, i.e., “to walk away from society, culture, economy, and the world stage of international politics.”

I’m sorry. I don’t believe the U.S. federal government will abdicate its authority any time soon. Nor do I believe its collapse is inevitable. Nor do I believe that, if a collapse should occur, a “massive devolution of power” from the federal government to the states will necessarily result. As I’ve said before, the opposite is just as likely to happen.

As for the internet, I agree it is a wondrous communication/marketing tool, but its users are a “society” only in the loosest meaning of the word. Sure it is “stateless,” but then again so are worldwide news services and Walmart.

For as great as it is, not one mouthful of food has ever been grown on the internet and individuals who use the internet still must reside somewhere. And though the internet is self-regulating, it is not self-policing. Individuals who are victims of internet fraud rely on state and local law and order agencies to obtain justice.

With the collapse of the American welfare-warfare state (which I believe is inevitable, given that the government is bankrupt and is only being sustained through lending by foreign central banks), we will see a massive devolution of power — first to the individual states and then, hopefully, to smaller units of governance that include experiments in stateless society.

Depending on how successful these experiments are (and I believe some will be extremely successful), government by consent of the governed will at long last be a reality, as people are allowed to choose between forms of governance that include, but are not limited to, states, which I also believe will “wither away” in the face of a rapidly changing world.

Consider, for instance, how the “stateless” Internet is changing the world as I write: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/garris3.html

Only the naive imagine a world in which all human beings believe in the same social philosophy, or, for that matter, believe in the same idea of what constitutes right and wrong, good and evil.

Humans resolve these differences either by means of war or politics. I prefer politics.

If our constitutional democratic republic has failed us, and if traditional Libertarian politics do more harm than good, then how does Mr. Rockwell propose we bring about the “complete revolution in economic and political life” he hopes for?

Good job. I’ve been trying ways to say the very same things, and your excellent work has given me some insights and ideas.

Your sentiments are correct, although I have to ponder. Can a theocracy operate wihout the evil that power brings? Additionally, for us to contemplate God, which is infinite, as finite beings, is a futile effort. How can we know that we are being ‘ruled’ by a benevolent king. The entire concept of ‘rule’ is a master-slave relationship, irrespective of the benevolence of the ruler. Is a benevolent ruler preferred? Of course. However, no ruler is best.

As for the citizenry being unrightous — I couldn’t agree more. That is precisely why we live in a tyranny of the majority. The solution is not to look for a rightous citizenry, but simply to have no citizenry at all. If we are all independent, free individuals then rightosness will prevail. Will evil exist? Most certainly. Yet a free society of individuals engaged in voluntary social exchange will efficiently and effectively deal with evil.

How can I make these statements, which seemingly disagree with you while I claim to agree with you? Again, it is simple. Free will and rational self-interest are bestowed upon us by our Creator; therefore, they are the natural and rightous manner in which we should live.

Merry Christmas.

Interesting article, and the person whose worldview is uninformed by the Bible would tend to agree with you. You mentioned that Moses courageously stood against Pharaoh in insisting that all the shackles of government be removed from the Israelites, if I remember it correctly. That’s true as far as the shackles of Egyptian government were concerned. God had a much “easier yoke” for Israel in mind–a theocracy. His rule was absolutely just and benevolent. A better form of government could not be devised. Under the Judges (let’s skip over the failures and disasters on the part of Israel for the time being) Israel had a very light load. All they had to do was support the Aaronic priesthood and perform prescribed sacrifices which, compared to past and present governmental claims, were remarkably unburdensome. But Israel proved unable to handle such freedom. When the opportunity arose, they even clamored for a king, and brought upon themselves untold grief. Time doesn’t permit me to go into all these events in detail. The point I make is, if Israel was unable to deal with the absolutely righteous and benevolent rule of God, what makes us presume we can function in the absence of any rule whatsoever? The assertion that government is inherently illegitimate is both utopian and unbiblical. (I realize that that second point probably carries little weight with many, but I include it because I’m interested in the truth.)

Afghanistan is a good example of a place without cohesive central government. In the absence of overarching power, until recently the country was ruled by a number of local chieftains, sometimes referred to as warlords. If you look in the Bible you’ll see the same arrangement. This is the normal civil pattern in the absence of larger nation-states. Why? Two reasons occur to me, both having to do with the fallen nature of man. First, power is a great attraction, and powerful people sieze power. The only thing to keep them from doing so is greater power. The trick is to ensure that the greatest power is benevolent. This has been a hard one to accomplish over the centuries. Second, related to the first, people need protection from those who would prey upon them. St. Paul says the very same thing in Romans 13–that governments (even bad ones!) are from God, and exist in order to restrain evil. Feel free to disagree with Paul if you like, but as for me, I’ll take whatever he, and the Book, have to say over someone else’s opinion.

What libertarians desire, and I’m with them on this, is a situation where peace, prosperity, and freedom prevail. I think that what they don’t fully understand is that in order for this to happen righteousness must also prevail. This isn’t going to happen in the present state of affairs. Even with perfectly righteous government, the citizenry are unrighteous, and wouldn’t stand for righteous government any more that the Israelites did. God usually lets us have our way and gives us the tyranny we demand. But a time IS coming, in which an absolutely just and righteous government will prevail, with an absolutely just and righteous King. That’s what we all long for, whether we realize it or not. Some will reject this King: “We will not have this Man to rule over us”–but it won’t alter the outcome, only the outcome of the rejecter. The fact of the matter is, He WILL reign:

“For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end”

Merry Christmas!

David