Because we're right, that's why
I've run across several articles and stories in the MSM lately gleefully proclaiming that the Republican Party is on the verge of blowing apart because of the inherent incompatibility of social conservatives (such as myself) and libertarians. After Bush, the chorus chants, the deluge. Or rather, the deluge seems to have already started; "economic conservatives" and libertarians are scurrying (prematurely, in my opinion) off what they perceive (again, prematurely, I think) to be the sinking USS Bush like so many rats.
I do not welcome their departure. The fact is that, as uncomfortable as our alliance is, we need each other if the things we agree about are to have any chance of prevailing. Alone, neither wing of the Republican Party would ever accomplish anything; there simply aren't enough of us. And unlike the ideological purists of the economic and libertarian Right, I think accomplishing things is the whole point. I have never derived much satisfaction from merely being right; it's always seemed to me that doing something constructive about it is rather important, too.
But the alliance which has brought the Republican Party to power and kept it there for the past decade or so is certainly a marriage of convenience. I frankly have no use for libertarianism as an ideology. In fact, I see libertarianism as being as much of a problem in the struggle for the future of human society as liberalism. Not only does history not persuade me that human nature is perfectable, as liberalism implies, but still less does it persuade me of the libertarian conceit that human nature thrives any better without reasonable constraint. True freedom, in fact, is only possible where a balance is struck between the two. The weak have to be protected from the strong, and the freedom of some must often be protected by restricting the freedom of others. Sometimes the welfare of all of us requires restrictions on the freedom any of us may exercise- and the benefits of living in society reasonably require our contribution to the common welfare in taxes and perhaps otherwise. That's the price of living in human society; the Law of the Jungle may be many things, but a prescription for a constitutional utopia is most assuredly not one of them!
Others disagree. I honor their idealism. I do not admire their naivete. My reading of history and of human nature teaches me the same thing my faith does: that (Ronald Reagan's Pollyanna-ish epitaph to the contrary) man is not good. He is fallen. Or, to use secular language, he is self-centered and self-destructive. His freedom must be safeguarded with constraint; left to his own devices, he always manages to manufacture his own shackles- or to dig his own grave.
We need the restraints of law, yes- but even more of social convention- the condensed wisdom of the centuries- for our own good.
But what happens when those restraints collapse? Since the 'Sixties, we have largely abandoned the ambition to balance obligations with privileges, and rights with responsibilities. My generation- the generation of the 'Sixties, the Baby Boomers, the most self- important, the most self-indulgent, and in my personal opinion one of the least worthy in Western history- managed in the space of a single generation to elevate childish, petulantly selfish shallowness to the status of the single most dominant of our cultural values. Is an ethical corner frustrating? Cut it. Is a promise inconvenient? Break it. Is a marriage difficult? Divorce her- or convince a court that she would never want to live the way she is, and starve her to death. Are the kids a pain? Abandon them. Afraid of commitment? Go head- start a family anyway; you can always walk away if it turns out not to be to your liking.
Is a pregnancy inconvenient? Off the kid. After all, the Supreme Court says that it's your constitutional right. It's just that nobody told the Founding Fathers.
This is not to say that mine was the first generation to sin. We're just the first generation to demand that it be allowed to do so with an easy conscience, while everybody else applauds. And as our culture's ongoing travail over homosexuality illustrates, it isn't mere tolerance for our chosen behavior which is demanded these days; it's precisely applause.
And it isn't working. That's the point: it just isn't working. It has become the received wisdom that truth and values are relative, that all paths are equally valid- consequences aside. But as I believe it was Einstein once observed, the universe is remarkably unimpressed by our likes and our dislikes- and it remains unconvinced when we indulge our beliefs about the "validity" of the objective fact that different behaviors have different consequences.
We are even warned against judging other cultures by our own, and told that their ideals- antithetical to the very values of humanity and tolerance we pride ourselves on upholding- are every bit as valid as our own. Yes, we have violated our own ideals; sometimes we still do. But we at least have the grace to deplore our own inconsistency and hypocrisy. How can we at the same time claim that others are justified in embracing and even celebrating what we condemn in ourselves?
We speak of multi-culturalism, ignoring the deeper truth C.S. Lewis wrote about: that of the Tao , the Way- the universal ethic St. Paul writes about in Romans 1, imprinted on us all, which undergirds all the ethical and cultural diversity that exists on this planet with a far binds humanity together in a system of ethical values which is far more similar than different from culture to culture, from the most primitive society to the most technologically advanced.
One respects God, or the gods, or merely the way of things. One respects sacred time, if only by recreating and celebrating what one thinks of as purely secular; one honors ones parents and respects lawful authority. One does not murder others, or do them arbitrary or malicious harm- and helps them when one can. One respects marriage, as one's culture sees it, and the reputation of others, and their property.
That the above is a brief summary of the Ten Commandments (stated more as sociology than as theology) doesn't make it a religious manifesto. Just a description of the way pretty much every society that has ever existed has discovered is the only way in which it's possible for it to thrive. Within these rules, there is a great deal of variation from culture to culture. But few cultures, if any, stand outside of them. The reason is simple: we all share the same human nature, and all of our common experience on this planet (and some would say the blurred and indistinct imprint of our Creator upon us as well) teaches us that to transgress these rules- rules for human society as immutable as the laws of physics- is to court disaster.
Which, since the 'Sixties, is exactly what we have done. It has been the lot of social conservatives ever since then to point out that it just isn't working. And as Dennis Byrne points out at Real Clear Politics the bottom line is, quite simply, that social conservatives have been proven, over and over again, to be right.
The basic institutions of society- heterosexual marriage, monogamy, two-parent families, and all the rest- did not evolve by accident. They have been in place as long as human society has because when they are abandoned, things go terribly wrong. Conservative Christians such as myself would maintain that they are in fact, institutions of God Himself. But divine mandate or merely the wisdom of the ages on the topic of how it's possible to achieve the greatest amount of freedom and happiness for human beings in this particular universe, when we ignore them, we harvest what we sow.
As we have, ever since the 'Sixties. And as Byrne points out, it has been a bitter crop.
It's not that we social conservatives are trying to impose our morality on others. We merely urge the claims of common sense- of the necessity of avoiding natural consequences which keep being demonstrated anew, study after study, survey after survey, year after year, broken life after broken life, to be remarkably unimpressed by our preference that they not follow from our actions.
Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over, and each time expecting a different result. And the way we've been doing things since the 'Sixties isn't working.
It's time to do what works again.
I do not welcome their departure. The fact is that, as uncomfortable as our alliance is, we need each other if the things we agree about are to have any chance of prevailing. Alone, neither wing of the Republican Party would ever accomplish anything; there simply aren't enough of us. And unlike the ideological purists of the economic and libertarian Right, I think accomplishing things is the whole point. I have never derived much satisfaction from merely being right; it's always seemed to me that doing something constructive about it is rather important, too.
But the alliance which has brought the Republican Party to power and kept it there for the past decade or so is certainly a marriage of convenience. I frankly have no use for libertarianism as an ideology. In fact, I see libertarianism as being as much of a problem in the struggle for the future of human society as liberalism. Not only does history not persuade me that human nature is perfectable, as liberalism implies, but still less does it persuade me of the libertarian conceit that human nature thrives any better without reasonable constraint. True freedom, in fact, is only possible where a balance is struck between the two. The weak have to be protected from the strong, and the freedom of some must often be protected by restricting the freedom of others. Sometimes the welfare of all of us requires restrictions on the freedom any of us may exercise- and the benefits of living in society reasonably require our contribution to the common welfare in taxes and perhaps otherwise. That's the price of living in human society; the Law of the Jungle may be many things, but a prescription for a constitutional utopia is most assuredly not one of them!
Others disagree. I honor their idealism. I do not admire their naivete. My reading of history and of human nature teaches me the same thing my faith does: that (Ronald Reagan's Pollyanna-ish epitaph to the contrary) man is not good. He is fallen. Or, to use secular language, he is self-centered and self-destructive. His freedom must be safeguarded with constraint; left to his own devices, he always manages to manufacture his own shackles- or to dig his own grave.
We need the restraints of law, yes- but even more of social convention- the condensed wisdom of the centuries- for our own good.
But what happens when those restraints collapse? Since the 'Sixties, we have largely abandoned the ambition to balance obligations with privileges, and rights with responsibilities. My generation- the generation of the 'Sixties, the Baby Boomers, the most self- important, the most self-indulgent, and in my personal opinion one of the least worthy in Western history- managed in the space of a single generation to elevate childish, petulantly selfish shallowness to the status of the single most dominant of our cultural values. Is an ethical corner frustrating? Cut it. Is a promise inconvenient? Break it. Is a marriage difficult? Divorce her- or convince a court that she would never want to live the way she is, and starve her to death. Are the kids a pain? Abandon them. Afraid of commitment? Go head- start a family anyway; you can always walk away if it turns out not to be to your liking.
Is a pregnancy inconvenient? Off the kid. After all, the Supreme Court says that it's your constitutional right. It's just that nobody told the Founding Fathers.
This is not to say that mine was the first generation to sin. We're just the first generation to demand that it be allowed to do so with an easy conscience, while everybody else applauds. And as our culture's ongoing travail over homosexuality illustrates, it isn't mere tolerance for our chosen behavior which is demanded these days; it's precisely applause.
And it isn't working. That's the point: it just isn't working. It has become the received wisdom that truth and values are relative, that all paths are equally valid- consequences aside. But as I believe it was Einstein once observed, the universe is remarkably unimpressed by our likes and our dislikes- and it remains unconvinced when we indulge our beliefs about the "validity" of the objective fact that different behaviors have different consequences.
We are even warned against judging other cultures by our own, and told that their ideals- antithetical to the very values of humanity and tolerance we pride ourselves on upholding- are every bit as valid as our own. Yes, we have violated our own ideals; sometimes we still do. But we at least have the grace to deplore our own inconsistency and hypocrisy. How can we at the same time claim that others are justified in embracing and even celebrating what we condemn in ourselves?
We speak of multi-culturalism, ignoring the deeper truth C.S. Lewis wrote about: that of the Tao , the Way- the universal ethic St. Paul writes about in Romans 1, imprinted on us all, which undergirds all the ethical and cultural diversity that exists on this planet with a far binds humanity together in a system of ethical values which is far more similar than different from culture to culture, from the most primitive society to the most technologically advanced.
One respects God, or the gods, or merely the way of things. One respects sacred time, if only by recreating and celebrating what one thinks of as purely secular; one honors ones parents and respects lawful authority. One does not murder others, or do them arbitrary or malicious harm- and helps them when one can. One respects marriage, as one's culture sees it, and the reputation of others, and their property.
That the above is a brief summary of the Ten Commandments (stated more as sociology than as theology) doesn't make it a religious manifesto. Just a description of the way pretty much every society that has ever existed has discovered is the only way in which it's possible for it to thrive. Within these rules, there is a great deal of variation from culture to culture. But few cultures, if any, stand outside of them. The reason is simple: we all share the same human nature, and all of our common experience on this planet (and some would say the blurred and indistinct imprint of our Creator upon us as well) teaches us that to transgress these rules- rules for human society as immutable as the laws of physics- is to court disaster.
Which, since the 'Sixties, is exactly what we have done. It has been the lot of social conservatives ever since then to point out that it just isn't working. And as Dennis Byrne points out at Real Clear Politics the bottom line is, quite simply, that social conservatives have been proven, over and over again, to be right.
The basic institutions of society- heterosexual marriage, monogamy, two-parent families, and all the rest- did not evolve by accident. They have been in place as long as human society has because when they are abandoned, things go terribly wrong. Conservative Christians such as myself would maintain that they are in fact, institutions of God Himself. But divine mandate or merely the wisdom of the ages on the topic of how it's possible to achieve the greatest amount of freedom and happiness for human beings in this particular universe, when we ignore them, we harvest what we sow.
As we have, ever since the 'Sixties. And as Byrne points out, it has been a bitter crop.
It's not that we social conservatives are trying to impose our morality on others. We merely urge the claims of common sense- of the necessity of avoiding natural consequences which keep being demonstrated anew, study after study, survey after survey, year after year, broken life after broken life, to be remarkably unimpressed by our preference that they not follow from our actions.
Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over, and each time expecting a different result. And the way we've been doing things since the 'Sixties isn't working.
It's time to do what works again.
Comments
But I want to suggest another reading of part of your post:
The weak have to be protected from the strong, and the freedom of some must often be protected by restricting the freedom of others.
If by this you mean laws agains murder, rape, and stealing, I'm all for it.
Sometimes the welfare of all of us requires restrictions on the freedom any of us may exercise-
You mean COULD exercise if there were no law?
and the benefits of living in society reasonably require our contribution to the common welfare in taxes and perhaps otherwise. That's the price of living in human society;
I think a market is a good way for people to pay for the benefits of living in a society. The trouble is, I've heard the same language used by Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden. Generic talk about the cost of living in society. But nobody ever tries to tally up a real bill, because nobody can. Because a government provides many benefits, to be sure, but many are unwanted ones. To make sure people get what they do want, a market is a better solution.
the Law of the Jungle may be many things, but a prescription for a constitutional utopia is most assuredly not one of them!
If you have laws against murder, rape, and stealing, you are not living by the Law of the Jungle. And the goal is not utopia, but justice. How well could you make the case for Republicanism if as soon as you finished, someone immediately said, "Well, that's certainly not going to lead to Utopia!"
I really wonder whether you think the eight hour day is a good idea. Or people of all races getting to vote. Or old, poor, retired people getting to go to the doctor and eat. Government intervention is responsible for of those things, Jeff- and many, many more. As usual, the world you advocate is actually a romantic vision of a never-never land that could never be. It is a world which you would- as usual- not like living in very much, if you ever had the chance.
I said "It's time to do what works again." I've listed only a few of the things government involvement in areas where libertarianism doesn't want it to be have accomplished; look around you. There are too many more to count.
Libertarianism, on the other hand, doesn't work; that's always been the problem! In fact, we've never had a libertarian government; such a thing is not possible. The Founders quickly discovered that there would always be people who would decide that too many of their liberties were being compromised no matter how limited government might be.
The use of government to make society better has given us what until recently was the highest standard of living in human history. It has made public accomodations, including schools, available to people of all races, and is largely responsible for whatever racial progress we've made in this country. Without social security, the situation my generation is facing- lifelong employment or starvation- would have been faced by your grandparents. Without Medicare, few older people would be able to afford to go to the doctor. If you had your way, and the Federal government were prohibited from helping out with education, illiteracy and ignorance and poverty would be even more prevalent than they are.
You make a lot of assertions on the basis of very little evidence. Kind of a habit of yours, I notice. You are long on rhetoric, and woefully short on substance. Of course government can't cause people to change. But it can help give them the resources to do so. I know of no particular evidence that government assistance has deterred people from seeking to better themselves anywhere near as often as it's helped them to do precisely that.
Have there been wasteful and stupid government programs? Of course. That's why I believe that solutions should be sought in the private sector and by individual action wherever possible. But in that romantic, imaginary world in which we've long since established that you live, Jeff, there are a great many fewer of those than they are on planet Earth.
Libertarianism is a utopian philosophy which, at its core, denies original sin. It maintains that the way to societal wonderfulness is for the government to get out of the way and let that fabulous fallen nature of ours work its magic. It's based on faulty assumptions about human nature- and, as I've already pointed out, is so intrinsically impractical that no attempt to actually put it into practice ever has, or can be, put into effect.
Now. Solarblogger.
I mean rape, murder, theft, and all of that. I also mean a lack of available education. I mean a lack of the ability to feed and house oneself in old age. Don't talk about saving money as the solution to either; the cost of health care is such that even employers are backing off subsidizing it, and without insurance most people can't afford it. Several years ago, estimates were that the total cost of being able to retire was about a million dollars. I'm sure it's higher than that now.
Markets don't work where people have neither money nor the resources to get it. On the other hand, when the government intervenes precisely to make it possible for people to participate in the life of the marketplace, opportunties arise for the market to do some good.
Certainly the absence of that opportunity is anything but justice. And yes, you are indeed advocating a utopian vision. The market is nothing more or less than human nature operating in large numbers. That it can do marvelous things is one thing; to see it as a magic bullet that will ensure even justice is at base, once again, nothing more or less than a denial of original sin.
And a society in which the government does nothing but protect the individual from murder, rape and stealing, but permits the market to be a means by which people can be excluded from its benefits by those who have economic power is hardly one that values justice. It is in the interest of all of us that all of us have the opportunity to learn to read and write, to be gainfully employed, to have our health care needs met, and to keep body and soul together when we are old. Justice requires a great deal more than that government prevent us from killing each other, and there are many ways of being despoiled other than at gunpoint.
At bottom, libertarianism is nothing more or less than another form of licence that says, in effect, "I have mine. I can provide for the contingencies of life out of my own resources- or imagine at the moment that I can. Who cares about anybody else?
"And who cares about the society which we all have to live in, which would be better off if the economic and social injustices which inevitably result from a system which relies on fallen human nature as its driving force were restrained along with rape and murder and theft?"
Best to do whatever is possible with the private sector and volunteerism. But there is nothing more utopian than an ideology which even imagines that these things alone can achieve justice in society.
Sometimes the Old Adam- and even the collective Old Adam- has to be restrained in the arena of economics, too.
I'm glad you're honest enough to admit that libertarianism is merely yet another manifestation of the Old Adam run amok- another form of license, just like abortion on demand or promiscuity. That position makes your espousal of it surprising, though. The thing is that at least according to St. Paul and Lutheran belief (at least outside the ELCA), "let us sin the more that grace may abound" isn't an option for Christians. Antinomianism is a bad deal all around, and you can't run a country by it. Instead of giving in to the Old Adam, the idea is to fight him. You know. Daily contrition and repentence, and all that.
The problem with your last statement, of course, is that it's hogwash- and rather thoughtless hogwash, at that.. The resources of private charity have never been adequate to deal with even the most immediate needs of the poor, much less retirement insurance, aid in obtaining healthcare, sufficient funds for school systems to function adequately in economically disadvantaged areas, or all the myriad other things a truly libertarian approach to the task of avoiding governing would require be ignored even in a booming economy- which, of course, doesn't always happen.
No, Jeff. Libertarianism doesn't work better than any other system. Libertarianism doesn't work at all. That's why nobody, when push has come to shove, has ever been able to truly try it out.
Just another one of your romantic, ivory tower enthusiasms that simply has no place in the real world.
I'm not quite sure that you even have a definition of libertarianism, though, so I'm not sure what all I'm defending. Your ideas of what kinds of government intervention are good sound either like what Democrats would have wanted under JFK, or what Republicans have wanted since the rise of the neocons. The neocons seem to be Trotskyites who got mugged by reality. Only to my mind they haven't gotten mugged enough times yet.
The starting point of libertarianism as I understand it is not greed. It is the rejection of the initiation of force to achieve political goals. The recognition that government IS force, so that whatever you encode into law is something you think is appropriate to enforce at gunpoint. And the idea that we must not think it is okay to do collectively things that would be immoral to do individually (e.g. steal for good causes).
Shall we begin with Wikipedia's definition of "Libertarianism?" It defines it thus:
"Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of physical force against another person or his property, or the commission of fraud, is a violation of that principle. Some libertarians regard all initiation of force as immoral, whereas others support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of initiatory force (such as minimal taxation and regulation) that they believe necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom (negative liberty). Force is not opposed when used in retaliation for initiatory aggressions such as trespassing or violence. Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the welfare state, because they believe forcing someone to provide aid to others is ethically wrong, ultimately counter-productive, or both."
You add, "The starting point of libertarianism as I understand it is not greed. It is the rejection of the initiation of force to achieve political goals."
Fair enough. The use of force to achieve political goals is precisely and by definition what Luther called "the Kingdom of the Left Hand." You know. The domain of "Master Jack, the hangman."
You've just rejected the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, Solar. Congrats.
You've also rejected the distinction between Law and Gospel. Nobody ever said that the Law- compulsion, force, threat- was a means of grace. But it's First Use is precisely the protection of the weak from the strong by threat of force. Or rather, as a theology prof of mine used to say, "through fear of lightning."
To be a Libertarian is to reject the First Use of the Law, as well as the Two Kingdoms, by both Wikipedia's definition of libertarianism and your own.
To enforce civil righteousness- insofar as such it can be enforced- at gunpoint (though Luther would have spoken of Master Jack and his noose, rather than of a gun) is precisely, in his understanding, what God instituted the government to do. Your reference to taxation as theft is, of course, so much empty rhetoric, to which Ben Franklin put paid in his treatise "Taxation No Tyranny" in the early days of the Republic.
Nobody ever suggested that government, or compulsion, is a means of grace. We are not speaking of the Kingdom of the Right Hand here, but of the Kingdom of the Left. And compulsion is precisely the currancy of the Kingdom of the Left.
My position is, quite simply, that one may be a Lutheran, or a libertarian- but that one cannot be both.
It's just that the divinely-ordained function of government- and its only divinely ordained function- is precisely the restraint of original sin, of the Old Adam.
Precisely by force. By compulsion.
Given that I see a place for "Master Jack, the hangman" when someone has murdered someone else, I don't see how I have rejected the entire Kingdom of the Left hand. My point is that there are limits to when you use deadly force. You counter it with the same. Genesis 9:6 portrays the sword being used by the sword-bearer after someone else has first used it.
Nobody ever said that the Law- compulsion, force, threat was a means of grace.
My point was that you implied it when everything you wrote suggested that everyone outside of government was intent on doing as much evil as possible, while everyone in government used power only to good ends.
To enforce civil righteousness- insofar as such it can be enforced- at gunpoint (though Luther would have spoken of Master Jack and his noose, rather than of a gun) is precisely, in his understanding, what God instituted the government to do.
I would like to see citations at this point. And I would like to see them use the same care that Luther used when arguing the case for the Real Presence, or that Jesus used when arguing the nature of marriage with the teachers of the Law. That you cannot use later commentary, even from Scripture, to overturn the clear teaching concerning a divinely mandated institution at the point of institution. For the Lord's Supper you had the Words of Institution themselves (and not Paul's explanatory words in the Epistles), for marriage you had Genesis (and not Sinai), and for government you have Genesis 9:6 (not Romans 13). When the later commentary becomes primary in our understanding you get Zwinglianism, rampant divorce, and quietism.
My position is, quite simply, that one may be a Lutheran, or a libertarian- but that one cannot be both.
I disagree. My own way of getting to this involves a deep acceptance of the hermeneutics that originally got me from the Presbyterian position on Communion to the Lutheran one. I was not clubbed into that through an appeal to Luther's authority, for in the church in which I grew up, he didn't have much, especially on that issue.
Your reading of Luther won't get you to a neo-con position, anyway. You will end up having to submit to any dictator, not just a Republican President. As to how the ruler is supposed to rule, if you don't think "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" apply to them, then how do you say what the dictator is doing is wrong? An appeal to whether he's doing it to a good cause?
And the restraint of evil is not grace. It is Law, not Gospel.
Nor does your exegetical argument hold water. Genesis 9:6 does indeed mention one particular usage of the sword. By no sound logic whatsoever does the fact that it is prior establish or even hint that the use of the sword by the government as mandated in Romans 13 is therefore limited to the situation it describes. If it did, the government would have no divine mandate to punish robbery, rape, or any other crime in which blood is not shed!
It is not for me to offer citations, solar. The burden of proof is on you that there are times when God does not want the weak protected from the strong, and for evil to continue unresisted by those to whom He has committed the sword. Your attempt above reminds me of the Anabaptists. It's "wax nose" isogesis, and not exegesis at all.
Your case throughout assumes that God only wants murder punished by the state. Okay, fine. I'll begin with what he has to say about the Fifth Commandment in the Large Catechism:
Therefore God also rightly calls all those murderers who do not afford counsel and help in distress and danger of body and life, and will pass a most terrible sentence upon them in the last day, as Christ Himself has announced when He shall say, Matt. 25, 42f : I was an hungred, and ye gave Me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave Me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took Me not in; naked, and ye clothed Me not; sick and in prison, and ye visited Me not. That is: You would have suffered Me and Mine to die of hunger, thirst, and cold, would have suffered the wild beasts to tear us to pieces, or left us to rot in prison or perish in distress. What else is that but to reproach them as murderers and bloodhounds? For although you have not actually done all this, you have nevertheless, so far as you were concerned, suffered him to pine and perish in misfortune.It is just as if I saw some one navigating and laboring in deep water [and struggling against adverse winds] or one fallen into fire, and could extend to him the hand to pull him out and save him, and yet refused to do it. What else would I appear, even in the eyes of the world, than as a murderer and a criminal?
A far cry from the notion that standing aloof from the economic and political exploitation of the neighbor is a matter of individual freedom. In Luther's eyes, it's precisely murder.
I strongly advise you to consult what Luther has to say in the Large Catechism regarding the Fourth Commandment as well. It includes the following:
In this commandment belongs a further statement regarding all kinds of obedience to persons in authority who have to command and to govern. For all authority flows and is propagated from the authority of parents. For where a father is unable alone to educate his [rebellious and irritable] child, he employs a schoolmaster to instruct him; if he be too weak, he enlists the aid of his friends and neighbors; if he departs this life, he delegates and confers his authority and government upon others who are appointed for the purpose. Likewise, he must have domestics, man-servants and maid-servants, under himself for the management of the household, so that all whom we call masters are in the place of parents and must derive their power and authority to govern from them. Hence also they are all called fathers in the Scriptures, as those who in their government perform the functions of a father, and should have a paternal heart toward their subordinates. As also from antiquity the Romans and other nations called the masters and mistresses of the household patres- et matres- familiae, that is, housefathers and housemothers. So also they called their national rulers and overlords patres patriae, that is, fathers of the entire country, for a great shame to us who would be Christians that we do not likewise call them so, or, at least, do not esteem and honor them as such.
And again:
Whoever will not be influenced by this and inclined to godliness we hand over to the hangman and to the skeleton-man. Therefore let every one who allows himself to be advised remember that God is not making sport, and know that it is God who speaks with you and demands obedience. If you obey Him, you are His dear child; but if you despise to do it, then take shame, misery, and grief for your reward.
The same also is to be said of obedience to civil government, which (as we have said) is all embraced in the estate of fatherhood and extends farthest of all relations. For here the father is not one of a single family, but of as many people as he has tenants, citizens, or subjects. For through them, as through our parents, God gives to us food, house and home, protection and security. Therefore, since they bear such name and title with all honor as their highest dignity, it is our duty to honor them and to esteem them great as the dearest treasure and the most precious jewel upon earth.
I see no indication that Luther believes that the authority of government only applies to cases in which blood is shed. It is for you to demonstrate that he does. Where are your citations?
I grant that you did admit that God was not totallymistaken in instituting government, and that it does have some legitimate work to do.
Your last paragraph is entirely composed of bogus rhetoric. Your assumption that taxation is "stealing" and that the divinely authorized usage of the sword is "murder" are the very things you have to demonstate rather than merely assert. Like your isogetical argument (whatever role it may have accidentally played in getting you to the Biblical teaching on the Real Presence), it is utterly lacking in either logic or cogency.
I'm not asking you to submit to Luther, Solar. But I am asking you to do something you haven't done to this point: support your extreme, inflammatory, and to all appearances utterly illogical assertions.
I don't know how to respond to your post. If you don't understand the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, you should read up on it. I think I've made it plain thar the Kingdom of the Left Hand is the kingdom of Law- of compulsion and restraint- whereas the Kingdom of the Right Hand is the kingdom of Gospel- of grace, and unmerited love and acceptance. What do you need to have explained.
I have no idea what you mean by your question about Lutheranism being libertarian Catholicism. I see no sense in which that description is remotely apt. Nor was the Reformation about big government or bureaucracy. Talk about stretching for an argument!
Your comment on the Peasants' (not "Pheasants'")Revolt is also hard for me to understand. Are you under the impression that Luther somehow approved of it? If so, you need to read "On the Murderous and Thieving Hordes of Peasants."
The question isn't one of "liberating" the Kingdom of the Left. You're trying to abolish it- or at least curtail it to the point of nearly abolishing it. But it's a divine institution- and what it needs from you is recognizing, not liberating.
Kobra said: Here you lament the discord that exists between those of us who believe that Natural Law is the basis for the our countryās founding documents, and those who believe that those documents are expendable when they get in the way of getting things done, but I feel as though you misjudge the width and depth of the chasm that separates us.
Libertarians want to live and act in accordance with Natural Law. Primarily it is a belief that all men are created equal, and that all men have a right to live their lives as they see fit so far as what they do does not hinder another manās right to do the same. So, the measure of what is right and wrong, for the Libertarian, is not what works but rather whether or not a certain action impinges upon or destroys the rights of another. Jefferson succinctly explains this principle in this statement when he says:
āBut it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.ā
Bob said: I think accomplishing things is the whole point.
Kobra asks: What is it you wish to accomplish, and at what cost?
Bob said: His freedom must be safeguarded with constraint; left to his own devices, he always manages to manufacture his own shackles- or to dig his own grave.
We need the restraints of law, yes- but even more of social convention- the condensed wisdom of the centuries- for our own good.
Kobra said: Bob, are the men who will enforce the laws of which you speak also āself-destructiveā and āself-centeredā or does being in government alleviate them of this plight so that they may guide those who have not yet arrived at their high state?
Bob said: That the above is a brief summary of the Ten Commandments (stated more as sociology than as theology) doesn't make it a religious manifesto.
Kobra said: No Libertarian I know would disagree with that, Bob. The problems Libertarians have is that your kind have a penchant for going beyond what God has said to add your own. Morality is determined by how oneās actions effect another persons ability to live. Thatās why it isnāt a sin to smoke a joint, be a hippy, and live in a commune with other hippies. Thatās why it is wrong for a government to tell me what I can ingest when in doing so I am harming no one.
Finally, Bob, it is your party that has abandoned the ship of human dignity and liberty. It isnāt we Libertarians who have jumped ship, Bob, but you and your captain who have heeded the call of the siren. Come back lest you find yourself dashed upon the rocks--and soon. I pray that if you refuse to repent of your tyranny that your end will come soonā¦like in 2008.
In the words of Reagan, āGovernment is not the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem.ā
Kobra said: Libertarians donāt have a problem with laws against stealing, murder, and the like. They just donāt believe that the government is above these laws, nor do they believe that the government has any right to issue mandates that add to Natural Law.
Bob said: To be a Libertarian is to reject the First Use of the Law, as well as the Two Kingdoms, by both Wikipedia's definition of libertarianism and your own.
Kobra said: The First Use of the Law is a paradigm we use when discussing issues in the Kingdom of the Right, Bob. When we discuss morality in the Kingdom of the Left we only deal with Natural Law. You in that one statement convicted yourself of what you accused solar of doing.
Bob said: To enforce civil righteousness- insofar as such it can be enforced- at gunpoint (though Luther would have spoken of Master Jack and his noose, rather than of a gun) is precisely, in his understanding, what God instituted the government to do. Your reference to taxation as theft is, of course, so much empty rhetoric, to which Ben Franklin put paid in his treatise "Taxation No Tyranny" in the early days of the Republic.
Kobra said: No, Libertarian is opposed to the government punishing crime. Libertarians are opposed to the government making things criminal that are not shown to be criminal by taking a reasoned view of nature and deducing what is right and wrong from it.
As far as Luther is concerned, he was not as refined in his view as was Jefferson or the other Libertarian minded founders (and Jefferson was a Libertarian and was a president if you recall).
Lastly, Franklin also said:
āAll human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.ā
Bob said: My position is, quite simply, that one may be a Lutheran, or a libertarian- but that one cannot be both.
Kobra said: Now who is mixing Kingdoms? There is nothing immoral about believing that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. There is nothing immoral about believing that Natural Law should govern civil society, and that the greater restraints should burden those who govern rather than those who are governed.
Secondly, Bob, you have failed to show that Libertarianism is immoral. In fact, Libertarianism is the higher cause, first, because it is a philosophy that seeks to retain human dignity via the recognition of manās individual freedom, and secondly because it recognizes manās bent toward evil is exacerbated by power--especially by governmental power. You do realize that the Constitution restrains the government and not the people, correct? What does this tell you about the way in which the founding fatherās viewed government?
Here is the question both Rick and I asked you, but now asked by Jefferson himself:
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320
I certainly don't think that Luther would say that specifically Rome was a divine institution!
You can vote for who you want, Jeff. If might not be you who forces another to go one mile. But in the unlikely event that your libertarian vote has any effect whatsoever, it will be essentially that which Luther discusses when he writes about the Fifth Commandment in the Large Catechism (see my last response to Solar). You will also be resisting rendering the Caesar the things which are Caesar's- and needed by him to perform his divinely instituted task.
Before we even start, though, let me ask you a question. I deal below with the errant assumption of libertarians that their judgment as to what constitutes a reasoned examination of nature is neccessarily an accurate one, and with the equally errant view that sins against one's own person cannot be sins. Perhaps further in the dialog we can get to the libertarian approval of various sins which in fact fall into that category, such assisted suicide and drug abuse- and the question of whether a reasoned view might not hold that the government has an obligation to restrain them.
But you do realize, don't you, that most libertarians favor abortion on demand. Reasoned? Consistent with either compassion or the Faith?
What I lament, Kobra, is the distinction between those of us who think they're still living in a 16th or 18th Century agrarian society, and those of us who realize that we're living in a modern agrarian one when we seek to apply a reasoned analysis of nature to legal issues.
There's a third option to ignoring what our founding documents say, and reading them as if we still lived in the 18th Century: govern by what the words themselves say.
Again, suggesting that the government is involved in stealing because it taxes, or murder because it executes or wages war, is overheated and unbiblical rhetoric. Taxes to whom taxes are due, Kobra. Capital punishment and the waging of just wars are supported by both testaments. Overheated rhetoric that merely makes outlandish characterizations of government activities prove nothing.
Parenthetically, from the point of view of private ethics, a Christian is obligated not only to love one's neighbor and to refrain from exploiting him in ways which quite frequently pop up through no particular fault of his own in a modern industrial society, but also to recognize that even private behavior- smoking marijuana is an example- which is harmful only to the self is also wrong. Suicide and euthanasia are murder, and re not only forbidden as such by God, but I would argue precisely by natural law ought also to be forbidden by man. Like abortion. And since we are in fact interconnected (merely one of the fallacies of the libertarian philosophy is to pretend otherwise), and the consequences of even private
actions do in fact nearly always impinge on the rights and welfare of others (the children of drug addicts and alcoholics who go unfed, unclothed, and even unhoused, for example), your neat distinction is a philosophical one with much less application to the real world than you think even at that basic level.
And yes, smoking a joint- inflicting brain damage on oneself and injuring one's chromosomes, as well as imparing one's judgment in much the same way overconsumption of alcohol does- certainly is a sin. What Paul says about drunkenness also applies to being stoned. It is simply unbiblical to argue that only that which harms others is sinful. We also are required to be stewards of ourselves.
That those in government are also fallen I do not question. They are also, however, ministers of God with the task of seeing to our welfare. I believe that's the third time I've pointed that out. Their role in restraining our fallen natures is not my proposal. Someone Else gets the blame there.
Certainly, given our stewardship over our own persons, to hold that we are free to act in any way we want as long as others are hurt is inadmissible. More to the point, to define the effect of your behavior on others so narrowly that it excludes the economic consequences of one's own action, and excludes sins of omission- see Luther on the Fifth Commandment again; the Seventh also has application- again is to truncate the Law in a quite irresponsible manner.
Natural law in the kingdom of the Left involves concern for the neighbor and for justice, as discussed by Luther op cit. This certainly does not mean socialism or anything like it. But it does mean recognizing that the consequences of one's actions, both positive and negative, often extend beyond the obvious- and the positive obligation to help.
The Kingdom of the Left, precisely in applying the natural law, acts as God's minister to promote justice. As level as possible a playing field, especially for the children, the old, the sick, and others whom only the government has the resources to help- is only justice. He who argues to the contrary sins against the Fifth Commandment- surely a matter of the Kingdom of the Left.
To be continued...
goes directly to the heart of the problem. The problem is that libertarians take a view of nature which I (and most people) would argue is not reasoned, but precisely naive and unreasonable. It looks at society as if it were still a
16th or 19th Century agrarian society, and fails to take into account the economic, cultural, and interpersonal complexity of living in a modern, industrialized society. For all your rhetoric (your long suit!), the bottom line is that you and I (and most people) disagree about what constitutes "a reasoned view of nature," and what it tells us.
That's the bottom line, Kobra. That's where any productive dialog between us will have to focus- not in quotations and aphorisms and wild rhetoric.
Luther's view was plenty refined. He didn't agree with Jefferson even though they lived in societies which were more alike than either is like today's.
I have more than adequately demonstrated that libertarianism is essentially a philosophy of depraved indifference to the victims of socially systemic injustice, and falls under the condemnation of the Fifth Commandment, in the terms Luther explicates it in the Large Catechism. Moreover, it is a naive
and impractical philosophy which fails precisely to take a reasoned look at nature in the light of the social and economic realities of modern society.
And to once again anwer the question which both you and Rick and now Jefferson have asked, it's a red herring. The issue is not whether the men who govern are angels, or paragons, or without sin. It's the fact that He Who created the angels has called and consecrated them to the task of restraining evil, and protecting the weak from the strong.
If you, or Rick, or Jefferson have problems with that arrangement, I suggest you take them up with Him.
Applied to modern society, libertarianism is nothing more or less than a form of anarchy.
Rather than arguing theory in circles, shall we talk about the issues most of concern to the libertarian movement today? I'd be interested to hear your defense of the libertarian position on abortion, suicide (assisted and otherwise), recreational drug use, and gay "marriage."
How about it?
Kobra said: Letās clarify something from the start because I feel I was unclear. I shouldnāt have used the terminology āsinā in my sentence about a hippy smoking weed. I should have used the phrase āagainst Nature.ā Because our standard of morality for rule in the civil realm is Natural Law, I would feel more comfortable using secular terminology. Just for the record, I donāt believe that smoking marijuana, using cocaine, shooting heroin, or downing a fine bottle of fine single malt are inherently sinful. I also donāt believe that a decent argument has ever been made in favor of the tyranny that is the War on Some Drugs. That said, I look forward to this engagement.
āBut you do realize, don't you, that most libertarians favor abortion on demand. Reasoned? Consistent with either compassion or the Faith?ā
Every system of belief has inconsistencies. Did you know some Republicans oppose the War on Drugs? Does this nullify the Lincolnian beliefs of your party? Certainly not. There are, however, consistent Libertarians who seek to protect the liberties of Americans in the womb. You may survey the organizations website if you wish: www.l4l.org Also, did you know that the first draft of the Declaration of Independence contained a strong condemnation of slavery? Yet, when the Continental Congress reviewed it the section was removed--to Jeffersonās dismay. He saw the inconsistency, as well as others, but they went ahead with it. Does this inconsistency invalidate the Declaration of Independence? Of course it doesnāt.
Bob said: āWhat I lament, Kobra, is the distinction between those of us who think they're still living in a 16th or 18th Century agrarian society, and those of us who realize that we're living in a modern agrarian one when we seek to apply a reasoned analysis of nature to legal issues.ā
Kobra said: I have never understood āobserving natureā to mean that we need to go to a farm and study crops or climb a tree to study its leaves. Iāve always understood this through the words, āwe hold these truths to be self-evident.ā That is, man knows these things already. He need only look into the desires of his heart and believe that his neighbor desires the same thing. So, the primary focus of our observation is ourselves.
Bob said: There's a third option to ignoring what our founding documents say, and reading them as if we still lived in the 18th Century: govern by what the words themselves say.
Kobra said: Yes, thatās a third option if you reject the notion that what the documents say are grounded in Natural Law. If you reject what the documents, you reject Natural Law, and thus you reject your God given rights and the rights of others. I donāt believe thatās something you are willing to do, Bob.
Bob said: Again, suggesting that the government is involved in stealing because it taxes, or murder because it executes or wages war, is overheated and unbiblical rhetoric. Taxes to whom taxes are due, Kobra. Capital punishment and the waging of just wars are supported by both testaments. Overheated rhetoric that merely makes outlandish characterizations of government activities prove nothing.
Kobra said: I do not oppose Capital punishment, and I donāt believe war is immoral. I do believe that war may be immoral and that Capital punishment may be as well. I donāt appreciate Federal Income tax because it removed protections against direction taxation and fed a burgeoning federal government. I donāt oppose all taxation. I just oppose unfair taxation.
Bob said: Parenthetically, from the point of view of private ethics, a Christian is obligated not only to love one's neighbor and to refrain from exploiting him in ways which quite frequently pop up through no particular fault of his own in a modern industrial society, but also to recognize that even private behavior- smoking marijuana is an example- which is harmful only to the self is also wrong.
Kobra said: So, what business of it of the government whether Iām practicing Christian ethics or not? In the eyes of the government I am free to worship one god, two gods, or no gods. Secondly, I donāt believe using drugs is socially wrong, against Christian ethics, or anymore harmful than smoking cigarettes or drinking beer. All things can be used irresponsibly. Are you for the prohibition of alcohol because of drunk drivers or that the substance makes people rape, murder, and kill. Even if someone does kill someone while drunk, you canāt punish them for drinking but for act of murder.
Bob said: And yes, smoking a joint- inflicting brain damage on oneself and injuring one's chromosomes, as well as imparing one's judgment in much the same way overconsumption of alcohol does- certainly is a sin. What Paul says about drunkenness also applies to being stoned. It is simply unbiblical to argue that only that which harms others is sinful. We also are required to be stewards of ourselves.
Kobra said: Drunkeness is only unlawful when it harms anotherās rights. If you want to talk about what Paul says thatās for pastors to deal with and not the government. Drunkeness may not be seen as wrong to other cultures and belief systems. You are mixing the two kingdoms by applying Christian special revelation to secular society. If I get snookered and sit on my porch smiling at the moon I am harming no one. I am also not placing myself in imminent danger of death. Are you for the prohibition of tobacco, cholesterol, and maybe McDonaldās? Can you send me a picture of you naked so I can determine whether you are eating and exercising properly? You may in fact be killing yourself by your diet. Where does it end? C. S. Lewis said something about this:
āOf all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.ā --C.S. Lewis
Bob said: That those in government are also fallen I do not question. They are also, however, ministers of God with the task of seeing to our welfare. I believe that's the third time I've pointed that out. Their role in restraining our fallen natures is not my proposal. Someone Else gets the blame there.
Kobra said: I disapprove of your use of ārestrainā whenever you talk about the duty of the governing authority. The duty of the governing authority is to secure the liberty and freedom of those who it has been appointed to govern. It does this not by ārestrainingā liberty, but by punishing for crimes that have been committed against people. You could argue that by punishing evildoers someone is restrained by witnessing the execution, but I donāt believe that is what you meant.
Bob said: Certainly, given our stewardship over our own persons, to hold that we are free to act in any way we want as long as others are hurt is inadmissible. More to the point, to define the effect of your behavior on others so narrowly that it excludes the economic consequences of one's own action, and excludes sins of omission- see Luther on the Fifth Commandment again; the Seventh also has application- again is to truncate the Law in a quite irresponsible manner.
Kobra said: Actually, it isnāt inadmissible, but it is the foundation of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. As Jefferson said in the quote I posted above, unless it breaks someoneās leg or picks their pockets, what they do is not of my concern nor is it the governments (Also see C.S. Lewis above). Concerning Luther, youād do better to listen to Jefferson if you are trying to better understand how to govern the secular realm. Luther did say that, āit is better to be governed by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian.ā Iām just agreeing with Luther in desiring to be governed by the wise Deist Jefferson. As I said earlier, I believe that Luther offers some good stuff on secular government, but I believe that Jefferson far outshines him.
Bob said: The Kingdom of the Left, precisely in applying the natural law, acts as God's minister to promote justice. As level as possible a playing field, especially for the children, the old, the sick, and others whom only the government has the resources to help- is only justice. He who argues to the contrary sins against the Fifth Commandment- surely a matter of the Kingdom of the Left.
Kobra said: There is nothing in Romans 13 that requires the government to do anything but punish, and besides that sounds very socialistic to me. You really believe that money should be forcibly taken from me and given to another who I do not know? I am free NOT to help, and that is what makes my helping others good. Forcing someone at gunpoint to be charitable obliterates the very meaning of the word ācharity.ā
Having said that, I do favor the medical use of marijuana, where there is indeed a legitimate medical use. Many medicines have severe side-effects without their negating their proper medical usage.
The issue is protecting the weak from the strong. That includes the young or the mentally ill from the pusher who is not suggesting that they make a particular choice about utilizing a personal freedom they may have only to a limited degree.
I don't think it's possible to call the case you've just made against the war on these drugs can be characterized as anything but indecent.
The problem is that the libertarians who favor abortion on demand are the consistent ones, Kobra. You can't wiggle out of your own position that easily. The strong- the woman- makes use of her liberty; the weak (in this case, the unborn) can shift for themselves. Libertarianism in a nutshell.
It's not a question of this being a controversial issue among libertarians, Kobra. It's not. It's not that the tiny minority of those who call themselves libertarians but who inconsistently oppose abortion represent a minority viewpoint within their philosophy; their opposition to abortion is a repudiation of it. That's the point. You have arbitrarily chosen not to take libertarian position on the issue of abortion, Kobra. Why? I have a theory. I'll share it with you later in this post.
I'm aware of the history of slavery with reference to the Declaration. Inconsistent? Sure. But not universal.
Even Jefferson wanted that statement in, and Adams and the New Englanders certainly did. Yet the fact is that the "war" on the Right right now is precisely between those who oppose abortion, among other issues, and the overwhelming majority of libertarians who are consistent, and affirm it.
It's not the business of the government whether you're practicing Christian ethics or not. It's just that a Christian is not free to be indifferent as to whether others are practicing Christian ethics or not. It's also a question of whether it's wise public policy in view of a reasoned examination of nature- an examination which, unfortunately for your argument, does not always yield a libertarian conclusion. Seldom does, I would argue. And precisely that reasoned examiniation is what has led you to oppose the consistent libertarian position on abortion.
I understand what you mean by "observing nature," and I think you understand that I understand it. Nice try, Kobra. The point is that nature in the context of Twenty-First Century
American holds radically different lessons from those of a very different Eighteenth Century America- differences libertarians religiously ignore. Jefferson may well have been a "wise Turk," but if you drop him into the context of our present society, in many respects he'd quickly turn out to be a fool. He lived in a different world, Kobra. The task is to apply his wisdom as best we can to our own, and not to ignore the differences as if they didn't exist. Libertarianism might have worked in Jeffersons' day; it can't, and it won't, in ours.
The task of the government is indeed not to restrain liberty. It is to restrain evil. One of our differences is that in many cases you choose to define evil as liberty. Of that, I disapprove. I think Paul and Luther would, too.
That crime increases because of drug use, or because children cannot obtain an education and decent employment; where illness flourishes, threatening the public health; where the resources
of society are squandered on the consequences of these, both of our pockets are picked, and all four of our legs are broken. And certainly the pockets and the legs of the victims are picked and broken. Same with the kids of the crack addict who has the "freedom" to get hooked, and the child whose parents can't afford to educate him, and whose school district is inadequate- while the taxpayer exercises that quintessential libertarian freedom- the freedom not to care about anybody but himself.
Yet in exercising that freedom, he picks his own pocket and breaks his own leg, too. That's my point. Might not have been true in precisely the same sense in Jefferson's case, but it sure is today.
Romans 13 speaks of the government as the minister of God to execute wrath upon evildoers, it's true. Whether this applies, strictly speaking, to those who violate the Fifth and Seventh Commandments as Luther applies them in the Large Catechism seems to be the difference between us.
I suggest you do a word search on "the poor" at BibleGateway.com to see what the civil law of Israel had to say as to the "freedom" of others to mistreat or ignore the poor. Before you even say it, no, I'm not suggesting that the civil law of ancient Israel applies to us, too.
But I am saying that- as Luther himself says in the Large Catechism- it is the responsibility of the government to compel what ought to be done for and on behalf of the bodily welfare of others, and is not- precisely on the basis of Romans 13, as well as of the Fifth Commandment.
I am familiar with the antinomian argument that "charity" requires voluntarism. Not the issue. The issue isn't charity. The issue is not your soul. It's the empty belly of the one so many libertarians are content should go hungry.
It's the victims of those who fail to heed their moral obligation to charity.
No, Kobra. You are NOT free not to help. And that's the whole point.
That, and the fact that you, as a Christian, are not free to argue that you are free not to help.
Kobra said: You are absolutely wrong. Marijuana smoking is less harmful than smoking cigarettes, and moderate cocaine useage does little harm. Coca-Cola actually contained cocaine early on. I donāt believe that there are any recorded overdoses. Heroin use is more problematic, but there are some who use it, or similar opiate like substances, without becoming addicted. Alcohol on the other hand is another story.
Dr. Michael Baden reports that over 40% of accidental deaths are alcohol related. Do you know how many deaths marijuana is responsible for? It isnāt even on the scale. So, applying your paradigm in translating these facts we have to conclude that alcohol is far more harmful to our society than alcohol.
My own personal experience with marijuana is that it is far less debilitating than alcohol. The greatest side effects are uncontrollable laughter and eating a lot of sweets (munchies). Alcohol consumption, on the other hand, may lead to death (I have felt close before).
Needless to say, you are just parroting the propaganda of the Temperance movement that has been allowed to tyrannize our society. I would suggest you read the following article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html
As far as Libertarianism being amoral, it is certainly not. What Libertarianism limits morality to are very specific things--murder, theft, etcā¦whereas other schools of thought like to add their own code of morality not found in nature. In other words, Libertarians adhere to Mala Prohibita and reject Mala in Se. Libertarians would argue that unless someone violates Natural Law--which is merely the violation of anotherās rights--they are free to behave as they wish. You are going beyond Natural Law and applying your own code and in effect violating one of the primary codes of Natural Law--mind your own business!
Bob said: The issue is protecting the weak from the strong. That includes the young or the mentally ill from the pusher who is not suggesting that they make a particular choice about utilizing a personal freedom they may have only to a limited degree.
Kobra said: Who is going to protect American citizens from their tyrannizing government. I believe that Libertarians rightly understand that the weak must primarily be protected from their government. The 20th Century proves this point. How many hundreds of millions died in 20th Century at the hands of government. America isnāt guiltless either. One need only look at the genocide carried out upon the native american people and the injustice of slavery to realize that governments are as fallen as men are and should not be trusted to rightly distinguish right from wrong when it comes to issues that extend beyond the bounds of what is āself-evidentā i.e. āNatural Law.ā
Bob said: The problem is that the libertarians who favor abortion on demand are the consistent ones, Kobra. You can't wiggle out of your own position that easily. The strong- the woman- makes use of her liberty; the weak (in this case, the unborn) can shift for themselves. Libertarianism in a nutshell.
Kobra said: Bob, the only way anyone can consistently believe that abortion is not a crime against, or a violation of, someoneās rights is to deny that the entity in the womb is not a person. Libertarians are correct to say that a woman may do with her body as she wishes, but they become inconsistent because they fail to recognize that abortion is not a treatment of her body but a procedure which effects only the body of another. So, really, Bob, you can try all you want, but when it comes right down to it, Libertarians are being as inconsistent as our founders were when it came to slavery. Remember, they justified slavery by not counting slaves as persons, at least not full persons. Libertarians are simply doing the same thing when it comes to the unborn. If you receive the inconsistency of the founders, then you must receive the inconsistency of a portion of the Libertarian party on the issue of abortion because it is the very same argument with different players.
Bob said: I'm aware of the history of slavery with reference to the Declaration. Inconsistent? Sure. But not universal.
Kobra said: See my point above. How can you not see that the argument of the founders in relation to slavery and personhood is the same as the Libertarians in relation to abortion? Both deny personhood to justify their inconsistent positions. Your bias is blinding you, bro.
Bob said: American holds radically different lessons from those of a very different Eighteenth Century America- differences libertarians religiously ignore. Jefferson may well have been a "wise Turk," but if you drop him into the context of our present society, in many respects he'd quickly turn out to be a fool.
Kobra said: The form of American government that we have is fastened to a view of objective, unchanging, Natural Law. You cannot learn new lessons that will in anyway change objective, unchanging, Natural Law. The world may change technologically, but people remain the same. At one point you argue that people are fallen and canāt improve, and then you turn around and argue that things have changed. You are terribly inconsistent at this point. You donāt believe that there were drunks, hookers, drug users, rapists, child molesters in Jeffersonās day? What did Jefferson fail to see?
Bob said: The task of the government is indeed not to restrain liberty. It is to restrain evil. One of our differences is that in many cases you choose to define evil as liberty. Of that, I disapprove. I think Paul and Luther would, too.
Kobra said: I disagree that the government is to restrain anything. Our Constitution states that our government is to be restrained not the other way around. Concerning Paul, I donāt know what Paul would think because he didnāt say all that much. As far as Luther, I think heās all wet on this issue and that Jefferson is a far better source for our understanding. Luther was a great theologian at times but a pretty bad political scientist.
Bob said: That crime increases because of drug use, or because children cannot obtain an education and decent employment; where illness flourishes, threatening the public health; where the resources of society are squandered on the consequences of these, both of our pockets are picked, and all four of our legs are broken.
Kobra said: Bob, again you shoot yourself in the foot. The War on Some Drugs is costing this country over $120 billion a year. The allotment of that money for treatment is about 1/6th the total budget. The rest flows to agencies for interdiction and the prison structure to pay for incarceration. As far as I understand it that is twice what we spend on education--Education budget is about $64 billion per year.
The War on Some Drugs has also created our inner city gang problems by creating a profitable black market that is worth fighting and dying for. The same thing occurred during the prohibition on alcohol. The Chicago Mob was a creation of the Temperance movement and its insanity.
Secondly, the War on Some Drugs has broken up more families and ruined more lives than any joint, line of coke, or dose of heroin ever has. We would be far better served to use drug war money on education and treatment programs. That is if we wish to retain our great bureaucrazy. The facts are against you. The War on Some Drugs picks your pocket and breaks families legs more than anything.
Bob said: I am familiar with the antinomian argument that "charity" requires voluntarism. Not the issue. The issue isn't charity. The issue is not your soul. It's the empty belly of the one so many libertarians are content should go hungry.
Kobra said: If the issue is not my soul, then letās leave the Bible out of this discussion, because it only clouds the issue. The guide for civil governance is āself-evidentā and renders Special Revelation redundant and unnecessary. Sure, we can find corollaries in the Scriptures, but thatās as far as its helpfulness extends.
Bob said: That, and the fact that you, as a Christian, are not free to argue that you are free not to help.
Kobra said: Bob, I, as a Christian, am free from the Law because of the Gospel. Therefore, the Gospel is my motivation for doing good and NOT the Law. This means that I am free NOT to help. Concerning the Old Man, he is still under the Law and is condemned if he doesnāt help.
Christ, I believe you would agree, offers us the greatest illustration of what charity is, and he said that His life was not taken from Him, but that He āwillinglyā laid it down of His own accord. Iām becoming very weary of being correct so I am going to leave this debate for now. I do wish to convey my appreciation for your willingness to have this discussion on your blog. Thanks.
And the things that are "self-evident" to one person may not be to another.
That's why we need to employ reason.
That's why we need to debate. That's why we have both politics and a government at least designed to operate on consensus as the basis for restraint. Or, if you prefer, the prevention of certain individuals from
imparing the rights of others.
Kobra, speaking of drug use, I see you've drunk the Kool-Aid. Studies have shown that damage can occur with even moderate marijuana usage (and yes, I'm aware that there are also studies- mostly older ones- which show the opposite). Even cigarettes (and I hooked for years)kill- and MJ has far mor tar and nicotine than tobacco. And cocaine even in small amounts can addict.
My own personal experience with marijuana- a very long time ago- is the opposite of yours. Alcohol is too socially accepted to regulate.It's been a part of civilization from the very beginning. I would agree in principle that drugs which taken in moderation do not harm the body are not inherently immoral to use, and should not be illegal; I do not defend prohibition. But your comparison of alcohol to drugs which damage both self and others by their very use is another matter. Even if it is true that the enforcement of drug laws is impractical, these drugs should in principle still be illegal. Their access is inherently illicit- and self-evidentlyso. Certainly the government has no business actively facilitating harm to either users or third parties!
The social consequences of the use of that second type of drugs impinge upon people other than the user, and even by the terms of the libertarian creed to not qualify as a legitimate exercise of "freedom."
You speak of the greater utility of education than enforcement. Perhaps you're right. But parenthetically, even putting our money into education and rehab rather than enforcement wouldn't mean that the laws against these drugs must or should be taken off the books. And here, again, we run up against that problem we all have in agreeing on what is "self-evident." You are in favor of government sponsored education on the dangers of harmful drugs, and I agree. But the other libertarian currently involved in this discussion insists that it is beyond the bounds of propriety for the Federal government even to subsidize the education of its citizens in how to read and write!
Which is one of my main criticisms of libertarianism, BTW. Actually, comparatively few things do- though the number of things claimed to
fall into the category of "victimless crimes" by some libertarian or other is virtually endless.
The question is what constitutes a violation of Natural Law. The fact is that libertarians use that term as if what was "self-evident" to some were "self-evident" to all, and universally acknowledged. The same applies rhetoric about "what doesn't harm anybody else." But the problem is that there are few human actions which don't affect other people, and the failure of libertarianism to recognize this is what turns it from a coherent political philosophy into an excuse to care only about one's own freedoms, while reserving the right to be selective about those of others.
Sorry, Kobra, but the question of whether a fetus in utero is a person is just such a question about which people disagree. What does natural law say to the matter? You and I happen to agree as to what it says. We also agree that, if the matter is thought through, what it says is "self-evident." But even though our conclusions are based on natural law rather than on religion per se, the majority of people who do not share our faith do not agree with us that the answer is self-evident. The precise reasoning of Roe is the very reasoning which results: since opinions differ, freedom dictates that the law opt for the less restrictive option.
And from a political point of view, that is exactly- and inevitably- where the libertarian position leads. Whether you choose to admit it or not, you are taking the position that the freedom of a woman should be limited in a situation in which others- perhaps most- do not see another human person as involved. Certainly, almost by definition, a woman seeking an abortion does not. Again, I happen to think you're right. But in restricting that woman's freedom for the sake of an entity which neither she nor a consensus of society sees as another person, you are violating the ground rules of libertarianism philosophically in a way that the Founding Fathers who rejected slavery from a philosophical point of view but acquiesed in it being permitted from a practical point of view did not. The three-fifths solution was not seen by anybody as a philosophical answer to the question of the humanity of African slaves; it was a political compromise between two parties who were in absolute philosophical disagreement. Not a single member of that convention compromised his actual, personal conviction as to the morality or political propriety of slavery!
I've never argued, BTW, that human nature has improved. I've merely asserted the obvious (or, if you prefer, what is "self-evident"): that modern society creates a situation in which social interdependence is far more complex and profound than it was in a sparsely-populated, mostly rural Eighteenth Century society, and that as a result libertarianism is no longer a practical philosophy. If it ever was, that is. To suggest that a comparison of the problems of rape, child molestation, drug abuse, rape, and prostitution in Jefferson's day to those problems as they exist in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, Atlanta, Los Angeles, or even Des Moines does not reveal not only a decisive difference, but a difference of kind rather than of degree, is "self-evidently" self-refuting. It is simply absurd.
Finally, one of the unfortunate things that happens when Christians debate political subjects is that the theological and the political become conflated. What the social Left cannot see is that they are related; what most of the religious Right cannot see is that they are nonetheless distinct.
Not everything which is immoral ought to be illegal. In theory, I could even go with Jefferson's maxim (the slogan of libertarianism) that that the test is what "breaks my leg or picks my pocket."
The problem comes in applying that maxim. As we've seen, human actions seldom have consequences only for the person who acts, and in today's complex, urbanized society the problem
is compounded exponentially. Libertarianism fails because what is "self-evident" to you may not be "self-evident" to me. As a practical matter, it becomes a philosophical excuse to challenge the consensus as to what is "self-evident" reached by society as a whole on the basis of private opinion. And that- not its fundamental insight as to the basis upon which an arguably immoral act ought to also be illegal- is its fatal flaw.
You are correct, of course, in saying that it is your old nature which is under the Law, and that insofar as you are a Christian- i.e., in your new nature- you do not even need it. The problem is that human law- which is, after all, what we're discussing- is concerned precisely with the old nature. Insofar as you are a Christian, you do not need the government to prompt you to charity. But you also have an Old Adam, and he's a stingy old coot. So is mine.
That is why Luther classifies failure to show mercy and charity to the poor as murder, and invokes the Fifth Commandment against the fallen nature- the old self. As he says, if you do not respond with mercy, you answer to Master Jack. Not literally, of course. But I think his point about the role of government in the matter is plain.
There is another problem, of course. I recently had an exchange about it with Jeff on another thread. There exists on the Right a fairy tale that there has ever been a time when private charity was anywhere near enough to meet the legitimate needs of the poor, the elderly, and those otherwise disadvantaged. But it is a fairy tale. The fact is that only the Federal government has the resources to meet the bulk of the burden.
We are in agreement that its role should be minimized. We are in agreement that reasonable economy should be practiced in this pursuit. We are in agreement that where private charity and non-governmental resources can be substituted, they should be. But it is a delusion to think that they are anywhere near adequate- or were even in Jefferson's day.
Now, it would be great of those programs could be funded by private subscription. But the fallen nature, alas, is a libertarian- and a selfish one, at that. Taxation for such purposes is the only solution. And far from being "stealing," as the overcharged libertarian rhetoric has it, taxation is merely the price we pay for civilization.
Anyway, I think my points have been made. Libertarianism is an admirable theory which collapses into dust when applied to the complexities of reality, especially in our modern world. We are too interdependent for many of our actions at all to have consequences only for ourselves, and
there is simply no real consensus as to what is "self-evident-" as to what constitutes "natural law." This being the case, we need to hash these matters out as a community- and no fair refusing being bound by the consensus that results because one's own view of what is "self-evident" doesn't prevail.
Which is essentially what libertarians do. It becomes, in practice, an excuse for the Old Nature- just as social liberalism does. Which was my original point. This is not to say that every argument made by libertarians is invalid, or every suggestion from libertarianism ill-founded. It just means that they need to recognize that until we can all agree as to what constitutes "self-evident natural law," we have to acknowledge the validity of being bound by the consensus.
We don't have to agree with it, mind you. But we really have no basis for questioning its legitimacy.
Anyway, thank you for the debate, Kobra. I appreciate the time and effort involved- and the stimulation of your thoughts- which, as I say, are by no means without merit, however much I continue to reject your philosophy as such.