In the left-hand column are the comments of Jim C., November 4, 2014 at 10:10 PM. In the right-hand column are my responses.
| That article you linked makes sense only within a Jeffersonian/libertarian paradigm, which assumes - among many things - that humans are inherently good. | Here
is the linked article. Here's what it says:
That doesn't sound to me like a belief that humans are inherently good. Jim's characterization of Jeffersonian libertarianism sounds like a worn-out cliché. Or a violation of the Ninth Commandment. In a theological sense (explicated by Calvin and his followers) there is truth to the idea that men are "depraved." But this is bad medicine in the public policy realm. It must be remembered that "the State" is society's grant to an elite few of a monopoly right to commit sinful acts of violence against others. To take vengeance (prohibited, Romans 12:14-21) and fund these acts of vengeance through armed extortion. Vengeance can also be "pre-emptive," as the U.S. committed against a government (Iraq) which had not aggressed against us. Madison said, If men were angels we would not need a State." But if men are devils, we dare not have a State. We dare not give depraved men the right to steal from others, or put a mortgage on our grandchildren. We dare not give depraved men the power to lock us in cages to be sodomized. We dare not give depraved men weapons of mass destruction and social permission to use them. But that's what the creation and maintenance of "the State" does. I would argue that in the realm of public policy, we can safely operate on the assumption that human beings are inherently good. Not infallibly good; not consistently good. But good in the sense that Jesus Christ is the "savior of the world." Michael Horton writes:
America once saw itself as aspiring to be a "City [of God] upon a hill." It sought its moral standard and spiritual energy from heaven, not "the world." Few would deny that this once-glorious and admirable "City upon a hill" has been transformed into a Satanic City of Man. The U.S. is now the enemy of God and Christ. Why is cultural transformation only to be a one-way (downward) street? Horton says we should not ask how the world can best be saved. Why not? Isn't Jesus the savior of the world?
When the Lord spoke to Isaiah and the prophets, that He would save the whole world, was He announcing a doctrine of "universalism," that every individual would go to heaven when he died? Even universalists would say no -- provided they understand the prophetic meaning of the concept of "salvation." That is, even if eternal paradise after death has been granted universally to all individuals, that's not what the prophets were talking about when they foretold the "salvation" of the entire world. In the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, "salvation" means what economist Murray N. Rothbard described as "anarcho-capitalism" -- a vibrant global network of commerce liberated from the "strife," "war," and coercive regulatory "domination" of the City of Man. The economics of the New Jerusalem rather than the Old Babylon. Contrary to Horton, Christians best "serve" the world by helping to "save" it. For "serve" see here. For "save" see here. "Save the world" does not mean "preserve the world in a state of rebellion against the City of God." It means convert the world into the City of God. Today, there are some people who seek to live at the expense of others. We call such people "criminals," "civil servants," or "voters." These people are an extreme minority. There are now one million in the city of San Jose, California, over a million in San Antonio, Texas, and ten cities in America with more than one million people each. There are in fact 7,000 millions of people on this planet, and the vast majority of human beings go to work every day, create goods or services and freely exchange them for the goods and services of others, day after day, without putting anyone in a cage or dropping bombs on people. There are billions of generally peaceful human beings on this planet, and only a few criminals and politicians. There would be fewer corrupt people if we did not morally legitimize corruption and aggression in the so-called "public" sector. |
| Certainly if this is the case then man left to his own devices, without constraint, will act according to "rational self-interest"; that is, pursuing what maximizes his happiness at no one's expense but his own. It is further argued on this basis that should everyone function this way then society, which in this case is nothing more than the sum total of individuals, would tend toward a peaceful equilibrium. | In the Old Testament era, probably a
majority of all human beings died violent deaths, or died as a result of
violence inflicted by armies, slavemasters, and criminals. Today, a majority of human beings die peaceful deaths of "natural causes" or preventable diseases. When Jesus was born, the angels said this was the beginning of "Peace on earth." The history of the Christian era is proof of that. |
| If you call yourself a Christian then it should be obvious to you how antithetical this belief is to Scripture's testimony regarding man and his broken fellowship with God and his neighbour on account of sin. | Where does Scripture place confidence in politicians? Certainly not 1 Samuel 8. Where does the Bible say that "Peace on earth" cannot exist without politicians, prisons, and armies? |
| On a practical level, eviscerating the state to such an extent so as to allow this to actualize itself would lead to chaos. | If a large number of Americans were to repudiate the institutionalized violence which characterizes "the State," and ratify one last Amendment to the Constitution, repealing that document, this would not lead to "chaos." It has to be a moral choice: abolishing wealth redistribution and war and resolving to take personal responsibility to act peacefully and productively. More on "chaos." |
| One need look at the many corrupt Latin American and many failed African states to see this. | If we abolished 95% of the existing governments in America, we would be where we were in 1776. What's wrong with that? Corruption in the 3rd world is a result of foreign archists bribing tribal archists to plunder the resources and the weak. It has nothing to do with a vigorous global capitalism functioning peacefully in a division of labor. |
| There is usually a concentration of massive wealth in few hands complemented by the most abject poverty and misery endured by everyone else. | This inequality is not maintained without guns and gendarmes. This inequality is not the result of a market freed from the initiation of force. |
| In short, it looks nice on paper but it can't work in the real world. | In the real world, the less "government" you have, and the more personal responsibility, the more peace and prosperity you have. |