From One Christian to Another, On Human Liberty

(This essay is an excerpt from an email that I sent to a fellow Christian Libertarian on an email discussion list. The recipient had previously expressed their own doubts about the Non-Aggression Principle, and the philosophical steps to arriving at such a conclusion, as well as the Principle's compatibility with scripture. The name of the other party is withheld, but the principles expressed stand on their own.)

Philosophy is simply logic applied to various "problems." I believe, as a Christian, that God imbued us with logic by creating us "in His image." I believe this is what separates us from the animals—abstract thought, and the ability to willfully glorify our Creator, as breathed into our dust-composed bodies.

Also, you should be aware that the scriptures only condemn vain philosophies in Colossians 2:8:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

It is clearly incorrect to interpret this to mean that all philosophy (philo + sophia = "love" of "wisdom") is abhorrent before God. We are to be Bereans, and to knowledgably critique the positions of others to determine if they are consistent with God's will as revealed through general revelation ("...written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." 2 Corinthians 3:3) and in special revelation ("All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Now, if someone misinterprets God's word due to some predisposition (often due to human traditions, as noted above), we are to gently correct them. "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." (James 5:20-21)

Now, I would not presume to judge you for your beliefs about the state, but I would tell you that I believe that it is most consistent for a Christian to be an anarcho-capitalist. I know that murder is wrong. There is no scripture passage that provides an exception for government officials. Therefore, collateral damage, wrongful execution, etc. are sinful and should not be directly or indirectly supported by believers.

We know that prostitutes were viewed by Christ as sinners, but as sinners who should be shown love and mercy. We know that our Lord defended at least one such sinner from an angry crowd, stating in John 8 that "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." The crowd's response? "And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst." Surely, she was a sinner, and Jesus told her to go and sin no more. He treated her with love and concern, seemingly not just concern for the community, but for her. So from this passage I take it that Jesus did not teach the use of violence against prostitutes. This jives with the non-aggression principle.

Now, of course, the next biggest scumbags (at least in Jesus' times) seemed to have been the tax collectors ("publicans"). For this offense, unlike with prostitution (a victimless crime), restitution seems to have been in order, as per Zacchaeus. The commonly cited "render unto Caesar" was a trick answer to a trick question (Luke 20:20 states that they wished to "take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.") It is not a mandate to pay taxes. It is a mandate to support property rights. Of course, with that particular response (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; render unto God that which is God's) it is not clear that anything is Caesar's—at least Jesus doesn't say that anything is. Certainly we assume that everything does belong to God, therefore rendering the question of taxation moot.

In the ultimate scheme of things, it doesn't matter what we "think" works best. It only matters that we abide by the express commands of our Lord and Creator. Even tithes are not to be taken forcibly, "for God loveth a cheerful giver." (2 Corinthians 9:7). Why then should taxes be seen as legitimate? It doesn't matter if you or I think the government can do the best road-building and maintenance—the apostle Paul clearly destroys consequentialist ethics in Romans 3:7-8 when he states, "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not [rather], (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just." In other words, it is not okay to commit evil acts to bring about good in the future. This consequentialism is clearly condemned in scripture, and it is the sole basis for taxation. In whom is your faith: the traditions of man (taxation) or the divinely inspired words of the scriptures?

Note too the express condemnation of government in 1 Samuel 8:4-20. I include a portion of that passage below:

"Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them."

I will not reject our Lord's divine providence for my life, so I will never pledge my loyalty to anything other than Him and His instructions. Since I would not will that anyone use force against me (barring my own commission of a property/violent crime), as an adherent to that faith which states, "If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (James 2:8; also in Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 5:43, Matthew 19:19, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, etc.), I must never aggress against another.

In closing, the non-aggression principle is 100% in keeping with God's word, so far as this humble reader can tell. I pray that you will see my above note (which I sent only to you, not the list, as per Matthew 18:15-17) not as a castigation of an ideological opponent, but rather as an appeal from one believer to another.

Homocide, War, Murder, and Their Distinctions

(The Center for Faith in Politics posted a link to this story, and posed three questions related to the subject matter of that story. The first query was whether or not the US government should apologize for past misdeeds. The other questions were "Are killings justified if they might achieve a greater good?" and "Is there a difference between a person killing a person, and a government killing a person, or set of people?" My responses to all three questions are below.)

First, to answer the first question posed: yes, the US government should apologize for atrocities committed by the US government, even if they were committed 40 years ago.

As for the more in depth, philosophical question... I believe that the six commandment is absolute. "Thou shalt not murder." Now, that response actually begs the question a bit, because the real question here is, "Which homocides are murder, and which aren't?" We know, for instance, that we are supposed to defend the poor and fatherless (presumably those least able to defend themselves) as per Psalms 10.

Vengeance, on the other hand, is the Lord's alone (Deut. 32:35, Romans 12:19, Hebrews 12:30, etc.). There is some room for further inquiry here, however, since Psalm 149 does talk about God's people carrying two-edged swords so as to execute God's vengeance upon the heathen (v.6). (Also note Luke 22:36 on defensive preparedness.)

The question remains: is it acceptable for a Christian to kill someone in a non-defensive manner? First, let me clearly define "defense." According to Dictionary.com, to defend is to "make or keep safe from danger, attack, or harm." So, in its purest form, defense may be considered the repulsion of an attacker, i.e., from one who would inflict harm on one's self, or upon the person of another, or, finally, upon one's property.

This last bit, the defense of property, cannot, in my view, warrant homocide without mitigating circumstances, such as a deadly weapon's use in the thief's taking of said property. The famous passage about an "eye for an eye" is, contrary to popular interpretation, clearly a limitation on punishment to those punishments which fit the crime, so I feel pretty comfortable saying that we as Christians are not to shoot people for, say, stealing popsicles, or, heck, even televisions.

With the property question out of the way, the question becomes, "Under what circumstances may I righteously kill someone in defense?" Because no man knows the hearts of other men, save God, then no man can be seen as righteous when he engages in a preemptive attack. We cannot know the intent of others beyond what they tell us, and what we actually see them do. Therefore, a man's arming of himself cannot be cause to kill him, although this prescription may change if the man arms himself after he declares, "I am gonna get my gun and kill you!" In such a case, the offender, even if he meant to joke but was unclear, may be seen as having exposed himself to bodily liability through his actions. So the standard comes down to some sort of "reasonable belief" on the part of the defender that his life or limb may be in danger.

What then of government killings? I think that this is relatively easy to answer. There is no such thing. An individual (or in some exceptional cases, several individuals) always commits the act necessary to effect the killing. The real question is whether or not an individual is permitted to kill an innocent at the whim of the state (i.e., politicians). My answer, as a world-hating, God-fearing Christian must be an emphatic "no." There is no reason to believe that a murder committed "in the line of duty" (read: "on the job") is less reprehensible than a personally-motivated killing.

Most important to me in this discussion is the issue of collateral damage. This concept can only be justified by a consequentialist ethic, such as utilitarianism. The scriptures, remarkably (actually, not so remarkably, given their divine inspiration) anticipate such ethical farces as utilitarianism. Romans 3:8 clearly declares that it is antithetical to God's law that we should say, "Let us do evil, that good may come".

If, then, we are forced to abandon the consequentialist analysis of right and wrong, we are left with a much easier system of judging right from wrong. We no longer must painstakingly attempt to predict the outcome of a particular action in order to determine its moral status. If the action is wrong in and of itself, it is wrong to perform--finis! We are, frankly, left with the obvious system here. We are to abhor those acts which are not in keeping with God's law (the law, as far as this anarchist is concerned). The taking of innocent life, even for a "good cause," is not permissible. The theft of property, even for a "good cause," is not righteous.

In summation, (1)no, the "greater good" cannot justify a killing, (2)and no, there is no qualitative difference between organized killing and unorganized killing. Although, as to this last point, the scriptures do reflect a holy disdain for warlike peoples, stating (through David), "scatter thou the people [that] delight in war" (Psalm 68:30b).

Is Religion a Sufficient Cause for Social Ills?

(The Center for Faith in Politics posted a link to this story, which discusses a study that reports that the pervasiveness of religion in a particular country can be correlated with higher rates of "anti-social" activities, including abortion, murder, et al. My response is below.)

"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies." (from the article)

Therein lies the rub. There is a correlation demonstrated by this data, but not a causal relationship between religion and crime, necessarily. That is, there is a correlation if these data are correct. They don't seem to be.

According to NationMaster.com, the countries with the highest percentage of their populations falling victim to crime are, in order: Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Sweden, Itally, Canada, Denmark, Poland, and Belgium.

The site notes that "Data refer to people victimized by one or more of 11 crimes recorded in the survey: robbery, burglary, attempted burglary, car theft, car vandalism, bicycle theft, sexual assault, theft from car, theft of personal property, assault and threats."

It also offers the proviso that,

"Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence."

I would guess that the study in question likely found itself beleaguered by similar problems, namely, that some victims are less likely to report to crimes than others. Either way, the study is either critically disabled by data collection problems, or, if you want to be the conspiracy theorist type, willfully misrepresenting the available data.

---------------

My apologies, I plugged the wrong choices into the NationMaster.com engine. The list that I gave above should read: Austrailia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Canada, St. Kitts & Nevis, Malta, Denmark.

Another interesting statistic:

Total crimes per capita, by country (top ten worst)

Dominica, New Zealand, Finland, Denmark, Chile, United Kingdom, Montserrat, United States, Netherlands, South Africa.