Because of Romans 13

anarchism n.

The belief that proposes the absence and abolition of government in all forms.
Specifically, a political and philosophical belief that all forms of involuntary rule or government are undesirable or unnecessary, and that society could function without a ruler or involuntary government (a state).

Me: I don't think government
   should have a monopoly
   on the use of force.
You: I don't even know what
   that means.
Me: Well, you know what
   government is, right?
You: Yes.
Me: And you know what a
   monopoly is, right?
You: Yes.
Me: And you know what force
   is, right?
You: Yes.
Me: So where's the
   confusion?
You: Well, I guess I've never
   put it all together like
   that. I thought monopoly
   was part of business and
   stuff.
Me: Yes and no.
You: Government isn't in the
   business of force.
Me: It's not?
You: I don't think so.
   Government is about law
   and order. Justice.
   Stuff like that.
Me: And when it isn't?
You: Well, it's not perfect.
   Nobody said it was.
   It's the best option we
   have, though.
Me: And how did you come to
   that conclusion?
You: I guess from school.
Me: You mean government
   school?
You: And church.
Me: You mean the 501(c)(3)
   organization?
You: What?
Me: Churches have a tax
   status called 501(c)(3)
   that gives them economic
   favors from government.
You: OK, look. Even if
   that's true, which I
   seriously doubt, the
     Bible says we should
   submit to government.
   The church just teaches
   what the Bible says.
Me: So we should submit to
   our government because
   the Bible says so?
You: Because of Romans 13.
Me: Was Paul writing to you?
You: Yes, all of us.
Me: So Paul was writing to
   all humans, everywhere,
   all time?
You: Well, I guess he did
   have a specific audience
   in Rome. But it still
   applies. It's good
   advice.
Me: What advice was Paul
   giving in Romans 13?
You: That government exists
   whether we like it or
   not. That government is
   of God.  And the greater
   context is that we
   should live in harmony
   with one another.
Me: So if a government
   exist, that alone is
   prima facie evidence
     that God created that
   government?
You: Prima facie-wa?
Me: Prima facie evidence is
   evidence that is correct
   "on its first
     appearance" or correct
   just at a glance.
You: Yes, in a nutshell, but
   I think you're about to
   use that against me
   somehow.
Me: Exactly. What about
   King George III of the
   United Kingdom?
You: What about him?
Me: Did Paul imply that King
   George was of God?
You: But you aren't talking
   about starting a new
   government like the
   colonialists did.
Me: So then, it's OK to
   resist King George
   because the colonialists
   intentions were to set
   up a new government in
   its place?
You: I think you're trying to
   trap me again. All I'm
   saying is that you can't
   use Romans 13 to defend
   your position.
Me: Only you can.
You: Well, yeah, because the
   outcome is still at
   least a government when
   it's all over.
Me: I don't see anything in
   Romans 13 that says you
   can resist a government
   that is of God for any
   reason. So how was the
   American Revolution
   justified in resisting
   King George? I'm just
   asking you to be
   consistent. The
   American Revolutionary
   War began when armed
   conflict between British
   regulars and colonial
   militiamen broke out in
   New England in April
   1775. Were the
   militiamen acting
   consistently with Romans
   13?
You: Among the two choices,
   be ruled from afar by
   King George or be ruled
   by a republic, the
   republic represented the
   best situation yet still
   fit within Romans 13
   example.
Me: So even if I could
   provide an even better
   situation, if it doesn't
   fit within the Romans 13
   example, it is not a
   viable option?
You: Yes, you got it!
Me: May I disagree with you?
You: Well of course, but keep
   in mind, you are
   disagreeing with God.
Me: Maybe so. But if I was
   to disagree with you,
   would you take steps to
   keep me from acting on
   my disbelief or would
   you leave it between me
   and God?
You: Me personally? No, I
   don't think I would.
   It's between you and
   God.
Me: That's great! So if you
   were "asked" to
   "contribute" one half of
   one cent towards keeping
   me from acting on my
   belief, would you not
   contribute?
You: Wait a second. You mean
   pay my taxes, right?
Me: Right. It might cost $1
   million for government
   to deal with me. Your
   "fair share" is maybe
   about one half of one
   cent.
You: Well. I guess I would
   pay if it kept me out of
   jail.
Me: So either jail or be@arrowj, TSD Core
   jailed.
You: Because of Romans 13.
Me: Is that what Paul meant
   by, as you say, living
   in harmony with one
   another?
You: But that's your own
   fault, not mine.
Me: It's my own fault?
You: Yes. You're the one in
   error. Clearly.
Me: So you are banking on
   your interpretation of
   Romans 13 to absolve
   your role in the use of
   force by government to
   throw me in jail for
   acting to resist
   government?
You: You call it an
   interpretation, but it's
   pretty widely accepted.
Me: Widely accepted by the
   501(c)(3) organizations?
You: You seem to think you
   have a better idea than
   government. But
     government is God's
   idea. How can you have
   a better idea than God
   does?
Me: God, by definition, has
   the best ideas. I do
   not believe Romans 13
   defines your government
   as one of those ideas.
You: You hold a minority
   opinion. If you can get
   more people to believe
   the way you do, maybe
   things will change.
Me: So until then, be
   jailed?
You: That's our system.
Me: No, that's your system.
You: You can always leave.
   You always have that
   option.
Me: So be jailed or leave.
   Those are my options?
You: All you're doing is
   trying to make me sound
   like a monster.  But
   what you're talking
   about sounds an awfully
   lot like anarchy. I
   think maybe you are the
   monster.
Me: And government schools
   told you anarchy is
   chaos. 501(c)(3)s
   told you anarchy is not
   of God.
You: You keep turning this
   around on me. I don't
   like that very much.
   I'm sorry I called you a
   monster. Let's agree to
   disagree!
Me: I am just pointing out a
   conflict of interest.
You: The Romans 13
   interpretation is clear
   enough that a conflict
   of interest wouldn't
   matter, if it even
   existed.
Me: And there is no doubt in
   your mind that God
   grants a monopoly use of
   force to government
     because of Romans 13?
You: I'm still not sure what
   you mean by that.
   Wouldn't anarchy also
   require force?
Me: Yes.
You: So what's the
   difference?
Me: Imagine there were two
   governments on the same
   plot of land that you
   and I could choose from.
   Neither government was
   perfect.  But you and I
   could pick our
   allegiance between theNow What?
   two at any time or on a
   whim.  Those two
   governments would have
   to compete for scarce
   allegiance. Technically
   speaking, these
     governments are not
   governments because they
   do not have a monopoly.
   Therefore, we have
   anarchy.
You: I don't get how that's
   any better.
Me: Scarce allegiance is how
   it's better.
   Competition makes
   everything better.
You: Yeah, well I bet over
   time, one will get much
   bigger than the other
   until eventually one
   crushes the other and
   you're back where you
   started.
Me: There were only two in
   my illustration, but
   that's why there
     actually needs to be
   more than two. The
   number should actually
   be unlimited.
You: That's crazy. That
   would be a huge mess.
   How is there any
     accountability in a
   thing like that?
Me: Is there accountability
   now?
You: Yes. There is more
   accountability now than
   there would be if
   everybody had their own
   one-person-government.
   That's just total
   anarchy.
Me: Does $12 trillion of
   debt represents a system
   that has *any* semblance
   of accountability?
You: $12 trillion of debt is
   a lot better than total
   anarchy.
Me: Isn't it nice how you
   get to decide that and
   not me, but I am
   considered bound by that
   debt anyway?
You: Like I said, it's not
   perfect. Anyway, I'm
   trying to change that
   from the inside. All
   you're doing is standing
   on the outside, maybe
   even adding $1 million
   to it so the government
   will go after you. At
   least I'm being
   productive.
Me: Because of Romans 13.
You: Because of your screwed
   up interpretation of
   Romans 13, yeah.
Me: I bet a lot of colonials
   accused each other in a
   similar way. Those in
   power have a way of
   turning us against each
   other. Many colonials
   thought a 1% or 2% tax
   wasn't really too much
   to ask as long as they
   could keep the relative
   peace.  Isn't it
   interesting that now we
   are asked to pay 40%.
You: I didn't pay 40%. I got
   my Federal tax return
   filed and it was less
   than that.
Me: If you don't pay 40%,
   your children pay the
   difference plus whatever
   they pile on by then
   because that is at least
   what is spent right now,
   at least on the books.
You: And you yourself are
   adding to it! Stop it!
Me: So you think it's
   reasonable to send
   accusations my way for
   your government's out-
   of-control spending?
You: There are a lot of
   things you can do
   without risking the
     government coming down
   on you like a ton of
   bricks.
Me: For now, that may be
   true. But that list of
   things is getting
   smaller, which is
   convenient for you.
You: Like what?
Me: Well, just take free
   speech. Public
   speaking. That's on the
   top of your list, right?
You: Yes. That should be
   safe.
Me: Well, have you ever
   heard of "Free Speech
   Zones?" I happen to
   think free speech zones
   are wherever I happen to
   be standing (via Michael
   Badnarick).
You: I don't agree with "Free
   Speech Zones." But the
   prohibited zones are
   easy to avoid. What are
   you doing, seeking them
   out just to get in
   trouble?
Me: I haven't done that, but
   are you suggesting I am
   wasting tax payer funds
   if I did that?
You: Yes.
Me: Because of Romans 13?
You: Because of Romans 13.
Me: Well, my friend. I see
   that as circular, flawed
   reasoning.
You: How so?
Me: We have a differing
   interpretation, but your
   interpretation
   authorizes the use of
   force against my
   interpretation because
   of my interpretation.
You: But I'm right, clearly.