Because of Romans 13

Filed under History

anarchism n.

  1. The belief that proposes the absence and abolition of government in all forms.
  2. 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.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Share


No tags for this post.

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.