Tom Woods Interviews Norman Horn on Christian Libertarians
This is a neat interview that I just finished. Near the end, Norman and Tom make (separate) points that I heartily endorse. (Note that in the below I am paraphrasing and might make the points the way I typically do, but they are definitely consistent with what Norman and Tom said.)
==> Around 15:15, Norman says that even though he’s not an outright pacifist, he does think that people give violence too much credit for achieving social change. For example, when you bring up the idea of violent resistance to the State, people take it for granted that it “worked” when the American colonists used it against King George. But hold on a second–why are we debating right now how to push back a tyrannical government, if the violent American revolution was such a smashing success?
==> Around 18:00, Tom makes the exact same point that I was trying to make with my blog post yesterday: Atheist libertarians get huffy with the Christian libertarians, as if we from scratch came up with a theology intending to make things uncomfortable for Rothbardianism. Well no, we didn’t make this stuff up; we encountered a tradition of belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ etc. etc. that we believe is true. We actually believe that the God described in the Christian Bible exists. In the face of such a possibility, it’s a bit petty to be fretting over Romans 13.
“But hold on a second–why are we debating right now how to push back a tyrannical government, if the violent American revolution was such a smashing success?”
This seems like an odd point. I guess Canada would be the comparison of people who “pushed back” against England via peaceful means, right? But their government would also be considered tyrannical by libertarian standards. England itself even moreso.
Similarly, a return to a government as stipulated in the Articles of Confederation would probably suit most libertarians just fine. It wouldn’t be perfect, but it would be a lot less tyrannical than what we have now.
My point is, you seem to be implying that the fact that we used violence against Britain is the primary factor in determining that our current government is tyrannical today. I don’t think there’s much evidence to support that. It would seem that our current situation is the fault of the design of the government AFTER the war. The fact that the revolution was accomplished violently and not peaceably did not, in and of itself, dictate that the Federal Reserve would show up in 1913.
Matt M I think you are missing the argument though. I’m not saying the American Revolution proves that violence CAN’T work, I’m saying it does NOT prove that violence DOES work.
To give more context, when I get into these debates with people (e.g. over the Bundy Ranch) I’ll make a point about “until we educate the public about how a free society works, guns aren’t going to solve anything in the long run” and someone will bring up Patrick Henry. I.e. they are saying, “Good thing the Founding Fathers didn’t listen to your girly pacifism talk about education; we got a free society because we were willing to fight and die for it.”
So the advocates of (defensive, Rothbardian-consistent, NAP-loving) violence are pointing to the American Revolution as a vindication of their views. I’m saying it’s not so obvious to me that it is.
Ah, fair enough. Ironically, I’ve made the same point to a lot of my friends about say, a Ron Paul Presidency. It would be significant if he won because that would indicate a change in beliefs and attitudes of the country. But if, say, anonymous hacked the voting computers and he was reported the winner and became President despite the public still largely being opposed to his views, it really wouldn’t do very much good at all.
This this this this this. Thanks Bob, that’s definitely a better way of saying it than I did. I do love pointing to Wilberforce as a model of cultural change, though. 🙂
The fact that the revolution was accomplished violently and not peaceably did not, in and of itself, dictate that the Federal Reserve would show up in 1913.
Great point.
The checks and balances we had on the Federal and State governments at the founding of our country are gone.
THAT’S what makes it the vastly more tyrannical government it is, today.
I reckon you could reply that there simply just hasn’t been *enough* violent resistance since.
I reckon you could reply that there simply just hasn’t been *enough* violent resistance since.
Right, just like Krugman replies that the stimulus just wasn’t big enough.
Heck, while I’m sure I could argue that while the structure of the arguments are quite the same, the arguments themselves are entirely different, I don’t want to. Your comment was brilliant.
Thank you, thank you. I was going to add, “Of course, I didn’t just win the argument. In both cases you need a priori theory, and presumably you think your theory about defensive force is better than Krugman’s theory about deficit spending.” But I didn’t want to ruin the joke.
At 13 minutes Norman makes the point Romans 13 and the few other pro authority passages are far outweighed in number and scope by the anti-authority, anti-king, anti-state passages.
Norman also brilliantly explains how The Bible shows that private property and individualism are the building blocks of community. Coming together is a choice made by free people.
Like
: )
Thanks Gamble! 😀
I don’t call for violent resistance against the government…however I think G.K. Chesterton said it best:
“The evil of militarism is not that it shows certain men to be fierce and haughty and excessively warlike. The evil of militarism is that it shows most men to be tame and timid and excessively peaceable. The professional soldier gains more and more power as the general courage of a community declines. Thus the Pretorian guard became more and more important in Rome as Rome became more and more luxurious and feeble. The military man gains the civil power in proportion as the civilian loses the military virtues. And as it was in ancient Rome so it is in contemporary Europe. There never was a time when nations were more militarist. There never was a time when men were less brave.”
G. K. Chesterton says so many things best. This was written in 1905, I believe thinking particularly about Prussia. Ironically, Hitler later manages to come to power without the support of the German military by completely duping the populace. How he accomplished this is perhaps even more applicable to present-day America than the evils of militarism. If you are skeptical of this, I would recommend you read the book Norman put at the top of the list of recommended books on LCC:
1. Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy – This essential new biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, by the same man who authored Amazing Grace (also a hit movie), pays special attention to Bonhoeffer’s political involvement during the rise of Nazi Germany. LCC will be reviewing this book in early 2014.