Mercy Mercy Me
I was discussing the issue of proportionality in punishment with some libertarians the other day. (This means that there are strict limits on how much you can punish an aggressor. You don’t have to exercise your rightful amount of punishment, but the point is you are not allowed to exceed it.)
I agreed that this was always loosey-goosey in the theoretical treatments I’d read, but nonetheless I thought it was an important concept. For example, you can’t shoot a teenager in the back if he’s running out of your store with a candy bar he just stole.
I realized halfway into the discussion (as a pacifist I was naturally much meeker than some of the other people) that I didn’t need to rely purely on a Christian recognition that we are all lawbreakers and thus need mercy, but I could also appeal for leniency as an economist.
Besides being children of the living God (or at least some are, depending on your precise doctrinal views), human beings are unbelievably productive machines. So that’s why–in addition to being sinful and tragic–it is incredibly wasteful to shoot someone for theft. Imagine junking a supercomputer because it crashed and you lost your term paper.
And this is another aspect of how horrid the State is. In the present circumstances, most human beings come nowhere near their potential, because they are shackled. Imagine if Einstein had been a plantation slave.
Woohoo! A Sunday post! This one even includes libertarian punishment theory. It’s been like 2 weeks without one.
“In the present circumstances, most human beings come nowhere near their potential, because they are shackled.”
Right: we can all see the huge productivity gains when states fail. Libya is the most productive place in the world right now!
That can be an argument in favor of voluntarism. We shouldn’t create a state because it will inevitably fail and plunge us into chaos. We can’t have chaos. What are we, anarchists?
“But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over” is an awesome article I would recommend to everyone.
Right: and we shouldn’t get medical care, because inevitably we will die!
With a sufficiently dysfunctional state the people are better off when it collapses, unambiguously so.
But Libya’s problems are due to war, not anarchy. I take it you know that so you’re either being disingenuous or are a Hobbesian. Unsurprising.
Liar or Hobbesian. At least it’s an inventive false dichotomy.
No, it’s a trichotomy. Your reading comprehension needs work.
It’s also possible I’m wrong and he doesn’t know that.
Hobbesian wasn’t intended as an insult per se. It just means he believe man’s natural state is a War of All Against All.
I respectfully disagree.
“With a sufficiently dysfunctional state the people are better off when it collapses, unambiguously so.”
… Unless the cause of the collapse is US intervention.
😛
I’ve been looking for an opportunity to say that for some time.
I’m patting myself on the back right now.
That’s for you, fellow Conservatives. Not all libertarians are Lefties.
guest you’re great, I cannot stress that enough.
Uh … I’m sorry, my friend. I feel bad, now.
🙁
My point was actually that libertarians seem to only cheer the end of every government – even when it’s being replaced by Communism – *if* the end is not caused by US intervention.
For some reason, when the US ends it, it’s all of a sudden a bad thing. But if Communism replaces it, it’s ok to cheer.
It baffles me. The motive for many Conservatives in supporting our foreign interventions is either for self-defense or for helping the repressed, *not* for helping them achieve democracy or Progressivism, which we rightly hate.
Apparently, *some* good can come from Communism, but America is all bad.
Tsk, tsk.
No no, I got it, it was clever. I don’t identify as left-libertarian either.
Though it’s weird I come across that way.
My apologies, then.
The reason I wanted to say what I said for so long is because of a quote from one of Rothbard’s (?) writings which was basically cheering the end of some government that was being replaced by Communism at the time.
The guy who posted the quote said it gave him a hard time for awhile, but came to understand that what Rothbard meant was that the end of governments, *per se*, is good, and Rothbard wasn’t cheering Communism.
Maybe it was Bob Roddis.
I thought it was odd that you don’t see libertarians looking for the silver lining in America’s foreign interventions like they’re able to do for Commie interventions.
It’s just another sad example of how libertarians keep reinforcing the Conservatives’ mistaken belief that libertarianism is a defense of Left anarchy (or just “anarchy” to most Conservatives).
Free trade with communist Nations is in the same vein. OR is that vain;)
Ahem: *war* is what you get when you remove a state. Every single time.
This is a prudential argument. It does not address the claim by Block, and as far as I can see every Rothbardian, that you have the right to shoot the thief as long as he is on your land stealing your property. Is Rothbardian theory wrong or immoral?
I don’t know what Block has to say on this, but your claim on “every Rothbardian” would likely make Rothbard not a Rothbardian, which seems silly to me.
First note that Rothbard seems to connect punishment and defense (he claims “all rights of punishment derive from the victim’s right of self-defense”). And his reasoning for proportionality on punishment applies to defense of person/property too:
“We have advanced the view that the criminal loses his rights to the extent that he deprives another of his rights: the theory of “proportionality.””
So, if I ran onto Rothbard’s property and grabbed his lamp, he would only be able to deprive me of my rights to the extent his had been damaged under his theory. Shooting me would be beyond that, so Rothbard would say this is wrong as far as I can tell.
(Source: Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 13)
Is this the religious post for the week? Jesus is nicer than Walter Block?
Well, I admit, to this crowd that might be a controversial claim.
Are you just extremely lonely and miserable in real life? That’s the only way I can explain why a person would keep coming back to a place he’d been banned from just to waste time with people he thinks so little of. It just seems so sad and pathetic. I really feel sorry for you.
But the value of a commodity depends on both supply and demand… humans are in relatively plentiful supply by historic standards. Admittedly, very brilliant humans are in significantly shorter supply, indeed it’s tempting to think there were a greater proportion of geniuses a while ago (maybe government has just become more adept at holding people back these days). To balance that out a little, someone truly brilliant would either not resort to stealing from you, or else would be so good at stealing there isn’t a whole lot you could do to stop them.
Moving right along, there is a much better reason to avoid overly harsh punishments… which is the escalation problem. Let’s suppose it is well known that you always shoot candy-bar thieves on sight. So a potential thief would figure everything is at risk anyhow, no reason to just go for the candy-bar, might as well shoot first, strike by surprise, loot the whole place end to end, burn the remains to the ground. No additional downside (they penalty was instant death already) and considerable upside considering greater returns, no witnesses and a bigger chance of getting away with it.
There is a mutual benefit in not escalating, especially for the party who has more to lose. This is also economics, but a different kind of economics. You are essentially paying the thief to go easy on you, in return for a lesser consequence when you go easy on the thief. Sounds stupid but it is still possible to negotiate with someone who has adverse interests to yourself (even in low-trust situations).
“And this is another aspect of how horrid the State is.”
lol.. even though the state in virtually the whole Western world has abolished the death penalty? And punishments have got progressively more and more humane? Typical American ignorance of the world outside of the US.
And even though Christian states throughout history had the death penalty and even torture for often minor crimes?
“Imagine if Einstein had been a plantation slave.”
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5).
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only to please them while they are watching, but with sincerity of heart and fear of the Lord.” (Ephesians 6:5).
“Slaves, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18).
————
Looks to me like as a good Christian he would have had to shut his mouth and obey his master, even a cruel one. That is the reality of the New Testament, Bob Murphy.
“Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.” (1 Corinthians 7:21-24)
Context. Context. Context.
Romans 13. “1 Obey the rulers who have authority over you. Only God can give authority to anyone, and he puts these rulers in their places of power. 2 People who oppose the authorities are opposing what God has done, and they will be punished. 3 Rulers are a threat to evil people, not to good people. There is no need to be afraid of the authorities. Just do right, and they will praise you for it. 4 After all, they are God’s servants, and it is their duty to help you. 5 If you do something wrong, you ought to be afraid, because these rulers have the right to punish you. They are God’s servants who punish criminals to show how angry God is. 5 But you should obey the rulers because you know it is the right thing to do, and not just because of God’s anger. 6 You must also pay your taxes. The authorities are God’s servants, and it is their duty to take care of these matters. 7 Pay all that you owe, whether it is taxes and fees or respect and honor.”
This jibes very well with slaves obey your master.
Okay Knox,
Time for you to learn something.
Much of what Paul said was prescriptive rather than descriptive. Paul prescribed a God ordained government.
What is a God ordained government? Paul tells us. Watch, here it, it goes by quick so pay close attention. I will quote you, “Rulers are a threat to evil people, not to good people. There is no need to be afraid of the authorities. Just do right, and they will praise you for it. 4 After all, they are God’s servants, and it is their duty to help you.”
A god ordained government punishes evil, commends goodness, does this 24/7/365 and does nothing less, nothing more.
Have you located any government that meet Pauls’ criteria, I have not. This means no government is God ordained nor has authority.
“Have you located any government that meet Pauls’ criteria, I have not. This means no government is God ordained nor has authority.”
There is no “Paul’s criteria” for whether you should obey or disobey the state. The passage says obey the government period. All of them are ordained by God.
No, that passage cannot be interpreted as “Obey government…except when you personally don’t feel like it.”
No, you are under the spell of authoritarianism.
You don’t understand Paul. He was lowered down from a window in a basket to escape government.
He used to be a tax collector and now condemns all tax collectors as the scourge of the earth.
So Paul needs to be understood before you can honestly interpret R13.
Then you have Rahab. She was commended for deceiving civil authority. James 2:25New International Version (NIV)
25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?
Then there is Jesus. He was hidden from the King. Not to mention Jesus said he sat with sinners and tax collectors. Jesus also flipped and whipped the money changers.
Then Moses disobeyed authority as did the midwives.
Then 1 Sam 8, totally condemns the idea of a King other than Jesus.
Jesus was an anarchist!
I am under no spell of authoritarianism guest. You are under the spell of trying and failing to square a circle. You want the bible to be both true and consistent with libertarianism. You cannot tolerate the notion of the bible being an advocacy of authoritarianism.
No, Romans 13 must be understood before you can understand Paul the tax collector.
Paul continues:
“6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”
Your interpretation of Romans 13 is false.
Sadly there is very little than can be learned from your response other than that you are not a careful reader or that you are disingenuous – perhaps both.
Romans 13:1 Obey the rulers who have authority over you. Only God can give authority to anyone, and he puts these rulers in their places of power. 2 People who oppose the authorities are opposing what God has done, and they will be punished.”
Those two verses show you to be a fool or a liar. Take your pick. Paul clearly states that governments are given authority by God – he puts them in power and people who oppose what God has done will be punished for their disobedience.
It appears that you don’t like that passage very much but I don’t see how you can make a colorable argument that it says something different.
I guess it’s time you learn something.
And you are also the same kind of person who thinks Jews actually kept their end of Gods covenant, therefore they are chosen. Problems is, Gods covenants were conditional. Just as is His definition of an ordained government.
God is not saying with R13, that all government is good, He is saying only some governments are true authority, His. The others should be abolished immediately. God ordained government is NOT a terror to good works and punishes evil. Most modern government does the exact opposite therefore is not God ordained not legit and should be immediately regarded as impostor.
You probably also think Jesus does not care if you sin. When in reality, He will tell most that He does not know them. Get away from you workers of iniquity!
No. I’m the type of person who doesn’t believe any of the God stuff.
Your interpretation of Romans 13 is, being charitable, tortured. Here it is one more time. 13:1 “Obey the rulers who have authority over you. Only God can give authority to anyone, and he puts these rulers in their places of power.” You will note it doesn’t say “only obey the governments with true authority and abolish the others immediately.” It says that God is responsible for every government because he has given them authority and you are to obey them – to do otherwise is a sin of disobedience..
You just have it wrong.
No, there is no mention of “some” in Romans 13. It is talking about all governments.
“You will note it doesn’t say “only obey the governments with true authority and abolish the others immediately.””
That’s because it doesn’t have to; It’s assumed that the readers know better:
“When they had brought them, they stood them before the Council. The high priest questioned them, saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:27-29)
Guest,
The fact that Romans 13 is inconsistent with Acts 5 does not imply Acts 5 overrules Romans 13. You are only trying to believe it does because it is convenient for you. One could just as easily assert that the inconsistency implies Romans 13 overrules Acts 5.
The bible is full of inconsistencies. It is unintegratable. There is no rational justification for pretending that one passage is “the” final word while all others that relate to the same issue but are inconsistent with the chosen passage are somehow null and void.
In all of your posts you have not successfully nullified Romans 13. It was written and what it says is that you must obey all governments for all of them we’re put there by God.
You may not like, but what is uncomfortable to you gives no right to claim that the passage was not written. The fact that you need to resort to imagining the writers of that passage were saying the opposite of what it actually says, proves your understanding of it is flawed.
Whatever Romans 13 is saying, it definitely does *not* jibe well with slaves obey your masters.
Not every Christian had a human master at that time. Some were slaves and some were free.
As is predictable you provided your typical response exhibiting your lack of understanding of analogy.
Slave masters should be obeyed according to the Bible. “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only to please them while they are watching, but with sincerity of heart and fear of the Lord.” (Ephesians 6:5).
Governments should be obeyed according to the Bible. “Obey the rulers who have authority over you. Only God can give authority to anyone, and he puts these rulers in their places of power.” (Romans 13:1)
In both instances we are instructed – slave OR free – to obey authority. That is the “jibing well” part.
“Not every Christian had a human master at that time. Some were slaves and some were free.”
So? The point is that in either case we are instructed to obey. The condition the relevant Christian is in – slave or free – is wholly irrelevant to the overall command for obedience.
But you are suggesting obey for the sake of obeying. God is suggesting it is impossible to Glorify Him to non believers if you are rebellious.
I’m not suggesting anything – I am quoting directly from your instruction manual. God is also, according to the manual, not suggesting anything. He is telling you to obey both slavemasters and governments – and from where I stand I see very little difference between the two.
Knox, you seriously see no difference between governments and slave masters?
Craw,
I didn’t say no difference. I said very little difference. It is a question of degree and not of kind – again, in my mind.
Knox
So you’re a slave, taxes are slavery, government is evil?
Doesn’t fit with my picture of you from other posts, which is why I ask.
We could get into the weeds on this topic very quickly but I found A. John Simmons’ book Moral Principles and Political Obligations (Princeton University Press) to be very illuminating on the topic of political obligation particularly with regard to consent theories.
In addition, I am a fan of Rothbard, Mises, and Hoppe although I have a little left-libertarian streak in me.
On a scale I would say we are somewhere between serfs and slaves.
The slave master takes 100% of what you earn, while government takes about 50% (when you add up all the bits and pieces) so they are halfway there in my books.
The troubling thing is that when you look at the trend government is heading more towards the slave master not less.
Tel,
I often see and hear that the serf was required to surrender 1/3 of their product to the feudal lords and slaves all of their product to the master. (Using labor and product interchangeably for simplicity). Your metric of total taxes taking greater than half seems about right to me. It seems we arrived at serfdom and are on the road to slavery.
Knox
“In both instances we are instructed – slave OR free – to obey authority.”
And how do you determine who has authority?
Is it whoever the majority believes it is? (Argument from Authority fallacy.)
Is it whoever can intimidate others into submission? (Might makes right.)
Can *I* say I have the authority and Christians are supposed to obey me?
Or is there a more fundamental criteria?
Moreover, though: How can a Christian obey government laws which necessarily make people poorer? That would seem to go against the duty to be good stewards.
Price controls make people poor, therefore it is the Christian’s duty to ignore them.
The Minimum Wage causes unemployment for unskilled labor, therefore it’s their dut to ignore it.
Etc., etc.
“And how do you determine who has authority?”
That’s the point. God has decided. He put all governments in power – good and bad – and you are to obey them. There is no equivocation in the verses and your argument assumes that you are able to interpret an intent in the authors that is diametrically opposed to the words of the authors. You aren’t Leo Strauss are you?
Just to be clear, is the irony of Bob’s position based on the current condition of Christianity simply being at least as horrid as states, or just that modern states have absolved themselves through recent legal reformation?
Obey your masters does not mean you cant attempt freedom.
The 1956 Johnson Amendment and tax exempt status has made modern church a government department. Not to mention most modern churches had been Judaized.
I love, fear and obey God yet I refuse to step into a modern church building.
Hi Bob,
I’m curious how this would work in an anarchy. When that shop keeper shoots the kid in the back for running out when a candy bar, does someone (the kids parents?) go after the shop keeper?
It’s questions like this that keep me a minarchist.
Jim
It helps to say that rights are rights whether or not they’re enforced, and the moment you violate someone’s rights to defend your own, you’re actually denying the natural rights basis for your own rights.
Either rights are natural and do not come from government, or rights do come from government / social contracts and the kid can be shot for stealing a candy bar “for the greater good of society”.
You have to accept that there are things the government may not justly do, even if that makes us less safe, if you are going to be able to defend the concept of natural rights.
When a poor person can’t afford bread, does he just starve to death? It’s questions like this that keep me a communist.
Yeah the starving man should wait in a bread line like everyone else!
Er…
Is it a good idea to put your right hand in a spinning blender? Put your left hand in instead.
When a poor person could work for bread if he were employed for a wage that’s below the Minimum, but the government prevents him from doing so, does he just starve to death?
It’s questions like this that keep me an anarcho-capitalist.
I was sarcastically responding to Jim with this comment, not defending communism.
Andrew_FL, is that you?
Eeyup, that’s The Question in my avatar.
No, I mean are you Reader? Because I think I’m catching humorless.
I did also want to note that I see what you did there with your avatar.
Oh, no, I’m not. But I have been known to gradually suck all the humor out of the room!
“No. I’m the type of person who doesn’t believe any of the God stuff.
Your interpretation of Romans 13 is, being charitable, tortured. Here it is one more time. 13:1 “Obey the rulers who have authority over you. Only God can give authority to anyone, and he puts these rulers in their places of power.” You will note it doesn’t say “only obey the governments with true authority and abolish the others immediately.” It says that God is responsible for every government because he has given them authority and you are to obey them – to do otherwise is a sin of disobedience..
You just have it wrong.”
As a non believer, you will have an impossible time comprehending Gods message.
This is wonderfully succinct Guest. Change “God’s” to “Rothbard’s” and you have summarized several years of this blog. Major.Freedom writes a book and you précis it in a line.
It amazes me that you continue to hurl insults after being banned and tha Dr. Murphy lets you continue to hang around.
The Bible is living and requires faith. Rothbards message requires logic. Obviously you have neither.
Does anyone else find Guest to be a moron? Seriously.
I find him to be an Austrian.
I cannot honestly see any air between his position and Murphy’s. Romans 13 cannot mean what it says, so it must somehow mean the opposite.
More insults. Typical of losers.
I didn’t mean it as an insult – I meant it as a serious question hence the “seriously.”
Based on his argument and lack of comprehension I think the may actually be a moron.
Moron: a stupid person.
synonyms: fool, idiot, ass, blockhead, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, imbecile, cretin, dullard, simpleton, clod
not the – *he may actually be a moron.