19 Dec 2018

Bob Murphy Show Ep 9: Norman Horn on Romans 13 etc.

Bob Murphy Show, Religious 23 Comments

Norman gives the best handling of this tricky subject I’ve yet heard. Plus we discuss all sorts of other stuff.

23 Responses to “Bob Murphy Show Ep 9: Norman Horn on Romans 13 etc.”

  1. Keshav Srinivasan says:

    Bob, somewhat related to the Romans 13 issue, have you seen this post by Gene?


    How would you square Jesus’ words to the tax collector with your belief that taxation is theft?

    • Mark says:

      Jesus didn’t say that, as Gene pointed out twice. John did. And it’s good advice. But as you pointed out on the other website, Jesus told us to render unto Caesar that which is Caeser’s without telling us what that was, if anything.

      • Keshav Srinivasan says:

        Mark, are you an anarcho-capitalist? Because an anarcho-capitalist like Bob would presumably not think it’s good advice to tell a tax collector to immorally collect taxes from people.

        • Mark says:

          What does that have to do with you attributing words to Jesus that He didn’t say and then completely ignoring that when your fib was exposed?

          • Keshav Srinivasan says:

            It was a mistake, not a fib, but I apologize for it all the same.

          • Gene Callahan says:

            Keshav, this is Mark avoiding the question.

            • Mark says:

              Don’t be silly. Computer is down and doing everything on my phone. Maybe after Christmas I’ll get back to this.

        • Transformer says:

          I read all the works of Rothbard and Mises. How did I miss this great refutation from John of the Bible that definitively proves that anarcho-capitalism is bunk!

    • Keshav Srinivasan says:

      Are there any Christian anarchocapitalists who have thoughts on this statement by John?

      • poppies says:

        I understand it similarly to the many scriptural guidelines on slavery, divorce, etc. None of these guidelines need to be taken as an approval of the issues discussed, to the consternation of antebellum slavery apologists. The guidelines can be seen as simply trying to pragmatically limit the expansion of evil; aiming at the root of the issues is taken up in other places.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Yes, this is part of my reply to Gene/Keshav. I wish I had more time, I would try to write more about it. It’s a good question but I think “poppies” is on the right track here.

          For an example that’s broader–i.e. not just relevant to an-caps–I imagine there are Proverbs giving advice to kings on how to be a just ruler. I don’t think that would prove (earthly) monarchies are what God wants in a first-best way.

  2. Major_Freedom says:

    What if the average author of theology during the time the bible was written, ASSUMED that government was an inevitable, “natural” institution that they couldn’t even fathom not existing?

    God could still be pro-anarcho-capitalist. Nobody human could ever understand the mind of God.

    • Tel says:

      Here we are two thousand years later and government has grown considerably. I’d be happy to pay 10% tax if that was the end of it.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        Think I goofed this next post if you see a dupe.


        Now do slavery.

        Then do rape, murder, and all other evils.

        I think in order to stop evil permanently we have to stop negotiating with it, and instead find a way for any of their own evil to rebound back at it.

        2000 years may seem like a long time from your everyday chit chat and friendly banter usage of the phrase “long time”, but if we are what we could be, or could become what is in us, I would think giving Satan a 10% cut of everything anyone does, would at its roots be a conscious, open willingness to accept evil into our souls.

        10% satanic, 90% safe from violent hatred of dead eyed sociopaths who would do the worst imaginable to children.

        Truth is the best way so far discovered, IMO, at curing this.

        Ready for mind blown time…

        You’re right, 2000 years…

        For 2000 years, up until the age of the internet, most of what most people now call “information”, what was considered “true” about so many different but linked fields of knowledge about who we are, what people knew of what’s happening in the world, and how…was predominantly **controlled by actual practising satanic bloodline families**?

        What if all the fake news we see in the world’s largest media organizations and how it seems to be getting worse…is really what we might think as a result of we ourselves changing by learning more truth through unfiltered online comms channels, and that the media companies are not changing all that much?

        I think today for me the same thought of how could so many “journalists” be teleprompt fake news reading bobbleheads and be like that every working day?, to be responded today with a lot more revolt and disgust than it was however long ago, but that’s no big deal because I don’t think about that very much anyway, to me I judt laugh at the terms like “people familiar with the matter”, “people familiar with the thinking of”, “our sources who are experts have said”, and then sure enough we know, in more and more instances too as online comms pre-empting the fake news that we know the truth and then we see the fake news version.

        This never happened before in human history.

        The internet exposed the world’s most powerful purveyors of fake news as acting not to inform us but to intentionally blind us and keep the truth from spreading which always eradicates evil.

        • Tel says:

          I’ve always been a fan of the high ranking White House officials not authorized to talk about a topic, but who constantly do blab on the exact stuff they have been ordered to shut up about; so we have to keep them anonymous in order to keep them talking so freely.

          The same hypothetical people accuse Trump of not following instructions.

          As for “The Truth” well everyone has his or her own version of that, and the only time those get brought into sharp alignment with one another is during time of conflict. We can have a gentleman’s conflict like an election, or we can go hammer and tongs into a war, or we can leave the other guy alone to have his own version of “The Truth” and not worry about whether he is right or wrong. Those are about all the options I can think of.

          • Harold says:

            You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
            If your version of truth contradicts facts you are not entitled to it.

            • Tel says:

              When you say “facts”, who exactly gets to be the arbitrator there? You?!?

              I guess I’m supposed to seek your approval on what I believe… but maybe you should be seeking my approval. Just putting that out there.

              • Harold says:

                I am not the arbiter. Evidence is.

                Truth about facts is not a matter of opinion. There are no alternative facts. Just alternative evidence.

              • steve says:

                Harold, someone has to interpret the evidence. Different people may have different interpretations of the same evidence. So subjectivity does enter into the judgement.

              • Harold says:

                steve, of course there is some interpretation. There can be discussion and disagreement about what the facts mean. This discussion is what moves us forward in determining the truth.

                When there is rejection of evidence and facts there is no way to determine the truth. Wilful ignorance of the truth is not the same as a valid “personal” truth.

                Take the Flat Earth believers. They have to ignore a lot of evidence to maintain their belief. However, that does not make the Earth flat, even for a Flat Earth-er.

                It is the rejection of evidence that invalidates their belief.

                If someone seeks out only evidence that backs up their beliefs and uses sources that are demonstratively unreliable it is reasonable to question their version of the truth. It is not the amount of evidence you can bring to support your claim, but the amount of evidence you have to ignore that reveals the truth.

      • Major_Freedom says:


        “”This was an insurgency, folks. It was run like an insurgency. It was irregular warfare at its finest – in politics.”- General Mike Flynn (cabal targeted him because of what he knew. He intentionally lied about a legal meeting to enable his testimony to be subpoenad and gotten on civilian record)

        The way the NWO is being dismantled is by showing the world the truth about them in citizen info available access courts gradually over time, the cabal does not punish itself obviously, heads of F_I/C_A/DoS/US Presidency, so that is an opportunity for the internet comms channels to REPLACE this old guard’s control over the information space.

        Battle in information space = spiritual battle = exposes inconsistencies in the totality of information.

        There are inconsistencies intentionally being put into the totality of information that the internet has revealed by truth to be fake.

        It’s pretty fun

  3. Matt M says:

    Random thing that made me smile, when you were doing the intro and reading off Norman’s various qualifications and mentioning the places his work has been published, you listed lewrockwell.com BEFORE the Washington Post.

    Surely BMS listeners agree that the former is far more prestigious!

Leave a Reply