Classical Liberalism versus Anarchocapitalism
The fatal error of classical liberals lies in their failure to realize that their ideal is theoretically impossible if it includes the necessary existence of a state (even a minimal one), understood as the sole agent of institutional coercion. FULL ARTICLE by Jesus Huerta de Soto
Comments (142)
Mike
This essay might have finally converted me. I'll have to think it over some more.
Published: October 28, 2009 9:42 AM
J Cortez
Is the original spanish version of this essay somewhere in PDF?
Published: October 28, 2009 9:52 AM
KelThuz
I just want to remark, that perhaps unbeknowst to Western European scholars, the fall of communism did not start with the fall of Berlin Wall in the end of 1989, but with the wide public rebellion under Solidarity banners in Poland during the 80s. This resulted in introducing completely capitalist, free-enterpreneurship legislation at the end of 1988 by formally still a communist Polish government, which ushered in the great free-market revolution, which brought down state-controlled economy. The rest of communist European countries followed Poland's exemplary bloodless transition, with more or less success.
Published: October 28, 2009 9:53 AM
Gil
Hoppe's article is rubbish. From his three points:
1. that the state is unnecessary;
2. that statism (even if minimal) is theoretically impossible; and
3. that, given human nature, once the state exists, it is impossible to limit its power.
All are (anarchist) Libertarian straw men:
1. Hierarchy is necessary to human living - not everyone's going to be a sovereign landowner and the one's who are sovereign landowners will claim a monopoly of force against those who don't. Private/public states are required unles the land is held by common and no one in particular. Such a scenario belongs to those who live in nomadic tribes and fall prey to those who believe land should be held by someone(s).
2. Statism exists right now therefore it's possible. Statism has always existed. Anarchists have to grasp at historical straws to show any 'anarchic societies'.
3. It's never possible to limit the power of successful gangs, period. It there was a magical system then it would have appeared by now. Societies that could be practically considered anarchist were quickly swallowed up by surrounding powers. There are no 'self-correcting' societies.
Far from "statism running counter to human nature" statism reflects the amoral/immoral human nature. Libertarians can't mentally accept that men with the psychopathic 'dark triad' traits not only succeed but women flock to them and kiss their feet.
Published: October 28, 2009 10:05 AM
fundamentalist
Hoppe: “In fact, the state has managed something which might appear impossible a priori: it has slyly and systematically distracted the citizenry from the fact that the true origin of social conflicts and evils lies with the government itself, by creating scapegoats everywhere ("capitalism," the desire for profit, private property).”
That sounds like socialists, who say that mankind is basically good and only turns to evil when forced to by private property. Eliminate private property and evil will disappear. Hoppe thinks that by getting rid of the state all evil will disappear. Kind of utopian ain’t it?
Here’s Mises on the topic: “There are people who call government an evil, although a necessary evil. However, what is needed in order to attain a definite must not be called an evil in the moral connotation of the term. It is a means, but not an evil. Government may even be called the most beneficial of all earthly institutions as without it no peaceful human cooperation, no civilization, and no moral life would be possible. In this sense the apostle declared that “the powers that be are ordained of God.” From “Deception of Government Intervention” printed in Christian Economics, Feb. 4, 1964.
I think Mises anticipated Rothbard and Hoppe.
Published: October 28, 2009 10:45 AM
Wesley
Anarchy would be great if it were enforceable.
Published: October 28, 2009 10:47 AM
Ty
Gil,
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Published: October 28, 2009 10:49 AM
Ty
Wesley,
The fact that we live in anarchy today is proof that it's enforceable. The government doesn't choose who can be your friends. An anarchy in friend choosing seems to be preferable to the public option to me.
I think that if you look at all the markets that have little government control like consumer electronics for instance, you'll find that anarchy is alive and well and perfectly enforceable. Is there any TV maker that uses force to sell its TV in the anarchic TV market? I'm not aware of one. It's also a highly ordered market. Virtually any TV works with any DVD player for instance.
Perhaps there are some markets that would benefit from government intervention. I'm not aware of any though.
Published: October 28, 2009 11:06 AM
Scott Lazarowitz
One of the first things we must do is take advantage of states' Tenth Amendment Rights to secede from the United States, like the former Soviet states did from the former Soviet Union, and take it from there.
Imagine, a "former United States of America."
Published: October 28, 2009 11:14 AM
Mike
Gil,
I think "statism doesn't work" was meant to mean 1.) that the supposed "good" done by states is an illusion and 2.) that all states will eventually self-destruct (no existing state is particularly old if you account for internal revolutions). Not that statism in general will go away on its own.
And the "statism runs counter to human nature" I think was specifically targeting the idea of the minimal, limited state, or the idea that the state can ever possibly exist for the good of its subjects. That the existence of states is part of human nature is obvious. Humans are ambitious, and, as you mentioned, hierarchy is natural.
But this absolutely does not change the fact that the prosperity of societies throughout history has always been inversely proportional to the level of state involvement. All you have done is explain why states continue to exist in the first place, and provide a gloomy (though nonetheless possibly true) prediction that, given human nature, there will always be people striving to dominate others and therefore states will always eventually arise.
This doesn't mean states can't be destroyed, ushering in a new era of unprecedented prosperity. Even if a new state comes in down the line, due to human nature as we have discussed, 1.) if this was inevitable there is no point in proposing any sort of utopia and pretending we can permanently abolish the state, and 2.) this does not make the existence of the state any less detrimental to society, and does not make it any less obvious for any well-informed person to oppose whatever state happens to exist at any given time.
At any rate, saying "The state sucks but is inevitable, therefore we should support the state" is absurd.
If the state is inevitable, fine. That just means our opposition to it must continue unabated throughout the future of history. If we can temporarily destroy it for a century or two, that's a century or two we get human cooperation and prosperity. Much better than taking the defeatist road of just learning to love Big Brother.
Published: October 28, 2009 11:17 AM
Michael R Stoddard
New Party Needed. Currently there is NO political party that is committed to this transition. I have been a Libertarian Party participant and candidate since 1972. But "Less Government and Less Taxes" is just not compelling of inspiring. I recommend a new party - The Capitalist Party. Its primary and sole goal is dismantling the state. If this sounds at least worth discussing, I have already outlined concepts and issues. PLEASE contact me and let's begin a dialogue.
Published: October 28, 2009 11:49 AM
Michael R Stoddard
Enjoy Capitalism. ;-)
The Peoples Democracy.
The Free Market is the most
robust & empowering
voting machine in history.
Published: October 28, 2009 12:16 PM
DixieFlatline
As I read through the comments, I wonder who actually read and understood the article in its entirety?
Gil thinks Hoppe wrote it. (wrong)
He also uses the headings as talking points, without addressing the detailed arguments buttressing them.
Michael Stoddard apparently missed the part about "the impossibility of limiting the power of the state".
Scott thinks secession is only legitimate through a Constitutional amendment, not a fundamental human right to self-determination.
Wesley thinks anarchy is unenforceable, completely missing that anarchy is already present in billions of relationships around the world.
fundamentalist, like Gil, apparently did not read the article closely, because it was not written by Hoppe.
Now, to the strawmen.
Gil's Strawmen
Hierarchy. Ancaps don't claim there won't be hierarchy.
Minimal Statism. Context (read it again).
On the limitation of power, Gil believes that successful gangs will grow. We would hope so. And we would hope that successful gangs would be closer to the US than to Soviet Russia. And we would hope that peaceful voluntary societies would prosper over the US because success is rewarded in the market. You're making the ancaps point.
@fundamentalist.
The claim that ancap or anarchism is utopian is a strawman. The analysis, is that when men are not able to offload the costs of their bad behaviour onto others, through a coercive social mechanism like the state, then they are less inclined to behave badly. For example, how many private individuals in history have conducted world wars? How many have taken 20,000, 50,000 or 500,000 lives in armed conflict? How many private individuals claim title over every inch of land? How many individuals claim the right to tax every individual in an arbitrary geographic area?
Mises was a classic liberal. On the state, he wasn't radical enough. The entire article today is a refutation of the classic liberal position.
Folks, please read.
Published: October 28, 2009 12:35 PM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light
Great post, DixieFlatline.
Gil is the intellectual equivalent of a hairy musket.
Published: October 28, 2009 12:40 PM
fundamentalist
Dixie: "The claim that ancap or anarchism is utopian is a strawman."
No, it's not. Here is what de Soto wrote: "...the true origin of social conflicts and evils lies with the government itself..." He is not claiming that wars will be smaller, but that evil will end. That's what he wrote. Now he may have intended something less utopian.
Dixie: "The analysis, is that when men are not able to offload the costs of their bad behaviour onto others, through a coercive social mechanism like the state, then they are less inclined to behave badly."
Classical liberals believed the same thing. Anarchists confuse the existing socialist states with miniarchism. Classical liberals will agree with everything that anarchists want to write about socialist states. Anarchists counter that classical liberals can't prevent the state from growing into Leviathan. Classical liberal counter that anarchists can't prevent anarchy from descending into chaos and a state forming out of the rubble.
Dixie: "How many individuals claim the right to tax every individual in an arbitrary geographic area?"
Every leader of a state was once an individual. As history has proven, it only takes one individual with persuasive powers to rally troops around him and destroy any anarchic society that exists. It has happened over and over again throughout history.
Yes, classical liberalism is fragile because it depends upon the consent of the people. And anarchism is more fragile because it depends even more upon that consent, as Mises wrote.
Published: October 28, 2009 1:03 PM
scineram
men are not able to offload the costs of their bad behaviour onto others
Is this the case under anarchy?
Published: October 28, 2009 1:18 PM
Michael A. Clem
Inspiring article, even if it's not a "perfect" article. Look guys, what is the "ideal" political situation? Where all human transactions are voluntary, right? Now, realistically, there's always going to be some people who want to use coercion against their fellow man, but that is no justification for creating and supporting an organization that is fundamentally based upon coercion. Footnote 13 of the article I find especially interesting, and so should Fundamentalist, if for different reasons.
Published: October 28, 2009 1:58 PM
Inquisitor
Yes Scineram, it is.
"Hoppe's article is rubbish."
No, your own arguments for the state deserve this label. You people are incapable of letting go of mummy state and must cling to this notion of the 'final decider' relying on strawmen where possible to counter anarchist positions. Do yourselves a favour and grow up. Intellectual cowards.
Published: October 28, 2009 2:01 PM
George
"If the state is inevitable, fine. That just means our opposition to it must continue unabated throughout the future of history. If we can temporarily destroy it for a century or two, that's a century or two we get human cooperation and prosperity. Much better than taking the defeatist road of just learning to love Big Brother."
The question I ask is does complete destruction of the state actually lead to prosperity? After all, there are plenty of other power-hungry individuals willing to take its place. Without checks and balances on force how will you protect the anarcho-capitalist society from domination by outside threats and how will the response to this threat not result in a new government?
"Anarchists counter that classical liberals can't prevent the state from growing into Leviathan. Classical liberal counter that anarchists can't prevent anarchy from descending into chaos and a state forming out of the rubble."
Historically it seems that the first happens and then the second happens (a state becomes too heavy for its own good, collapses, chaos ensues, and a new state forms). For anarcho-capitalism to succeed it will have to buck this historical trend. As much as you can elaborate about this in essays, it remains to be proven.
Published: October 28, 2009 2:02 PM
redshirt
Excellent rebuttal fundamentalist... history is rather clear on these points... one mad man after another has been able to rally people to one horrible end or another. This one point completely destroys the entire anarchocapitalism argument. The amazing thing is how often it happens.
I also don't understand why the argument of the state being unnecessary is even brought up. If anarchocapitalism had some correlation with reality, there would be no state. You can formulate a definition of statism that shows that it can't actually exist in such a pure form, but where does that lead us? It exists in some form. The point is to manage it such that it does minimum harm to the market. (And eliminating it may not have the effect you want!)
I also don't buy the notion that the state continues to grow without ebbing. The written history of mankind is really rather short, and even there we see the rise and fall of empires is routine.
And I like scineram's point. People are constantly offloading the costs of their bad behavior on others. That doesn't go away magically. And why wouldn't it escalate until there ultimately was fight (which happens all the time between friends who loan each other money)?
It seems anarchocapitalism would only work if we were on the desperate edge of extinction and only fully reciprocated effort would allow anyone to survive!
Published: October 28, 2009 2:09 PM
mpolzkill
fundamentalist says: "Here’s Mises on the topic:"
Why must you conservatives here constantly harp on the very few things Mises ever got wrong?
I think I know why. Also...
Your big to-do over that one phrase can be easily fixed:
"...the true origin of social conflicts and evils lies with the government *or those acting like government agents*..."
You sort of address this. Of course there will always be criminals, the thing is to not legitimate their actions in any way.
- - - - - - - -
Lord B, BotPL:
I had to look that one up; I think you have nailed Gil.
Published: October 28, 2009 2:21 PM
Michael R Stoddard
Dixie Flatline.
FYI - I read the entire article.
I don't believe the state can be limited.
But we need a method of dismantling it.
What is your solution for removing the state?
I submit that an Apolitical Party "Capitalist Party" whose sole purpose is dismantling the state is viable.
Published: October 28, 2009 2:21 PM
DixieFlatline
Peaceful economic action outside the state.
And I assert that the moon is made of cheese. Do you not see the contradiction in an "apolitical party"? It's like being "sorta pregnant".
Published: October 28, 2009 2:43 PM
George
"Likewise, in the American Far West, the problem arose of defining and defending property rights concerning, for instance, head of cattle in vast expanses of land."
I would like to believe in anarcho-capitalism, but I am reminded again and again that the history of the human animal has been exploitation and oppression. Bringing up the American West also brings up the forcible removal and extermination of the native population from their homesteaded lands (so much for property rights) as well as the near extinction of the buffalo (so much for private management of resources).
Yes, OVERALL prosperity and prosperity for the small guys might be greater when you don't plunder and take by force, but could the fact that it may be biologically advantageous for one's own set of genes be a reason why some people are driven to rule over others?
Again, I ask, how will anarcho-capitalism flourish in a world where human nature has not changed? I can only see it working in perhaps a Sea Steading context where it is harder to enforce might and rule over others, albeit only at the moment.
Published: October 28, 2009 2:45 PM
Bob Rooney
Might be out of discussion context:
What would / could be the market solution for minimizing pollution? Where is the incentive for the enterpreneur? Profit-seeking through production of air-cleaning generators?
Does anyone know historical examples? Please give info or some links for further readings.
GO Market! GO Capitalism! Make us free and rich!
Published: October 28, 2009 2:55 PM
Autolykos
For those who claim that history has "proven" that anarchocapitalism can never be viable: I find it ironic that people who otherwise understand that the future is inherently uncertain would claim certainty for at least one aspect of it.
That is all for now.
Published: October 28, 2009 6:23 PM
gene
I think as far as anarchy is concerned, "assuming" private property is quite a leap. after all, what is the fundamental cause of most conflicts in the world today and throughout history?
I think the mutualists have a better slant on anarchy in that, the "defense" and lack of market competitiveness of absentee property will make it obsolete. therefore, leaving self utilized property as the foundation for ownership.
it is also interesting that the mutualists call only for the absence of force, while the anarcho capitalists are usually dead set in their defense of "private property".
for anarchy, it almost seems a little too "status quo", if that is possible!
to me, i think lack of a state would "disperse" violence. like everything else, it would be less concentrated. i don't see any reason why there would be more, possibly less.
Published: October 28, 2009 8:29 PM
Ken
Even dismantling the state won't solve the problem for good (that is not to be taken as a reason not to do it, though). After all, the children of Israel clamored for a king -- and to paraphrase Mencken, they got one, good and hard.
Published: October 28, 2009 8:41 PM
Justin DeWind
Private property would be a naturally occurring phenomena under a system of anarchy. We effectively see it working spontaneously in nature everyday. The consumption, production or gathering, and protection of property requires no state or defined legal system.
The protection of property can be handled by the individual or a cooperative (market) of individuals protecting their property in order to sustain and protect their standard of living.
The fear that the non-existence of the state would descend man into chaos seems unwarranted. The Federal Reserve supposedly exists to prevent our market from spiraling into utter chaos. In fact, we sit passively while it steals from us. However, because it apparently exists for our prosperity, we simply move along happily and ignorant. This is no different than the statist enforcement of private property.
P.S. Libertarian communists could simply be confused. Perhaps they think that humans by nature do not want to keep the means of their production? And that we would somehow share it without incentive or coercive enforcement?
Published: October 28, 2009 8:55 PM
ajax
De Soto: "given human nature, once the state exists, it is impossible to limit its power"
I think it should read: "given human nature the state will always exist." Given this reality, Bastiat's vision of good government as expressed in The Law seems very reasonable to me. Also, Ilana Mercer's thoughts on the subject are quite compelling: http://barelyablog.com/?p=618
Published: October 28, 2009 9:02 PM
Robby
George,
I think you're mixing problems with the American West:
Private Property makes sense through some type of homesteading analysis (i.e., you work it, it becomes yours). Therefore, abandoned land put to use by herders and not put to use before them (by humans, not buffalo) became the herders' property. This was not "forcible removal and extirmination," nor was it a when buffalo became nearly extinct.
The problem you refer to began after the government sought to tame the "wild west." Only then did the Trail of Tears happen. Only then were armies sent on raids to kill Indians. Only then were resources destroyed without regard to schemes of preservation.
Published: October 28, 2009 9:19 PM
Ned Netterville
A fine article by Mr. de Soto. Here are just some of the points he makes, which I believe are undeniably true and important to broadcast.
1. "The state acts as an irresistibly powerful magnet which attracts and propels the basest passions, vices and facets of human nature." And, may I add, the violent nature of the state, plus its ready arsenals of weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, plus its trained-to-be-unthinkingly-obedient military personnel, tempt the worst of the world's most demented, violent, psychopathic murderers to grasp for the reins of state, which explains why genocidal beasts such as, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin--and the list could go on for pages--end up in the catbird seat.
2. "The state has become the 'idol' that everyone turns to and worships. Statolatry is without a doubt the most serious and dangerous social disease of our times." Yes, Yes! And its ardent practitioners include Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Atheists. The disease is a type of addiction, similar in nature to compulsive gambling and sex addiction, which have much the same pathology as alcohol and drug addiction but without a substance to abuse. The victims of the latter two are said to be chemically dependent; statolatrists are government dependent. Victims of government dependency lose all sense of their self-worth and self-sufficiency and become social parasites or drones. Or, as Mr. de Soto said so well, "[S]tatism fosters and drives irresponsibility and moral corruption, as it diverts the focus of human behavior toward a privileged pulling on the reins of political power, within a context of ineradicable ignorance..."
The lone criticism I have is Mr. de Soto's choice of the term "anarchocapitalism" to describe the unbelievably productive system that would perforce blossom and replace statism if the initiation of force was eliminated from the conduct of human affairs. Both capitalism and anarchy are words that carry a lot of negative baggage. Thugs who relish violently destroying private and public property have been calling themselves anarchists for over a hundred years. Corporatist hoodlums who have been defrauding customers and stockholders alike over an even longer period are described as capitalists by most people who have never studied economics. Besides, there is a very good name that describes a system with essentially the same principles and philosophy advocated by Mr. de Soto. It is known as Voluntaryism, and its adherents have already elaborated many of the principles addressed here by Mr. de Soto. (see, http://www.voluntaryist.com/) One insight voluntaryism has elaborated that Mr. de Soto should consider is the futility of engaging in politics to further a libertarian agenda.
Another point I would make is that the state and taxation are so inseparable as to be one in the same. Certainly you can't have one without the other. The state's reliance on taxes may be its Achilles heel. Many people who wouldn't know a libertarian from a banana despise taxes, and would join a crusade to eliminate them. Furthermore, organized tax resistance has had a modicum of success in the past, as, for example, Gandhi's salt-tax refusal in India. Perhaps the time has come for those libertarians who haven't already done so to peacefully withdraw their financial support of their nemesis to the greatest extent they can.
Published: October 28, 2009 9:28 PM
Jay
I would surmise after this article that De Soto has lost his rank as "among the world's most active ambassadors for classical liberalism" as stated in his bio.
Published: October 28, 2009 9:39 PM
Russ
mpolzkill wrote:
"Why must you conservatives here constantly harp on the very few things Mises ever got wrong?"
Hmmm, I am an atheist, materialist, and believe in the modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics. I also think that victimless "crimes" such as prostitution and drug use should be legalized, and am opposed to any teaching of religion in public schools (and I'm not crazy about public schools, period). So I'm not sure that the word "conservative" fits me. But anyhoo....
I "constantly harp on the very few things Mises ever got wrong" because 1) I don't think he got those things wrong, 2) most people here respect Mises, so it's a cheap sort of argumentum ad auctoritatem, I suppose, and 3) the name of the site *is* mises.org, so discussing Mises' opinion on any given subject seems apropos.
As for the idea that ancap is the only form of political organization compatible with human nature, ala de Soto? Nah. Say what you will, but if ancap were so compatible with human nature, one would think it would have naturally cropped up by now. Instead, we have the sort of social structure that one might expect from hyper-intelligent apes with alpha males, a "pecking" order, territorialism, etc. Ancap is just about the most unnatural system I can think of, outside of a system that doesn't allow private property at all.
Published: October 28, 2009 9:42 PM
DixieFlatline
George, who killed off the Indians? Was it private individuals committing genocide, or the state?
There is no "belief in anarcho-capitalism". If you accept that the initiation of force is illegitimate, then you accept the premise of anarcho-capitalism. If you feel it is ok to use force against people not using force against you, then you accept the premise of the state. It's not any more complicated than that.
As far as human nature, if you can't trust human nature now, why would you institute a monopoly government with (except in America) most of the guns? Wouldn't such an institution attract the lowest forms of life, the Rumsfelds and Bushes, the Clintons and Nixons, the Cheneys and Bidens?
Does anyone really believe their government is more moral than they are?
Published: October 28, 2009 9:58 PM
Mises
Absurdities within:
"The Austrian economic theory of the impossibility of socialism can be expanded and transformed into a complete theory on the impossibility of statism, understood as the attempt to organize any sphere of life in society via coercive commands which involve intervention, regulation, and control and emanate from the body with a monopoly on institutional aggression (the state)."
No, it cant. Mises would laugh at this willful misrepresentation of his theory. States exist as a necessary burden on the market's theoretical maximum functionality, to be sure, but they can exist within a market pricing structure(see: every form of government but socialism/marxism). It is ownership of the means of production by a single entity that makes socialism "impossible".
"Nevertheless, the historical analysis is irrefutable: the state has not ceased to grow."
An idiotic generalization. If he is talking about the size of the state, of course that would increase as populations increase, since most states are not limited. That (like most of the article) has no relevance to the anti-anarchist positions of the few libertarians that have bothered to address the issue. If you are talking about scope, the sovereign used to have total ownership of all of your property and your life, which he could steal at any time.
"Statism runs counter to human nature, since it consists of the systematic, monopolistic exercise of a coercion which, in all areas where it is felt (including those corresponding to the definition of law and the maintenance of public order), blocks the creativity and entrepreneurial coordination which are precisely the most typical and essential manifestations of human nature."
So, statism runs "counter" to human nature, which is why humans have accepted states over and over throughout history, including accepting it very early if not immediately after mans beginnings. He is saying that because states do bad things, they are contrary to human nature. News flash, humans do bad things.
Published: October 28, 2009 10:25 PM
TokyoTom
Fundamentalist: "As history has proven, it only takes one individual with persuasive powers to rally troops around him and destroy any anarchic society that exists. It has happened over and over again throughout history."
Yes, but it usually wasn`t one individual, but an individual within a neighboring state acting to aggrandize his own power. The American Indians (and natives throughout the hemisphere) had anarchic societies, and hence were doomed once Europeans began to establish colonies. (And Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court to destroy even the law-abiding Cherokee Nations in the Smokies.)
Theft of land from natives continues apace, led by elites in modern states, fuelled by demands for commodities from Western markets.
George: "Bringing up the American West also brings up the forcible removal and extermination of the native population from their homesteaded lands (so much for property rights) as well as the near extinction of the buffalo (so much for private management of resources)."
George, your second point is wrong, as P.J. Hill has pointed out:
"There was no tragedy in an economic sense in the killing of the bison; it was simply a rational economic act by people who wished to maximize the value of the grass on the Great Plains."
"Bison herds both consumed the grass and disrupted cattle production so their removal was an economic necessity, not a tragedy or a waste of resources."
However, as I have noted, Hill`s analysis ignores that the destruction of the bison was encouraged by the US as a deliberate means of destroying the Indians: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/16/bison-markets-the-tragedy-of-the-commons-and-the-indian-war.aspx
Bob: "What would / could be the market solution for minimizing pollution?"
This is rather basic:
(1) a stricter enforcement of property rights, which would require polluters to clean up their act or to negotiate in advance with likely victims, which would also fuel sophisticated pollution forensics and abatement industries;
(2) a greater sharing of information about waste outputs, which are often valuable inputs to others;
(3) the elimination of the state-grant of limited liability to corporate owners, which freed owners from worrying about down-side risks and costs to others, thereby generating moral hazard and considerable pollution, and leading to the problem of public backlash and mistrust of corporations; and
(4) ending government ownership of property and defense industries, which are the signle largest polluters in the US.
Perhaps some of my links here may help:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=pollution
Justin: "Private property would be a naturally occurring phenomena under a system of anarchy. We effectively see it working spontaneously in nature everyday. The consumption, production or gathering, and protection of property requires no state or defined legal system.
The protection of property can be handled by the individual or a cooperative (market) of individuals protecting their property in order to sustain and protect their standard of living."
Yes, the first is what Elinor Ostrom empirically demonstrates. Unfortunately, as she also recognizes, states very often disrupt the local, cooperative protection of resources - in ways that benefit elites - by substituting fixed rules, bureaucratic incentives and rent-seeking fights for influence for transactions between interested persons:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=ostrom
Published: October 28, 2009 10:41 PM
mpolzkill
Don't forget about how you want my money confiscated to make war and/or spy on Muslims, Russ. Conservative.
Russ says: "unnatural system I can think of"
This ties in well with George's comments. The State exists mainly because of the slave-language Russ and George (and most other people) speak in (quack quack). They are system men, and they have many mislabeled and jumbled mental boxes. They are nearly hopeless.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Speaking of George: how on earth does someone chalk up the genocide of Aboriginal Americans as a mark against voluntarism? People with different cultures and languages just need to separate and leave each other alone if one can't wipe out the other.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Mises himself says: "Absurdities within"
A. Bierce:
"ABSURDITY, n.
A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion."
Published: October 28, 2009 10:46 PM
Chad Rushing
DixieFlatline: "If you accept that the initiation of force is illegitimate, then you accept the premise of anarcho-capitalism. If you feel it is ok to use force against people not using force against you, then you accept the premise of the state. It's not any more complicated than that."
I think it can be said with absolute confidence that there has never been a time in human history when no individual or group of individuals (including governments) was not initiating force of some kind, and there never will be. So, the question is not the initiation of force (reality) vs. no initiation of force (wishful thinking), but who the initiators will be and whether their initiation of force is deemed legitimate by the societies in which they operate (ex., parents disciplining their children).
If all governments were completely abolished tomorrow, who would then become the primary initiators of force? Rival gangs, mercenaries (ex., Blackwater), crime syndicates, local militias, corporate security forces, violent religious sects, rabid sports fans after a major win/loss, rival drunken fraternities, and so forth. Eventually, these groups would declare a geographical area as being under their sole control, and they would effectively become the new "government" in that area. That sort of thing happens in chaotic Third World regions and inner cities all of the time. There is a vacuum of societal authority, and some individual or group moves in to fill it.
Even if an anarcho-capitalist society could be formed from scratch on an island somewhere, I would give it a decade, a generation at most, before some sort of group acting in a governmental fashion would be required to either punish persistent troublemakers -- and there will be troublemakers -- or exile them off the island. Fallible human nature makes governing institutions inevitable.
So, the classic liberal asks: Since there will be a State of some kind, what is the most honest and just way for it to organized and for it operate? And how can society go about crafting (and subsequently restraining) such an institution?
Published: October 28, 2009 11:02 PM
gene
we may have to face the fact that we don't "craft" the State. the state comes into existence through force and maintains itself with force. it is only force that overcomes it.
crafting a state that is truly just is impossible. monopoly of force is just that, you don't get it because you and your friends are a bunch of nice guys. you get it because you have kicked enough butt that everyone in the neighborhood has had enough and will put up with your bull, at least for a time.
having some wonderkind notion of anarchy is also clueless. sure it would be great but good luck.
again, I think the belief that no great positive change can occur until humans evolve enough [if possible] to realize force in any form is dimwitted is the closest to reality.
at that point, all these ideas like capitalism, property, etc. will be recognized as archaic and unnecessary practices. it's not that "things" won't exist, it just seems that it won't be necessary to "define" them.
i'm not holding my breathe, but sounds like a good party!
Published: October 28, 2009 11:35 PM
Russ
mpolzkill wrote:
"Don't forget about how you want my money confiscated to make war and/or spy on Muslims, Russ. Conservative."
So because I see a threat in Islamo-Fascism, and believe that national defense is a necessity, I am a conservative. I see... I see we are in an Alice in Wonderland world where words mean whatever Mr. Polzkill says they mean. *rolling eyes*
"This ties in well with George's comments. The State exists mainly because of the slave-language Russ and George (and most other people) speak in (quack quack). They are system men, and they have many mislabeled and jumbled mental boxes. They are nearly hopeless."
Ah, yes. More ad hominem. Don't attack the argument. Attack the person. Just what I've come to expect from Mr. Polzkill.
Published: October 28, 2009 11:40 PM
DixieFlatline
@Chad
This is irrelevant to the discussion. The Marxists are big on historical materialism. I'm not.
This is just conjecture on your part. Again this is irrelevant.
But that is also assertion (that the state is inevitable). There is no honest and organized way to craft an institution which violates property rights, and doesn't respect the sovereign individual.
I'll ask you the question you quoted, but didn't respond directly to.
Do you accept the premise that the initiation of violence is moral or not?
If it is not moral to initiate violence against those not violent with you, then you must reject the monopoly state.
If you think it is moral to initiate violence against people not committing violence against you, then the state is the institution for you.
Me, I don't think it is ok to use violence against innocent people. That is why morally, the only consistent position I can take, is voluntarism/ancap.
Published: October 29, 2009 12:00 AM
mpolzkill
That's right, and your lefty cousins believe "free" health care is a necessity. Did your masters not make two parties to cater to each of your basic set of fears?
(Islamo-*fascism*!?! Thanks for a perfect display of duck-speak, btw. Nice timing)
What argument? I only saw a lot of quacking here from born lackeys. Besides exhorting my fellow adults here to give up on trying to educate you, I'm merely entertaining myself. And sometimes others tell me I entertain them, I'll quit when someone I respect asks me to.
Maybe this will get me booted off. I just happened to be reading Bierce's dictionary when I saw that other house-slave say "absurdity". You two remind me of another one of Bierce's devilish definitions:
"AFRICAN, n.
A nigger that votes our way."
Published: October 29, 2009 12:06 AM
pbergn
Imagine a world run by private militia...
Haven't we already been through that at least once in history?
Is it hard to see that the State is a natural extension of most successful private entities gradually absorbing their less-fortunate counterparts and imposing their will, due to gaining control over strategic resources?
Is it so hard to realize that each family, each enterprise, each farm, each village, each town, each city, each geo-political locale is a would-be state once it grows strong enough to possess monopoly on coercive power?!
What part of "limited resources, many consumers" is not clear to anarcho-capitalists?
There is only so much land, water and gold, etc. to spare...
The strongest, the most cunning and evil will gradually take over them, and then force others to do something in return for lending a certain part of that very resources back to them...
There is nothing really new under the sun. The humanity has been down this road again and again: it's just when the powerful few grab everything, and control everything, you have a minarchy (Plutocracy), when that few reduces to one or to only ones tied with family or tribal or clan ties, it is called monarchy or tyranny, dependent whether the rulers are benevolent towards their subjects or not, when the powerful are relatively many, it is called democracy, since they do not absolutely absorb all the power - they leave some breathing room to others, etc. etc.
What I am saying? Like you didn't already know it...
Published: October 29, 2009 12:08 AM
Paul
If anyone could shed light on the following, please do.
In De Soto's book on money, he seems to criticize 'free banking' due to no state being around to enforce limits on credit expansion. Is this article then a change in De Soto's views?
I wish he discussed how the temptation to expand credit could be enforced by private security agencies, whether these are separate or part of the banking sector. Not that he's the only one who can think of a solution, but because I'd want to hear what he has to say. Either way, it's great to know that this guy whom I thought was classical liberal is against any state.
By the way, I think De Soto didn't literally mean that the government was the source of all 'evils,' as though the state agencies themselves have a monopoly on 'evil.' I think it was meant to point out that the use of force as a means to obtain resources, whether by states or by regular bandits, is the cause of much grief and suffering in the world.
Published: October 29, 2009 1:23 AM
P.M.Lawrence
'...the emergence of any case (real or apparent) of a "public good," i.e., joint supply and nonrivalry in consumption, is accompanied by the incentives necessary for the impetus of entrepreneurial creativity to find a better solution via technological and legal innovations and entrepreneurial discoveries which make it possible to overcome any problem that may arise...'
Well, that's not true in general, unless you assert that any action to solve a problem from the perspective of one party is a solution from everybody's perspective (which is begging the question). For instance, in Brazil people sometimes shoot street kids because of the direct and indirect costs of having them around, like higher crime (these are part of the general category "Vagrancy Costs"). Shooting them certainly solves the problem from the point of view of others, but not from the point of view of the street kids.
And no, the free market doesn't always mop up vagrancy once it is there by creating enough good enough jobs, even if it was earlier distortions that created it (e.g. after the Enclosure of the Commons, the Highland Clearances, and Irish evictions). The thing is, after the distortions were over there had been a wealth transfer; simply letting an undistorted free market operate on that new status quo didn't undo the continuing effects of the past distortions, and the numbers involved were too much too quick to be mopped up otherwise.
'...people do not understand that supposedly protective measures have the systematic result, as economic theory demonstrates, of harming in each case precisely those they are claimed to protect... even the most skeptical person must admit that "we now know" that the market, driven by creative entrepreneurship, works, and it works precisely to the extent that the state does not coercively intervene in this social process... even the most marginal increases in freedom provide great boosts to prosperity...'.
He either does not know or does not care about what actually happens when one distortion offsets another in whole or in part, e.g. Pigovian taxes and subsidies. Certainly, a completely undistorted situation is better than some distortion - but it is not necessarily true that less distortion is better than more, because the distorting effects can be negatively correlated (sometimes deliberately). It is irrelevant if, as some believe, all distortions are from the state (in the long term this may be true - but see above about enduring results of past distortions); getting rid of either of two offsetting distortions, while leaving the other, makes things worse. Even if it is really the state's fault, it's still what happens.
Hey, don't take my word for it, take it from an article by David Barker that was linked at the Mises site: "Another possibility is a situation in which inefficiencies of government offset each other. Eliminating one inefficiency before the other might create temporary welfare losses. An example would be a government-created monopoly of a polluting industry. Government failure to create private markets in water quality or to regulate pollution leads to production beyond the social optimum, since the firm does not bear the cost of pollution. As a monopolist, however, the firm produces below the social optimum. The combination of these two inefficient government policies could lead to production close to the social optimum. If, however, as government is being eliminated, the monopoly is removed before markets for water quality are established, production and pollution will temporarily exceed optimal levels."
Even short of that, even when removing such things would be an improvement, David Barker also found that it wouldn't always be worth doing that because of interactions of transitional costs and the value of time: "...with a 5% rate of discount, if continued reduction in the size of government would result in a temporary 15% loss in welfare, it would be rational to permanently halt progress toward a freer economy, even though a completely free economy would result in a permanent 67% improvement in welfare".
Published: October 29, 2009 4:08 AM
Eddie Willers
I have scanned through the comments, and have one of my own.
Most of you seem to be missing the point which is monopoly. Rothbard pointed out that there are a few functions of the state which are necessary for civilization (contract enforcement, prosecution of theft, fraud, rape, murder, etc.) but that these functions need not be carried out by a monopolistic "state." If competition is good in other industries, might it not be good also in the "justice" industry?
Competition might take the form of each individual selecting one of the competing "justice" companies, or it might take the form of a multitude of "mini-states" existing side by side.
We really won't know what system works until we apply a market test.
First, we need to educate a broad base of people in Austrian ideas, then gradually dismantle the state and allow other institutions to evolve to take the place of the state's necessary function. We won't know what these institutions will look like until the market creates them.
Published: October 29, 2009 6:58 AM
scineram
What makes you think there will be market competition for those functions?
Published: October 29, 2009 7:03 AM
Eddie Willers
I have scanned through the comments, and have one of my own.
Most of you seem to be missing the point which is monopoly. Rothbard pointed out that there are a few functions of the state which are necessary for civilization (contract enforcement, prosecution of theft, fraud, rape, murder, etc.) but that these functions need not be carried out by a monopolistic "state." If competition is good in other industries, might it not be good also in the "justice" industry?
Competition might take the form of each individual selecting one of the competing "justice" companies, or it might take the form of a multitude of "mini-states" existing side by side.
We really won't know what system works until we apply a market test.
First, we need to educate a broad base of people in Austrian ideas, then gradually dismantle the state and allow other institutions to evolve to take the place of the state's necessary function. We won't know what these institutions will look like until the market creates them.
Published: October 29, 2009 7:07 AM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light
States cannot rule by force alone, as they always constitute a minority parasitizing off of a majority. Hence the great efforts they expend on "education," propaganda, and such, to convince the much larger masses that their (the State's) rule is legitimate. Sadly, these means are quite effective. But the point is, States require this false sense of legitimacy (manifested in either active support or passive resignation) to persist. But, a false sense of legitimacy *can* in principle be rectified, eg, into a sense that recognizes and supports private property rights. The logic required by an anarcho-capitalist system is precisely the same as that required by a State, it's just that one is false while the other is legitimate.
The classical liberals' (minarchists)
case fails.
Published: October 29, 2009 7:15 AM
Bob Rooney
@ Tokyo Tom
Thank You!
Published: October 29, 2009 7:23 AM
Eddie Willers
Of course there would be competition in providing the necessary services. All that is required is for an entrepreneur to find an "angle" that lets him see a potential profit and an absence of restrictions on entry into the field.
We already see evidence of competition in "justice" services. Just turn on your TV and watch "The People's Court," "Street Court," etc. Also, there are numerous arbitration organizations competing today.
There are also numerous security firms competing to provide alarm and patrol services.
Just think how broad this market would be if we could get the state out of the way and out of the licensing business. Think how creative minds could design services we haven't even imagined yet.
In the old west, private organizations often provided security services, the Pinkerton's being one of the more notorious. A variety of "cattlemen's associations" provided enforcement services for brands, etc. The clamor for statehood grew, in part, from the desire of the cattlemen to shift the costs of this enforcement to others. It is just one more example of how the state exists, in large part, to benefit some at the expense of all.
Published: October 29, 2009 7:39 AM
pravin
scineram
"What makes you think there will be market competition for those functions?"
err..the same for any other function: profits. non profit police/judiciary seems non free market to me
Published: October 29, 2009 7:56 AM
mpolzkill
Great post, Eddie W. This is the next step up from telling a lefty where shoes and groceries come from; which is one step up from telling a caveman that thunder isn't the sound of gods fighting in the clouds. None of the three groups of primitives have the functioning equipment to move up, however.
Published: October 29, 2009 8:02 AM
Ned Netterville
How much has human nature evolved in the last two or three centuries? Personally, I don't think our natures have changed that much. So I think that if a similar discussion were taking place in America 200 or 300 years ago, the topic might be whether or not eliminating property rights in other human beings (viz., slavery) was possible without dire consequences. There would undoubtedly be reasonable people and reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue. If there was a cause-and-effect relationship between ending slavery and the Civil War, it can certainly be said after the fact that the consequences (600K dead, a huge expansion of federal powers, etc., etc., etc) were indeed dire. But I sincerely doubt that there lives today a descendant of slaves who doesn't believe the cost-benefit results were positive. And I believe that the consensus of Americans today is that, all in all, ending slavery was wise, profitable for the nation's productivity, and the right thing to do.
I do not know for certain whether or not what we would call slavery is younger or older than what we call the state, but certainly slavery is also an ancient institution that was around for a long time before it ended--where it has ended. I'm also willing to bet that 300 years ago in America ending slavery was deemed a radical concept opposed by conservative thinkers. Abolition was definitely opposed by most church leaders.
Finally, I want to reiterate my contention that taxes are the crux of the matter. Is it so much harder to envision a world with out taxes than a world without human slavery? It is virtually certain that in some places in the world taxes (tribute) evolved from human slavery eventually replacing it as a more productive means of expropriating the labor of others. My thinking runs along these lines: if people can manage to live without forcibly acquiring the fruits of others' labors by owning them, then they can get along without taxes. And if they can get along without taxes, the question whether they can get along without the state is mute.
These are my only my opinions, but they are worth every fiat dollar I charge for them.
Published: October 29, 2009 9:47 AM
Gil
What the hell?! My last two comment didn't get through!
Published: October 29, 2009 9:56 AM
Stephan Kinsella
So as a friend said, what would jesus do? abolish the state, apparently.
I guess, in a way, this article vindicates the controversial thesis of James Redford, Jesus Is An Anarchist.
Published: October 29, 2009 10:17 AM
Michael A. Clem
Time and time again, I see the same fallacies concerning states and anarchism. One is that states exist and are predominant in our society, while anarchist societies don't exist, or such as do exist are terrible places. This proves nothing. Sure, states exist. But what do they achieve? Are we better off for having public education, public welfare, taxation, central banking, minimum wage laws, tariffs, the draft, etc., etc.? I don't think so--states are not a valid and legitimate means to a progressive and peaceful society. Their existence doesn't justify their necessity.
There are various ways of addressing the lack of anarchistic societies in our current world, but perhaps most important is that even the most tyrannical state cannot perfectly control all aspects of society. Many things in our society are indeed anarchic, even if a government exists that controls parts of society and our lives. The development of money, the evolution of language, our relationships with friends and neighbors, how we use our leisure time, etc. Is it that difficult to suggest that we should simply move society in a more anarchic direction, instead of in a more statist direction? Even to the point where all of society is anarchic (i.e. involving voluntary relations between people)? In short, freedom is anarchy (but not chaos, for those of you inclined to misinterpret what I'm saying).
That last sentence leads to the other fallacy: that some people are always going initiate force against others. Hey! I agree. Even in the ideal world I imagine, humans won't be living in Utopia (though it might seem like it when compared to other times in human history), and there will still be some people who want to be irrational and evil. The fallacy is in thinking that this justifies creating or supporting a monopolistic agency that is fundamentally based upon initiating force, and giving this organization the legal privilege of initiating force.
The last thing we should want to do is legitimize the initiation of force. Only defensive force and properly-justified retaliatory force should be considered legitimate by society, and should be sufficient for dealing with the initiation of force. Criminals may always exist, but society should always consider them as illegitimate, and outside the pale of civilized society, not try to base our society around them, creating a corrupted, uncivilized society.
I think once we can get past these fallacies, we can get to more important issues of the discussion.
Published: October 29, 2009 10:33 AM
Gil
Jesus (not H. de Soto) was an anarchist!?!? He was anything but! Jesus preached that Gold was the one great authority - a monopoly of what is right and wrong! That's no different from saying Islam is an anarchic because it transcend national borders and every Muslim judge doesn't personally claim what's right and wrong but looks to the Koran to determine what is and isn't right.
Published: October 29, 2009 11:07 AM
fundamentalist
Redford’s article is typical of people who don’t have any respect for the Bible, because if you respect it you will want to interpret it honestly and not try to make it say things it the authors never intended. The first principle of hermeneutics is to try to determine the author’s intent. Redford doesn’t care. He interprets the Bible the same way that liberal justices interpret the Constitution: they can find whatever they want to find in it.
“The reason this would necessarily have to be the case is because it is impossible for any actual government to actually abide by the Golden Rule even in theory, let alone in practice. All governments must of necessity violate the Golden Rule, otherwise they would not be governments but would be something else instead.”
The first thing an honest interpreter would want to determine is whether Jesus intended to provide a rule for individual behavior or was writing a thesis on political science. The left makes the same mistake when it tries to apply the Sermon on the Mount the behavior of the state. Nothing in the New Testament was intended as treatises on economics. They were guidelines for personal behavior.
The author takes the attitude that because Jesus, Paul and others occasionally disobeyed authorities, then Christians should abolish the state altogether. That’s quite a leap in logic. The traditional attitude toward the state from Abraham to Paul was that God’s people should obey the law except when it conflicted with clear Biblical teaching. Christians have often been dissenters. That’s why the Romans hated them and the kings of France and Spain tried to murder Protestants during the Reformation.
“Once again, as with Jesus's answer to the question on taxes, this is another ingenious case of rhetorical misdirection.”
There is no indication in the text that Jesus was engaging in rhetorical misdirection. Jesus never feared what the state might do to him. He was God and could make the rulers do whatever he wanted. Using sound hermeneutical principles, Jesus told people to pay their taxes. He didn’t dwell on the subject because he recognized that the Pharisees were trying to distract him from his goal.
Hermeneutics is a dry subject, much like logic. In fact, it is logic applied to interpreting communications. Scholars had to codify rules of interpretation because of people like Redford who were very clever at making the Bible say whatever they wanted it to say. We see what disaster such sloppy hermeneutics can cause when we consider how interpretations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court have turned a once libertarian government into a tyrannical socialist one.
If you don’t want to learn hermeneutics but still want to understand what Jesus actually meant, I suggest you read Alfred Edersheim’s “Life and Times of Jesus Messiah.”
Published: October 29, 2009 11:08 AM
DixieFlatline
So is there anyone left who still thinks it is moral to initiate violence or not?
Statists, please raise your hands.
Scineram, you can sit down, I don't want to double count you. ;)
Published: October 29, 2009 11:23 AM
Wildberry
This has been interesting; to see the passionate debate over an imagined "superior" end-state that will be forthcoming when the ignoramuses get enlightened enough to realize the state is both oppressive and unnecessary.
The unfortunate truth is that the current manifestations of the state are as much a product of "market forces" originating from discrete human actions and any other more "legitimate" end-state. The fact that the status quo is a result of market driven value-exchange transaction merely demonstrates that alternative "products" have not been valued as highly.
The notion of spontaneous, non-violent revolution being a real possibility is nonsense on its face. Though I agree deeply with much of what you observe, you float into the stratosphere into demagoguery when you merely skip over the realities of the transformational process.
Those who benefit from the current system are not likely to simply hand it over on moral grounds. Flynn's "Men of Wealth", or Rothbard's "Betrayal of the American Right" make this point clearly; those with a vested interest in furthering the opportunities of statism have successfully prevailed over alternative camps. by whatever means are available and possible. Put simply, that is why we are where we are.
But more importantly, this implies that the process of transformation is not simply a case of a superior theory "catching on".
Libertarianism has failed to formulate principles that generate sufficient value to constituents making up the electorates to compete with the alternatives.
Granted that when you have money "earned" from past exploits, monetary power can be directed at developing superior organization and competitive barriers to competing ideas. But that doesn't change the reality.
Big things change either by evolutionary or revolutionary means. I don't know about you, but I don't crash my car into a wall because I want a new one. Catastrophic change is painful; ask the dinosaurs.
Evolutionary change will occur incrementally based on creating superior value for alternatives to the status quo. The sum total of these choices at the individual level IS the human actions that we can collectively call the "economy" or the "state".
Until alternative and innovative means are developed and employed to transform the value-choices of individuals of broad backgrounds and beliefs, the status quo will continue to evolve from a dominate position. The transformation of a nation begins with the transformation of values in a competitive "market" of ideas at the individual level. The "revolution" is a shift in the legislative process than enacts these transformed values, and the "voluntary" enforcement of these favored laws as a manifestation of our social consensus of these prevailing values.
To assume any other "force" will cause the dismantling of the state, and usher in any other form of social organization is the ultimate naïveté.
If you believe in capitalism and free markets, then you must accept that these same forces are the source of transformation, not the visualization of some utopian end-state which we should rally around in sufficient numbers to "win out" over the status quo.
All of the intellectual debate and posturing on this blog, or anywhere else, for that matter, will not change this basic fact: We have not been marketing our innovations sufficiently to prevail in the competitive market of ideas. To whine that the game has not been "fair" is just that. It does not change the outcome.
Published: October 29, 2009 11:39 AM
George
"If you accept that the initiation of force is illegitimate, then you accept the premise of anarcho-capitalism."
To believe in something and to prove it are two different things. You can accept God but does God have any power to throw lighting bolts down on those who are "bad"? If he has the power but chooses not to use it, it is the same thing.
I accept anarcho-capitalism but that doesn't make it viable nor mean that it will survive. Merely stating that people "should" or "shouldn't" do things doesn't mean that they will or won't.
I already believe that anarcho-capitalism would be better than the state, if you deal with a society of predominantly good people. I don't know that it will be better when there are bad people as well, and I don't know that it will even survive being around states. I haven't seen this topic adequately dealt with, and history is the proof that anarchy, until now, has not been able to successfully defend itself against the state.
Until it can be proven that anarcho-capitalism can resist being transformed into a state either from without or within, it remains an utopian ideology, like all the others which various people profess are the "best" system for mankind.
"The American Indians (and natives throughout the hemisphere) had anarchic societies, and hence were doomed once Europeans began to establish colonies."
So what is going to prevent this from happening again in the future? Why would things play out differently?
Published: October 29, 2009 11:46 AM
George
"If you accept that the initiation of force is illegitimate, then you accept the premise of anarcho-capitalism."
To believe in something and to prove it are two different things. You can accept God but does God have any power to throw lighting bolts down on those who are "bad"? If he has the power but chooses not to use it, it is the same thing.
I accept anarcho-capitalism but that doesn't make it viable nor mean that it will survive. Merely stating that people "should" or "shouldn't" do things doesn't mean that they will or won't.
I already believe that anarcho-capitalism would be better than the state, if you deal with a society of predominantly good people. I don't know that it will be better when there are bad people as well, and I don't know that it will even survive being around states. I haven't seen this topic adequately dealt with, and history is the proof that anarchy, until now, has not been able to successfully defend itself against the state.
Until it can be proven that anarcho-capitalism can resist being transformed into a state either from without or within, it remains an utopian ideology, like all the others which various people profess are the "best" system for mankind.
"The American Indians (and natives throughout the hemisphere) had anarchic societies, and hence were doomed once Europeans began to establish colonies."
So what is going to prevent this from happening again in the future? Why would things play out differently?
Published: October 29, 2009 11:49 AM
Michael A. Clem
Another fallacy, Wildberry. You might legitimately say that we have not sufficiently marketed libertarianism to the public, but it's ridiculous to assert that the state is the product of market forces, when it is clearly created and maintained by the initiation of force. It's valid to argue about how the state will end, but certainly the education and argumentation that occurs on this blog is a contribution, however small, towards that. Politics is reactive, not proactive, and will follow the culture of society. That is not necessarily a "market" thing, although the market is necessarily a subset of society and culture.
Published: October 29, 2009 11:53 AM
George
"There was no tragedy in an economic sense in the killing of the bison; it was simply a rational economic act by people who wished to maximize the value of the grass on the Great Plains."
The bison were the homesteaded property of the native americans and their slaughter was outright theft and destruction. Killing and leaving thousands of bisons to rot in the prairies was a tragedy and a waste. The people who wanted to "maximize the value" had no right to that value. This same attitude is what leads to the destruction of forests and the degradation of farmland. If you are to be logically consistent in your ideology, then you cannot accept the use of force by the white settlers against the native americans.
Published: October 29, 2009 12:10 PM
mpolzkill
How about combining George's and "Wildberry's" posts?:
Please, no whining from or about the Indians. They didn't sell the U.S. government and freelance criminals on leaving them alone.
This works everywhere: no whining from you either Iraqi and Afghan widows and orphans, you've no one and nothing to blame but your own poor salesmanship.
Published: October 29, 2009 1:43 PM
Ned Netterville
You gotta hand it to de Soto for starting a fine free-for-all. I haven't seen anything like it since a pub I was visiting in Ireland ran out of Guinness and called "time" an hour early.
fundamentalist said, "There is no indication in the text that Jesus was engaging in rhetorical misdirection. Jesus never feared what the state might do to him. He was God and could make the rulers do whatever he wanted. Using sound hermeneutical principles, Jesus told people to pay their taxes. He didn’t dwell on the subject because he recognized that the Pharisees were trying to distract him from his goal."
If you apply sound hermeneutics to the "render-unto-Caesar" incident to which you refer, and which is recorded in all three of the Synoptic Gospels (Mt 22, Mk 12 and Lk 20), you couldn't possibly come to the conclusion that "Jesus told people to pay their taxes." For the most thorough analysis of this incident and its import, I invite you to read JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER (http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/Page_7.html ), which, btw, comes to the same conclusion as James Redford: Jesus was indeed an anarchist. I won't go into great detail here, but I will point out a few flaws in your interpretation that I hope may lead you to dig a little deeper and perhaps better appreciate Jesus' flawless honesty, integrity and insight into the human heart.
Jesus did not engage in rhetorical misdirection, but he did allow his interrogators to be flummoxed by their own duplicity, which had the same effect. Luke's account is explicit whereas Matthew and Mark only imply that the purpose of the question was to elicit from Jesus the answer, "No, don't pay that thief Caesar anything," The Pharisees knew from previous encounters with Jesus exactly where he stood on the issue of taxes, and they knew from those previous encounters that he would not be put off from a truthful response for fear of any adverse consequences to himself. You are right in this respect: Jesus was not afraid of the Roman authorities, but the point is that neither was Jesus anyone's fool, least of all the chief priests and Pharisees trying to trick him. He wasn't afraid of Rome AND he couldn't be taken in by his interrogators' duplicity, which would have happened if he gave them the "no" answer they anticipated. So he gave them the "no" answer they expected, and left them baffled. He was asked to respond (teach them) in the way of God in accordance with the truth, "Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn't we?" (Mark's account in the NIV) Jesus responded, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's," which every Jew who read Hebrew Scripture knew meant "give Caesar nothing!" That is because, as it says in Psalm 24 (or 23 in some versions), verse 1 (and words to the same effect in several other places in the Old Testament): "The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it." which obviously leaves nothing for poor old Caesar. Jesus did not say pay your taxes. He said give Caesar what is his, and you can bet your bottom denarius that no one attending that incident had anything in his or her possession belonging to Caesar.
The Pharisees were not trying to "distract Jesus from his goal," unless you mean they wanted to see him executed by Pilate, which would certainly prove distracting. Luke is explicit beyond the point of argument or any need for interpretation as to the motive of the chief priests and Pharisees: "So they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous, in order that they might catch Him in some statement, so that they could deliver Him to the rule and the authority of the governor. " You can bet your bottom dollar that when the spies returned to those those learned Jews who sent them and reported what Jesus had said, they were not confused by Jesus' words as the dopey spies had been. And so a few short days later they did in fact capture Jesus, deliver him to Pilate, and report to Pilate what Jesus had told their spies: "We have found this man subverting our nation [Rome]. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar." (Lk 23:2 NIV)
Of course your interpretation that Jesus told people to pay their taxes isn't really yours. Rather it is a bit of self-serving exegesis that originated sometime after Constantine began sharing the empire's tax revenues with its subsumed, dependent (Roman-Christian) church. The interpretation, which may be said to have become "traditional," is as wrong now as it was when Eusebius (aka, Jerome) first (most likely) concocted it.
Published: October 29, 2009 1:54 PM
scineram
We are atheist statists, so this point is mute.
As I like to say, the state is simply a transaction cost. You can drop the moralizing now.
Published: October 29, 2009 3:05 PM
Michael A. Clem
the state is simply a transaction cost
Yep, and loss of freedom is simply a "reduction in choices and options," so why should anybody be upset if coercion is used to impose said transaction costs? Likewise, if an armed robber demands your wallet, it's just a transaction cost. No moralizing necessary, just because he's coercively limiting your choices. We might even go farther and say that there's no such thing as right and wrong--it's merely subjective, after all.
Published: October 29, 2009 3:16 PM
Russ
mpolzkill wrote:
"I'll quit when someone I respect asks me to."
The only problem is that this is impossible by definition. If anyone asked you to stop embarassing your fellow anarchists, you would no longer respect them. That way, you can continue to be mises.org's self-appointed defender of the faith and ideological attack chihuahua.
Published: October 29, 2009 4:26 PM
Wildberry
M.A. Clem
"but it's ridiculous to assert that the state is the product of market forces, when it is clearly created and maintained by the initiation of force."
If you mean by "force", conspiring to create the most attractive path of least resistance, then I can agree. Otherwise your generalization is too broad to be meaningful. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head to be "Supersized", but it happens despite all the good reasons to eat carrot sticks instead.
At least in the absence of armed insurrection, we get what we deserve, and by the way, we are free to change it. But to what? How? Following who?
Net-net, incremental human actions aggregate to create the State, not the other way around.
"Politics is reactive, not proactive, and will follow the culture of society."
You make my point. Exploiters will follow the culture of society in order to gain advantage and privilege through persuasion of the electorate, by "speaking to their values." That is reactive, agreed.
However, there is no natural law that prevents politics from being proactive. This process follows the same laws of economic forces as any other form of production. Therefore, in this context, what else can the state be but a product of the market? It exists because we buy it. Because we buy it, it exists.
mpolzkill
If you don't want to discuss my point, then don't respond. As you obviously know, even in the examples you give whining does not affect the outcome, even if fully justified and understandable.
Pre-conditions exist which make exploitation possible. Human actions created those pre-conditions. What are those actions and what does the market "offer" as an alternative? The way to measure success is if they get "bought". Products that don't sell loose their means of production, eventually. If you want to be a market success, enough consumers must want your product in order to turn a profit and expand. Whining doesn't change the math.
The question I am posing is this: Once a sufficient theoretical foundation is established such that free-market forces can operate on them, why then don't they sell? Whiners say "because it is not a free market! I'm being coerced." I say, "we're not trying hard enough." The innovation most needed at this time are marketing strategies that can prevail in spite of the status quo. It happens in other areas, like technology, but why not in politics?
Austrian economic theory is not invited to the party. That is the problem. Do you actually believe that the kind of change being discussed here can happen outside the context of politics? Get real.
Published: October 29, 2009 4:27 PM
Ned Netterville
Wildberry: "Austrian economic theory is not invited to the party. That is the problem. Do you actually believe that the kind of change being discussed here can happen outside the context of politics? Get real."
I suppose there are many ways to understand what exactly is comprised by "the context of politics," but at least in the context of politics as I see it practiced in the democratic USA, I think it can be asserted that the Iron Curtain came down and the Soviet Union imploded outside the context of politics. Those events certainly did not occur within the ambit of the sovereign political power's authority, nor in accordance with the Kremlin's political will or its phony "electoral" practices. Since the Soviet Union constituted perhaps the biggest, most all-enveloping state since the Roman empire, its downfall affords those of us who realistically look forward to Voluntaryism's eventual emergence from our current condition of oppression as good cause for hope.
Published: October 29, 2009 5:23 PM
mpolzkill
Weak stuff, Russ. I expect more from mises.org's loudest self-appointed defender of the State.
- - - - - - -
Wildberry,
Question begging, this bull about whining.
"No one is holding a gun to anyone's head" "we get what we deserve"
1st, your points are being cut down by others just fine, I can make a joke about it if I like. 2nd, your fantasies require no refuting. I don't see why your misconceptions and misdirected hostility merit much discussion.
Here is what happens on this blog. Real writers do real research and write real papers. Then egotistical blowhards like you and Russ nit-pick with a lot of risible garbage. You think that there are some sort of rules of discussion to be followed in responding to your amateur propaganda and off the cuff doodlings. There are not, and if you had any real talent or well formualted opinions you'd write your own papers, where you could control the feedback if you wish. You deserve no better than the casual mockery I toss off in reply. Try ignoring it if it bothers you so.
(and I wouldn't even care about your vanity posts if you both weren't defending crime)
Published: October 29, 2009 5:50 PM
mpolzkill
"stop embarassing your fellow anarchists"
Russ, you think you might embarrass your (imagined or proclaimed) fellow libertarians when you talk about how you voted for John McCain and when you shamelessly speak neo-con agit-prop? ("Islamo-fascist?!?" You pick a major and bona fide fascist as your agent but save the word for desperate nuts in caves half way across the world that said fascist has made you absurdly fear!)
Don't worry though, you're no more embarrassing then other "libertarians" like Bill Maher)
Published: October 29, 2009 6:12 PM
mpolzkill
* than other "libertarians" like Bill Maher.
Speaking of spelling errors, is it just me or are more and more people writing "mute" when they mean "moot"?
Published: October 29, 2009 6:17 PM
Bruce Koerber
http://classicalliberalismprotection.blogspot.com/
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Classical Liberalism Acknowledges The Potential For New Institutions.
Anarchism is very thoughtful and observant and demonstrates independence of spirit.
Surely there is a problem, however, if rigidity sets in such that something new and never known before is removed as a possibility. This visionlessness is not thoughtful or observant and it demonstrates obsolescence of spirit.
We can all agree that government as an institution - as we know it - is coercive and therefore flawed. Why would anyone in their right mind want to live under the aegis of the ego-driven? This is exactly like wanting to live in a system of injustice.
Published: October 29, 2009 6:43 PM
Wildberry
mpolzkill
"Real writers do real research and write real papers. Then egotistical blowhards like you and Russ nit-pick with a lot of risible garbage."
Thank you for illustrating why boorish, elitists like yourself should be properly ignored.
Published: October 29, 2009 6:57 PM
Wildberry
Ned Netterville
"that the Iron Curtain came down and the Soviet Union imploded outside the context of politics"
Yes, I am speaking from the context of American politics, which can barely be compared to the process that resulted in the implosion of the Soviet after Stalin.
I am admittedly more moderate in my views than many on this post, but I am really trying to make a simple point. While many, mostly fine academics on this site are doing outstanding work which I admire, I am suggesting that their influence on our society is limited by their confinement to academic circles, and general failure to break into populist outlets.
It is not surprising when those like mpolzkill seem to revel in the self-indulgent ankle-biting of those who are at least attempting to join in.
Unless we find a way to invite participation and resonance with a wider constituency, the impact of the work of the past 50 years will amount to little of historical importance.
Humbly submitted...
Published: October 29, 2009 7:16 PM
mpolzkill
"Elitism", mating call of the loser. That really sounds like whining there, Wildberry. Always amuses me when those who defend or minimize the crimes of the state cry about disgusted people's manners. Your posts were filled with insults, to boot. A real crack up.
One step ahead of you on the mostly ignoring. Thank *you* for speeding that up by saying ridiculous things like:
"No one is holding a gun to anyone's head" and "we get what we deserve".
Published: October 29, 2009 7:27 PM
mpolzkill
"revel in the self-indulgent ankle-biting"
Ah, projection, the pandemic of the internet. Your first post was a study in "ankle-biting".
I'm biting the ankle of a giant, eh? I won't cry "elitism" as that is too funny.
Published: October 29, 2009 7:44 PM
Gil
"The bison were the homesteaded property of the native americans and their slaughter was outright theft and destruction." - George.
Did the Native Americans actually homestead the bison? I believe they didn't, they would hunt bison when required. In other words, they were dipping into the 'commons'. The bison weren't herded and put into a fence paddock, they were left to roam at their will and the Native Americans would periodically hunt them. Likewise since the bison were unowned their near extinction to starve out the Native Americans was tragic but not a crime under Libertarian values any more than the mass extermination of the Passenger Pigeon. It would akin to people who wastefully overfish an owned lake (in the 'commons') leaving next to nothing for others who are relying on catching fish for food - unfair but no crime has been committed.
Published: October 30, 2009 1:23 AM
Tracy Saboe
I posted this on my facebook.
Excellent article.
TRacy
Published: October 30, 2009 2:23 AM
Ned Netterville
GIL wrote: "Jesus (not H. de Soto) was an anarchist!?!? He was anything but! "
Gil, Jesus certainly was an anarchist. Redman makes a pretty good case, and so does the essay I referred to above. ( http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/Page_7.html ) These two essay include evidence to back the assertion. You have merely asserted. If you have any evidence, particularly in Jesus' own words or actions as reported in the gospels, I invite you to enter it here.
Published: October 30, 2009 7:38 AM
Ned Netterville
SCINERAM wrote, "We are atheist statists, so this point is mute."
Sorry, my friend, but you cannot be both an atheist who doesn't believe in God, and a statist whose god is the state. An atheist statist is oxymoronic. Of course most Christians, Jews and Muslims are also statist, but they shouldn't be, for their religions command that they have one God only. It seems to me that anyone who attributes superhuman or divine like qualities to the state, such that government can accomplish things no other human or human institution can and is therefore indispensable, practices Statolatry, which is every bit as much a god-worshiping religion as those previously mentioned. Those who think the state is necessary for whatever reasons, even so-called minarchists, are statists, and I notice that wiki agrees (
Published: October 30, 2009 7:56 AM
Ned Netterville
MPOLZKILL, regarding moot and mute, the former is lawyer-speak, the latter would improve it considerably if it was thus rendered.
Published: October 30, 2009 8:00 AM
scineram
Well, your god is the non-aggression axiom, whatever that means. You just worship private property. So your point is still moot.
MOOT!
Published: October 30, 2009 8:18 AM
mpolzkill
Thanks, Ned. I was just asking, as I can see how "mute" could be meant. I still prefer the lawyer word here though as almost all of the content on these forums following these fine articles is most certainly "deprived of practical significance", and of course could not be said to be "felt or experienced but not expressed, remaining silent"
[joke]
Published: October 30, 2009 8:19 AM
fundamentalist
Ned: “If you apply sound hermeneutics to the "render-unto-Caesar"… you couldn't possibly come to the conclusion that "Jesus told people to pay their taxes."
The first rule of hermeneutics is to take the passage at face value unless the text itself gives you a reason not to. For example, if the text is poetry, you wouldn’t take it as a news account. Jesus held up the coin and asked whose picture was on it. It was Caisar’s. Then Jesus said to give to Caesar what belonged to Caesar. Tying the two sentences together demonstrates that Jesus considered the coin as Caesar’s possession.
Another rule of hermeneutics is to consider the context of the whole book, not just the immedite context of the passage. It is clear from the Gospels that Jesus did not see his mission as a social reformer. His entire effort was to try to get the people to see their sinfulness and need of a savior from it. He disapproved of the actions of the rulers, but that is not the same thing as being an anarchist.
I have read JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER and I think you have the same problems with hermeneutics. Books on hermeneutics are available at any bookstore and I’m confident that if you read one you’ll see how many rules your paper violates. On top of that, you don’t even take the Bible seriously because you clame it is full of errors.
Ned: “The Pharisees knew from previous encounters with Jesus exactly where he stood on the issue of taxes, and they knew from those previous encounters that he would not be put off from a truthful response for fear of any adverse consequences to himself.”
You’re reading the minds of the Pharisees from 2,000 years distance. If your interpretation of a passage relies on discerning the thoughts and motives of people you never new, it stands on shaky ground.
Ned: “That is because, as it says in Psalm 24 (or 23 in some versions), verse 1 (and words to the same effect in several other places in the Old Testament): "The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it." which obviously leaves nothing for poor old Caesar.”
It leaves nothing for anyone else, either. If you apply your interpretation of that passage to the rest of the world, it destroys the concept of private property.
Ned: “The Pharisees were not trying to "distract Jesus from his goal," unless you mean they wanted to see him executed by Pilate, which would certainly prove distracting.”
I didn’t mean that distracting Jesus was the Pharisee’s goal. The passage is clear on what their goal was. I meant that Jesus saw it as a distraction from his goal and didn’t want to put any more effort than necessary into the argument. Jesus turned their ploy back on them by forcing them to think about what belongs to God—their loyalty.
Ned: “"We have found this man subverting our nation [Rome]. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar." (Lk 23:2 NIV)”
They accused him of a lot of things, all of which were found to be false charges. Read the trial of Jesus. The Jewish leadership brought a lot of false witnesses against Jesus but they were all so preposterous that the jury dismissed them all. Finally, in desperation, they asked Jesus to tell them if he were the Son of God. He admitted it and they charged him with blasphemy.
Ned: “The interpretation, which may be said to have become "traditional," is as wrong now as it was when Eusebius (aka, Jerome) first (most likely) concocted it.”
No one “concocted” the traditional interpretation of the passage. It follows naturally from honest hermeneutics. To believe that Jesus was an anarchist requires violating the rules of hermeneutics, assuming knowledge of the thoughts and motives people who lived 2,000 years ago, and ignoring the passages that contradict your interpretation.
Published: October 30, 2009 8:22 AM
fundamentalist
scineram: "As I like to say, the state is simply a transaction cost. You can drop the moralizing now."
Actually, the argument can be made that the state reduces transaction costs. That would be one way of interpreting Mises's comment I posted above.
Ned: "you cannot be both an atheist who doesn't believe in God, and a statist whose god is the state..."
It's a trivial point, but the state is not transcendent. Any god requires transcendence. When atheists deny the existence of a god, they are denying transcendence. Your point is clever, but it mixes a literal use of the word "god" with a figurative use. So yes, you can be an atheist and a statist. Almost all atheists are statists. I'm not sure why that is, though. It seems they would be more interested in freedom.
Published: October 30, 2009 8:30 AM
fundamentalist
The discussion of anarchism would be much more interesting if anarchists would stick to the utlilitarian arguments for it. When anarchists start declaring the state to be evil and the source of all evil, they sound like socialists who do the same about property. The state is an institution, not a human being. As such it has no free will. It is an abstract idea about how to organize society. So it can't be evil. Only humans can have morality and be good or evil. It's as much nonsese to talk of the institution of the state being evil as it is to talk about a hammer being evil. That was one of Mises's points posted above.
If you want to talk about the benefits of anarchism, I'm on your side. I want to see us get as close to anarchism as possible.
Published: October 30, 2009 8:36 AM
mpolzkill
fundamentalist,
First you harp on one of the few things Mises ever got wrong and now you're doing it to poor Jesus of Nazareth. He surely never thought of how Caesar stole that money by stamping his face on it. [joke, but Jesus was wrong, or at least he didn't make it clear enough to me]
It is my *opinion* that Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus could not properly be called atheists, buuuut...of course they did not accept the rule of men. Paul is clearly saying in *the whole* of Romans 13, for example, that for *practical* purposes one should follow *temporary* human ruler's edicts *that do not contradict God's laws* because the time was very nearly at hand where God, *and God alone* was about to literally wipe them off the map. But I won't harp on one of the few things *he* got wrong, haha.
Published: October 30, 2009 8:36 AM
mpolzkill
"The state is an institution, not a human being."
An institution comprised of human beings who (because of insanity or ignorance) all practice crime as an occupation. All who support her support crime and crime may be called "evil" in my book, as may the corruption (mental, physical and semantic [Islamo-Fascist!]) that the State inevitably fosters
(and in reference to my last post, a call to *temporarily* put up with the State, is not supporting the State)
The utilitarian arguments, while lovely and mainly true, will never win out under the new and almighty religion of the Demos. If we had angelic philosopher kings who somehow got control, that would be another matter. Then *perhaps* a Misesian could get his ear.
Published: October 30, 2009 8:50 AM
mpolzkill
* "It is my *opinion* that Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus could not properly be called ANARCHISTS"
!
fundamantalist,
I've been thinking so long about the sematic infiltration poor Russ has been subject to; and now your quite exaggerated "Almost all atheists are statists" has somehow caused me to make a humdinger of an embarrassing slip-up, haha.
Published: October 30, 2009 9:20 AM
J Cortez
Ok.
So, based on the comments to this essay, I think we can safely assume that if you want war among the Austro-libertarians, start talking about whether the state is necessary.
Even the IP debate or the fractional reserve free banking/100% reserve debate doesn't seem to get to people as irritated.
Published: October 30, 2009 2:19 PM
fundamentalist
mpolzkill: "An institution comprised of human beings who (because of insanity or ignorance) all practice crime as an occupation."
Exactly. It's like the argument that guns don't kill people; people kill people with guns. Guns are evil because they are used in crimes. Only people can be evil. Yet anarchists always claim that an idea, an institution, is evil because evil people use it to further their crimes. Makes about as much sense as socialist gun control laws.
mpolzkill: "The utilitarian arguments, while lovely and mainly true, will never win out under the new and almighty religion of the Demos. "
You actually think anarchy has a chance of becoming a reality? !!!
mpolzkill: "If we had angelic philosopher kings who somehow got control, that would be another matter."
The people would crucify him.
Published: October 30, 2009 4:29 PM
Ned Netterville
mpozikil, You're entirely welcome. It was just my knee-jerk response to an irresistible opportunity to make pun of lawyers and their manner of speaking. I can't resist ice cream either, damn it.
scineram, one cannot be a disciple of Jesus, as I am, and worship anyone or anything but God.
FUNDAMENTALIST, I first want to thank you kindly for taking the time to read JESUS OF NAZARETH, etc., and for your criticism of it, which I take seriously and make changes to the text whenever a criticism is both sufficiently specific and on the mark. Your comment on my hermeneutics is well taken, and I will act on your advice for I readily acknowledge it is a weakness.
FUNDAMENTALIST, I will get back to you with a response to your long post above when I have a bit more time, because I think I detect some glaring weaknesses in your own hermeneutics, but for now I want to comment on this statement of yours in another post.: You said, "When anarchists start declaring the state to be evil and the source of all evil, they sound like socialists who do the same about property. The state is an institution, not a human being."
As MPOSIKIL pointed out to you, the state itself can do nothing, it is individuals who act. Indeed, this is the crux of the problem: those who act immorally on behalf of the state almost always deny and escape any personal responsibility for their actions. As Professor Lance deHaven Smith wrote in his book, THE HIDDEN TEACHINGS OF JESUS (Phanes Press, 1994, p. 88) "Systems of command and status (he is referring to states) are inhuman and demonic because, in essence, they are decision-making processes that disperse responsibility and make accountability impossible."
The bible seems to confirm this in a remarkable fashion, for according to Luke (4:5-8) the following exchange took place between Jesus and Satan during Jesus' desert temptation: "The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, 'I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours.' Jesus answered, 'It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"
Note that Jesus did not question or dispute the devil's amazing assertion that the authority of all states derives from Satan, which I presume makes it evil. That the state is evil is for me the most important point Professor de Soto makes and supports very well in his article. The passage in Luke would also seem to justify Ludwig von Mises' choice of the word Statolatry. (Did he not coin it?)
Personally, I say the state is evil because its distinguishing characteristic is its claimed monopoly on the initiation of force and violence. Those who worship the state, worship violence, which is akin to worshiping Satan. The latter is merely an opinion, of course. Btw, Did anyone say the state was the source of ALL evil? Also, your analogy is poor, for the owners of private property are generally held responsible and liable for it.
And a question, Does "sovereign immunity" seem like a good concept?
Published: October 30, 2009 4:41 PM
Michael A. Clem
Almost all atheists are statists.
I'm glad you said "almost", although I'd like to know where you're getting your stats on this. Or is this a trivial offshoot of the fact that almost all people are statists?
Yet anarchists always claim that an idea, an institution, is evil because evil people use it to further their crimes.
No, this particular institution couldn't exist without the initiation of force--taxation and monopolization--government is fundamentally flawed. Naturally, a criminal organization will attract criminals, but that's secondary to the argument.
Published: October 30, 2009 4:50 PM
newson
i'd like to recommend ned's "jesus-on-taxes", too. notwithstanding fundamentalist's thoughtful rejection of ned's thesis, i still find the netterville interpretation compelling.
ned's exhaustive treatment of the notorious "render unto caesar..." deserves to be read by everyone who's ever been dished up that line as a moral justification for taxation. non-believers can get plenty out of the analysis, too.
Published: October 30, 2009 7:40 PM
fundamentalist
Ned: "Systems of command and status (he is referring to states) are inhuman and demonic..."
Systems cannot be demonic. Like guns, they have no life for demons to inhabit. And yes they are inhuman. By definition they are not human.
Ned: "they are decision-making processes that disperse responsibility and make accountability impossible."
That's just nonsense! Anyone can be held accountable for their actions. It's just that in a democracy, no one wants to.
Ned (quoting Satan): "And he said to him, 'I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours.' "
Satan said "it has been given to me". Who gave the kingdoms of the world to Satan, Ned? The only person with that kind of authority is God and I can't find a single passage in the Bible in which God gave the kingdoms of the world to Satan. Not one. And if you read the book of Job, Satan can do nothing without God's permission. He can't even take leak without a note from God. So why do you put so much trust in what Satan said, knowing he is a liar and the father of lies?
Ned: "That the state is evil is..."
I won't back down from this. Inanimate objects can't be evil. Only humans can be evil. Morality requires free will and an institution does not have a free will. States are tools of mankind that can be used for good or for evil.
Ned: "Does "sovereign immunity" seem like a good concept?"
No it doesn't. Did I write that I agree with everything politicians do?
Michael: "I'd like to know where you're getting your stats on this."
I don't have any stats, but it's kind of obvious if you'll just look around. How many libertarians are there in the country? About 1% of the population. Let's assume half are atheist. Now how many people are socialists? Adding the Democrat and Republican parties, that takes in about 70% of the people. How many of them are atheists? Do you think the total number of libertarians outnumber the total number of atheists in the rest of the country?
Michael: "No, this particular institution couldn't exist without the initiation of force--taxation and monopolization"
Anarchism allows for force in responding to criminals. If the state is a legitimate institution, then taxation would be a legit use of force. You're guilty of assuming your conclusion when the debate is about the legitimacy of the state.
Published: October 30, 2009 10:56 PM
Thinker
Ugh!
Can we please of have some intelligence and civility?
State = association of individuals who systematically rob others for the benefit of the robbers and their friends (note 1, the friends may also be considered part of the State, but the lumping of them together is not strictly necessary; note 2, robbery is aggression)
Non-aggression Principle = the initiation of force against a person's property (including their body/life) is morally wrong (note, this is a normative statement, not a positive one)
Anarchy = a state without institutionalized aggression
Anarcho-capitalism (moral) = the logical conclusion of the Non-aggression Principle; if aggression is morally wrong, then institutionalized aggression is also morally wrong
Statism = belief that a State can be morally good (note, this directly conflicts with the Non-aggression Principle)
Classic Liberalism = belief that a State is bad, but necessary to restrain the inherently bad qualities of man (note, problems abound)
So, there it is; plain and simple.
If any one would like to argue within the contest of these definitions, or revise or add to them, please do so intelligently and civilly.
Published: October 30, 2009 11:30 PM
Thinker
Note
"context" not "contest"
Published: October 30, 2009 11:35 PM
Gil
I stand by my assertion that Jesus was no anarchist. The New Testament repeats that "all authority comes from God". The views on taxes are ambiguous and Jesus appears indifferent to paying taxes as if to say "if you want to live in Rome and earn an income there then pay the Roman taxes". A similar indifference is shown towards slavery "slaves obey your masters" which in turn seems to support the notion of "all authority comes from God".
However Jesus confirms that exclusive supremacy of God - hence no anarchism:
John 14:6-7 = Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.
Then Jesus shows that disbelief in God has dire consequences thus showing he doesn't believe non-violent moral relativism - i.e. anarchism ("do as you like as long as you don't hurt others"):
Matthew 23:33 = Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Published: October 31, 2009 12:11 AM
newson
to gil:
the biblical "slavery" you refer to was a form of indentured servitude.
i cannot see that biblical teachings preach the sanctity of authority figures. children must honour their parents, not necessarily love them, nor follow their wishes unconditionally.
is it morally defensible to plea "i was only following orders", when participating in evil deeds? i can understand the practical sense of acquiescence, just not the moral legitimacy.
if all authority comes from god as you posit, then no man is morally fit to rule his brother. sounds anarchistic.
anarchism has nothing to do with going to heaven, people will have their own views on the afterlife.
Published: October 31, 2009 9:15 AM
G8R HED
@ "However Jesus confirms that exclusive supremacy of God - hence no anarchism:"
...except, (irregardless of supremacy and consequences), God allows man the CHOICE not to believe it - hence anarchism.
Jesus does not confirm or annouce the exclusive supremacy of God. God leaves open the question that man may choose himself to be supreme.
So long as man has being there is consequence of choice.
Ought God to have created man without choice?
Published: October 31, 2009 9:47 AM
Ned Netterville
GIL said, "I stand by my assertion that Jesus was no anarchist. The New Testament repeats that 'all authority comes from God'. The views on taxes are ambiguous and Jesus appears indifferent to paying taxes as if to say 'if you want to live in Rome and earn an income there then pay the Roman taxes'. A similar indifference is shown towards slavery 'slaves obey your masters' which in turn seems to support the notion of 'all authority comes from God."' [punctuation adjusted]
Gil, there are so many problems with this paragraph that I think you might just as well acknowledge the fact that Jesus was an anarchist and get over it. In the first place, you quote "slaves...etc." as though Jesus said that. He didn't. In the second place, the statement, "give Caesar what is Caesar's but give God what is God's is not even slightly ambiguous. It could not be clearer. Had you said that his statement begs the question, what belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar, you would be right, and I suppose you might posit that there is some ambiguity regarding who owns what, but in Jesus' statement there is no ambiguity. Then you put your own words in quotes and say it is as if Jesus said them. Not! Not even close. What is as if, and what is the only as if Jesus said is what Jesus said, "give Caesar what is Caesar's...etc." What he said was so plain that only someone who was in line to share in some of the tax booty could possibly interpret his words to mean, as you--not Jesus--say, "pay the Roman tax." Let me try to make it simple and clear: If an IRS agent knocked on your door and said "give me whatever you have that belongs to Uncle Sam," what possessions of yours would you surrender thinking you were paying your taxes? And if you answer that you would give the agent anything more than his carfare home because of your generosity, than thank you, for I will finally have discovered someone, probably the only person in America, who abides by the notorious IRS oxymoron, "voluntary compliance."
Finally, regarding your contention that Jesus wasn't an anarchist because he believed "all authority comes from God," it is precisely for that reason that he must be adjudged an anarchist. Regardless of some of the Old Testament stories, legends and teaching allegories, ever since the time of Jesus and thanks in large to his wisdom and teaching, it has been well understood by those who heed what he had to say that regardless of what one does in violation of God's law and authority, human force will not be used to punish you. Thus, under God alone, benign anarchy reigns, and as it says of God's chosen people in the last verse of Judges and before the idiots thought they would be better off with a king, " In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit."
Published: October 31, 2009 2:01 PM
fundamentalist
Ned: "If an IRS agent knocked on your door and said "give me whatever you have that belongs to Uncle Sam," what possessions of yours would you surrender thinking you were paying your taxes?"
You're completely ignoring what Jesus said before. He asked the Pharisees whose picture was on the coin. They answered "Caesar's." Then Jesus said give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Jesus obviously intended to say that the coin belongs to Caesar because his picture is on it.
Context! Context! Context! That is one of the most important rules of hermeneutics. To take a sentence out of context and pretend that nothing went before it and nothing follows after it is just plain dishonest.
Ned: "it has been well understood by those who heed what he had to say that regardless of what one does in violation of God's law and authority, human force will not be used to punish you."
That's a very strange assertion. I don't know of a time in history when that was true. In the OT law, humans would often use force to hurt you if you violated God's laws regarding property or murder. And there is nothing in the NT that indicates Jesus intended to do away with punishment of criminal behavior by human authorities. If he had, he would not be an anarchist, but a proponent of chaos and the rule of criminals
Published: October 31, 2009 7:50 PM
Gil
My reply to newson and G8R didn't appear! Oh well, fumdamentalist your reply to Ned is more or less similar to what I would have wrote.
Published: October 31, 2009 10:00 PM
Gil
newson - the Bible's take on slavery is consistent with the modern notion of slavery especially towards gentile slaves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery
G8R - what are you talking about? Didn't you read the two New Testament quotes? What of the 2nd Commadment: "do not have other gods before me"? In the New Testament eternal hellfire is the punishment for non-believers. Yes, God gives you a choice just as the IRS give you a choice if you want to pay your taxes.
Published: October 31, 2009 11:08 PM
Ned Netterville
NEWSON, thank you kindly for your generous endorsement.
FUNDAMENTALIST: I am going to apply the two rules of hermeneutics, which you were kind enough to provide in your post, to the render-unto-Caesar incident from the synoptic gospels.
FIRST RULE: "Take the passage at face value unless the text itself gives you a reason not to."
Ok. First read what I said to Gil in my last post on the thread before this one.. Both you and Gil have taken the words of Jesus, not at their face value ("give Caesar what is Caesar's"), but according to your own values, and substituted your words (pay your taxes) for the words Jesus spoke. What rule of hermeneutics allows you to do that? As for my interpretation of the incident, I do not interpret the words Jesus spoke to mean anything but the words Jesus spoke. That is as close to face value as one can get.
SECOND RULE: Consider the context of the whole book, not just the immediate context of the passage."
FUNDAMENTALIST, my friend, that is precisely what I did in the essay, JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER. In fact, what induced my to write the essay in the first place back in the late 1980s and early 1990s was that at the time I found many learned exegetes who interpreted the words of Jesus just as you and Gil do, but noticed that not one of those scholarly discourses on the import of Jesus' words appeared to take into consideration the many negative things Jesus reportedly said at other times about taxes and tax collectors. These establishment-church exegetes seemed to intentionally ignore all the other things Jesus reportedly said on the subject of taxes in the canon and non-canonical gospels in reaching their unanimous conclusion. And I am confident today, since my claim has been on the worldwide web for over six years now without anyone contesting it, that JESUS OF NAZARETH, etc was the first (first ever in almost 2000 years!!!) comprehensive analysis of everything Jesus ever said or did viz-a-viz taxes and tax collectors. My conclusion regarding the meaning of his words at the time of the coin incident thus constitute the most authoritative analysis of what Jesus meant when he said, "give Caesar what is Caesar's," in spite of my homespun hermeneutics and PhD-less exegesis. And if today you do a Google search of the combined words "jesus taxes," you will discover that quite a few people now reject the lie that Jesus said "pay your taxes." Neither the Catholic nor the Baptist churches have yet to adopt my interpretation, but I am confident that in due course even they will be forced to do so because the current "official" interpretation that Jesus said "pay your taxes" is so obviously false and patently self-serving that they will be shamed into recanting.
FUNDAMENTALIST, you said this: "It is clear from the Gospels that Jesus did not see his mission as a social reformer." That statement is what is know as a straw man. I certainly never said or implied anything that could be remotely construed as you do here. Please, refrain from using straw men if this debate is to be ongoing. And immediately following that statement you said this: "His entire effort was to try to get the people to see their sinfulness and need of a savior from it." Yes indeed, but I said very much the same thing in the essay, JESUS, etc...("Did he [Jesus] die to save us from taxes? If, as this essay shows, taxes are sinful because they violate God’s Commandment [Thou shall not steal.], it follows as night follows day that indeed he did.")
Fundamentalist, you also said, "On top of that, you don’t even take the Bible seriously because you claim it is full of errors. " That is a backwards non sequitur. Because I claim it is full of errors after having been hand copied by fallible and perhaps even dishonest, self-serving scribes and other people many times before it reach the form in which either you or I read it, doesn't mean that I do not take the overall work seriously. As I believe the latest revision of the JESUS essay points out, a very learned, career-long, recognized bible scholar recently published a book that has become quite popular which makes exactly the same point. (MISQUOTING JESUS, Professor Bart D. Ehrman, HarperSanFrancisco, 2005)
FUNDAMENTALIST, you criticized my statement that “The Pharisees knew from previous encounters with Jesus exactly where he stood on the issue of taxes, and they knew from those previous encounters that he would not be put off from a truthful response for fear of any adverse consequences to himself.” You called this mind reading from 2000 years distant. I call it reading everything that is said in the gospels regarding Jesus, the Pharisees and taxes. However, it would have been more accurate if I has said "the chief priests, scribes, teachers of the law and the Pharisees," or simply "the enemies of Jesus," for those are who I was thinking of. And it also would have been more accurate if I had said they knew Jesus' position not only from their own encounters but as well from reports they solicited and received from others, including spies intentionally sent. Now if you will allow me those corrections, you may be able to see that I wasn't reading minds, I was reading the gospels and evaluating the words and deeds attributed to them. I believe there are eight encounters between Jesus and the Pharisees alone that are reported in Matthew. It really requires more bible reading than mind reading to realize that the chief priests, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law did not pick the question regarding Caesar's tax out of a hat. And since we know from Luke's account that they confidently expected him to answer, "No, don't pay the tax," and since we know Jesus used Rome's tax collectors as exemplars of sinfulness in his teaching, equating them on one occasion with prostitutes, and from the fact that tax collectors flocked to him and two we know of, and likely several others, quit their positions without giving notice to follow him costing Rome untold loses of tax revenues, and from his upbraiding of Peter in Mt 17 for stupidly telling a tax collector that Jesus paid taxes when in fact he didn't because he held himself (and his disciples) exempt, it is a relatively safe to deduce that his enemies new exactly what to expect in answer to their question based on a lengthy dossier on Jesus they had compiled from the very inception of his public ministry. It seems to me that deductive reasoning is the paramount skill required for analyzing the bible as well as human action.
FUNDAMENTALIST: "They accused him of a lot of things, all of which were found to be false charges. Read the trial of Jesus." As the essay JESUS, etc., points out, the life-long bible scholar, John Dominic Crossan, who is the most prolific author of books on the life of Jesus in recent decades and one of the exegetes most highly regarded by his peers, discounts the accuracy of the canon-gospel accounts of the trial of Jesus because the canon accounts all derive from original accounts of his apostles, all of whom fled the scene before his trial to save themselves from the same fate Jesus was about to experience. The remarkable differences (glaring contradictions) between the four accounts clearly suggests they are based on hearsay and speculation and are sufficient cause to cast them all in doubt. Have you not noticed, for example, that three of the accounts make no mention of Herod's part in Jesus' trial, whereas in one Herod and his soldiers play a prominent role? Or have you noticed in John's lengthy account of the trial that much of it goes on inside the "palace" where Jews could not enter, so even an account by Jesus' enemies as opposed to the absent apostles couldn't report what went on inside the palace, and yet John's gospel purports to give a verbatim transcript of what was said between Jesus and Pilate behind those stone walls. I go along with Crossan, an historian of good repute, that the passion narratives of the four gospels is not "history remember," by the evangelists but rather "prophecy historicized for propaganda purposes at a time when the marginalized followers of Jesus were locked in combat (sometimes mortal) with other Jews for adherents. (see the introduction of WHO KILLED JESUS, Crossan, HarperSanFrancisco, 1995).
FUNDAMENTALIST: "No one “concocted” the traditional interpretation of the passage. It follows naturally from honest hermeneutics." No it doesn't, it was concocted by the Roman church exegetes to lend legitimacy to the Roman taxes upon which those exegetes depended for their sustenance. There is nothing honest about their interpretation, but if you can show me any evidence of anyone interpreting "render unto Caesar" to mean Jesus said "pay your taxes" before the time when Constantine co-opted the church and made its clergy dependent and its prelates wealthy with the revenues from Roman taxes, I will recant.
FUNDAMENTALIST: "To believe that Jesus was an anarchist requires violating the rules of hermeneutics." What rules? Quite obviously from what I said above, that conclusion can be reached without violating the two rules of hermeneutic that you mentioned Furthermore, it is a conclusion that can be logically deduced from a fair reading of the gospels.
Published: October 31, 2009 11:39 PM
Gil
Are you seriously trying to pin Jesus down as being executed for being a Libertarian, N. Netterville? Jesus' reply is the indifference of "if you want to be a Roman and earn an income there then pay Roman taxes". After all, there's the Life of Brian scene of "what did the Romans ever do for us?" By the same token Jesus would say nowadays "if you want the trappings of modern America then pay your taxes". Jesus would more critical of whether people would fall into a world of sinfulness and wordliness than bringing everything down to 'tax protestatons'. What of the young rich man who has to give up his wealth and follow Jesus to find treasures in Heaven? It was never implied his wealth was ill-gotten yet Jesus shows a similar indifference to wealth creation - i.e. he doesn't care, as it is not going to make a difference in the hereafter.
Published: November 1, 2009 12:56 AM
Ned Netterville
Fundamentalist, I have by no means ignored the context. Jesus knew his interrogators were trying to trap him, and he said so. (Hypocrites, why are you trying to trip me up.) So he then asked them a question--which tripped them up. (Show me a coin used to pay the tax. Whose face and inscription are on it.) Then he answered their original question about whether to pay Caesar's tax or not. (Give Caesar what is Caesar's,etc...)
Now if you can't see how Jesus turned the tables on his interrogators and left them scratching their heads in utter confusion, than you are simply unable to consider any another interpretation than the one to which you have been wed since someone likely told you what to believe. Jesus' question about the coin does not change his answer one iota. (Face value, face value, face value!!!) What his question about the coin did was confuse those dishonest (spies who posed as honest men, the bible says) interrogators--and it obviously still confuses many of those exegetes and their disciples who refuse to accept Jesus words at face value but rather insist on replacing them with their own.
Furthermore, if you want to make of Jesus' coin question something more than what I contend was its purpose, than you must accept the only other alternative analysis to the one I have here presented, which you may have noticed is also examined in the JESUS, etc., essay. Here it is:
The coin of the tax, according to virtually every historian who has studied the issue, was the Roman denarius, which bore a bust of Caesar and described him as the son of "divine" Augustus. Mosaic law forbade any Jew from using such coins with their idolatrous image and superscription, and Jesus certainly didn't--wouldn't--have one. So, if you want to interpret the coin's role in the incident for more than the stumbling block it was designed and proved to be for those duplicitous spies, and if you want to say that Jesus unambiguous words meant give such coins to the fool whose face is on them, that still can not by any stretch of a fertile tax-dependent's mind be construed to mean "pay your taxes." The only thing that it could possibly mean is "if you have any of those explicit coins, get rid of them, give them back to that idiot. Furthermore, since all of those orthodox exegetes assert that the denarius was the only coin that could be used to pay Caesar's tax (logically impossible, btw), that still meant Jesus and his disciples as well as all other observant Jews did not have to pay Caesar's tax because they didn't and wouldn't have any of Caesar's coins to give him. Maybe that is why Jesus said he was tax exempt in Mt 17.
FUNDAMENTALIST: "That's a very strange assertion. I don't know of a time in history when that was true. In the OT law, humans would often use force to hurt you if you violated God's laws regarding property or murder. And there is nothing in the NT that indicates Jesus intended to do away with punishment of criminal behavior by human authorities. If he had, he would not be an anarchist, but a proponent of chaos and the rule of criminals."
God's law is self-enforcing. It does not require human intervention nor enforcement by human authorities. You don't have to trust me on this, but you do have to trust God. I am unaware of God appointing any human authorities to implement his laws or punish transgressors. Your prophesy of chaos resulting from the demise of the state must be set against the wars, chaos, slaughter, war-induced famines, genocide, etc., etc., etc., instigated by self-appointed enforcers of their own and God's law. The chaos you prophesy couldn't be worse than what has prevailed from the time of Moses until today under the toxic law-enforcement authorities. What's more, your prophecy may not come to pass. Also, in the paragraph I quoted above you're argument contains another straw man and your conclusion is a non-sequitur. To borrow your technique of arguing: Nothing in the NT indicates that Jesus wanted or appointed Rome to enforce God's law.
Published: November 1, 2009 1:16 AM
P.M.Lawrence
Ned Netterville wrote 'In the second place, the statement, "give Caesar what is Caesar's but give God what is God's is not even slightly ambiguous. It could not be clearer. Had you said that his statement begs the question, what belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar, you would be right...'
No, he would be wrong, because far from begging the question this passage does not even raise the question at all (you do know what begging the question is, don't you? rigging a question by building in an answer). It is interesting here for precisely that reason, because in other comparable cases where people asked Jesus questions there often are follow up questions, e.g. they followed the answer "love thy neighbour" with "who is my neighbour?" and were given the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
And the answer is deliberately ambiguous, because it doesn't answer the (trick) question in the terms the questioners wanted - terms which would get Jesus into trouble with either the Jewish or the Roman authorities. That is, it is an unambiguous statement, on its own, but it does not answer the original question unambiguously. There is a story of a politician giving a press conference who was asked "when are you going to start giving us straight answers?", to which he shot back "when are you going to start asking me straight questions?". But a follow up straight question to Jesus would have got the questioners into trouble, because it would have exposed them as trying to create an offence.
Anyway, you cannot read this story as Jesus taking a position either for or against paying taxes, as the whole point is that he wouldn't let others put him on the spot for this. You really do have to look elsewhere and combine things with context - including your context, for your tax bills - to get an answer. Hint 1: do the taxes form part of something that claims to pre-empt God, i.e. breaks the first Great Commandment? Hint 2: do the taxes form part of something that works against loving your neighbour, i.e. breaks the second Great Commandment? Jesus's actual answer, in this narrow situation, made it clear that the first Great Commandment was not to be violated (with "give unto God what is God's") and avoided violating the second Great Commandment (with "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's") but did not go into further detail to give general directions to apply to all cases. Doing that, after all, would have been the wrong legalistic approach.
Gil wrote "In the New Testament eternal hellfire is the punishment for non-believers. Yes, God gives you a choice just as the IRS give you a choice if you want to pay your taxes."
No, it is not a punishment but rather a self inflicted consequence under free will (read C.S.Lewis for an understanding of how anyone in Hell can be seen as being there freely). It is not like the IRS thing, as that consequence is a deliberate construct set up by the IRS to produce that effect, whereas Hell is the final implication of free will, which to be meaningful must allow wrong choices; it is not something created for a purpose, but the outworking of negation rather than creation.
Published: November 1, 2009 1:26 AM
P.M.Lawrence
Ned Netterville wrote 'In the second place, the statement, "give Caesar what is Caesar's but give God what is God's is not even slightly ambiguous. It could not be clearer. Had you said that his statement begs the question, what belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar, you would be right...'
No, he would be wrong, because far from begging the question this passage does not even raise the question at all (you do know what begging the question is, don't you? rigging a question by building in an answer). It is interesting here for precisely that reason, because in other comparable cases where people asked Jesus questions there often are follow up questions, e.g. they followed the answer "love thy neighbour" with "who is my neighbour?" and were given the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
And the answer is deliberately ambiguous, because it doesn't answer the (trick) question in the terms the questioners wanted - terms which would get Jesus into trouble with either the Jewish or the Roman authorities. That is, it is an unambiguous statement, on its own, but it does not answer the original question unambiguously. There is a story of a politician giving a press conference who was asked "when are you going to start giving us straight answers?", to which he shot back "when are you going to start asking me straight questions?". But a follow up straight question to Jesus would have got the questioners into trouble, because it would have exposed them as trying to create an offence.
Anyway, you cannot read this story as Jesus taking a position either for or against paying taxes, as the whole point is that he wouldn't let others put him on the spot for this. You really do have to look elsewhere and combine things with context - including your context, for your tax bills - to get an answer. Hint 1: do the taxes form part of something that claims to pre-empt God, i.e. breaks the first Great Commandment? Hint 2: do the taxes form part of something that works against loving your neighbour, i.e. breaks the second Great Commandment? Jesus's actual answer, in this narrow situation, made it clear that the first Great Commandment was not to be violated (with "give unto God what is God's") and avoided violating the second Great Commandment (with "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's") but did not go into further detail to give general directions to apply to all cases. Doing that, after all, would have been the wrong legalistic approach.
Gil wrote "In the New Testament eternal hellfire is the punishment for non-believers. Yes, God gives you a choice just as the IRS give you a choice if you want to pay your taxes."
No, it is not a punishment but rather a self inflicted consequence under free will (read C.S.Lewis for an understanding of how anyone in Hell can be seen as being there freely). It is not like the IRS thing, as that consequence is a deliberate construct set up by the IRS to produce that effect, whereas Hell is the final implication of free will, which to be meaningful must allow wrong choices; it is not something created for a purpose, but the outworking of negation rather than creation.
Published: November 1, 2009 2:02 AM
newson
pm lawrence says:
"And the answer is deliberately ambiguous, because it doesn't answer the (trick) question in the terms the questioners wanted - terms which would get Jesus into trouble with either the Jewish or the Roman authorities."
i agree with the thrust of your point, except for the part i highlighted, which ned examined at length in his great book. jesus doesn't seem to have been particularly interested in currying favour with either jewish or roman political interests.
hands up all those who would gladly send dollar bills to the irs because george washington is figured therein? jesus 1, pharisees 0. nice dodge, jesus.
Published: November 1, 2009 6:06 AM
fundamentalist
Ned: “Jesus' question about the coin does not change his answer one iota.”
But it directs the interpretation of his answer, otherwise why ask the question. His question about the image on the coin and his answer about what Caesar owns are directly related. The first is necessary for understanding the second. In fact, the question is doubly important because how do we determine what belongs to God? The question about the image on the coin suggests that whatever has Caesar’s image on it belongs to Caesar. What has God’s image on it? Mankind, because mankind was created in God’s image.
Ned: “I found many learned exegetes who interpreted the words of Jesus just as you and Gil do, but noticed that not one of those scholarly discourses on the import of Jesus' words appeared to take into consideration the many negative things Jesus reportedly said at other times about taxes and tax collectors.”
You might consider that “learned exegetes” didn’t adopt your interpretation because it violates so many of the rules of hermeneutics, not because they were in conspiracy with the state. And as far as Jesus’ negative comments about tax collectors, you’re making a huge leap in logic when you assume that criticism of people in positions of authority constituted criticism of the institution. That’s the same mistake all anarchists make. Jesus criticized the money changers and sellers of animals in the temple, which were employees of the chief priest, but he never intended by that to destroy the priesthood and tear down the temple.
Ned: “I certainly never said or implied anything that could be remotely construed as you do here.” (That was in response to my statement that Jesus wasn’t a social reformer.)
Everyone wants to draft Jesus to do the heavily philosophical lifting for their pet social reforms, socialists, anarchists, environmentalists, unionists and others. If you make Jesus a tax reformer and reformer of government, you make him a social reformer regardless of how much you protest.
Ned: “That is a backwards non sequitur. Because I claim it is full of errors after having been hand copied by fallible and perhaps even dishonest, self-serving scribes and other people many times before it reach the form in which either you or I read it, doesn't mean that I do not take the overall work seriously.”
I rest my case. If it’s so full of error, why bother with it? Just ignore the whole thing. You are clearly very confident in your ability to slice and dice sentences and determine which pieces are accurate and which aren’t, but I don’t have any confidence in your ability. Like all liberal theologians who see error everywhere, you really too much on your ability to reads the minds and motives of people who lived 2,000 years ago. And mind reading is your main methodology for determining the accuracy of sentences.
Ned: “The remarkable differences (glaring contradictions) between the four accounts clearly suggests they are based on hearsay and speculation and are sufficient cause to cast them all in doubt.”
So why bother with the Bible at all? How do you know that Jesus’ state about giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar is accurate? You don’t seem to be aware of the whole debate on the historical Jesus. It flares up every generation or two, but it began in Germany in the late 19th century. By the time the first wave end, all liberal scholars had come to the same conclusion that the only thing they could determine accurately was that a man named Jesus lived around 2,000 years ago. At the same time, conservative scholars patiently debunked the “evidence” of the liberals, word for word. As with you, liberal “evidence” consisted almost exclusively of trying to read the motives of the writers and rejecting anything that might be a miracle. Really intellectually heavy stuff! Every succeeding phase of the historical search has gone pretty much the same way. There are thousands of books written by conservative theologians that debunk every one of your claims and every one of those of the liberal theologians, but clearly you don’t want to read any of those. They would destroy your prejudices.
Anyone who has read the works of people who claim the Bible is full of errors knows that there are only two honest paths to take: 1) ignore everything in the Bible because it’s impossible to tell what is error and what isn’t or 2) accept the Bible as it is. Those who try to slice and dice the Bible are guilty of hubris.
Ned: “My conclusion regarding the meaning of his words at the time of the coin incident thus constitute the most authoritative analysis of what Jesus meant when he said, "give Caesar what is Caesar's," in spite of my homespun hermeneutics and PhD-less exegesis.”
Scholars derived the principles of hermeneutics because of people like you who want to apply their own home spun interpretations. They are derived from the principles of logic and honesty. Honest people want to determine what the author of a document or speech intended to mean, because if you make the author say something he didn’t intend to say, you’re being dishonest and violating the golden rule to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Published: November 1, 2009 6:43 AM
fundamentalist
Thinker: “Anarcho-capitalism (moral) = the logical conclusion of the Non-aggression Principle; if aggression is morally wrong, then institutionalized aggression is also morally wrong. Classic Liberalism = belief that a State is bad, but necessary to restrain the inherently bad qualities of man…”
I would take a slightly different take on these two definitions. In anarcho-capitalism (AC) aggression is allowed against criminals for violating property rights. Classical liberalism (CL) has exactly the same principle. The difference where taxes are concerned is that the tax evader is a criminal and the AC allowance for aggression applies. The tax evader is a criminal because the state is a legit institution under the principles of natural law. AC can define taxes as theft only because it defines the state as illegit. It finds the state illegit because it defines property as an absolute, which is an arbitrary assertion. If, as in natural law, property is not an absolute and the state is legit, then taxation is not theft and tax evaders are criminals. So to untangle all of this, you have to have a good reason for making property an absolute in order for AC to stand.
Also, for CL the state is not bad. As Mises wrote, the state is a means, in other words a tool. Tools cannot have moral attributes. Only humans can be moral. CL has always recognized that humans have a tendency toward immorality and can use the tool of the state to further their immoral goals. On the other hand, good people can use the state for good, such as preserving order by punishing theft and murder.
Published: November 1, 2009 6:54 AM
fundamentalist
PM, As I wrote above, I think the issue of the image on the coin was Jesus' way of telling his disciples to pay the tax. But the issue is much larger. Had Jesus clearly told his followers not to pay taxes, it would have had few consequences for him. The leadership already wanted to murder him. They were merely looking for an excuse to make it appear legal and draw the Romans in because only the Romans could execute a criminal.
The real consequences of telling his disciples to not pay taxes would have fallen on the church after Jesus' ascension. One of main principles of the church would have been to refrain from paying taxes of any kind. As a result, all governments everywhere would have a legit excuse for murdering Christians. Christians suffered a great deal by refusing to worship Caesar. They didn't need more excuses for persecution.
Published: November 1, 2009 7:07 AM
fundamentalist
Ned: "I am unaware of God appointing any human authorities to implement his laws or punish transgressors."
In the OT, families and neighbors took care of police work. Read about the cities of refuge. A victim would plead his case before a judge and if found guilty, the citizens would execute the judgement. Everyone took part in enforcing the law. The Bible doesn't specify that form of police work, it merely assumes it because that was the custom of the day. And that was the custom everywhere until a few centuries ago. A victim would accuse someone of a crime, but he had to convince enough people that he was unjustly harmed to form a posse and go after the criminal. The mob would take the criminal to the judge, most of the time, and then carry out the sentence after the trial.
Published: November 1, 2009 7:19 AM
sheridan
"Everyone wants to draft Jesus to do the heavily philosophical lifting for their pet social reforms, socialists, anarchists, environmentalists, unionists and others."
How true. Thanks fundamentalist for your contribution here.
Published: November 1, 2009 9:18 AM
mpolzkill
fundamentalist said:
"You actually think anarchy has a chance of becoming a reality? !!!"
For days I've been thinking of how to respond to this, but I've pretty much given up. The fallacy of it is just too deep. False dichotomy for one thing. Things don't have to work out.
Published: November 1, 2009 12:26 PM
newson
fundamentalist says:
"The real consequences of telling his disciples to not pay taxes would have fallen on the church after Jesus' ascension. One of main principles of the church would have been to refrain from paying taxes of any kind."
so you're saying that jesus would have taken the expedient route? the harm-minimization way? christians, don't rub the authorities up the wrong way, otherwise it's lions-and-circuses for you? jesus-i'm-not-here-to-rock-boats?
the interesting point is how to establish the inflection point, where the "good", minimalist state becomes the "bad", overreaching one. would paying taxes to genocidal regimes (eg. nazis) still be moral? and if the bible teaches obedience towards authority regardless, how can peoples ever rebel?
Published: November 1, 2009 6:40 PM
newson
to sheridan:
as pm lawrence says, jesus' cryptic response to the pharisees tax question is not an endorsement of tax-paying. nor is it an outright disendorsement.
jesus shouldn't be doing the heavy-lifting for government, either, any more than any of the other interest-groups you've mentioned.
the church and state separation is fairly recent in many countries, and even now the vatican receives a vast stream of italian taxpayers' money through an obligatory "charitable" levy.
Published: November 1, 2009 6:51 PM
newson
"You actually think anarchy has a chance of becoming a reality? !!!"
...and the world-view championed by jesus, what odds should we give?
Published: November 1, 2009 6:58 PM
mpolzkill
Newson,
"The very word 'Christianity' is a misunderstanding -- in truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross." - Nietzsche
Published: November 1, 2009 7:33 PM
Thinker
fundamentalist
First, there is a distinction between violence and aggression. According to AC, violence is justified against criminals, not aggression. The logic for condemning the State follows thus: the State is an institution based specifically on aggression; we accept the NAP, which says aggression is evil; therefore the State is evil.
Second, how exactly is the state "a legit institution under the principles of natural law"? Which "principles of natural law" are you using? Rothbard dealt deduced that property an absolute based on these two assumptions (1) each person has absolute self-ownership (which has its own justification) and (2) property is an extension of self-ownership (I know of no other justification for the existence of property; if you know one, please explain it).
Third, the State is not a tool, like a hammer or even a gun, but an association of people who engage in immoral behavior. The State can do good thing (such as punishing criminals), but the State performing these actions requires prior immoral action.
I await your response with anticipation.
Published: November 1, 2009 9:42 PM
Brett
Is it too crazy to assume that the State itself is chaos?
Look at it inverted:
I believe that ancap is a correct theory, but one suitable for only brief periods of history; in practice it is as elusive as most periods of progress in humanity are.
Which is why in practice, a paradigm molded on classical liberalism is what I would work for.
Published: November 2, 2009 3:24 AM
mpolzkill
Not crazy at all, Brett. In living systems there is a sort of paradox though. Order is chaos and chaos is order. If natural systems are let go, they spontaneously form order and life; if one has the power to direct them, they fall apart and die. (Of course no one has the power to completely direct everything. Anarchical relations exist everywhere today (most non-criminal), our only savior. (sorry, "fundamentalist". Well, actually, Jesus is a great source of societal power)
Classical liberalism isn't the paradigm, it could only be a tool used by a natural elite to convince the timid and spooked that they were being watched over when in reality they are on their own. That is all over though. The leaders have sold nearly everyone on straight nanny-ism. I don't know how you get around this problem of millions of superannuated children, their influence on the next generation, and how entrenched their con-men/lunatics/great fathers in D.C. are. I actually agree with all the naysayers here against the article. Look at how their wailing has made such a great case (like the Israelites sniping at Moses, haha). Their claim is that people are too base, too rotten, too weak. They have merely projected their traits on to others (usually Arabs, as Hollywood, the MSM and the Pentagon have taught them to do).
Published: November 2, 2009 9:03 AM
fundamentalist
Newson: “so you're saying that Jesus would have taken the expedient route?”
Yes, I do. Another example is the “pearls before swine” principle, and when he told his disciples that when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies head for the hills. He knew that the Jewish leadership would tell people to stand and fight and God would deliver them, whereas the Roman destruction of Jerusalem would be God’s judgment against them.
Newson: “the interesting point is how to establish the inflection point, where the "good", minimalist state becomes the "bad", overreaching one.”
That’s true. The Protestants who wrote “Against Tyranny” during the Reformation and those who rebelled against Spain had a very difficult time of it. That’s why I think we should be careful criticizing the decisions of others. It’s not easy. My personal opinion is that the state should be limited to national defense and police work. Anything else is illegitimate. So people are in the right to not pay taxes for anything else. However, they must also be willing to suffer the consequences.
Newson: “...and the world-view championed by jesus, what odds should we give?”
Well, keep in mind that true Christians have always been a minority and always will be, in any given country and in the whole world. To paraphrase Jesus, the road to liberty is narrow and few people find it.
Thinker: “First, there is a distinction between violence and aggression.”
I’m sorry. You’ll have to explain the difference for me.
Thinker: “Rothbard dealt deduced that property an absolute based on these two assumptions (1) each person has absolute self-ownership (which has its own justification) and (2) property is an extension of self-ownership (I know of no other justification for the existence of property; if you know one, please explain it).”
I was referring to the natural law tradition that began with Hugo Grotius. That natural law tradition justified the state much the same way that Mises did. Rothbard claimed to be following natural law tradition, but he actually went in the opposite direction. I can’t remember the exact natural law justification for private property, but it was mostly practical without making property an absolute as Rothbard does. For Christians and Jews, the justification is found in the Bible’s general attitude toward property, especially the passages about not stealing.
Thinker: “Third, the State is not a tool, like a hammer or even a gun, but an association of people…”
The state is the institution that defines the rules for the association of the people. There is a distinct difference in the minds of almost all people between the institution of the state and the people who fill roles in that institution. Yes it is exactly like a tool. Take a school, for example. It is much much more than just an association of people. It has a specific organization and purpose that will carry on no matter who fills the role of principle.
Published: November 2, 2009 12:35 PM
newson
to fundamentalist:
first, pearls-cast-unto swine: this is what i'd call practical time-management in jesus' disciples' proselytizing. i don't see any expediency in this sensible advice to carefully husband a scarce resourse (time), and seek out ears that are ready to listen, avoiding those that are closed.
second, jesus eschewed political power and celebrity, hence the miracle of the fishes and wine wasn't repeated, to the displeasure of those who gathered for the encore. your military example is yet another where he avoids being cajoled into performing miracles on the behest of some interest-group.
third, i was going to cite the narrow gate/wide gate teaching to illustrate that the payment of taxes is always going to be the easy way for the church to win favour with the authorities.
fourth, i understand your night-watchman view of the state, but ultimately it still comes down to a view that the minority who do not want to participate in a defense or police scheme are to be overruled for the greater good of the majority. this i see as a dangerous starting premise, allowing free entry to the great enemy of justice, arbitrariness.
fifth, i cannot see how jesus' cryptic response to the tax question the pharisees posed to him can be construed in any way as an endorsement of taxation. i see it as a side-step; less about the merits or demerits of taxation than about avoiding a trap set by the pharisees. the stakes would have been much higher over such an issue, and the pharisees would have been keen to involve the romans in their campaign against jesus.
Published: November 2, 2009 5:05 PM
Michael A. Clem
Anarchism allows for force in responding to criminals. If the state is a legitimate institution, then taxation would be a legit use of force. You're guilty of assuming your conclusion when the debate is about the legitimacy of the state.
You also made some similar comments in later posts. It is certainly legitimate to voluntarily pay to have criminals tracked down and force them to pay restitution--that's part of retaliatory force. It is legitimate to pay someone to help protect you or your property--you're simply paying some to provide defensive force. But in no way is taxation justified by this, since it is mandatory, and you have little choice as to how much or how little protection the government actually provides you. Involuntary taxation is an initiation of force, not defensive or retaliatory. Tax evasion is in response to an initiation of force.
Furthermore, the government prevents or makes it difficult to pay for alternate arrangements--sure, you can stil hire private security and private investigators, but you still have to pay your taxes for the police and courts. And the government does reserve the provision of "justice" to itself.
Thus, the illegitimacy of government is not assumed, but lies in the initiation of force necessary for government to exist and justify its existence.
Published: November 2, 2009 5:29 PM
Thinker
fundamentalist
"Thinker: “First, there is a distinction between violence and aggression.”
I’m sorry. You’ll have to explain the difference for me."
Aggression is the initiation of violence in contrast to self-defense or punishment which are responses to previously initiated violence.
"I was referring to the natural law tradition that began with Hugo Grotius. That natural law tradition justified the state much the same way that Mises did. Rothbard claimed to be following natural law tradition, but he actually went in the opposite direction. I can’t remember the exact natural law justification for private property, but it was mostly practical without making property an absolute as Rothbard does. For Christians and Jews, the justification is found in the Bible’s general attitude toward property, especially the passages about not stealing."
If you are going to continue claiming that property is not an absolute, I suggest you look up that "natural law justification" because the only explanations either of us has provided treat it as an absolute. I personally am wholly irreligious (pun intended) and follow Rothbard's logic, but to Jews and Christians the word of God is pretty absolute.
"The state is the institution that defines the rules for the association of the people. There is a distinct difference in the minds of almost all people between the institution of the state and the people who fill roles in that institution. Yes it is exactly like a tool."
If the individuals comprising an association do not engage in systematic aggression, then the association is not the State. Aggression, an immoral action according to the NAP, is therefore a prerequisite to any other action the State may take or any purpose it may be assigned by the people. This means that your example of a school does not apply to this discussion; a school does have certain requirements to exist, but none of them necessarily violate the NAP.
Yes, the State does define rules for a society, but societal rules are not dependent upon the State; they can be, and are, established by other, voluntary associations. All that is truly necessary for a society to function cohesively is enforcement of the NAP, which the State violates, making it a poor choice of enforcer (unless you want to enforce something else...)
Published: November 2, 2009 6:00 PM
newson
my amended commandment: thou shall not steal, except when an army or police is required, then it's ok, but go easy.
Published: November 2, 2009 7:56 PM
Ned Netterville
Gil:
Gil: Jesus certainly was a libertarian. He taught the truth, and, as he said, "The truth shall make you free!" However, the essay, JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER, was written for the following reasons, which are stated in the Introduction:
This essay contains three hypotheses. The primary thesis is that, contrary to what most people have been led to believe by their church and government leaders, Jesus did not condone taxation nor endorse the concept of nation-state when he said “render unto Caesar therefore the things which are Caesar’s.” (Mt 22, Mk 12, Lk 20) If the essay succeeds in persuading some readers of that one point, and we are confident all who read it with an open mind will be persuaded, our research, writing and prayers will be vindicated.
The second hypothesis is this: Jesus taught and lived by principles diametrically opposed to government and taxes. If that is true, then those who would live their lives according to the principles Jesus taught will neither collect, receive, nor voluntarily pay taxes, nor be involved with the state in any way that can possibly be avoided.
Finally, although Jesus died of his own volition in compliance with his Father’s will in order to save mankind from sin, which may be the most important fact to know about Jesus, our third hypothesis holds that it is likely and eminently logical to believe that Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus for “forbidding the payment of taxes to Caesar” and teaching his disciples that taxation is condemned by God’s commandment, Thou shall not steal. Pilate obviously didn’t kill Jesus to save mankind from sin, although Jesus died for that purpose. Did he die to save us from taxes? If, as this essay shows, taxes are sinful because they violate God’s Commandment [Thou shall not steal!], it follows as night follows day that indeed he did. http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/uploads/JesusMarch17th08-_2.pdf
Published: November 3, 2009 6:02 PM
newson
well said, ned.
even if one is not convinced by the jesus-anarchist argument, it's important to revisit the "render unto caesar" line, and to understand that in no way is this an endorsement of tax-paying, as it is often portrayed.
Published: November 3, 2009 6:13 PM
Ned Netterville
P.M. LAWRENCE: Thank you for joining the discussion with your particularly thoughtful comments.
Regarding begging the question, I thought I knew what it meant, but your comment made me check, and obviously I was wrong. After discussing its proper usage, here is what Wiki says under a heading MODERN USAGE:
"More recently, to beg the question has been used as a synonym for to raise the question, or to indicate that the question really ought to be addressed. This usage is commonly followed by a colon and the statement of the question. For example, "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?" Using the term in this way, although common, is considered incorrect by prescriptive grammarians. This usage is the result of confusion over the translation of petitio principii, which literally translates as "assuming the starting point".Arguments over whether such usage should be considered incorrect are an example of debate over linguistic prescription and description." Evidently, you, sir, are a prescriptive grammarian.
What I should have said was that Jesus' answer requires (begs, sends) us to answer the question, what is God's and what is Caesar's? I stand corrected and enlightened, for which I thank you.
I do not agree that Jesus' answer was intentionally ambiguous. Rather I would say it was perfectly clear to the many observant Jews who were intimately familiar with Scripture and thus knew what is God's and what is Caesar's. From the point of view of the duplicitous spies who asked the question, who likely were not observant--or they would not have been carrying the idolatrous coin--his answer may have been incomprehensible rather than merely ambiguous.
Btw, in the essay, JESUS, etc., various aspects of this render-unto-Caesar incident are compared to the just preceding similar incident recorded in the Synoptics, when he was asked where he got the authority to preach (and heal, I presume) in the Temple.
P.M. Lawrence: "Anyway, you cannot read this story as Jesus taking a position either for or against paying taxes, as the whole point is that he wouldn't let others put him on the spot for this." I am glad to see that you agree with the first hypothesis of the essay, JESUS, etc., which I copied in my previous post above responding to Gil. For the past 1700 years yours has been the interpretation of only a very small minority of exegetes. Tolstoy was one, unlike most of the others who agree with Gil and Fundamentalist, that Jesus said, pay your taxes. Of course Tolstoy did not work for the Russian Orthodox Church, which disagreed, for it shared in the revenues from taxation.
I also want to elaborate on the point that Newson raised. The suggestion that Jesus would get in trouble not matter how he answered the question, is an interpretation which, I believe, was first concocted by those exegetes who said Jesus said pay your taxes in order to strengthen their case, but it has no foundation in the gospels or in logic. They posit that Jesus' answer meant "yes you should pay Caesar's tax," but he did not come out and say so in plain Aramaic because many Jews hated the tax and he would lose support among that group. This stupid interpretation, which depicts Jesus as a people-pleasing, pussy-footing popularity hound, was necessary to explain why he avoided saying "yes" straight out. Of course Luke's account explicitly debunks the idea that the question was concocted to get him in trouble no matter how he answered, for it shows his enemies only intent was to bring him to grief with the Roman authorities. This utterly demeaning interpretation of Jesus' motive is found in many if not most of the *official* "interpreter bibles" of the Catholic and Protestant churches. It too served as a stimulus to the research and writing of the essay, JESUS, etc.
Published: November 3, 2009 8:40 PM
Ned Netterville
Fundamentalist: "The question about the image on the coin suggests that whatever has Caesar’s image on it belongs to Caesar."
The Roman denarius enjoyed widespread circulation. That, according to Austrian-economic analysis of money, would not have happened if the coin was considered the property of Caesar, for no one would ever sell something of value in exchange for a coin that did not become the unencumbered property of the bearer. If it was thought to be Caesar's, it wouldn't circulate. That is just common sense and Jesus was a man of common and uncommon sense.
Fundamentalist: "You might consider that 'learned exegetes' didn’t adopt your interpretation because it violates so many of the rules of hermeneutics, not because they were in conspiracy with the state."
What rules??? You have named two, and I have shown you how my exegesis complies with both. Furthermore, you have not shown how your interpretation complies with the two rules you specified. Also, you attempt another rhetorical trick. Who said anything about " a conspiracy?" When someone is dependent on the revenues from taxation, it isn't a conspiracy when they concoct moral justifications for their ill-gotten gains. It is a natural thing that dishonest people do to avoid looking at themselves.
FUNDAMENTALIST: "And as far as Jesus’ negative comments about tax collectors, you’re making a huge leap in logic when you assume that criticism of people in positions of authority constituted criticism of the institution. That’s the same mistake all anarchists make."
It was pointed out to you previously that individuals act, institutions never do. Institutions are the embodiment of its agent-actors.
"Jesus criticized the money changers and sellers of animals in the temple, which were employees of the chief priest, but he never intended by that to destroy the priesthood and tear down the temple."
Prove it!
FUNDAMENTALIST: "Everyone wants to draft Jesus to do the heavily philosophical lifting for their pet social reforms, socialists, anarchists, environmentalists, unionists and others. If you make Jesus a tax reformer and reformer of government, you make him a social reformer regardless of how much you protest."
As Ronald Reagan once said in a debate, "There you go again!" Who said Jesus was a tax reformer or reformer of government. How many times do I have to catch you out on your practice of putting words in my mouth that I never uttered and then flailing away at these straw men. Cut it out!!! Read what I write, not what you want to argue about. This is exactly how you come to misinterpret the bible. You put words in Jesus' mouth that he never did or would utter.
FUNDAMENTALIST: "Anyone who has read the works of people who claim the Bible is full of errors knows that there are only two honest paths to take: 1) ignore everything in the Bible because it’s impossible to tell what is error and what isn’t or 2) accept the Bible as it is. Those who try to slice and dice the Bible are guilty of hubris."
What do you think Jesus was doing but slicing and dicing the bible when, in his Sermon on the Mount, he repeatedly said, "You have heard that it was said....[here insert a command from the bible, which Jesus thought needed slicing and dicing and correcting]? Are you not implying that Jesus was guilty of hubris?
FUNDAMENTALIST: Scholars derived the principles of hermeneutics because of people like you who want to apply their own home spun interpretations. They are derived from the principles of logic and honesty. Honest people want to determine what the author of a document or speech intended to mean, because if you make the author say something he didn’t intend to say, you’re being dishonest and violating the golden rule to do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Fundy, in this discussion you have repeatedly tried to put words in my mouth that I did not say. Isn't that dishonest?
Fundy, you tried to imply that you possess a knowledge of hermeneutics and have lectured myself and someone else on it. Forgive me for saying this, but I think you're either blowing hot air or hermeneutics itself is a complete fraud. Here is what you gave in an earlier post as an example of sound hermeneutics.
The first rule of hermeneutics is to take the passage at face value unless the text itself gives you a reason not to. For example, if the text is poetry, you wouldn’t take it as a news account. Jesus held up the coin and asked whose picture was on it. It was Caisar’s. Then Jesus said to give to Caesar what belonged to Caesar. Tying the two sentences together demonstrates that Jesus considered the coin as Caesar’s possession."
Fundy, is that really sound hermeneutics? To me it looks more like shallow analysis, and another non sequitur, By what rule of logic or hermeneutics or common sense do those two sentences demonstrate what you say they do?
FUNDAMENTALIST: "Scholars derived the principles of hermeneutics because of people like you who want to apply their own home spun interpretations. They are derived from the principles of logic and honesty."
The "scholars" who concocted the misrepresentation of Jesus' words, which you have adopted as your own interpretation, need to go back to school. Since when is it considered honest to put the words "pay your taxes" into the mouth of Jesus when the person so doing is dependent on taxes? That is called a conflict of interest, which should have disqualified every church-employed, so-called scholar-exegete from Eusebius in the fourth century to his copycat minions in modern Christian churches. If their misinterpretation served as an inducement for you to pay taxes, you are due a refund.
Fundy, This is as far as I am willing to go with this debate. You are welcome to have the last word, which I will read but won't respond. Certainly enough has been said by me already. I appreciate your criticisms of my points of view, for they sharpen my perspective. Thank you and God bless.
Published: November 3, 2009 11:10 PM
Gil
So Ned what is to made of the part where Jesus instructs a young rich man to give up his wealth so he may get into heaven? That's more hardcore than saying "give a portion of your income to Caeser".
Published: November 4, 2009 6:12 AM
newson
to gil:
in jesus' instruction, there's no coercion. the young man did have the choice not to divest himself of his riches. trying that on with caesar was to risk life and limb.
Published: November 4, 2009 5:17 PM
Gil
Really newson? How is saying "keep your wealth and go to hell" versus "pay your taxes or go to jail" any different?
Published: November 5, 2009 6:17 AM
scineram
The jail exists.
Published: November 5, 2009 7:49 AM
newson
to gil:
as scineram says, there's a gulf between the physical and the metaphysical.
besides, jesus rails against those who put riches before all other values, not against being wealthy as such. the parable of the talents is nothing less than an invocation that money be invested fruitfully.
Published: November 10, 2009 1:01 AM