Archive for The State
New Testament Theology of the State – Video!
Posted by: | CommentsI finally managed to play around with the video of my presentation of the New Testament Theology of the State paper (read Part 1 and Part 2) at the UT-Austin Christian Scholars Forum 2008. It’s been over a year since the event, but I’ve only had the video for about six months I think. I wanted to edit the original file a bit, because another paper was presented during the session. Unfortunately, the presenter was unable to attend due to a family emergency and her paper was, quite literally, read straight through by a friend. The Q&A session was quite fun because, obviously, I was the only person fielding questions.
I have to brag a little, though. The presentation/paper won one of the “Best Paper” Awards at the Christian Scholars Forum. Simple things can make a difference…
New Testament Theology of the State – CSF 2008 from Norman Horn on Vimeo.
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Tags: philosophy, Romans 13, The State, theology
Related Content:
Free Market Law
Posted by: | CommentsFollowing up yesterday’s very popular podcast, I want to direct your weekend reading to three excellent articles by my good friend Daniel Krawisz from the Libertarian Longhorns. He is well into the process of writing an entire book on natural law, ethics, and the free market provision of law, and I am very impressed by the work he has done so far. I hope you’ll take some time to check them out. Obviously, they are not peer-reviewed publications yet, but Daniel has given us some great things to consider in this series and he is very kind to share these words for our benefit. I sincerely hope that his book makes a great impact upon libertarians in the future. Here are the article links with some quotes…
Libertarians sometimes try to derive solutions from the basic axiom of libertarian law requiring consent between both parties in every human interaction, but this cannot be the correct method. When there is a dispute over rights, there is automatically something non-consensual going on; to use the axiom of consent yet hypothesize a situation that already violates it is a contradiction and hence can lead nowhere. All we can say is that given some dispute, something must happen so that everybody agrees on who owns what; of what that something may be the axiom of consent says nothing other than to constrain it in the same way it constrains all human interactions. However, with a little imagination possibilities occur readily. First it is necessary to find an arbiter for the dispute and for both parties to agree to abide by its ruling. This arbiter would have to be some third party, because if it didn’t, then there would be no dispute in the first place. Unlike our government monopoly system, anybody may offer arbitration services simply by advertising such services. These services would likely charge by the ruling, and they would have a strong incentive to be seen as fair, unbiased, and efficient.
Part 2: The Foundations of Rights and the Capitalism of Law
Theories of the state assert that there can be no establishment of rights without the existence of such an organization, though rights may still exist in a purely theoretical sense. The libertarian theory of justice addresses the more general case where there is no state. There are certain rules for the justification of rights that distinguish themselves over all others in that they are neither arbitrary nor patently absurd, and such that if there is no agreement on these rules then there can be no agreement at all.
Part 3: The Violation of Rights
The axiom of law is often called the nonaggression axiom, and stated as, “it is wrong to initiate aggression.” I prefer to call it the axiom of consent and state it as, “everything should be consensual.” Neither of these statements says anything about the proper response to aggression. They neither permit, nor prohibit, any form of self-defense or punishment. From the way the axiom was derived before, we can also see that the proper response to aggression is an open question: the axiom is the absolute minimum required to have any system of law in the first place, and no theory of punishment is strictly necessary. Settlers who first make contact with one another must assent to the legitimacy of consensual exchange between any of them, but as long as they continue to interact peacefully with one another, they have no need to agree upon the proper responses to the violations of the law. Principles of self-defense and punishment, therefore, are not an a priori part of law, but must instead develop as needed within a system of free market law.
And by the way, Daniel in Part 3 slams Rothbard, Kinsella, and Rod Long. That takes some guts. Please give him some insightful comments (or compliments) and encourage his work. I know he will appreciate it!
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Tags: economics, law, natural law, The State
Related Content:
Podcast: Response to Comments on Josephus Article
Posted by: | CommentsToday I have a special treat for everyone: the first ever LibertarianChristians.com Podcast!
I have been wanting for some time to do a podcast in response to the many emails and comments I received about my article posted here and on LewRockwell.com called Josephus on the Origin of the State. Before listening to this podcast, you should read the article and peruse a bit through the comments since that will give you the background of the talk.
It’s just over 18 minutes long, and you have the option to either stream the audio by clicking the widget below or downloading the file directly. (If the widget doesn’t show up below, you may not have Adobe Flash Player installed on your system.) Enjoy!
Right click here to download the entire audio file. [mp3]
I would really appreciate your comments on the podcast once you have listened to it. What did you like, what didn’t you like? This is my first time doing a podcast like this, so any constructive criticism will help!
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Tags: audio, history, Josephus, The State, theology
Related Content:
Josephus on the Origin of the State
Posted by: | Comments
Titus Flavius Josephus, also known as Yosef Ben Matityahu, was a Jewish historian in the first-century A.D. He witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and recorded the events. His two major works are The Jewish War and The Antiquities of the Jews. The first tells the story of the Jewish revolt against the Romans from A.D. 66 to 70. The second is a history of the world from a Jewish perspective. Both are extraordinarily important for studying the history of the first-century and the history of the Jewish nation. For the modern Christian, Josephus illuminates the world of first-century Christianity.
In The Antiquities, Josephus mentions that the first human government was built by Nimrod, the mighty hunter from Genesis 10:8-9. This appears to be consistent with Genesis; no other organized government (unless you count a “clan”) is mentioned before his. Genesis is, first and foremost, a book of origins, and thus this original human government can arguably be taken as archetypal. Josephus, while not being authoritative like Scripture, extends the Babel story (Genesis 11:1-9) and provides an interesting insight regarding the origin of the state. The following extended quote is from Book 1, Chapter 4 of the Whiston translation. The selection reads a bit funny (Whiston translated Josephus in the 18th century), but stick with it and I’ll summarize afterwards.
“Concerning The Tower Of Babylon, And The Confusion Of Tongues.”
When they flourished with a numerous youth, God admonished them again to send out colonies; but they, imagining the prosperity they enjoyed was not derived from the favor of God, but supposing that their own power was the proper cause of the plentiful condition they were in, did not obey him. Nay, they added to this their disobedience to the Divine will, the suspicion that they were therefore ordered to send out separate colonies, that, being divided asunder, they might the more easily be Oppressed [by God].
2. Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it [their success] to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power. He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers!
3. Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower, neither sparing any pains, nor being in any degree negligent about the work: and, by reason of the multitude of hands employed in it, it grew very high, sooner than any one could expect; but the thickness of it was so great, and it was so strongly built, that thereby its great height seemed, upon the view, to be less than it really was. It was built of burnt brick, cemented together with mortar, made of bitumen, that it might not be liable to admit water. When God saw that they acted so madly, he did not resolve to destroy them utterly, since they were not grown wiser by the destruction of the former sinners; but he caused a tumult among them, by producing in them divers languages, and causing that, through the multitude of those languages, they should not be able to understand one another. The place wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon, because of the confusion of that language which they readily understood before; for the Hebrews mean by the word Babel, confusion. The Sibyl also makes mention of this tower, and of the confusion of the language, when she says thus: “When all men were of one language, some of them built a high tower, as if they would thereby ascend up to heaven, but the gods sent storms of wind and overthrew the tower, and gave every one his peculiar language; and for this reason it was that the city was called Babylon.” But as to the plan of Shinar, in the country of Babylonia, Hestiaeus mentions it, when he says thus: “Such of the priests as were saved, took the sacred vessels of Jupiter Enyalius, and came to Shinar of Babylonia.”
Summarizing, the story here begins shortly after the flood. The people have congregated together for mutual benefit and trade. God then commands them to begin again in the task of spreading over the face of the earth – starting colonies. But instead, the people once again rebelled against God, even believing that this command to spread was given so that God could “oppress” them again. Nimrod, the first human king, was the individual most responsible for inciting this rebellion. They conspired to build a tower that, according to Genesis, would reach to the heavens and symbolize their ability to be gods themselves. Josephus indicates that they believed they could even attack heaven and avenge themselves against God for causing the great flood. God, to punish but not destroy them, sent confusion by causing them to speak different languages. They scattered (partly fulfilling God’s plan to spread humankind), and on the plains of Shinar the kingdom of Babylon was built. (Remember that Babylon is consistently referenced in the Bible as an abomination.)
As much as Josephus can be relied upon as a source, his account emphasizes four points:
- The origin of human government is rebellion against God.
- The government sets itself up specifically in opposition to the rule of God.
- The rulers exalt themselves while deceiving the people.
- Human government drives a wedge between people, pitting them against each other. *
The incident brings to mind the words of Paul in the book of Romans:
“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…”
Romans 1:21-22
The state, which is the institutionalization of violence on earth, began as a usurpation of God’s authority; the true kingdom of God is not of this world (John 18:36). Let us not think that government can be “fixed” and the kingdom of God advanced by simply getting the right people in office, for we know that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It’s been that way since the beginning.
* Incidentally, even Ludwig von Mises in Liberalism admitted that language is one of the fundamental ways nations are divided.
Welcome, LRC readers, please check out my other articles featured on LRC: Top 10 Books for Christian Libertarians – Christmas 2008 Edition, and New Testament Theology of the State. Don’t forget to subscribe!
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Tags: history, Josephus, Judaism, recommended books, The State
Related Content:




