How should Christians think about Biden’s vaccine mandate?

“Law and order” can be enforced by other means than a state run police force but I get your basic point. There are of course many anarcho/libertarian types that believe in zero government. I think there is a legitimate argument from the Noahic covenant and other OT passages that the type of government God instituted is not necessarily an all-powerful federal one but that’s probably a discussion for another day. I also don’t believe that much is gleaned from drawing parallels between our unity in Christ to politics. The two things are simply different. Of course individualism is not at all a legitimate summary of the Christian life. I do think it can be (if properly understood) a decent political starting point.

I absolutely agree that the Austrian’s were largely evolutionist/Darwinist and that it fits their political viewpoint somewhat. I do actively filter as you suggest. Just as I would have to do with any other viewpoint. Unless you are making the “the founders were all Born-again Christians” argument, pretty much any view is going to have to be filtered.

There are no “real anarchists.” There are many different types and what most people are thinking of are anarcho-socialists which is the political opposite of my viewpoint. Neo-cons and even the old right are closer politically to them than I am.

There are not many legitimate political inferences that can be made from the Old Testament theocracy. It is a bit of a misunderstanding to broad brush libertarianism as radically individualistic. The idea is that the whole is best served as individuals can pursue what is best for them. The transaction that occurs between two people serves both of their interests. This is all through libertarian literature.

The contagion being in your body is a good point. I think (if we are saying that masks are effective) that the government should not require a vaccination for those willing to wear masks. At some point it becomes a pragmatic argument. The same justification (the negative results are too great/lives are at stake!) was used for voting for Donald Trump and you argued strongly against it. I agreed with you then and still do. Obviously this is different since the alternative is not allowing a degree of evil. But that’s the point. That is a judgment call. To many, the threat of tyranny is too great to support a vaccination mandate. You may disagree but they have a right to believe that way call as long as they are willing to take other precautions to avoid infecting others.

I’m well aware that some libertarians have made that pro-abortion argument. It is of course absurd since the baby is a human being and to kill it is to violate the Non-aggression principle.

….people who genuinely argue that it can all go private sector, but not many. My libertarianism tends to end when it comes down to things like this and legalizing prostitution—and other places where there really isn’t real “consent”. Yes you theoretically have “happy hookers” out there, but the bulk of the profession is basically rape.

Back to the question of legality, here’s a perspective by Andrew Napolitano. I tend to agree. And even if it were legal, abyssmal attempt (or lack of attempt, really) at persuasion by President Zero. It’s going to harm the reputation and credibility of public health efforts for decades.

I also don’t believe that much is gleaned from drawing parallels between our unity in Christ to politics. The two things are simply different. Of course individualism is not at all a legitimate summary of the Christian life. I do think it can be (if properly understood) a decent political starting point.

My question here is if Scripture is broadly negative about individualism why should political philosophy be considered the exception?

What I see in Scripture is that while individual action is blamed on individuals, it is sometimes blamed on everyone linked to them. I am me but I am also Adam…. unless it’s politics? I don’t see why we should think so.

We have sayings like “the soul that sinneth, it shall die,” but we also have examples of Daniel (Dan 9:5) and Nehemiah and others expressing a plural responsibility for the actions of their ancestors. E.g., Neh 1:6. Nehemiah wasn’t even born when these things happened. This is said of a nation, so arguably, “politicial,” but I don’t think we need that argument. What we see in these and other passages is that God does not encourage us to view ourselves only in terms of our individuality—especially in matters of ethics.

As our mothers would say when we were kids, it’s bad to be selfish. She wouldn’t have said “unless it’s politics.”

So I think there’s a burden of proof for Christians to make self/individualism the starting point. It seems to be the opposite of how God views the human being and humans in societies.

I don’t think theocracy is relevant, since that’s nothing more than a particular way of structuring power. So that’s not the case I’m making. The non-individualism of Scripture seems to begin in Eden with the responsibility to care for the garden and animals as a stewardship from God and, presumably one another: Adam->Eve and Eve->Adam. It was not good for man to be alone.

God himself is not “alone,” being Triune, and though we can certainly infer too much from that about human nature, it’s not irrelevant that we are made in His image.

Well, it’s a large topic and probably too much for quick posts, but I wanted to take a shot at “individualism” being a highly questionable place to “begin” with understanding our place in the world and the foundations of how we relate to one another, law, and government.

I think there is a legitimate argument from the Noahic covenant and other OT passages that the type of government God instituted is not necessarily an all-powerful federal one but that’s probably a discussion for another day.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. We do not have an all powerful federal government and certainly there are one or two options between totalitarianism and libertarian or anarchistic ideas of government.

My question here is if Scripture is broadly negative about individualism why should political philosophy be considered the exception?

Because the Bible is speaking about morals and not developing a political system. Also I’m not sure it is “broadly negative” about individualism. I don’t see that at all. You seem to be equating selfishness with individualism. Is it selfishness to buy what you want to buy, live where you want to live, do business with those you choose to do business with? Yes if you are failing to subject yourself to God’s will on the matter but now we are talking about something altogether different. We just finished putting up new outdoor lights. I was reminded that I’m not an electrician but now we have lights that we like much better. I don’t think there was any selfishness. I didn’t stab anyone and steal them. I made a transaction that was agreeable to both parties. Because I save money when I can, I am more free to voluntarily use my earnings to serve God. I think more of that is better. It’s far better than some type of collectivist system where the government keeps most of my earnings to squander on often objectively evil purposes. I don’t think you are recognizing a clear enough line between individualism and selfishness. In other words, you are projecting Ayn Rand on to libertarians. That’s pretty common but not very accurate.

What I see in Scripture is that while individual action is blamed on individuals, it is sometimes blamed on everyone linked to them. I am me but I am also Adam…. unless it’s politics? I don’t see why we should think so.

I’m not following you here. It sounds like you are making a federal headship argument for a certain political system. There is no connection there to my way of thinking and I can’t remember any theologians making that point, although I may have forgotten. What happened in Adam should not inform a political position IMO.

As far as the relational stuff goes, I absolutely affirm that God is triune and we as His image bearers are to be as well. However, that does not specify anything for transactions and personal relationships from an economic/political standpoint. We are to do good to all men. When I go to work, if I do it well, many people are served. I earn a paycheck that I support my family with, the ministry of the local church, those in need, etc.. That’s not selfish. It’s relational as it is me, the one given the money as a stewardship, using it to honor God.

Agreed that we do not have an all-powerful federal government. But when I hear, otherwise extremely well-informed believers justify all sorts of evil (not thinking masks, vaccines, or the like here) because the government needs to do it to “maintain its first place in the world” I disagree. Certainly there are steps in between and the believer must submit to any form they live under. But given the fact that government naturally grows, I choose to vote to reduce the size of government whenever I can.

Because the Bible is speaking about morals and not developing a political system. Also I’m not sure it is “broadly negative” about individualism. I don’t see that at all. You seem to be equating selfishness with individualism. Is it selfishness to buy what you want to buy, live where you want to live, do business with those you choose to do business with?

I believe in innocent self interest. But for a Christian, all of life is stewardship, so even when it’s me buying what I want to buy, it isn’t really supposed to be me doing what I want. It’s supposed to be me being a steward for the good pleasure of God and benefit of others.

True confession: I’m often not looking at that way, but I’m supposed to. It’s a failing when I don’t.

So, I see the line between self determination/self-interest vs. selfishness as often a very fine one and easily transgressed.

The two great commandments both direct ourselves to think of life as being primarily important in reference to things that are not ourselves:

• Love God
• Love neighbor as self

So the self-love there is assumed and accepted as a reality, but not lauded.

I’m not following you here. It sounds like you are making a federal headship argument for a certain political system. There is no connection there to my way of thinking and I can’t remember any theologians making that point, although I may have forgotten. What happened in Adam should not inform a political position IMO.

I think I’m not being clear. What I’m trying to do is frame the question of political philosophy in a larger view of how Scripture depicts the self in reference to things bigger than the self: God, family, neighbor/community, church, country. So, I’m seeing a political philosophy as a subunit of a worldview, not its own island with different values and principles driving it than drive all of the rest of life.

So, I see “love God, love neighbor” as worldview stuff. I also see our identity in Adam as worldview stuff. We are never just ourselves in a Christian way of looking at things. We’re in Adam or in Christ. I see these, among lots of other things, as framing the reality of human nature in a foundational way.

I’m not advocating for a particular system of government. System is downstream of political philosophy, which is downstream of worldview, or so it seems to me.

But when I hear, otherwise extremely well-informed believers justify all sorts of evil (not thinking masks, vaccines, or the like here) because the government needs to do it to “maintain its first place in the world” I disagree. Certainly there are steps in between and the believer must submit to any form they live under. But given the fact that government naturally grows, I choose to vote to reduce the size of government whenever I can.

I think we’re probably not far apart on this piece of it, though determining what is “evil” in the work of foreign affairs is complicated. But I’m no utilitarian. As far as ethics goes, I firmly believe some things are just wrong, regardless of the certain (or more often, only hoped for) outcome.

Back to the individualism issue. Part of my discomfort with that is that I’m seeing quite a bit of individualistic excess on the right these days—kind of the equal and opposite error of the “community=government=everything” error on the left. I don’t see one ditch as any better than the other but at least my friends on the left have a strong sense that policy should be all about the good of others, especially those they see as victims/oppressed. They just tend to have some very different ideas about what really helps people. To me, if you’re going to err, it’s better to err on the side of compassion than on the side of “I should be allowed to do what I want.” But both ditches are full of trouble. One is just uglier than the other in some conspicuous ways.

(And there’s always the inconsistency thing: ‘progressivism’ while being all about looking out for others in many areas, is all about ‘free do to what I want’ in areas of sexual ethics… as though it were some kind of moral island. I used to blame Freud for that, but if it hadn’t been him, it would have been someone else!)

Sorry for the long ramble!

I believe in innocent self interest. But for a Christian, all of life is stewardship, so even when it’s me buying what I want to buy, it isn’t really supposed to be me doing what I want. It’s supposed to be me being a steward for the good pleasure of God and benefit of others.

I agree with you but can we expect this from a non-believer? This would probably be the fundamental nature of our disagreement. I affirm natural law as a legitimate concept and deny that it is legitimate (Helpful? Reasonable?) to expect an enemy of Christ to conform to those standards revealed in His word. So while I absolutely agree that I must conform to scripture, I don’t think it really works to expect unbelievers to do so.
You mentioned compassion. I think you may be missing the point that in order to “err on the side of compassion” one has to identify what that is. Is it compassionate to de-incentivize things like marriage, employment, home ownership, involved parenting? I honestly believe that, if the market was permitted to work unfettered, most people would be better off. As far as those that are not, I’m willing to voluntarily be compassionate and I think many others would be as well.
I don’t see the link between individualism/selfishness that you do. Selfishness is a moral decision to abuse individual choice in evil ways. It’s something of a slippery slope argument (although I could be wrong) to me-if you give people individual choice they will abuse it and be selfish. Well they shouldn’t but that doesn’t necessarily negate the rightness of it. This works with lots of things-If alcohol/cigarettes/television/ice cream/etc. are accessible people will abuse them. They often do of course but most believe that we should have access to these things. I think more of that is a good thing as long as it doesn’t directly negatively effect someone else.

I agree with you for the most part on individualistic excess on the right only I would word it differently. I think the problem is really an excess of “meism.” It’s only caring about myself even when it does harm another (there is that non-aggression principle violation again). It’s usually a quasi-individualism in my experience. Rarely is it a studied, thought-through position that flows from a consistent worldview. It’s certainly inconsistent with Christianity and even conservatism. But the alternative to individualism (the right kind) is equally frightening (as you allude to), if not more so. At least in a land of freedom and unfettered economic opportunity, everyone has an (on paper) equal playing field. Abuses will persist in a sin cursed world but it’s better than being hamstrung by the very people supposedly “helping” us.

I think we agree on a lot and I appreciate the interaction Aaron. Thanks for helping me think through my own views.

Sorry for the rant on this side as well. If everyone would hurry up and agree with me I wouldn’t have to write so much!

I agree with you but can we expect this from a non-believer? This would probably be the fundamental nature of our disagreement. I affirm natural law as a legitimate concept and deny that it is legitimate (Helpful? Reasonable?) to expect an enemy of Christ to conform to those standards revealed in His word. So while I absolutely agree that I must conform to scripture, I don’t think it really works to expect unbelievers to do so.

I don’t disagree with that. What I was trying to do advocate for a political philosophy that isn’t built mainly on individualism, and citing Christian reasons to do that. There are natural law reasons as well! The two are not unrelated, though non-Christians are frequently going to overlook or reject the relationship. Natural law works because it’s basically general revelation in what a good God created, cursed though it now is.

You mentioned compassion. I think you may be missing the point that in order to “err on the side of compassion” one has to identify what that is.

There’s an important distinction here: objective compassion would be what actually helps people; subjective compassion would be what motivates action. So I’m saying it’s better to err on the side of compassionate motivation than individualistic motivation.

I don’t see the link between individualism/selfishness that you do. Selfishness is a moral decision to abuse individual choice in evil ways. It’s something of a slippery slope argument (although I could be wrong) to me-if you give people individual choice they will abuse it and be selfish.

I appreciate that you called it a ‘slippery slope argument’ and not a slippery slope fallacy. It’s only a fallacy when there is no slope. Here’s the thing: we know from both Scripture and general revelation that humans thinking about themselves quickly slip into selfishness. It’s a bigger leap to go from thinking about community to slipping into selfishness.

So while individualism and selfishness are not the same thing, the former has a natural tendency toward the latter.

But apart from results arguments, the better questions are, what’s the most accurate understanding of the world and human nature as individuals an in community and the relationship between the two? My point is that answering this question from a worldview standpoint gives rise to a political philosophy that respects the individual but is not “individualistic” or “built on individualism.”

“Natural law works because it’s basically general revelation in what a good God created, cursed though it now is.”

Agreed.

“There’s an important distinction here: objective compassion would be what actually helps people; subjective compassion would be what motivates action. So I’m saying it’s better to err on the side of compassionate motivation than individualistic motivation.”

Right but we are talking about political philosophy; specifically what type of government ought we to have. I certainly agree with the motivation angle but it ceases to be compassionate motivation when it is forced. That’s the part I’m disagreeing with.

“Here’s the thing: we know from both Scripture and general revelation that humans thinking about themselves quickly slip into selfishness. It’s a bigger leap to go from thinking about community to slipping into selfishness.”

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by the last sentence but I think you are contrasting the idea of thinking about community compared to our tendency to become selfish. Yes it’s very easy to become selfish. I do believe however that, in a free market, where there is voluntary exchange, the individual acting in his/her best interest naturally benefits another. Or, more properly, their exchange benefits both parties. So I’m not so much speaking to motivations as much as the actual structure of individualism as a solid footing for a fair and good economic system.

“So while individualism and selfishness are not the same thing, the former has a natural tendency toward the latter.”

I would say that individualism is an amoral thing. It cannot have a tendency to do anything. Not to be simplistic but it’s kind of like the “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” Individualism (as a foundational principle of government) is an idea, a structure, a philosophy if you will. It is only when sinful man (there is that Christian worldview) uses individualism in a sinful way that selfishness ensues. It’s Paul’s “I would not have known coveteousness if the law did not say thou shalt covet.” Our sinful propensity actuates the freedom that individualism provides to act in evil ways towards others. My argument is that in a government founded upon individualism, people at least have the opportunity to do right and, I believe very often, help others by serving their own interests.

“But apart from results arguments, the better questions are, what’s the most accurate understanding of the world and human nature as individuals an in community and the relationship between the two? My point is that answering this question from a worldview standpoint gives rise to a political philosophy that respects the individual but is not “individualistic” or “built on individualism.”

Pretty much in agreement here in that I believe that some government is necessary since God instituted it and since it curbs sin. I’m not convinced though that a powerful government necessary better reconciles a proper view of human nature than an individualistic one. When the guys with the guns and the jails are also sinful it’s not a great situation either.

I suspect we are in greater agreement that disagreement. We are very nearly just arguing about degrees at this point. I do however believe in a totally free market. I actually believe that best fits a Christian worldview though I doubt many will agree on that point.

About “totally free market,” what actually happens over and over again throughout history is that property rights and something akin to rule of law must be maintained or the system collapses into the strong ruling over the weak. A totally free market is great until the moment an unprincipled person figures out “Hey, why should I pay for this stuff by trade when I can just take it?” and acts on that.

So a free market can’t work at all unless the participants are reasonably confident that they’ll get to keep what they trade for. This requires government of some sort. Hence my rejection of anarcho-anything. Extrapolate the small local agrarian market out to today’s giant multinational corporation situation and actual “free” markets are, in many ways, even more fragile—because for a free market to work you not only have to be confident of keeping your stuff, you have to be able to get your stuff to market in the first place. So, my point is that archo is necessary and anarcho is a lovely ideal but can’t actually work for long.

Of course, authority can be (and often is) excessive, but that doesn’t make authority the problem. It’s a classic case of confusing poor execution with the thing itself. (I’ve used the analogy of figure skating before: anyone who looks at me on ice with skates and decides figure skating is a clumsy, comical farce likely to result in injury doesn’t really know figure skating.)

In practical terms, as far as government regulation in the U.S. goes, I believe we have too much regulation in some areas, not enough in others. But I don’t see government involvement and ‘free market’ as mutually exclusive, or even inversely proportionate. You can’t even have a free market without government protecting property rights and market access.

Two questions…

I certainly agree with the motivation angle but it ceases to be compassionate motivation when it is forced. That’s the part I’m disagreeing with.

I would agree that volunteerism is better when it can be had (and other factors) but why does “forced” remove the compassionate motivation? In other words, can’t I be required to do something and still do it because I believe it will help other people?

I’m reminded of this brilliant passage from Paul …

understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, (1 Ti 1:9)

Those with law (“the just” I take to mean, having internal commitments to do the right thing) don’t need laws. They have reasons of their own. The rest need laws, but the laws don’t erase the deeper motivations of the just, do they? If so, how?

Second question is about individualism: What do you mean by individualism? Does it involve an increased focus on the individual vs. the community? If not, in what sense is it individualistic?

Where I think we’re agreed is that government has gotten too large and too intrusive. We’d probably disagree on a few points of where the “too” is happening. “Excess” is a concept that depends on beliefs about what’s appropriate. But my belief that, in general, smaller government would be better, doesn’t make me anarcho-capitalist. It doesn’t even make me libertarian. It just makes me conservative.

I generally agree about free-markets which is why I believe one of the roles of government is protecting private property and enforcing contracts. I suspect I have a much narrower view of what all that entails than you do.

Large multi-National corporations are able to exclude competition BECAUSE OF government regulation. This is a matter of historical record and can be observed all over the world. In those places where there is more regulation, regulators (who are usually working very closely with the large corporations) write regulation that excludes all competition.

I do agree that my own view may be a more fragile form of government. That’s not necessarily a bad thing to me. I argue first from what I believe is right and worry about sustainable later. References to supposedly “free-markets” in history are very often “more free than us” but not actually unregulated.

Answers to your questions-

1. I guess if we are just talking about warm feelings you are right. But taxation is not (or very rarely) compassionately motivated action. The tax-payer’s volition was not involved in most cases (beyond the motivation to obey the law). I don’t think that better reflects a Christian worldview since the payer has no idea where there actual dollars are going and since only a small percentage of it ever leaves Washington. My basic issue with the compassion argument is that one can be compassionate with that which God has entrusted without it being taken to meet needs, some of which is actually counter-productive to “human flourishing.” For those that actually feel that the money they pay in taxes is being used responsibly and for the good of others, then the answer to your question is yes. I personally do not.

2. By individualistic I mean the unhindered pursuit of what is best for me and my family provided it does not negatively effect another. It’s not so much an increased focus on the individual but that the individual is the primary assigner of his/her own actions rather than the community.

1 Timothy 2:1–2 1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.

Aaron, you quoted this verse. Clearly Paul is hoping to promote living peacefully as regarding our relationship with government. Why do you think he calls for prayers for leaders as a key for accomplishing this?

Finally found my way back to this thread.

Large multi-National corporations are able to exclude competition BECAUSE OF government regulation. This is a matter of historical record and can be observed all over the world. In those places where there is more regulation, regulators (who are usually working very closely with the large corporations) write regulation that excludes all competition.

I think this is an oversimplification. Anti-trust laws developed in the U.S. because large (for the era) corporations found ways to dominate a market in such a way that there was no longer really a free market, from the consumer’s point of view. I would certainly agree that today’s big corporations find ways to use government regulation to their advantage, but they’re ability to dominate and hinder free commerce doesn’t depend on regulations.

I don’t think there has ever been an entirely free market in history. It can’t be done because

• A market is less free to the degree participants can’t keep what they have traded for
• A market is less free to the degree participants are tricked/manipulated into bad trades by deceit
• A market is less free to the degree that people are hindered from participating

There is always some failure on all three points. There’s always some theft, deceit (see biblical references to dishonest scales), and access barriers (e.g. monopolies, etc.).

So my belief is that all governments can do is try to balance those factors as well as possible and try to maximize freedom. On that second bullet in particular, much regulation has been done with intent of helping consumers be fully informed—including confidence that products won’t do them harm (or at least harm they’re unaware of).

I’m not denying that a ton of gov regulation has had unintended consequences worse than the problems they were supposed to solve. I’m also not denying that some regulations were knowingly going to harm people—at least some of those backing them knew, but it was to their political advantage. I’m sure that has happened and will keep happening.

Point of all that is that “freedom” is extremely elusive, not just in markets but in all of life, because the human tendency is for the strong to oppress the weak. So God invented government as a mercy to mitigate that by enforcing law (many see Gen 9 as where this happened historically, but Romans 13 etc. are clear that it did happen, regardless of exactly when).

The upshot in practical terms is that an increase in government power and regulation is not a de-facto decrease in net human freedom.

I recently read Jules Verne’s The Mysterious Island. Spoiler alert: at the end of it all, the protagonists set up an ideal society in Iowa or somewhere. A kind of island utopia in the U.S., governed only by the … well, that’s not clear to me. Would have to read it more carefully and I’m not that interested.

Anyway, suppose this community of good people is formed in some place and just left alone. They have no laws at all, just general principles of honor and respect, etc. Eventually, someone who lacks the good character of the original group robs someone. Maybe the leaders of the group steadfastly resist making laws and enforcing them. Soon more people rob people, and eventually, everyone gears up with weaponry to protect their stuff, and eventually whoever has the most weapons can take whatever he wants, especially from whoever has the least weapons.

At that point, these people, though free of government regulation are not free to pursue their livelihood, participate in trade, etc.

So, government is formed, some laws and an enforcement regime. The robber barons are put in their place and the less fortified are now free to live in peace again. Overall, though regulation increased, freedom also increased.

What happens next? Well, as all organizations will, government starts to act in its own interests to some extent, and see increasing its own value and durability as an end itself. At some point, regulations that take some freedoms away don’t have a resulting increase in freedom-from-crime to offset them. Or maybe they do, but there is so much crime that there is a net loss in freedom.

So that’s where we are. It was never not going to happen. And as long as citizens are inadequately restrained internally they’ll have to be increasingly restrained externally by government. Freedom will certainly decline but not really because of excessive government so much as insufficient self restraint.

Meanwhile, rule of law is the most freeing thing we have in a world full of people with no principles.

On taxes, I agree that there’s a lot of stupidity and waste and unethical use of funds. I don’t see taxation as the problem, though. Whatever has value (and government has value; Scripture says so), has cost.

The cure would, arguably, be a great reset to some radically simplified government with very few rules… if we had a society of reliably self-restrained people. But culturally, that’s not where we are. It wasn’t even where we were in the 1780’s when we were forming the U.S. Constitution. So the writers of the Federalist Papers wrote a lot about how untrustworthy humans are to be ungoverned, but also how untrustworthy they are to govern. Hence, checks and balances, rule of law, two houses, three branches, all that.

It’s worked pretty well for a pretty long time and isn’t dead yet, but it will die eventually. Unless there is a radical swing of the pendulum ideologically in the west (some would call it ‘revival’), we can’t radically shrink government. Too few people have principles. So we have to keep trying to force people to respect each other’s rights while also trying to rein in government excess in this very messy way we do that.

I don’t think there’s a better way at this point in time.

1 Timothy 2:1–2 1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.

Aaron, you quoted this verse. Clearly Paul is hoping to promote living peacefully as regarding our relationship with government. Why do you think he calls for prayers for leaders as a key for accomplishing this?

In Romans he is clear they work for God in the sense that they’re His invention for the restraint of human evil, promoting good. Peter says more about that particular piece though I think. See also Proverbs. Rulers have a huge job and the choices they make have disproportionate impact. They need both wisdom and courage to act on it—which is often at odds with their own political survival.

@JoeB: you tend to make assertions without evidence we can verify. Maybe include a link or two? I don’t know who Dolbert is or what the CBN is up to. I do see blog posts here and there from guys on the right who are rejecting classical liberalism, and in various ways, advocating for a lot less separation of church and state. This is folly for one simple reason: there is no cultural consensus to govern by Christian principles. A government that tried to do that to the degree these post-liberal integrationists seem to have in mind would be oppressive, and there’s no way they could possibly achieve it anyway. So… pretty dumb.

I’m sure there are also radicals talking about violence.

Here’s what I’m afraid we’re going to see before long…

Some individuals and groups that used to stand in the conservative mainstream are going to start to advocate openly for violence. Some of these are going to be religiously affiliated groups and churches. The government is going to go after them as domestic terrorist groups. The radicalized groups are going to make increasing noise about attacks on religious liberty, and conservative Christians will be increasingly polarized as they take sides rhetorically for or against these radical groups. Because our ethical foundations have crumbled—especially our theology of government and our theology of truth and reason—the radical side of the divide will gain far more supporters than they would have 10 or 20 years ago. Maybe a majority. Throw in increasing distrust in the electoral process and increasing irrational hostility toward Them (the Elites the Left the Establishment etc.)… I fear it’s really going to be ugly. We think things are messy now, but there isn’t at the moment any reason to believe they won’t get worse as both the right and the left feed the worst in each other.

All it takes to prevent this scenario is for either left or right to refuse to be reactionary. … or maybe the formation of a more powerful middle. There are ways this scenario can be prevented. Maybe if it happens slowly enough Christian institutions and ministries can repair the holes in our theology and worldview well enough to adequately separate the coming radicalism from the Christian faith. This is the sort of thing I pray for these days!

Edit: Individualism…

In case this post isn’t already long enough! Back to individualism: the reason I asked the question about that is that as a starting point for developing an ideal government, I don’t see how it can be adequate. Though we can’t expect the lost to “love God and love neighbor,” we can expect them to pursue enlightened self-interest. I realize there’s a hideous and tragic version of that in Ayn Rand, and that’s not what I’m talking about. It doesn’t really take a PhD in philosophy or a ThD in theology to figure out that it’s better for me if I live in a society where people think about the good of others (including…me!) at the same time as they’re thinking about their wants and needs. Maybe this is what writers mean when they talk about the common good political philosophy of Roman Catholicism. I’m not up on that enough to know for sure, but it at least sounds more Christian as a starting point than “individualism.”

In any case, because we’re all obsessed with self to begin with, as humans, we need a stronger pull toward thinking about the good of others in how we think about government and society. So even if I mean the same thing as you, Josh, I would put more emphasis on community. I think Scripture reveals that this is not only more Christian but fundamentally more human.

Finally getting back to this one myself…

“I think this is an oversimplification. Anti-trust laws developed in the U.S. because large (for the era) corporations found ways to dominate a market in such a way that there was no longer really a free market, from the consumer’s point of view. I would certainly agree that today’s big corporations find ways to use government regulation to their advantage, but they’re ability to dominate and hinder free commerce doesn’t depend on regulations.”

There may be some different ways for businesses to hinder free commerce now (that’s even pretty debatable) but, at the time anti-trust law was developed, regulators (who I admit may have had good intentions in many cases) strengthened corporations ability to exclude competition. Thomas Sowell in his book “Basic Economics” has a nice summary of the history (if I remember correctly). I found it fairly convincing along with some other sources. I believe Hazlett’s book also covered some of this. It’s probably too far afield for a discussion here to be debating the intricate history of anti-trust law.

“A market is less free to the degree participants are tricked/manipulated into bad trades by deceit”

When I say “free-market” I mean the ability to purchase and sell goods and services without government intervention/prohibition. You seem to be describing outcomes. I believe buyer beware is a good principle and in general think that this type of regulation is harmful. I know everyone now claims the issues are too complex for the average person to understand but all of the purchases we make involve a degree of risk. I’m comfortable with more. I also see a place for private organizations that monitor some of this.

I agree on Gen. 9 and Rom. 13 which is why I affirm that government is a good thing as a principle.

A basic disagreement we have I think is that you are concerned about the weak being oppressed by the strong and think that the government is therefore a necessary check. I believe that the government very often becomes the strong that is oppressing the weak. You have focused on the sinful human nature of individuals where I see the government as a conglomerate of those individuals. There are certain checks and balances in place which are often effective in checking evil but the larger the government grows the less effective they usually become.

As for Mysterious Island, I remember enjoying the book but I don’t know if I’d want to live in its utopia. Same goes for the utopia in Atlas Shrugged (although that one sounds much better).

Democracy has a lot to commend it but some (not you) see it as a given that it’s the perfect form of government. A system where the majority can vote to remove the rights of the minority (Jim Crow, Abortion, etc.) has as many problems or more than a supposed free-market utopia. Hoppe has been strongly criticized for his “covenant communities” idea but a government where the individuals agree in advance (in writing) to submit to the laws appeals to me. I still need to read his book “Democracy: The god That Failed” to understand his view better.

“It doesn’t really take a PhD in philosophy or a ThD in theology to figure out that it’s better for me if I live in a society where people think about the good of others (including…me!) at the same time as they’re thinking about their wants and needs.”

The problem is who decides what that is? In our society for example it has recently come to include affirming homosexuality as a wonderful thing. If you disagree you are “evil.” Also, at many points individual rights and the “common good” are mutually exclusive. I’m personally willing to give up a lot of my happiness/convenience to help others but when the government is coercing it the result is usually tribalism and bitterness from one group to the other.

As far as taxation goes, I’m all for it just not by coercion.

It’s been an interesting discussion, and I appreciate your thoughts. I have tremendous respect for Sowell, so the tip on anti-trust is especially interesting.

I’m just barely resisting the urge to go another round or two, and we’ll probably be back to a few of these themes again at some point, but I think I can’t keep up with it for now.

Our perspectives are different enough to be interesting, but close enough to engage on point, so that’s always a pleasure. I don’t remember where you’re located, but if you’re ever in the Minneapolis/St.Paul area, I’m sure we could have some stimulating and rational conversation on individualism, government, taxation, etc. I don’t get enough of that since academia days.

I’m in Washington and have yet to make it to Minnesota, other than a brief drive through a part of it. I often think of visiting Central for a conference or something. I will be sure to connect if/when I do.