Paul urged Christians in Rome to offer the same "living sacrifice" in Romans 12:1-2 --
> I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship. Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.
Very good point: local control can be as tyrannical as a larger political unit. And I liked very much to see you identify various sources for our conception that the individual is the locus of political autonomy - perhaps divinely so.
But I didn't see you address a key component of Raico and Rothbard's argument that Europe's geographical political decentralization gave rise to the Enlightenment and humanity's increased focus on individual rights. I think much of the thrust of their argument is that with smaller political units, it's easier for people to move out of a jurisdiction if it became to onerous. It also helped that there were multiple competing power centers in those days: the "king" (or similar), the church, guilds, smaller baronies or duchies, large families or clans, etc.
It really helps limit tyranny if the tyrant has to worry that his "tax base" will just pick up and move 5 miles away and live under a less oppressive ruler.
I agree with Raico's assessment of European history. It sure seems that the rivalries between different power centers became a crude marketplace with competition for residents of territories. The rabbit hole of the emergence of a political theory of individual rights is a topic for another day (and probably for another writer, since I aim to keep my articles under 1,000 words).
However the focus on individual rights emerged, it is interesting, as you noted, the various backgrounds of the thinkers cited. I don't know if Raico subscribed to a traditional belief system, but I'm pretty sure Mises and Rothbard were fairly agnostic. Rand was an atheist. The Gospels, of course, are as traditionally religious as you can get! I think this is what is known in science as a more robust conclusion, since it's arrived at from many different paths.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Great points :-)
I think it's about time we begin to question all the sacred cows of this nation, including the idea that some 750,000 people had to die in a war to end slavery. From a Christian anarchist perspective, or even a mere ethical argument perspective, it doesn't add up. The civil war, like all wars, hijacked a moral reason (no argument there-slavery is evil) to convince the masses that all of these lives had to be lost in order to end slavery, but it was really a means to strengthen the so-called union and extend the chokehold of an illegitimate federal government. The intelligently crafted Gettysburg address not withstanding, the war did not establish freedom or a government for the people, since that is an oxymoron. Governments don't extend freedom they restrict it, and they are never really for the people, but rather for themselves.
Given that it took another 100 year for the civil rights act, and that we're still living in a highly segregated and racially-minded society, the argument that alternative methods for ending slavery would have taken too long, don't hold much weight. While I don't condone war, ever, I'm not opposed to self-defense and gun ownership. Had the north made guns available to slaves, I don't think it would have taken a war to end slavery at all. A few armed rebellions and the upholding of so-called 2nd amendment rights would have 'equalized' all men (who were already created equal) and would have done the trick.
Paul urged Christians in Rome to offer the same "living sacrifice" in Romans 12:1-2 --
> I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship. Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.
Very good point: local control can be as tyrannical as a larger political unit. And I liked very much to see you identify various sources for our conception that the individual is the locus of political autonomy - perhaps divinely so.
But I didn't see you address a key component of Raico and Rothbard's argument that Europe's geographical political decentralization gave rise to the Enlightenment and humanity's increased focus on individual rights. I think much of the thrust of their argument is that with smaller political units, it's easier for people to move out of a jurisdiction if it became to onerous. It also helped that there were multiple competing power centers in those days: the "king" (or similar), the church, guilds, smaller baronies or duchies, large families or clans, etc.
It really helps limit tyranny if the tyrant has to worry that his "tax base" will just pick up and move 5 miles away and live under a less oppressive ruler.
Thanks for the interesting article!
I agree with Raico's assessment of European history. It sure seems that the rivalries between different power centers became a crude marketplace with competition for residents of territories. The rabbit hole of the emergence of a political theory of individual rights is a topic for another day (and probably for another writer, since I aim to keep my articles under 1,000 words).
However the focus on individual rights emerged, it is interesting, as you noted, the various backgrounds of the thinkers cited. I don't know if Raico subscribed to a traditional belief system, but I'm pretty sure Mises and Rothbard were fairly agnostic. Rand was an atheist. The Gospels, of course, are as traditionally religious as you can get! I think this is what is known in science as a more robust conclusion, since it's arrived at from many different paths.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Great points :-)
I think it's about time we begin to question all the sacred cows of this nation, including the idea that some 750,000 people had to die in a war to end slavery. From a Christian anarchist perspective, or even a mere ethical argument perspective, it doesn't add up. The civil war, like all wars, hijacked a moral reason (no argument there-slavery is evil) to convince the masses that all of these lives had to be lost in order to end slavery, but it was really a means to strengthen the so-called union and extend the chokehold of an illegitimate federal government. The intelligently crafted Gettysburg address not withstanding, the war did not establish freedom or a government for the people, since that is an oxymoron. Governments don't extend freedom they restrict it, and they are never really for the people, but rather for themselves.
Given that it took another 100 year for the civil rights act, and that we're still living in a highly segregated and racially-minded society, the argument that alternative methods for ending slavery would have taken too long, don't hold much weight. While I don't condone war, ever, I'm not opposed to self-defense and gun ownership. Had the north made guns available to slaves, I don't think it would have taken a war to end slavery at all. A few armed rebellions and the upholding of so-called 2nd amendment rights would have 'equalized' all men (who were already created equal) and would have done the trick.
Yes, plenty of other societies managed to stop chattel slavery without resorting to a full-fledged civil war. Lincoln was a tyrant.