I am a Christian anarchist and I frequently post on social media. A while ago, there was a usual groveling, cowardly, bootlicky “I hate you massa…you’re a thieving pedo…but, puleeze oh puleeze rule me justly and righteously as is your God-given right of slave ownership over me, massa, please?” post by a right-Statist (post-pretended-to-be-libertarian nationalist “Christian” conservative) begging massa to make a non-criminal vice into a “crime” that massa would promise to violently stamp out.
My response :
“It was always unlawful, regardless of what a bunch of pedos thought about it. "Make it illegal" simply means that you rejected your responsibility to do something about the unlawfulness and outsourced it to a bunch of violent pedos.”
OP :
I don’t disagree that the government is filled with pedophiles at all. I also fully recognize that I have responsibilities to deal with unlawfulness too.
From here, it got better. Two other commenters (Bob and Larry, not their real names) chimed in. So, I engaged in some Socratic dialogue with them. The conversation below is for your edification.
Bob :
“So many leaps, so little time. “Making it illegal” is doing something. In fact, it’s what God did. “Outsourcing” the punishment of the evil doer is an explicit command. That there are violent pedos in government don’t detract from its legitimate, ordained purpose. Where the government violates that purpose, they will be punished for it.”
Me :
“the fact that there are violent pedos in government is not even necessary for my point. Even if there were not, I hold that the very existential premise of government is the legitimization of unlawfulness, out of envy, fear and an abdication of personal responsibility to the moral law. Government is the legitimization of pilfery and slave-ownership. This is counter to God's law and Christians ought to have nothing to do with it.”
Bob :
“You have the mind to believe whatever you want. But government is God-ordained. Submission is the duty of the Christian. Always has been, always will be. Adam failed to submit in Eden, thus we are subject to wicked rulers. But that doesn’t negate our duty to submit. It also requires that rulers abide God’s law. When they refuse to Kiss the Son, they will perish in the way. And just as we submit here on earth to the heirarchies God has established, so too will we rejoice to submit to Christ in paradise.”
Me :
“when does a person or a group of people become this entity called 'government' that we are required to submit to? If I enter your house and successfully overpower you and then proceed to extract the fruits of your labor as the ransom for not killing you and your family, have I then successfully become your God-ordained government? Broadly, does successful victory in war and conquest establish the rightful government?”
Bob :
“Any system of heirarchy over your life God has ordained. The revolutionary war was a Godless act of rebellion. However, the newly established government was still legitimate and God-ordained. They now have a responsibility to rule Biblically. No, self-defense is legitimate, and even in your scenario, if they conferred “government” status, there is still a Biblical obligation to follow what God has commanded governments to do and not to do. Governments are not immune from God’s law and from abiding his standards.”
Me :
“"self-defense is legitimate".
That's fine. But, if your self-defense fails and I successfully win the encounter and declare myself your "government", then, that hierarchy is automatically God-ordained, correct. And, I am to enforce God's law in your family (prevent you from stealing from each other or sexually abusing each other, etc.) -- but, as it pertains to me, since I rule you, and since this is God's will, there is no other principle whereby I may not enrich myself through this arrangement (steal from your labor).”
Bob :
“Refer to other comment I made. Whether you want to admit it or not, there is a distinction between a single individual breaking the law, and a conquering force taking control over the land. The conquering force may not be justified. But if they’ve been set up as rulers, submission is due them, so long as you are required to violate God’s standard. They’ll answer for their sins, you’ll answer for failing to obey God by not submitting.”
Me :
“I was asking for clarification. So, we are excluding single individuals breaking the law -- but, we allow for divine ordination of a group that breaks the law through conquest.
How big must this group be? Or, how big must the conquered territories or populations be for it to count?
Does a group of people taking over an HOA count? Or, must it be a village of a few families? Or, a town of a few hundred?
"if they’ve been set up as rulers" -- that's in the passive voice. Who is setting them up? Certainly, you are not claiming that God directly speaks to the conquered. Normally, the ones who conquer do this declaration themselves. And, the ruled either acquiesce or get killed.”
Either Bob did not see this last response or he chose to not say anything more. Larry now enters the scene.
Larry :
“The right to rule belongs to those who establish order. God recognizes and legitimizes varied paths to that order through how He has designed Creation and Works through it in His Providence. Sometimes, establishing order comes through weapons of war, other times its commerce, other times its culture.”
Me :
“so, as an example, let's pretend that I consider your words and thoughts disorderly and unruly, quite unfit for a lawful, orderly, peaceful society. Now, I determine that controlling you, and getting you to bend to the rules of orderly and proper conduct is a moral good, for you and for the rest of society. Of course, you may not agree -- but, that is likely because your moral compass is distorted (according to my beliefs). Remember, this is just a hypothetical. Let's say that me and my kind are able to wage war against you and your loved ones and associates and your kind, and we successfully subdue you and bring you under total control -- there is nothing you can say or do, without our approval. From now on, your life is set in order by me. I also then proceed to declare myself and my estate as your sovereign from now on, until the end of my throne, if it ever ends. Does God recognize and legitimize me as your rightful sovereign by virtue of the fact that my war against you happened to have succeeded?”
Larry :
“what you seek to establish actually order according to God and how He created the world, or is it simply your perspective?”
Me :
“in this example, I am seeking to establish God's order in your life. I am going to ensure you work hard to feed your family, that you go to church and participate regularly, that all porn and immodest dress, language and behavior are banned, and that your entertainment is consumed in moderation and is not immoral. I will ensure that you give to the church and to the poor regularly and sacrificially. I will counsel you to raise your children faithfully in the fear of the Lord, and to ensure regular family prayer. For all this, I will extract a small gift of rightful honor as a love gift from your income.”
Larry :
“well, some of that is outside any rulers jurisdiction, but God has honored those deals in the past, when done. And, honestly, if you are a just ruler, I would pay your tribute.”
At this point, I was truly left speechless.
The screenshots are posted below.
