The state, slavery, and sin

[gideondelta]

I disagree with Mr. Spooner in calling elective representative government "slavery".

Even if we were to throwaway the bounds of this form of government by the state (in the US, being a republican form), humankind would quickly find ourselves enslaved to something else.

Higher Law

Chiefly, my argument is, the source of our slavery, is often our departure from God's law and righteousness. The problems we experience in every realm of authority, government, state, life, and living can all be traced to a single source: rebellion against God's law — which is succinctly defined as "sin".

What religion has to do with it

And, I know, this isn't a "religious" post about "religion", but I will disagree. Any matter of human interaction ultimately can be brought back to our relationship with God. Mankind is fundamentally corrupt, doesn't desire God, won't, can't, and doesn't want to submit to God's laws. This is what Jesus had to say:

36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
Matthew 22:36-40 ESV

When I say we violate God's law, every violation involves, in essence, breaking one of these two basic principles. That translates directly to this subject.

Love your neighbor

Every violation of the Non-Aggression Principle: Not loving your neighbor as yourself. The state depriving people of basic rights: Individuals in power not loving their neighbor as themselves. Killing of preborn children: Not loving your preborn neighbor as yourself. Police state: Not loving your neighbor as yourself.

Love God

And each of these violations also ties into a vertical failure of not loving God with every ounce of your being, because when you have a proper relationship with God, you should be loving your neighbor as yourself.

Always a slave unless...

So my argument is, you may unchain yourself at some point from the state, but

Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. (John 8:34)

And unless we, as a people, repent (turn from our sin with disgust — including not loving with all of our being and not loving our neighbor as ourselves) and believe in Jesus Christ as Lord, God, and Savior our society, in whatever form, will continue to be enslaved. Whether it's republican, democratic, socialist, anarchist, or voluntaryist.

So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

(John 8:36)

Comments

[finnian]

No thanks. I'll pass. This is the problem with religious people. You won't allow me to be free to have differing beliefs. The system you support must be forced on me. I refuse to be ruled regardless of who or what that ruler is.

[troglodactyl]

You begin by saying you disagree, but the rest of your post sounds entirely aligned with Spooner's statement (you should include the quote).

Law defines acceptable behavior, and requires that all lives either be brought into conformity with the law. Any who persistently refuse to comply will ultimately be killed. When law is asymmetrical and assigns some the duty of serving others, the result is slavery. The slave has no direct recognized value and is required to serve as a tool of the political master, and any who are not of sufficient use (refusal to pay taxes or to serve in the military when drafted for example) will be punished until they either serve or die.

The god of the Bible is defined as both truth and love, but most who call themselves Christians seem to focus on the story of atoning sacrifice far more than on the core teachings of love for neighbors. As a result, they are just as ready to demand aggressive coercion through the political system as anyone else is.

[gideondelta]

The redemptive work of Christ is the relatable experience mankind has of objective love. You're begging the question in regards to what love is.

The god of the Bible is defined as both truth and love, but most who call themselves Christians seem to focus on the story of atoning sacrifice far more than on the core teachings of love for neighbors

If you read my post, I already responded to this argument. We can't know what love for neighbor truly is without first loving God properly.

As a result, they are just as ready to demand aggressive coercion through the political system as anyone else is.

Non-sequitur. It doesn't follow from the rest of your argument.

Law defines acceptable behavior, and requires that all lives either be brought into conformity with the law. Any who persistently refuse to comply will ultimately be killed...

Aren't you setting acceptable behavior by dictating to others that the establishment of government and laws is itself wrong? You're defining slavery as wrong. Political masters as bad. Taxation as bad. Being punished for failure to obey laws as bad. You're establishing your own definitions of acceptable behavior — laws of your own making.

My question to you is: According to what standard? What's your rubric for making these moral judgements? To what do you measure slavery as wrong and another as bad, and why should another person pay any credence to your self-made laws?

[gideondelta]

This post was written in response to the following quote, in isolation, over here:

The original quote, in its context is, however:

A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. Neither are a people any the less slaves because permitted periodically to choose new masters. What makes them slaves is the fact that they now are, and are always hereafter to be, in the hands of men whose power over them is, and always is to be, absolute and irresponsible.

The right of absolute and irresponsible dominion is the right of property, and the right of property is the right of absolute, irresponsible dominion. The two are identical; the one necessarily implying the other. Neither can exist without the other. If, therefore, Congress have that absolute and irresponsible lawmaking power, which the Constitution — according to their interpretation of it — gives them, it can only be because they own us as property. If they own us as property, they are our masters, and their will is our law. If they do not own us as property, they are not our masters, and their will, as such, is of no authority over us.

But these men who claim and exercise this absolute and irresponsible dominion over us, dare not be consistent, and claim either to be our masters, or to own us as property. They say they are only our servants, agents, attorneys, and representatives. But this declaration involves an absurdity, a contradiction. No man can be my servant, agent, attorney, or representative, and be, at the same time, uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me for his acts. It is of no importance that I appointed him, and put all power in his hands.

If I made him uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no longer my servant, agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over my property, I gave him the property. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I made him my master, and gave myself to him as a slave. And it is of no importance whether I called him master or servant, agent or owner. The only question is, what power did I put into his hands? Was it an absolute and irresponsible one? or a limited and responsible one?