Upcoming Election

[thrombomodulin]

First of all, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Lot had God supernaturally and directly watching over them and protecting them.
This is obviously not the norm, because Romans 13 tells us that God uses rulers to punish evildoers and praise those who do right.

I'm sure that you find this to obviously not be the norm - I do not. I would like to point out that God preferred the state affairs under the Judges, where there was no king, to the state of affairs later on when one was appointed. You might recall that He said "for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. (1 Sa 8:7)".

Romans 13 is a complicated and difficult passage for everyone who takes any position on the relationship between the church in the State. There are many views of the passage, and we could discuss these great length. I am not aware of any view that can reconcile all problems that arise in interpreting Romans 13.

Also, none of them, possibly with the exception of Esau, were living in a land without rulers, or a Ruler.

I had been unaware that Abraham was subject to a ruler. Could you please identify who this ruler was, and how it is known that he ruled over Abraham? Likewise for Isaac, Jacob and Lot before he moved into Sodom.

So rulers, kings, etc. always evolve eventually. Sometimes, through brute force, they "appoint" themselves as rulers.

If a man exercises sufficient brute force, so as to attain a position as a ruler, do you regard it as proof that he has been divinely authorized to rule? If not, how do you know which rulers are fraudulent and which are appointed by God to their position?

Sometimes, as in the case of the judges of Israel, it appears God appoints them.

I agree. A person can be a legitimate ruler if God has appointed him to be one.

In our country the solution of who rules over who is called an election, which requires a government and a military to enforce the outcome. should there be a rebellion.

Elections are certainly not a divinely sanctioned solution to this problem, and thus do not deserve or require recognition by those who dissent from its outcome.

I'm not saying that we must have a ruler. If you want anarchy, then don't appoint one.

Good - then if you wish to consent to being ruled by either Trump or Hillary you are welcome to do so, however, but please do not expect that anyone, who wishes not to be ruled by to them, has some moral obligation to serve them or their organization.

I am saying that the only way there will not be anarchy when there is no ruler, is if God is supernaturally protecting His people or even other people.

I think you share the view of Thomas Hobbes that chaos results absent a human ruler. I do not share this view, and if you take the time to read them, you will find that the authors I cited in my previous post make good points against such a view in their writings.

Dwight: Who else or what else can recognize and provide for those things? (Again, except for God doing it supernaturally)

A free market economy can provide both judicial and security services. So the answer is businessmen and their firms who recognize this human need and satisfy it by providing their services to meet that need.

[Paidion]

I disagree with Dwight on quite a few issues, but on this issue, I agree with him. Where there is no human government, there is anarchy—nothing to eliminate or at least minimize instances of thievery, murder, rape, etc. Things would be a bit like the state of mankind prior to the Flood in Noah's day.

(Genesis 6:5) The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Even under governments there are many evil acts committed in all countries. But with no restraint, there would be many, many, many more.

[thrombomodulin]

Paidion,

Thank you for commenting. I am not against the idea of law enforcement that places restraints against those who would steal or murder, but rather the against idea that such services can only be provided for by a coercively supported organization (a.k.a the State).

Pete

[Paidion]

Pete, how else can such atrocities be prevented or at least diminished? By means of vigilante groups?

[thrombomodulin]

how else can such atrocities be prevented or at least diminished? By means of vigilante groups?

Paidion,

I have no expectation that all atrocities would be prevented in this system - this is not a Utopian proposal. There would be various competing groups acting to enforce law, each lacking the monopoly power that any given State presently has within its own territory. The practical question is whether these groups would be more or less likely to engage in pillaging and warfare with one another as opposed to cooperating. Since, by its very nature fighting is an expensive and dangerous proposition, and since trade where both parties consent is natural to men, I believe cooler heads would often prevail over those that prefer to plunder and fight -- at least in degree similar to or better than what we have now (remember the warfare States have engaged in over the years has brought about a significant amount of death and destruction of property).

vigilante: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice

To describe such groups as vigilante is not an accurate representation of these ideas. First, those who provide such services are paid, and second those who engage in enforcement are not seeking to act without the approval of a judge. Below are links that describe the concept in more detail than I am able to provide by my own description on this forum (For I have limited time). I have read the short book in the link below, and I have also heard Robert P. Murphy speak on occasions such as that in the video. I have not watched this particular video, however, I believe it to be the latest one where he speaks and addresses various concerns about a private market for security. Your comments and critique of this material is most welcome.

Book:
Chaos Theory

Video:



Peter

[Paidion]

Hi Peter,

I listened to about 4 minutes of the video—enough to know that Robert Murphy is a Libertarian.
Is that your political position?

[thrombomodulin]

yes

[dwight92070]

1 Chronicles 16:16-22 tells how the Lord promised to give the land of Canaan to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. how they "wandered about from nation to nation, and from one kingdom to another people, He permitted no man to oppress them, and He reproved kings for their sakes, saying, Do not touch My anointed ones, and do My prophets no harm."

So they were traveling through nations and kingdoms, which means governments and kings, while God protected them. I did not say that Abraham was subject to a particular ruler, but that there were rulers and kings all around them, which kept the surrounding area from lapsing into anarchy.

Nor did I imply that if a man made himself a ruler by force, that he was therefore put there by God.

[Paidion]

Did Trump really say that? Try to sort the true statements from the fictional. If you get more than half of them right, let us know. I failed to do so.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washing ... -say-quiz/

[thrombomodulin]

1 Chronicles 16:16-22 tells how the Lord promised to give the land of Canaan to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. how they "wandered about from nation to nation, and from one kingdom to another people, He permitted no man to oppress them, and He reproved kings for their sakes, saying, Do not touch My anointed ones, and do My prophets no harm."

You are correct, and on this basis I agree that the example of livestock raising by Abraham, etc,. is not evidence which I am able to use to support my view. Thank you for pointing this out.

Nor did I imply that if a man made himself a ruler by force, that he was therefore put there by God.

Does a man have any moral obligation to obey a ruler who attains his position by brute force and was not put their by God?