tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post6555044373078490479..comments2023-09-23T05:56:35.265+12:00Comments on MandM: Voting, the Role of the State and Similarities Between libertarianism and ChristianityMandMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02694636663826784480noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-25236776397276947592008-12-23T21:52:00.000+13:002008-12-23T21:52:00.000+13:00Romans 13 suffers from intensive long-term Christi...Romans 13 suffers from intensive long-term Christian abuse. I thought your analysis of force was interesting, but I was disappointed in your use of Romans 13 as justification for state power. The fact that everyone does it and that it has happen many times before does not make it right. <BR/><BR/>A more detailed analysis of Romans 13 can be found <A HREF="http://getrad2.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> and in <A HREF="http://www.kingwatch.co.nz/Law_Government/romans_13.htm" REL="nofollow"> Understanding Romans 13</A>.Ron McKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03989126812730583009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-46620922368189731552008-10-17T10:37:00.000+13:002008-10-17T10:37:00.000+13:00Interesting analysis. I am a Family Party candidat...Interesting analysis. I am a Family Party candidate, and I score 50% personal 80% economic, so I'm bang on the border between conservative and libertarian.<BR/><BR/>I'd have another look at the Family Party if I were you. If what you got about us not adhering to the separation of church and state was really from a Kiwi Party handout, I think you can safely ignore it as a baseless slur, just as you can pretty well ignore anything Labour says about National! As Kiwipolemicist has pointed out, we affirm the separation of church and state.<BR/><BR/>Most of our policies are based around personal freedom and responsibility (they are all on the website). We advocate lower taxes, and favour welfare being delivered by charities rather than the state. We are similar to Act on many economic issues, such as funding for education, but are conservative morally (unlike Act).<BR/>http://www.familyparty.org.nz<BR/><BR/>I expect if you had a good look at our policies, although you are unlikely to agree with every detail of any particular party's policies, you will find we are about as close as you can get to what a Christian libertarian would like to support in the current crop of parties.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the wider issue of Christian involvement in politics, I believe that Christians have as much right to be involved in politics and form Christian parties as any other person. But the church and state must remain separate. No church can control a political party or parliament, and the state cannot control any church. But church members have as much right to stand for parliament as electors have a right to attend church. <BR/><BR/>There are some failings with the current political system as you point out, but this is the system we have to work within. We must not stand aside and let others run the country and continue to act against Christian principles (such as allowing abortion-on-demand). We must stand and do something. In the past a Christian party was not needed as both National and Labour supported Christian principles. But now they have slipped from this, we have little other option. We cannot wait for a new generation of Christians to work through the ranks of National and Labour and change them from the inside, we actually have to do something to help this country now.<BR/><BR/>Evil prevails when good men do nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-60080320407072014402008-10-16T19:51:00.000+13:002008-10-16T19:51:00.000+13:00Oh and logic and reason are secular, even humanist...Oh and logic and reason are secular, even humanistic processes. Faith is neither of those. Logic and faith can be in conflict, I think. From a humanist viewpoint there is nothing particularly logical about believing in an invisible God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-69487433156010248552008-10-16T19:49:00.000+13:002008-10-16T19:49:00.000+13:00There are a number of passages of scripture which ...There are a number of passages of scripture which are subject to varying interpretations. These differences have led in practice to the formation of different denominations. Most Christians consider that such denominational boundaries do not prevent different churches from working together or their members from fellowshipping together.<BR/><BR/>The different beliefs about how Scripture is interpreted are in conflict, obviously, but most Christians accept that no human is in a position to determine which is right or wrong because only the original author and God know the exact context in which they wrote. The difference in interpretations does not prevent us from being in harmony with God and nothing is gained by stirring up people by saying their church is wrong.<BR/><BR/>There are a small number of churches from time to time which claim that their interpretation is the only right one, whereas such claims are generally considered to have cultic overtones.<BR/><BR/>In terms of Christian politics, the differences should not prevent the differing parties from joining together. In 1996 there was a coalition of the Christian Heritage Party and Christian Democrats Party for the purpose of the election campaign.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-58670784445461231782008-10-16T16:23:00.000+13:002008-10-16T16:23:00.000+13:00Contrary, conflicting viewpoints cannot be concurr...Contrary, conflicting viewpoints cannot be concurrently true. It is impossible to get a false conclusion from a sound argument, therefore, the arguments for these positions cannot all be sound. Someone has made a mistake in their reasoning somewhere. It is a fact of logic.<BR/><BR/>Patrick I agree with you that it has not been pleasant watching the Christian politicians attack each other recently but pretending that disagreement does not happen within Christiandom is not honest. Christians, like everyone, disagree and scrap with each other.<BR/><BR/>It is true that people cite this disagreement as a reason to reject God but that's a bogus reason, its not the honest reason why they reject him. If it were a legitimate reason then they would be committed to rejecting secularism.<BR/><BR/>Yes there are Christians accross the spectrum - most parties have a few. My point was that there shouldn't be. The political range that Christians should sit in should be much narrower than the whole spectrum, it should run from conservative through to libertarian. If a Christian finds themself outside that spectrum, they are in error, they fail to understand the implications of their faith, they have failed to interpret the scriptures correctly - sincere and pious as I am sure they are.Madeleinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00377823497040412237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-37492191363850479092008-10-16T02:37:00.000+13:002008-10-16T02:37:00.000+13:00The existence of multiple denominations is hardly ...The existence of multiple denominations is hardly a good reason to have multiple Christian parties. Most denominations cooperate on big issues, which a general election is. They don't attack each other in public the way the Christian parties are starting to do, which is an embarrassment to everything we believe in. And frankly, I don't believe in denominational labels myself, because they don't define my faith. <BR/><BR/>I think where the Christian parties go wrong, big time, is trying to Christianise secular things like economic policy, where you can't get something that every Christian will believe in because there is such a wide spectrum of views across the political spectrum. There were a number of Christians as cabinet ministers in the First Labour government of 1935m and they sincerely believed it was the State's role to intervene the way it did under their adminstration.<BR/><BR/>As it is , I think the public, let alone many Christians, are turned off by seeing Christians fighting again over political parties. The failure to get a united front for voters, which let us face it was tried in 1996, is a sign of political immaturity. There are plenty of lessons out there, the point being that no overtly Christian party has won seats in Parliament since the 1930s (Ratana).<BR/><BR/>More:<BR/>http://hisnameisfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-we-shouldnt-have-christian.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-24137479505018465362008-10-12T21:11:00.000+13:002008-10-12T21:11:00.000+13:00You place far too much emphasis on a literal inter...You place far too much emphasis on a literal interpretation of Romans 13.<BR/>The gospel is a statement of the Goodness and the Grace of God and the call for all Christians is to deliver His Goodness and Grace to all - in what ever way we can. If a Government chooses a social justice program to protect the poorest and the most venerable in our society - how can that be counter to the Gospel? I find your conclusions vastly at odds with the doctrine of Grace and Social Justice (the Goodness of God) which was exhibited by the life of Christ. <BR/>The world is an entirely different place to what it was 2000 years ago. Political systems and forms of Government have developed greatly since then.<BR/>As the Babylonians observed 5000 years ago - a society is judged not by how it treats its superiors but by how well it cares for the meanest of it citzens.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-42953266126104621092008-10-12T20:57:00.000+13:002008-10-12T20:57:00.000+13:00Hi swampyAs I read it, nowhere in the article does...Hi swampy<BR/><BR/>As I read it, nowhere in the article does Madeleine claim that the traditional Christian view is to oppose capital punishment. Madeleine states that scripture teaches that “ it is wrong kill an *innocent* human being.” (emphasis mine) she goes on to state “ This prohibition on killing [ i.e the prohibition against killing the innocent] can plausibly be extended to a prohibition against violence and force in general.” By which I interpret her to mean that its wrong to use force and violence against the innocent. Moreover when she mentions “traditional Christian positions on positions on war, abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, etc.” she immediately states that “The idea {behind the aforementioned posiions “ is that the state *can* use retributive force against guilty people but it can never threaten the life, liberty and property of an innocent person unless they engage in unjustified aggression against another.” [emphasis mine] <BR/><BR/><BR/>Your second point however is interesting; you suggest one should not claim “that Christians should all be one ideological political affiliation.” But this seems to me to be mistaken. If one person says capital punishment is wrong and another says justice required it. Both cannot be correct, the views contradict each other. Logically one person must be supporting (inadvertently perhaps ) an unjust policy. It’s therefore mistaken to suggest that both sides are legitimately Christian. <BR/><BR/>Of course its true that Christians (like secularists) can and do disagree over these type of issues. But the fact they can and do does not mean that both sides are correct in doing so. Clearly they are not.MandMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02694636663826784480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-87546607142710359232008-10-12T16:15:00.000+13:002008-10-12T16:15:00.000+13:00According to what you claim near the beginning of ...According to what you claim near the beginning of the article, the traditional Christian view of capital punishment would be to oppose it. But in fact, the traditional Christian view of capital punishment is to support it.<BR/><BR/>This is why it is so hard to claim that Christians should all be one ideological political affiliation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-74734260297044621192008-10-12T15:47:00.000+13:002008-10-12T15:47:00.000+13:00Hi KiwipolemicistLet me explain why I find your co...Hi Kiwipolemicist<BR/><BR/>Let me explain why I find your comments rationally indefensible. <BR/><BR/>1. In your first point you say that “any Statist system is immoral because taxation is theft.” This suggests that you (a) think theft is immoral and (b) support a legal system that legislates against theft. However in your second post you suggest “it is not the job of the State to legislate morality”. These two claims create a contradiction. If the state cannot legislate against immorality, and theft is a form of immorality then the state cannot legislate against theft. Yet you say it should legislate against theft. Thats not progressive and moderate its nonsense. <BR/><BR/>2. I suspect that you, like many contemporary liberals, will respond by drawing a distinction between actions that initiate force against others and those that do not, according to the standard libertarian story the state should legislate against the former and not the latter. This would enable you to avoid the problem I sketch in 1. Theft would be legislated against not because its immoral per se but because it is the initiation of force. The problem with this response is that if abortion is murder ( and you state that it is) then abortion must also be the initiation of force by one person against another and hence should be legislated against for precisely the same reasons theft is. <BR/><BR/>3. When libertarians tell me that “I believe abortion is murder but I support others right to choose” they are telling me they believe that other people should be allowed to murder others by law if they want. The initiation of force applies when its their property being threatened but not when other peoples lives are threatened, in this latter case the following principle is optional. This is inconsistent special pleading of the worst kind. <BR/> <BR/>Put it this way, lets assume that you oppose Statism. And you have a choice between (a) allowing the state to take a portion of peoples property by force to assist single mothers in Otara and (b) allowing the state to murder 18000 people plus a year in public hospitals. To me it is not difficult to answer this question.<BR/> <BR/>Let me add a final note. My experience debating this point with ACT supporters has lead me to think that one reason many of them are comfortable to live with the contradictions I spell out above is that they do not want to look like “nutty Christians” by opposing abortion. These professed anti statists would rather give the state the power (via public hospitals) to (by their own confession) murder 18000 people a year than be associated with something Christian. In otherwords, their hatred of Christianity is so great that they would rather support state sanctioned murder than damage their trendy secular image. There secularism veto’s their liberalism every time push comes to shove. <BR/><BR/>Christians should be very concerned with people who will sell out their commitment to liberty before they would side for a Christian. Such people cannot be relied upon to defend my rights at all.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04354340839915905028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-89717392525912387392008-10-11T19:46:00.000+13:002008-10-11T19:46:00.000+13:00I have three responses to your post:1) I believe t...I have three responses to your post:<BR/>1) I believe that any Statist system is immoral because taxation is theft. <BR/><BR/>2) I believe that abortion is murder but I also agree with Hide that it is a conscience issue, i.e. it is not the job of the State to legislate morality. If you accept it when the State legislates morality in a way that you agree with you must also accept it when the State legislates morality in a way that you disagree with.<BR/><BR/>3) you said "I find the non-initiation of force principle to have no basis in divine or natural law". I have a post that you may find interesting (this is a new blog so it looks sparse):<BR/>http://christianclassicalliberalist.wordpress.com/2008/09/28/is-classical-liberalism-compatible-with-the-bible/<BR/><BR/>www.kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com<BR/><BR/>PS the Family Party website specifically states that they support separation of church and state.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-21078672678655504932008-10-10T20:12:00.000+13:002008-10-10T20:12:00.000+13:00Well, that was at least 3 posts there! Much to pot...Well, that was at least 3 posts there! Much to potentially respond to but I will limit myself to 1 issue. (Disclaimer, I scored 100% economic, 60% personal).<BR/><BR/>I agree that the primary responsibility of government is defence and justice. And I currently prefer small government (though am not married to democracy, monarchy has its pluses). But I am not certain that biblically the government should not involve itself in other issues. Ancient Israel had laws that covered social interaction. Now I don't necessarily think levitical law is how we should run countries, but it shows an example of a legal system set up by God.<BR/><BR/>So the solution is probably to do with who is writing the law. Given that men are fallen, and that men will rule, then limiting government by men is good as it limits the evil they can do (think Babel).<BR/><BR/>I have libertarian tendencies because this limits the effect of fallen men to harm others. That, and capitalism maximises economic prosperity.<BR/><BR/>That being said, if I were ruled by godly men who had God's political wisdom, then I can tolerate much greater government involvement. And this is good, people do well when their rulers rule well. The problem here isn't good rule, the problem is Christians who involve themselves in politics but who are clueless as to how to run a country and may advocate law that is contrary to God's will.<BR/><BR/>So unless Jesus sets up an earthly kingdom and appoints mayors over each city according to his will, I think small government should be advocated.<BR/><BR/>And it is nice to see someone else who advocates a pre-70 authorship of Revelation.bethyadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990677679970591625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-24881053605391518352008-10-10T16:43:00.000+13:002008-10-10T16:43:00.000+13:00Sounds like I have to read up on the Family Party ...Sounds like I have to read up on the Family Party then.<BR/><BR/>I had the impression all 3 Christian parties were all making the same sorts of fundamental errors like minimum wages and state sponsored marriage counselling.<BR/><BR/>What do you know of the allegation that the Family Party does not adhere to the seperation of church and state as alleged in the Kiwi Party flier handed out at the Family First Forum?Madeleinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00377823497040412237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5710845602477644495.post-26972055758414529872008-10-10T16:34:00.000+13:002008-10-10T16:34:00.000+13:00This is a great post thanks. I won't elaborat...This is a great post thanks. I won't elaborate heaps, but here's a thought or two.<BR/><BR/>ACT & Family Party are pretty much on a par for me. Kiwi Party is ruled out a) because they have a very poor chance of getting in (Larry gor 1% in a recent poll in Tauranga), and b) more importantly, they are essentially a socialist party - all power to the Govt. Just one example, is one of their key policies, $15 minimum wage, argh!<BR/><BR/>Thanks for this article - I'm... I guess I'm somewhere inbetween you and Matt. But I call myself a Christian Libertarian ;)Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05656956423924982169noreply@blogger.com