Post Edited (Asher) : 3/4/2010 9:04:20 PM (GMT-6)

Asher:  "with ensuing lopsided individual rights at the expense of obligations and duties that can't be grounded in the framework of a highly individualistic liberality"

See, right here...you are not differentiating between an I-It individuality and an I-Thou individuality. And you totalitarian collectivists rarely do. What individual rights do you think that I exalt above obligations and duties? Give me some examples.

Brandon: I’m not saying that an obligation not incurred by means of a voluntary contract or voluntarism is to be automatically spurned. What I’m saying is that there is a very strong presumption within liberalism against imposing obligations that have not been freely assumed by the sovereign individual. I don’t really know about you personally Asher. I know that you enter into a community with all of its rules but this is entered into freely. And if you are so inclined to leave then you may do as you wish. But that is simply a core tenet of liberalism. That’s what I’m saying. Not necessarily you, but liberals and liberalism in general. At one point--the fifth stage of liberalism--the choice enhancement state (as Koyzis says), because individuals seek “goods” (plural) these goods end up usually being in conflict with each other because individuals have varying and conflicting desires that they are attempting to satisfy. The task then of liberalism is to accommodate these desires and with as much peace and stability as possible. However, to do so it must attempt to be neutral (a sort of referee) about the choices of the individuals who may just so happen to be say, sadomasochists. Surely, this has implications for certain communities and relationships. Or again, to use my example of feminists and the church, surely, some liberals think that somehow the “rights” of those feminists ought to be exalted above that of the church. Some liberals who have consistently thought out their position realize that they aren’t as anti-statist as they admit. Why? Because if it is up to the parties in the contract to decide exactly what government should do? They are within their right to demand a full-blown welfare state, if they so desire.

Asher: "there are authorities that exist outside of the individual"

God. Once we start naming other authorities then we have to separate legitimate and illegitimate authority. If there is a leader of an organization that you voluntarily decide to join, then in the act of joining you are accepting his authority. I do not deny that there are authorities outside myself. What I deny is an authority outside myself (save God) that has THE AUTHORITY to declare me subject to himself forever. And then there are illegitimate authorities. Often times men are subject to them simply because they have more power than themselves and they cannot escape being under such authority. It functions as a brute fact that one cannot escape. I am an anarchist. There is currently no society on earth that practices anarchy. My choice is to submit to what I consider illegitimate or move to a remote area of the earth and live as a hermit. I have chosen to submit. That means that I am subject to the authority no less so than you Brandon. Their authority is nothing more nor less than FORCE. Their authority reduces to FORCE. I choose to subject myself to this force because 1) the benefits of society outweigh the detriments and 2) of all the illegitimate governments in the world I reside in a nation that is relatively more free...i.e. if I don't submit to the United States authority, where would I go that is better.

Brandon: I’m saying that there are authorities that exists in their own spheres. If you were a professor, you have a certain authority in your sphere of responsibility. It is limited to be sure (ie., it is not up to you to tell or coerce your students not to speed by giving them speeding tickets--you are a prof not a cop).

Asher: "He is critical of your pragmatic view of the state seeing it as having a jural task between different associations and relationships and institutions with the obligation to do justice to all these found not only in universal human experience but in biblical revelation."

1) You are both naive if not downright foolhardy. I call to the witness stand ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY.
2) Once again, you are not recognizing that I acknowledge the legitimacy of the jural function, but I do not acknowledge the legitimacy of the state. The function can be and in fact IS expressed by private arbitration boards, etc that themselves function because the state is a failure at this function, rife with inefficiency and injustice.

Brandon: I’m talking about governance and justice Asher not whether a specific task can be done by one entity better than another. For example it matters not to me whether the poor or poverty is alleviated by private organizations or by the government directly. EITHER WAY government’s task is to do justice whether they outsource the work or not. The biblical view of justice for every earthly creature will mean that Christians will work politically for the achievement of governmental policies that will protect, encourage, and open up life for every person and every human community, whatever their religious confession and view of life. That means that government should not discriminate on the basis of religious confession against those private organizations that seek to help the poor via not giving them (the organizations) any (public) funding. My argument assumes that these organizations ought to be allowed to carry out their sphere of God-given responsibility.

It doesn’t help that we come from two fundamentally different views of government. Whereas you don’t even see the legitimacy of government I do. From a biblical point of view, earthly political life is a facet, a dimension of God's image, male and female, whose lives are always open before the face of God. Everything connected with human creatureliness reflects God. Political life and government actually reveal God, in part, just as marriage, family life, vineyard keeping, shepherding, music-making, and countless other human activities reveal God, in part. A king, a judge, a chief, a governor, a legislator fills an office for the revelation of God's lordship, justice and righteous rule. Think of all those songs of praise to God in the Psalms. God's condemnation of unjust kings, judges, chiefs, governors, and legislators reveals the normative terms of God's rule by which God judges unjust rulers and all perpetrators of injustice. Political life takes place as human generations unfold, and thus anticipates the fulfillment of God's judgment and blessing of the creation, when everything that now defiles the world will be cast out and perfect justice will reign. Every human act of justice, every just aspect of a political community, points ahead to a larger wider fulfillment of its meaning. No single act of justice that occurs, no single political institution that exists during the generation-to-generation unfolding of life in this age, can reveal all things divine and human, for each appears only for a time, on its way to--in anticipation of--the fullness which is to come.

I don’t see government as something incidental or to use you term “pragmatic”

Asher: "Koyzis would be critical of your ice cream analogy via his own classroom analogy I would think. If everyone doesn't want Maple ice cream then they can leave the group voluntarily or change it to what they want or get rid of ice cream altogether."

Your logic is flawed. My ice cream analogy and his classroom analogy are not similar. First, by entering his classroom I HAVE acknowledged his authority, and his right to set rules...but even so...if he tried to enFORCE an extreme new rule that wasn't in place and acknowledged when I did join then I would get up and leave...probably with the majority of his students...unless he is willing to pull a gun. Is he willing to pull a gun to stop me from leaving? Are you? My ice cream analogy only points towards the rights of the minority over against the rights of the majority. It is not similar to his classroom example.

Brandon: What I’m saying (and what Koyzis is saying) Asher, is that within liberalism, because there is a strong presumption for voluntarism and the autonomous sovereign individual we now have come to the place in which individual students are the ones calling the shots. I’m saying that if Prof. Koyzis is carrying out his God-given responsibility he won’t be making up rules willy-nilly as he goes along but neither should students call on the President of the University to do what they like. But THAT is what is going on in our culture.

Asher: "But hey, go ahead and have your babies, I just don't think they are going to be cute and cuddly."

Not even with Tom's genetics thrown into the mix?

Brandon:  My children have both mine and their mother’s genetic make-up. Your kids would have Tom’s (whatever his views are) and yours. I hope they would look more like Tom (he’s pretty hot).

Asher: "Government has NEVER done justice?"

Brandon, this is just cheap on your part. That statement standing alone means one thing...when it is followed by this

-Yes, it plays a shell game it calls justice. When it is doing justice here, you can be sure that it is being unjust there...and sometimes the very thing that makes it possible for government to do a certain "justice" is it's systematic enforcing of injustice somewhere else.

means something altogether different. I am not saying that there has never been ONE act of justice ever done by the government. I am saying that the character of government is not justice. The character of government is force.

Brandon: Asher, you’re the one that said it. OK. Thanks for your clarification. But I’ve never said that government doesn’t act unjustly. I’m saying that it does. If a person in office seeks to rid a speeding ticket that his mother incurred via the use of his power in office then injustice has occurred. You and I both see that. You know what injustice looks like when you see it. So do I. But that is on a more personal level. But give me an example of when doing justice here means doing injustice over there. I think Bush did something like that. Look at Bush’s 2002 National Security Strategy. This is freedom idealism at its grandest. The U.S is presented as simply a servant of the universal cause that is now bringing about the final order of the ages. Everyone, including sovereign states, should submit to it. As Bush wrote: "The United States welcomes our responsibility to lead in this great mission." In this document, the US is drawn as the lead representative of freedom and therefore it assumes that what America does in the world will advance the freedom of all. This idealist tract calling for the United States to lead in building a new world order of freedom is not something I would advocate. The US will try to dictate the terms of the new world order in the name of freedom and its own preeminence, or instead, will work to help define the new order as one of accountable governance under law, which can eventually transcend even American sovereignty as well as the sovereignty of every other state. Now that might be “justice” for who? The US. For Bush. And who could argue against freedom of that kind when people live in authoritarian regimes like Iraq?

But that’s NOT justice. What would justice call for here? Justice would call for the upholding of the common good of the international public order. This involves ways that cannot be adequately achieved by separate states acting alone or merely in cooperation. Justice requires the building of international and transnational governance capabilities that extend and improve the quality of state responsibilities while also building out beyond state sovereignty.

So in that sense, I can see what you are saying. But that is primarily a flawed view of justice.

But the point is not that governments act unjustly Asher. The point is that the existence of international injustice does not prove the irrelevance of the norm of justice, it simply reveals the violation of something we can't avoid. We are called to do justice to our neighbour. And the violation of justice can not be corrected if states are oriented to their self-interest above all.

Asher: "Government as idolatrous??? Huh??? The fact that you claim that Koyzis sees government as idolatrous ought to cause you to pause and take note that that would entail that he is critical of your position."

Brandon you are severely confused. I did not say that Koyzis sees government as idolatrous. I said that I...I...I see government as idolatrous. And that entails that I...I...I am critical of HIS position and YOURS.

Oh the humanity!

Brandon: OK…let me figure this out. Because Koyzis and I believe in the competence of state YOU see that as idolatrous? Would that not entail that Koyzis is into idolatry?

Asher: "I'm not asking for government to carry out the responsibilities that other areas are to rightfully carry out!"

That is the very dispute Brandon, come on! I am saying that government has NO responsibilities it is to rightfully carry out. It is illegitimate. It is an idol. Every function that would otherwise be legitimate (jural, etc) is only OTHERWISE legitimate, not legitimate of the government. The government has no legitimate function. It is FORCE through and through. It establishes itself by force. Expands itself by force. Enters legitimate functional arenas by force. Expels those who have legitimacy...by force.

Brandon: Um…that’s in part what I’m saying Asher. Government’s task is jural. When one sphere takes on the responsibility of another sphere that sphere is said to be acting unjustly. Government or otherwise. And I’ve said this now for ages. When government acts in an omni-competent fashion whether through encroachment or through direct force it is acting unjustly. I’m for all other spheres be they individuals or institutions to carry out their God-given responsibility.

Asher: "I'm saying that government has a proper role to play. It also has its limits."

What are the limits of government Brandon? And how are those limits enforced when the jural functions are all in the hands of THE GOVERNMENT!
Oh the humanity!

Brandon: I think I’ve been clear on this Asher.

Asher: “Say a muslim woman wants to educate her child. She should not have to pay for the education out of pocket on top of the taxes she pays for the public education. As it stands, (especially in Canada) she has to do just this. As a matter of fact Catholics don't have to do this nor does anyone sending their children to a public school. In such a case we say that she is treated as a second class citizen. Government, not doing justice to the diversity that exists in reality and more specifically, in Ontario, is what we called injustice. Government is not the one to "do it all." Education is not suppose to be another arm of the government! It is suppose to be supporting those who are given the primary responsibility of educating their children--the parent(s)."

Taxation is illegitimate. Education should not be socialized...i.e the government has no legitimacy in this field. No need for governmental support of parents...parents have legitimacy.

Brandon: We’re getting closer Asher.

Asher: "Government in my and Koyzis and Skillen's and Mouw's thinking can contribute to human flourishing. "

History shows that human flourishing precedes government. Government (i.e. your totalitarian neighbors) wants to say how that flourishing is to be channeled, who will control it, etc There is already always an accumulated stock of power and influence that the government wants control of. Yes, the government wants the flourishing to continue...UNDER IT'S AUTHORITY...not privately.
You and your whole cadre are the philosophical vanguard of totalitarianism.

Brandon: Well, I’m glad you like to tell us what we believe Asher. I’ll respond to that like this. Humans are constituted beings with many different talents and callings in which they are suppose to respond not only (and ULTIMATELY) to God BUT to EACH OTHER. In order for us to pursue these diverse callings depends on and requires service to and cooperation with fellow human and other creatures. That is, when you think about it, every calling is to one degree or another a SHARED communal activity exercised in response to normative standards that bind creatures to one another and to their Creator in a covenantal relationship. Hence, these talents and callings are not merely functions or capabilities or responsibilities of free individual selves as if freedom has an original, creative meaning prior to, or apart from those talents and responsibilities given by God. Nothing. Absolutely nothing is for ourselves. The image of God on earth, Asher, two persons, male and female, is called to develop the whole of creation--IN THEIR GENERATIONS. As Skillen says, this human development may be defined as the “unfolding, diversifying, and complexifying exercise of all the responsibilities that belong to the generations of the image of God, and this occurs in a healthy fashion only when humans steward the earth creatively with all of their talents in obedience to and in fellowship with the One who as called them into service toward the destiny of face to face fellowship with God.”

Economics is important and essential calling. It can bring about much human flourishing both for those called to that area but also for those who benefit from it. But guess what? If it is absolutize or distorted it can cripple other aspects of human development as well as the very meaning of stewardly exercise. Right? The public square is more than a market, right? And so, when you have authoritarian governments which serve the interests of one family or clan, of one interest or another, it must be judged inadequate and even dangerous for the well-being of humans in differentiating societies. Governments that deny people the right to exercise God-given responsibilities to educate their children, to worship as their conscience leads them, or to organize freely are governments that inhibit genuine human development. Do governments inhibit these things? Yes. In many countries they do. In some countries it may be to one degree or another. But at other times they don’t. And when they don’t that is a good thing. Again, the point is, is that its not that governments don’t act unjustly. They do. The point is whether we are going to be faithful to the call to hold government accountable to pursue justice where it does not exist.

Asher: "When the library does not do what its suppose to do and begins to exist for itself or to further its own existence whereas the patron becomes secondary a process is said to occur called--dehumanization. A large part of the reason there is so much mistrust for "the system" is because it has begun to act unjustly. This breeds, isolation and alienation from the processes of the system and those who run it."

Another confused account. Libraries that are wings of government exist for themselves and further its own existence just like all bureaucracy. Just like Health and Human Services. Just like Social Security. Just like FEMA. Just like EPA. Just like OSHA. They do not have to be efficient because they are supported by FORCE of taxation of citizens.

Every single one of those bureaucracies could be run as a private enterprise seeking to make a profit. And then "existing for itself" takes on a whole new meaning. If they do not SERVE the customer, they cease to exist because they go bankrupt.

Brandon you are awash in a sea of governmental delusion.

Brandon: I’m using the analogy as an example of how government can contribute to human development. I’m not talking about which tasks can be more efficiently achieved by what institution. There should not necessarily be any tension between non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) and the government. Not in the way you are presenting it here.

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 3/5/2010 1:07:48 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Asher) : 3/6/2010 5:17:39 PM (GMT-6)

Asher: Now, Brandon, I have pretty much read every post on this board for the past seven years or so

Jeff: DUDE! What took you so long to start posting? Or were you posting with another name?

Asher: ...I am familiar with you and I do not think you are totalitarian...what I do think is that the coherence and inner logic of your position does not defend against descending into totalitarianism. If you were going to be the one in charge of the state apparatus in perpetuity, then I would be more at ease with your position as I think you love and respect justice and want to see it accomplished. But that is not the case and there is nothing in your position that adequately safeguards this...at least that is what I think based on what I have seen laid out of your position.

Jeff: This is exactly the way I see it. But I think Lew and Mises are also over-optimistic in their view that society as a whole would ever be just enough to embrace a staunchly libertarian approach to government. Thus, most folks in power can and WILL exploit the division in society for their own interests, just as they have always done. It does us no good to be for a more libertarian approach since we are such a very small minority. And goverments are not constrained by small minorities. All we can do is try to point that many, MANY problems of society are either DUE TO OR INCREASED BY ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT ACTION.

There is an old saying that sums it up: If you won't live by the 10 commandments, you will live by the TEN THOUSAND commandments. IOW, if people will not self-govern, there is no end to the insanity that government will resort to to try to reign in societal chaos. They will literally resort to the ADVOCACY (yes, it HAS been done) of prison rape as a deterrent/punishment to/for crime. Government eventually becomes THAT INSANE because of their refusal to be just! There's no money in being perpetually just.

Post Edited (Asher) : 3/9/2010 4:02:24 PM (GMT-6)

For the record, I think government is a lesser of evils with all of its evils. This is so, IMO, because although the government is to some degree a deterrent to evil, it also reflects the moral weaknesses of the governed in the manner in which that deterrence is carried out. It is true, IMO, that there is a greater proportion of shameless politicians than shameless constituents. But shamelessness is just a symptom--not the root problem. There is a reason why many people don't want to say who they vote for publicly. So just because lots of people are not as obvious in their injustice as are most politicians, many are more than willing to vote in some one who will leverage an unfair advantage for them. Consequently, the Lew and Mises route is just too unrealistic. There simply is not a large enough portion of the population that would ever embrace it. And its effectiveness would depend on the consent and preference of the majority of the population.

I don't oppose Brandon's approach in principle. I just think that things have gotten so out of kilter that campaign promises are virtually meaningless in most cases. When you add that to the injustices that both parties perpetrate on the constituents, I'm literally at the point that I have no certainty as to who is the greatest evil any more (except for a very small percentage of cases).