Let me add one more definition to the picture to heighten this tension. In economics and political science, it is common to define the government as the entity that holds a monopoly on violence. This definition goes back to Max Weber, but it is used by recent Nobel laureates in economics as well. It does not mean that the State alone uses violence, but it does mean that when push comes to shove, the State will win in a battle of wills. If you refuse to pay your taxes, you will lose. You will go to jail, and if you fight, you will lose. The government holds a monopoly on violence. Any law that we vote for is ultimately backed by the full force of our government and military. Do we trust institutions of the government to ensure justice? Is that what history teaches us about the State? Or do we live in particularly lucky and fortunate times where the State can be trusted to do minimal justice? The State's budget is currently about $3 trillion a year. Do you trust that power to the political Right? Do you trust it to the Left? If you answered "no" to either question, you may have a major problem in the future. See Plato on the regime that follows democracy.
So now, I hope you are feeling even a bit more ill-at-ease. The logic above is inescapable for a Christian. If we Christians vote for what we consider to be good policies, we are ultimately voting to ensure that our will is carried out by the most powerful force on earth, aside from God. The U.S. government has a monopoly on violence, and that force underlies the law of the land.
Do we have the right to coerce our fellow citizens to act in ways that follow our Christian ethical beliefs?
Darn Tea Party crackpot partisan ignoramus.
6 comments:
Wait, never mind, almost everyone thinks that, going back to Max Weber.
I don't think that, but Weber's not that far back. :)
It's one of the worst ideas anybody ever had. The last state that is going to avoid tyranny is one that has even a practical monopoly on violence.
The state has a monopoly on declaring war against foreigners.
Nobody said anything about there being a monopoly for the state in domestic wars.
And even if they did, that doesn't apply to the experiment of the US.
When only police and military has access to firearms, that means the citizens cannot win against the criminal armed element.
Nor can the military, even, given they are disarmed on their base to begin with. Disarmed against criminals, yes. Disarmed against suppressing civic unrest? No.
Realistically, it has not become a monopoly and more like a crony capitalist system aligned with a government of drug cartels.
He sort of fails when invoking Weber, since the enough of the Republic's founders thought that the bulk of the armed citizenry would guard against tyranny by the state.
Most modern politicians and LEOs have an issue with this sort of thinking.
But as Jackson told South Carolina in 1832, "To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure."
So that tension has been there for a long time.
South Carolina can be blamed for a lot of things, but not for being guilty of being 'willing to assert a right, but pausing before a revolution.' :)
"South Carolina: too small to be an independent country, too large to be an asylum." And alas no, I don't remember which 19th century editor wrote it. Those books are still in storage.
LittleRed1
Post a Comment