If You’re Not Breaking The Law, You Have Nothing To Worry About

There’s an old meme going around saying that if you don’t break the law, you don’t have to worry about getting beat up. Unfortunately that’s not true. The standing army of “law” enforcement routinely harass, beat, arrest and murder people who aren’t breaking the law.

Here’s just another example of a college kid who was filming police as they arrested someone and was beaten to the point of having broken bones in his face, spent the weekend in jail, yet was never charged. He’s settling for $100,000 from the Seattle PD, but that seems low to me. I know my facial bones are worth more than $100,000 to me.

Libertarianism

bm

“Libertarianism was a child of Christianity – specifically Reformed Christianity – and in motivation and structure belongs to Reformed Christianity. The attempt of secular libertarianism to exist outside its roots will naturally cause it to wither and die.”

I Love God’s Law!

Here’s a great conversation regarding how to handle Syrian refugees.

1st Question: “With today’s situation with ISIS, how does one distinguish true refugees from embedded terrorists? Is this something to be left in the Lord’s hands, or Is there some other response? I do realise that much/all of the aggression could be the Lord’s wrath towards America because we have forgotten Him.”
———————————-
Bojidar says, “It has to be like everything else: From the mouths of two or three witnesses. It strikes me how no one really thought of the obvious solution: The legitimate refugees themselves, running from ISIS, would be able to recognize if someone is a member of ISIS. It is this fact that makes me skeptical when people say that ISIS would infiltrate the refugees – it would be just as dangerous as Eichmann infiltrating modern Israel.”
———————————-
2nd Question: “How then would you determine between true and false witnesses? I would expect the ISIS thugs to support each other and to bear false witness against the real refugees. How do you correct for that?”
———————————-
Bojidar says, “Just like everything else: Compare testimonies and use deductive logic and/or direct revelation. There is no cookie-cutter approach to this problem, and that’s why God instituted the only legitimate function of civil government: the courts. (And prosecution, by logical extension.)

Solomon understood that this is the greatest challenge before a godly ruler, and specifically asked for wisdom to deal with it (1 Kings 3:6-15). And guess what, his most famous court case was exactly that: to judge whose testimony was true and whose false (vv. 16-28). The solution to that case shows that it takes direct AND SPECIFIC wisdom from God, and that there are no fixed approaches to that issue.

(Which is why I argue that unless we restore the Biblical view of the gifts of the Spirit, we won’t be able to present a Biblical alternative to the modern court system. There is a reason why judges are called “sons of God” in the Bible.)”
———————————-
Question 3: “In a nation that is clearly *very* far away from following God’s Law, where we don’t give a rip about two witnesses, where we don’t have judges like Solomon who seek God’s wisdom, etc., how are we to proceed?”

Martin Selbrede says, “Lev. 26:6 teaches that the sword shall not go through your land IF His commandments are kept. Period. To expect peace while voiding His Law is suicidal insanity. To substitute state action for keeping His Law is to compound the problem with idolatry, insuring a worse disaster.”
———————————-
Bojidar says, “Martin beat me to it.

We preach the solutions of the Law of God in every area. We don’t advocate for state action in one area because we have abandoned the Law in another.”
———————————-
Bojidar says, “the other side is not emphasizing a Biblical principle, it is arguing from a strictly anti-Biblical perspective:

“The civil government needs to do its duty and protect its people by not letting wolves enter in uninhibited.”

There is no such thing as government-enforced preventive “protection” in the Bible. This would mean that a person is declared a criminal before he has committed a crime, based on certain government criteria. Or even worse, that a whole group is declared criminal based on their nationality, until individuals in it they prove otherwise.

Having proof for specific individuals that they are members of a crime syndicate is one thing. Treating a whole group as possible criminals without proof is another. We do that, and we are opening the door for concentration camps for our own children.”
———————————-
Bojidar says, “Vetting people is not the same as closing the borders to refugees; just as protecting your family is not the same as shooting everyone who enters your backyard.”
———————————-
Question/Comment 4: “It seems reasonable that a magistrate wouldn’t be involved unless accusations were made.”
———————————-
Bojidar says, Correct.

The Bible doesn’t exclude private investigations, though. These are outside the Biblically-mandated authority of the civil government, and therefore the Law of God doesn’t regulate those – as long as, of course, the private investigators stay within the Law in their ethical behavior. So while a government executive policy of curtailing people’s liberty is out of question (and besides, it never really works), private action is allowed, and I should say, necessary.

This is fully consistent with our theonomic views: Self-government is the most fundamental government, and we need to push every government action in this direction, and only accept solutions at a higher institutional level when they are permitted by the Law of God, and when there is no other solution currently available.

This is also the practical judicial difference between CR and the modern covenanters. Modern covenanters think in terms of natural law: if there’s some power in the society, it should be used to the fullest extent possible on every issue, regardless of whether the Law of God gives permission for such institutional action. We think in terms of spheres of authority: power should be used only where specifically allowed, and only when all other options have failed.
———————————-
Question/Comment 5: It does seem somewhat irresponsible to me that we wouldn’t have some kind of proactive measures in place. Yes, the private sector could (and likely should) handle that, but I don’t see any volunteers, either with time/expertise an/or money.
———————————-
Bojidar says, “So, how well did proactive measures work so far?

The only thing they can be vetted for directly at the border is diseases. If there is information about specific ones who are criminals, or have been part of a criminal/terrorist organization, they should be arrested and tried, not deported.

Back in the 1990s, many people in Easter Europe thought that the private sector wouldn’t be able to move in and replace the government in supplying the market. We couldn’t see any volunteers, either with time/expertise or with money. We all thought that we would starve until private owners learn how to produce and supply the market – and organize operations.

The day after the government monopoly and price controls were repealed, the stores were full, at prices at about the same level as before. Gradually, more and more goods appeared, and the prices were lower and lower.

Actually, there have always been people with expertise. And money shouldn’t be a problem.

We Need New Tactics

I’m glad these people are doing something to stand against the lies that have been told about them. But, the problem isn’t the New York Times. They only started the problem. Their real problem is the state. The auditors are coming. The auditors probably don’t carry guns, but men with guns, employed by the state are just a phone call away.

  1. What is the biblical penalty for paying a worker less than minimum wage, assuming the worker agreed to work for that? There is no biblical penalty.
  2. What is the biblical penalty for paying a worker with cash, and not keeping adequate records? There is no biblical penalty.
  3. If a Christian government employee tries to impose a penalty for a “crime” that the Bible says is no crime, they should be placed under church discipline.

That is new tactic number 1. Churches need to place Christian government agents imposing unjust laws on people under church discipline.

New Tactic number 2: Refuse to purchase the bonds the state is requiring. We must obey God rather than men.

New Tactic number 3: These nail salon people have at least dozens of people willing to protest. The next step is for each nail salon to refuse to be audited, and to call on these protesters to block the doors if necessary. Hopefully other citizens who care about liberty will join them.

We no longer live in a capitalist or free country. The tactics we’ve employed thus far have not worked. Suing the government in government courts with tyrannical judges doesn’t work. We need new tactics. We need to sweat the small stuff. I care about the liberty of Chinese immigrants in New York who don’t speak a lick of English. I want liberty for them, and I will stand with them given the opportunity.

M&M Logic

Every day Christians on Facebook keep repeating this analogy: If you had a handful of M & Ms and you knew two of them were poisoned, what would you do?

Meaning, we should not give any Syrians refuge in this country, because we would be letting in a certain percentage of terrorists. Unfortunately, that analogy can be applied to any group of people to justify their abuse. Japanese-Americans were thrown into prison camps in World War II using M&M logic. Using M&M logic everyone would be in favor of abolishing the police, because we all agree that there are a certain percentage that are bad.

bm

Here’s what Bojidar had to say on that.

“Police commit many more crimes than Muslims in the US. If conservatives applied the same logic to police, we would have all cops banished from this country and police shut down forever as an institution. The fact that we see these memes applied only to politically weak groups and not to the real problem, the politically powerful standing army of police, undermines the conservative position and makes it laughable.

Inconsistency destroys credibility. If you are not willing to apply your logic across the board, don’t even bother.”

Bo Knocks It Out of the Park

Here’s a quick answer from Bojidar Marinov to a question many Christians have asked in the last few days about the Syrian refugees.

Q

Why are we responsible to take Syrian refugees at all? Don’t the rich stable Muslim nations surrounding the area own this responsibility? Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations have not taken one single refugee! and yet they have offered to build 200 mosques in Germany, it’s pretty obvious what is going on here, their purpose is to invade and demographically conquer Europe.

A

I see that argument used by many Christians, and I wonder, since when do we Christians complain of being given the opportunity to show love to our enemies and evangelize them? Is this another example of the moral degradation of our American suburbian churchianity? Instead of actively working to save these people and help them in their distress so that we can evangelize them, we complain that we are forced to tolerate their presence? And then we are talking about missions and evangelism?

By the way, Arab nations took the heaviest responsibility. Lebanon has admitted close to 1.5 million refugees (more than 25% of its population) and Christians in Lebanon not only don’t whine about it but actively work to help them. Jordan accepted a huge number too.

Why didn’t Saudi Arabia take them? Because, Tim, these refugees don’t want to go to Saudi Arabia. They consider Saudi Arabia no different than ISIS. DO YOU SEE THE OPPORTUNITY IN THIS, TIM? THESE PEOPLE ARE RIPE FOR EVANGELISM! THEY ALREADY HATE ISLAM!

And we now as Christians are making sure that they start hating Christianity as well.

Ours is not Christianity. Ours is a worship of ourselves. We look at these people in the same way those murderous mothers in the abortion mills look at their babies: as a nuisance.