Philosophical Discussion Of Authority And Freedom

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hassan' timestamp='1281817291' post='2157370']
Authority is the ability to employ violence, the more monopolistic the right to inflict violence is, the more solid the authority. That authority is legitimate if the people under that authority view it as legitimate, which makes it a social construction. Man possesses whatever rights he can get from the power structure that exercises the ability to inflict violence upon him.
[/quote]
That's pretty relativistic and Darwinian. Is that your intention?

[quote name='Bennn' timestamp='1281817324' post='2157371']
Yes. Of course I do not mean killing heretics and all that. But the law should forbid immoral practices and false religions. Christ was incarnated and took a Human nature. Separating Church and state is like separating Christ's divinity and humanity from each other. It cannot be done.

I plead for a constitutional monarchy in favour of Catholicism. Democracy only works if only orthodox catholics get to vote, which is much harder to attain then one person who exercises his power in submission to Christ. And if he would rebel against Christ, it would be in the pope or bishop's duty to depose him and to elect another.
[/quote]
I do understand what you're getting at. Doesn't such a situation though, set the stage for social abuses, such as potentially...... I dunno, confining Muslims to a ghetto unless they convert? Seems to me that we'd be opening ourselves up to a very slippery slope. Inasmuch as we're dealing with flawed people, we're going to end up with flawed systems, and as we both know, Catholics can be just as flawed and broken as anyone else.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1281817748' post='2157380']
That's pretty relativistic and Darwinian. Is that your intention?
[/quote]


My intention was to give a brief sketch of what happens, and has happened, in the world. Including Christendom.

[Bennn]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1281817748' post='2157380']
I do understand what you're getting at. Doesn't such a situation though, set the stage for social abuses, such as potentially...... I dunno, confining Muslims to a ghetto unless they convert? Seems to me that we'd be opening ourselves up to a very slippery slope. Inasmuch as we're dealing with flawed people, we're going to end up with flawed systems, and as we both know, Catholics can be just as flawed and broken as anyone else.
[/quote]


Yes, but I believe that precisely because all systems are limited by human flaws, we should choose that which is the most ideal and in favour of the divine laws of God. Monarchy is the manner in which God Himself rules the universe so I honestly do not believe it can be discarded as not working. Also, monarchy has endured the test of the time and actually proved itself to be good (there are always exceptions).

And I believe that the authority of the bishops would be a good way to avoid abuses. One can throw out the argument of what would happen if the bishops would be corrupted, but if one follows that reasoning then one would have to support stripping the bishops of their spiritual authority as well, which is of course ridiculous. Perhaps de- and enthronement would be decided by a council of bishops instead of just one bishop to avoid one corrupted bishop to abuse temporal powers?

Either way, democracy is also abused. Much more than monarchy even. Just look at the holocaust of the thousands and thousands of unborn babies who are slaughtered. If that can happen, a democratic vote can also decide to kill you and me.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Bennn

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hassan' timestamp='1281817970' post='2157387']
My intention was to give a brief sketch of what happens, and has happened, in the world. Including Christendom.
[/quote]
Oh, I see. I thought you were describing your ideal.

[quote name='Bennn' timestamp='1281818366' post='2157394']
Yes, but I believe that precisely because all systems are limited by human flaws, we should choose that which is the most ideal and in favour of the divine laws of God. Monarchy is the manner in which God Himself rules the universe so I honestly do not believe it can be discarded as not working. Also, monarchy has endured the test of the time and actually proved itself to be good (there are always exceptions).

And I believe that the authority of the bishops would be a good way to avoid abuses. One can throw out the argument of what would happen if the bishops would be corrupted, but if one follows that reasoning then one would have to support stripping the bishops of their spiritual authority as well, which is of course ridiculous. Perhaps de- and enthronement would be decided by a council of bishops instead of just one bishop to avoid one corrupted bishop to abuse temporal powers?
[/quote]
Why have a monarch at all when the final authority appears to be with the bishops? Could we not just have an all-out Catholic theocracy and achieve the same ends?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1281746892' post='2156864']
It seems a tad like a school assignment, and you do not have the authority to make me answer, however:

My overall feeling about the topic is that I feel most free when I willingly accept authority. It's a bit like being married and those nights when you are completely exhausted, and your spouse makes all the decisions about dinner. There is an instant feeling of relief. Authority is pretty much what we are willing to yield to.
[/quote]

What one is willing to yield to is not a universally applicable attribute of authority. We agree that God has authority, and that all authority comes from God, and not everyone yields to God's authority. The same would apply to "authority" as it is used in reference to other entities. Not everyone is willing to submit, but authority still may exist.

~Sternhauser

[Bennn]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1281818665' post='2157405']
Oh, I see. I thought you were describing your ideal.


Why have a monarch at all when the final authority appears to be with the bishops? Could we not just have an all-out Catholic theocracy and achieve the same ends?
[/quote]


In the end, every form of government should be theocratic, albeit not directly.

This is why I mentioned constitutional monarchy, though. The power of the bishops to de- or enthrone would be limited by the bounds of orthodoxy. It would only be allowed for the bishops to dethrone a king if he was doing things that go against the divine laws.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Bennn' timestamp='1281818997' post='2157415']
In the end, every form of government should be theocratic, albeit not directly.

This is why I mentioned constitutional monarchy, though. The power of the bishops to de- or enthrone would be limited by the bounds of orthodoxy. It would only be allowed for the bishops to dethrone a king if he was doing things that go against the divine laws.
[/quote]
Ok, so let's change gears a bit then. What do you think rights are in the purest sense, and what rights do we have as Man?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1281816891' post='2157362']
So would it be an accurate summary of your views to say that "the nature of authority is to forbid (by force if necessary) that which displeases God"?
[/quote]

I'd like to start out by saying that we are only discussing these topics of "authority" and "rights" and "liberty versus freedom" because we are fallen. Our intellects have been darkened. Our wills have been weakened. Without the Fall, Christ would not have died. Without sin, there would be no violence perpetrated by anyone against anyone. Not by husband, not by wife, not be stranger, not by State actors. Was there authority before the Fall? Absolutely. Was there violence among men before the fall? None. Does anyone disagree with these assertions?

Starting with that premiss, I would not agree with the definition you have proposed. Authority (in the way we are using it, not speaking of "authorities on X topic," though it is related) is having a moral power to command that which is right. The moral power to command does not carry within itself the idea that violence may be used to enforce one's command. If authority means using force to coerce the will, it is [i]certainly[/i] a flawed definition. Someone in authority may certainly use force, but he may not use force to coerce anyone's will. A religious superior, for example, has authority over his charges. In the Benedictines, every monk either reads the rule, or is read the rule, multiple times before he enters. He understands that he is there of his own volition, and free to leave, but insofar as he chooses to remain, he must abide by the Rule. He has explicitly and individually given his own consent. As long as he stays, it is an expression of his free will. But he was not [i]born[/i] into the rule of the monastery! He deliberately gave his full consent to abide by the rules, which is a both a pre-requisite and a subsequent constant requirement!

A husband has authority over his wife, but he does not have the right to use force to [i]make[/i] her comply with his will. He may not beat her into complying with her wifely duties. Does anyone contest this assertion?

An employer has authority over his employees. Whence does this authority come? Ultimately, it comes from God, yes? But did the employer have the authority to command employees before he had an employee? No. He only had authority over his employees once the employee submitted himself, as an [i]individual[/i], to adhere to the legitimate and moral commands of the employer. The employee cannot submit [i]anyone else[/i] to the employer's authority. Only each individual employee can submit himself to the employer's authority, and that comes by the two entering into a mutual agreement.

God's authority comes from the fact that he is the Creator (author!) of the world, and everyone and everything within it. He can command anything (anything, of course, meaning a thing that is not contradictory for an all-good God to command) to do anything. But even God himself has refused to use violence against our wills. He will not beat anyone into compliance. It is worthy to note that Jesus did not tell anyone to get out of the Temple, or else. He quietly made a whip of cords, and drove the moneychangers out of the temple (his property.) He forced them out, and he had the authority to do so, but was the use of violence a [i]part [/i]of the authority itself, or was not the authority a [i]pre-requisite[/i] to using force in such an instance? He had the authority to drive money changers out of the temple (and I believe any faithful Catholic has the authority to drive out bandits from a Catholic church) but authority can and does exist without violence. If you tell a bully not to take money from a 6-year old, you have the moral power of command, and your authority is rooted in God's law, even if you are incapable of enforcing the command. Anyone can legitimately command such a thing.

Authority, while having its ultimate root in God, comes to man in different ways.

There is Supernatural authority such as is enjoyed by God, by virtue of His being Creator of the world. He has the moral power to command anyone or anything to do anything.

There is natural authority that we share with God by virtue of being creatures of God, living according to His natural and moral law, (fraternal correction, stopping a murderer, preventing a rape.)

There is a Supernatural authority as enjoyed by the Pope, Bishops, and Priests. It is directly given by God Himself. The Church is a supernatural institution. They have general moral authority over all men, and stronger moral authority over those who somewhat recognize their power as God-given, and the most authority over Catholics, who have willfully submitted themselves to the doctrines of the Church.

There is natural authority in a family, as a natural institution. The authority is conferred by the spouses, a man and a woman who voluntarily, with no coercion, and mutually agree (otherwise there is no marriage, remember) to submit themselves to live according to the nature of the institution of marriage, as husband and wife.

Any children of this marriage are born into a natural institution, a natural society, and are morally required to obey the legitimate commands of the parents.

Then there is a society. It is a network of mutually-beneficial, free-will interactions. Does a society itself have authority? It is my contention that it does not. It is not an entity with rights, it is a network of relationships comprised of [i]individuals[/i] with rights. Society exists in itself, but not for itself or of itself. It exists in the interactions of the people who voluntarily comprise it. It exists because individuals recognize they are not self-sufficient.

May a society choose people on which they bestow authority to regulate it? It is my contention that a society, as a [i]network [/i]of individuals, cannot [i]"choose" [/i]anything. Individuals may choose, ([i]individuals[/i] solely can will, not collectives) to submit themselves to the regulation of another. They may not choose to submit others to the regulation of another.

Even the most fervent believers in "democracy" or "rule of the general will," as Rousseau put it, believe that there must be consent on the part of the governed. The Constitution collectivized the individuals, saying, "We the People." They reified "The People." They turned it into an entity, with rights and duties. Collectives have no will. There is only the will of the individuals that comprise collectives. Hence, collectives cannot, by their essence, be held responsible. Only individuals are responsible. Therefore, only individuals have rights. For a husband and wife to say "We have a right," is to say, "You and I have a right."

A collective, itself having no will, and thus no moral culpability or responsibility, is nothing more than a conceptual aggregation of the wills of many [i]individuals.[/i] The will[i]s[/i] of the many cannot override the rights of the individual, nor can the will of the many create a right.

While recognizing that we do have a fallen human nature, for a moment, let us not predicate a violent State, for no such thing existed before the Fall. A true society did. I would like to ask this question of each individual here: how do you, as an individual, have the right to use physical force against any other human being, or even attempt to bestow the right to use physical force against any other human being, unless that force is in [i]direct[/i] defense against the physical action an unjust aggressor?

~Sternhauser

Edited August 14, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Bennn]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1281820679' post='2157425']
Ok, so let's change gears a bit then. What do you think rights are in the purest sense, and what rights do we have as Man?
[/quote]


Rights are bestowed upon man by God. I believe sin to be collective. Sodoma and Gomorrah were wiped away from the face of the earth because the citizens sinned against Heaven. If certain acts call down Gods wrath upon a nation, then I believe that the nation has the legitimate authority to surpress such acts. We have the right to life because it pleased God to give life to man. We do not have the right to kill a baby out of self centered lust. Thus, abortion should be punished by law in the same way that murder is punished.

I think a great error of our time is individualism. We think that when we sin, it only affects us. Yet, sacred Scripture teaches us that because of the sins of some, guilt fell upon whole nations. Therefore we should, as a nation, remove evil from our midst so that the benevolent God can pour forth His graces upon it.

There are natural rights, supernatural rights (obtained through Baptism) and rights that are bestowed upon us by any legitimate authority. But when this authority imposes laws or 'rights' that are contrary to the divine laws, then this authority is not legitimate.

[reyb]

[quote name='Bennn' timestamp='1281790227' post='2157094']
I believe that the traditional Catholic perception is that we are to submit ourselves to all temporal authority in so far that it does not contradict the eternal laws of God. Sacred Scripture teaches us that temporal authority is invested by the Lord, so when the laws of that authority are in submission to the laws of God, then obeying them would be obeying God. Good citizenship is an example to those who are outside of the Church, that they may see the citizen's good works and behaviour and glorify God for his sake.
[/quote]

Are you referring to Government as ‘temporal authority’?

Are you (Nihil) referring to ‘Government’ when you asked about ‘Authority’?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1282034869' post='2158789']

Are you (Nihil) referring to ‘Government’ when you asked about ‘Authority’?
[/quote]
I meant exactly what I said. I thought about how to phrase this thread for about two days before I actually did post it.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1281823438' post='2157442']
Starting with that premiss, I would not agree with the definition you have proposed. Authority (in the way we are using it, not speaking of "authorities on X topic," though it is related) is having a moral power to command that which is right. The moral power to command does not carry within itself the idea that violence may be used to enforce one's command. If authority means using force to coerce the will, it is [i]certainly[/i] a flawed definition. Someone in authority may certainly use force, but he may not use force to coerce anyone's will. . . .
[/quote]
Therein is the flawed and false premise of Sternhauser's anarchism.

Just pick up the Bible and read Exodus and Leviticus. God prescribes a number of very specific penalties, including the death penalty, for different crimes.

Surely, by Stern's definition, these laws and the enforcement of them would constitute "coercion of the will" and "violence." God didn't just give the Israelites suggestions that they would be free to keep or not keep as they choose, but commandments enforced with threat of punishment.

I realize Sternhauser will likely counter by saying that the ancient Israelites were a theocracy led directly by God, and thus the Law and its enforcement totally irrelevant to anything today.
However, the point remains that God did in fact order crimes to be punished by "violent" force, including killing. If this is itself intrinsically evil and immoral, as Sternhauser contends, then God would be commanding evil, which would mean God would be divided against Himself, which is absurd.

And the right of governments to enforce laws did not go away with the coming of Christ. Christ Himself said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," and the Church has always acknowledged the authority of governments to enforce laws, including with the death penalty, if necessary.

Stern's anarchism is rooted neither in Scripture nor the teachings of Christ's Church, but in 19th century radical philosophies.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1282065433' post='2158937']
Therein is the flawed and false premise of Sternhauser's anarchism.

Just pick up the Bible and read Exodus and Leviticus. God prescribes a number of very specific penalties, including the death penalty, for different crimes.

Surely, by Stern's definition, these laws and the enforcement of them would constitute "coercion of the will" and "violence." God didn't just give the Israelites suggestions that they would be free to keep or not keep as they choose, but commandments enforced with threat of punishment.[/quote]

What laws and enforcement? Even killing someone for a crime isn't "coercion of the will," and I've never said anything against just violence.

[quote]
I realize Sternhauser will likely counter by saying that the ancient Israelites were a theocracy led directly by God, and thus the Law and its enforcement totally irrelevant to anything today.
However, the point remains that God did in fact order crimes to be punished by "violent" force, including killing. If this is itself intrinsically evil and immoral, as Sternhauser contends, then God would be commanding evil, which would mean God would be divided against Himself, which is absurd.[/quote]

Have I contended that it is intrinsically evil to "punish" a crime by violence? Have I ever contended that it is immoral to kill a guilty man? I have not.

God meets his people where they are. He won't force them to recognize logic or the inefficacy of certain ways of doing things. That is why, because of the [i]hardness of their hearts,[/i] God allowed divorce in certain circumstances. Scripture is full of God calling his people "stiff-necked," "proud," "stubborn," "hard of heart," "adulterers," and the like. But, as Christ said about certain customs of men allowed by God, "It [i]was not so[/i] in the beginning." And God, fully aware of man's fallen nature, still wanted it [i]restored[/i] to the way it [i]was[/i] in the beginning.

[quote]
And the right of governments to enforce laws did not go away with the coming of Christ. Christ Himself said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar'," and the Church has always acknowledged the authority of governments to enforce laws, including with the death penalty, if necessary.[/quote]

I've never contended any of that. Just the real and terminological difference between "government" and "State," and what Jesus meant in saying, "Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar," after it was pointed out that Caesar's image and likeness belonged to Caesar. Does the Church teach that the coin belonged to Caesar because it bore his image and inscription? It does not. Should the Jews have been carrying around money with the image of a man in the Temple? No, they should not have in the first place. What does that tell you about Jesus's question, and his statements? Why does nobody pay any attention to the second part? What belongs to[i] God[/i]? Besides, of course, everything?

Paying taxes to a gang of robbers at swordpoint is no more immoral than paying money, at swordpoint, to one robber on the highway. I'll pay the robber whatever he wants, like Jesus said. If resisting him causes unnecessary violence, I will certainly not resist.

Did Pontius Pilate, who said "Do you not know I have the power/authority (depending on the quality of the translation) to put you to death?" actually have [i]authority[/i] to put Jesus to death? Do you claim that Jesus actually affirmed Pilate's "authority" to deliberately put an innocent man to death when he said, "You would have no authority unless it were given to you by my Father?" Did God give Pilate the authority to change the act of deliberately committing an evil act, into a good act? "It is all right that the State took a man's land, at gunpoint, from him, a man whose great-grandfather tilled the acreage and built a house upon it by hand, because it's for the common good. It's not unjust because the [i]State[/i] does it, and the State has [i]authority." [/i] Power is not authority. And the common good cannot be protected by violating the rights of any individual in a commonality. It does not cease to become a violation of rights because temporal benefit for the many is increased by a violent act of taking from the few.

The Church teaches that people should support efforts that benefit society, and that uphold the common good. I've never contested that teaching.

[quote]Stern's anarchism is rooted neither in Scripture nor the teachings of Christ's Church, but in 19th century radical philosophies.
[/quote]

Unless the Church has recently started teaching that all Catholics are bound, under pain of sin, to believe that the coercively-funded State always, sometimes, or ever benefits true society, (something it cannot ever do) I recommend responding to the logical arguments I've put forth, rather than my "heretical views."

My beliefs are rooted in the fact that I have no right to force your will to comply with my will, and I dare not presume God's will, but to stick to basic truths, such as, "If someone is dangerous, he may be prevented from harming again," "If he has stolen, that which has been stolen should be returned to its owner, including compensation for lost wages," and "The simple fact that an act is against God's law does not mean I may use violence against another person to stop the act, unless, of course, I have God's explicit command." It is rooted in the fact that virtue cannot be forced upon anyone, it must be perceived and willed. It is rooted in the fact that physical violence, of its nature, can only be used to directly protect physical goods. It cannot destroy lies, it cannot destroy immorality. It can only destroy liars, and destroy the immoral. That is not the [i]modus operandi[/i] of the Catholic faithful. We live according to the New Covenant, as the Law was not eradicated, but fulfilled and made whole by Christ Jesus, the prince of peace. Was God "divided against himself" when he allowed divorce and remarriage? Was God "divided against himself" when he allowed taking war slaves? Does God allow such behavior now?

I asked several questions in the previous post, and in this post. Either answer them or ignore them. But please don't snipe at what you incorrectly deem to be "my heterodox ideas." I'd rather be accused of statue worship by a Protestant than have a fellow Catholic make such inaccurate and ill-conceived remarks about what I allegedly believe.

~Sternhauser

Edited August 17, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1282078354' post='2159121']
What laws and enforcement? Even killing someone for a crime isn't "coercion of the will," and I've never said anything against just violence.



Have I contended that it is intrinsically evil to "punish" a crime by violence? Have I ever contended that it is immoral to kill a guilty man? I have not.

God meets his people where they are. He won't force them to recognize logic or the inefficacy of certain ways of doing things. That is why, because of the [i]hardness of their hearts,[/i] God allowed divorce in certain circumstances. Scripture is full of God calling his people "stiff-necked," "proud," "stubborn," "hard of heart," "adulterers," and the like. But, as Christ said about certain customs of men allowed by God, "It [i]was not so[/i] in the beginning." And God, fully aware of man's fallen nature, still wanted it [i]restored[/i] to the way it [i]was[/i] in the beginning.



I've never contended any of that. Just the real and terminological difference between "government" and "State," and what Jesus meant in saying, "Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar," after it was pointed out that Caesar's image and likeness belonged to Caesar. Does the Church teach that the coin belonged to Caesar because it bore his image and inscription? It does not. Should the Jews have been carrying around money with the image of a man in the Temple? No, they should not have in the first place. What does that tell you about Jesus's question, and his statements? Why does nobody pay any attention to the second part? What belongs to[i] God[/i]? Besides, of course, everything?

Paying taxes to a gang of robbers at swordpoint is no more immoral than paying money, at swordpoint, to one robber on the highway. I'll pay the robber whatever he wants, like Jesus said. If resisting him causes unnecessary violence, I will certainly not resist.

Did Pontius Pilate, who said "Do you not know I have the power/authority (depending on the quality of the translation) to put you to death?" actually have [i]authority[/i] to put Jesus to death? Do you claim that Jesus actually affirmed Pilate's "authority" to deliberately put an innocent man to death when he said, "You would have no authority unless it were given to you by my Father?" Did God give Pilate the authority to change the act of deliberately committing an evil act, into a good act? "It is all right that the State took a man's land, at gunpoint, from him, a man whose great-grandfather tilled the acreage and built a house upon it by hand, because it's for the common good. It's not unjust because the [i]State[/i] does it, and the State has [i]authority." [/i] Power is not authority. And the common good cannot be protected by violating the rights of any individual in a commonality. It does not cease to become a violation of rights because temporal benefit for the many is increased by a violent act of taking from the few.

The Church teaches that people should support efforts that benefit society, and that uphold the common good. I've never contested that teaching.



Unless the Church has recently started teaching that all Catholics are bound, under pain of sin, to believe that the coercively-funded State always, sometimes, or ever benefits true society, (something it cannot ever do) I recommend responding to the logical arguments I've put forth, rather than my "heretical views."

My beliefs are rooted in the fact that I have no right to force your will to comply with my will, and I dare not presume God's will, but to stick to basic truths, such as, "If someone is dangerous, he may be prevented from harming again," "If he has stolen, that which has been stolen should be returned to its owner, including compensation for lost wages," and "The simple fact that an act is against God's law does not mean I may use violence against another person to stop the act, unless, of course, I have God's explicit command." It is rooted in the fact that virtue cannot be forced upon anyone, it must be perceived and willed. It is rooted in the fact that physical violence, of its nature, can only be used to directly protect physical goods. It cannot destroy lies, it cannot destroy immorality. It can only destroy liars, and destroy the immoral. That is not the [i]modus operandi[/i] of the Catholic faithful. We live according to the New Covenant, as the Law was not eradicated, but fulfilled and made whole by Christ Jesus, the prince of peace. Was God "divided against himself" when he allowed divorce and remarriage? Was God "divided against himself" when he allowed taking war slaves? Does God allow such behavior now?

I asked several questions in the previous post, and in this post. Either answer them or ignore them. But please don't snipe at what you incorrectly deem to be "my heterodox ideas." I'd rather be accused of statue worship by a Protestant than have a fellow Catholic make such inaccurate and ill-conceived remarks about what I allegedly believe.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
I understood your position to be that it is immoral for a government to use "violence" (whether physical force, imprisonment, fines, or death) and the threat thereof to enforce laws. If I am mistaken, please clarify your beliefs on this matter. How is the law commanding something backed up by threat of punishment different from "coercion of the will" in your opinion?

And if you read the Old Testament, you'll note that penalties (including death) are not only prescribed to directly protect physical goods, but were in fact used to punish acts of immorality (including adultery and sodomy), after the fact.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Socrates

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1282081634' post='2159205']
I understood your position to be that it is immoral for a government to use "violence" (whether physical force, imprisonment, fines, or death) and the threat thereof to enforce laws. If I am mistaken, please clarify your beliefs on this matter. How is the law commanding something backed up by threat of punishment different from "coercion of the will" in your opinion?
[/quote]

In that case, my position was completely misunderstood. A government (not a State) may absolutely use force in the enforcement of laws. For example, it is completely moral for a voluntarily-funded government to have armed men patrolling in order to enforce, say, laws against theft, rape, assault, or murder. Their armed presence does not coerce anyone's will. The understanding is that if you try to violate anyone else's rights, they will physically stop you. It is not a coercion of the will for a woman to say, "If you continue kicking open the door, I will shoot you." It is a defense of [i]her[/i] will from being violated by his unjust will. She is protected by physically stopping him from pursuing a physical action that violates her rights, not by coercing his will. It is not coercion of the will to physically take back property that was stolen in order to restore it to its rightful owner. It may be a contradiction of the will of the aggressor, but it is not a coercion of his will. Physically stopping someone from committing an aggressive act does not coerce the will, it prevents the body from continuing the unjust act. The will of the unjust aggressor is completely free: he can choose to leave the innocent victim alone and live, or continue to aggress and face the possibility of death.

It is an unjust act to force a non-aggressor to surrender his money. Statism is the idea that taking money from non-aggressors at gunpoint, or any other aggressive act prohibited to individuals, is suddenly moral because a group of individuals say it is moral. Period. I am against the unjust use of violence. In other words, I am against violence that is not used to directly stop an active and imminent threat to the physical life, liberty or property of other innocent people.

[quote]
And if you read the Old Testament, you'll note that penalties (including death) are not only prescribed to directly protect physical goods, but were in fact used to punish acts of immorality (including adultery and sodomy), after the fact.[/quote]

When God tells you that you may drag an adulterer or a sodomite into a public square and throw rocks at him together with a hooting mob of people, causing blunt trauma, spraying his blood all over the pavement, and thus kill him for having offended God and the public order, go for it. [i]God[/i] can justly command [i]His[/i] [i]creatures[/i] to do such a thing. But until that day he gives you the green light, I think it prudent to stick to the example given by Jesus Himself in just such an instance.

~Sternhauser

Edited August 18, 2010 by Sternhauser