[Editor: This is Part 3 in an on-going conversation between Anarcho-Capitalist A.B. Dada and Natural Law advocate LexNaturalis. You can visit the other parts here: On the Necessity of War, War (from a Christian Anarcho-Capitalist perspective)]

by LexNaturalis

Determining what is right and what is wrong is one of the more difficult things that a person can do in life. This author makes no claims of greatness or omniscience, so the reader is challenged to always question and thoughtfully consider what is written. The issue has been raised of the rightness or morality of warfare. “On the Necessity of War” discusses why this author feels that war is, at times, an essential part of life. That assertion has been questioned so, for the sake of the reader, the issue will be discussed again from a new perspective. The previous article discusses the Natural Law background of war, so this article will discuss a religious background of war.

One of the fundamental truths of the Bible, for a Christian, is that it is infallible. That is, the Bible is the word of God and is, doctrinally, without error. Another fundamental truth for the Christian is the fact that it is possible to have disagreements on some issues and still be in perfect harmony with the will of God. One of this author’s favorite passages is Romans chapter 14. For the sake of the reader, a portion of this passage is reproduced below.

Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand…. So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way. [Romans 14:1-4, 12-13; NKJV]

The key idea behind that passage is that there are cases where doing, or not doing, are both acceptable in the eyes of God. However, if one man’s action (although right) causes another man to stumble or sin, then the first man is guilty. It is this author’s contention that to war, or not to war, is such a case. If a man feels war is wrong then for him to engage in warfare is wrong. If a man feels war is correct, and the war is a just war under Natural Law, then it is acceptable for him to engage in warfare.

It has been said, “[the] Christian war-mongerers [sic] that exist in society today ignore God’s Word repeatedly.” In that same context it was also said, “[many] Christians wrongfully believe that Romans 12 and 13 force us to follow all governments, even tyrannical ones.” The second assertion is correct in that some Christians do believe wrongly that Romans commands obedience to tyrannical governments. This author does not believe such to be the case and has, in previous writings, expounded upon that idea. The first assertion, however, is incorrect in that God’s Word does not forbid warfare. It is this thesis that will be discussed through the rest of this article.

Romans 13 does, however, speak of force in a positive context. Romans 13:4, in speaking of the state, says, “For he [that is, the state] is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” If the state is God’s minister and it is the state that “[executes] wrath on him who practices evil,” then it can be concluded that there must be some person doing the execution of wrath. Swords do not bear themselves nor do states run themselves. The Roman Empire was not a particularly peaceful nation. It regularly engaged in warfare. God ordered Roman Christians to pay taxes to a government that practiced warfare. The Roman Empire paid soldiers through monies that were, in part, raised through taxes. Therefore, God ordered Christians to fund warfare. If, as it has been asserted, warfare were a sin it must be said that God ordered sin. As this is clearly an absurd idea, it must be said that warfare cannot always be sin.

Likewise, God ordered the Israelites, at numerous times, to engage in warfare. It is this author’s assertion that God does not vacillate nor does His nature change. By His own admission “I AM.” That admission is clearly a statement of eternal “present” in that God is always present and always ‘is.’ God cannot have been something and now is something else for he always IS. There are numerous examples of God commanding warfare in the Old Testament. If war is sin now then only two cases are possible. God has changed what sin is or God commanded sin. It is, by definition, impossible for God to command sin. It is also impossible for God to redefine sin as that would imply a change in the nature of God. This author does not believe God’s nature is mutable therefore it must be concluded that war is not sin.

Discuss this article at the anarcho-capitalism forum.

—
LexNaturalis is a freelance writer and thinker from central Pennsylvania where he lives with his wife. He promotes personal responsibility to augment personal freedom.

In the last OpEd article I linked to earlier today, the author of that article sort of responded to my article on a comment on his site. I’ll quote his various comments here to make it easier to follow.

Adam Dada, the owner of “unimocracy.com” [sic] is a self-confessed “anarcho-captilist” [sic].

Yet my views on anarcho-capitalism are somewhat unique. I’m not saying we need to have a society without government, I’m instead offering that individuals should be free to make the choice to withdraw from any groups that they joined or might have been forced into. I call this a Unanimocracy, and I am a Unanimocrat. I believe I should be free to join any group, select any government, but also be able to free myself of those unions when I please, unless I am contractually obligated. As Jdavidb says, Secession is the right of all sentient beings. I should be free to secede from the government you and I may have created, as long as I that doesn’t break any contractual obligations I promised to follow. I believe that some people can use govenrment, and they should be free to form them as long as I don’t have to contract with them through force.

The concept’s founding father, Murry Rothbard, had at one time tried to associate himself with everyone from the extreme anti-war left, to the Ayn Rand wing of the liberaterian party (see above “tin-foil hat” comparison), to the dang anarchists themselves.

Rothbard is definitely a hero of mine, and I believe he admitted to the error in his judgement in trying to create alliances with various anti-Statist groups. All anarcho-capitalists believe in free association as a right of the individual, and there is nothing wrong with working with other groups to try to reduce the power of the State. Once he realized that this would be impossible to do as a group, he worked to make changes as an individual. I make those same changes by living, rather than coercive voting.

He was pretty much shunned by all of them. LOL.

As he should have been. Most libertarians and freedom lovers are still pro-Statism.

And dude… really… being shunned by the Ayn Rand Nutjobs is the functional equivilent of being thrown out of a pig pen for having hygene problems.

Not quite. When you repudiate the use of force against other individuals, those who want to use force will not like you very much. I think it is the functional equivalent of the pig being thrown out of the slaughterhouse for refusing to give up his life for their dinner.

Like most libertarians who are obsessed with trying to pervert Ayn Rand’s doctrine of the individual into something that means nobody should have to abide by any moral constraints ever - he really ends up looking exceeding bizarre and foolish.

Considering I do work hard to abide by my moral beliefs, I think it is wrong to think that we pervert anyone’s doctrines of anything. Look at it this way — I would never force you to live by my moral beliefs, and I don’t want you to live by mine. Morality can not be legislated, or it will create a power of force over most individuals.

The ugly truth is that the extreme form of libertarianism that some folks try to attach themselves too is just not taken seriously by anyone who has had even the most rudimentary education in the political sciences. Period.

I thank God for that. Political science is fraud — there is o science in the use of force to make people follow your will against theirs. I have no desire to follow political processes to make change since that means I would have to force others to change — I don’t want to do that, I just want to be free of their idiocy.

Now… I’d like to make clear that there are folks that I know that consider themselves “libertarians” who aren’t this “type” of libertarian, and I do draw a distinction there.

They’re called the “only what doesn’t harm me” libertarians, in my mind. As long as the policy harms them, they want to get rid of it. I want to get rid of any policy that restricts any individual from performing a non-violent and non-threatening action by themselves or with consenting others. Want to tax each other to pay for your retirements? Go ahead, do it. Just don’t force me to do it.

My younger brother is by all accounts an intelligent and well educated gentleman. I know him to be wise and coherent. He considers himself a “libertarian” I believe because he feels disenfranchised by the right, and a little reviled by the left. He chose libertarian because it was “door number 3″ as opposed to feeling trapped by the confines of a stullifying two-party system.

Sad that people think they need a political party to set their lives free. The best way to reduce the power of government is to inform others than the worst thing they can do is vote. Voting is just accepting the use of force, no matter what form it comes in. I recommend my way of voting, which guarantees a freedom from tyranny if everyone voted this way.

I’d be surprised to find out that he had researched true, grass-roots libertarianism and found himself okay with tribalism and well… fuedalism, which is the only path that raw libertarian philosophy can logically lead to.

Grass-roots libertarianism still adheres to some belief that there is the need of the State to coerce others to follow another person’s will. Of course it’ll end up in a feudalistic society. Anarcho-capitalism embraces the freedom that others have to own property and do whatever they want to do on that property and with that property, as long as it doesn’t harm another person’s physical property (land, goods, body).

I’d be more suprised to find that he had actually read and studied the works of Ayn Rand as I have, and came away with what I call the “Dirty Dancing” philosophy of “Some people matter, and some don’t” that many of the misguided do. Like Mr. Dada.

No one matters to me but those who can congregate with me when they want to, so that we can both mutually benefit from whatever relationship or transaction entails. I have no need to congregate with most people as I have no idea what their morals are, what their responsibilities require of them, how they follow through with those responsibilities and how I can hold them accountable for the help I give them. The only people that matter are those that I align myself with — I help many people through my faith, my businesses, my websites and my charity. All of them I hold accountable for what they do with my help, or I won’t help them again. I expect them to hold me accountable, and if you read my comments forum, you see that some do.

Discuss this article at the anarcho-capitalism forum.