Anarcho-capitalism

Zion, IL
By A.B. Dada
—
I’ve decided that from now on, my official title will be “President of the United States of America.” I hereby declare that title for myself, and for every person within the borders of any U.S. territory or state. Including illegal aliens. You, kind reader, are also the President of the United States of America. Your non-English speaking neighbor is, too. So are his kids.

Why have I had to make this declaration? Because I’ve noticed that Americans, of which I include those born here, abroad, and those who skipped over the border illegaly, have forgotten so much about how this Republic exists. We are not a nation, we are a Republic of 50 Nations and a few territories that are not pro-freedom enough to realize that they, too, are independent nations.

As 50 Nations, which is the definition of a State (a State is a country in its own), we made a decision a long time ago that we would elect a staff of people at a Federal/Republic level that would work for us with one primary intent: to make sure that the countries (”States”) that we live in do not trample on the rights we have as individual, given by God or inherently the moment you are born or conceived. There are many rights that all individuals of all countries and races and religions share: We inherently have the right to speak freely. We have the inherent right to prevent uninvited visitors from coming into our homes, and from forcing themselves to live there. We are inherently free to assemble with other people we like, but we’re also inherently free to decide not to assemble or do business with people we don’t like. We’ve the inherent right to practice whatever religion we want, or none at all. We’re free (inherently!) to travel as long as we don’t trespass, and we’re free to keep quiet if anyone questions us about illegal activities. We’re all free, from birth to protect our bodies and our properties from trespass, with force if necessary. We’re free to demand compensation if those we elect usurp our freedoms or trespass on our properties or bodies.

These are freedoms that every man has, just by being born (or conceived, depending on your definition of life). Those freedoms are inherent in all men: Americans, Mexicans, Canadians, Iraqis, Australians, and even the Chinese. They’re born with them. You’re born with them. No one can GIVE you those freedoms, and no one is allowed to take them away. No one.

When the 13 countries in the New World decided to unite, they didn’t decide to unite as one big country. It wasn’t an option. Instead, they decided to stay as separate countries, that is, States, but they were fearful of one another. They decided to elect a Federal branch of government for one sole purpose: to respect those inherent (”God-given”) rights that all are born with, regardless of nationality or citizenship, and to force the other countries to also respect those same rights. That’s what the Federal government was enacted to do. The States also knew that other countries not agreeing to these rules on States might decide to attack a single State, so they decided to give the power to call up a defensive army to this Federal Republic. The army would be called up from the various States to repel an attacker. The army would be composed of State armies, private militias, and individuals who voluntarily would commit to defending the land of other States (countries) within this Republic. Then the army would go home, back to farming, horseshoeing, running the saloons, the whorehouses, the main street stores and inns. It would dissolve, impossible to track down once the attack on another country (State) was stopped.

These 13 countries (States) also didn’t trust one another when it comes to money. Historically, all countries have harmed the individual by taking away their ability to choose what form of money they’d use. Some used dirt, others sand, some wheat, some used cows. Some used gold and silver, which for 6000 years had been the only safe form of a bartering medium. Since the 13 countries didn’t trust each other with money, they decided to force each other to pay their debts to individuals, and to other countries, only in gold and silver. Individuals were free to use whatever bartering medium they thought was good, and accept or deny how they were paid. The countries also gave the power to physically coin a currency to the Federal Republic, but that was only for the coins that the countries themselves used — individuals were free to barter between each other in any currency available and preferred.

The 13 countries were also fearful of pirates on the open seas, so they decided to band together and protect the borders on the seas with a united Navy/Coast Guard. This was not to be used to attack, but to watch for pirates and attackers. It was purely defensive.

There was really to be no leader of these 13 countries, which quickly grew to 50 countries, united as a Republic only to protect those inherent rights that all are born with. The President of this Republic had one task: enforce the laws of the Republic, if they followed the points above. Does the law restrict the inherent freedom to speak of any individual, foreign or domestic, that any of the 50 countries deal with? If so, the law can’t exist. The President can ignore it, and force the Republic to ignore it. Does a law or an action force an individual, foreign or domestic, to speak when they don’t want to? That is an illegal activity, and this President should immediately force the agent to stop it. Does a law or action trespass on a person’s body or property? If so, the law can not exist at any level, and force should be used against the government perpetrator.

The President of the Republic is not there to lead individuals, but to lead in force against any usurping of individual rights by any of the 50 countries (”States”), or any government body above or below them. The President does not lead, we as individuals do. The President’s sole power is not to make laws or decisions, but to Execute the few powers the Republic does have, and to ignore the powers that may breach those inherent, “God-given” rights that all men are born with.

If an illegal alien is captured by any government, those rights are still theirs. They’re born with it. The Rule of Law of the Republic, the Constitution, does not grant many rights specific to citizens, but to all People who are affected by the Republic or the countries themselves. Yes, the countries can kick them out, but they can’t force them to speak, jail them without telling people why, providing for their freedom to consult with a lawyer, know the charges against them, and ask for a jury. If for some strange and illegal reason the Republic or any individual country is acting outside of its borders (grossly illegal, immoral and unconstitutional), it has to understand that the foreign people they are harassing, killing, maiming and angering also have inherent rights that they can not trample on.

Some of these powers and restrictions are modified if the Republic is called to go to a defensive war, but we have not had a Declaration of War since World War II, so anything the Republic or the individual countries are doing internationally is illegal and should be stopped by the President (who again, is not a leader).

It is obvious that the recent Presidents, going back 90+ years, have ignored their oaths to the Constitution, their promises to protect the rights of the individuals (foreign and domestic), and to restrain the Republic from hurting the freedoms that all people are born with. This is why I declare all individuals to be the new President. It is now your job to remind others that they are free; the others can be people born within any of the 50 United Countries of the American Republic, or foreigners, or aliens residing in the borders of the 50 United Countries of the American Republic. Remind them that they are responsible for themselves and their families, first and foremost. No one is supposed to trample on the rights they were born with, the very rights that give them ability to succeed or fail. Most failure comes from individuals lying, or being lazy, or relying on someone else using force for their profit. No one fails because of bad luck, because we all have the ability to protect our families and heirs in the cases of bad luck. You might be dead, but you can protect yourself today using the market providing insurance policies out there.

We must realize that all humans are born free, even if someone else disagrees. We mortals do not need others to lead us together, as we all have different needs, abilities, and desires. We must lead ourselves, and when we do, we can be positive influences on our heirs. When we teach our heirs to lead themselves, too, they will be prepared for all risks and rewards in life. When we rely on others to lead us, we no longer have the knowledge that we are sovereign individuals responsible for our own actions.

When the current President of the Republic leaves office, the next President of the Republic will likely follow in his footsteps in forgetting that he or she is not there to lead us, but to make sure that the 50 countries don’t harm our ability to lead ourselves. Ron Paul might be the least aggressive in harming our individual rights, so I do believe he would do a good job returning the job of President to being a mere aggressor against the 50 countries themselves. That’s why I like the guy — he doesn’t want to lead me anywhere, or force me to do anything. He’ll leave me alone, but if the Country of Illinois tries to control me, he’ll step right in and give them the smack-down.

Sounds good to me.

Digg this article

Zion, IL
A.B. Dada
—

Since Mr. Schweitzer has agreed to discuss Just War Doctrine, I’ve spent a day talking with the wife and a few good friends about the proper angle to portray my viewpoints on Augustine’s popular theory. I believe that the Just War Doctrine is immoral, and unbiblical, while Curtis takes the opposite view.

At first, I thought I had a slam dunk, but after discussions with others, I realized that my primary debate tool is useless in this venue. For those who know me personally or deeply, they are aware that I prescribe to a minority view on Christianity and the Bible, notably the Preterist or Covenant eschatological doctrinal view. I assume that Curtis, as well as most Christian readers here, prescribe to the more common Dispensationalist doctrinal viewpoint on Biblical matters. This complicates the issue significantly for me, but does not necessary make it an impossibility.

Since the majority of Christian readers here are of the Dispensationalist, I believe it is in my best interest to “attack” the debate from their point of view rather than from my own. I used to adhere to that same doctrine for many years, but I had many concerns that plagued me regarding significant portions of the New Testament, which led me down the path to accept many aspects of the Preterist viewpoint, although not all. I would appreciate, and openly pursue, comments from people who see me leave the Dispensationalist path in my oppositions (or even agreements) to Mr. Schweitzer’s posts at his blog. For those friends and readers who are Preterist, or who are heading in that direction, I will try to address those views at a later date, or after the main body of the replies I post here. I will be very explicit in defining that view separately, and hopefully without any attempt to sway or provoke a change of doctrine for the reader.

One caveat: I am very potent as a convincer toward the Preterist viewpoint, I’ve been told. It is NOT my place, or my wish, to get anyone reading any of my posts to accept or even consider that viewpoint until they are led spiritually to question their own doctrine of beliefs. I find the Dispensational viewpoint significantly lacking in both grace and justice, but I also accept that it is the status quo doctrine of the 20th century for most Evangelicals, and I will not be one to judge another’s views, even if they are counter to my own. I serve hundreds of Dispensational congregations fruitfully, and do not openly promote my own views in that servitude. If you feel I am promoting a heretical or opposing doctrine within any of these future posts (other than when I place a warning that I will do so), please post a comment and hold me accountable. While I have made many inroads in my own private home assembly to teach people the varying views of Christianity (and other religions!), I don’t believe that this blog is the place to do so. /caveat

The setup
The basis for my part of the debate will focus on a few areas of the Bible that I believe show that the Just War Doctrine can be challenged by Christians who do not advocate the use of force against others. I sincerely believe that Christ also held to the ideas of non-resistance and acceptance of hatred from others, which can be used as a powerful weapon to shine the light of love, peace and charity to others in hopes of getting them to question the basis for their own hatred.

Definition of a Christian
I also accept that there are New Testament verses that are useful in defending force on others, and I hope to dig deep into those verse to prepare against Curtis’ side of the debate in utilizing those same verses. I will start by saying that all verses of the Bible are contextual, not absolute. Using one verse without explaining the context of the paragraph or book is a process that many seemingly heretical pastors and preachers use to advocate fear and force and control of the individual. Christ was/is about freedom and submitting to God and other mortals, not about making God or other mortals submit to you. When it comes to dealing with other Christians, the Dispensationalist has practical and strong advice/advocations in how to deal with brethren. If we can not agree with those basic tenets, the debate will be fruitless and a wate of time for the writers and readers. It is my hope that we can at least come to an agreement with some or all of these points, at least from an Evangelical Dispensationalist viewpoint.

Preterist Prespective: It is my believe that the Old Covenant of the Mosaic Age is over, fulfilled completely in two “Comings of Christ” that have occurred and will not occur in the future. I believe we live in the “Reign of God” which is transliterated incorrectly in many modern Bibles as the future “Kingdom of God.” It is my believe that Christ’s actions and words were incredibly spiritual in nature, not physical or pertaining to a mortal Kingdom./Preterist

Some verses against the use of force
Two simple verses that seem to show that Christ promoted peace, always:
Matthew 5:9 Jesus: blessed are the peacemakers
Matthew 5:39: if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also

Matthew 5:39 has an intriguing transliteration problem that Rob Bell (who I generally do NOT agree with) pointed out: the striking of a cheek was an act that was common in ancient times, always being performed with one particular hand. The idea of striking someone on the other cheek would cause the striker to use the back of their hand, which put them on the negative side. I do believe that this is the case, but I am not sure that the transliteration problem is a negative one necessarily. Still, I think this verse is the weakest in defending against the Just War Doctrine.

There are also verses that promote the idea of the use of force:
Eccles 3:3: a time to kill
Luke 3:14: Peace of Rome, could keep their jobs

Many Dispensationalists believe that the Old Testament still offers insight and direction for the Christian. I vehemently disagree, finding the Old Testament’s direction as useless after Christ. Nonetheless, I will try to provide Christ’s unique insights into Old Testament verses that show that Christ was against much of the teachings of the mortal men of the Israelite Bible.

Since this is just a setup explanation, I believe it is important to close with Augustine’s viewpoints on the Just War Doctrine. This is a paraphrasing, but should be conclusive:

Augustine said that before one could use force against an “enemy,” one must make these considerations:
1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2) all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3) there must be serious prospects of success;
4) the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Just on the face of it, I believe that even if you prescribe to the Just War Doctrine, most if not all of these 4 considerations have been broken in modern warfare, both terrorist-driven and State-enforced. This view, though, is not part of our debate. I hope we can proceed in this debate from a neutral aspect: more of a “what if” than a “what happened.” It would be unbalanced if I was to use examples of any recent war against Mr. Schweitzer, so I will refrain from those angles.

Please feel free to join us by tracking back from your own blog to either of our blogs, or entering your own comments on either site. I hope that we can do justice to both the Word of God, and provide some security for those believing either viewpoints, as well as opening a door for both sides to inquire deeper into their own beliefs.

Preterist Prespective: Many people know that I truly believe we live in the Reign of God age, and in doing so, we are kings and shepherds of the world, but not kings akin to the rulers of the Old Testament, nor shepherds of animals. It is my firm belief that our only option to teach the world is pure peace, love and charity. If we walk away from those 3 teachings, we quickly succumb to the worship and support of a mortal king to drive our lives, rather than the Immortal King who provides grace, love and charity through our hands, minds, mouths and bodies./Preterist

Digg this article

Businesses generally do well with more of equity finance than other sources of financing and refinancing. Those who need instant investing can go for credit loan. Individuals now a days want home-based jobs and most of them want to start home based internet business on their own. Because of this even 0 credit card are in demand.

Posted in QuickLinks | No Comments