by
cavalier973
“Ghetto-trained, low-church fundamentalist”
“That image of the Christian fish turned into an anarchist symbol? I drew that”
I have observed over the years that people believe what they want to believe, and they don’t believe what they don’t want to believe. This applies to me, as well as to my fellow people. I am a fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christian, which means that I take the Bible (the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon, at least) as authoritative, and try to interpret it “literally”, which means to read and understand each passage in context. As an aside, all my quotes from Scripture in this essay will be using the New American Standard Bible, 1995 version. Because I’m American.
In addition to defining myself as a fundamentalist Christian, I also generally hold to a Rothbardian understanding of the state: that it is a fundamentally evil and unnecessary organization that lacks moral authority. I do not reject all authority; there are, in my opinion, legitimate sources of authority, such a parent’s authority over his child, the employer’s authority over employees, a land owner’s authority over visitors, and God’s authority over His creation. This rejection of state authority, however, puts me in an awkward position when meeting with my fellow Christian fundamentalists, who hold to the idea that a “bad state” is preferable to no state at all. That is what I was taught in my youth. There are passages of scripture, as well, that can be used to make the argument that establishment of a state is God’s plan for humans.
I will begin with listing a few of these, along with the arguments which I was taught. I want to emphasize that I am not making an argument for anarchism in this essay; I will also not attempt to describe the practical implementation of an anarchist society. I am merely presenting my thoughts on what the Bible says about the state. I further note that the arguments against anarchism are used by the same state-loving people to argue against libertarianism, so this essay might be interesting to people who reject anarchism, but believe that state power should be limited in its scope.
The following scripture passages are ordered based on the emphasis they get when discussing the topic of the state with Christians. I begin with Romans 13:1-7, which says:
“Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them; tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.”
This is the primary passage used in support of the existence of a state (or “government”, which is the term that people normally use). I will give further thoughts on Romans chapter thirteen later, but I acknowledge that it is a challenging passage to reconcile with an anarchist philosophy. The next passage is from 1 Peter 2:13-17:
“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.”
The next passage is from Paul’s letter to Titus. Titus 3:1 says:
“Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men.”
Paul, in 1 Timothy 2:1-4, gives instruction to pray for political leaders, but I am not including it in the passages used to support the existence of a state, because the passage does not contain a command to submit to political authorities. We turn next to Jesus of Nazareth, Who, when presented with an opportunity to denounce the Roman overlords (which would get Him in trouble with the Romans), or to take the stance of a quisling (which would cause His followers to abandon Him), chose option “c”. This is the account in Matthew 22:15-22:
“Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said. And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, ‘Teacher, we know that you are truthful and defer to no one; for you are not partial to any. Tell us then, what do you think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?’
But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, ‘Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites? Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.’ And they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them, ‘Whose likeness and inscription is this?’
They said to Him, ‘Caesar’s’
Then He said to them, ‘Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.’”
In other words, you are obligated, by God, to pay your taxes (according to state-supporting Christians). So far, I’ve only quoted from the New Testament. There are a few additional arguments from Christian state-supporters that come from the Old Testament. This next passage is from Genesis, and is interpreted as the point at which God founded human government as an institution. The flood of Noah had dried up, and God was giving Noah instructions on how society is supposed to work. He tells Noah that all animals can be used as food, but that killing a fellow human being requires the death penalty. Genesis 9:6:
“Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.”
The next Old Testament passage used in support of a state is from the Book of Judges. This is the last statement in the book, but it is said more than once throughout the book. The context is the cycle of Israel falling into idol worship, followed by judgment, followed by Israel crying out to God for deliverance, followed by God restoring Israel to His good graces, followed by their falling into idol worship, and so forth. Judges 21:25 says:
“In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”
Other arguments from the Old Testament rely on the practical acknowledgement that states (nations ruled by kings) existed in Old Testament times, and that therefore states must be part of God’s plan for human society. God is involved in picking who will be king over any nation, according to Daniel 2:20-22:
“Daniel said, ‘Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, For wisdom and power belong to Him.
It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men And knowledge to men of understanding.’”
God influences how kings will reign, according to Proverbs 21:1:
“The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes.”
King David is given quite a bit of honor throughout the Old Testament; “a man after God’s own heart”. Subsequent kings were measured by how closely their reigns matched David’s.
Therefore, since the Bible says that God picks kings, and influences them, and since there was at least a good king in David, people naturally assume that a nation being ruled by a “good king” has always been God’s ideal.
These were the beliefs I held in my youth. Then, I discovered the writings of Ludwig von Mises, which led me to Murry Rothbard, and my beliefs about the state began to change. Being reared in a Party Republican household, I had always held to the political philosophy that state power ought to be limited, but I never, that I recall, considered the idea that the state should not exist at all, and would have given anyone claiming so a wide berth. Now that I see things differently, how do I reconcile what I was taught the Bible says about the state, and the arguments against the state that I find persuasive?
I will begin in Genesis. There is no mention of a king or kingdom prior to the flood that Noah survived, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. Cain is said to have built a city (Genesis 4:17), after murdering Abel, but it doesn’t say that he built a kingdom, or ruled over anyone. Still, arguments for a state usually run along the lines of “God, seeing that allowing people to live according to their consciences didn’t work out prior to the flood, implemented the institution of human government after the flood so that certain crimes, especially murder, could be dealt with and punished.” Only, God doesn’t say anything about organizing a state, or appointing a king, or electing a parliament, or establishing any other organization that is solely invested with the power to punish crime. The preceding verses add context to the verse in question. Genesis 9:1-7:
“And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. As for you, be fruitful and multiply; populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.”
This is Genesis chapter nine, verses one through six. What I draw from this is that capital punishment is a family affair. My understanding is that if your brother murders someone, it is your responsibility to either execute him yourself, or capture him and turn him over to the victim’s family. No state is necessary. The Mafia is more Biblical than the United States Federal Government. Perhaps I should move along.
I would like to next look at the passages that mention kings and kingdoms. The first mention of a kingdom in Genesis 10:8-12, which reads:
“Now Cush became the father of Nimrod; he became a mighty one on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, ‘Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.’ The beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went forth into Assyria, and built Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir and Calah.”
I want to say at this point that mention of a “nation” doesn’t necessarily mean that a passage is talking about a “kingdom”. People groups are not the same as the governing authorities over them. I will return to this point later. Notice that the first city mentioned as part of Nimrod’s kingdom is “Babel”, which is probably the same city as “Babylon”. In the next chapter, chapter eleven, we are given a fuller treatment of Babel, with the discussion of the attempt to build a tower to heaven, and God’s subsequent act to stop the building by changing everyone’s language. The way I read it, the establishment of Babel was an act of rebellion. The first kingdom was an attempt to thwart God’s will that humans spread out over the earth. In addition to that,I find it interesting that the first Not a good start for the kingdom industry, in my opinion. In addition, I find it interesting that the first kingdom mentioned in Genesis is also the last kingdom to be mentioned in Revelation, Chapters 17 and 18, where Babylon’s ultimate destruction is described.
At the end of Genesis chapter eleven we are introduced to a guy named “Abram” and his barren wife named “Sarai.” In chapter twelve, God approaches Abram, tells him to leave his homeland, and that God will make Abram’s descendants a great nation (not “great kingdom”).
Abram becomes a wealthy and powerful man. Abram is respected by the surrounding peoples. Abram serves God breakfast. Abram has no overlord. In fact, when, in chapter fourteen, a coalition of kings attack another coalition of kings, and wind up taking Lot, Abram’s nephew, hostage, Abram assembles his Abramic Avengers of three hundred servants, chases the kidnapping kings, defeats them in battle, and rescues his nephew. On his way back home, Abram is visited by an enigmatic character named Melchizedek, who is described as the “King of Salem”, and who is also a priest. King Melchizedek brings Abram and his men food and wine; I haven’t verified this, but I understand that it was several days’ journeying from Salem to where Abram was. At the end, Abram pays Melchizedek “tithes”, but it doesn’t mention that he pays “taxes” to Melchizedek. Abram also refuses to take tribute from the King of Sodom. Abram is truly an heroic example to all of us who believe in a stateless society.
I will need to flip back and forth between passages for my next observations. Considering the statement in Judges, about there not being a king in Israel, so everyone did what was right in his own eyes: I have seen at least one libertarian-leaning person attempt to interpret this as people doing the right thing, living their lives in accordance with God’s Law. However, the entire Book of Judges argues against this. The examples given about “men doing what is right in their own eyes” are sordid stories, with one story describing the death by assault and subsequent mutilation of a man’s concubine, and the consequences, which involved the near elimination of the Tribe of Benjamin.
At the end of the times of the Judges, the people of Israel were exhausted by this system of governance, and began clamoring for a king. Samuel, the most recent judge, was displeased with the request, but God heartily approved, because now the people would no longer be able to do what is right in their own eyes, and as a result dismember concubines and try to kill off other tribes. Finally, there would be a king to keep people on the straight and narrow.
Wait; that wasn’t God’s response. 1 Samuel 8, the whole chapter:
“And it came about when Samuel was old that he appointed his sons judges over Israel. Now the name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judging in Beersheba. His sons, however, did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after dishonest gain and took bribes and perverted justice. Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, ‘Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.’
But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, ‘Give us a king to judge us.’ And Samuel prayed to the LORD. The LORD said to Samuel, ‘Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.’
So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king. He said, ‘This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and his servants. He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work. He will take a tenth of your flocks and you yourselves will become his servants. Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, ‘No, but there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.’
Now after Samual had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the LORD’S hearing. The LORD said to Samuel, ‘Listen to their voice and appoint them a king.’ So Samuel said to the men of Israel, ‘Go every man to his city.’”
Well, okay then. It is obvious, to me, that Israel’s asking for a king was a form of rebellion (possibly mimicking the rebellion at Babel?), and was compared by God to idolatry. The Christian statists point out that, “No, God always wanted the nation of Israel to be ruled by a king; look at Deuteronomy 17:14-20!” I will not quote the passage in full, but here are verses fourteen and fifteen:
“When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,’ you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.”
I read one commentator who tried to reconcile the Samuel and Deuteronomy passages by asserting that the Israelites mentioned in First Samuel were not asking for a king with the right spirit; they were asking for a king so that they could be like the other nations. However, the Deuteronomy passage mentions the reason for asking for a king would be so that Israel could be like the other nations. In any case, Israel got the king that God had Samuel anoint: Saul son of Kish, of the Tribe of Benjamin (the one that was almost wiped out in the Book of Judges). I am spending a lot of time on this, because it is, in my opinion, a key passage concerning the subject of the state. I move past the story of King Saul defeating the Ammonites, to First Samuel chapter twelve, where Samuel addresses Israel for the last time, warning them to serve God even though they now have a king. As an aside, the situation is clarified a little more in chapter twelve; the elders weren’t just unhappy with Samuel’s sons, but were also worried about the Ammonite army attacking them. At the end of the chapter, though, Samuel prays to God to destroy the wheat harvest as retribution for asking for a king. 1 Samuel 12:18-20 (it begins with Samuel speaking):
“‘Is it not the wheat harvest today? I will call to the LORD, that He may send thunder and rain. Then you will know and see that your wickedness is great which you have done in the sight of the LORD by asking for yourselves a king.’ So Samuel called to the LORD, and the LORD sent thunder and rain that day; and all the people greatly feared the LORD and Samuel.
Then all the people said to Samuel, ‘Pray for your servants to the LORD your God, so that we may not die, for we have added to all our sins this evil by asking for ourselves a king.’
Samuel said to the people, ‘Do not fear. You have committed all this evil, yet do not turn aside from following the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart.’”
I note the repeated emphasis on how asking for a king was a wicked thing for the people of Israel to do. I also note that they already had a system of authority that derived from the people, themselves. It was the elders of Israel that approached Samuel and demanded the king. God told Samuel to listen to the people. God told Samuel to listen to the people. God wasn’t happy with what the people were saying, and He punished them for their decision, but I make the inference that the people generally had some sort of authority, as a group, that God recognized.
I should probably point out that the endless cycle of “idolatry, punishment, and redemption” that characterized the era of the judges disappeared with the appointment of a king. From this point forward, it was mostly a perpetual fall into idolatry, until God sent Israel into exile. Saul didn’t exactly lead the people into idolatry, but he didn’t follow instructions, and so was rejected. David was, Biblically speaking, a good king, but he wasn’t perfect. Solomon built the temple for God, but by the end of his life, he was filling it with pagan idols, which led God to split Israel into a northern and southern kingdom. My understanding and belief is that turning to pagan idols wasn’t a matter of simply changing philosophies, but involved a lot of very wicked activities, such as child sacrifice, and sexual immorality, which were not things that the people of Israel were supposed to do.
This First Samuel passage should cause any statist Christian to pause and think about what God really commands, but, the very few times I tentatively put forth this argument, it was decidedly denounced and roundly ridiculed. Oh, well. For me, it’s highly instructive. The whole point of this passage is that, as I see it, having a king prevented Israel from properly serving God.
There are a few other Old Testament passages I want to consider, before I move to the New Testament: passages dealing with the land sabbaths of Israel, the eternal destiny of kings, life in the promised kingdom, and the division of non-Jewish nations (not kingdoms).
My next observation is heavily based on inference, and concerns Judah being sent into exile for seventy years, a length of time which 2 Chronicles 36:20-21 attributes to the people not celebrating the “land sabbaths”:
“Those who escaped from the sword he carried away to Babylon; and they were servants to him and to his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it kept sabbath until seventy years were complete.”
This is in reference to a command of God to allow the land to rest every seventh year. Leviticus 15:2-7, says:
“Speak to the sons of Israel, and say to them, ‘When you come into the land which I shall give you, then the land shall have a sabbath to the Lord. Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard and gather in its crop, but during the seventh year the land shall have a sabbath rest, a sabbath to the LORD; you shall not sow your field nor prune your vineyard. Your harvest’s aftergrowth you shall not reap, and your grapes of untrimmed vines you shall not gather; the land shall have a sabbatical year. All of you shall have the sabbath products of the land for food; yourself, and your male and female slaves, and your hired man and your foreign resident, those who live as aliens with you. Even your cattle and the animals that are in your land shall have all its crops to eat.”
This would work, God said, because He would cause a triple bounty of harvest every sixth year, so that they would have something to eat during the seventh and eighth years. The point I’m driving at, though, from the passage in Second Chronicles, is that a seventy year exile because the land sabbaths were neglected indicates that for four hundred and ninety years Israel didn’t keep said land sabbaths. Looking at a Bible timeline, I see that the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon occurred around 586 BC. Four hundred and ninety years prior to this event brings us to around 1076 BC, which, according to the several Bible timelines I looked at, is around the end of the time of the Judges and the beginning of the times of the kings. For most of the era of the Judges, therefore, the people who were “doing what was right in their own eyes” were keeping the land sabbaths, but there was no period during the age of the kings where the land sabbath was kept. Turning to Isaiah 14, I see a description of the fate of the King of Babylon, who might be Nebuchadnezzar specifically (that isn’t likely, though), or might refer to the last king of Babylon, or the Anti-christ, or possibly Satan, or all of them at once. After describing God restoring the people to the land of Israel, and the rejoicing of the earth over the fall of the king of Babylon, Isaiah 14:9-12 says:
“Sheol from beneath is excited over you to meet you when you come; it arouses for you the spirits of the dead, all the leaders of the earth; it raises all the kings of the nations from their thrones. They will all respond and say to you, ‘Even you have been made as weak as we, you have become like us. Your pomp and the music of your harps have been brought down to Sheol; maggots are spread out as your bed beneath you and worms are your covering. How you have fallen from heaven, o star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, you who have weakened the nations!”
Most people focus on the strong hint that this passage is talking about Satan, but I want to point out that “all” the leaders of the earth are in hell to greet him. An objection can be made that, this being a prophetic passage, one shouldn’t take it that literally every king winds up in hell, and I’d have to agree. King David, I think, is an exception, along with a very few others. Or, it might be argued that the passage is only speaking poetically of the legacy of kings; though they all eventually die, the king of Babylon can’t even expect a decent burial. Even if I am incorrect in my interpretation about this passage letting us know the eternal destiny of kings and other political leaders, the point is that, for all the glory that is given to kings (see verse eighteen of chapter fourteen), they aren’t given the same sort of deference by God.
The prophet Isaiah also foretells a time when things will be quite nice. Chapters eleven (the “wolf will dwell with the lamb” chapter) and sixty-five especially focus on this prophesied time. In chapter sixty-five, it describes life in this “kingdom age”. Isaiah 65:21-23 says:
“They will build houses and inhabit them; they will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They will not build and another inhabit, they will not plant and another eat; for as the lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of my people, and my chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands. They will not labor in vain, or bear children for calamity; for they are the offspring of those blessed by the LORD, and their descendants with them.”
This golden age will be characterized as a time without taxes. That’s how I read it.
I want to next swing back to the Book of Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy 32:8, Most Bible translations (including the New American Standard Bible, 1995) say this:
“When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. For the LORD’s portion is His people; Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance.”
That’s how the Hebrew in the Masoretic text reads. In the Septuagint, however, and in the copies of Deuteronomy found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in the English Standard Version, instead of “according to the number of the sons of Israel”, it reads “according to the number of the sons of God”. This different translation will lead me to draw some conclusions later in this essay.
One final passage about governmental rulers I would like to bring up is Psalm 146:3:
“Do not trust in princes; in mortal man in whom there is no salvation.”
I’ve now spent quite a bit of time discussing references to kings in the Old Testament passages, but what about the New Testament Church? Surely Christians have a mandate to support the state, based on the passages I quoted earlier. I will consider those that I quoted in reverse order to how I posted them.
First, though, I will point out the only passage that directly challenges the right of authorities to compel someone to do something (or to not do something, as in this case). Acts 5:29:
“But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’”
This is a very narrow stance, since the apostles were preaching Jesus, and had been commanded to stop by religious authorities, not by state governors. It would be stretching the passage beyond recognition to try to use it for anarchist or libertarian-style objections to state power.
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” is sometimes coupled with a complaint that Jesus didn’t let us know what things belonged to which authority. However, from the context of what He says, the “things which belong” to someone are the things that bear that someone’s image. Silver coins bore Caesar’s image, but human beings bear God’s image. We ought to give ourselves to God. I would add that someone could peacefully pay his taxes without believing that the state is a necessary, God-ordained part of human existence.
Paul’s message to Titus seems to me to be a similar practical stance in a world governed by states. “Don’t make waves; pay your taxes; do good deeds.” The same is also true of Peter’s admonition. In fact, Peter adds the “act as free men” to his counsel, in the context of being subject to rulers. I’m not claiming that Peter is telling his readers to fake it, but this passage, as well, doesn’t really support the idea that the state is a God-ordained institution.
It is Romans chapter thirteen that gives the greatest argument for the existence of a state. It is almost the antithesis of First Samuel chapter eight. Reading through the glowing praise that Paul seems to give to the state causes me considerable agitation, and the chapter would be the one passage in the whole Bible by which I could possibly be persuaded that the Bible contains errors, due to how false it seems. It isn’t the exhortation to do good and avoid evil that is troubling, it’s the description of the state, and those that inhabit it, as “agents of good” who are “continually seeking to do what is right”. This is obviously false, regardless of which nation’s government one is discussing. If this section of the Bible is wrong, then what other sections can I no longer trust? There isn’t really any sugar-coating it, either. Paul lays it on thick, and doesn’t stop, and knowing how Paul was arrested, and executed by the state, for preaching the Gospel makes his seeming adulation cringe-worthy. For a fundamentalist Christian, like me, it’s even worse, because I believe that God “told” Paul to write this.
The standard of interpretation that I have adopted is tripping me up. Some might gloss over the passage as allegorical. Some might say that the passage no longer applies to us, today. If I were Martin Luther, I would relegate Romans chapter thirteen to the appendices (like he supposedly did to the entire Book of James). I do not allow myself those options.
How then do I reconcile? Is it possible? Is there any way I can weasel out of accepting this passage at face value?
Statist Christians will argue that the state is a good, Godly institution, as long as it is doing good, Godly service, like it is supposed to do. When has that ever happened, I wonder. By its very nature, the state is violent and rapacious. Rather than restraining violent chaos, a state most often instigates it.
I’ve seen some libertarian-leaning Christians try to argue that this passage is talking about religious authorities, not state officials, and the argument is intriguing, but I will need to study it more before I find such an argument persuasive.
I’ve seen others suggest that Paul, because he was writing to the church in the empire’s capital, wanted to protect them from charges of insurrection and treason by putting this in his letter. “See, Mr. Caesar? We Christians don’t want to overthrow your government!” This seems to make Paul deceitful, somehow, suggesting that Christians “might” overthrow Caesar, if ever they get the chance, but until then, they keep their noses clean.
The best I can manage, at present, is to take the practical view that I take from the writings of Peter and from Paul’s letter to Titus: Paul is telling us in Romans chapter thirteen to avoid living an unruly life, but rather live as a disciple of Jesus, and we will largely be ignored by the state. A Christian does not have the option, in my opinion, of engaging in violent insurrection. The Church was given the mission to share the Gospel and to disciple believers, not to take over the government and make sure people behave themselves. There are instructions for evaluating whether or not a man is fit to be a deacon or a bishop, but no instructions for whether or not a man is fit to be governor, or king.
When two of the disciples try to get a special recognition of honor from Jesus, the other ten disciples get grumpy, and Jesus chides them. Matthew 20:25-28:
“But Jesus called them to Himself and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His live a ransom for many.”
Mark 10 has the same story. In Luke 22:24-26, the disciples are arguing again, and Jesus had to remind them again that the Church had a different heirarchy:
“And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest.
And He said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called “Benefactors.” But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.’”
The Church wins outside the political arena, and this brings me to Paul’s counterpoint to Romans chapter thirteen, that being his letter to the church at Ephesus. Anyone who was into the “qanon” movement will recognize this passage, which is Ephesians 6:10-12:
“Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
See that word, “powers”? It is translated from the Greek word ἐξουσία (“exousia”) It is the same word used in Romans 13, where it is translated “authorities”. In Romans 13 we are to be subject to the powers, but in Ephesians 6 we fight against them. Why is Paul being contradictory?
I argue that he isn’t. He is talking about human government in Romans thirteen, but spiritual authorities in Ephesians six. Who are these spiritual authorities? This is where I reveal my belief in a spooky “conspiracy theory”, and point back at Deuteronomy 32:8. The nations’ boundaries are set according to the number of “the sons of God”, that is, angelic beings, that God ordained to be overseers of the non-Jewish nations. In the Book of Daniel, mention is made of “the Prince of Persia”, who prevents the angel Gabriel (possibly the same guy who appeared to Mary, mother of Jesus) from delivering a message to Daniel. Gabriel mentions that “the Prince of Greece” is on his way (presumably to thrash “the Prince of Persia”). Spiritual beings that have some sort of authority are mentioned by Paul in several places, which I will reference, but not quote: Romans 8:38, Ephesians 1:21, Ephesians 3:10, Colossians 2:15. 1 Peter 3:22 also references “angels and authorities and powers”, indicating forces in the spiritual realm.
Is Paul really suggesting that Christians submit to these spiritual authorities? I don’t think so. We can’t see them; we can’t possibly know, much less obey, their dictates, even if they had some sort of authority over people. Also, Ephesians chapter six describe them as being wicked, so their policies would be wicked, as well, and Paul, in Romans thirteen, describes the “authorities” as being ministers of God, for good.
But “ministers of God” is not a valid description of the human-led state governments that we can see and hear, either.
I laugh at people who try to tell me that there are contradictions in the Bible, and then talk about whether there were one or two angels at Jesus’s tomb on resurrection morning. “Amateurs,” say I. This “Samuel versus Paul” thing is a true conundrum, for me.
My current interpretation is that human “government”, if it derives from the people (remember that God told Samuel to listen to the voice of the people), isn’t evil, as long as it isn’t permanent. Think about a community that is dealing with some crime; they may create an ad hoc tribunal to investigate and prosecute the criminal, which they disband after the trial. The dark spiritual forces, mentioned in Ephesians six, tempt the members of the tribunal to perpetuate and expand their authority, against the will of the people, and create a state. That’s the best I can do at this time.
For a non-Christian, this essay is probably a little like listening to me vociferously complain for a very long time that my sibling says that our dad’s motorcycle was teal, when I know for a fact that it was turquoise. For a Christian, this issue should not be overlooked, because it can inform how he interacts with society. Support for acts of unspeakable evil has been given because “the government is a good institution, established by God”. Suspicion of some policy is abandoned, because “the government, after all, is ordained to punish evil, and reward good”, and suffering resulted.
Knowing, however, that state actors are being influenced, if not outright controlled, by dark spiritual forces, should put a new perspective on things, for the Christian.
The weapons of a Christian to fight spiritual evil are fittingly spiritual, and the Christian is commanded to pray for spiritual protection for the people who exercise state power, so that he may lead a peaceable life. He is not commanded to destroy human government; Jesus will do that, at some point. 1 Corinthians 15:23-26:
“But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death.”
After Jesus was baptized, He went to the wilderness, where Satan tried to tempt Him. There were three temptations of Christ, and none of them involved Mary Magdelene, who was not a whore. One temptation involved turning a rock into bread, one involved throwing Himself off the top of the temple. The third one involved worshipping Satan for political power. Matthew 4:8-11:
“Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, ‘All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me’
Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.’
Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.”
There is a parallel passage in Luke 4:5-8:
“And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, ‘I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours.’
Jesus answered him, ‘It is written, “YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND SERVE HIM ONLY.”’”
Notice what is claimed by Satan: all the kingdoms (not “nations”) of the world belong to him. A bold claim, but Jesus doesn’t refute Satan’s claim. It is logical to infer, then, that all governments belong to Satan in some way. Also, I imagine Jesus was thinking, “Why would I worship you for a system I’m ultimately going to destroy?” (See the 1 Corinthians 15 passage, again).
But what about the assertion from Daniel 2 that God removes kings and establishes kings? Well, in my opinion, God regards the state similarly to how he apparently views polygamy. It isn’t in accordance with His original plan, but there’s nothing in the Bible specifically prohibiting it. Humans are stubborn, God decided to work around some of our unwise choices.
I am a sorry sort of anarchist, I suppose. I follow the commands from Romans thirteen, and First Peter chapter two, and Titus chapter three, to be subject to the state, to pay my taxes, and I have the command from First Timothy to pray for political leaders. I do not seek to overthrow state government and replace it with nothing. The main difference between me and a statist Christian is that, if the current state were to dissolve, I see no Biblical mandate to start up a new one.
To sum up, I feel no compulsion, and see no command in the Bible, to give idolatrous worship to the state, the power of the state, or personalities in the state.
Thanks for the interesting article. I get parts of it, like this:
What I draw from this is that capital punishment is a family affair. My understanding is that if your brother murders someone, it is your responsibility to either execute him yourself, or capture him and turn him over to the victim’s family. No state is necessary. The Mafia is more Biblical than the United States Federal Government.
Goes back to taking accountability. But I see this as being where anarchy will fail. Most people just don’t have this in the nature or moral/spiritual compass. The brother may have 100 friends. Or 1,000. Or 10,000. Essentially their own warlord run-state that decides they want your women and possessions. I don’t see how this can be countered without some sort of minarchist state like a citizen militia.
cavalier973 that was very interesting, and also educational for me. Thank you for the effort you obviously put into the article.
I second this. A lot to chew on. Our ancestors weren’t stupid people, and being so close to the edge in so many ways gave them insights, I believe, that we don’t have.
One difficulty in applying Classical and pre-Classical texts to on what makes proper governance, etc., is that the “state” as we now think of it, basically didn’t exist at all. There were definitely rulers, even ruling families, and some of them even had a form of rudimentary bureaucracy, but the current nation-state would be almost completely foreign to them.
Word up on all of this. A massive undertaking for Glibs, and close to you.
It gave this irreligious person much to think about. Well-crafted and delivered. King’s to you.
Ill come back and finish, thats a lot of readin’ for a Thursday morning.
Time for disc golf,cheers!
Protestant canon – sounds like heresy to me but I’ll keep reading
Any culture or government is only going to be as moral as the people that compose it. The interplay of culture, religion and government is very complex. There is not, in my opinion, an effective way to untangle all of that. Perhaps the best we have is to look at the end result and apply our standards.
By applying my standard zero cultures or governments are civilized but I do find a few individuals who are civilized. Some cultures are more likely than others to produce civilized individuals. When it comes to government it does not appear to draw the more civilized people from a culture and in a lot of cases the least civilized.
In my experience ‘authority’ holds about as much water as ‘experts’.
*my standard of civilized = respect for self-ownership
For fun I will toss this in: We are in the shit mess we are in today because we have ignored the very sage advice of our founders: concentrating too much money and power will always draw the worst kinds of people like shit draws flies. It is a certainty. Dont do it.
A lot to absorb there. I do love to use Romans 13 against those professed Christians who rail against Trump and his followers. And it seems to me that all professed Christians who agitate for more government taxation and spending, in behalf of compassion, are thwarting the will of God that individuals be free to accept or not the commandment to be charitable.
“…professed Christians who agitate for more government taxation and spending…” otherwise stated as “Your property belongs to me.” It is the rationale of a thief.
As far as I can tell we here in America are the closest thing to a civilized society, at least some segments of it and the reason for that I believe is our christian value system. I am currently anxiously awaiting the arrival of a book discussing that very thing. I have always wanted to make a list of the role that christian values plays into our most important cultural and governmental institutions. I have made a couple of stabs at it but never a comprehensive list. Turns out that I dont have to. Someone else has done it for me.
Personally I think that it’s because we’re rich as fuck. Rich people can afford to be civilized. Poor people, not so much.
Valid as far as the taxation part goes. The “free to accept or not the commandment to be charitable” part is really just down to the nature of free will in Christian theology; you can choose to accept or reject Christ. From there, if you take the “accept” option, ask Ananias and Sapphira how voluntary Christian charity is.
>inb4 THEY’RE WEREN’T KILLED FOR WITHHOLDING, THEY WERE KILLED FOR LYING ABOUT IT!
They liquidated their land in the first place to comply with the church of Jerusalem’s abolishment of individual property. Yes, they were free to keep their land and be ostracized from the church, and decided to try to have it both ways. It still doesn’t change the fact that charity is compulsory if one decides to practice Christianity.
Samuel’s anti-government rant is one of my favorite passages in the Bible.
Also 1 Thessalonians 4:11
“that you also aspire to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you,
12 that you may walk properly toward those who are outside, and that you may lack nothing.”
I believe in that passage Paul is telling me to be self sufficient, not dependent on others or a government. Don’t put myself in a position of needing government.
the state: that it is a fundamentally evil and unnecessary organization – yet it strangely appeared everywhere
I further note that the arguments against anarchism are used by the same state-loving people to argue against libertarianism – which is rather irrelevant
Appeared everywhere, and as far back as humans exist. From tribal/clan type strongmen, to early kings, Roman democracy/empire to the American republic, ad nauseum, man has always had a form of government. And this is why I cannot countenance any form of anarchy: it goes beyond a fool’s errand unto a delusion as great as communism, and just as dangerous.
Thanks, Cav.
The variables in life are many. We each do what we have to do to make the ride less bumpy.
The Golden Rule seems to encompass much to make daily living easier.
To sum up, I feel no compulsion, and see no command in the Bible, to give idolatrous worship to the state, the power of the state, or personalities in the state. – there is a bit of in between this and anarchy though
cavalier, May I copy paste this to my brother? He is a fundamentalist, and libertarian (although not an cap) leaning, but is technologically challenged . He would find it interesting.
I suppose I should also ask TPTB’s consent.
nonsense. True Libertarians do not believe in intellectual property and I doubt the bible mentions it
I am not a libertarian. I am label averse, but I fall somewhere between minarchist libertarian and constitutional conservative most days, although I find myself entertaining Franco or Pinochet like thoughts after sufficient exposure to leftists or cosmotarians
Pie from the top rope!
Wait, you’re an author, how did you end up on his side?
how did you end up on his side – promise of eternal well not life but being
Am I on his side? I just commented on Pie’s snark.
My bible is copyrighted.
My thoughts on intellectual property are jumbled.
Money: The outgoing column in my bank account hates it. The incoming column loves it. I can’t afford to buy all the books I want and most aren’t at the library, but artists need to be compensated for their work. I say that from a philosophical point of view, not a self-interested one. And would I like to be able to pay my rent with my books? Sure, but I don’t expect it because …
Acclaim: Most writers just want to be read. Me too. There’s a line in my pirate book. Elliott’s brother and nephew are saying how much they admire him. Elliott protests, because he doesn’t feel admirable (because he’s a pirate, thief, smuggler, murderer, and a traitor [that part he doesn’t care about]), and his brother and nephew are both brilliant lawyers, and that books are written about men like them. His brother says, “Ah, but books about men like YOU [Elliott] are READ.” Some days I just want a decent sized fan base who will play in my imaginary world with me, converse with me about it as if I were just another reader who loves this Dunham world, and then I just feel privileged that they paid me to do it. Which brings me to …
Credit: I want it to be known that *I* made this work, and if somebody else put their name on it, that that is wrong and bad and evil.
AI: I don’t know what to think because AI isn’t exactly stealing my stuff. It’s being trained on EVERYBODY’S stuff. HOWEVER, I want to SEE WITH MY EYES my characters, so I’m learning to use the AI art generators to generate images of my characters and “sets” and clothes that I can SEE with my eyes. For someone who can’t do this herself and can’t afford to pay somebody, this is priceless. Being able to say, “Write me a story in the style of Moriah Jovan” isn’t a fun thing to contemplate, but I can’t write that fast and at least they know my name and love my stuff enough to want more.
Reality: Downloading ebooks for free, not being paid, not knowing if someone knows *I* wrote what they love, my work being used to train AI—that’s reality and I resigned myself to it long ago. I grieve, but it’s just a small tinge in the deepest parts of my soul sometimes.
And with menopause and the loss of my creativity, it’s like Moriah Jovan is another person I knew once and have since moved on from with distant, fond memories, which is the worst thing about the whole issue.
Great piece cav. I’d also place myself in the bible-believing Christian camp. Not sure about the “fundamentalist” part only because that word has a range of meanings. I’ve also ended up in the anarchist camp (theoretically; I see almost zero chance of it ever happening). That said, I’ve been everywhere from left of Bernie Sanders to Christian Reconstructionism and my basic faith hasn’t changed. So, while I think anarchism is most consistent with Christianity, I also understand how Christians can hold other political views.
Nice point about nations/people groups: translators are usually looking to match “intent” rather than word-for-word. So nation enters bible translations when it becomes a common word in general use.
On Paul & governments: I think some of this might be part of the prescriptive vs. descriptive argument. So, Genesis 3 on man working by the sweat of the brow and women suffering in childbirth, most Christians would take as descriptive rather than prescriptive. IOW, v. few Christians will suggest all men should work the land and women should not use painkillers during childbirth. I suspect Paul was making a similar point.
“When two of the disciples try to get a special recognition of honor from Jesus, the other ten disciples get grumpy, and Jesus chides them.”
We’ve become fans of The Chosen, and that series handles these human dramas very well. Last week we went to the theater to watch the latest episodes, which was great. It included a very pissed-off Jesus going ballistic on the vendors and money changers in the temple.
We are herd animals in general. We have a natural need to believe in saviors and magically chosen ones to lead us. The vast majority of mankind longs to be told what to do because they honestly dont know. The magic part is the rub. We need the magic to justify why one and not the other because the truth is we were all born the same: naked, screaming out head off and trying to figure out what the hell is going on around here. We dont get a practice run. We all have to bumblefuck our way through life on the first go.
*sigh*
I think most of us here are what might be called ‘outliers’. I am. Some of my favorite advice: Never defer to someone who has nothing to lose by being wrong.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/03/stellantis-idles-plants-in-mexico-and-canada-due-to-tariffs.html
Stellantis is pausing production at two assembly plants in Canada and Mexico as the company attempts to navigate President Donald Trump’s new round of 25% automotive tariffs, the company confirmed Thursday.
The Canadian plant produces the Chrysler Pacifica minivan and the recently released Dodge Charger Daytona EV. The Mexico plant produces the Jeep Compass SUV and Jeep Wagoneer S EV.
Making the world a better place.
Chrysler Pacifica – Ug Lee
They can’t sell what they’ve already made.
https://www.autoblog.com/news/dodge-slashes-12500-off-charger-daytona-ev
Half baked drivetrain software, huge two door car (exact size of the upcoming four door) and it weighs as much as an ICE Chevy Suburban. On the “plus” side:
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a61803674/dodge-charger-daytona-ev-exhaust-sound/
How much does it cost to rip out the drive train and…
Yeah, way too expensive.
They can’t sell what they’ve already made.
Tariffs! Oh no!
We must shut down production and RIF a bunch of workers.
How unfortunate.
In my book a muscle car has a powerful V8 ICE which excludes that term from being used to describe any EV. Don’t care how fast, how quick, how much low end torque or what kind of fake exhaust note they have.
no one needs more than 4 cylinders
HEY!
I *like* my Compass Trailhawk.
Good article, Cav! Love me some theology discussions.
Let me come at this from a [[[Mormon]]] perspective. One of our articles of faith reads:
This never sat well with me, even as a child, because Joseph Smith didn’t subject himself to the government, and in fact, the entirety of believers fled the country to keep from having to abandon polygamy (among other reasons), and the U.S. government sent the army after them and engaged them in Mexican territory.
Just recently, I was perusing LDS Twitter (🍿) and saw something that DID make sense to me, from a Christian perspective: We aren’t here on Earth to deal with the state or change/argue/fight it in any way. We’re here to make sure souls get back to the Father after death. Our business isn’t with the temporal; it’s with the eternities.
Nonsense upon stilts; I’d guess this was proffered by Norm Horn, whose nauseatingly self-satisfied mental gymnastics trying to reconcile Romans 13 with libertarianism are as vapid as they are theologically illiterate.
To be fair, Paul admitted to being deceitful and presenting himself in such a way as to pander to any given audience in 1 Corinthians 9:22.
Like cavalier973, I’ve wrestled with this as well, and come to a similarly disappointing conclusion. Not only is open opposition to the state not permissible within Christian doctrine, but in the event that the state were to dissolve organically and the church should become a self-governing institution, it would necessarily mirror the communism of the church of Jerusalem described in Acts.
The best conclusion that can really be drawn from the text is that the Christian shouldn’t concern himself with the state at all, submit himself to whatever government under whose jurisdiction happenstance has placed him, and be in pursuit of the spiritual only.
SGAmmo just sent their “beat the tariff” email. Along with some gloom & doom…
What proportion of ammo is imported? I thought that was one of the few things we still made.
Lots of the affordable ammo is from overseas.
From the email:
Quite a bit of cheap ammo is imported, but less than ten years ago. There have been several new domestic suppliers that have come online in the past few years – I personally just shot up a case of Ammo Inc. 9mm Luger in testing, and I liked it so much that I just ordered two more cases. Same with AAC 77gtn. OTM 5.56mm – at $500/case, I’ve been buying that stuff in preference to surplus M193.
We will probably see some knock-on effects from increased commodity prices, but the precise effect of that kind of thing is tough to predict.
Quite a lot. Norma, Aguila, S&B and Magtech are all Imports IIRC. It would not surprise me if other cheap brands were rebranded imports.
And Belom is Croatian and has the best reusable boxes, bar none.
Tariffs on UK now being 10%, my Eley might go up a bit, but not enough to make me worry. Also, I tried CCI’s basic target .22, and was fairly happy with the results.
I generally like SGAmmo, but he does tend to bang the panic drums…
Nothing drives sales like panic buying.
I’m not going to hold it against them. They’re still on my approved list.
The gun market seems to be particularly vulnerable to proclamations of doom and gloom. I can’t possibly imagine why…
My sentiment as well. “They’re going to take away your guns” has made some people a lot of money. But the problem is that at some point, it will be right.
The gun market is particularly prone to this because it is a luxury item. When things get tight people stop spending on non-essentials. Guns are not only non-essential but they are expensive.
People stop buying guns before they stop eating out. They stop eating out before they stop keeping the lights on. Guns just happen to be the first on. the list of ‘I am saving my money’.
“Going to”, or have been doing everything in their power TOO do?
Not me, hoss. Well, maybe guns. I have all the guns I realistically can use, and then some. But I would (and have) stop eating out way before I cut back on my ammo consumption. Priorities.
What proportion of ammo is imported? I thought that was one of the few things we still made.
My ammo company got sold to the Czechs. The factories are still here, as far as I know.
no one needs more than 4 cylinders
That’s just silly.
Rowan Atkinson had a v16 rolls which is completely unnecessary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFqGBe5kIuQ
Great writeup, it encapsulates a few of the pieces I have talked about before. Well done. I wish I had more time to comment but work is on fire today.
I like inexpensive stuff. Whether it’s Russian 7.62 X 39 or a pair of blue jeans made in Bangladesh, as long as the price is right. If US based companies can turn out a pair of jeans for the same price I’d like that too. Unfortunately we seem to have wages too high to be competitive. Inflation is a helluva aphrodisiac.
I do appreciate that a lot of our lost manufacturing has spread out from China to friendlier locales like Bangladesh or even Vietnam.
My minimum standard is “Not China” though I favor “Made in the USA”
Hey, my super cheap, super baggy Red Kap jeans are made here. And I was very surprised by this.
I had you figured for 7.62x54R, not some intermediate cartridge.
Mosin’s are manly guns.
Wait just a damn minute ,Sean!
A dead deer doesn’t know the difference, even if it takes a 30 round magazine to do it.
🙂
“Urthona on April 3, 2025 at 9:54 am
You’re confused about what his goals are.
He[Trump] just thinks tariffs are good.
Trump fans are rationalizing that he’s trying to lower trade barriers.”
You may be right. I’ve heard Trump say it both ways, so who knows what he really believes.
Trump is a carnival barker whose constant patter is intended to draw attention to himself.
He also loves to antagonize his opponents by saying what ever will get them wound up.
EvilSheldon: You are correct. A lot of people are only moral because they can afford to be. Additional consideration – poverty is almost always self-inflicted.
Persistent poverty is almost always self-inflicted . . . . in the context of free society with the rule of law.
Tyrants are quite capable of forcing persistent poverty on the weak and powerless.
Reminds self to buy lottery tickets…
“poverty is almost always self-inflicted.”
I’ve always suspected that’s the case in probably 99% of situations. Every poor person I’ve known has either:
– Had a child without any long-term commitment, a home, or stable job
– Ran up massive debts on credit cards and payday loans
– Taken zero initiative to bring in more income or reduce expenses
– Spent all their money on drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, vacations, and other quickly-consumed things without making any effort to save
I’ve known a few poor people who didn’t fall into any of those, but they didn’t stay poor for very long.
I’d like to see some data on these types of decisions, but the Poverty Industrial Complex works pretty hard to maintain the narrative that poverty is a condition forced upon innocent, hardworking people by the cruel hand of capitalism.
Statistically it helps if one drops out of high school as well. Beat the summer job rush.
Story Time:
There’s this lady at church who is a single mother who is obviously struggling financially. She had her fifth child with a man who isn’t in the kid or her lives and everyone was like….oooh what a blessing that you are having this kid. In my mind all I could think of was, you already have four kids that you could barely afford to take care of and now you’ve brought another child into the world adding onto yours and society’s burden because she’ll need more public aid.
Like I felt elitist and shitty for thinking that but at the same time sort of peeved because it’ll be hard for her to get out of poverty and her kids without some intervention will repeat that cycle.
Ed: yeah, I’d be seething at that. Fatherless kids have been a yuuuge disaster but you can’t talk about it because reasons.
And I can say that as one of four myself.
And let me preface this by saying she’s a nice woman but she’s an example of how poverty isn’t only related to how much money you have but also your ability to make good or bad decisions and what choices you make in life.
Related: https://hwfo.substack.com/p/real-talk-about-race-and-murder-rates
@ Rhywun
I remember during the 2012 Presidential debates between Romney and Obama when someone asked how we could lower the violence in the black community, and he responded that the black children need their fathers in their lives. The Left went apeshit when he said that and you had thought that he said that we need to put all the black children into woodchippers.
Relevant to our interests:
https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/02/wordpress-maker-automattic-lays-off-16-of-staff/
Hello option #3!
Europe cannot fathom what Trumpian America wants from it
https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/04/03/europe-cannot-fathom-what-trumpian-america-wants-from-it
“…parroting Kremlin talking points…”
I’m out.
From memory he did. Didn’t mean they weren’t true, however.
Europeans used to be proud of their diplomatic skills. They could just ask (we want fair trade) instead of having a hissy fit.
After returning from Europe people who had never been asked me how it was. “They have a shortage of everything. Except arrogance. They have no shortage of arrogance.”
I spent 5 years in France in the early ’60s. The arrogance was what I liked about the French. Any one that uses cow manure for insulation around the bottom of the house can’t be all bad in my view.
Stop treating us like your piggy bank. You’re welcome.
That economist thing is paywalled. Bummer.
*There was a time when I actually paid money to read the Economist. A looooong time ago.
https://archive.fo/qveUu
https://x.com/GuntherEagleman/status/1907855779916382431
And just like that, Canada wants to play ball now.
PLAY BALL, you say?
https://youtu.be/nmqozQWVpe8?si=1akhrMpVQE0Y30uO&t=106
And just like that, Canada wants to play ball now.
KNEEL BEFORE
Take a knee . . .
WTF? How did that comment submit itself (prematurely)?
KNEEL BEFORE
ZODTRUMP.Europhobes of this type see it as a flailing continent on the economic skids, one bent on demographic suicide, where the only people who enjoy free speech are Muslim extremists imposing sharia on a woke populace. For them, Europe is a cautionary tale: what America might degenerate into without Mr Trump’s “help”. This fantastical vision offers Europe no way to indulge America, short of handing over power to the likes of Alternative for Germany, a Nazi-adjacent party bafflingly admired by Mr Vance.
By George, I think he’s got it.
Eventually one grows weary of preventing the junkie parasite from OD-ing.
17% of Germans would consider defending their country. Maybe clear the cobwebs before bloviating any further, dude.
Without any certainty as to why they are loathed in Washington, Europeans are falling back on their old diplomatic instincts: keep engaging and don’t despair.
Try looking in the mirror, you pompous blowhard.
Remember when the Euro elite laughed at Trump explaining their dependence and engagement with Russia was dangerous and going to come back to haunt them?
Trump most certainly remembers.
I once ran across this monstrosity – https://journals.uclpress.co.uk/jbs/
There was a long unpacking of a paper written in support of inalienable rights where the critic claimed it was a valiant effort but a failure and thus by default all men are born into bondage to their fellow man.
I argue that there is no sound argument that some men are born more equal than others and so we invented God in order to manufacture divine rights from thin air.
*ducks and runs*
Thx for the link, Sensei. I should probably figure out how that archive thing works, since so many places are paywalling themselves up these days.
I think it’s because they don’t want unenlightened outsiders laughing at them. I mean, who takes those ostentatious simpletons at the Atlantic seriously?
I imagine all of their clicks are hate clicks. They are floated by Steve Jobs’ widow. the minute she stops paying them to print that leftist dreck they will be like a fart in the wind.
If Euros are so good at diplomacy, why didn’t they stop the expansion of NATO after 1991? Or protest Zelenskyy’s pro-EU and NATO overtures? Surely they knew that would cause a war.
I see no evidence their pols are more competent than ours. Brownie points for widespread bilingualism, I guess.
“Brownie points for widespread bilingualism, I guess.”
For an American that would be like knowing if you’d like to travel out of your state you need a common second language. It’s not exactly surprising.
Don’t forget the haughty, sternly worded admonishment
French President Emmanuel Macron called on Thursday for European companies to suspend planned investment in the United States after U.S. President Donald Trump announced sweeping global tariffs on American imports.
“Investments to come or investments announced in recent weeks should be suspended until things are clarified with the United States,” Macron said during a meeting with French industry representatives.
That’ll show us.