Anarchy: Rules without rulers; the doctrine of abolishing all compulsory, tax-funded government. Crime would be dealt with through the free market as private agencies offer judicial services based on consumer preferences.
Minarchy: Minimal rule; the belief that civil government rightfully exists to protect individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Law enforcement, courts and military are valid government services.
Statism: The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy, usually including the acceptance of welfarism and militarism.
If you adhere to a minarchist view of civil government, a statist has probably accused you of being an anarchist at least once in your life. This accusation is totally unfounded but it still happens. For example, let’s say you submit an argument against wealth redistribution, the income tax, the drug war, or militarism. Instead of your opponent offering an intelligent response, they jump to the conclusion that you oppose all government and want it all shut down. This is a straw-man fallacy used with the intent of smearing your reputation. This has happened to me in private discussions and you’ll probably see this happen in the news media against limited government politicians. Statists have a hard time defending their views with morality or constitutional law so they try to refute minarchy by attaching an illegitimate stigma to it.
Likewise, if you defend the institution of civil government at any level whatsoever, anarchists often classify you as a mindless, do-whatever-the-government-tells-you-to-do statist. Lest any readers think I am exaggerating, anarchist blogger Per Bylund writes:
“From a point of view of principle, statists are all the same. As a principled anarchist, I cannot stand shoulder to shoulder with a minarchist against government. In fact, I refuse – because I know that when push comes to shove, the minarchist is like any other statist. He will not hesitate to pull the trigger on anyone with a principled opposition to government.”
In my observation, both statists and anarchists fail to address the issues raised by limited government proponents and instead make accusations from both extremes. We are anarchists to the statists and statists to the anarchists. There is no room for balance or a middle ground. Each one has their respective philosophies for believing what they do and each one has many Christian advocates. But what is the biblical view of government? Does the Bible promote anarchy, minarchy, or statism?
I believe God reveals to us a minarchist view of government. This doesn’t mean any one form of government is absolute (monarchy, constitutional republic, etc.) At God’s direction, Israel had different forms of government throughout their history. But no matter what form of government was in place it’s proper function was to execute justice against criminals. God gives judicial authority to humanity after the flood in Genesis 9:6:
“Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God he made man.”
Here we see the death penalty enacted for murderers. They take away innocent life, therefore their life will be taken away. Romans 13 reiterates that civil rulers function under God’s authority to “punish evildoers.” Contrary to statism, the Bible never gives them the authority to control the economy, provide welfare, or to start prohibitions against raw milk. Justice is the focus. And contrary to anarchism, God wants justice to be dispensed according to his standards, not by competing agencies that rule from their own subjective opinions.
Additionally, localization is a principle of biblical government. Moses is instructed to elect judges to rule over groups of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens (Exodus 18). Israel was decentralized into twelve tribes and each city had their own elders who were responsible for making judicial pronouncements (Numbers 33:54, 34:13-29; Deuteronomy 16:18, 21:1-4, 22:18-19). This was God’s preference even during the time of the kings (Deuteronomy 17:14-20; 2nd Chronicles 19:4-11). He judged the citizens of Babel for isolating themselves into one body politic (Genesis 11:1-9); he destroyed Abimelek for elevating himself above the elders of Shechem (Judges 9); and he judged King David for wanting to centralize the Israelite militia (2 Samuel 24; 1 Chronicles 21:1-17, 22:7-8, 27:24, 28:2-3). Since men like to abuse the authority God gives them, decentralization is a safeguard against tyranny.
Statism and anarchy are unbiblical positions. Yet, God provides us with a middle ground. This is consistent with his exhortation to live sober, temperate lives (1 Corinthians 9:25; Galatians 5:22-23). He doesn’t want us to be thrown about from one extreme to the next. As we explore the views of anarchy in the weeks to come, it is my hope to show that justice can only be achieved by a government that is limited by the Word of God.
Click for more in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5
<>
Or how about a ‘jurisdictional’ form of government? One limited by the jurisdiction given in Scripture?
Vaughn, yes, I believe “jurisdictional” is a great term to describe the biblical principles of government. Both in its size and scope.
One huge aspect that needs to be addressed is the way in which the overreach of government has so diminished the proper jurisdiction of the family. I find modern Christians, even very conservative ones, have no idea of what the Reformers, for example, thought the Scriptures said about the jurisdiction of the family.
Thank you, this was informative and in line with my own thoughts on the matter as well.
Thanks for sharing, Libera! Many blessings to you.
I think you are a little confused about anarchocapitialism. You said several things that indicate you are confused and do not have a solid foundation.
My suggestion to you is to read more about it. Your arguments against it also highlight that you have not thought a lot about it. I have a feeling you will figure it out. Most minarchist do. (it takes about 6 months assuming you have average intelligence, and I think you have at least that).
I hope my remarks don’t sound condescending as I once was confused like you.
I can give you one hint Romans13:3-4. (not to mention the 10 commandment, might help a bit)
Also, read Fedrick Bastiat book–The Law. That should help you. If that still fails then checkout my site http://www.lysanderparks.com
After you do that, I would like to help you undersand why padeocommunionism (the philosopher doug wilson) unbibilical.
Now that I have offended you, I would like to say I like your blog. It is better than mine.
later,
lysander parks
Lysander Parks,
Thanks for the comments. I tend to agree more with Bastiat, Mises, etc as well.
Now what is this anti-Wilson stuff?
This is great! So you didn’t buy his analogy? I am glad that people like Rothbard and Bastitat
argument hold stronger weight then this less than powerful arguments. The analogy about the island almost me, but not quite. (let’s not be condescending as it took us time to see t he light as well. We also made these silly argument)
“Now imagine that a shipwrecked crew ends up on the shore of the island…”
This article almost convinced that the initiation of violence upon innocent people may be moral.
He didn’t convince you when he said taxation is voluntary? He didn’t convince you when he said many government are not coercive? (maybe you can have him read-not just quote- from the anatomy of the state by rothbard.)
This is great. Keep talking to your friend. I can tell he is smart as he has this beautiful website (and many other good articles). It took me a few months as well. It takes people time to connect the dots. All we can do his help him along the way. I have no doubt that he will do it soon! I am glad that you have already seen the light! He initiation of violence is always immoral! Let’s be patient with him. There is much propaganda to confuse people.
I want to give you a hug Mr. Macias. Thank you for taking a firm stance with me, Rothbard, and Bastitat to not initiate force upon the innocent.
By the way–
I am not anti-Wilson; I am just pro reformed. I am am pro-Bible. I do not fully understand all of Wilson views (it is difficult to as he is always changing definition to fit his arguments(. However, federal vision (in the CREC) teaches works righteousness. They (some) deny the imputation of Christ righteous. They (some) define faith as faithfulness. These views in ways contribute to the non biblical(and non reformed) view that babies need to take part in communion.
Let focus on the positive! You understand the errors of minarchism! Please tell me more about how you came to see the light.
Mr. Parks, I’m sorry to ruin your impression of me, but I am not an anarchist. Then again, I don’t believe you can obligate a person to an arbitrary time-table to convert to a particular philosophy and then judge their intelligence by their failure to comply. So, I certainly am an anarchist when it comes to your rules. (It’s all about context, right?)
As I’m sure you know, Bastiat and Mises were not anarchists, and I am unaware of anything I’ve presented that makes me a statist in comparison to them. Of course, I have never said all taxation is voluntary (or moral for that matter); nor have I denied that governments in general are coercive; nor have I promoted the initiation of force against the innocent. These are misrepresentations of my series.
If you, or my colleague Steve, would like to critique my position I welcome the interaction, whether via comments or blog responses.
The Constitution was signed by a few rich white men. The Indians, women, minority groups, and hardly any white men where consulted. Would Christ have taken part in the murder and genocide of the red man? What about the theft of Mexico from the Mexicans? Of the slavery imposed on the black man? Would he have misquoted Romans 13 to justify this.
Government is acceptable as long it accomplish two things. #1) Is not a terror to the good. #2) Punishes the doers of evil. This means anything of a positive law nature is illegitimate (conscription, etc)
Are you really comparing your island story to a social contract of government? Do you really think I morally have an obligation to pay off the national debt? I had nothing to do it with it. I had nothing to do with the many wars of aggression by the US. I had nothing to do with the murder of millions of innocent people.
The Constitution is a Utopian idea. If you give one group all the guns, they will not remain small. Minarchism does not work and never has. It is always wrong to take other innocent people’s money by force. It does not matter if a group of special people claiming to be the state says it is ok.
Your analogy of the kids on an island is very weak. You described a situation that is completely moral. The Children must comply with the rules if they want to inherit this small little island. They are actually guest. They are not being transgressed against. Are you familiar with homesteading?
The people that want to also live on the island have no authority what so ever! If you come to my house and follow my rules you are only doing something a good guest ought to be doing! This is not a contract. This is not analogous to the generational debt and slavery (inflationary taxes) that we are being forced to pay due to the military industrial complex’s defense of corporate interests. Democracies always steal from the unborn. The US government is the best case example if this. The government claims it is “national defense”. When in reality every one of its wars defy the minarchist the Constitution and Christian just war theory.
The US has more prisons than any country in the world. The US is a total police state. They do not care in the least about #1)not being a terror to the good #2) Punishes the evil doers or #3) the Constitution
Key questions for you:
A. Could you please tell me one government in the world that was not based on sin? That Christ would have supported (in general, he would not have to support every detail)? (I am assuming that you believe Christ would not support genocide)
I am assuming you will give me no such example. So I leave you with this easier question
B. Could you please offer me a hypothetical example that illustrates your ideal moral government? I know you support violence on innocent people (you believe Romans 13 demand that some individuals have the right to do this if they were a uniform and claim to be the state), so could you please highlight the morality of this in your hypothetical example. Please do better than your last analogy. This is make believe so I am sure you can think up something if it really is moral to threaten innocent people with violence.
C. Why are you against government that is not based on violence?
By the way,
I may have come across condescending before. I apologize.
Thanks,
Lysanderparks.com
Mr. Parks, I have neither the time nor the interest in refuting objections to arguments I have never made. The only portion of your comment that has any relevance to my series is the part where you critique my island analogy (which can be found in part five for those who are reading along). However, you completely miss the point of this analogy. It has nothing to do with social-contract theory as such. The point of the analogy was two-fold:
1) To show that not every form of taxation has to be involuntary nor does every government have to have a coercive origin. The shipwrecked crew become more than guests as they begin taking part in the daily governance of the island, which is now their home. Governments can become coercive and taxes can become involuntary, but that doesn’t mean they were always that way or that they have to remain that way. Please consider the government that God himself instituted during the Old Covenant (which is the entire basis of my series, by the way). Are you suggesting that your God is the initiator of an immoral agency?
2) To show that only God has absolute freedom. We have no say in where we are placed in history, who our parents are, etc. We have all inherited some form of government that we live under. This doesn’t mean we can’t try to change our situation, but we must remain humble. Don’t play the victim. Don’t become so arrogant to think you deserved a say in the events of history leading up to your birth. It doesn’t work like that. God hasn’t given you that option.
I find it odd that the one aspect of my series you critiqued was the least significant reflection I presented. The island analogy is not the foundation of my argument; any weakness it may have does not refute my position as a whole.
[…] is theft depends primarily on what God has authorized governments to do. It’s clear that God has authorized the institution of civil government for the purpose of executing justice. Apostle Paul even calls civil rulers “God’s […]
[…] given territory (Lev. 24:22). This certainly sounds like a monopoly, although it coincides with the biblical principle of decentralization. A biblical system would have multiple jurisdictions, each with civil rulers who apply God’s […]
[…] for more in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part […]
[…] for more in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part […]
[…] for more in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part […]
[…] for more in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part […]
[…] for more in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part […]
[…] for more in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part […]
I am responding to the comment you left on Jan 07, 2014 @ 23:11:47. The blog does not have a “reply button” I hope this reply is delivered to the right spot.
I have two points.
A. If a government is “voluntary”, then this is actually an example of anarchy. I am asking respectfully: Did you know that? I respectfully add the following: I assume you know that as you are making reference to anachocapitialism and Rothbard.
There are many examples of this! Church government, husband and wife relationship, ebay, etc. If these were non voluntary, then this would not be anarchy! If a man hits his wife or rapes her, then this is not voluntary. I am against this as an absolute. If a government in non -voluntary but based on “might makes right” and force (initiation of force), then this is an example of the “state”. My question is do you support both of these forms of government? I only support the form that is not based on the initiation of violence. (the government can not be a terror to the good, and it must punish the evil doer vs. the government can violently rule over the non willing and (for argument sake) we will assume they are punish the evil doer (but not themselves).
Please do not miss this point. I am not saying you have, but could you please confirm you agree?
B. If taxation is voluntary, then people like Rothbard have no problem with this! I do not either. We call that a contract. So if taxation is voluntary (no anarchocapitialist would say that), then this is moral. If taxation is based on the initiation of force, then this is immoral. I support voluntary interactions only. I do think forcing innocent people to pay for what you want as moral.
This is also key! What is the definition of taxation? You are welcome to change it, but please understand this is not how Rothbard understands taxation. To him (and very anarchocapitialist), taxation by definition is not voluntary! If it was then this would be an example of what I called voluntary government.
About your island example, if you are now saying the point was to prove God is Sovereign then I agree! I did not know that was the point of your title. I agree that God is in complete control. I feel glad that you agree this has nothing to do with anarchocapitiailism.
Thanks for not addressing every issue and only the key ones.
IN summary, the two key words need to be defined to have a good conversation. What is government? What is the State? What is taxation? What is a contract?
Could you please confirm your definitions so we can identify if we agree?
Also, We agree God is All powerful, and that this is not a key point of the discussion as we both agree.
Thanks for the analogy though even if it is not related to the topic your blog; thanks for the response.
Also, may I copy this blog to my website: http://www.lysanderparks.com. I will references your site.
[…] series in which I interact with the ideas put forth by Adam McIntosh in his article series at The Kuyperian Commentary. In Part 1, I discussed the large degree of agreement there is between us. In Part 2, I interacted […]
I support the Commonwealth Republican model of government. We have democratic elections, limited government, and separation of powers between the legislative and judicial/jurist branches of government.
[…] Article in question is titled “Biblical Government: Anarchy, Minarchy or Statism?” and was written by Adam McIntosh, a former missionary kid, and currently a pastoral intern […]
The lesson learned from localism and Israel is that it did not work.
God gave set up a mechanism for divorce. The take home lesson is because God allows a thing, does not mean it is either right, or part of His will.
Unless God has a progressing view on justice Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God he made man.” is a permission for self defense.
To conclude that men did not kill men before Gen 9 is an error. God had to mark Cain to protect him from being executed for his crime against his brother Able.
Later on in Romans 12 we told that Vengeance is God’s and Christians should not seek it. Many proponents of Roman’s 13 forget that a Christian government is forbidden from exacting vengeance.