The movement toward centralization of power under political mediators is a rejection of God.[1] Decentralization is less archist, and more salvational [re: health, wealth, welfare, victory, etc., cf. #41].
Notes
1. Judges 8:23; 1 Samuel 8:7; Judges 9
References
1 Samuel 8: The State as Rejection of God
Rushdoony on The Implications of 1 Samuel 8
Thomas Paine on 1 Samuel 8
Common Sense by Thomas Paine
I SAMUEL 8 - David Boaz
The argument here is not just against monarchism (one archist), but against all archism, such as oligarchy (small group of archists). Archists are gods, attempting to bring salvation. See also, James B. Jordan, "Appendix E: Salvation and Statism," in Law of the Covenant: An Exposition of Exodus 21-23 pp. 240-242.
A Political View of Life
The goal is to move away from earthly archists.
What is an "Archist"
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
You quote Thomas Paine, the Freemason-adjacent deist, as if he understands the meaning of 1st. Samuel chapter 8? This is the same man who supported the French Revolution.
I agree with the basic understanding of 1st Samuel 8 in favor of a natural social order of judges rather than submission to a singular king. However, Jesus Christ's kingdom of Heaven is the prophesied and eternal return and fulfillment of the Kingdom of David. So it is clear that we live under a monarchy currently, though it is a very hands off one.
The real question is what should we do now until Christ returns to earth and reigns from a New Jerusalem on a renewed Earth? I think Karl von Haller's medievalist political philosophy is the best answer to that question. He argues for a natural social order of reciprocal duties and services given the natural inequalities of man. The weak naturally seek out the strong, the ignorant the wise, and the poor the wealthy, and in return the strong, wise, and wealthy receive their support and loyalty.
Paine was also a "creationist" of sorts, so that puts him miles ahead of everyone running today's "public" schools. I'll take help from whatever quarter. Luke 9:50
Darwinism and the Founding Fathers
Maybe Haller and Paine were both initially attracted to bad ideas. Haller read Abbé Sieyès, one of the French Revolution's leading early theorists, and admired aspects of constitutional liberalism. He even traveled to Paris in 1790 and attended the Fête de la Fédération, the great festival celebrating the Revolution's first anniversary. I can appreciate some of his criticisms of big government, but I'm not sure how he would have received my ideas of "patriagora."
"Maybe Haller and Paine were both initially attracted to bad ideas" - yes Haller as a young man was a Protestant and a liberal, thanks largely to the spirit of the times and place in which he grew up in Bern, but as he saw how the French Revolution unfolded, and how the Protestant Reformation was a precursor to it, he converted to Catholicism and renounced the pseudo-philosophical errors of liberalism (Hobbes, Lock, Kant, Rousseau, etc.).
I don't think Paine ever renounced his support for the French Revolution. Wasn't it he and Burke who were the most famous opponents on the issue?
I don't know about Burke, but I think both Paine and Jefferson were disappointed with how the Revolution turned out, even though they supported the initial goals.
Post a Comment