I've been wrestling with a vast response to K's last comment on the "
Against IP rights" post, and I realized that it just comes down to a few questions. We'll start with just one.
Do you believe in freedom of association? (That is, that a person ought to be free to associate with whom one will?)
So that this is not too drawn out, I will add another question:
ReplyDeleteCan the ends justify wicked means?
Not in an unlimited sense, no. Generally, sure, but I can recognize all kinds of limitations to freedom of association. Prison, parental restrictions, medical restrictions, etc. Also, I don't think it always has a moral component. That is, I don't think it is necessarily immoral for one's freedom of association to be restricted.
ReplyDeleteYour second question is simpler. The answer is "no".
I'm not precisely certain where you are going, but perhaps it will save time if I remind you that I find virtue to be a higher good than liberty.
To word it better: Is virtue coerced truly virtue? Conversely, does free will owe its existence to a divine plan that we choose to force our neighbors to God's will against their own?
ReplyDeleteIn its effects on others, coerced virtue is quite like uncoerced virtue, though not perhaps identical. (It surely does not inspire people to virtue in quite the same way, for example.) And, sometimes, I think forcing our neighbors to God's will against their own is the best policy. I tend to prevent people from hurting me and my family even when they want to. Perhaps these potential assailants aren't as truly virtuous as they would be freely choosing not to hurt me, but many general effects are identical.
ReplyDeleteTo cut to the chase at the expense of rhetoric, a virtuous man and a vicious man may live side by side, but where one forces his neighbor to behave as though virtuous, there are two vicious men.
ReplyDeleteIf you find virtue a higher good than liberty, what about grace? Is virtue a higher good than grace? What about humility? Is virtue a higher good than humility?
Grace and humility *are* virtues.
ReplyDeleteAnd so is liberty. So why indulge in false dichotomy with one and not the others?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, where does Christ convey on His followers the authority to compel others to follow His teachings? And how many times have those who have usurped such authority wound up compelling not His but their own teachings?
No, liberty is not a virtue. It is a reward for the virtuous. We don't praise people for being at liberty the way we praise people for being gracious or humble. We don't praise people for not placing any restraints on their children the way we would for them being kind to their children.
ReplyDeleteI'm fairly open-minded on the topic of whether Christians can legitimately participate in government; I haven't thought that one through in detail. But I think it's pretty clear that the state is legitimately able to coerce virtue in some degree.
Romans 13:3-4
"We don't praise people for being at liberty"? Maybe we should. Rather, I think you try to divide virtues in a way that God and His prophets never have. That is, if you want to take love and separate it from purity, then a fornicator who sincerely wishes the best for his mates could be virtuous in that way, but it is not really the case when we take virtue holistically. The same with kindness without restraint robbing its object of his strength: virtue needs to be all virtues, or it is none. So it is with liberty. If you love others, live a life of purity, and praise God with your lips, but do not have liberty, you've missed the point of Christ's death, and it is of no benefit to you (Galatians 5:1-2). In fact, one can hardly point to a verse in all of Galatians that does not uphold this point. Of course, this is not referring to the liberty that is granted by a government choosing not to coerce its people, but to the liberty of people choosing not to submit to coercion. Both are good, but one is a virtue and the other is usually beyond our means to possess.
ReplyDelete"But I think it's pretty clear that the state is legitimately able to coerce virtue in some degree"? Clear from what? Has it been decided that virtue coerced is true virtue after all, or are you using "virtue" as shorthand for "virtue-like behavior"?
Romans 13:3-4 should not be taken out of context. "No authority exists except..." or "There is no authority except..." what? Nazis? Leninists/Stalinists? Colonel Gaddafi? This last one brings up an interesting thought: is the TNC illegitimate because Gaddafi was from God, or legitimate because they themselves, having seized power, are now from God? A more sensible way of understand Romans 13 is that Gaddafi (like Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Nero, and countless others) has no authority, because authority is only from God, and in verse 3 we see that those who do good have no fear of authority, but receive praise from those with real authority. Would you say that this means that those who are men after God's own heart have no fear of authorities even when they are evil? Even though such an interpretation is clearly incorrect, look at David: he feared Saul (and Achish), so apparently even those after God's own heart are sometimes afraid of those who claim authority illegitimately. Rather than praising those who did right, Nero, Hitler, Stalin and Mao jailed and killed them. No authority.
Romans 13 even has the libertarian non-aggression principle as its tenth verse, i.e. the law is to "do no wrong to a neighbor."
Other Scriptures, particularly the words and example of Christ, have us submitting even to the authorityless authoritarians, but not because of anything to do with them, but merely for our own spiritual benefit (1 Peter 2:12-25, particularly verse 20), which is surely canceled out if we have been participating in, working for, or voting for tyranny, as far too many of us have in America.
Furthermore, the ethic behind submitting to unjust punishment from what the world calls an "authority" is found in Matthew 5:39, which, if read literally, prohibits you from acting according to your tendencies as described in your August 2 comment above ("I tend to prevent people from hurting me and my family even when they want to.") On the contrary, K, do not resist an evildoer.
It is funny that you chose Romans 13, because that is arguably the very passage that most limits us from being any nonlibertarian political activist or voter.
Your comments remind me of the old Will Rogers joke about the Chinese statesman: On Too Long. (There's a joke that wouldn't be acceptable in polite society any longer.)
ReplyDeleteLook, if you want to be dogmatic about the definition of virtue being only that which proceeds from an earnest desire to do right, then sure, the state cannot coerce it (nor can anyone else). But, by the same token, you can have no certain knowledge about the state of anyone's motives so you can never be certain of the virtue or lack thereof in other people and, as a practical matter will have to settle for the limbs and outward flourishes; the state is perfectly able to compel great quantities of these. And even if it shouldn't, I think you said something about not resisting an evildoer a bit later on. Which leads us to my next point...
Your somewhat tortured exegesis of Romans 13 doesn't even comport well with your own later statement. You should not recognize evil authoritarian governments, not participate work for or be in any way complicit in their tyranny, but also not resist evildoers? Which is it?
Frankly, I'll opt for a bit more consistency and acknowledge their authority while still doing all allowed to me to resist and mitigate their evil effects. Those who do good need have no fear of authority because whatever betide the justification with the ultimate authority is of greater significance.
Both the TNC and Gaddafi were/are legitimate authorities. Politics ought not to be too important to a Christian we are strangers and aliens who are merely passing through. Sure, vote for what's right when you can, but you're not called to reform the government, you're called to love your neighbor and witness to the unbelieving.
Was Rahab the prostitute virtuous? She was a prostitute and certainly a "fornicator" as you say. But she showed mercy and a fear of the Lord in rescuing the spies. So, which is it? You tell me that God and the prophets never divided virtues that way, so she must either be virtuous or not. There is no middle ground.
David did fear Saul, but he also recognized his legitimate authority despite Saul's disobedience of God. How many times does David refuse to harm Saul because he is the Lord's anointed king?
Look, I'm completely in the dark about how this relates at all to IP laws. So, unless you tie this in (and combine it all, since two comment threads from a month ago is too much to follow), I'm done here.