I disagree, even though I have not read all the responses here. Does not the scriptures tell us "do you not know we are going to judge the word,....do we not know we will judge angels" God created man to have the ability that once he knew and understood the concepts and precepts of His Kingdom, man would be able to come to a "righteous" decision based on the Word of God. Our judgment would be exactly as God judgment would be, because they are based on his laws. How boring, and agitating it is to constantly tell somebody what to do when they should already know after a certain amount of time of learning what to do. Anybody ever experienced that in their job when training someone?
Democracy vs the Kingdom of God - Two opposing Systems
- Thread starter Angela888
- Start date
Thank you deeply for the kind complement
In order to explain the phrase “Strictly Liberal State,” please allow me to explore the term “Liberalism” properly since every main-stream media institution in our country is making a mess of it, and is prone to drag the term “Liberalism” through the endless muddy quagmires of wretched Socialism to give it a new meaning. I will soon think it possible that the media will become immensely embarrassed to keep these terminological perversions in place; for the truth weighs heavier still.
Liberalism
1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2.
a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
b. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
There is a raging terminological dichotomy running amuck in our great nation, which would kill out the true meaning of “Liberalism.” For many in ignorance would declare that a “Liberal” is to be a “Socialist,” yet nothing could be further from the truth. Let us with wisdom take all media terminological perversions and cast them them down-wind and breathe in the historic accuracy for the term "Liberalism." For “Liberalism” in its first four hundred years represented every ethical principle our country was founded upon. Let us set the terminological record strait and call “Liberalism” what it truly is, “The ethical defence of individual liberty which condemns all violent despotism.”
For it was the Great Classical Liberal Tradition that began five hundred years ago moving the minds of the old Spanish Scholastics in the School of Salamanca for an economic ideology for liberty. Liberalism then later moved the Dutch to establish their Golden age of free markets. Liberalism also provided ethics for the Levelers in the English Civil war to rebel against a tyrant in England. Liberalism was the inspiration of the profound book “Two Treatise of Government” written by the Classical Liberal John Locke. Liberalism moved in the hearts of Christian pilgrims to seek refuge in a new world where they could worship freely. Liberalism moved the hearts of the Sons of Liberty to toss over-board a boat-load of compulsory tea. Liberalism caused a meeting to take place in Philadelphia where members of a Continental Congress were emboldened to “Declare our Independence.” It was Liberalism that inspired and even pressured Madison to add our ethical Bill of Rights to our second ratified Constitution.
Thus can we agree that Liberalism is not wretched Socialism as the media would have us all believe but instead is a political philosophy to achieve “Individual liberty?” Though Liberalism is not positive political action in of itself, it does provide societal ethics which is also compatible to scriptural Natural Law. Thus let us agree on the contrasting differences regarding a modern “Social Liberal” and a proper “Liberal (also called a Classical Liberal).”
Strictly Liberal (philosophic distinctions for law and application)
Thus if possible I hope I have pulled the term “Liberalism” from the Socialistic mud and have washed it off to show its virtue, and now will differentiate the terms “strictly” from “arbitrary.” For John Locke in “The Two Treatise of Government” would draw a distinction using the term “arbitrary,” yet the terms “strictly Liberal” was a mere mention from the incredible Liberal economist Ludwig von Mises. Both liberal contributors would then defend liberalism in regards to life, liberty and property in their own ways, yet both of their contributions manifest to ethical considerations in the law.
For if the law is to be “arbitrary” then “arbitrary legalized violence” is possible, yet if the law is “strictly liberal” then arbitrary violence is “always condemned.” Meaning, that if the law is to become “arbitrary” then it will abandon strict ethics to immorally solve societal rescues. Yet these rescues which are arbitrarily engaged, resolve to ambiguous morality, unjust fairness and managed safety. If the law is “strictly liberal” then the law is tied securely to “strict ethics,” and is unable to rescue society with ambiguous morality, unjust fairness and managed safety. For its in these rescues of ambiguous morality, fairness, and safety that all corruption, and legal-plunder is formulated. For the rescue is predicated upon securing an illegitimate socialistic “strong man” to plunder some in order to rescue others. Thus a socialistic strong-man will with violence offer a myriad of proposed good things, yet all these good things require violence to the innocent, as liberty is eroded with force with every legislated rescue.
Philosophically, “Strictly Liberal law” or “clear reactive law,” simply reacts to the trespass of life, liberty and property, or in other terms, actions that constitute sins of aggression. Thus law that is Strictly Liberal may not arrest a person for eating too much sugar, or another for succumbing to personal addiction. Can it be reasonable for us to agree that “arbitrary law” or said differently “ambiguous compulsory law” can arrest anybody for anything, as a society absent of knowledge will empower illegitimate authority to legalize arbitrary violence on a whim? For Natural Law from creation gives no man, no woman, no institution and no government the approval for arbitrary violence. Thus “Strictly Liberal” law is ethical and “arbitrary law” is immoral.
State
I believe its possible that a “State” can exist as a decentralized organized political entity that remains benign and constitutionally restricted to engage in any arbitrary law. I believe a “State” can simply exist as a geographical region of people who would organize with human cooperation and institute “clear reactive law.” I believe morally that the “State” is to never function outside the boundaries of “clear reactive law” regarding life, liberty and property. For I see this a scriptural maxim.
I also contend that this is not far from what our U.S. founders put in place regarding “life” and “liberty” but failed to do so regarding “property.” Thus I believe in a “strictly liberal state,” which is void of all “ambiguous compulsory law,” or “arbitrary law.”
We may agree on the concept of parties?
What do you call a "political party" that is void of legal advantage, compulsory regulatory advantage and compulsory political protection?
A grass roots movement that is able to vote "freely" for anyone they wish.
Yet in your decision to delegate all control to "departments," how would you ethically maintain such a system? For despotism runs wild in every agency now?
Yes, you have "pulled the term "Liberalism" from the Socialistic mud" for me. Then I can agree totally with you regarding what you wrote because I too, have equated Liberalism with Socialism, due to mainstream media's portrayal of Liberalism. Now that you defined what Liberalism historically means, I am reminded of George Orwell's "double-speak" perversions of definitions from the various "ministries" in that society.
Your knowledge of history is extensive!
I see this "managed safety" becoming more pervasive in our society EVERY day! The nanny-state mentality is destroying our culture, freedom and innovative spirit; especially among our young.
Yes, it is absolutely reasonable for us to agree on the concept and definition of "strictly liberal law".
Great Fiction, I have never given much thought to the idea that the founders of the U.S. possibly made a fatal mistake when not including property with life and liberty. However, upon reflection, and knowing how access to our federal lands is being restricted from the people and even how personal property/land is being confiscated for various trivial reasons, I see that this "loop-hole" is taken advantage of by socialistic liberals, and Inow recognize why it has been so difficult for us to stop them.
Do you have any thoughts on how we, as Americans, can put up defenses in our Constitution to counteract this? By amendment?
I feel I am on the brink of something here...
PS Your erudite writing skills are profound, IMO, and I am overwhelmed that you would take so much time to help me understand. I thank you again!
Though my knowledge of history may be adequate for the occasion, your kindness for complements, and prudence to exchange for mutual benefit exemplifies the very nature and station we as Christians should all strive to embrace. I also find the knowledge on this forum extensive and am humbled by it. I also find it even more fortified with your contributions.
I am also an immense beneficiary pertaining to the Orwellian premonition. I will agree quickly that it was Orwell who delivered wide understanding of “double- think (speak)” and our nation is suffering from it terminologically in more ways than one can count.
Let us ponder what these words meant “originally in history?”
Liberalism
Progressivism
Conservatism
Libertarianism
The political Left
The political Right
I find all of these terms victims of double-speak, sometimes to conspiratorial plots and sometimes to ignorance in the media. Sometimes with some commandeering a political strategy, and others to mix in confusion.
I agree
What is the difference between a contagion and a catalyst? Can we agree that a contagion moves from one host to another without permission using infectious violence against the body, and a catalyst will spark a “reaction” for the mind and spirit. When a Christian political faction moves to force a country to good works, it becomes like the contagion that will infectiously contaminate the “law.” For the law infected to pro-actively force good works is like an excellent tractor driven by a despotic mad-man who crashes through the farmers house killing all inside; thus the tractor was meant for farmers. For ethical reactive law is also like a fire used for any persons good utility, but proactive law created by despots thrash natural rights to peices and drive a country to despotism, no matter how good the law is. Can the church only support ethical reactive law?
What is the strategy to restore Godly liberty in a nation? To simply promote the “ethical” application of Natural Law delegated by God, which provides Natural Rights; then also realizing that this precedent in our understanding will differentiates the “innocent according to Natural Law,” from the “righteous in Christ.” For though the adulterous was a “sinner” she was still innocent under the delegation of Natural Law; thus Christ defended her so from those who were despotic to cast stones. Those who supposedly were righteous were violators of Natural Law using violence to secure a good end; yet the adulterous was only guilty of sexual sin. Thus God should be her judge and not man.
Is it possible that in the last two thousand years the church has failed to differentiate personal sin from despotic sin? For one of these Christ defended from the other. Thus can this differentiating factor be “promoted” to ensure that the church does not reap what it sows. For violence sown is then reaped in abundance. Where is the church regarding the “law?” I should say let ever church come together and embrace a “harmless reputation” where we advocate for the non-despotic sinner, and example Christ with obedience.
I am simply unqualified to offer you a personal or church strategy, yet only suggest the precedent of ethics, and that it should be publicly embraced with a loving strategy. For the catalyst is potential for every church that stands publicly to harmlessness regarding the law.
It is my incredible pleasure
So, it is your take that any strategy put forth by Christian or unbeliever to change the politics of the day, will ultimately degrade into another contagion-type policy due to the imperfection of man's devices and attempts to make things better? Unless the Natural Law catalyst is at work to fight "principalities, powers and...spiritual wickedness in high places", then the fight is a moot question?
I have to admit that Eph. 6:12, Col. 2:15, and Titus 3:1 are all saying the same thing you are saying. The bigger picture requires trust in Him (and His sovereign power) and guidance by the Holy Spirit, and godly obedience.
Great Fiction, there is a dispute in the forum thread titled "What would You do?". The debate is covering self-defense and what Jesus was talking about when He said to turn the other cheek. Knowing how you feel about Natural law, would you agree or disagree with self-defense if an attacker were threatening your life (and not for reasons of martyrdom). Please give your reasons, whatever your answer. I will be very curious how you feel and very appreciative of your time.
Please allow me to differentiate two things, “involving oneself in the political process” from “becoming a political entity or supporter of those that would organize to political means.”
I do not condemn political involvement per se (in of itself), but would condemn all “unjust” law that consumes almost all political systems as these political initiatives will trespass life, liberty and property on every side. Politics is saturated with those who would organize to “force” a trespass for something good using despotism, which will end in an evil resolve. I do not condemn politics per se, I condemn despotism that is prevalent within it.
For a strictly liberal state using just law is ethically compatible with scripture; thus “to change our politics of the day” we can engage the political process if ethics are to drive a just and a dutiful effort. Thus the “ethical method moves the political system.” Participation in the political process itself is not wrong in my personal assessment as long as “ethics” drive decision to peacefully remove all despotism. For this ethical stance is in essence spiritual warfare in scripture. For things that manifest in the natural manifest also in the spirit.
Thus Natural-Law-ethics is better than contriving politics and all politics without Natural-Law-ethics is immoral.
I could not of said it better C1oudwatch3r
I believe in self-defense from scripture and would enjoy participating on the suggested thread
I don't like parties
or voting.
I think if you pass at school, because all decisions need to be made by someone educated to at least think, however a lot of uneducated people get wise so some mechanism would need to be in place to put them on the list, and a lot of educated people are just plain dumb,
your name would go on a list, it would be removed from the list if you committed a crime above petty things.
Every four years a random list would be generated for government appointment for a four year term, you wouldn't have an option
to not do it, it would be like jury duty or army service. Lazy people who don't want to vote are probably some you do want to be given responsibility.
Government must be about transparent accountable administration
without the 'entertainment' value as currently attached to it by the media.
I actually had a similar idea for an election system.
Basically, there is a preliminary election where you vote for a party.
The legislature is then apportioned based on the results of this.
Then whatever party you voted for, you are now placed in a voting district to elect a representative for the party.
After this, the legislature forms a coalition and chooses the head of government.
This way, you have no gerrymandering, no misapportionment, and you never get stuck with two candidates you don't like, since all candidates will be roughly similar to your ideology.
In its broadest definition, a party is a group of like minded individuals or conglomeration of groups with common political views. Sometimes one political issue will cause a less cohesive union of members to join for the greater cause of advancing their agenda.
Sometimes a threat from a common enemy will cause a marriage of natural opponents, much like the Democrats and Republicans joined together on 9/11/2001 and sang "God Bless America" as one unified "party". I'm sure there was some teeth grinding going on, what with having to join in a patriotic song with their sworn political enemy.
As to who would define these parties, I believe natural association would cause people to join together under a party platform. We have history to look at to indicate how parties form. The hard part would be to find a way to distinguish the four or five parties from each other. Using planks from current platforms and the major subsets of current politics, we could form party platforms to accomplish the desired system.
We have historical subsets of parties with generalized platforms from which to create a proposed system. In the U.S., we have Democrats who have been considered the liberals or now the preferred "progressives". Contained in this party are the big government/more taxes group, the pro-choice group, the NAACP/civil rights group, the government control of healthcare group, the "accept my morality" group, the anti-gun group, the religiphobic group, and so on. Republicans generally have the conservatives and the "government should leave me alone" groups. Within these are the pro-family, pro-religious groups, the pro-life group, the lower tax group, the "get the government out of the way" group, the individual should take responsibility group, the "follow the constitution" group, and so on.
Subsets have been often described as five groupings: the liberals-goverment is the answer to everything group (socially and economically liberal); the socially conservative but economically liberal group; the economically/ aka fiscal conservative but socially liberal group; the "right wingers" fiscally and socially conservative group; and the libertarians. The libertarians generally want the government to stay out of all social issues, (gay issues, abortion, drugs, gun control, etc.)
Under these party platforms, voters could make a better choice as to what they want their government to do. Too often candidates blur the issues and try to win on charisma and "who they are".
Thank you for the more accurate presentation of the justification for an electoral college.