'Beast' Means Worldly Dominion
by Lloyd Kinder
LewRockwell.com
Incredibly to those of us who have long been blinded by conventional authoritarian tradition, the bible on closer inspection proves to be anti-authoritarian, which is libertarian. In the Book of James [1:25] God's Law, which is the bible, is called the Perfect Law of Liberty. See below Brother Gregory's elaboration followed by my own.
THE PRIME DIRECTIVE OF THE CHURCH
No one shall exercise dominion over others [from ARTICLE X at ww.HisHolyChurch.net]
by Brother Gregory
Mat. 20:25-27 But Jesus called (the apostles) unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over (their people), and they that are great exercise authority upon them. [26] But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; [27] And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Any organization, government, or trust that violates the prime directive (by exercising dominion as per Mat 20:2528 above) is not the Church, nor is it a part of the Church. (In the Church, most possessions) are entirely held in common for (Christ's) purposes by those remaining faithful to His doctrines and ordinances.
Mark 10:42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. [43] But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: [44] And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
Jesus wanted his called-out Church not to exercise authority, or bring people under power, but, like Moses, they were to seek to lead people to freedom under God. (In families and communities consensus decision-making was to be used, since this is the only way to make decisions without one person or group exercising dominion over others. Consensus means unanimous rule, which is not impractical, when understood properly [See Chapter 7: Walk in God's Ways]. Majority rule is domination of minorities by majorities and nearly everyone is in the minority some of the time. Quakers, i.e. Friends, are one of the few religions to have used consensus significantly. Evangelical Friends are also pro-life.)
Luke 22:25-29 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. [26] But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. [27] For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. [28] Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. [29] And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
(Benefactors means rulers, often called fathers in prior times, who give the people benefits in exchange for loyalty and services. Any person) assuming the office of Father stands against the teachings of Jesus. Jesus is talking (here) about government, not religion. He is using government terms and telling his people they are not to be like governments that exercise authority or dominion (over the people). He is talking about Rome and governments like Rome.
Ex. 20:2-5 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. [3] Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
(This was God's first commandment to his people, to have no other gods or rulers, but God alone. He called the Gentile system of Egypt a house of bondage, because the rulers exercised dominion over the people, not just over the Israelites. On the other hand, the rule of judges established by Moses did not involve use of force against the people, but the people had self-rule with ministers, who were their servants, acting as advisors.)
John 13:14-15 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. [15] For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
Serving others cleans us; dominating others defiles us.
THE BEAST IS ANY GOVERNMENT OR RULER THAT EXERCISES DOMINION
The previous section, The Prime Directive, showed that God's and Jesus' foremost commandment is that no one exercise authority or dominion over others, except perhaps as a last resort in defense of oneself or others. In this section, we'll review biblical references to beasts for further insight on this precept of peace.
2 Kin. 14:9 And Jehoash the king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of Judah, saying, The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife: and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the thistle.
The cedar may symbolize a steadfast, upright nation, the thistle a morally weaker nation and the beast a barbarous, ungodly nation.
Ps. 73:22 (King Asaph said) So foolish was I, and ignorant: I was as a beast before thee.
Beast here probably means one who uses brute force in human relations, especially in ruling others, as Asaph was a king.
Ps. 74:1314 (King Asaph said to God) Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. [14] Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.
Judging by the context, these great beasts may refer to formerly mighty, but ungodly, nations.
Ps. 74:1821 Remember this, that the enemy hath reproached, O Lord, and that the foolish people have blasphemed thy name. [19] O deliver not the soul of thy turtledove unto the multitude of the wicked: forget not the congregation of thy poor for ever. [20] Have respect unto the covenant: ... [21] O let not the oppressed return ashamed: let the poor and needy praise thy name.
The turtledove here appears to mean Israel, as a nation of peace. The beasts are the ungodly enemy nations or kingdoms ruled by brute force. Such kingdoms, or governments, may give benefits to citizens in exchange for loyalty, but they do not help their poor to become self-reliant.
Ps. 80:1315 The boar out of the wood doth waste (the vine), and the wild beast of the field doth devour it. [14] Return, we beseech thee, O God of hosts: look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine (Israel); [15] And the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the branch that thou madest strong for thyself.
The vine refers to Israel, any Godly nation. The boar and other beasts refer again to warring, ungodly nations.
Isa. 35:89 And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein. [9] No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there:
The highway is God's Way of Love, which includes the Commandments, which are commandments for loving God and our neighbors. The lion and ravenous beast are again warring nations ruled by brute force, not love.
Dan. 2:3744 (Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream, saying) Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. [38] And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. [39] And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. [40] And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. [41] And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. [42] And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. [43] And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. [44] And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
This dream predicted 5 great kingdoms from the time of Daniel, which are: Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, and Rome, the last being first of iron, under the Caesars, then of iron and clay, perhaps under the popes. And God's kingdom would smash and replace all of these kingdoms.
Dan. 7:17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. [23] Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. [24] And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
In his first vision Daniel seems to have foreseen the same 4 kingdoms or empires as in Nebuchadnezzar's dream. Here the beasts are clearly referring to brutal governments.
Dan. 8:2021 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. [21] And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
Dan. 8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.
In Daniel's second vision two of the kingdoms are named. The ram and goat are said to refer to Media-Persia and to Greece. The first king of Greece referred to seems to indicate Alexander the Great, who lived some 200 years after Daniel's vision. The kings who followed him were the Ptolemy's, I think, who divided Alexander's empire into 4 parts. These kingdoms are depicted as violent and brutal.
Titus 1:1213 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
This is a New Testament reference to beast and seems to mean what Asaph meant: a person, group, or nation, who uses brute force against others.
Rev. 11:78 And when (God's two witnesses) shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. [8] And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
The two witnesses may indicate two nations, such as Israel and Judea, since war is not made on individuals. The beast from the pit suggests a nation founded by Satan. The great city is shown to be synonymous with Sodom & Egypt, which are blamed for Jesus' crucifixion, suggesting idolatrous nations, like Rome. Idolatry would mean having rulers other than God.
Rev. 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
The dragon is another great beast. It behaves as one exercising dominion and seems genocidal.
Rev. 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
The sea sometimes means a populous area. This beast has the same number of horns and heads as the dragon, but has ten crowns, while the dragon has seven. The beast suggests again a government of dominion. The horns & heads may indicate individual kings of this government.
Rev. 13:1112 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. [12] And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
This second beast would be another kingdom using dominion, apparently coming after the first beast and allied with it. Coming up out of the earth or wilderness seems to mean from an unpopulated region. Lamb's horns may suggest having minor kings or rulers. Some say the second beast is the United States, because it originated in a wilderness.
The above biblical references to beasts support Gregory's view that exercising dominion, instead of granting liberty, is the main problem with conventional governments.
Luke 4:58 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. [6] And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. [7] If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. [8] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Ned Netterville says "Satan here claims ownership and authority over all of the kingdoms of the world, which Jesus pointedly does not dispute. This undoubtedly derives from all earthly kingdoms' abandonment of God as their lawmaker in favor of human legislators" (See his book, Jesus on Taxes at
www.jesus-on-taxes.com).
September 24, 2005
Lloyd Kinder [send him mail] is a Peace & Justice activist. His website is
www.CodaPlus.org. This article is from a new book, The World Needs Miracles: The Bible & Peace, compiled by Lloyd Kinder with other articles contributed by Libertarian & Progressive writers from LewRockwell.com and elsewhere. A second volume is expected in November.
Copyright © 2005 Lloyd Kinder
~~~~
Lawmakers' Pride and Romans 13
by Lloyd Kinder
by Lloyd Kinder
The Original Sin Is Pride
Original sin was not just disobeying God's Commandment on not "eating" of a certain "tree"; the sin was also pride, which made man think he can decide for himself what is right and wrong, and doesn't need God's Word to tell him that.
Gen. 2:17 <God said to Adam> But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
In the phrase, "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," this "tree" is apparently symbolic, since no tree seems likely to be able to impart knowledge. Trees can symbolize several things. Trees are upright and upright has a double meaning that includes righteousness, so righteousness is compared to the tree of life. Pro. 11:30 "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise."
A similar feature of trees is loftiness, which can connote pride. The Hebrew word for "knowledge" in Gen. 2:17 can also mean cunning, which relates to pride. The word for "good" can also mean pleasure or wealth, types of self-seeking. The word for "evil" can also mean "affliction" and Jesus often implied that people's afflictions are generally a result of sins. God said Adam would die on the day he were to eat of the tree. Since he didn't die physically when he did eat of it, God must have meant he would die spiritually, which would eventually result in physical death as well. Sin causes our deaths and pride is a sin that blinds us to our own sinfulness. Therefore, pride is the most dangerous sin.
Substituting then in Gen. 2:17 for tree "pride," for knowledge "cunning," for good "greed," and for eat "partake," it says: Of the pride in the cunning of greed and evil you shall not partake of it <or you shall die spiritually and physically>.
Gen. 3:5 <The serpent said to Eve> For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
In the Bible, "god" often means magistrate or judge, and, when Satan said you will be like "gods, knowing good and evil," this likely means you will be like a judge, able to decide right and wrong. But Satan is false. Man, with limited knowledge and wisdom, cannot decide right and wrong. We need God to tell us this, which is why we have God's Law or God's Word, found in the bible and in the minds and hearts of his people. God gives us free will to choose between what he says is right and wrong. But choosing wrong does not make it right. Lawmaking, by Government etc, that opposes God's Word, is Us acting as gods by deciding Right & Wrong, instead of letting God decide for us. Groups and governments that make laws that contradict God's Law are acting as false gods and the First Commandment tells us not to submit to any false gods.
The Bible often uses names of governments, such as Egypt, Sodom, Babylon, Rome and symbolic terms, like "beast," to refer to wrongful Lawmaking and dominion. Terms like Fornication, Harlot, and Prostitute in the bible often refer to people who submit to such ungodly governments. Fornication in such cases means that we act as lovers of Satan, having intimate relations with him. The term Israel in the bible is sometimes used symbolically to mean God's Kingdom on Earth. Those who submit to God's rule, instead of man's rule, are called Israel, faithful, the Bride of Christ, the Bride of God, etc.
Who Are Powers and Rulers in Romans 13?
Laurence Vance has complained in a previous LRC article that many ministers wrongly use Romans 13 as an excuse to excuse nearly any kind of government atrocity or abuse. I believe that Romans 13 is generally misunderstood and that the wider context of the New Testament shows the correct meaning. Let's look at the first 7 verses of Romans 13 in the larger context.
Rom. 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Higher powers means God and his ministers and ordinances, not worldly rulers. God does not ordain worldly rulers, but only his ministers who do and teach his Word, or Law. The Greek word for "powers" also means privileges, freedoms, or rights. This is saying that all rights or freedoms come from God.
[2] Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Resisting man's ungodly laws does not bring damnation or judgment. Only resisting God's Law brings damnation. Many worldly rulers have had laws against God and God's Law, even against being Christian etc <as per the new Iraqi government>, so obviously this is not referring to the power of worldly rulers, but only to the power of God and his Law and ministers. Worldly rulers again are not higher powers. And, since the word for power here means rights or freedoms, it's likely saying that anyone, such as a worldly ruler, who resists or opposes human rights also opposes God's lawful order.
[3] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rulers again means ministers ordained by God, not worldly rulers. Likewise, the power again means God and God's Law, not that of any worldly ruler. Worldly rulers praise evil as much as good.
[4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Worldly rulers are not ministers of God. His ministers teach the Word of God, which is God's Law. The Word of God is sometimes called a sword, as in Eph. 6:17 and in Rev. 1:16 & 2:12,16 where someone like Jesus is said to have a sword, meaning God's Word, coming from his mouth, which destroys, i.e. destroys the pride of, the ungodly. Ministers use the same sword, the Word of God, to rebuke evil doers. Rebuking sinners is sometimes called the Wrath of God. This wrath begins with hurt pride.
[5] Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
This wrath is uncomfortable and embarrassing and manifests as ill health of body or mind. It tortures and destroys our pride. But we should be concerned not just about the pain of wrath, but also about righteousness, which is conscience.
[6] For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. [7] Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Tribute here means voluntary tithes to our ministers, who attend to our salvation. Customs may refer to tithes to other ministries, when we travel.
1 Pet. 2:11-14 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; [12] Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. [13] Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; [14] Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
This passage and the previous one in Romans 13 are often misinterpreted to encourage undue submission to worldly rulers. This passage is talking about how to behave when traveling in other nations. It says to obey the laws there that are for the Lord's sake, those that discourage evil and those that encourage righteousness. It does not say to obey laws that are not for the Lord's sake, that encourage evil or oppose righteousness. And, indeed, the Apostles did not obey such laws, such as those against preaching about Jesus and his salvation or preaching about serving God rather than worldly rulers.
Rulers of the U.S.
If it's okay to obey the powers that be, even if they're not ministers of God, then, what if two different powers say to do two different things? For example, the Constitution is declared to be the supreme law of the U.S., because it is considered to be the will of the people and the people are the rulers, while government officials are servants of the people, i.e. public servants. No one is a higher authority than the Constitution, except for the bible. So, if the president or Congress or the Supreme Court command anyone to do anything contrary to the Constitution, which one do you obey, the public servants or the Constitution?
If the president or Congress tell you to support a war, but they don't follow the procedures outlined in the Constitution, do you obey the public officials or the Constitution? If the Constitution is the higher authority and it says there can be war only if the Congress declares war by a proper vote of both houses, but Congress doesn't vote to declare war, then, if you obey them by supporting or participating in the war, you're breaking the law, just as the public servants are breaking the law. And if Congress passes laws that are unconstitutional, such as parts of the misnamed Patriot Act, can we obey such law-breaking, or vote for such law-breakers in Congress who pretend to make such laws? Does God excuse law-breaking, if a large majority of the people break the law?
Mat. 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat.
October 11, 2005
~~~~
Liberal-tarian Persuasion: Progressives and Libertarians Unite!
by Lloyd Kinder
by Lloyd Kinder
A funny thing happened in '72. Tho I'm from a conservative Republican background, I voted for McGovern, having briefly become a "liberal socialist" after learning about Vietnam treachery. And then I read about and accepted anarchism for a few years. Fred Woodworth out of Tucson had a little zine called "The Match!" "for light and heat" and he reasoned very persuasively. Fred had written up a Q&A leaflet. One of the Qs was: Why call your philosophy anarchism instead of a more acceptable term like libertarianism? He said part of the answer was that the latter tend to justify "limited government," which always has a habit of not staying limited.
After later reading None Dare Call It Conspiracy, I modified my philosophy to conservative anarchism, as I felt that liberals and socialists were unrealistic about problems and dangers of communism. I got into quasi-Christian Quaker-like spiritualism and tried to prepare with others for a time after the expected collapse of society, when we'd be free to start a better society based on helping the poor, needy, orphans et al. I stopped using the term anarchism in the 80s, as it seemed too offensive to people. In the 90s I found that my favored religion at that time was based partly on fraud, so I started reading on Messianic Judaism/Christianity. I also started reading seemingly better conspiracy theories, like Leonard Horowitz's Emerging Viruses: Aids and Ebola and Anton Chaitkin's Treason in America. More on that anon.
Authoritarianism is the use of force, or the threat of force, to keep members of a group or society under the power of a person or clique. I was raised under that system, in family, school etc, but I started to stop buying into it by '72. In my recent religious studies I've been pleasantly surprised to find that Christianity is apparently supposed to be entirely anti-authoritarian too, which I now consider to mean libertarian, as per the title of my recent LRC article. In the recent book I compiled, The World Needs Miracles, with the help of many LRC writers and some progressive, I try to show Christian readers how much Jesus and his followers opposed authoritarianism [including imperialism]. Such efforts to persuade others can involve domination [threat of force, deception, peer pressure, ridicule, or other kinds of pressure to conform by threat of embarrassment etc are included in this means of persuasion], or they can be based more meaningfully on love and unselfish desire to cooperate in God's will for us. I hope we can stick to the latter; otherwise we're hypocrits.
From Horowitz's and Chaitkin's books above, I learned that fascism and imperialism are just as serious dangers to society as communism was. All are forms of authoritarianism and all are accustomed to using covert actions and deception, as well as overt brute force, to achieve their inhumane ends. They are likely behind most major unnatural atrocities that happen in most nations. Gary North pointed out in an LRC article that the Bible accuses worldly leaders of conspiracy, plotting against God and Jesus [and followers]: Ps. 2:13 and Acts 4:2526.
In our Miracles book article, called Overcoming Corruption in Science Etc., I wrote as follows:
The Roman Church, which had succumbed to the Beast and promoted wars and cruel inquisitions and hyprocricies, had some members who were inspired later to reform, due in part to the influence of the Protestant Reformation and the Renaissance. Cardinal Nicolas of Cusa founded a movement in Europe to promote true knowledge and governments that promote the common good of the people [commonwealth] in conformity with Jesus' message about loving our neighbors and our enemies. The cardinal helped in founding modern Science, as well as good government. His idea was that the only rightful governments are those that promote the common good of their people, which was the basis of Natural Law. And science was meant also to improve conditions for the people's greater good.
Cusa's "commonwealth" movement culminated in the establishment of some of the English colonies in North America in the 1600s and ultimately in the United States. However, British and other imperialism loyalists, could not be weeded out of the new states and said loyalists used covert means to usurp power frequently, up to the present time. In 2001, looking for anti-imperialists to work with politically, I joined forces with liberals, now called progressives, after I read Chaitkin's book. They're about the only Democrats who are as opposed to imperialism and war as are LRC libertarians.
It seems to me that progressives and libertarians need to have a meeting of minds to find ways to work together to have greater influence on society. What are the prospects? What can progressives and libertarians agree on and not agree on?
Authoritarianism I think both are very largely against it. That's why both tend to oppose war and imperialism and why progressives also support human rights pretty aggressively.
Income Taxes Progressives are likely more willing to favor taxes, but mainly on the rich. I think they can be persuaded though that "taxes" should be entirely voluntary, since they're already disposed to non-authoritarianism.
Import Taxes Libertarians are likely not to favor these, while progressives probably would. If people have a right to form self-government, then they have a right to agree among themselves to use means to protect their vital industries from unfair competition from outsiders. My next point is about how such agreements can be made.
Majority Rule I suggest that the only proper government is that based on unanimous rule, also called consensus decision making, or sociocracy. This is suggested in Mat. 20:2528 etc, where Jesus said his followers would not use authoritarian methods like those of the Gentiles. All minority and majority rule, except unanimous rule, is authoritarian. So only unanimous rule could fulfill Jesus' prescription. "Taxes" would then be okay, if decided by unanimous consent. Consensus may seem impractical, but Quakers and others have been improving such methods for over 350 years, and a variation called sociocracy [which means society rule] has shown a great deal of promise in improving effectiveness of all kinds of groups. One key is to divide large groups into "circles" of 10 to 15 each. Another is to use efficient meeting formats. Small groups can achieve unanimity on many issues without much problem.
Crime Progressives and libertarians seem likely to favor decriminalizing many, except the most serious, of behaviors that endanger individuals and society. There are some pro-life progressives and probably a larger percentage of pro-life libertarians, but both seem to disfavor criminalizing abortion, maybe with the exception of partial-birth "abortion." Both also seem to disfavor considering drug abuse a crime.
Infrastructure, property rights, environment Infrastructure, i.e. structure needed for transportation, communication, power etc, is important to allow maximum human population and power in any area [By power I mean human power to improve living conditions for all]. The Bible seems to advise maximum human population and power on earth and maybe beyond. It says to be fruitful and multiply and to subdue [or make good use of] the earth. It also says we should take good care of the earth. Paul Stitt, a research biochemist, said in his 70s book, Fighting The Food Giants, that the earth could easily feed 20 billion human beings and I think he was right [And I favor space colonization for expanding pupulation paid for by voluntary "taxes"]. A billion authoritarian humans on earth is too many, but 20 billion non-authoritarian ones may not be. Acts 2:44 and 4:32 etc suggests that Jesus' followers should hold all things in common. This may refer just to ministers, who follow in the role of the Levites. But we're all told to love our neighbors and enemies and to avoid greed. I think eminent domain would not be permissible under Jesus' system, but land users would have to agree on any community use of their land. Israel was divided among the 12 tribes, so similarly dividing other lands may be okay.
Any complaints? With so much in common and so much influence to gain from unity, isn't it time for progressives and libertarians to unite? And if they can unite, what label could they call themselves?
November 19, 2005
~~~~
Consensus for Antiwar Unity
by Lloyd Kinder
by Lloyd Kinder
First, Consensus
My little dictionary says authoritarian means favoring obedience to authority instead of individual freedom. Actually to most of us, authoritarian means favoring coercion in human relations and that's what is opposite of individual freedom. The only real authority is one who is "all-good" and Jesus said none are good except God. Indeed, our one authority, God, wants us to have individual freedom, so we're being obedient to true authority by supporting such freedom. The Bible is called God's Word and James called the Bible the perfect law of liberty. And Jesus said his followers would not exercise dominion one over another, but would serve each other in loving brotherhood [Mat. 20:2528, Acts 2:44 etc.].
If we're not to dominate anyone, or exercise dominion, then we can't have majority rule, except for 100% majority rule. That's called unanimous rule, or consensus. Quakers figured that out over 350 years ago. I don't know when the Jesuits did, maybe even earlier. American juries have used consensus since our founding. Numerous groups and some societies have practiced it, including ancient Israel and apparently the early Christians also the early Anglo-Saxons and modern Japanese at the local level and probably many Native American tribes, at least in earlier times.
Consensus seems to be gaining wider acceptance in recent years. According to Endenburg and John Buck in an article on Sociocracy [their term for scientific consensus], consensus has been studied by scientists, e.g. Prigogine and Haken, in efforts to understand "self-organizing systems" and their advantages. Some of the advantages the authors list for consensus in all kinds of organizations [not just political ones] are:
Greater creativity and problem solving throughout a group or organization;
Win-win-win for investors, management, staff;
Faster adaptation;
Higher quality products and services;
Higher staff commitment to and identification with the organization;
Fewer, better meetings;
Less sick leave;
Better safety record;
More awareness of costs;
Improved client orientation;
Very little burnout;
Program self-discipline;
Greater practice of leadership among peers;
Better organizational continuity when many volunteers are present;
Better support of fund raising.
Is it any wonder that Jesus advised his followers to return to the practice of consensus, i.e. non-dominion? If one is truly libertarian, i.e. non-authoritarian, how can one condone majority rule? We have condoned it, because consensus is widely unknown or poorly understood. Thus it has some undeserved reputation for being impractical. With the recent scientific improvements, consensus is found to have most of the above benefits for most groups. By having groups divide into smaller groups of 15 or fewer members each, it's much easier to achieve consensus. By "double-linking" groups together and using efficient meeting formats, consensus is much more effective and rewarding than other kinds of decision-making. Consensus is the ultimate win-win method. Emotionally mature people prefer win-win relationships instead of win-lose [except maybe in entertainment or sport].
Then, Unity Progressives and Libertarians Unite!
I grew up conservative. I supported the Vietnam War initially, because I thought it was about stopping Godless Communism. When I was in Thailand during that war, I met a fellow Air Force guy who had gone AWOL and had come back to the base opposed to the war. He said the U.S. was in Vietnam unjustly. I didn't believe him, but I decided to look up Vietnam history in an encyclopedia at the base library, just to make sure he was wrong. Except that the encyclopedia confirmed what he said. Wow!
So I became a liberal [now they're called progressive] and voted for McGovern in '72. Shortly thereafter a little zine [edited by Fred Woodworth] called "The Match!" ["for light and heat"], persuaded me against authoritarianism. The philosophy was called anarchism, meaning non-use of coercion. In a Q&A booklet of his on anarchism, one question was: Why not call the movement a more palatable term, like libertarianism? Answer: Libertarians usually favor limited government, but governments never stay limited for long. But I later came to favor the term libertarian anyway, as I became more optimistic that government could be kept limited [by improving on majority rule]. I was politically inactive for many years, but an FDR liberal, Anton Chaitkin, persuaded me by his book, Treason in America, that people need to be politically active for the common good of the people, which is based on Jesus' gospel of love of neighbors and enemies. I've been involved with progressives against war since late 2002, after Bush first started crafting excuses to avenge Saddam.
Having played on both sides of several political fences, my strong sense is that progressives and libertarians share a lot of the same basic anti-authoritarian sentiments. I have a sense that they have great potential for cooperation and would have a lot to gain by doing so.
What to Unite on
Peace/non-authoritarianism/freedom/human-rights would seem to be our best basis for cooperation. I think progressives and libertarians can cooperate most effectively by adopting consensus rule. In fact, logically, consensus should be a defining trait of both groups. Both should support it, because it's most consistent with and would most effectively support our basic non-authoritarian principles.
Other Issues
Crime Both groups seem to be greatly opposed to criminalizing anything but murder, extreme abuse and major theft. Both seem to oppose the abusiveness of modern prisons and would favor restitution over imprisonment, except for dangerously compulsive abusers or murderers.
Government Regulation This covers taxes, infrastructure, property rights, environment, education, social security, abortion etc. Progressives and libertarians tend to be opposed on these issues, but, because both groups tend to be non-authoritarian, it should not be too hard for both to be able to come to agreement on taxes and the things taxes pay for. Both should be able to see that compulsory taxes are coercive, i.e. authoritarian, and that the only just "taxes" are voluntary. When taxes are agreed on in any group, community, or region, by unanimous rule [consensus], libertarians should have no objection to them. This is the kind of "taxes" ancient Israel used under God's direction. And it's what Jesus implicitly advised.
Abortion would be somewhat of a sticking point, except that both groups generally favor not criminalizing most human behaviors. I imagine most libertarians would consider it impractical to criminalize abortion, except maybe for doctors who perform partial-birth abortions and maybe very late-term ones.
Both groups would seem to oppose compulsory military service and favor war only for genuine self-defense. Troops who object to war should not be required to participate, even if they previously signed a contract. Both, progressives and libertarians, might agree that long-term war, beyond a few weeks, would have to be proven necessary in a high court of law before funding and declaration could be continued [if it's declared on an emergency basis in the first place]. Both would likely want an end to covert military operations and experiments.
Progressives seem to be panicking over environmental doomsday hype, but I'd hope that they are somewhat skeptical of much of the supposed threat of global warming [and cooling] since the Pentagon and big oil are behind much of the research. The neocons appear to be coralling the public by this hype into supporting [down the road] further exploiting of other countries and increasing U.S. military strength to supply our "needs" in the face of increasing competition over diminishing resources. Hopefully, both of our groups may come to agree that science [like medicine] needs to be drastically revised to decouple it from government and big business manipulation. [The CO2 greenhouse gas theory seems to be based largely on the unexpected discovery in the 60s of high heat on Venus under its CO2 atmosphere. There is much better evidence that the heat there is caused by its young age, not by its atmosphere trapping sunlight. It's also known that earth was much warmer a thousand years ago when the Vikings had colonized southern Greenland, which is now frozen over. There was no high CO2 then to make it so warm before the freeze. The heating and cooling of the earth very likely comes from outside the earth, not from CO2 gas in the air. The military seems to have considerable ability to manipulate weather etc. via HAARP, chemtrails etc., but doesn't seem to be involved much in global warming or cooling as yet].
With so much in common and so much influence to gain from unity, isn't it time for progressives and libertarians to unite? And if they can unite, what label could they call themselves? Anyway, let's do it!
November 23, 2005