In an effort to better understand the nature of government, notably Biblical libertarianism, I'm going to work on capturing some of my thoughts. This is likely to be a work in progress for a while.

What got me thinking about such matters most recently was the axiom, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Clearly, this can be seen as a justification for forced wealth redistribution, social programs, foreign aid, and all the rest of the totalitarian, socialist policies we now enjoy. However, if we dive a little deeper, perhaps this apparent justification is merely a ruse after all.

The problem with socialism in government, being that government is nothing more than force, is that it necessarily violates other truths more basic than "the need of the many". Violation of free will--the chance to choose morality or not--is necessary. Theft is also integral, since money must be taken in the form of taxes from those who have and given to those who have not. I assert that these violated principles are more basic than the socialist one. I suppose this is one crux of the debate.

"Thou shalt not steal." It seems evident to me that property rights are clearly enumerated among the Ten Commandments, even if only by obvious implication in the anti-theft commandment. Is free will just as clearly implied? Long before the Commandments were given, the Lord gave His creation--humanity--a choice. We could choose morality and obedience by heeding His warning of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, or we could choose disobedience (and therefore immorality) by eating the fruit of this tree. History reveals our free will by our ability, opportunity, and decision to disobey. I would suggest free will as being even more basic than property rights.

On the other hand, does the proposed axiom, "the needs of the many...," have a basis in God's Law? Surely it does in that we are commanded to tend to the needs of those who cannot care for themselves. Frequently noted is the command to care for widows and orphans. Are the specifics of the proposed axiom met in the Scriptures, though? For example, what is the definition of "needs"? How about "many" and "few"? For example, as the head of a household of three (currently), am I justified in failure to meet the needs of one fellow down on his luck? The needs of the many (my three) outweigh the needs of the few (his one), right? So does this only work en masse? I think this example violates the Lord's commands, even if it meets the principles of socialism.

I think I'm digging myself into a rathole here, so I'm going to ditch this vein of thought and reset just a bit. I think "the needs of the many..." is pretty well debunked as any serious basis of government. So what is the basis for government?

In the Garden of Eden, government was pretty simple: God. After the fall, proper government was still by God Himself, even though the sinful people chose their own forms of rule (this is not to imply democracy).

When Abraham was called out from the people to become God's family on Earth, it was Abraham who ruled his own family group. No doubt there was a small hierarchy within his family among the servants and such.

When Moses was called, and the Lord was forming His people into a nation, a similar system of government was formed. Moses was the highest judge of the Israelites, subject only to God. Moses also instituted a hierarchy of judges beneath him in order to distribute the work load. When a judge ruled, were there others involved in enforcing the ruling? Who put men to death when God's capital laws were violated? Is a system of judges, using only God's Law, the best form of government available to us today? Is Mosaic law viable today? How are Godly judges selected? What sins might cause them to forfeit their positions of authority?

With the fuller understanding of the Mosaic law given by Yeshua (e.g., lust in your heart is as adultery), are there crimes of thought without action? Or was Yeshua's "expansion" (it was merely a correction, not a change) meant for our hearts and our personal relationships with our Maker, rather than an endorsement of governmental growth? I think the former is the case. In the end, no government can enforce morality, let alone our personal relationships with the Lord.

What, then, is the role of government? If it cannot enforce morality, must it accept immorality? God forbid! Government is force--whatever force is necessary to execute the prescribed sentences for established crimes. There are many components in this assertion: force, sentences, crimes. In Moses' time, the last two were given by God. Only the first was executed by man. (Even then, God sometimes took the first one into His own hands.) Are we so wise as to improve upon God's definitions of crimse and the corresponding sentences? Does this mean that restoration of Mosaic Law, even here in the States, is the best option for government? I don't know.

(Note that I will not debunk the strawman commonly known as Yeshua's abrogation of Mosaic Law. This is an all too common misunderstanding of the New Covenant, primarily used for self-justification. We can debate this in another forum/blog, if desired.)

I've run out of steam for now. "To be continued..."