BackRefreshOptionsSearch

 
Sanctions in an Anarcho-Capitalist Theonomic Utopia
Answers for Real Questions Anarcho-Kev 08/08/00
If you bothered to answer my questions... Ed Burley 08/08/00
The answers to your questions Anarcho-Kev 08/08/00
I'm done Ed Burley 08/08/00
Unable to present consistent arguments FjetF 08/08/00
one simple question Lurquer 08/09/00
Ed & FJet are Thilly Anarcho-Kev 08/08/00
Sanctions, Monopoly, and Vengeance Anarcho-Kev 08/09/00
Everybody is a State for himself FjetF 08/09/00
Everyone is a Patriarch for God Anarcho-Kev 08/09/00
Medieval Anarcho-Capitalism Anarcho-Kev 08/09/00
Justice: The Overlooked Monopoly Anarcho-Kev 08/09/00
Justice without "the State" Anarcho-Kev 08/09/00
Anarcho-Theonomic Civil Courts Anarcho-Kev 08/12/00
Kevin still doesn't answer Ed's question FjetF 08/12/00
What's the big deal here? Lurquer 08/13/00
Some Answers for FJet Anarcho-Kev 08/13/00
A Question for Anarcho-Kevin Lurquer 08/13/00
Some suggested answers Anarcho-Kev 08/14/00
Is this really Anarcho-Kevin? anon 08/14/00

Post new message in this thread

 


TopPreviousNextPrintReply

Date: August 08, 2000 02:50 AM
Author: Anarcho-Kev (Kevin4VFT@aol.com)
Subject: Answers for Real Questions

Ed asks:

But answer me one question, Kevin: If the man has killed, who punishes him, and how? Simple question, should get a simple answer. Don't need to do anything but answer my question. Don't need to construct any new arguments, just a one line paragraph will suffice - maybe even just a couple words. I just want to know. Please tell me. WHO PUNISHES THE KILLER FOR HIS CRIMES?
BTW, I have never killed anyone, nor do I intend to. Stop using that as a strawman to beat up. Answer my question above.
I am asking that when a man commits a murder is he to be punished? Who punishes him? If no one, then that man can, in essence, continue to murder wantonly. Who puts an end to his "crime spree"? Does God have to supernaturally intervene?

Let me ask a question, Ed: Do you really want an answer? You later write:

This thread is foolishness because we are arguing in circles. The pacifist/anarchist says, "No government". We say, yeah but what about vengeance, they say, "We administer sanctions". We say, I thought we were to be pacifists. They reply, "We are".

Enough. Lurq and Anarcho-Kev, you had a great opportunity to add much to our lives as Christians, since the Bible does teach the things you claim - to a point. Your problem is that you refuse to answer any questions honestly. You twist and turn to avoid the obvious. Instead of coming to something that could have changed all of our lives for the better, instead we do nothing but sling arrows. I've had it.
I'm done with this argument. Tekton, if you want to agree with these guys, fine. Don't bother me with it anymore.
ed

You ask some good questions, questions I've wrestled with, questions I think are important and need answering, and I would love to post my own answers to your questions and get some feedback. But if your questions are simply a rhetorical way of saying "Here's what I believe and there's nothing you can say to change my mind," well, I won't bother answering your questions. Just let me know.

I find it interesting that in Romans 12, Paul tells the saints (that's us) to not take revenge. "Vengeance is Mine saith the Lord" is His answer to the violence problem. However, Paul then proceeds to talk about the governing authorities to whom God has given the sword. For what purpose did He give them the sword? Perhaps it was to exact His vengeance.

I would be happy to discuss the connection between Romans 12 and 13. I've done some of that here:

Vine & Fig Tree's Romans 13 Home Page

I would love to discuss these issues on this Forum.

Again, in denying that God has placed the authority to "punish" the evildoer in the hands of the "governing authority", you now come up with the same old garbage (pronounced gar baj') saying that WE impose sanctions. How in the world can you say that after saying that we are to be pacifists? Pacifism is not just, NOT KILLING, it is the absence of all forms of violence, or retribution.

Just as FJet seems to confuse "force" and "violence," I can see that we (pacifists) need to clarify the distinction between "sanctions," "punishment," "retribution," "vengeance," "restitution," and similar terms, and explain how these would function in a world under God's Law, without a State, and without Levitical blood shedding. I would love to get into a discussion of these words.

So whaddya say, Ed? Are you interested? Or were your questions merely rhetorical?


Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/VF95Theses/paradigm.htm
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44521)


TopPreviousNextPrintReply

Date: August 09, 2000 12:03 AM
Author: Anarcho-Kev (Kevin4VFT@aol.com)
Subject: Sanctions, Monopoly, and Vengeance

There are two questions on the floor. The first is Ed's:

But answer me one question, Kevin: If the man has killed, who punishes him, and how? Simple question, should get a simple answer. Don't need to do anything but answer my question. Don't need to construct any new arguments, just a one line paragraph will suffice - maybe even just a couple words. I just want to know. Please tell me. WHO PUNISHES THE KILLER FOR HIS CRIMES?

I've answered this question: whatever you believe the appropriate punishment is, you have the right, as a priest and king under Christ to impose it. (Now, I don't believe in the continued necessity to shed blood for capital crimes (Gen. 9:6; Lev. 20:13; Num 35:33). But . . .) If FJet or Ed believe God commands the shedding of blood, there is no Biblical reason why FJet or Ed should not shed blood. Or put another way, whatever Biblical objections might be raised against Ed or FJet shedding the blood of a capital criminal would apply as well to the State.

Of course, if Ed imposes a sanction against FJet which FJet thinks is unBiblical, FJet may impose a sanction on Ed. Ed better get wise counsel.

Is there a danger that everybody is going to start imposing "sanctions" on each other? No, it hasn't happened so far. Even the various states have tended to execute sparingly, reserving their vengeful desires for planned famines and genocidal wars. The danger of sinful imposition of sanctions is no greater than the danger of sinful omission of imposition.

The Bible does not grant the State a monopoly on executions. I have attempted to answer objections to non-monopolistic non-statist executions on this page rat here.

Lurquer put it this way:

Why? If it were for purposes of atonement, that commandment has been fulfilled.

In response, FJet asked the second question:

Nonsense. No verse in the Bible says that. Why not believe that all other commands concerning all other types of punishment have been fulfilled? Sort of "by His death on the Cross Jesus paid all the restitution and the thieves aren't supposed to pay any restitution whatsoever."

Before discussing the "punishment" of murderers in a bloodless anarcho-capitalist society , I would like to discuss "punishment" of lesser crimes. After the anarcho-capitalist policy for lesser crimes is understood, the policy for murderers will seem clearer (i.e., more persuasive).

FJet raised questions from the five-point covenant model: representation and sanctions. I disagree with these two points of the model. Sutton's formulation is not the only possible formulation.

Representation/Hierarchy · FJet is asking, "WHO imposes sanctions?" The second point of the covenant model does not necessarily answer this question. M.G. Kline's model has for the second point "history" rather than "representation" or "hierarchy." In other words, the first point is that God is sovereign, the second is that the sovereign brought the vassals to their present condition -- either earning or expressing his sovereignty in the past. Thus, I wouldn't rule out anarcho-capitalism (no state-monopoly of sanctions-imposing) based solely on one writer's formulation of a theological model. The Covenant does not require an earthly hierarchy. One of the central features of my 95 Theses on Patriarchy is the idea that all believers are to be priests, kings, and judges. There is no Biblical basis for an elite hierarchy. The non-patriarchal pedagogues of the Old Covenant were temporary. There is no Biblical justification for monopolistic imposition of "sanctions." The problem is not that someone might apply sanctions in an "unauthorized" (non-monopolistic) manner, the problem is that someone might say "Oh, that's the State's responsibility" and let a thief go "unpunished." If you believe there must be a monopoly on the imposition of sanctions, and it's better to have a thief go without making restitution than to have restitution imposed by an insurance company or voluntary association, then read no further, start a new thread on "representation/hierarchy" and state the case for elitism.

Oath/Judgment/Sanctions · I'll admit I need to do some work on this point, so challenge away. To make the point clear (and not to slander anyone or be offensive) I will take the position that there is no "punishment." Now hear me out -- don't make the mistake of allowing that to be a straw man. Restitution is not a 'punishment." It is not designed to hurt the thief, it is designed to restore the victim, to "make him whole." Likewise "capital punishment" is not a punishment. The Scripture expressly states that its purpose is to restore the land, to make the land whole by atonement, covering the guilt of innocent blood.

I'm predisposed to avoid the concept of "punishment" or "retribution" because of the clear prohibition on vengeance (Rom.12:19). Restitution is not vengeance. Atonement by bloodshed ("capital punishment") is not vengeance. Biblical sanctions are restorative, not punitive.

The only thing that seems to be a "punishment" in the ordinary sense of that term is whipping, and I know of no reconstructionist who advocates state-imposed whipping. Probably an analogy is to be drawn between obstinate resistance to the imposer of sanctions and the slave/child, who was allowed to be whipped. It's a form of pedagogy, not "punishment." It could be imposed, for example, by an employer.

Now, I've answered the questions concerning "vengeance," "retribution," "restitution,"

My next post will show how restitution/restoration is imposed in a stateless society.

Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/VF95Theses/paradigm.htm
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44548)


TopPreviousNextPrintReply

Date: August 09, 2000 12:13 AM
Author: Anarcho-Kev (Kevin4VFT@aol.com)
Subject: Medieval Anarcho-Capitalism

This post answers questions about non-lethal sanctions. It suggests that sanctions such as restitution in commercial settings can be imposed fairly without "the State."

I wrote this paper in 1985. I've thrown in a few links for Ed and Fjet. I plagiarized the whole concept from a chapter called "Voluntary Justice," in a small book published by Arlington House, William C. Wooldridge, Uncle Sam the Monopoly Man, 1970. I padded the basic structure with a few law review articles. Later, the whole concept was picked up by Bruce Benson, and an entire book was written on "Justice without the State" -- The Enterprise of Law, Pacific Research Institute, 1990. This is a tremendous book.

 

The Law Merchant and The Ministry of Reconciliation
- A Proposal -

In our book, The Meaning of Vine and Fig Tree(1), we have set forth the vision of a stateless society, brought about by international regeneration and conversion to Christianity, in which the rule of God's Law is manifested in decentralized patriarchal (Family-centered) society, free from manipulated economies, orchestrated wars and shortages, and crowned by Christlike morality and service, and the world-wide restoration of Edenic conditions.

That book was revised and expanded into A Christian Conciliation Manifesto,(2), which applied the vision of Reconciliation and Peacemaking outside the State's secular systems of justice.

In this book, we show how, since the inauguration of the Kingdom at the Advent of Christ, history has been moving toward the "Vine & Fig Tree" vision. Although this progress has seen an ebb-and-flow, up-and-down character, there have been enough high points to indicate not only the movement towards an internationally decentralized human community, but -- more important to some -- the feasibility or "practicality" of a normative social vision based on the "primitive," "pre-industrial" Law of God.

Anarchism, Revolution, and Romans 13
In Volume I of our series of volumes on Patriarchy,(3) we have argued that the State, far from being a "divine institution," is actually a lawless institution which is opposed to the service-ideal of Christian morality, the Rule of Law required in Scripture, and to the Patriarchal (Family-centered) culture espoused therein.(4) In this book, we attempt to illustrate, using the principles of comparative law, how international commercial disputes may be resolved in a Stateless society.

The history of the Lex Mercatoria is a history of the international arbitration of commercial disputes in an age when the State had not yet wrapped its tentacles around spontaneous industrial arrangements and the harmonious re-adjustments of free individuals and voluntary associations. This history is viewed in light of the absolutely binding and authoritative commands of Biblical Law, notably as expressed in the Scriptural concept of "The Ministry of Reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:18).

America's Declaration of Independence declares that men have the right "to alter or abolish" any government which "becomes destructive" of the People's rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and "to institute new government." Our Founding Fathers felt justified in a violent and bloody revolution against the de facto civil government of their day. We have analyzed this view and course of action in Patriarchy Vol. I, and have explicitly rejected such revolution. However, the traditional understanding of Romans 13 as legitimizing Secular Empire was also found to be utterly inconsistent with other passages of Scripture (e.g., Isaiah chapters 10 and 13), and we were led to reject the Biblical legitimacy of the concept of the "State." However, that our Founding Fathers took such violent and dedicated a stand as they did against a government which taxed at a rate of less than 5% and which wouldn't have dreamed of legalizing the wanton murder of millions of unborn people should soften the "revolutionary" character of our "anarchist" and "utopian" speculations.(5)

Forgiveness and Substantive Law
We begin by very briefly analyzing economic and commercial activity from a Biblical perspective. We both rely on and reject the analysis of the Christian Reconstructionists, notably economist Gary North.

How can we best expand our market: by cut-throat competition and sharp "caveat emptor"-type practices, or by practicing principles of self-sacrifice, abundant giving, and endeavoring to "procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others."(6) If "capitalism" is truly "Looking Out for #1"(7) based on "The Virtue of Selfishness"(8), then Christianity is plainly opposed to "capitalism."(9) The kind of business practices we may envisage in a dominantly Christian culture would unquestionably be based on the principle of "good faith" dealing,(10) and undoubtedly would require a return to previous understandings of this concept (when Christian thought was more dominant) and then would entail significant advancement in our understanding of that concept from a Biblical perspective.(11)

Forgiveness and Procedural Law
In the event that a man of "bad faith" deals in an evil way with us, what kind of justice would we want in a Christian culture? How should we respond to the merchant who contractually smites us on the right cheek?(12) The Biblical principles of reconciliation and forgiveness clearly demand that we think more of the well-being of our neighbor, business partner, client, customer, and even competitor, than we do of ourselves.(13)

One aspect of this concern should be a desire to see a sinner repent, i.e., turn from economic lawlessness and embrace Christ in His Law.(14) And while this repentance would surely bring forth fruits of restitution(15), we must be careful to distinguish our desire for his repentance from our quest for vengeance, which is forbidden to us.(16)

Thus, a Christian theory of business, based as it must be upon the Eighth commandment, must be concerned with "avoiding unnecessary law-suits."(17) Those of us who are tempered by our times, accustomed as we are to a "litigious society,"(18) will perhaps find this perspective "unrealistic," "idealistic," or "impractical." But when viewed from the perspective of God's Covenant, we understand that only human action which is in accord with the legal principles of Scripture will be blessed according to the provisions of His Covenant with us.(19)

The Ministry of Reconciliation
Some theologians have suggested that the "church" has a "ministry of reconciliation" (i.e., of men to God) and that the "state" is a "minister of justice" (i.e., between men).(20) There is no Biblical support for this institutionalization, nor this dichotomy, nor still the characterization of the State in such positive terms. Reconciliation and justice are concerns of every man in his Family.(21) Thus, the Church or Bride of Christ is concerned with both justice and reconciliation.(22) Finally, the State is never called a "minister of justice" in Scripture. It is a minister of judgment, "the rod of mine anger," given a "command to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them (the objects of God's judgment) down like the mire of the streets" (Isaiah 10:5-6). But for these acts of war, taxation, and vengeance, the State is always destroyed (v. 12; cf. Ezekiel 25:15-17), because this behavior -- the very essence of the State -- is utterly prohibited by God's Law and is cursed according to the terms of His Covenant.(23)

A Godly society is not characterized by revenge and punitive destruction. It is characterized by economic stability and prosperity. This harmony is evidence of God's Blessing upon Godly service and faith.(24) The business dealings of a Godly Society are smooth and just, not coercive and fraudulent.

The history of the Law Merchant (Lex Mercatoria) and a comparative study of international commercial law shows that a Godly society is not one dominated by the State or by conflicting systems of national law, but by voluntary justice and Christian reconciliation.

The Law Merchant
On Monday the twelfth of May, some 699 years ago, William of Lawford had a classic business dispute with Reginald of Northampton. Agreeing on a trade for a horse at a price of five marks, Reggie offered a bolt of ray, valuable shiny cloth. Having previously agreed to pay in goods (anyone can run a printing press, but honest money (commodity) is hard to come by), Bill balked, contending that the ray could never bring five marks. Disgruntled seller, unsatisfied buyer, disagreement over the value of goods; we have everything we need for litigation.

But these men did not file with the closest King's judge. Like most merchants of their day, William of Lawford and Reginald of Northampton took advantage of private arbitration at the Fair Court of St. Ives. Speedily, fairly, the case was decided by arbitrators who knew more of merchant law than any of the King's courts. Purely voluntary, in fact, extralegal, neither the King nor Parliament imposed the rules or enforced the decisions of the Fair Court.

Yet far from novel or unique, Bill and Reggie's dispute was handled in the same way the overwhelming majority of commercial disputes were handled in that day, as it had for centuries, and would for centuries to come.(25)

The Threat to the State
As kings vied for power and control in the centuries approaching the Renaissance, the competition from non-political courts became unbearable to the State. Because judges were paid a fee for each case settled, a movement grew to usurp the powers of the voluntary courts and monopolize them in the hands of the State. Throughout Europe, the State closed the Fairs and assumed commercial law into the Common Law and Civil Law systems.(26)

Modern Fair Courts
But as the inefficiency of non free-market systems of dispute resolution became clearer, it was inevitable that voluntary systems would again emerge. When statist forces in the Northeastern portion of America resolved to destroy the (distorted) vestiges of decentralized Christian culture in the South (the War of Northern Aggression, 1861-1865), they disrupted trade and the economy. Contracts were thwarted and ships were sunk trying to run the blockade. The courts were also swamped with claims in insurance, neutrality, and contraband-of-war laws which would have taken years to untangle, and longer if the State had tried to resolve them wisely and justly(!). A voluntary association of merchants who handled the great bulk of trade (Liverpool Cotton Association) agreed to insert an arbitration clause in all their contracts. "Arbitration proved so successful in adjusting differences without the expense, inconvenience, and hard feeling of suits that other Liverpool commercial associations took up the device. . . ."(27) By 1883 a correspondent of the London Times could write that "whole trades and professions have virtually turned their back" on the courts.(28) Owen D. Young, chairman of the board of General Electric (1922-39) and RCA (till 1929) as well as chairman of the American section of the International Chamber of Commerce (1925-28), was an enthusiastic propagandist for private arbitration.(29)

The New Lex Mercatoria
Seeing its success, efficiency, low-cost, speed, and expertise, international arbitration has caught on, and has been called "the New Lex Mercatoria."(30) More commercial disputes are settled by extra-legal arbitration than in the courts of the various States.(31)

The current growth in "extra-judicial" resolution of disputes is encouraging for those with a vision of Christian Conciliation. But equally encouraging is a long history of law which saw the "free-market" work harmoniously without coercive intervention from the State.

Our vision of a reconstructed society is greatly aided by a close scrutiny of oft-neglected manifestations of Godly economics and law which have occurred throughout history.

Micah's "Vine & Fig Tree" vision

Creationist Anarcho-Socialism

1. [note omitted]

International Regeneration

Patriarchy

Christlike morality

2.[note omitted]

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.[note omitted] Click here.

4. [note omitted]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. See the essay, "Unlucky 13, &c.," which follows the outline mentioned in note 4.

6. ". . . as well as our own." Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 141.

7. Number One best-seller by Robert J. Ringer, New York: Fawcett Crest Books, 1977.

8. Subtitled , "A New Concept of Egoism," by Ayn Rand, New York: Signet Books, 1964.

9. See Volume V of the PATRIARCHY series, as well as the Vine & Fig Tree Studyletter, THE DEBT PAPERS.

10. Powell, Raphael, "Good Faith in Contracts," 9 Current Legal Problems 16 (1956); Holmes, Eric M., "A Contextual Study of Commercial Good Faith: Good Faith Disclosure in Contract Formation," 39 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 381 (1978).

11. Ours is a Theonomic defintion of "faith": "By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come." (Westminster Confession of Faith, "Of Saving Faith," XIV:ii.

12. Matthew 5:39-42.

13. WLC Qq. 131-132; Philp. 2:3-4; Romans 12:10; Eph. 5:21.

14. "By it (repentance), a sinner . . . so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with Him in all the ways of his Commandments." WCF, "Of Repentance Unto Life," XV:ii.

15. Exodus 22:1-17; Luke 19:8-9.

16. See our essay, "The Legal Pimp," attached to this proposal.

17. See the exposition of the Eighth Commandment in The Larger Catechism, Q.141.

18. Jethro K. Lieberman, New York: Basic Books, (1981).

19. Deuteronomy 28:1-14; see Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant, Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, (1987).

20. Gary North, Unconditional Surrender, Tyler, TX: Geneva Press, (1981), p. 130.

21. Genesis 18:19; 26:5; Proverbs 1:3; Jeremiah 22:15-16.

22. 2 Corinthians 5:18-19; Matthew 23:23; John 16:7-11.

23. Romans 12:17-21; I Samuel 8:7; 10:19; 12:17; Deut. 28:15-68; Matt. 26:52.

24. See the extract from the essay, "Angels and God's Throne of Government," attached to this proposal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

25. Hundreds of similar cases are recorded in the publications of the Seldon Society, Select Cases Concerning the Law Merchant, 3 vols., 1908, 1930, 1932.

 

 

 

26. S. Todd Lowry, "Lord Mansfield and the Law Merchant: Law and Economics in the Eighteenth Century," 7 Journal of Economic Issues 605 (1973). Bernardo M. Cremades and Steven L. Plehn add, "As the modern nation-state developed during the sixteenth century, rulers of sovereign states began to regard the autonomous Lex Mercatoria as an external threat to internal cohesiveness." ("The New Lex Mercatoria and the Harmonization of the Laws of International Commercial Transactions," 2 Boston University International Law Journal 317, 319 (1984).

 

27. William C. Wooldridge, "Voluntary Justice," in Uncle Sam the Monopoly Man, 1970, p. 99.

28. See Samuel Rosenbaum's note in A Report on Commercial Arbitration, (American Judicature Society, Oct. 1916).

29. Wooldridge, p. 101.

30. Leon E. Trakman, "The Evolution of the Law Merchant: Our Commercial Heritage," 12 Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 173ff. (1981); Cremades & Plehn, supra. note 26; Ole Lando, "The Lex Mercatoria in International Commercial Arbitration," 34 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 747 (1985).

31. Yves Derains, "New Trends in the Practical Application of the ICC Rules of Arbitration," 3 International Law and Business 39 (1981).

Lex Mercatoria and H diakonia thV kataggaghV


Bibliography

HISTORY

Reynolds, Susan, "Law and Communities in Western Christendom, c. 900-1140, 25 The American Journal of Legal History. 205 (1981).

Donahue, Charles, Jr., "The Interaction of Law and Religion in the Middle Ages," 31 Mercer Law Review 466 (1980).

Baker, J. H., "The Law Merchant and the Common Law Before 1700," 38 Cambridge Law Journal, 295, (1979).

Berman, Harold J., "The Background of the Western Legal Tradition in the Folklaw of the Peoples of Europe," 45 The University of Chicago Law Review 553 (1978).

Lobringier, Charles Sumner, "Lex Christiana: The Connecting Link Between Ancient and Modern Law," 20 Georgetown Law Journal, 1 and 160 (1931, 1932).

Teeven, Kevin M., "The Contract Jurisdiction and Procedure of Medieval Courts," 5 Glendale Law Review 35 (1982)*

Trakman, Leon E., "The Evolution of the Law Merchant: Our Commerical Heritage," 12 Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 1 and 153 (1980, 1981).

Kerr, Charles, "The Origin and Development of the Law Merchant," 15 Virginia Law Review 350, (1929).

Goodyear, Jacob M., "The Romance of the Law Merchant," 34 Dickinson Law Review 218 (1929-30).

Lowry, S. Todd, "Lord Mansfield and the Law Merchant: Law and Economics in the Eighteenth Century," 7 Journal of Economic Issues 605 (1973).

Mullett, Charles F., "Medieval English Law and the American Revolution," 20 Virginia Law Review 523 (1931).

Steckley, George F., "Merchants and the Admiralty Court During the English Revolution," 22 American Journal of Legal History 137 (1978).

Carter, A. T., "The Early History of the Law Merchant in England," 17 Law Quarterly Review 232 (1901).

Murray, Daniel E., "Arbitration in the Anglo-Saxon and Early Norman Periods," 16 Arbitration Journal 193 (1961).

Jones, Sabra A., "Historical Development of Commercial Arbitration in the United States," 12 Minnesota Law Review 240 (1928)*

Runyan, Timothy J., "The Rolls of Oleron and the Admiralty Court in Fourteenth Century England," 19 American Journal of Legal History 95 (1975).

Moglen, Eben, "Commercial Arbitration in the Eighteenth Century: Searching for the Transformation of American Law," 93 Yale Law Journal 111 (1983).

MacKinnon, F. D., "Origins of Commerical Law," 52 Law Quarterly Review 30 (1936).

Brodhurst, Spencer, "The Merchants of the Staple," 17 Law Quarterly Review 56 (1901).

Teetor, Paul R., "England's Earliest Treatise on the Law Merchant," 6 American Journal of Legal History 178 (1962).

Paulsen, Gordon W., "An Historical Overview of the Development of Uniformity in International Maritime Law," 57 Tulane Law Review 1065 (1983).

Boskey, James B., "A History of Commercial Arbitration," 8 Rutgers-Camden Law Journal 1 (1976).

Mann, Bruce H., "The Formalization of Informal Law: Arbitration Before the American Revolution," 59 New York University Law Review 443 (1984).

Dix, George E., "The Death of the Commerce Court: A Study in Institutional Weakness," 8 American Journal of Legal History 239 (1964).

Radin, Max, "The Sea Law and the Law Merchant," in Handbook of Anglo-American Legal History, West, 1936 (Hornbook Series).

Holdsworth, William, A History of English Law, 16 vols., London: Methuen & Co Ltd, Sweet and Maxwell, 1973 (1925)

__________, The Historians of Anglo-American Law, Hamden, CN: Archon Books, 1966 (1928).

Pollock, Frederick, and William Maitland, The History of English Law, 2 vols., Cambridge: University Press, 1968 (1895).

Rich, E.E., ed., The Staple Court Books of Bristol, Bristol: Bristol Record Society, 1934.

McGrath, Patrick, ed., Records Relating to the Society of Merchant Venturers of the City of Bristol in the Seventeenth Century, Bristol: Bristol Record Society, 1952.

__________, ed., Merchants and Merchandise in Seventeenth Century Bristol, Bristol: Bristol Record Society, 1955.

Gross, Charles, Select Cases Concerning the Law Merchant, Vol. I, Local Courts, London: (Seldon Society), 1908.

Hall, Hubert, Select Cases Concerning the Law Merchant, Vol. II, Central Courts, London: (Selden Society), 1930.

__________, Select Cases Concerning the Law Merchant, Vol III, Supp., London: (Seldon Society), 1932.

 

COMPARATIVE LAW

Thayer, Philip W., "Comparative Law and the Law Merchant," 6 Brooklyn Law Review 139 (1936).

Kuhn, Arthur K., "The Function of the Comparative Method in Legal History and Philosophy," 13 Tulane Law Review 350 (1939).

Berman, Harold J., and Colin Kaufman, "The Law of International Commerical Transactions (Lex Mercatoria)," 19 Harvard International law Journal 221 (1978).

Herman, Shael, "From Philosophers to Legislators, and Legislators to Gods: The French Civil Code as Secular Scripture," 1984 University of Illinois Law Review 597 (1984).

Powell, Raphael, "Good Faith in Contracts," 9 Current Legal Problems 16 (1956).

Holmes, Eric M., "A Contextual Study of Commercial Good Faith: Good-Faith Disclosure in Contract Formation," 39 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 381 (1978).

Gilmore, Grant, "Formalism and the Law of Negotiable Instruments," 13 Creighton Law Review 441 (1979).

Schelsinger, Rudolf B., Comparative Law, Mieoloa, NY: Foundation Press, 1980 (4th ed.).

 

COMMERICAL ARBITRATION

Perlman, Lawrence, and Steven C. Nelson, "New Approaches to the Resolution of International Commercial Disputes," 17 International Lawyer 215 (1983).

Biggs, Donald, "Avoiding the Arbitration Trap," in How To Avoid Lawyers, NY: Garland Publ. Inc., 1985.

Derains, Yves, "New Trends in the Practical Application of the ICC Rules of Arbitration," 3 International Law & Business 39 (1983).

[Author]*, "Dispute Resolution in the United Nations: An Inefficient Forum?" 10 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 435 (1984).

Hayes, Louise Hertwig, "A Modern Lex Mercatoria: Political Rhetoric or Substantive Progress?" 3 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 212 (1977).

Sussman, Mark L., "Case Comment: Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Company," 1 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 73 (1975).

Cremades, Bernardo M., and Steven L. Plehn, "The New Lex Mercatoria and the Harmonization of the Laws of International Commerical Transactions," 2 Boston University International Law Journal 317 (1984).

Lando, Ole, "The Lex Mercatoria in International Commercial Arbitration," 34 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 747 (1985).

Neyroud, Philippe, and William W. Park, "Predestination and Swiss Arbitration Law: Geneva's Application of the Intercontonal Concordat," 2 Boston University International Law Journal 1 (1983).

Coulson, Robert, "International Arbitration - A Smorgasbord of Systems," in Business Arbitration: What You Need to Know, NY: AAA, 1982 (ch. 5).

Cohen, J. H., "Commerical Arbitration and the Rules of Law: A Comparative Study," 4 University of Toronto Law Journal 1 (1941).

Friedman, David, "Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case," 8 Journal of Legal Studies 399 (1977).

Phillips, Philip G., "Rules of Law or Laissez-Faire in Commercial Arbitration," 47 Harvard Law Review 590 (1934).

Kronstein, Heinrich, "Business Arbitration - Instrument of Private Government,"54 Yale Law Journal 36 (1944).

__________, "Arbitration is Power," 38 New York University Law Review 661 (1963).

Lazarus, Steven, et al, Resolving Business Disputes, NY: American Management Association, 1965.

Strauss, Donald, (American Arbitration Association), New Strategies for Peaceful Resolution of International Business Disputes, NY: AAA, 1971.

Hoellering, Michael F., (American Arbitration Association), Arbitration & the Law, 1983, NY: AAA, 1984.

Rolph, Elizabeth, Introducing Court-Annexed Arbitration, Santa Monica: Rand Institute for Civil Justice, 1984.

Sanders, Pieter, ed., International Arbitration: Liber Amicordum for Martin Domke, The Hague: Martinus N˙hoff, 1967.

Henderson, Dan Fenno, Conciliation and Japanese Law, 2 vols., Seattle: U of Washington Press, n.d. (c. 1966).

 


Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/VF95Theses/paradigm.htm
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44549)


TopPreviousNextPrintReply

Date: August 09, 2000 02:30 PM
Author: Anarcho-Kev (Kevin4VFT@aol.com)
Subject: Justice: The Overlooked Monopoly

Justice:
The Overlooked Monopoly

by Sam Ericsson


I have always enjoyed playing the game of Monopoly -- so long as I win. Hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place are great fun, but only if I own them. When someone else has them, they cause great stress, anxiety, and even fear as I turn down that final stretch of the playing board before collecting $200.

No one likes to be in the clutches of a monopolist: someone who has cornered the market on a particular product or service. A monopolist's control leaves the "other guys" feeling strangled. It is difficult for them to tap sufficient resources and gain enough power to compete in the game.

Many such monopolies have existed in our country, but most of them eventually make their exclusive ownership too evident and attract the attention of "trust busters." But there is one monopoly in our nation that everyone seems to have overlooked, and its product is justice. The legal profession has succeeded in convincing the American public that it takes a law degree to do justice, The profession's success has been tremendous and the cost monumental. Last year, billions of dollars were spent to resolve disputes as 17 million Americans took a trip to the courthouse. The monopoly has reached such proportions that it must be broken up.

Christ was faced with a similar situation in His own day. He responded by warning lawyers in the strongest possible terms, "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the keys of knowledge; you did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering you hindered" (Luke 11:52). Apparently the lawyers thought they had exclusive possession of the keys to the system. Christ did not approve, and we should not either.

Yet most Americans assume that pursuing justice is out of their realm. Without a law degree, they think they are unqualified "judges" and that dispute resolution is best left exclusively to the courts and the lawyers. But alternate dispute resolution options do exist, and the legal profession needs to be out front, informing and equipping non-lawyers with the keys to exercise these options.

The Christian Legal Society has taken steps to show Christians and the secular world that there are viable alternatives. Under the able leadership of Laury Eck, the Christian Conciliation Service (CCS). a ministry of CLS, has proven itself an effective option for the last six years. CCS gives non-lawyers, such as pastors and other lay people, the, "keys of knowledge" necessary for them to help resolve disputes without litigation. In 1985, the 30 CCS chapters across the country helped resolve over 2,000 disputes. We estimate that this saved the church nearly $10 million in legal fees and other costs. Undoubtedly, it also saved our court system and the taxpayers an equal amount.

Working alongside the legal profession, it is time for the Christian community to actively support alternatives to resolving disputes in the pursuit of justice. The game of monopoly belongs in the family room, not in the courtroom.


This article appeared sometime in the 1980's. Sam Ericcson was President of the Christian Legal Society.


(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44565)


TopPreviousNextPrintReply

Date: August 09, 2000 04:24 PM
Author: Anarcho-Kev (Kevin4VFT@aol.com)
Subject: Justice without "the State"

To Serve and Protect
Privatization and Community in Criminal Justice

by Bruce L. Benson
Foreword by Marvin E Wolfgang

New York University Press, 1998
CU7744, Hardcover, 372 pages

List Price: $37.50

Our Price: $14.95
You Save: $22.55 (60%)

Available Now
Free shipping in August!

Justice without government

reviewed by Jim Powell

Government does a poor job protecting people against crime, yet zealously protects its monopoly of police and criminal justice.

Now comes this superb book, a worthy successor to Benson's The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without The State (1990). Because he mounts a formidable challenge to the most fundamental rationale for having a government, the book is more interesting than most other books we've seen on crime.

Benson reviews evidence that government has been unable to do much about crime. Police solve very few crimes all by themselves--tips are the key. He cites statistics showing that increasing the number of squad cars or police on the beat, or even faster police response rates, have little effect on crime rates.

Benson expresses anger at the failure of the government's criminal justice system to help victims. Criminals can plead for mercy after their conviction, but victims are never allowed any input in the process. Victims can only be heard by talking to reporters or forming victims' rights groups. The government has displayed little interest in making victims once again as whole as possible.

One of the most valuable parts of this book is Benson's thoughtful discussion of a restitution-based system of criminal justice. This, he emphasizes, would probably help deter crime, but the main point is to do right by the victims. He comments on the ideas of Murray Rothbard, Robert Bidinotto, and others emphasizing the importance of restitution. Benson addresses the difficulties of collecting money from cash-poor criminals. He analyzes the workings of restitution-based systems around the world.

If you enjoyed The Enterprise of Law, which provided a revealing history of private methods for resolving disputes, you'll certainly relish the perspective this book offers. As University of Pennsylvania criminologist Wolfgang puts it in the foreword, To Serve and Protect shows that "government law enforcement was not the norm in the original thirteen colonies. Moreover, we are told, there is a growing literature that is concluding that the frontier West in the nineteenth century was not very violent, that it 'was a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society today,' mostly because there was private justice that did not offend the values of democratic processes. Hence, the American West of that century was not lawless, it was 'stateless.'"

Many of you will be surprised to hear Benson say, "The historical reality of crime policy is that public provision of criminal justice is a recent social experiment that has not worked as predicted. The increasing role of private security that we see today is actually a return to historical practices rather than something new, although private sector institutions and technologies have changed dramatically as entrepreneurs have discovered new ways to deliver the desired protection. . . . One survey indicates that nearly half of all business security managers investigate and resolve employee thefts within the business organization without ever reporting the crime."

Benson documents the trend to privatizing crime reporting, law enforcement, mediation, prosecution, restitution, and prison management. An important contribution.


"The United States today delivers law and order in the same socialist manner that the USSR delivered food and shoes--and with comparable results. We can do better. In this provocative yet practical book, To Serve and Protect, Bruce Benson shows how to harness the productive power of competition and choice to deliver police, courts, and sanctions geared to protect individuals and their rights, rather than the prerogatives of the law enforcement bureaucracy. He considers both radical and incremental reforms and chronicles the real-world benefits that have been achieved where they have been implemented. Anyone concerned with crime and justice should study these recommendations carefully."
--Randy Barnett, Professor of Law, Boston University
author of The Structure of Liberty

"Bruce Benson's book, To Serve and Protect, will cause readers to rethink their preconceived notions of not just what law enforcement services can be contracted out but also when government involvement is even desirable. The book is as comprehensive as it is bold, and it does not shy away from difficult question. Benson's effort in drawing all these different sources together has done us all a great service."
--John R. Lott, Jr., Fellow, School of Law, University of Chicago
author of More Guns, Less Crime

"To Serve and Protect serves as a wake-up call as to how far government has monopolized society's efforts toward ensuring civil behavior. The often draconian criminal justice system has steadily replaced informal community efforts preventing crime with a costly bureaucratic maze that fails to protect and leaves citizens increasingly fearful of violence."
--Joseph D. McNamara, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution,
former Chief of Police, San Jose, CA, Kansas City, MO

Click here to buy this book

(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44569)


TopPreviousNextPrintReply

Date: August 12, 2000 01:27 AM
Author: Anarcho-Kev (Kevin4VFT@aol.com)
Subject: Anarcho-Theonomic Civil Courts

18

 COUNTERATTACK

 
In 1971, a federal district court prohibited a private firm from carrying Christmas cards in Oklahoma on the basis that the plaintiffs, a postal employees union, suffered "significant loss of work time, overtime, employment benefits. . .and morale." The court concluded that private delivery of Christmas cards would be a "widespread public nuisance." The result was that the public suffered slower service and higher costs to support postal workers' "morale."[11]

In 1976 in New York, a pack of Cub Scouts tried to raise money by delivering Christmas cards: Postal Service lawyers ordered them to stop, and threatened the ten-year-olds with a $76,500 fine. A New York Times editorial regretted that the Postal Service's carriers were not as fast as its lawyers.[12]

[11] James Bovard, "Postal Monopoly Only Fuels Inflation," Chicago Tribune, April 28, 1980.
[12] "Postal Disservice," Inquiry, February 21, 1981.

 

indent.gif (90 bytes)Wherever there is a government monopoly, there is inefficiency, bad service, and an opportunity for profits. The most publicized such monopoly is the Post Office. There the advancing forces of capitalism have forced the government monopoly, in spite of its massive federal subsidy, to take legal action to limit private competitors.

indent.gif (90 bytes)There exists a government monopoly bigger and more inefficient than the Post Office. It is a service industry run so inefficiently that customers frequently wait in line for years before receiving any attention and spend years more waiting for the government to finish a job that should require a week or two. It is not surprising that 80 to 90 percent of the customers give up, go home, and do the work themselves.

indent.gif (90 bytes)I refer, of course, to the service of arbitrating and enforcing private contracts. This service is now performed primarily by the civil courts. It could be performed better by private institutions. Sometimes it is.

     Those who compete with the courts in this business are called arbitrators; the largest organization in the business is, I believe, the American Arbitration Association. Corporations, especially those operating internationally and therefore subject to the complications of international law sign contracts in which they agree that any dispute over the meaning of the contract will be arbitrated by the AAA. Normally, such contracts cover matters where it is more important that a decision be immediate than what the decision is. If such a matter goes to court, both parties will forget what the disagreement was about long before the case is settled. Arbitration provides a faster and cheaper way of resolving such disputes.

indent.gif (90 bytes)Arbitration arrangements without some enforcement mechanism are a satisfactory substitute for the courts when the problem is merely an honest disagreement and the matter being settled is less important than continued good relations between the two parties. In other cases, arbitration may be unsatisfactory if the arbitrator, unlike the court, has no way of enforcing his decisions. If one party refuses to accept a decision, the other's only recourse is to go to court in the hope that the settlement, when it finally comes through, will be of some use to his grandchildren.

indent.gif (90 bytes)A large part of the potential business for arbitration involves contracts for which some enforcement mechanism is needed. An entrepreneur able to provide such enforceable arbitration should be able to make a great deal of money. Billions are spent now on buying the same service from the court system; a good private institution should be able to turn a substantial fraction of those billions into profits.

indent.gif (90 bytes)I can think of two ways in which such enforceable arbitration could be provided without involving the government court system. Both require that arbitration agencies, like present arbitrators, not only have a reputation for being no more corrupt than the courts, but go far beyond this, to the point of being known to be positively honest. There is evidence that corporations with such a reputation will develop if there is a market for them. Some years ago, for instance, American Express assumed someone else's debt, amounting to a substantial fraction of its profits for that year, although it had no legal responsibility to do so. American Express did so because it was arguable that American Express was morally responsible, and since the firm is in the business of producing money (which it does much better than the government, incidentally), its reputation for scrupulous honesty was worth more to the company than the cost of assuming the debt.

indent.gif (90 bytes)The first method of enforcement would be for the two contracting parties to turn over to the arbitration firm a sum equal to the maximum penalty provided for under the contract. The arbitration firm would have complete discretion to do what it wished with the money. In case of a breach of contract, it would allocate an appropriate amount of one firm's money to the other. When the contract expired, it would return the money, plus interest, to the contracting parties, after deducting a prearranged fee. There would be no court-enforced contract between the contracting firms and the arbitrator; there would thus be no legal bar to prevent the arbitration firm from keeping both deposits for itself -- once.

indent.gif (90 bytes)The second form of enforcement is already in use, although not by arbitration firms. In its present form it is called a credit rating. Any firm which agreed to have a contract arbitrated and then refused to go along with the arbitration would be 'blacklisted' by the arbitration agency -- forbidden to use its services again. Before two firms signed an arbitration agreement, each would first check with all the reputable arbitration agencies to make sure the other firm was not on such a blacklist, since there would be little point in signing an arbitration agreement with a firm that had reneged on such agreements in the past. Thus a blacklisted firm would be forced to make its contract enforceable in the courts instead of by arbitration. With the courts as bad as they now are, the unavailability of the arbitration mechanism would be a serious cost. Thus the threat of blacklisting would be an effective sanction to enforce compliance with arbitrated contracts.

indent.gif (90 bytes)Under such a system there would develop two sorts of firms, those that had virtually all their contracts arbitrated and had a reputation of always abiding by the arbitration and those that used court-enforced contracts instead. The first group would have an obvious competitive advantage. Honesty does pay.

indent.gif (90 bytes)Such free enterprise mechanisms need not be limited to civil cases involving explicit contracts. Many personal injury cases could be covered by arbitration agreements among insurance companies, as could other kinds of civil cases. To some extent this already happens; present insurance companies not only provide the service of pooling their customers' risks, but also provide, by negotiations among themselves aimed at settling out of court and thus avoiding legal costs, a partial substitute for the courts. This job could perhaps be done better by firms whose sole business was such arbitration.

indent.gif (90 bytes)A potential arbitrator has a multibillion dollar market now almost completely in the hands of a government monopoly selling low quality services at an exorbitant price. All you need to go into business is honesty, ingenuity, hard work, and luck.


From "Counterattack," chapter 18 in David Friedman, The Machinery of Capitalism: Guide to a Radical Capitalism, 2d.ed., La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1989.


Tomorrow: Anarcho-Theonomic Criminal Courts
Next week: Criminal and Civil Courts in light of 1 Corinthians 6

(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44606)


TopPreviousNextPrintReply

Date: August 12, 2000 05:10 PM
Author: FjetF (bojidar@mail.vega.bg)
Subject: Kevin still doesn't answer Ed's question

WHO PUNISHES THE KILLER FOR HIS CRIMES?

This was Ed's question. So far Kevin evades it.

I was patiently waiting several days for Kevin to deliver a real-world answer to Ed's real world question. Instead of answering the question, Kevin followed his usual way of pouring thousands of hyperlinks and cheap propaganda that has nothing to do with Ed's question, slandering the Covenantal Theonomic Reconstructionists for being statists, elitists, and other epithets that are part of the anarcho-pacifist propagandist garbage.

Though most of what Kevin presented on this site doesn't have anything to do with Ed's question, I will comment on all of it, commenting under several subheadings in order to make my response better understandable.

1. Who punishes the killer for his crimes?

Now, it is still unsure: Does Kevin believe in the capital sanction prescribed in the Law of God, or not? In one place he says everyone can impose sanctions, therefore there is no reason to restrict the bloodshedding to the State alone. But in another place he claims there can be no capital punishment in the New Testament. How does that answer Ed's question: WHO PUNISHES THE KILLER FOR HIS CRIMES? Everyone can do it? Or no one can do it? Kevin's confounded arguments seem to defend both conclusions. What to do then?

Of course, Kevin is not so mad to believe everyone can impose capital sanction. (Or am I mistaken?) If everyone can impose capital sanctions, there is no basis for the social order, because in a less than ideal world people always differ as to how the Law of God must be interpreted; also, again in a less than ideal world there is never sufficient information and people will always differ as to whether this particular person has really committed this crime.

The opposite argument - no capital punishment in the New Testament - is defended by Kevin on the basis of the statement that in the Old Testament the capital punishment was ritual bloodsheding for cleansing the land. Therefore, infers Kevin, in the New Testament, since Christ has made an atonement for all the sins by offering the ultimate sacrifice, we must not restore the cleansing rituals of the Old Testament.

Now, this argument is based on Kevin's exclusivist interpretation of the function of the capital punishment: in Kevin's twisted imagination it has ONLY a religious function of ritual cleansing and nothing else. (I would remind here that all heresies rely on similar exclusivist interpretations.) But there is no evidence that capital punishment in the Law of God has ONLY one function and no other functions, like keeping the society free from wandering murderers, adulterers, kidnappers, etc. Several verses in Deuteronomy require death penalty for the reason of "so shalt thou put evil away from among you": Deut. 13:5; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 24; 24:7. The reason so stated clearly indicates that the capital punishment required has as its goal not only ritual cleansing of the land, but also civil cleansing of society, i.e., God wants His world to be free of people that have violated His Law with the highest violations. To say that in the New Testament capital punishment is not required is to say that God is not concerned about "putting evil away from among His people."

In his web-site Kevin presents an argument drawn from Deut. 21:1-9, where it says that when there is an unsolved murder, the city must be cleansed by sacrificing a heifer for cleansing of the land. Kevin infers from this that the capital punishment was ONLY a religious ritual in the Old Testament, and asks: "Do we believe that the mayor must sacrifice a heifer for every unsolved murder today?"

This is a fallacious argument. My response is: What if after they have sacrificed the heifer someone presents proofs and testimonies about who the murderer is? The ritual cleansing of the land has been already done. Does Kevin believe that under the Old Testament Law the murderer would go unpunished just because the land is already ritually cleansed? If no, why should there be a second ritual cleansing of the land? If yes, then Kevin is simply a heretic.

When it comes to lesser crimes, Kevin poses a false dichotomy: God's Law is not after punishing the criminal, but after restoring the victim.

Biblical point is this: The sanctions of the Law of God are indeed concerned more with the restitution to the victim, but they also contain punishment to the criminal. We can't separate restitution from punishment. To do so is kind of Kantian dualism in the legal world. When I pointed out that this principle is evident in the fact that double restitution is required from the thief, Kevin evaded my argument by these words:

The Bible requires one-fifth restitution, up to quadruple and quintuple restitution, depending on your interpretation, and I believe the differing amounts are based on the inconvenience to the victim.

Kevin deliberately twists the Biblical meaning. Double restitution is the general sanction prescribed in the Law. One-fifth, quadruple and quintuple restitution are only imposed in some individual specific cases. Obviously, double restitution is the standard and it contains in itself both the restitution to the victim and the punishment to the criminal - i.e., the criminal must suffer what he wanted to inflict to the other party, which is another principle of the Law of God. The statement that the amount of the restitution is based on the inconvenience to the victim reveals that Kevin hasn't done his homework in studying more economics - there is no possible way to estimate the inconvenience to the victim, unless you believe in the possibility for humans to exactly establish some kind of objective economic value.

But why shouldn't we say that the capital punishment is a kind of a restitution payment to the ultimate Victim, God? Kevin doesn't answer this question, and this is defended by Gary North in his Tools of Dominion, Chapter 11, "Criminal Law and Restoration," pp. 403-404.

Another question arises: If capital punishment is valid no more, why should we believe other punishments are valid? If Christ made the ultimate death restitution on the Cross, abolishing the death penalty, why didn't He abolish all the sacntions that include some kind of restitution, like restitution for theft or negligence? Based on Kevin's view on the capital punishment we can say that economic restitution had only a ritual function in the Old Testament, therefore it is also abolished on the Cross.

2. False Dichotomies

Kevin's arguments are based on a number of false dichotomies like the following:

What is the evidence that restitution is not designed to restore damage done to the victim, but is designed to cause inconvenience to the thief?

Biblical sanctions are restorative, not punitive.

I will only say that such dichotomies are false. It is both. The Bible contains both the concern for restoration and the punishment.

Also as whole Kevin expresses his disbelief that imposing the just sanctions of the Law of God today can't help the evangelism and the repentance of the sinner. Somehow if we impose the sanctions of the Law of God that will restrain the sinner from repentance. But what does the Bible say? When presenting all the commandments and the sanctions of the Law of God, Moses says:

"Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do the; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people (Deut. 4:5-6).

Let's summarize. Moses believes that the Law and all its statutes and judgments are evangelistic tools. Kevin believes that the Law's judgments can not be evangelistic tools. Guess who's the heretic.

3. Economic and Social Infantilism

Eventually Kevin doesn't explain how we will punish the killer. He doesn't even explain how we will punish the thief. His arguments and the arguments of his fellow-utopists only touch the true problem with the crime: criminals who won't stop doing crimes unless they are forced to do it. In this regard their arguments only reveal their childishness - in mind, not in malice, cf. 1 Cor. 14:20 - and their lack of understanding of the nature of social and economic order as well as of the mind and motivation of the criminal.

Kevin says:

Which is more Godly, a man who won't make his victim whole unless he is whipped, or the man who makes his victim whole because he values the approval of his fellow men?

Now, if we are talking ONLY about "criminals" that are so concerned about the approval of their fellow men, there is no dispute at all! In such a society we don't need sanctions at all. There won't be ANY criminals at all. If EVERYONE doesn't sleep at night wondering whether he had done something the previous day to injure his reputation, then I am the first to require the abolishment of any sanctions and any government! Why, even if we retain the sanctions in our society's law-books, there wouldn't be any need for them and they won't be executed. No problem about it! I wonder, why does Kevin need to tread that much on this?

In the "Law Merchant" article Kevin gives the childish example of William and Reginald who would rather go to the private court to solve their dispute than to the state. I have yet to meet any Reconstructionist that advocates the compulsive intervention of the State to solve such disputes. (I understand that Kevin needs to create such imaginary opponent for his arguments, but there is no such person in the real world.) I don't have problem about the private courts when both parties agree to go to them and obey their decision. Neither does any of the leading Reconstructionists. Actually, if I have any problem about Kevin's infantilist example, it is exactly the opposite: why should they go to the court and spend money there? In the real economic world if the parties don't agree they just part away and that's it! Then everyone tries to find someone with whom he might agree on the price. Not only William and Reginald didn't need the State to solve their dispute, they didn't need the Law Mercantoria either. All they needed was Adam Smith.

But there are some criminals in the world that is less ideal than Kevin's world that not only do not care about people's opinion about them, but would rather become the more arrogant and audacious the more they can go without punishment. These are the criminals Kevin prefers not to include in his analysis. When it comes to their punishment, he is silent. When it comes to the restoration of their victims, Kevin is silent.

Lurquer gives the answer: The victims get screwed.

This is the nature of Kevin's system of justice and restoration: the criminals are well out with the spoils, the victims get screwed. The only thing the victims can do is to trust in the good-will of the criminals that someday they will return back what they have stolen.

Now, I don't have problem about individuals that refuse to sue criminals because they believe they can't require forceful returning of their property in the New Testament. But what happens to a society that has allowed the professional criminals to go with the spoils and never force them to return what they've stolen?

The participants on the market will have to include the risk of being robbed in the prices of their products. Since they don't have any possibility to force the criminals - unless the criminals are the sweety-gushy type criminals of Kevin's imagination - to pay restitution, the increase in prices due to the risks will be high enough to ensure stagnation. It is true that the government intervention does bring stagnation too, but the lack of effective sanctions against criminals also brings stagnation. For the last ten years in my country I've seen both. (And, by the way, in spite of Kevin's slanders, no Reconstructionist advocates centralized government with heavy national budget and professional police force.) Capitalism requires most of all predictability, and there can't be much predictability in a world without effective sanctions against professional criminals. (Of course, to say it again, in a world without criminals or Kevin's imagined type of criminals the predictability of the social order is perfect even without effective sanctions.)

4. Kevin's slanders.

Kevin still insists to depict us all as the ultimate statists, socialists, police-state defenders, advocates of centralized government, Janet Reno's agents. He must do so to defend his crippled illusions.

Even if nothing else is said, Kevin's slanders are sufficient to show the true nature of the "Christian" pacifism.

He also accused me of being pessimist concerning the ultimate victory of the Kingdom of God in history. My reply: Just because I see that the world is less than ideal today doesn't mean I don't believe in the historical victory of the Kingdom of God.

KEVIN, CEASE SLANDERING!

A Freedom JetFighter

(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44610)


TopPreviousNextPrintReply

Date: August 13, 2000 04:32 AM
Author: Anarcho-Kev (Kevin4VFT@aol.com)
Subject: Some Answers for FJet

 

WHO PUNISHES THE KILLER FOR HIS CRIMES? Another 2-column response. It's easier for me to just respond as I read.
This was Ed's question. So far Kevin evades it. Not true; I gave several options. I'm still giving more options. Even if I don't answer the question, my question still has not been answered: Where does the Bible monopolize the punishment of criminals in the hands of "the State?" Why cannot the church punish criminals? (The church did in the O.T.)
I was patiently waiting several days for Kevin to deliver a real-world answer to Ed's real world question. Instead of answering the question, Kevin followed his usual way of pouring thousands of hyperlinks and cheap propaganda that has nothing to do with Ed's question, slandering the Covenantal Theonomic Reconstructionists for being statists, elitists, and other epithets that are part of the anarcho-pacifist propagandist garbage. If I didn't give any links or footnotes, I'm sure I'd be accused of being "vague" or "inadequately documenting" my arguments.
Though most of what Kevin presented on this site doesn't have anything to do with Ed's question, I will comment on all of it, commenting under several subheadings in order to make my response better understandable.  
1. Who punishes the killer for his crimes?  
Now, it is still unsure: Does Kevin believe in the capital sanction prescribed in the Law of God, or not? In one place he says everyone can impose sanctions, therefore there is no reason to restrict the bloodshedding to the State alone. But in another place he claims there can be no capital punishment in the New Testament. How does that answer Ed's question: WHO PUNISHES THE KILLER FOR HIS CRIMES? Everyone can do it? Or no one can do it? Kevin's confounded arguments seem to defend both conclusions. What to do then? When the question is asked "Who punishes," it presupposes that God requires a certain punishment. I must therefore ask whether God wants ANYONE to punish, and only then can I answer more specifically "who." Some people assume that God wants the blood of murderers to be shed by someone (Gen. 9:6). I don't assume that blood needs to be shed. I try to provide answers for both assumptions. If you believe you should shed someone's blood because he has committed a capital crime, I see no Biblical reason why you shouldn't do so.
Of course, Kevin is not so mad to believe everyone can impose capital sanction. (Or am I mistaken?) If everyone can impose capital sanctions, there is no basis for the social order, because in a less than ideal world people always differ as to how the Law of God must be interpreted; also, again in a less than ideal world there is never sufficient information and people will always differ as to whether this particular person has really committed this crime. You're mistaken. Every believer is a priest and a king. Nowhere is there a command for someone like Abraham to take a convicted murderer to "the State" to have his blood shed. If you believe his blood should be shed, you are a priest and a king. There's no monopoly on obeying these commands.

The "basis for social order" is the Bible. Why is it that in a "less than ideal world" we can have a nuclear-armed state, but not a stone-armed priesthood of all believers?

Is there universal agreement about who has really committed a crime when the State executes someone? Why should the State have a monopoly on executions rather than have this power decentralized?

The opposite argument - no capital punishment in the New Testament - is defended by Kevin on the basis of the statement that in the Old Testament the capital punishment was ritual bloodsheding for cleansing the land. Therefore, infers Kevin, in the New Testament, since Christ has made an atonement for all the sins by offering the ultimate sacrifice, we must not restore the cleansing rituals of the Old Testament. This argument is developed here.
Now, this argument is based on Kevin's exclusivist interpretation of the function of the capital punishment: in Kevin's twisted imagination it has ONLY a religious function of ritual cleansing and nothing else. (I would remind here that all heresies rely on similar exclusivist interpretations.) But there is no evidence that capital punishment in the Law of God has ONLY one function and no other functions, like keeping the society free from wandering murderers, adulterers, kidnappers, etc. Several verses in Deuteronomy require death penalty for the reason of "so shalt thou put evil away from among you": Deut. 13:5; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 24; 24:7. The reason so stated clearly indicates that the capital punishment required has as its goal not only ritual cleansing of the land, but also civil cleansing of society, i.e., God wants His world to be free of people that have violated His Law with the highest violations. To say that in the New Testament capital punishment is not required is to say that God is not concerned about "putting evil away from among His people." "Exclusivist interpretation?" Not at all. Let's assume that the dietary laws are no longer binding. What was their "exclusive" purpose? Hard to say, right? But they're still non-binding even if they had multiple functions. What was the "exclusivist" function of the shedding of the heifer's blood in Deuteronomy 21? There undoubtedly were many functions, but other than William Einwechter nobody believes the civil magistrate should shed the blood of any animal in response to an unsolved homicide.

A society can "put evil away from among you" by exile. Shedding blood is not necessary to achieve this function.

FJet cites Deut 19:19. In this passage a false witness must pay what he sought to make the defendant pay. If he falsely accuses you of stealing $100, he pays what he sought to make you pay. When he pays the fine, "evil is put out of Israel." No killing is necessary. He is still walking around. Restoration, not execution, is God's primary concern.

In his web-site Kevin presents an argument drawn from Deut. 21:1-9, where it says that when there is an unsolved murder, the city must be cleansed by sacrificing a heifer for cleansing of the land. Kevin infers from this that the capital punishment was ONLY a religious ritual in the Old Testament, and asks: "Do we believe that the mayor must sacrifice a heifer for every unsolved murder today?" I believe Numbers 35:33 teaches that the primary purpose of the ritual shedding of a capital criminal's blood is atonement for the land.
This is a fallacious argument. My response is: What if after they have sacrificed the heifer someone presents proofs and testimonies about who the murderer is? The ritual cleansing of the land has been already done. Does Kevin believe that under the Old Testament Law the murderer would go unpunished just because the land is already ritually cleansed? If no, why should there be a second ritual cleansing of the land? If yes, then Kevin is simply a heretic. In America we have a rule against "double jeopardy." If a man is tried for murder and acquitted, then the elders shed the heifer's blood because no murderer can be found, how could the man be tried a second time for the same crime?

Frankly, I don't know whether this rule applied in Israel. A quick look at the indices in Rushdoony's Institutes and North's commentaries on Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, shows no entry for "double jeopardy." I would say further study (rather than accusations) is the order of the day.

When it comes to lesser crimes, Kevin poses a false dichotomy: God's Law is not after punishing the criminal, but after restoring the victim.  
Biblical point is this: The sanctions of the Law of God are indeed concerned more with the restitution to the victim, but they also contain punishment to the criminal. We can't separate restitution from punishment. To do so is kind of Kantian dualism in the legal world. When I pointed out that this principle is evident in the fact that double restitution is required from the thief, Kevin evaded my argument by these words: "Kantian dualism?"
The Bible requires one-fifth restitution, up to quadruple and quintuple restitution, depending on your interpretation, and I believe the differing amounts are based on the inconvenience to the victim.  
Kevin deliberately twists the Biblical meaning. Double restitution is the general sanction prescribed in the Law. One-fifth, quadruple and quintuple restitution are only imposed in some individual specific cases. Obviously, double restitution is the standard and it contains in itself both the restitution to the victim and the punishment to the criminal - i.e., the criminal must suffer what he wanted to inflict to the other party, which is another principle of the Law of God. The statement that the amount of the restitution is based on the inconvenience to the victim reveals that Kevin hasn't done his homework in studying more economics - there is no possible way to estimate the inconvenience to the victim, unless you believe in the possibility for humans to exactly establish some kind of objective economic value. "Deliberately twists?" This is a standard interpretation in Reconstructionist circles. (Institutes, pp. 459-60)

 

 

 

 

Juries are called upon every day to hear testimony and estimate the value of the plaintiff's inconvenience. Am I right, Lurquer?

But why shouldn't we say that the capital punishment is a kind of a restitution payment to the ultimate Victim, God? Kevin doesn't answer this question, and this is defended by Gary North in his Tools of Dominion, Chapter 11, "Criminal Law and Restoration," pp. 403-404. I don't answer this question because you just now raised it. But the same argument applies: God no longer accepts any blood as restitution except that of Christ's. (Remember, the life is in the blood.) If you commit murder and the court acquits you, you can't make restitution except by repentance (saving faith). Suicide won't work.
Another question arises: If capital punishment is valid no more, why should we believe other punishments are valid? If Christ made the ultimate death restitution on the Cross, abolishing the death penalty, why didn't He abolish all the sacntions that include some kind of restitution, like restitution for theft or negligence? Based on Kevin's view on the capital punishment we can say that economic restitution had only a ritual function in the Old Testament, therefore it is also abolished on the Cross. I don't believe restitution is a "punishment," so it is still valid even if all "punishments" are not.

How is the idea that "restoration of damage is only ceremonial" based on my view?

2. False Dichotomies  
Kevin's arguments are based on a number of false dichotomies like the following:  
What is the evidence that restitution is not designed to restore damage done to the victim, but is designed to cause inconvenience to the thief?

Biblical sanctions are restorative, not punitive.

 
I will only say that such dichotomies are false. It is both. The Bible contains both the concern for restoration and the punishment. (1) The concern for restoration is obvious and pervasive. Could you please quote the verses which show a desire to inconvenience the offender?
(2) As I said, multiple functions do not determine whether a law is fulfilled as "ceremonial."
Also as whole Kevin expresses his disbelief that imposing the just sanctions of the Law of God today can't help the evangelism and the repentance of the sinner. Somehow if we impose the sanctions of the Law of God that will restrain the sinner from repentance. But what does the Bible say? When presenting all the commandments and the sanctions of the Law of God, Moses says: Too many negatives in this sentence have me confused.

This sounds like the old argument that we might execute someone before he has a chance to repent. A thoroughly unCalvinistic and therefore bogus argument against the shedding of blood. Never advanced by me.

"Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do the; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people (Deut. 4:5-6). I've always liked this passage. I don't understand the anti-anti-deathpenalty argument it is supposed to prove.
Let's summarize. Moses believes that the Law and all its statutes and judgments are evangelistic tools. Kevin believes that the Law's judgments can not be evangelistic tools. Guess who's the heretic. Not an accurate representation of my position.
3. Economic and Social Infantilism  
Eventually Kevin doesn't explain how we will punish the killer. He doesn't even explain how we will punish the thief. His arguments and the arguments of his fellow-utopists only touch the true problem with the crime: criminals who won't stop doing crimes unless they are forced to do it. In this regard their arguments only reveal their childishness - in mind, not in malice, cf. 1 Cor. 14:20 - and their lack of understanding of the nature of social and economic order as well as of the mind and motivation of the criminal. I'm not convinced our goal should be to "punish" the thief. Our goal (and the thief's goal) should be to restore the victim to pre-theft wholeness.

By "fellow-utopists" are you referring to Rushdoony and John Adams?

http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/97aug/s17.htm [#11]

Kevin says:  
Which is more Godly, a man who won't make his victim whole unless he is whipped, or the man who makes his victim whole because he values the approval of his fellow men? [my treading]
Now, if we are talking ONLY about "criminals" that are so concerned about the approval of their fellow men, there is no dispute at all! In such a society we don't need sanctions at all. There won't be ANY criminals at all. If EVERYONE doesn't sleep at night wondering whether he had done something the previous day to injure his reputation, then I am the first to require the abolishment of any sanctions and any government! Why, even if we retain the sanctions in our society's law-books, there wouldn't be any need for them and they won't be executed. No problem about it! I wonder, why does Kevin need to tread that much on this? [FJet's treading] I wonder too.
In the "Law Merchant" article Kevin gives the childish example of William and Reginald who would rather go to the private court to solve their dispute than to the state. I have yet to meet any Reconstructionist that advocates the compulsive intervention of the State to solve such disputes. (I understand that Kevin needs to create such imaginary opponent for his arguments, but there is no such person in the real world.) I don't have problem about the private courts when both parties agree to go to them and obey their decision. Neither does any of the leading Reconstructionists. Actually, if I have any problem about Kevin's infantilist example, it is exactly the opposite: why should they go to the court and spend money there? In the real economic world if the parties don't agree they just part away and that's it! Then everyone tries to find someone with whom he might agree on the price. Not only William and Reginald didn't need the State to solve their dispute, they didn't need the Law Mercantoria either. All they needed was Adam Smith.  
But there are some criminals in the world that is less ideal than Kevin's world that not only do not care about people's opinion about them, but would rather become the more arrogant and audacious the more they can go without punishment. These are the criminals Kevin prefers not to include in his analysis. When it comes to their punishment, he is silent. When it comes to the restoration of their victims, Kevin is silent. There are an extraordinarily small number of sociopaths who do not respond to social pressure and can only be kept from committing crimes by brute force. It's senseless to base an entire criminal system on these few, especially when it can be argued that institutionalized vengeance may reinforce their pathology. If our society invested money in prevention and security rather than post-crime vengeance, we wouldn't worry so much about what to do to criminals. They would come into existence far less frequently.
Lurquer gives the answer: The victims get screwed.  
This is the nature of Kevin's system of justice and restoration: the criminals are well out with the spoils, the victims get screwed. The only thing the victims can do is to trust in the good-will of the criminals that someday they will return back what they have stolen.

Now, I don't have problem about individuals that refuse to sue criminals because they believe they can't require forceful returning of their property in the New Testament. But what happens to a society that has allowed the professional criminals to go with the spoils and never force them to return what they've stolen?

In a Christian society there are no federal housing projects where criminals can reside without coming into contact with the rest of normal society. They are earlier disciplined into making restitution. Christian society does not allow for rootless and anonymous pockets of urban waste.
The participants on the market will have to include the risk of being robbed in the prices of their products. Since they don't have any possibility to force the criminals - unless the criminals are the sweety-gushy type criminals of Kevin's imagination - to pay restitution, the increase in prices due to the risks will be high enough to ensure stagnation. It is true that the government intervention does bring stagnation too, but the lack of effective sanctions against criminals also brings stagnation. For the last ten years in my country I've seen both. (And, by the way, in spite of Kevin's slanders, no Reconstructionist advocates centralized government with heavy national budget and professional police force.) Capitalism requires most of all predictability, and there can't be much predictability in a world without effective sanctions against professional criminals. (Of course, to say it again, in a world without criminals or Kevin's imagined type of criminals the predictability of the social order is perfect even without effective sanctions.) In addition to the John Adams quote above, I would offer a glimpse of Christian society in these words from James Madison:
Pledged as we are, fellow-citizens, to these sacred engagements, we yet humbly, fervently implore the Almighty Disposer of events to avert from our land war and usurpation, the scourges of mankind; to permit our fields to be cultivated in peace; to instil into nations the love of friendly intercourse; to suffer our youth to be educated in virtue, and to preserve our morality from the pollution invariably incident to habits of war; to prevent the laborer and husbandman from being harassed by taxes and imposts; to remove from ambition the means of disturbing the commonwealth; to annihilate all pretexts for power afforded by war; to maintain the Constitution; and to bless our nation with tranquillity, under. whose benign influence we may reach the summit of happiness and glory, to which we are destined by nature and nature's God.
Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Pronouncing The Alien And Sedition Laws To Be Unconstitutional, And Defining The Rights Of The States.
Drawn by Mr. Madison IN THE VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES, Friday, December 21, 1798
Jonathan Elliot, Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol. 4, p.532

A nation that makes these ideals its highest priority need not make institutionalized vengeance and fear of crime the centerpiece of its collective thought..

4. Kevin's slanders.  
Kevin still insists to depict us all as the ultimate statists, socialists, police-state defenders, advocates of centralized government, Janet Reno's agents. He must do so to defend his crippled illusions. Is a "crippled illusion" better or worse than a full-bodied illusion?
Even if nothing else is said, Kevin's slanders are sufficient to show the true nature of the "Christian" pacifism.  
He also accused me of being pessimist concerning the ultimate victory of the Kingdom of God in history. My reply: Just because I see that the world is less than ideal today doesn't mean I don't believe in the historical victory of the Kingdom of God.  
KEVIN, CEASE SLANDERING! Sorry FJet. I just don't know where I pick up all these crippled illusions, Kantian dualisms, and deliberately twisted social infantilism.

(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44618)


TopPreviousNextPrintReply

Date: August 13, 2000 08:24 PM
Author: Lurquer (comunicus@hotmail.com)
Subject: A Question for Anarcho-Kevin

While FJet calms down, let me ask a question on his behalf...

It is true you have based at least part of your argument on the fact that the ONLY purpose (you have sense modified this to PRIMARY purpose) of the death penalty was for atonement.

Ed has cited numerous verses along the lines of "ridding the land of evil" to support the notion that such a penalty was chiefly with an eye towards lessening crime by getting rid of repeat offenders.

For linguistic reasons, which have been pointed out to Ed before, I don't think the phrase means quite what he wants it to in Hebrew.

Nevertheless, the anti-anarcho-kevs still have: Deu 17:12-13:

And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.

Now.... Here we have -- clear as day -- an acknowledgment that the death penalty had deterrence as a purpose; criminals were killed in order to make others think twice before breaking the law. "The people shall, hear, fear, and do no more presumptuously." George Bush himself couldn't have said it better.

So, Mr. Atonement-only, there you have it --- the death penalty may be used for deterrence. Sure, there might be an atonement purpose as well, and sure that was fulfilled with Christ, but the Mosaic law STILL authorizes the death penalty for deterrence. And, nobody in the N.T. ever said we were not to kill people in order to deter others.

So while you are trotting your unknown-murderer-heifer around, could you take some time to address the above?

(See, FJet how easy it is to make devestatingly brilliant counter-arguments without resorting to name-calling?)

(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44626)


    TopPreviousNextPrintReply

    Date: August 14, 2000 02:39 AM
    Author: Anarcho-Kev (Kevin4VFT@aol.com)
    Subject: Some suggested answers

    Lurquer:

    Nevertheless, the anti-anarcho-kevs still have: Deu 17:12-13:

    And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.

    Now.... Here we have -- clear as day -- an acknowledgment that the death penalty had deterrence as a purpose; criminals were killed in order to make others think twice before breaking the law. "The people shall, hear, fear, and do no more presumptuously." George Bush himself couldn't have said it better.

    So, Mr. Atonement-only, there you have it --- the death penalty may be used for deterrence. Sure, there might be an atonement purpose as well, and sure that was fulfilled with Christ, but the Mosaic law STILL authorizes the death penalty for deterrence. And, nobody in the N.T. ever said we were not to kill people in order to deter others.

    So while you are trotting your unknown-murderer-heifer around, could you take some time to address the above?

    I don't deny that an execution can generate fear ("deterrence"). In addition to criminals, we could throw out the Fourth Amendment, create a police state, select people at random and execute them on TV, showing all the bloody, gory detail, with the government Minister of Fear intoning the grave message: We are SERIOUS about crime! I'm sure some criminals would think twice. Maybe I'm just a city-slicker, but I would imagine the killing of the heifer and the shedding of its blood (Deut 21) -- ew, yuck! -- undoubtedly had an effect on people who saw it. But deterrence isn't the only reason God commanded the shedding of blood. While the deterrence issue is in my mind unproven, the atonement factor is undeniable (Numb 35:33). All factors must be taken into account.

    There are three questions to be asked about these "deterrence" passages:

    1. Is the passage saying that the execution causes people to "hear, fear, and behave," or are the people being commanded to "hear, fear, and behave" or face future crime?
    2. Would the shedding of the blood of any other animal cause the people to "hear, fear, and behave?"
    3. If so, why don't we shed animal blood as well as (or at least in the place of) human blood?

    I don't have time right now to dig out my commentaries (although I believe the Hebrew allows for an imperative construction as well as a post hoc ergo propter hoc construction), so I'll skip Q.1, noting only that God certainly does command us to hear and fear; these are not merely knee-jerk reactions to executions. We are commanded to do so even in the absence of executions:

    You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and hear His voice, and you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him.
    Deuteronomy 13:4

    And he shall say to them, 'Hear, O Israel: Today you are on the verge of battle with your enemies. Do not let your heart faint, fear not, and do not tremble or be terrified because of them;
    Deuteronomy 20:3

    Gather the people together, men and women and little ones, and the stranger who is within your gates, that they may hear and that they may learn to fear the LORD your God and carefully observe all the words of this law, {13} "and that their children, who have not known it, may hear and learn to fear the LORD your God as long as you live in the land which you cross the Jordan to possess."
    Deuteronomy 31:12-13

    "If you fear the LORD and serve Him and hear His voice, and do not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then both you and the king who reigns over you will continue following the LORD your God.
    1 Samuel 12:14

    Then Saul said to Samuel, "I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD and your words, because I feared the people and heard their voice.
    1 Samuel 15:24

    This is something that God works in our hearts.

    "especially concerning the day you stood before the LORD your God in Horeb, when the LORD said to me, 'Gather the people to Me, and I will let them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children.'
    Deut 4:10

    There are many other things we should be doing to increase the fear of God and the hearing of His Word, and depending primarily on executions is a sorry substitute for these other duties.

    If we did not shed the blood of criminals, we would not be denying the work of Christ, nor would we be denying the imperative of hearing, fearing, and obeying. Shedding blood denies the work of Christ.

    There is nothing in the passages cited by FJet & Ed that indicate that it is criminals that are "deterred." As I read the passages it seems to me that it is the community as a whole that is on trial here, the "innocent" who are indicted by the presence of false prophets and those who are so brazen that they publicly commit abominations worthy of execution. These criminals are sent into the midst of "good people" by God to test them (Deut 13:3). They did not speak out against the false prophet (Deut 13) and idolater (Deut 17). God promises to reduce crime in response to the obedience of the church, and increase criminals in response to the sinfulness of the church.

    Other devices to cause hearing and fearing

    I would also note that "holy war" caused the heathen nations to hear and fear God

    And the fear of God was on all the kingdoms of those countries, when they had heard that the LORD fought against the enemies of Israel.
    2 Chr 20:29, and also the exodus

    This does not justify holy war in our day (Matthew 28:18-20). Nor is the shedding of human blood justified solely on the pragmatic basis that "it worked."

    In the seventh year, at the Feast of Tabernacles, there was an assembly and reading of God's Word, which caused all to hear and fear:

    And Moses commanded them, saying: "At the end of every seven years, at the appointed time in the year of release, at the Feast of Tabernacles, {11} "when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God in the place which He chooses, you shall read this law before all Israel in their hearing. {12} "Gather the people together, men and women and little ones, and the stranger who is within your gates, that they may hear and that they may learn to fear the LORD your God and carefully observe all the words of this law, {13} "and that their children, who have not known it, may hear and learn to fear the LORD your God as long as you live in the land which you cross the Jordan to possess."
    Deuteronomy 31:10-13

    I should think the public reading of God's Word should be a higher priority on the Reconstructionist agenda than executing people. It strikes at the heart of the myth of "separation of church and state," which I believe is far more destructive to our nation than failing to shed blood. (It makes for better PR too.) But the point I wanted to make was that regardless of the social benefits of celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles, the Reformed theology surrounding "the ceremonial law" tells us not to do so. That same theology should govern our advocacy of ritual bloodshed, regardless of the speculated pragmatic benefits.

    Also that day they offered great sacrifices, and rejoiced: for God had made them rejoice with great joy: the wives also and the children rejoiced: so that the joy of Jerusalem was heard even afar off.
    Nehemiah 12:43

    Notice the salutary effect on society of numerous animal sacrifices. Doesn't this justify similar practices in our day?

     


    Kevin C.
    http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm
    ---------------------------------------------

    And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
    and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
    Micah 4:1-7

    (http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44632)


TopPreviousNextPrintReply

Date: August 14, 2000 01:38 AM
Author: anon (anon)
Subject: Is this really Anarcho-Kevin?

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/nm/20000813/ts/mdf99795.html

It is amazing that the anarchist, feminist, animal rights, eco-nazi's did not kill this guy......maybe it was because they were all busy inside.

(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44629)