Originally Posted by
FreedomFanatic
I have been mulling this topic over for awhile, and almost started breaking it down in another thread, but decided it was off topic, so I'm going to do it here.
To my knowledge, there are only five consistent positions that it is possible to hold in politics. There may be others, but to my knowledge:
1. Anarchism/voluntarism/whatever else you want to call it, which rejects the legitimacy of rulers entirely. It does NOT reject the legitimacy or law, only the legitimacy of coercive violence against peaceful people, ever. No social contract. Thus, no compulsory taxes or monopolistic legal systems. This is the position that I take.
2. Theonomy. Government strictly limited by Old Testament Law. More or less what Gary North and Joel McDurmon hold, and what Rushdoony used to hold. This is a fairly, though not ideologically, libertarian viewpoint, especially when the postmillennial view of progress that almost always accompanies this view is factored in. I respect this viewpoint, but I don't agree with it. I don't know of any statist viewpoint other than this one that has any degree of coherence and yet doesn't at least theoretically lead to tyranny.
3. Strict Utilitarianism. Individual rights don't matter, only the good of the collective. The only relevant policy consideration is how a policy affects utility. No strictly moral considerations. One can come to a variety of different viewpoints on government structure, even stumbling upon a different internally consistent system perhaps. No individual rights. No moral principles binding government other than utility. Its possible to consistently hold this position. In reality the VAST majority of people who believe something like this do not realize its implications.
4. Divine Right of Kings. God ordained rulers and they have an absolute right to rule. Note that this position is VERY different than the theonomy of #2. Theonomy does say that God ordains rulers in a positive sense, but it also puts strict limits on what they are allowed to do. By contrast, this viewpoint simply asserts that what the king does is inherently just because God ordained him. This viewpoint strikes me as sickening (as does view #3) but it is internally consistent.
5. Absolute democracy. The collective has all the rights. The collective right of the majority to decide is supreme. No moral considerations, no individual rights. I find this view repulsive, but it is theoretically consistent. I haven't ever met anyone who is actually consistent about this view (or #3-4) though. Most people when pressed will eventually admit to a limit to their collectivism. Most people, for instance, will not claim that slavery or the Holocaust would have been justified were the majority to vote for it, but this is the logical conclusion of this view (A proponent to #3 could argue that such an arrangement is un-utilitarian, but that's not particularly satisfying to most.)
Note that other religions could have their versions of theonomy. Sharia Law is perhaps an Islamic version of "theonomy" (although far less libertarian) and may be logically consistent with the presupposition that Islam is true. I don't know enough about any such systems to comment on them or discuss them, but I am aware that they probably exist.
Other than that though, I'm not sure how any other position can be justified with internal consistency. It seems that to be a minarchist or a constitutionalist, one would have to accept one of the views between 3-5, or else be inconsistent. And it seems to me that most are consistent.
I don't know of any logically consistent system that doesn't fit with one of these 5. I appreciate any thoughts or debate on this.
Connect With Us