The State

The State

Thomas Allen

The state is an abstraction. So, when we speak of the state doing something, we are really speaking of the elite, either as an individual or a group, who controls and acts in the name of the state. Likewise, when we speak of the rights, privileges, and immunities of the state, we are really speaking of the rights, privileges, and immunities of this controlling elite who acts in the name of the state.

Who is this elite that controls the state? Originally, it was a monarch. Now, it is the oligarchs. The oligarchs consist primarily of plutocrats and high-ranking politicians, bureaucrats, and judges. Accordingly, it is more correct to use the terms “oligarch” or “oligarchy” instead of “state.”

Instead of developing spontaneously, the state is a manmade invention — a manmade institution and political entity. It is not a discovery, nor has God preordained it. (In many respects, the state is idolatry because many people worship it and look at it as their savior.)

The state originated in Europe during the seventeenth century following the breakup of the medieval political order. Before the seventeenth century, the state as such did not exist.

Max Weber defines the state as “a relation of men dominating men, a relation supported by means of legitimate (i.e., considered to be legitimate) violence . . . [it] is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Yoram Barzel defines the state as consisting of “(1) a set of individuals who are subject to a single ultimate third party who uses violence for enforcement and (2) a territory where these individuals reside, demarcated by the reach of the enforcer power.”

An essential attribute of a state is that it possesses a monopoly on the use of force, either legitimately or illegitimately, to impose its will.  Consequently, it must disarm the people. This assertion of a monopoly of the means of violence gives the government’s claim to provide protection more credibility and makes resistance more difficult.

To exercise its violence, the state establishes a monopolistic organization of violence over its territory and centralizes the control of violence. As a result, it increasingly monopolies public life and absorbs all other centers of power. Specifically, it concentrates power. Such concentration of power is necessary for a state to survive.

Moreover, the state represents both a domestic and international political order. It is a sovereign power.

Another essential attribute of a state is that it is territorial. It is the sovereign of a particular geographical area.  That is, it is a legal entity that occupies a definite space. Its authority is contained within this space. However, to achieve this goal, the state has to deny citizens (or more correctly subjects) all other loyalties. Consequently, the state seeks to destroy all intermediate bodies between it and individuals except associations that it approves.

Before the rise of the state, customs regulated conduct and not the law. Tax collection was difficult and sporadic. Men were not drafted for war or labor. With the arrival of the State, law replaced custom (although the law often codified customs), taxes became more collectible, and men were drafted for war. This ability of a state to demand and easily obtain “blood and money” from its subjects distinguishes it from all other political arrangements.

A great advantage of the state to the oligarchs is privileges, immunities, and other benefits that they and their associates receive that are denied to others.

With the insatiable lust for power, the state is the enemy of freedom. Freedom can only be achieved by restricting and containing the state. Historically, federalism has been highly effective in this endeavor as long as the federation lasted.

Sovereignty is another essential attribute of the state. In Europe, according to Bassani, sovereignty “is eminently juridical and implies the idea of an unlimited and illimitable concentration of power at a given center.” (Bassani, pp. 49-50) Consequently, “sovereignty requires potentially unlimited concentration of power in a territory.” (Bassani, p. 50) Thus, the European concept of sovereignty is statism, absolute political power residing in the state.

For Americans before Lincoln’s War, sovereignty meant the supreme legislative authority or the primary power to make laws. It did not imply or require the concentration and centralization of power, which federalism dispersed. For most Americans before Lincoln’s War, sovereignty resided in the States, i.e., sovereignty resided in the people of each State independent of all other States. Therefore, the American concept of sovereignty has an antistatism function.

Sovereignty is indivisible and illimitable. However, a sovereign power can delegate rights. Nevertheless, these delegated rights do not make the body receiving them sovereign because the sovereign that grants them remains the superior will. In Europe, the sovereign is the state, i.e., the oligarchs. In America before Lincoln’s War, it was the people of each individual state separately. After Lincoln’s War, the oligarchs usurped the powers of the people of the States and concentrated them in the federal government and, by that, made those who controlled the federal government, the oligarchs, sovereign.

Reference

Bassani, Luigi Marco. Chaining Down Leviathan: The Ameican Dream of Self-Government 1776–1865. McClellanville, South Carolina: Abbeville Institute Press, 2021.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

The Staff: Did He Or Didn’t He?

 The Staff: Did He Or Didn’t He?

Thomas Allen

When Jesus sent out his disciples on a preaching mission, did he allow them to take a staff, or did he forbid them to take a staff? According to Mark, he allowed the disciples to take a staff. According to Matthew and Luke, he forbade them to take a staff.

Mark 6:8: “and he charged them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no bread, no wallet, no money in their purse;”

Matthew 10:9-10: “Get you no gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses; no wallet for your journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, nor staff: for the laborer is worthy of his food.”

Luke 9:3 “And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staff, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats.”

Which of the two versions of the story is correct? Both cannot be correct.

Samuele Bacchiocchi, who believes that the Bible is infallible but not inerrant, claims that Mark used a different source than that used by Matthew and Luke, and this accounts for the difference between them. He argues that the writers of this story believed that the actual details were unimportant. What was important was Jesus sending his disciples to preach the Gospel. What they were told to carry or not to carry was unimportant. To the writers of this event, the event was more important than the details.

Robert Wilkins, who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, notes that in Mark Jesus allows his disciples to take a staff. However, he fails to note that according to Matthews and Luke, Jesus told them not to take a staff.

John Wesley attempts to resolve the conflict between Matthew and Mark by arguing that if a disciple had a staff, he could take it. However, if he did not already have a staff, he was not to get one and take it. (One may infer Wesley’s resolution to this conflict, but the text does not seem to imply it.)

Charles Gore acknowledges that in Mark the disciples are allowed to have a staff while in Luke they are not. He credits the discrepancy to a mistake — a failure to recollect correctly Mark’s words. In any event, the stress is on the purpose of the mission, preaching the Gospel, and not on the gear that the disciples were allowed to carry.

In The Interpreters Commentary, Howard Kee recognizes that according to Matthew, the disciples were not to carry a staff, but he fails to note the conflict with Mark. Yet, he does point out other differences between Matthew and Mark about this event. Likewise, William Baird comments that according to Luke, the disciples were not to carry a staff, and he also fails to notice the conflict with Mark. However, Lindsey Pherigo, mentions the conflict between Mark and Luke. He remarks that the purpose of taking the staff is unclear. Nevertheless, The Interpreters Commentary offers no resolution of the staff problem.

In The Abingdon Bible Commentary, J. Newton Davis states that while in Matthew the disciples were not to carry a staff, in Mark they are allowed to carry a staff, which was indispensable for a long journey. About Luke’s disagreement with Mark on the staff, J.A. Findlay believes that Luke and Matthew used Q as their source for this detail instead of using Mark. (Q is a hypothetical written collection of Jesus’ sayings.)

Adam Clarke believes that the staff forbidden in Matthew and Luke was one used for walking or defense. The staff allowed in Mark was one used to carry their clothes on if they had to remove them because of heat. (Why could not the same staff be used for walking and carrying clothes?)

In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Homer Kent resolves the disagreement between Mark and Matthew by stating that a disciple could carry a staff (in agreement with Mark) if he already had one. However, the text only weakly supports this solution if it supports it at all.

In Peake’s Commentary, H.G. Wood offers the solution of the church fathers to the staff conflict between Mark and Matthew. The staff forbidden in Matthew and Luke was ordinary while the one allowed in Mark was an apostolic wand of office.

Elizabeth Reed claims that the text in Matthew and Mark means that the disciples were to take only one staff, probably one apiece, as an aid in walking. They were not to carry several or a staff for self-defense against physical harm. (She seems to be straining the text beyond breaking. No hint is given in these texts to suggest that none means one.)

Most of the other commentaries that I consulted either followed Wilkins (noted that Mark allowed taking a staff) or failed to comment on the staff problem. They do not mention the discrepancy.

Bacchiocchi and Findlay give the most likely solution to Mark allowing a staff and Matthew and Luke forbidding a staff. Matthew and Luke used a different source than Mark used. However, the solution offered by Wesley and Kent (if they had a staff, they could take it, but if they did to have one, they were not to procure one) is a viable solution although the text only weakly supports it if at all. Anyway, this particular detail is irrelevant to the story, its importance, and the lessons that it was intended to teach.

References

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. “Biblical Errancy And Inerrancy.” Endtime Issues No. 102 – Part 2. August 19, 2003.

Clarke, Adam. Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible. Abridged by Ralph Earle. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1967.

Gore, Charles, Henry L. Goudge, and Alfred Guillaume, editors. A New Commentary on Holy Scripture. New York: The Macmillian Co., 1928.

Eiselen, Frederick Carl, Edwin Lewis, and David G. Downey, editors, The Abingdon Bible Commentary. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1929.

Laymon, Charles M., ed., The Interpreter’s One-volume Commentary on the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971.

Peake, Arthur S., editor. A Commentary on the Bible. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.

Pfeiffer, Charles F., editor. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Reed, Mrs. H.V (Elizabeth). Bible Triumphant: Being a Reply to a Work Entitled 144 Self-contradictions of the Bible, Published by Andrew Jackson Davis. Harvard, Illinois: H.V. Reed, 1866.

Wesley, John, Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry, et. al. One Volume New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1893, 1957.

Wilkin, Robert N. The Grace New Testament Commentary. Editor Robert N. Wilkin. Vol.  1. Denton, Texas: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Why I am not a Republican

 Why I am not a Republican

Thomas Allen

I am not a Republican for many of the same reasons that I am not a Democrat. Both promote destructive policies — only the Democrats generally promote them with more alacrity and vigor and are more successful.

The comments that follow are directed at the Republican and Democratic leaders and their spokesmen and apologists in the media. Although they are not directed at the rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats, most of the rank-and-file do adhere to and follow their leaders in the matters discussed below.

Republicans and Democrats are proponents of “American Exceptionalism.” This exceptionalism is the creed of equality, democracy, and universal natural rights, which both promote. This creed is the defining principle that makes America America. However, they disagree somewhat about what constitutes “natural rights” and especially what equality means.

Both Republicans and Democrats prefer the constitution that Lincoln (as furthered developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and carried to fruition by the Warren Court and especially Justice William Brennan), which is the current constitution, to the constitution that the founding fathers gave the country.

While Democrats only give constitutional government lip service, Republicans claim to believe in constitutional government. Yet they have done nothing to reduce the size of the federal government. As under Democrats, the federal government continues to grow under Republicans — perhaps, not as fast, but it still grows.

An example of the hypocrisy of the Republican support of constitutional government is the unconstitutional Department of Education. When Republicans controlled the federal government, it did nothing to abolish the Department of Education despite their promise to abolish it. Instead of abolishing the Department of Education, they have used it to consolidate federal control of education in the United States, which is why the Democrats established it. Thus, the Republicans have collaborated with the Democrats to give the federal government control of education in the United States.

Republicans and Democrats both revere Father Abraham (Lincoln) and St. Martin Luther King the Divine — only Republicans more so than Democrats. Republicans have even elevated them to Deity.

Like Democrats, Republicans are racial nihilists and promote a multiracial and multicultural country and society. Both are globalists. Neither have any objections to miscegenation, and both promote other policies that eventually genocide the American Negro.

Both Republicans and Democrats promote diversity as a strength and great virtue. Therefore, both ignore Madison’s warning about too much diversity, which plutocrats use to transfer ever more wealth and power to themselves. Thus, plutocrats control both parties.

Although Democrats ardently support abortion, Republicans do not oppose abortion — their rhetoric to the contrary. In spite (or because) of abortion being a highly successful weapon in the genocide of the American Negro, Democrats have ardently promoted abortion for more than a half-century. Except for their rhetoric, Republicans stopped seriously opposing abortion decades ago.

Both are Lincolnian-Hamiltonians. Nonetheless, Democrats prefer much more governmental intervention in the economy than do Republicans. Thus, Democrats are much more fascistic than are Republicans. Whereas Democrats are proponents of a command-and-control economy, Republicans favor a market economy — at least in rhetoric. (Republicans claim that they support a free-market economy, which they do not. Otherwise, they would move to abolish all the regulatory agencies, which are unconstitutional anyway, of the federal government.)

Contrary to their assertion otherwise, Republicans support the welfare state. Democrats strongly promote the welfare state for the same reason that Bismark, the archconservative German chancellor, did. (Bismark instituted the welfare state in Germany: The welfare state makes governmental control of the people easier because people who receive benefits from a welfare program are less likely to object to other governmental programs.) The primary difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans want to make controlling people more cost-effective.

Like the Democrats, Republicans like to create problems and then like the Democrats express outrage at the consequences. Many of the problems that both Republicans and Democrats rail against result from the welfare state, which both endorse and support.

Despite their rhetoric during political campaigns, both support the warfare state. They prefer war to peace. Neither object to using the United States military to bully other countries and to interfere with their internal affairs. After all, war is necessary to impose the American creed of equality, democracy, and universal natural rights on everyone. More important, war transfers ever more wealth and power to the rich and powerful, who control the federal government.

Both the Republicans and Democrats support the police state. Moreover, with the Transportation Security Administration, secret warrants and arrests, indefinite detention, and torture centers, Republicans have led the charge. All this has been done in the name of the war on terrorism, which is really a war on the American people. (Terrorism results from the foreign intervention and meddling policies of the Republicans and Democrats.)

Just as the Democrats accept the thief of the 2020 presidential election, so do the Republicans. Without Republican succor, Democrats could not have stolen the election. Even the Republican-controlled Supreme Court abandoned its constitutional duty to rectify the illegalities of the election — and so did Republican-controlled State legislatures.

Both Republicans and Democrats reject intergenerational duty to ancestors and posterity. If they cared about their posterity, governmental debt would not be exploding. If they cared about their ancestry, they would not promote conditions that lead to racial and cultural genocide, yet they promote programs and policies that lead to racial and cultural genocide. 

Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to dismantle the leviathan federal government and return to the constitutional government of the original Constitution. Both want to use it to advance their agendas. They consider the Constitution to be so elastic that they make it a worthless scrap of paper.

Neither supports the doctrine of States’ rights except when they can use the States to oppose a policy that the other party advances with which they disagree. 

Republicans and Democrats are hostile to traditional conservatives, who are the true conservatives. In marginalizing traditional Southern conservatives, both parties have been highly effective.

Nevertheless, Republicans and Democrats do differ in some aspects. Democrats are more vindictive and spiteful than Republicans. On the other hand, Republicans are recreants. While Democrats are bold, Republicans are timid.

Democrats are Dixiephobic, Confederaphobic, and albusphobic. Except for neoconservatives and establishment conservatives, Republicans are generally not Dixiephobes or Confederaphobes. Moreover, not all Republicans are albusphobes.

While Democrats are fervent supporters of gun control even to the point of disarming the American people, Republicans are hesitant in imposing more gun control. Nevertheless, Republicans are always ready to comprise and support more gun control. Furthermore, Republicans have not removed any restrictions on gun ownership when they controlled the presidency and Congress.

While Democrats favor restricting energy production and usage, Republicans favor cheap and abandon energy. However, as with its other principles, Republicans are always willing to compromise away cheap and abandon energy.

As for COVID-19, the Republican approach has been much less authoritarian than has been the Democratic approach. Moreover, Republicans who did take an authoritarian approach to COVID-19 have been much more eager to relinquish their control than have been Democrats.

Most Republicans favor lower taxes, and Democrats favor higher taxes. Nevertheless, both favor exploding federal budgets.

Republicans are eager to compromise and abandon their principles (if they have any). Perhaps, Republicans compromise their apparent principles so easily and quickly is because their real principles differ little from those of Democrats. Contrastingly, Democrats resist compromise and abandoning their principles as evil as they may be. 

Democrats are on the left and so are the Republicans. Both are socialists (mostly of the democratic fascist variety) at heart; only the Democrats are more open and honest about being socialists.

Another major difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats are about a decade ahead of Republicans. (The homosexual agenda evidences this conclusion. For years, Democrats have promoted homosexual marriages and finally succeeded in legalizing them over the objections of Republicans. Now most Republicans accept homosexual marriages.)

Most of the time, arguments and disagreements between Republicans and Democrats are about details and strategies and not about principles. 

The above description of Republicans explains why most establishment conservatives and neoconservatives loath President Trump. Trump deviated from too many of these Republican standards. Yet, many people supported Trump because he did deviate from some of these positions that Republicans had stolen from Democrats.

For the most part, Republicans are imitation Democrats; they just lack the courage to become full-fledged Democrats. The reason that I am not a Republican or a Democrat is that Republicans are too much like Democrats and Democrats are too much like Republicans.

Governor George Wallace once said that there was not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans. That is still true, and a dime is worth only a fraction of what it was when he made this remark.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.