Jump to content
The Education Forum

Scott Chapman

Members
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Scott Chapman

  1. "Representation" and "Democracy" are not actually found together. Democracy means that the people vote directly, without "Representation". In the US and other countries our government is is not a Democracy, but a hybrid, i.e., a "Representative Republic". Representation actually is contrary to Democracy in some ways. Having said that, if you do have a Representative form of Democracy, then the people should be represented in an equitable fashion. Proportionalty serves that purpose. If you don't have proportionality, how do you determine an equitable method of representation? The bigger question is, "Is Democracy a good form of government?" I refer to Democracy as "mob rule". Our hybrid version of government helps to prevent the mob from ruling completely by protecting the rights of the minority to some degree. "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse form the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler The idea of "vox populi vox Dei" is to make the "populi" out to be God. This is, of course, false. If the people do not govern themselves according to God's Word and enact government supportive of this end, they are in trouble.
  2. Can the State legislate morality? Most answer, "No". Of course, that is false. The only question is "Which morality?" The State legislates morality all the time. If God's Law forbids such behavior then the State is foolish (and rebellious) to enact legislation which makes wrong to be right. The State does not define right and wrong. God does in His Word. We are to discover it. The State is every bit under God's authority as are all things. There is no secular/sacred distinction as God is King over everything, including government leaders. To say that the State is outside of God's moral decree is to make the State out to be God. This leads to a very tyrannical State.
  3. In the Old Testament, when the nation of Israel was clamoring for a king, "like the other nations", the prophet, Samuel told Israel that the king would "take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants." The clear implication in this passage is that the king's taking this, among other things, was not good and a tenth was in view, not 40%+. I use this as part of my thinking on, "What constitutes a tyrannical government?". For the government to take the same amount as the church is considered tyrannical.
  4. Mike, A full debate would probably not be so helpful to Andy's students, although it sounds like you and I'd both enjoy it. I wish I had time to participate in it. I figured this would happen when I originally posted but somebody from my side "needed to put their oar in". The challenge is in knowing how far to put the oar in. Cordially, Scott
  5. Mike, Those like myself may indeed claim rationality as well, for their ideologies. This immediately scales up to the debate on the rationality of the existence of God and epistemology and this is not the forum for such a debate. All of it hinges on that, of course. I consider anyone who does not start their reasoning from "God exists" to be irrational. I do not believe it is possible to build a correct systematic ideology regarding anything unless you start with "God (the God of the Bible) exists". There is no foundation on which to put it epistemologically. As I said in my earlier post, these are things we discover, not define, including the correct definition of "rational". I think its nice that you made a distinction between me and the reactionaries but then you lumped me in with the irrationals and cited an example of real irrationality as propounded by an Islamic, regarding the origin of homosexuality. I had to chuckle. I'm not even close to the same idealogy as the Islamic people. From my perspective the political "spectrum" looks much different than most people see it. The conservatives and the liberals are two inches apart on a 30 foot long spectrum - both moving in the same direction, near the other end, away from me. Dabney's comments regarding the secular/conservative distinction are of interest (http://jkalb.org/node/1231#comment-4322) clear back at the time of the Civil War. Then entire Dabney quote can be found here and should be read: http://peapac.org/guide_04/04_sb_theologian.asp. Everyone has a Messianic view of things. They just have different Messiah's in view. Most people today seem to me to view the state as the Messiah, i.e. the one who will fix everything. Of course, "Messiah" is not in the State's charter and they will fail in this role. Veneration of the State in this capacity will turn it into a tyrant. I'd have to agree. Students of political ideologies need to make careful distinctions. I realize this is not always possible, because the distinctions require a lot of understanding of the differing views under consideration. Students generally don't have time or interest to gain this understanding. Cordially, Scott
  6. Way on the "Right" It appears that I'm the only one here, so far, on the other side and I'm so far on the other side that I may be able to balance the entire rest of you put together. My political ideas come from a strong belief in the existence of the God of the Bible and the principles I see in the Bible concerning these things. If you start with the idea that there is a maker and you are made, and the maker has given you an instruction book, then the formation of a political idealogy is not a process of defining but one of discovering. I understand that God is not just the author but the definer of everything, including correct understanding of politics and every other idealogical sphere in our existence. Everything is obviously not stated explicitly in the Bible but there are many principles there that are gleaned and applicable, and sufficient to the need. Government, it's charter, and it's proper functioning are all defined and must be discovered, not made up by each as they see fit (which is autonomy). For instance, if "You shall not steal" and "You shall not covet thy neighbors goods" then obviously "thy neighbor" can own property. When the government taxes me and gives it to you then the government is stealing. Therefore, I abhor all forms of wealth redistribution. Voluntary charity is an entirely different matter. Nowhere does government's charter include public education, welfare, social security, defining right and wrong, or a myriad of other elements that governments around the world are involved in. Government is not supposed to be the world's nanny or take the place of God in people's lives. I see government's role as being very limited. One of the basic principles I see is that people are sinful and therefore should not be given much power over other people or abuses will follow. This is ably demonstrated daily by governments everywhere. The proper use of government power is not being adhered to, so tyranny results. On the other hand, if you have a government that is minimal, then self-government comes to the fore. Our government in the US was envisioned to be minimal. A couple quotes from Founders illustrate the point: James Madison said, "We have staked the future of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." People do not govern themselves according to these standards and inevitable problems result; and the statement by John Adams is proven correct. Government is called upon to fix the problems that are completely outside its sphere. This doesn't work, of course, but the alternative is not acceptable to people and so things continue as they are. Insanity is "doing the same things over and over again, and expecting different results". This country is in the remarkable position historically of being able to govern themselves individually and make a government that goes along with that notion. The opportunity is being lost. I have touched on only a couple issues here as space and time do not permit going into others. You get the idea. In summary, I belive in self government according to God's Word and a very minimal external/national government. Cordially, Scott
  7. My wife and I home school our three children. I work from home most of the time as a web developer for a non-profit company. Computers have been a big part of my life since 1981. I have taught myself about computers over the years after learning BASIC programming in high school. I have also done quite a bit of desktop publishing with PageMaker in years past which was very enjoyable work. Through reading Fantasy and finally the desire to write some, I became interested in history and found the site as a result of my online research.
×
×
  • Create New...