1. Self-government is the commitment to govern or rule oneself so that you don’t need external coercion to guide you into acceptable behaviour.
2. Many external incentives can be a benefit to self-government, but it is only an enduring lifestyle by the grace of God. Self-government is generated through the power of God’s Spirit (Galatians 5:16-26), so we cannot talk about self-government without addressing the person and work of Jesus Christ. Men fail in self-government because they are in rebellion against God. The heart of rebellious sinners must be regenerated. Only the renewing work of the Holy Spirit can effect such a change.
3. Self-government is reflected in self-discipline, acceptance of personal responsibility, virtuous character, politeness, dignity and good manners.
4. Self-government is the ethic and spirit that accepts one’s circumstances and is committed to making the most of the life given by the providence of God.
5. Self-government is a repudiation of blame-shifting and an entitlement mentality. The greater the number of people in society who are personally committed to self-government, the less will be the demand for a messianic state as a back-stop to subsidize failure and deviancy. Broadly speaking, self-government is the alternative to the social welfare state.
6. The greater the number of people in society who are personally committed to self-government, the less need and demand there will be for a large and expanding police force and the many entities that regulate every part of our lives (including most of the regulations that come under the guise of health and safety, but which are excessive and really amount to the development of a “bubble-wrapped” society).
7. Any society that has a history of self-control among the citizenry has at its foundation a biblical moral order. Those nations that attempt to copy the fruit of a Christian society without copying the root (the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit) will eventually degenerate and collapse.
8. Those who are not self-governed need to be controlled by an external governor. Scripture tells us “that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching” (1 Tim. 1:9–10).
9. Personal liberty is the hand-maiden to self-government. Today’s humanist leaders talk a great deal about liberty, while simultaneously building a centralized, totalitarian society with a massive state bureaucracy and a growing police force. The language of liberty is used almost exclusively to argue for sexual license and the right to be free from the influence of Christianity. These two themes probably represent about 95% of today’s rhetoric about liberty. On the other hand, the Christian ethos of self-government provides the foundation for a robust ordered liberty that includes freedom of religion, conscience, speech and assembly, economic liberty and freedom from the fear of arbitrary rule.
Thanks to American Vision for the helpful language for some of these points.
Loading ...
#1. I agree
#2. I disagree. There are many obvious and logical reasons to avoid idolotry, spiritism, jealousy, fits of anger, and things like those that do not require a mystical spirit.
#3. I agree, especially regarding acceptance of personal responsibility.
#4. I agree, with the exception that one be “committed to making the most of the life given to them by” *their circumstance*, not *the providence of God*. The mere thought of God allowing innocent babies to be born with horrible genetic abnormalities makes me want to puke. There has to be another explanation.
#5. I agree
#6. I agree that you can’t count.
#7. I agree with everything up to the parenthesis
#8. I don’t know of any examples of society that have achieved an acceptable amount of self-control, so the rest of this statement cannot be verified.
#9. While I mostly agree, there are also plenty of laws that benefit the righteous, and protect people who follow procedures correctly.
#10. Too many items in one statement to agree or disagree with – Maybe you should have put a few of those into the missing #6.
Do you really think everyone is ready for self-governance though? What are the top 5 laws that you would repeal, add, or modify to get started?
#ering problem fixed. I’m not sure what my top 5 are. It might depend on whether opportunity was federal or provincial jurisdiction. For our Ontario campaign re. next year’s provincial election, our three main issues and positions are separation of school and state (full privatization of education with proportionate tax relief so that Ontario parents are free and responsible for their own education decisions), the abolition of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Tribunal, and introducing accountability, transparency and privatization into the utility industry.
The third item is more topical and probably wouldn’t appear on a list of my top 5. But the first two items probably would. A third item would be the medical system opened up widely to private sector delivery. We see state control of health care as key expression of the messianic state because health issues are tied so closely to life and death issues. I have personally had to take my wife to the US for life-saving treatment because of the lack of access to competent medical care in Canada, and the gov’t insurance system wouldn’t reimburse us for our expenses because they didn’t fit into their narrow definition of reimbursable expenses.
4 and 5 would probably be the banning of abortion and changing back the definition of marriage.
But a close 6 and 7 would be:
I would also like to see the complete elimination of “corporate welfare” or subsidies to the business world. This is where the rubber meets the road in terms of people’s commitment to self-government – are they willing to accept the responsibility to evaluate risk-benefit rationally and also accept the costs of risk themselves, or are they going to try to soften the blow of potential failure through tax dollars given by the state, while almost always benefiting fully from success – what has come to be called in the last couple of years as the privatization of profit and socialization of loss.
And eliminating the fake concept of “no-fault” divorce, which by its nature punishes the victim who essentially has no recourse, or wholly inadequate recourse when his/her partner wants to walk out unilaterally. And with fault, from some research I’ve seen, it’s a good bet that significantly more people would attempt to work harder at their marriages, and that has many benefits, not least to the children of the marriage, and is more stabilizing to society in general.
#9 should read freedom of speech as long as it agrees with the dogma of Supreme Leader Chairman Tim Jong Il. A christian government would have no place for the facts of troublesome intellectuals like A Hermit. A proper theocracy would require a Department for the Promotion of Virtue and Suppression of Vice to censor information that may lead the flock astray, much like you have been sweeping away the dust bunnies of dissent on this website.
A Bear,
Ha, ha, ha, you funny! “A christian government would have no place for the facts of troublesome intellectuals like A Hermit.” “Intellectuals like A hermit?” Ha, ha, ha!
Thanks for the laugh, I needed that.
So in your opinion removing posts which are insulting, condescending and rife with stupidity is censoring? You must also be one of those perverts who thinks laws against child porn is also censoring in the same way, right? Listen, A Bear: There is such a thing as proper decorum and if you wish to prove you are an unlearned ignoramus who is incapable of acting in an acceptable manner, and, call that censoring, well then who can argue with that much stupid? You are obviously unteachable.
“…lead the flock astray…?” You are also ignorant of God’s word where Jesus said, ”
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” John 10:26-28
There are other such verses as well which tell us clearly you will never get a real Christian to deny our Lord God! You simply are just not capable to snatch any of God’s children from HIS hand, so I be willing to bet the removal of stupidity and rudeness was because of stupidity and rudeness and had nothing to do with censoring opposing opinions. That is just wishful thinking on your part.
Ian
I think rudeness, insults, and hateful speech should be removed and not considered censorship.
I think stupidity, condescending comments, satire, and opposing opinions should never be removed because that would be censorship.
Do you agree or disagree?
Ian; I find your post disappointing. You seem to take a little friendly teasing as some kind of horrible attack. Many of the posts that were deleted were entirely polite or neutral, were intelligent and well referenced. None of the posts by atheists had any of the slander and bile that you just spouted at me. To infer I would support kiddie porn because I disagree with your frankly fringe ideas is despicable. I agree with you that there is such as proper decorum Ian; I just don’t think you know what it is.
A Bear,
I am glad you found what I said to be disappointing. It gives me hope you are not totally dishonest, although defending the deleted posts as being, ” entirely polite or neutral, were intelligent and well referenced,” doesn’t make you look like you have a grasp on reality. Friendly teasing is perfectly OK, A Bear, bring it on. The persons you defended by accusing SiteEditor of censorship were not engaging in friendly teasing. After all, how will we all learn if we do not have open discussion? Obviously we will not. You wish to mock me, that’s OK I can take it, but I hope you don’t mind some mocking back.
The question, and problem arises when one wants to post something which is abusive, offensive or socially unacceptable, should they be allowed to post whatever they want, even to the point of posting porn? Of course they should not and almost all persons would agree in certain areas. The problem is, we (and I assume that includes you) don’t consider preventing child porn as being infringement by censors, so where is the dividing line?
John M,
I think we do agree. If you agree with the arguments of those who were removed then you may be more critical of the reasons they were removed as opposed to looking at their methods. There was one who was removed that I very much enjoyed our goings back and forth, but I have to agree he seemed overly aggressive and dishonest in his methods of argumentation just before his posts were removed, and possibly all along, but I liked him.
“I think stupidity, condescending comments, satire, and opposing opinions should never be removed because that would be censorship.” I agree with what you said, although the word “never” makes me a little uncomfortable the way it’s used here. If a person became abusive and started with hateful comments is it OK in your opinion to remove all their posts, or just the hateful ones? People have to realize there are ramifications to dishonesty, so I have no negative comments or feelings regarding SiteEditor’s removal of posts on this site. I have no doubts he supports free speech so when he decides to remove some posts I trust he has considered, better than I would, as to whether or not it amounts to unfair censorship.
I enjoy questions, honestly put, and I suspect so do others who support the views of this site. If you asked about your belief in errors in the bible and gave examples you thought were errors, we could address that. It is an enjoyable exchange and not offensive and, I may add, no posts of that nature were removed, that I am aware of. Even if you do not except the explanation to you questions, it is not offensive, abusive or hateful if it is honestly asked and answered honestly. I never intentionally call someone who is simply asking for clarification a bigot, that is reserved for those who are not honest and are simply making accusations in their argumentation.
Mock away Ian , I can take a joke. After all we Bears have thick skins (haha).
We are in agreement that child porn should be censored and presumably you also agree with me that producers and distributors of CP should face serious criminal sanctions.
As for my statement ” many of the posts that were deleted…”, you seem to begin to agree with that statement when you address John M; ” There was one whose posts were removed…” It almost sounded like you were beginning to lose your grasp on reality for a moment.
Seriously though Ian, don’t automatically assume that someone that makes a statement that disagrees with your viewpoint is being dishonest. Not only is it insulting to the other person and degrades the tone of the discourse, it also prevents either side from gaining insight into each others beliefs.
A Bear,
I am a self employed person so I try to keep on top of things here but I do not remember who has been very rude except for one in particular and I don’t often have time to check back through the posts so usually just read the most recent ones. Are you saying John M is one of the ones who have had their posts removed?
“Seriously though Ian, don’t automatically assume that someone that makes a statement that disagrees with your viewpoint is being dishonest.” Oh, of course I don’t. Unless one is being openly rude I make the assumption they are honestly trying to understand and go from there. There was one named Etch I thought was at least asking questions he wanted to understand. I didn’t take offense at his questions, (well, at first I thought he was just being a jerk) but he was away for a couple of days (so was I) and when he came back he seemed very aggressive and dishonest in the way he argued. SiteEditor challenged him on his methods and if anything he seemed to get worse. It was too bad. He was a better debater than I am (even if he was wrong) and I enjoyed our exchanges.
Ian; I’m referring to the earlier posts of A Hermit. Although these were polite and I thought particularly informative* they got the heave-ho along with the later ones that Tim apparently took offense at. In defense of A Hermit, I didn’t see anything he wrote that was ruder than some things than you or I have, and I don’t believe he started the mud slinging.
*especially because they agreed with my post and he went to the hard work of referencing the evidence to support our positions
A Bear,
I adamantly disagree with you regarding A Hermit. He was anything but polite and/or informative. He was ignorant and rude and appeared to make things up on the go. I agree that I do get rude, but in defence I’ll try to justify (if rudeness can be justified) by saying it is always given to what was got. (Bad English, but you must know what I mean.) It is the old “you reap what you sow,” and I do believe he started the mud slinging.
If A hermit had any valid points they were lost because of the way he presented them. I got so I wouldn’t even read what he would write because I thought he was overly rude and only interested in abusing us as opposed to trying to understand anything. Personally I thought not responding to him or even reading his posts was the way to go, but I am glad his posts were removed.
Sorry, A Bear but I do not agree at all regarding that person. I know it must be fun to come here and give a sucker punch, but once that is done then the attitudes as far as what that person is all about is quite predictable. If he was judged wrongly I think he only needs to look at himself.
Ian: We don’t know whether we would agree or not on A Hermit because the evidence has been altered. Now, we aren’t able to review the exchanges in context or nuance because one side of the debate no longer exists. Maybe I missed the post you are referencing and if I read it I would agree with you? Maybe one of his non offensive posts could have given you a better perspective? That’s how (unnecessary) censorship is poisonous.
It distorts the truth.
A Bear,
I honestly do not have the expertise to determine if it would fall under the definition of censorship. I trust SiteEditor does have that expertise and therefore suspect it was more discipline than anything. In any case if I were the one responsible I would have blocked his posts almost right from the start. I believe in free speech, society becomes a sewer if people can’t discuss issues and that just isn’t a place I’d like to live.
People should be allowed to say what they think, even if what they think is stupid or controversial and I agree censorship distorts truth. I think you see lot of evidence on this site that those kind of comments are not removed; challenged, but not removed. SO where would I draw the line? I think when a person is being dishonest then their posts should possibly be removed, but, not as a censoring, as discipline. It is “play fair or go home.” We’ll never arrive at what is true if one deliberately engages in falsehoods.