What does the judicial system have to do with liberty? Much in every way. A judicial system is a microcosm of the society. In the courtroom, parties are at odds, and a judge determines how to resolve the dispute. The judge does more than that. The judge determines punishment, exercising the power of the sword to take property, liberty, and even life from another human being. Therefore, the court can oppress the life of an individual human being, even if the society seeks freedom for its citizens. And how can a society be free if the governmental authorities seek to use the judicial system for its own purposes, to advance its power, to take authority from the individual or groups in society?
But how do you keep it within bounds? How do you keep it from overflowing the restrictions of what is judicial and flowing into other areas, where the power of the sword doesn't belong? What if two people appear in court, at odds with each other, fighting over money that one claims the other owes? What if one is a poor employee and the other is a rich employer? What if the judge determines that it's wrong to be rich, to own more than another? What if the rich man has done no wrong to the other, except that he has more money? What if the judge transfers money from the rich employer to the poor employee on no other basis than the fact that the judge believes no one should be richer than another? What if he then determined that should apply to all of society? You know that's wrong, but can you explain why?
In other words, how do you know the appropriate bounds for the judiciary? What is a judge's responsibility? How do you preserve both the punishing/restitution/justice power of the judiciary within a society based on liberty?
If we know the function of the judiciary, then we can learn something about its limits. Also, the law that governs the society and the judiciary will tell us its limits. In the American system, the court is limited to addressing the issues/disputes of the parties before it. But what if a party sues the government itself? What are the limits then?
In the American system of justice, you can sue the civil government, and a certain type of constitutional claim has developed over time. Procedural due process has always been considered a part of a person's right to a fair trial, meaning, for example, that the process of trying a person for a crime should be fair and not surprise the person with changes or tricks. A judge or legislature that changes the process in midstream and forbids a party from examining witnesses to prepare for their case might be an example of a denial of procedural due process. A person denied due process can appeal on that basis to have the process applied to his case corrected or even overturned.
However, the other form of due process that has developed is something called substantive due process, in which the person challenges the very law upon which they have been prosecuted. For example, the person tried for sodomy might attack the law as unconstitutional because they claim their sexual lifestyle is just as valid as anyone else's. That attack on the law against sodomy would be an example of substantive due process, not procedural due process. The party proposing that the law is unconstitutional would be considered by his supporters as a champion of individual liberty against government oppression. Whereas those who support the law would consider the challenge an attack on the traditional law and morality that protects the family and a godly society which God blesses, thereby undermining the liberty of those seeking to live in a decent society, free from the proliferation of profligate or immoral sexual practices.
Is a successful challenge to the law an example of liberty won through the courts? Or is it an example of the courts trampling upon the right of the legislature to pass laws? Is it the application of the constitution of liberty applied to unshackle the oppressed? Or is it a means for the immoral, the evil, the lawless to oppress those who stand for godly morality? Is the law a boot placed upon the citizenry's neck by a tyrannical, overreaching civil government? Or is it the rational response of society to certain behaviors that threaten its founding principles? Is it the key to a prosperous and free society? Or is it the key to inviting the judgment of God upon the society? Is the judge liberating the unjustly downtrodden? Or is the judge oppressing the rest of us with his amoral view of the world? There really is no middle ground between the two world-views.
Which advocate of liberty is correct?
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Justice - not favoritism for the poor, nor favoritism for the powerful
"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour." Leviticus 19:15. No, the law, the courts are not supposed to help poor people, unless those poor people have been injured by someone. It should be no different for the rich person. If the rich person went to court, they should win if they sue a poor person that injured them. The rich person should not worry about the judge being sympathetic or some type of communist who thinks rich people got wealthy on the backs of the poor and should pay it back. Likewise, the poor person should be able to sue a rich person without worrying that someone politically powerful or a friend of the judge or just the judge's own prejudice creates a road block to the poor person getting justice.
It's simple, and it's justice. So why is it hard to accomplish? The liberals (Marxists, Socialists, other Statists) contend that civil government power will usher in the Millennium of salvation. Judges should go beyond the law and help the needy. But that's not justice; that's economic redistribution. The conservatives have a difficult time accepting the change needed to advance the Kingdom of God - they believe in experience and history and the established traditions. But Jesus explained that "every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old." Matthew 13:52.
These "reformers" of the economic system advance the idea that the present economic system is inequitable, not because the civil government interferes, but because it doesn't interfere in the free market. God's system of distribution - by means of freedom of action and service to others - is despised by such. Why? Because it's not equal. Why must all economic action be equal? Because they cannot stand any one being judged unfit for wealth. See Luke 12:13-15, where a man wanted Christ to act as a judge and divide the inheritance that he did not receive but his brother did receive. They cannot stand God using the market to reward the smarter, the harder working, or the blessed. Having no God to make these judgments, these humans make the judgment, and they judge all must be equal. Without God, whose three persons are equal in every way except their economic actions, they divinize humanity, and like the Divine Trinity itself, they demand that all persons be equal. No part of the divine humanity may be higher or lower than another.
The bible explains the source of wealth and of class distinctions: "But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth. . . ." Deut. 8:18a. "The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up." I Sam. 2:7.
These "reformers" normally advance their cause politically or militarily or both, but when those methods fail, they advance the cause judicially, that is, through court action. Micro-socialism instead of macro.
The perfect example? The cross. Look at the equality of it. The One who claimed to be King of the universe was brought down and made equal to the lowest criminal. John 18:36. Why did Pilate, who was acting in a judicial capacity, order it? The People, capitalized as the divine judge, told him so. Was it a decision based on justice? See Matthew 27:23-4. No, Pilate himself made the determination that there was no fault in the man; therefore, it was a democratic decision to bring down the One who claimed premier honor and authority. The Divine People/mob voted. Matthew 27:20; John 18:40.
Oh, and they also acknowledged the power of the one who could bring down the wrath of the Roman Empire upon them - the emperor. John 19:12-13. That's what's funny about socialist equality - someone always has to keep everything equal. They chose the power of the day, whom Pilate represented and feared more than God Himself. If Pilate had feared God more than the People and the emperor, he would have ruled justly and set Christ free entirely. But the system was set up to equalize all except the emperor and his minions. Christ and His position challenged that status quo. Simple justice based on the law and the facts of the case was much too conservative for Pilate, who had to protect his own position and keep Rome at the top of the pyramid. So, in theory, all are equal in the socialist system, but in reality, there's always the iron fist to enforce the equality demanded by the People.
Thus, equality in the economy must always be at odds with justice in the court. To demand equal economic benefits is to demand injustice in the legal system because the only way to take down and equalize those whom God has blessed is by force. Forcible violation of the Eighth Commandment - "Thou shalt not steal." Exodus 20:15. You can't have it both ways. Either you demand economic/social justice, equalizing all by force, or you allow the free market to create inequalities and apply justice, only justice, not economic equality, in the court system. Therefore, no matter how so-called "benign" your version of socialism may be, it is always based on force and wars against God's economic and judicial order.
Finally, the term "Christian Socialism" is a contradiction in terms. No socialist order can be justified on any level as Christian or biblical. Socialism is, at its theoretical core and in its practical real-world application, anti-Christian. No undeceived Christian can ever support the forcible transfer (theft) of wealth from those to whom God has given it and to those from whom God has withheld it. Equality in the Christian order applies to one thing - we all deserve the wrath of God and can stand before God only on one basis, the sacrifice of Christ as our sole justification before the just God.
"Wherever socialism is widely believed by the people, the church is persecuted, or at least discriminated against. Socialism is inherently anti-Christian, and Christianity is inherently antisocialist." Gary North, "Inherit the Earth," p. 83, Dominion Press: Ft Worth, TX, 1987, 1 January 2014, http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/inherit_the_earth.pdf.
Don't bring up the Jubilee Year, which I'll discuss later. Gary North has said on his website, Gary North's Specific Answers, as of 1 Jan. 2014, at http://www.garynorth.com/public/6222.cfm: "'The jubilee year' is a code phrase for Fabian socialists who have infiltrated the churches over the last four decades. They use the phrase to confuse Christians who do not understand the Mosaic laws defending private property."
For one theory for the tribal source of "social justice," see F.A. Hayek's "Law, Legislation, and History, Vol. II, The Mirage of Social Justice," Ch. 11, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1976, http://books.google.com/books?id=X3QihjxsYlMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22mirage+of+social+justice%22&source=bl&ots=fUK4Ds9o3d&sig=kNhX9svYDKlyZACym32rQQJgv6o&hl=en&ei=nyiaS4X5OMO88gaYmMyYDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CC4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false. Hayek speaks of the "destruction of justice by 'social justice.'" "It is indeed the concept of 'social justice' which has been the Trojan Horse through which totalitarianism has entered."
It's simple, and it's justice. So why is it hard to accomplish? The liberals (Marxists, Socialists, other Statists) contend that civil government power will usher in the Millennium of salvation. Judges should go beyond the law and help the needy. But that's not justice; that's economic redistribution. The conservatives have a difficult time accepting the change needed to advance the Kingdom of God - they believe in experience and history and the established traditions. But Jesus explained that "every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old." Matthew 13:52.
These "reformers" of the economic system advance the idea that the present economic system is inequitable, not because the civil government interferes, but because it doesn't interfere in the free market. God's system of distribution - by means of freedom of action and service to others - is despised by such. Why? Because it's not equal. Why must all economic action be equal? Because they cannot stand any one being judged unfit for wealth. See Luke 12:13-15, where a man wanted Christ to act as a judge and divide the inheritance that he did not receive but his brother did receive. They cannot stand God using the market to reward the smarter, the harder working, or the blessed. Having no God to make these judgments, these humans make the judgment, and they judge all must be equal. Without God, whose three persons are equal in every way except their economic actions, they divinize humanity, and like the Divine Trinity itself, they demand that all persons be equal. No part of the divine humanity may be higher or lower than another.
The bible explains the source of wealth and of class distinctions: "But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth. . . ." Deut. 8:18a. "The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up." I Sam. 2:7.
These "reformers" normally advance their cause politically or militarily or both, but when those methods fail, they advance the cause judicially, that is, through court action. Micro-socialism instead of macro.
The perfect example? The cross. Look at the equality of it. The One who claimed to be King of the universe was brought down and made equal to the lowest criminal. John 18:36. Why did Pilate, who was acting in a judicial capacity, order it? The People, capitalized as the divine judge, told him so. Was it a decision based on justice? See Matthew 27:23-4. No, Pilate himself made the determination that there was no fault in the man; therefore, it was a democratic decision to bring down the One who claimed premier honor and authority. The Divine People/mob voted. Matthew 27:20; John 18:40.
Oh, and they also acknowledged the power of the one who could bring down the wrath of the Roman Empire upon them - the emperor. John 19:12-13. That's what's funny about socialist equality - someone always has to keep everything equal. They chose the power of the day, whom Pilate represented and feared more than God Himself. If Pilate had feared God more than the People and the emperor, he would have ruled justly and set Christ free entirely. But the system was set up to equalize all except the emperor and his minions. Christ and His position challenged that status quo. Simple justice based on the law and the facts of the case was much too conservative for Pilate, who had to protect his own position and keep Rome at the top of the pyramid. So, in theory, all are equal in the socialist system, but in reality, there's always the iron fist to enforce the equality demanded by the People.
Thus, equality in the economy must always be at odds with justice in the court. To demand equal economic benefits is to demand injustice in the legal system because the only way to take down and equalize those whom God has blessed is by force. Forcible violation of the Eighth Commandment - "Thou shalt not steal." Exodus 20:15. You can't have it both ways. Either you demand economic/social justice, equalizing all by force, or you allow the free market to create inequalities and apply justice, only justice, not economic equality, in the court system. Therefore, no matter how so-called "benign" your version of socialism may be, it is always based on force and wars against God's economic and judicial order.
Finally, the term "Christian Socialism" is a contradiction in terms. No socialist order can be justified on any level as Christian or biblical. Socialism is, at its theoretical core and in its practical real-world application, anti-Christian. No undeceived Christian can ever support the forcible transfer (theft) of wealth from those to whom God has given it and to those from whom God has withheld it. Equality in the Christian order applies to one thing - we all deserve the wrath of God and can stand before God only on one basis, the sacrifice of Christ as our sole justification before the just God.
"Wherever socialism is widely believed by the people, the church is persecuted, or at least discriminated against. Socialism is inherently anti-Christian, and Christianity is inherently antisocialist." Gary North, "Inherit the Earth," p. 83, Dominion Press: Ft Worth, TX, 1987, 1 January 2014, http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/inherit_the_earth.pdf.
Don't bring up the Jubilee Year, which I'll discuss later. Gary North has said on his website, Gary North's Specific Answers, as of 1 Jan. 2014, at http://www.garynorth.com/public/6222.cfm: "'The jubilee year' is a code phrase for Fabian socialists who have infiltrated the churches over the last four decades. They use the phrase to confuse Christians who do not understand the Mosaic laws defending private property."
For one theory for the tribal source of "social justice," see F.A. Hayek's "Law, Legislation, and History, Vol. II, The Mirage of Social Justice," Ch. 11, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1976, http://books.google.com/books?id=X3QihjxsYlMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22mirage+of+social+justice%22&source=bl&ots=fUK4Ds9o3d&sig=kNhX9svYDKlyZACym32rQQJgv6o&hl=en&ei=nyiaS4X5OMO88gaYmMyYDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CC4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false. Hayek speaks of the "destruction of justice by 'social justice.'" "It is indeed the concept of 'social justice' which has been the Trojan Horse through which totalitarianism has entered."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)