Libertarianism is not a society without order. It is a society ordered from the bottom up rather than the top down. Among the most important sources of social order
are "voluntary associations."
Democrats and Republicans are both advocating more power for Washington, D.C. This is not a new approach. In the early 1820's, America was experiencing a
tremendous influx of immigrants. Alexis de Tocqueville was a French observer who doubted whether America could
retain her admirable character with all these immigrants. DeTocqueville said only armed force could deal with the immigrants. But Christians in the America of that
day believed that "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that
exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ" (2
Corinthians 10:3-5). Early American Christians sent an army of missionaries to deal with pressing social issues.
R.J. Rushdoony provides the following insights into DeTocqueville's day:
At [this] time, the United States was facing potentially revolutionary changes. The great influx of immigrants was beginning; people were pouring into the
country who had little or no knowledge of its faith or heritage. They were simply seeking escape from tyranny and poverty and a better life for themselves.
In an important footnote, [Alexis de Tocqueville] saw the grim problem of the urban slums and their alien and criminal
elements, declaring:
The United States have no metropolis; but they already contain several very large cities. Philadelphia
reckoned 161,000 inhabitants and New York 202,000 in the year 1830. The lower orders which inhabit these cities constitute a rubble even more formidable
than the populace of European towns. They consist of freed blacks in the first place, who are condemned by the laws and by public opinion, to an
hereditary state of misery and degradation. They also contain a multitude of Europeans who have been driven to the shores of the New World by their
misfortunes or their misconduct; and these men inoculate the United States with all our vices, without bringing with them any of those interests which
counteract their baneful influence. As inhabitants of a country where they have no civil rights, they are ready to turn all the passions which agitate the
community to their own advantage; thus, within the last few months serious riots have broken out in Philadelphia and in New York. Disturbances of this
kind are unknown in the rest of the country, which is nowise alarmed by them, because the population of the cities has hitherto exercised neither power
nor influence over the rural districts.
Nevertheless, I look upon the size of certain American cities, and especially on the nature of their population, as a real danger which threatens the
future security of the democratic republics of the New World; and I venture to predict that they will perish from this circumstance, unless the government
succeed in creating an armed force, which, while it remains under the control of the majority of the
nation, will be independent of the town population, and able to repress its excesses.
(Democracy in America, I:316f., Langley ed.)
Unwed pregnant girls were often disposed of in Europe by buying them a one-way ticket to America, for them there to seek their ostensible level, usually
prostitution. "Black sheep" sons were also sent off to the United States, or ran off to it. . . .
The reaction of some conservatives was political and repressive. . . .
Tocqueville felt that that United States would surely "perish" under this invasion 'unless the government succeed in creating an armed force .
. . independent of the town population' and able to control it. . . .
Hostility toward foreigners led to the creation of various "native American" movements and political bodies. These organizations fed on hatred
for outsiders and stimulated it by highly emotional charges and claims. More than a little violence was unleashed against various immigrant groups.
These organizations not only did not accomplish their purpose, but also did much damage to American life.
The orthodox Christian reaction was very different. A wide variety of societies were created to minister to the new problems: Sabbath Schools for
immigrant children and Christian day schools as well were created; English was taught to adults; missions were started; orphanages, relief societies, Bible
societies, societies to deal with various vices, these and hundreds of other organizations were established to deal with every kind of problem which arose.
The future of America was shaped by this massive effort at Christian reconstruction. The "native American" movement failed; the Christian
reconstruction was so extensive that it became the real government of American society. . . . Alexis de Tocqueville, in commenting on the impact of
non-ecclesiastical, societal Christianity on America, noted that authority in America was religious and that "there is no country in the whole world in
which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America." (op cit., I:332)
The 'Native American' movements did much harm to American life. They were noisy in their claims that they represented "real Americanism," but
they were at best a neutralizing force to progress and Christianity. At their worst, they were anti-Christian and un-American in the name of Christ and
America. By claiming to be the conservative force -- which they were not, for they had no appreciation for their puritan heritage -- they brought discredit
on that heritage.
On the other hand, orthodox Christians, by their zeal to bring every man under the renewing power of God, did more than anyone else to cope with the
central problems of American life. . . .
R.J. Rushdoony, Revolt Against Maturity, pp. 216ff. |
Alexis de Tocqueville,
Chapter 5: Of the Use Which the Americans Make of Public
Associations in Civil Life
Second Book: Influence of Democracy on the Feelings of the Americans
Democracy in America, Volume 2
Achille Murat, another French observer of America, published his findings in 1833 in A Moral and Political Sketch of the United States. Murat personally
disliked religion and found America’s religious nature highly offensive. He exclaimed:
It must be admitted that looking at the physiognomy [discernible character] of the United States, its religion is the only feature which disgusts a foreigner.
Achille
Murat, A Moral and Political Sketch of the United States (London: Effingham Wilson, 1833), p.
142.
He continued:
[T]here is no country in which the people are so religious as in the United States; to the eyes of a foreigner they even appear to be too much so. . . . The
great number of religious societies existing in the United States is truly surprising: there are some of them for every thing; for instance, societies to
distribute the Bible; to distribute tracts; to encourage religious journals; to convert, civilize, educate
the savages; to marry the preachers; to take care of their widows and orphans; to preach, extend, purify, preserve, reform the faith; to build chapels, endow
congregations, support seminaries; catechize and convert sailors, Negroes, and loose women; to secure the observance of Sunday and prevent blasphemy by
prosecuting the violators; to establish Sunday schools where young ladies teach reading and the catechism to little rogues, male and female; to prevent
drunkenness, &c.
Murat, pp. 113, 132.
Christianity in the 21st century is a narcotic. It is a me-centered "feel-good" religion. Too many Christians advocate more power for the federal
government, the creation of "armed forces," and neglect the creation of voluntary associations and missions organizations which made America a great and
Christian nation. These Christians want to "restore America" by creating a federal government vastly more powerful than the one created by Christians in
the late 1700's. The coming America will not resemble the America of our Founding Fathers.
The civil government under the Founding Fathers publicly and officially ENCOURAGED these Christian "societies" -- they did not take the position of
contemporary church-state jurisprudence, which says that government must never "endorse" or encourage
Christian solutions to social problems like illiteracy and immorality.
As the New Hampshire Constitution, Art 1, sec. 6, "Bill of Rights" said,
As morality and piety rightly grounded on
evangelical principles will give the best and greatest security to government and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to due subjection; and
as the knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a society by the institution of the public worship of the Deity and of public instruction in
morality and religion; therefore, to promote these important purposes, the people of this State have a right to empower, and do hereby fully empower, the
legislature to authorize, from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies within this State to make adequate
provision at their own expense for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion,
and morality.
America was made great by Christian charity, and the Constitution did not abolish or prohibit this.
We cannot approve, however, of "faith-based" governmental appropriations. Appropriations should come voluntarily from the wallets of Americans, not
from the barrel of a gun and seized by the IRS.
Secular Humanism has been imposed on America in an unconstitutional manner, and charity has also
been crippled.
An important book is Marvin Olasky, The
Tragedy of American Compassion. He details how early America was dominated by voluntary associations and "societies," such as "The Salem
Society for the Moral and Religious Instruction of the Poor."
At the Trough," by Roger Schultz, review of Olasky
http
://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/reviews/cm04_rev_trough.html
"Compassionate Conservatism" - Olasky
http://www.heri
tage.org/library/lecture/hl676.html
I have already posted excerpts from Cremin's authoritative history of education, which discusses the tremendous influence upon education these societies had.
There were many, many such societies, and they met an urgent need.
Voluntary Associations and the Priesthood of All Believers
- How Voluntary Associations Can Solve the Healthcare "Crisis"
- Medical Insurance that Worked — Until Government "Fixed" It
A footnote: Notice that de Tocqueville said, "The United States have no metropolis; but they
already contain several very large cities." It was common in de Tocqueville's day to use plural verbs to speak of the United States -- "The United States are
a great source of inspiration to those who love Liberty Under God" -- because it was a union of sovereign States, and the Constitution acknowledged the
sovereignty of those States. In our day the federal government has ignored the Constitution and the original
intent of its Framers, and has almost completely eliminated "states' rights." It seems that its main purpose is to protect its own power, and further
centralize power over the states. "The United States is no longer an inspiration to those who love Liberty Under God."
The Call of Jesus
Consider the scenario in the last third of Matthew chapter 23. I've discussed this scene here. Jesus says "I
was a foreigner and you took Me in." The word "foreigner" is the Greek word from which we get the English word "xenophobic," which means
fear or hate of foreigners.
Jesus also says "I was illegal and you visited Me."
When the King says "Jump!" you should say "How high!" Or just jump as high as
you can.
King Jesus commands His followers to show compassion to the "illegal" and the foreigner.
"Compassion" means more than "I gave at the office" (because the IRS stole the money out of your paycheck). It means to be physically
present with the person.
When was the last time you were physically present, showing love and compassion, to foreigner, even one who was "illegal."
How Your Church Could Make This Work
Consider this article:
How much does it cost to deport
one migrant? It depends
The article says:
Trump promised during the campaign to deport all 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S., but has since narrowed his focus to
immigrants with criminal histories, a number many analysts put at about 2 million.
The president, in his revised budget appropriations for
fiscal year 2017, asked Congress for an additional $1.15 billion for ICE, to detain, transport and remove undocumented immigrants from the United States.
How far would that get Trump toward deporting 2 million immigrants?
Based on current estimates, the additional funds could get Trump about 5
percent of the way to his goal.
These estimates assume easy near-border arrests, or other arrests of low-hanging fruit.
“These apprehension personnel, they have to investigate,” Gitis said. “A lot of undocumented immigrants have been here for decades and are
well-integrated into their communities, so I think it would take quite an investigative effort.”
Cost-overruns are endemic in government. I'll bet the total cost of deporting all "illegal" aliens will be more than this estimate.
The article says "It costs on average about $180 a day to detain an individual." That's more than a Motel 6.
That estimate of 11 million "illegal" immigrants was from 2017. I've heard estimates as high as 20 million.
Consider this article:
4.9
Million Illegal Aliens Blew Past the US Border in the 18 Months Since Biden was Installed in Office
So let's go with 20 million.
The first article says $1.15 billion gets 5% of 2 million immigrants, which means 100% of 2 million costs $23 billion.
2 million "criminal" immigrants = 10% of all immigrants, so total cost of deporting all immigrants
starts at $230 billion. Again, that's probably a typical low-ball government estimate.
If I've done my math, the total cost would probably be about $1000 taken out of the piggy bank of every man, woman, and small child in America.
Now let's imagine that the IRS gives you that money back. You get a check for $1000 for every man, woman, and small child in your family.
Could you and your family answer the call of Jesus and help an immigrant with that check?
Maybe you could team up with other families in your neighborhood or in your church.
- The number of immigrants comes out to
- 2 immigrants for every 33 Americans or roughly
- 2 immigrants for every 10 American families
- Suppose your family and 9 other family-friends were given $3000 each, or $30,000 between your families.
- Could your ten families turn 2 immigrants into
- • two robust Americans
• two faithful Christians
• two admirable human beings
- over the next year?
Help them get jobs, get to work each day, and save up money for first- and last-month's rent on a place of their own?
- Divide the two immigrants between your ten families. You could meet with them every fifth day for breakfast, another day for lunch and and other day dinner.
Other families cover other days of the week. Talk with them. Teach them English. Work through a life coaching
program with them. A few hours a day. After a few months of this kind of program, the immigrants could be better Americans, better Christians, and better
human beings than many Americans who were born here.
I've done this. I've had more than a hundred illegal immigrants in my home, teaching them English, fixing meals with them, helping them get work. People who make
big sacrifices to leave a country controlled by drug-cartels and make it to America are people who have their head on straight. Wouldn't you do the same thing if
you were in their shoes? Most immigrants want to work, support their families, and become
- Extraordinary Americans
- Extraordinary Christians
- Extraordinary Human Beings.
You can help them. You don't have to be a "professional."
Wouldn't that be more Christ-like than trying to arrest all the immigrants and putting them on a "Trail
of Tears" back to Central America?
|