Marxism and Libertarianism; Cinderella’s Two Ugly Stepsisters

in the end the Libertarian vision and the Marxist vision share a common teleology in terms of their vision for the future. Both envision the eventual withering away of the State. The Marxists envision it happening by way of abolishing private property. The Libertarians envisions it happening by exalting the ownership of property to the Highest good of politics. The Marxists envisions it happening by absolutizing the State so as to deny private property. The Libertarians envision it happening by completely eliminating the State so as eliminate the commons. However, each vision is pursued to the end of some fanciful Utopia.

Both Libertarianianism and Marxism articulate a anthropology that reduces man to homo econonomicus. Both view man as the sum of his economic decisions.

Both Libertarianism and Marxism get the One and the Many wrong. The Libertarian extinguishes the One in favor of the Many and the Marxist extinguishes the Many in favor of the One. Taken together they are Van Til’s “Rational” and “Irrational” wash women taking in each others laundry.

Libertarianism is all particulars and no Universals. Marxism is all Universals and no particulars. Libertarianism gives us beads without holes. Marxism gives us strings that have no ends.

Further, both Liberrtarianism and Marxism lose the idea of the Transcendent Objective. This is seen most clearly in ethics for the Marxism, while for the Libertarians the absence of the Objective transcendent is seen most clearly in the absence of any objective standard of a just price or wage. Both Libertarianism and Marxism suffer from the subjectivity of Monism that always affects those who do not have a vigorous understanding of Transcendence.
One solves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING by championing Libertariansim over Marxism.

Federal Elections Do Not Render Choices For The Voters

For a couple decades now I’ve believed that the political system, especially on the Federal level is rigged. Which is to say I believe that most candidates on each side of the ballot are going to implement much the same agenda. I believe this because the money behind the candidates is largely coming from the same sources. I believe this because of the consistent track record which finds candidates excoriating incumbents only to turn around, upon being elected, to pursue the exact same policies, at a factor of 10, which they previously excoriated with relish during the campaign.

To support this conviction I offer some quotes from an American Governor from 1930. This Governor was hammering away at the proto-Keynsian policies of President Hoover. This Governor eventually ran against Hoover as a Democrat and defeated Hoover in the 1932 Presidential election and turned around and made Hoover’s proto-Keynsian policies look like the kind of stuff that children might do with a Lemonade stand.

This 1930 Governor makes Ron Paul sound like a collectivist and a Statist.

I submit to you he knew when making these speeches he was going to pursue the very same Economic policies that Herbert Hoover was following. In point of fact he made Hoover look like a neo-phyte when it came to Government largess.

I provide a few of the quotes from his March, 1930 speech. If someone didn’t know in 1930 that the system was rigged even then they would have voted for Franklin Delano Roosevelt for President thinking that they would be getting a small Government conservative.

“As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere.”

“Thus, it was clear to the framers of our Constitution that the greatest possible liberty of self-government must be given to each State, and that any national administration attempting to make all laws for the whole Nation, such as was wholly practical in Great Britain, would inevitably result at some future time in a dissolution of the Union itself.”

“Now, what are the powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution? First of all, the National Government is entrusted with the duty of protecting any or all States from the danger of invasion or conquest by foreign powers by sea or land, and in return the States surrender the right to engage in any private wars of their own. This involves, of course, the creation of the army and navy and the right to enroll citizens of any State in time of need. Next is given the treaty-making power and the sole right of all intercourse with foreign States, the issuing of money and its protection from counterfeiting. The regulation of weights and measures so as to be uniform, the entire control and regulation of commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, the protection of patents and copyrights, the erection of minor Federal tribunals throughout the country, and the establishment of post offices are specifically enumerated. The power to collect taxes, duties and imposts, to pay the debts for the common defense and general welfare of the country is also given to the United States Congress, as the law-making body of the Nation.”

“On such a small foundation have we erected the whole enormous fabric of Federal Government which costs us now $3,500,000,000 every year, and if we do not halt this steady process of building commissions and regulatory bodies and special legislation like huge inverted pyramids over every one of the simple Constitutional provisions, we shall soon be spending many billions of dollars more.”

“On such a small foundation have we erected the whole enormous fabric of Federal Government which costs us now $3,500,000,000 every year, and if we do not halt this steady process of building commissions and regulatory bodies and special legislation like huge inverted pyramids over every one of the simple Constitutional provisions, we shall soon be spending many billions of dollars more….”

“The doctrine of regulation and legislation by “master minds,” in whose judgment and will all the people may gladly and quietly acquiesce, has been too glaringly apparent at Washington during these last ten years. Were it possible to find “master minds” so unselfish, so willing to decide unhesitatingly against their own personal interests or private prejudices, men almost god-like in their ability to hold the scales of Justice with an even hand, such a government might be to the interest of the country, but there are none such on our political horizon, and we cannot expect a complete reversal of all the teachings of history.

Now, to bring about government by oligarchy masquerading as democracy, it is fundamentally essential that practically all authority and control be centralized in our National Government. The individual sovereignty of our States must first be destroyed, except in mere minor matters of legislation. We are safe from the danger of any such departure from the principles on which this country was founded just so long as the individual home rule of the States is scrupulously preserved and fought for whenever it seems in danger.”

“But what are the underlying principles on which this Government is founded? There is, first and foremost, the new thought that every citizen is entitled to live his own life in his own way so long as his conduct does not injure any of his fellowmen.”

The point is folks, that the whole election process on the Federal level is a tissue of lies. These people are not going to overturn the general direction of the deification of the State. I could provide quotes from LBJ decrying Civil Rights which he later supported. I could provide quotes from Obama bashing Bush for Bush’s practice of Executive power and now Obama makes Bush look like milquetoast.

The election process is a ruse folks to make you think that you have some kind of authority.

You don’t.

Here is a link to the whole Governor FDR speech,

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/writings/fdr_address.htm

Fisking A Snippet From Obama’s “State Of The Putsch” Address

The Great Leader waxed eloquent,

“Finally, if we are serious about economic growth, it is time to heed the call of business leaders, labor leaders, faith leaders, and law enforcement —and fix our broken immigration system.”

The Peanut gallery responds,

1.) Economic Growth — If you increase the population of a country you can simultaneously grow the economy while at the same time decrease the per capita income. This is not rocket science.

2.) Heeding call of business leaders

a.) The call from business leaders is a call from the Oligarchs of mega corporations who desire cheap labor so as to increase their own profit margin. These people would replace their Mothers if they could find a South of the Border Mamacita who would be willing to be “Mom” for a lesser wage.

b.) Repeatedly, it has been demonstrated that immigration, whatever the source, causes an upward redistribution of income from labor to capital in any society, whether high or low wage. As such, of course business leaders desire amnesty.

3.) Heeding call of labor leaders

a.) The call from labor leaders is a call to grow their rank and file which will mean increased money via union dues which will mean the ability to purchase more political power by purchasing more politicians. The labor leaders care no more for their rank and file then the business leaders care about their customers. For each, amnesty means a larger constituency by which they can have a larger wallet.

b.) Further “O” cites “labor leaders” because he understands that more Union workers means not only more money but more votes. Amnesty means the Democratic single party rule for a generation and the redefining of the Republican party even further to the Left then they already are.

4.) Heeding call of Faith Leaders — This is from the “do-gooder” crowd who’s schmaltzy sentimentalism even Jesus is embarrassed by. These types tend to far outstrip God in terms of how Holy they are. Typically they are soft Marxists, full of good intentions, who have no ability whatsoever to understand the law of unintended consequences. The best thing they could do is to try and understand the broken window fallacy in all its implications. Believe me when I tell you that God is even more embarrassed by these people than I am.

5.) Heeding call of law enforcement — Border patrol officers and organizations have routinely complained about amnesty.

The Great Leader Offered,

“Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have acted.”

The Peanut Gallery,

Like the political whores they are.

His Majesty continued,

I know that members of both parties in the House want to do the same. Independent economists say immigration reform will grow our economy and shrink our deficits by almost $1 trillion in the next two decades.”

The “Emperor is Naked” kid responds,

Shrinking our deficit by 1 Trillion in two decades will be exactly how much in terms of 2014 dollars? A few billion? And yes, we will grow our economy but what will that growth look like in terms of income as our population increases so that per captia income decreases. The Congressional Budget Office insists that this treasonous Amnesty proposal will depress American wages for the next two decades.

And I’m sure members of both parties in the House want to do the same. After all, they are all political whores for the Eastern Establishment, who in turn are political whores for the International Money Interest.

The Great Leader plods on,

“And for good reason: when people come here to fulfill their dreams — to study, invent, and contribute to our culture — they make our country a more attractive place for businesses to locate and create jobs for everyone. So let’s get immigration reform done this year.

The popcorn throwing guy in the cheap seats responds,

More schmaltz. One wonders if a President should be more concerned about the Dreams of the citizens of those who elected him than the dreams of illegal immigrants. Our real unemployment numbers are through the roof and our Government wants to give amnesty to non-Americans so that they can fulfill their dreams? What dreams are those? Getting on the Government tit of welfare, health-care, and free-fare?

Secondly, I suspect that the fulfilling of their dreams will mean that they will do for our country what they did for their country when they lived there. After all, polling reveals that Immigrants bring with them the mindset that created the Tyranny of the countries they fled from and that mindset followed through upon in the voting booth will inevitably re-create their hell-hole homelands here.

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2014/01/29/gop-crafts-plan-to-wreck-the-country-lose-voters-n1786781

Look, I’ve said this repeatedly. This is not about anybody’s Dreams except the Dreams of the Treason constituency which is comprised of the Corporatist traitor class, the Mega-Union traitor class, the Faux-Religious Leader’s traitor class and Bureaucratic-Politician traitor class. This is not about doing what is good for our country. This is about the State replacing one defiant citizenry with a compliant citizenry. The Government is, in essence, electing a new people.

Putin’s New York Times Editorial Piece

There has been a great deal of buzz about Vladimir Putin’s editorial in the New York Times today. I don’t consider the Times to be a reputable Newspaper but I thought I would make a few observations about the Putin editorial. The editorial can be found here,

Keep in mind that my distrust of Putin in no way implies trust for Obama, Democrats, or Republicans. I can manage to be against them all at the same time, hoping that they conspire to pull each other houses down so that a non Tyrannical house can be built.

1.) Putin offered, “But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together.”

When Putin uses the word “we” here in the context of being allies during WW II, it strikes me that he is identifying himself with the former Communist Bolshevik Tyranny that held the reigns of power during WW II in Communist Russia. For this reason alone I find Putin to be a character that is not to be trusted. Anybody who self identifies with the Communists is someone whom Christians should be skeptical.

Secondly, on this score, it is true that the Nazis were defeated, which was good news, however, the price we paid in turning over much of the globe to international Communism (the “WE” that Putin self identifies with) made the defeat of the Nazis an empty victory.

2.) Putin extols the United Nations in his piece. This is another indicator that the man is not to be trusted. The United Nations has always been the residence of the progressive Marxist left, and was established in order to assist the bringing to fruition the long held dream of the New World Order. Putin further says on this score that nobody desires to see the UN fail. That is not true. I suspect that millions of people pray daily that the UN will fail.

3.) Keep in mind as you read anything coming from Putin that a defector from the KGB, (Anatoliy Golitsyn) told us long ago that the Soviets will fake the death of the USSR. His predictions were spot on. Do we really think that one day a huge super power like the USSR just falls apart without a whimper? No trials or anything for the former rulers? All the party faithful oligarchs are transformed from communists into “entrepreneurs” overnight? The former rulers become the new rulers, nothing really changes in the power structure? The purpose of this long con is to advance the agenda of the New World Order. Putin, being former KGB, is part of this deception and the end goal remains the Communization of the globe. Meet the new boss … same as the old boss.

We have to keep in mind that the cold war was useful to accomplish big things for the New World Order but the International elites needed a new era. Remember our state dept and Wall-street gave the world the USSR, Red China, Cuba, and so on. The best enemy money could buy. Putin, in my estimation is playing his role in the long con to enslave the world.

This long con was hinted at by Gorbachev in 1987 in an address to the Soviet Politburo,

“In October 1917, we parted with the old world, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a new world, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road!? He further reassures his Communist colleagues: Comrades, do not be concerned about all that you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal change within the Soviet Union other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.”

There is no reason to believe that the long con does not continue.

4.) Putin in his speech appeals to the same old tired egalitarianism that has always been part and parcel of Communist ideology. In appealing to this egalitarianism Putin reveals, for those with eyes to see, the fact that Putin remains Red.

5.) So what game is Putin and Obama playing in this dramatic song and dance routine that is Syria? (Note — I believe most of what happens before the Cameras as well as what is reported in the press is Kabuki theater meant to fool the useful idiots) I believe that this was never about Syria. It was about weakening the prestige of America in the site of the World while discouraging Americans. This discouragement is part of the psychological warfare that KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov warned about almost 30 years ago. Obama has always been about destroying this country. Putin helped him in his goal as together they operated to bring down our prestige around the world while at the same time dispiriting Americans in regards to their country.

6.) Finally, Putin notes in this article that America should not think of itself as an exceptional country. This is consistent with what Obama has said in the past. In 2010, when Obama was asked if he believed in American exceptionalism, President Obama responded, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” If everyone is exceptional per Obama, then no one is exceptional per Putin. They are reading off the same script.

Those who dine with Putin, would be well advised to dine with a long spoon. I do not think he is the anti-Obama hope that some people think he is.

I’d like to be wrong. I don’t think I am.

Reviewing Just War

If one makes even a cursory reading on war, one is immediately convinced of how dreadful it is. Whether one reads Josephus’ account of Rome’s war against Jerusalem in AD 70, or one reads of both Axis and Allied atrocities during WWII one learns quickly why someone once said “War is Hell.”

War brings not only death, but cruel death. Death by famine, pestilence, torture, and cannibalism. War brings death instantly and death to those who wish they had been blessed to die instantly.

War brings out the worst in man … envy, hatred, callousness, and selfishness.

Because this is so, War, for the Biblical Christian, has always been taught to be a matter of last resort. These Christians who believe that war is terrible but sometimes unavoidable have always embraced what is called “Just War teaching.” And we will be looking at that as we probe what Scripture has to say about when Christians fighting war is warranted.

Because war is so terrible, many Christians through the ages have taken a position that no Christian should ever be involved in violence against another person no matter what. This position has been called “pacifism.” It is a position often associated with the ana-baptist wing of thinking.

The reason we are taking this up, is because the War Drums are being beaten again, and as such I want us to be informed so that as Christians we can take up both our Christian duty and our civic duty. I will be giving the principles of Just War theory this morning and seeking to support those principles from Scripture. As tempting as it might be, I will not be telling people what to think about the current war call that is being advanced.

Before we get to the criteria for Just war I want to spend just a few minutes laying the groundwork to negate the idea that a Christian should never ever involve themselves in War because War, is ipso facto sinful. These brief 5 points are introduced in order to dismiss the idea of the Pacifists who teach that war is always wrong all the time.

1.) First, God repeatedly aligns and identify’s Himself with war and the warrior in Scripture. This is proof that war can be consistent with Christian involvement.

Isaiah 42:13 The Lord goes out like a mighty man,
like a man of war he stirs up his zeal;
he cries out, he shouts aloud,
he shows himself mighty against his foes.

In Revelation 19:11-12 we see the Messiah likewise being portrayed as a Warrior,

11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.

The point here is that if War were automatically evil in and of itself then God could never be spoken in Scripture as being as a Warrior. Just as God never refers to Himself as a liar, murderer or homosexual, because these behaviors are inherently evil, so God would never refer to Himself as a Warrior if War was inherently evil.

2.) Second, God commanded His people to engage in War. If War were inherently and intrinsically evil, then such a command would be inherently and intrinsically evil.

Judges 4:6-7

6 She sent and summoned Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh-naphtali and said to him, “Has not the Lord, the God of Israel, commanded you, ‘Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor, taking 10,000 from the people of Naphtali and the people of Zebulun. 7 And I will draw out Sisera, the general of Jabin’s army, to meet you by the river Kishon with his chariots and his troops, and I will give him into your hand’?”

3.) In Deuteronomy 20:1-20 God gave explicit words on how war is to be conducted. We looked at these carefully in a recent Evening Service series. The point is that if God gave explicit words on how war is to be conducted therefore it can not be the case that to be involved in war is always wrong all the time.

4.) Many of the Saints of the OT, bragged on in Hebrews 11:33-34 were men of war and are commended as Warriors.

Hebrews says of these Saints that they … “became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.”

God would never commend that which is intrinsically evil.

5.) Romans 13:1-4 explicitly says that the Magistrate, who is a minister of God, has been given the Sword.

for he is God’s servant … he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

Explain the symbolism of the sword.

So, these five points dismiss the pacifist notion that War is always wrong all the time. There are times when War is just in God’s sight.

So, as we consider what constitutes Just War we say at the outset that if we lived in a world that was un-fallen there of course would never be war. War comes about because, as James 4 teaches,

What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions[a] are at war within you?[b] 2 You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel.

So war is a result of bent passions and avaricious selfishness of the wicked. And just war is the means by which those bent passions and avaricious selfishness is halted. For a Christian Magistrate, war is where He uses the Sword, per Romans 13, to execute God’s justice against those who are terrorizing those who desire to live a peaceful and quite life that is godly in every way (I Tim. 2:2). The Christian magistrate like God is a warrior when he has needs to oppose the attempt of the wicked to tyrannize the righteous.

What I am about to give you in terms of Just War theory is not new with me. This teaching goes far back to chaps like Ambrose and Augustine in the 4th century and was elaborated upon by Aquinas in the 13th century, and has been refined over and over again through the centuries from that point forward. Some of these men spent more of their time anchoring just war theory in Scripture, while others sought to universalize just war theory by anchoring it in what they viewed as Natural Law.

We will give the several principles of Just war theory so you can see them gathered together.

1.) War can only be sanctioned and called for by the duly recognized authority.

Here we have an example of the jurisdictionalism which we bring out often here. The family has a sphere of jurisdiction, the church has a sphere of jurisdiction and the civil magistrate has a sphere of jurisdiction. Romans 13, which we cited earlier, clearly teaches that the Magistrate is a minister of God who wields the sword. War is a sword wielding event. In our own Constitution the sanctioning of War can only legally be called for by the US Congress, though this has been ignored often in our history with the Executive branch doing the sanctioning.

2.) War has to be waged because of a just cause. And of course the idea of “just” has to be defined consistent with God’s Scriptural revelation.

We return here to the idea of the Magistrates sword. The magistrate is only to use His sword in keeping with what God defines as “just.” “Just causes” we can imagine taking up the sword for would be to protect life (6th comm), protect property (8th commandment), avenging evil, etc. Obviously, if these kinds of evil could not be resisted, then we would live under the maxim that might makes right.

Also we must note here that consistent with God’s word, any war that is prosecuted against a judicially innocent people, inflicting upon them the penalty of war despite their innocence, would require that those prosecuting the unjust war be visited with the penalty of war that they were seeking to implement against the judicially innocent.

This is a principle gleaned from passages like,

Dt. 19:16 — If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother.

Returning then to the theme of “just cause,” we would note that Augustine here offered that war can be waged justly as a defense against aggression and for the protection of life and liberty. Augustine also held that war, on certain occasions, could be fought because of wrongs inflicted on a nation through economic or other means. Thus, war should only be waged to vindicate justice. The goal of war, taught Augustine, was the restoration of international peace.

Let me give you just a hint of what we will find on this matter. With some exceptions, Just war is defensive war. Now, defensive wars can have offensive movements in them, but the war itself, in just war theory, is most commonly Defensive war. Wars of aggression, or wars to build Empire, are by definition, not just wars and so need to be opposed by all Christians.

Southern Theologian R. L. Dabney offered, “Defensive war is, then, righteous, and only a defensive war.”

3.) The war is waged with right intention.

This one is added so that War is advertised with the just cause while the real reason is for some other selfish purpose such as the desire for territory, or some advantaged gained in seizing significant trade routes, or by seizing some Natural resource that is needed.

Mosely contends that “a just war cannot be considered to be just if reasons of national interest are paramount or overwhelm the pretext of fighting aggression.”

Here we must note that a State almost never beats the war drums without insisting that the cause is humanitarian or noble. States do not say … “we are going to war in order to seize oil reserves, or in order to protect the American dollar against those who are seeking to set up other International economies that would destroy us …” Remember the maxim that the first casualty of War is the truth.

States always sell War by telling their people that their cause is just, true and right. It is up to the citizenry then to do the best they can to ferret out the truth. As in all things, but especially in War, we should follow the Maxim, “Let the buyer beware.”

Here we need to insert Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler’s observation that “War is a Racket.” It is incumbent upon us as Christians, when determining whether or not to support a war or to speak out against it, to “follow the money.” It would be naive of us to not look at the economic equation behind war pursued. Butler, in his short book just mentioned, suggested that even when he was being used as a Mercenary (turn of the 20th century) for big Corporate interests, the wars of his nation were always about money, or turning a profit for the Corporatists. It is not Just war to fight to enrich the Oligarchs, the Cartels, and the Corporatists who advance their position by blood.

4.) War can only be justified once all other avenues of recourse are exhausted. This is consistent with a principle we find in Matthew 18

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Here we see reconciliation is exhaustively pursued before sanctions are levied.

One of the early Reformed writers on this subject Johannes Althusisus could write on this score,

Althusius stated: “Just cause for waging war occurs when all other remedies have first been exhausted and peace and justice cannot otherwise be obtained.”

And again,

This authority to undertake war ought not to be employed by the magistrate unless all other remedies have failed, and there is no other way to repel an attack upon his subjects, to avoid and vindicate injustice to them, or to obtain peace and tranquillity in the realm….But before undertaking war a magistrate should check his own judgment and reasoning, and offer prayers to God to arouse and direct the spirit and mind of his subjects and himself to the well-being, utility, and necessity of the church and community, and to avoid all rashness and injustice….

5.) The War waged can be a War successfully prosecuted.

This is consistent with what we find in Luke 14:28-32,

28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.

On this score, we have to keep in mind that war is so terrible and the consequences so grave that it should not be prosecuted if there is no hope of winning. To wage a war that can’t be won would be nothing less then murder of the citizenry by the Magistrate.

Exceptions noted

1.) Exception for National or people group survival
2.) Exception to avoid enslavement

6.) The End must envision a better state of affairs then the end envisioned if war is not prosecuted. The overall destruction that will come should be weighed against by the good that is aimed at.

7.) War is principally fought by soldiers that are male.

Numbers 1 and Numbers 26 both have God telling the leadership,

“List all the men twenty years old or older who are able to go to war.”

War that is fought with women would make a war unjust. Again, national survival might be an exception, but any people who use their women as combatants is a people who are already lost to the God of the Bible.

8.) War is not total. Distinction between soldier and civilians maintained.

This Biblical principle found in Dt. 20 was largely followed by the civilized West and was only reversed on a grand scale in the 19th century in the States. Ever since then though it has been largely the way we conduct war.

Wars that typically abide under these maxims are generally defensive wars. Wars that are protecting hearth and home. Exceptions may exist for that but those exceptions are very constrained.

In Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants) we find language that speaks of fighting wars that are not strictly in defense of hearth and home. It asks the question “Whether neighbor princes may, or are bound by law to aid the subjects of other princes“. The answer is a qualified yes; providing some very strict criterion are met. For example, the oppression must be grievous, the chances of defeating the tyrant must be reasonable, the aid must be done with no objective of personal gain, and we are most obligated to aid those closest to us in terms of blood, religion, and geography. In other words, a ruler being a “bad guy” is nowhere near enough justification. This fits very well with the Christian Just War Theory and was doubtless influenced by just war categories.

So, there may be times when just War is pursued besides defense of home and hearth but in general just war has typically found that War is only just when it is defensive.

E. J. Carnell sums it up nicely,

Defensive warfare is simply the use of a national police force to destroy gangsterism on an international scale. The soldier is in exactly the same position as the civil officer at the scene of a bank robbery. Each must put down perversity with force. War is the last expedient to which a nation can turn when its survival is threatened by those bent on world domination and the lust for power. There is no doubt but that war is a terrible thing, almost too awful to speak of without tears in our voices. But the consequence of not matching force with force within the collective ego is infinitely less bearable. We will destroy the very securities within which men can preach and hear the Word of Life; we will betray all of the forms that guarantee our basic freedoms; and, worst of all, we will commit a sin against the very God who has ordained that Christian citizens be subject to those who have been placed in civil office as a praise to the good and a terror to the evil.