Augustinians and War

[Josh]

The Amish use the monetary system that is supported by the state through the threat of force (The US mints are heavily guarded and the Secret Service vigilantly protects the currency against counterfeiting) rather than engaging in say ancient methods of barter. What makes a dollar worth a dollar and not just toilet paper is the backing of the US government.

Everyone in America is forced to use dollars, because taxes are paid in dollars. Even if you do barter, you're supposed to pay taxes based on the fair market value of the dollar. So, no, you're wrong here.

The Amish rely on public highways that are patrolled and regulated by the state. When they travel from place to place they rely on laws and police forces to keep them safe and the government to keep them maintained so that travel from one town to another isn't a scene from Road Warrior.

This isn't even strictly true; they generally rely on public rights of way that are quite old and used to come from easements back when landowners maintained roads.

In some settlements, e.g. Lobelville, they have created their own roads and negotiated with property owners to get access between their settlements at e.g. Russell Creek and Cane Creek. So, no you're wrong here too. (And in any case, Amish pay property taxes to the local township for road upkeep just like anyone else does.)

The Amish rely on the mechanisms of the state to recognize and enforce their property rights which prevents me from showing up with bulldozers to raze an Amish farm and put up a shopping mall.

The Amish rely on laws enforced through the criminal justice system to maintain clean air and clean water in their communities and a whole host of other things.

In a democratic society you can indeed "check out of the system" as you put it and not engage in government to the extent that you wish. Many Americans are exceedingly disengaged from civil society, not just conservative Anabaptists. But I don't think that absolves you of responsibility for the violence or injustice done by your government on your behalf. We as a society do choose what kind of armed forces, police, criminal justice system, and laws we are going to have. And we are all collectively responsible for them.

No, I am not responsible when a police officer decides to shoot someone. Sorry, Ken.

I am not responsible if the government does something against me, nor am I responsible if they do something on "my behalf". It is not requested. It is entirely the choice of the person doing what they decide to do.

Most governments over Amish have decided it is in the best interest of EVERYONE ELSE to see to it that the Amish are not victimised by violent people, have their land stolen, and so forth. If you think this is wrong, I suggest you go lobby the government to change that.

[Josh]

It just seems like a huge double standard, and the division between (4) and (5) is impossible in practice. You can't simply "check out of the system." To make it quite practical, would you be ok with calling the police to deal with a criminal in your neighborhood? If so, by doing that are you not participating in "the collective use of coercion"?

I see nothing wrong with making an observation to someone else that someone is going around engaging in criminal behaviour. I am not engaging in a coercive act.

If the person involved stops their criminal behaviour, they won't have to deal with me discussing and talking about their behaviour. It is entirely up to them what happens next.

Your theory of moral responsibility is opaque to me.

Generally speaking, I don't believe people are morally responsible for second and third order effects.

There is nothing intrinstically immoral about sharing information that someone is going around committing violent crime.

Let's say, for example, that I know that so-and-so is a rapist. It is not immoral for me to decide to tell a third party about this. A rapist has no expectation of some right to privacy against me.

It is not immoral for me to tell someone who may be capable of using violence against that rapist.

I do not have a moral duty to see to it that violence and coercion is not used against other violent people, such as rapists.

There is no moral responsibility to not report crimes to the police. And I have a hard time understanding how anyone can think that is a consistent position. It is entirely up to the police officer what he decides to do with my report. And it is entirely his moral responsibility if he decides to engage in a violent act.

[Ken]

No, I am not responsible when a police officer decides to shoot someone. Sorry, Ken.

• The police and sheriffs in your community are hired by your tax dollars.
• The standards for use of force, training, weapons, (whether officers shoot first or as a last resort) are all determined and supervised by elected officials in your community.
• The type of police officers who are hired, and their educational and training requirements are all determined by your community. Did you know that hairdressers in Ohio are required to have 2.5-times more training than police officers? Look it up.
• The disciplinary standards and process for reining in "rogue" police officers are determined by elected representatives in your community.
• The law enforcement priorities in your community are determined by your elected representatives. Whether they, for example, profile and target minorities for traffic stops as a law enforcement priority or revenue source (https://www.al.com/news/2022/01/police- ... -hole.html), or focus their efforts on community policing, dealing with more difficult issues like child abuse, substance abuse, and other social problems.

You may choose to completely disengage from all of this. Many if not most Americans do as is their right. But it doesn't absolve you from violence or injustice committed on your behalf.

It is entirely up to the police officer what he decides to do with my report. And it is entirely his moral responsibility if he decides to engage in a violent act.

Absolutely not true. Police officers are not independent actors governed only by their own personal standards and moral codes (or lack of them). They are public servants bound by the laws and standards set out by the community of which you are a part. That is what distinguishes them from private citizens or vigilantes.

[Josh]

The police and sheriffs in your community are hired by your tax dollars.

Paying taxes is not a choice. They're deducted out of my paycheck against my will and if I don't pay additional taxes owed, the government will come and seize my house, car, bank account, and any other property.

The standards for use of force, training, weapons, (whether officers shoot first or as a last resort) are all determined and supervised by elected officials in your community.

No, whether or not officers shoot people they shouldn't is a choice each officer makes.

The type of police officers who are hired, and their educational and training requirements are all determined by your community. Did you know that hairdressers in Ohio are required to have 2.5-times more training than police officers? Look it up.

This is factually incorrect. Virtually any cop now needs to have a bachelors' degree unless they have other special training (like being a veteran who was an MP for over 4 years).

Absolutely not true. Police officers are not independent actors governed only by their own personal standards and moral codes (or lack of them). They are public servants bound by the laws and standards set out by the community of which you are a part. That is what distinguishes them from private citizens or vigilantes.

No, police officers are individual humans who each day decide to do good or evil. And no, I'm not "part" of this community, as much as you keep insisting I am. I have absolutely no control or say in how police departments are run. If I did vote, I'd be one vote out of thousands.

Try again.

[Ken]

The police and sheriffs in your community are hired by your tax dollars.

Paying taxes is not a choice. They're deducted out of my paycheck against my will and if I don't pay additional taxes owed, the government will come and seize my house, car, bank account, and any other property.

The standards for use of force, training, weapons, (whether officers shoot first or as a last resort) are all determined and supervised by elected officials in your community.

No, whether or not officers shoot people they shouldn't is a choice each officer makes.

The type of police officers who are hired, and their educational and training requirements are all determined by your community. Did you know that hairdressers in Ohio are required to have 2.5-times more training than police officers? Look it up.

This is factually incorrect. Virtually any cop now needs to have a bachelors' degree unless they have other special training (like being a veteran who was an MP for over 4 years).

Absolutely not true. Police officers are not independent actors governed only by their own personal standards and moral codes (or lack of them). They are public servants bound by the laws and standards set out by the community of which you are a part. That is what distinguishes them from private citizens or vigilantes.

No, police officers are individual humans who each day decide to do good or evil. And no, I'm not "part" of this community, as much as you keep insisting I am. I have absolutely no control or say in how police departments are run. If I did vote, I'd be one vote out of thousands.

Try again.

In point of fact there is no bachelor's degree requirement for law enforcement in Ohio or any other state. And nationally only about 30% of police officers have bachelor's degrees, most of whom are higher ranking officer/administrators and not entry level patrolmen. I doubt that Ohio is any big exception to national trends. Also feel free also to look up the required hours for police academy training in Ohio which is 600 hours over 18 weeks. And compare that to the requirements needed to earn a cosmetology license in Ohio which is 1500 hours.

The larger point is not to quibble about law enforcement training. But to point out that we live in a society and within communities that have established these standards for law enforcement. "We", as in all of us collectively within both our local communities and our states. We are comfortable taking 21-year olds with a GED and 18 weeks of training and sending them out armed onto our streets to commit violence on our behalf. It does not need to be that way. Many Nordic countries, for example, require four year college degrees for all law enforcement officers and have far stricter standards for use of force and deployment of weapons. And their numbers of police shootings are a tiny fraction of what ours are. That is a decision that those societies have made in contrast to ours.

None of us are engaged in every area of public policy and many of us are completely disengaged. I don't particularly care much about fire codes or product labeling requirements or standards for organic produce or plumbing codes. But I recognize that government is doing those things on my behalf. I am, however, interested in education policy, environmental policy, and criminal justice and pay attention to what my government is doing in those areas and it colors how I vote.

To give another example. Many people here are highly interested in abortion policy in this country and seek to see the laws changed around abortion. This colors their politics and political engagement to the extent that it is often the one single issue governing their politics to the exclusion of all else. If as you say we have no responsibility for what our government does on our behalf then why does the pro-life movement even exist? No one is ever personally required to have an abortion in this country. It is all about seeking to influence public policy. Whether it is laws around abortion, use of force standards for law enforcement, or foreign policy related to war and peace. There is no difference. All of them touch on moral issues related to life and death and/or state-endorsed violence.

[ohio jones]

... sending them out armed onto our streets to commit violence on our behalf.

That's an interesting way of characterizing the job description of a law enforcement officer.

To give another example. Many people here are highly interested in abortion policy in this country and seek to see the laws changed around abortion.

I don't think that accurately describes the majority view here. We could take a poll ...

[Sudsy]

I think, as an old guy, pretty slow, that I lean towards keeping out of what the kingdoms of this world do with regard to running this world. We are ambassadors of another world representing that world. Voting, to me, is nothing more than a way of getting involved in the ways of this world in their struggle to get this world the way they think it should be run. All this is temporary in light of eternity. A waste of time and focus on things that are all passing away. Being not just in the world but being of the world.

Our mission is to let them do their thing and focus on bringing whosoever will into the Kingdom of God. Changes to this world are not guaranteed to be permanent. History proves this again and again. Our concern should be about everlasting life and not what happens in the short blip of time humans exist here. In so doing, there can be many shortcomings of worldly governments made right both within the community of Christ followers and our good deeds as we reach out to unbelievers. Just saying, we don't need the governments of this world to do our job.

And, as Jesus said, we will run into persecutions of sorts. We are foreign agents in this world and imo, if we were representing that Kingdom as we should, worldly kingdoms wouldn't like it anymore today than they did in Jesus day. Loving everyone, turning the other cheek, doing good deeds and proclaiming the Gospel would stir up the spiritual forces that oppose us. At this point, our persecutions are pretty mild so what does this say about the hate we are suppose to receive as Christ followers ? Jesus said if they hated Him, they would hate us too.

We don't need to get involved with a physical temporal war as these all come and go but rather our warring is spiritual. Our battle involves the eternal souls of mankind. It is not a flesh and blood battle we are into.

"We" are in the world but not of it. I think we need to keep very attached to the people of this world as Jesus was to lead them to Kingdom life but unattached as much as we can to what this world of unbelievers are up to. God will 'keep the lid on things' until He decides the time is right for a new world. Meanwhile we can live above worldly concerns and enjoy abundant life in the Spirit.

YMMV. One last thought - don't just disengage but rather engage in the salvation of the lost. I'm preaching to myself too. God help us.

[Ken]

... sending them out armed onto our streets to commit violence on our behalf.

That's an interesting way of characterizing the job description of a law enforcement officer.

To give another example. Many people here are highly interested in abortion policy in this country and seek to see the laws changed around abortion.

I don't think that accurately describes the majority view here. We could take a poll ...

"authorized to commit violence on our behalf" is what I mean to say. In our society the state holds a monopoly on violence and we authorize police to use it domestically and the armed forces to use it internationally. That is what in part the badge and uniform means.

As for abortion? I would be shocked if any poll of Mennonet members did not favor repeal of Roe v. Wade which is the current law of the land related to abortion. That in my mind is "seeking to see the laws changed around abortion" The extent to which individual members here are politically active in the pro-life movement is another separate issue. But very frequently you see it mentioned that a major reason to vote for Trump over Biden (or in the past, Trump over Clinton) was abortion and the Supreme Court. I see that mentioned more than any other single policy issue.

[Josh]

"authorized to commit violence on our behalf" is what I mean to say. In our society the state holds a monopoly on violence and we authorize police to use it domestically and the armed forces to use it internationally. That is what in part the badge and uniform means.

My neighbours are authorised to commit violence on behalf of their families, and are even authorised to commit violence on behalf of me. That's how lawful self-defence works. I am authorised to commit violence on behalf of my family at home, and even for some of my property (Ohio has no duty to retreat from your own farm, business, or home).

As for abortion? I would be shocked if any poll of Mennonet members did not favor repeal of Roe v. Wade which is the current law of the land related to abortion. That in my mind is "seeking to see the laws changed around abortion" The extent to which individual members here are politically active in the pro-life movement is another separate issue. But very frequently you see it mentioned that a major reason to vote for Trump over Biden (or in the past, Trump over Clinton) was abortion and the Supreme Court. I see that mentioned more than any other single policy issue.

Like many other people, I think murder should be illegal, and I think murder of babies should be illegal. I'm not part of pro-life political action groups or a political party. I also didn't vote for Trump or Clinton or anyone else in elections since I became a Christian.

I can, however, observe that it would be a good thing of the Supreme Court made murder illegal again. I can recognise that a decision like Dredd Scott or Roe v Wade is not good when it allows murder of people.

[barnhart]

No, I am not responsible when a police officer decides to shoot someone. Sorry, Ken.

• The police and sheriffs in your community are hired by your tax dollars.
• The standards for use of force, training, weapons, (whether officers shoot first or as a last resort) are all determined and supervised by elected officials in your community.
• The type of police officers who are hired, and their educational and training requirements are all determined by your community. Did you know that hairdressers in Ohio are required to have 2.5-times more training than police officers? Look it up.
• The disciplinary standards and process for reining in "rogue" police officers are determined by elected representatives in your community.
• The law enforcement priorities in your community are determined by your elected representatives. Whether they, for example, profile and target minorities for traffic stops as a law enforcement priority or revenue source (https://www.al.com/news/2022/01/police- ... -hole.html), or focus their efforts on community policing, dealing with more difficult issues like child abuse, substance abuse, and other social problems.

You may choose to completely disengage from all of this. Many if not most Americans do as is their right. But it doesn't absolve you from violence or injustice committed on your behalf.

I think Ken raises some good points, non participation and silence eventually become a fig leaf when the violence and coersion are consistently done for the benefit of you and your economic power. Robert used (overextended in my opinion) this argument to prove that non voting is the moral equivalent of voting for the status quo. Those who's lot in life lies at the pointy end of the coersion generally see through such evasion.

Image some future dystopia where power centers have shifted east and China sends drones around the world to execute people for emitting too much carbon. How comforted would we feel if the 100 million Chinese Christians flourishing there would shrug and say, "we don't support that."

I don't know where to draw these lines, but silence, inaction and evasion are not seemly for children walking in the power of the true king. This calls for wisdom, creativity and action.