Laurence M. Vance is Wrong

Should a Christian Join the Military?

The larger question of whether a Christian (or anyone opposed to the federal leviathan) should work for the state is not at issue. Someone employed by the state as a teacher, a mailman, a security guard, or a park ranger is providing a lawful, moral, non-aggressive, non-intrusive service that is in the same manner also provided by the free market. Thus, it might be argued that working for the BATF, the CIA, the FBI, or as a regulation-enforcing federal bureaucrat is off limits, whereas these other occupations are not.

My emphasis.

Mr. Vance, you are entirely incorrect.

Teachers, mailmen, security guards, and park rangers (the kind we'd see in private facilities, NOT these guys) employed in a free market are indeed providing a non-coercive, non-aggressive, moral service. Why?

• Because their employment is based on voluntary agreement with their employer;
  
• because they choose to accept the wages and benefits offered by the employer in exchange for their labor and time;
  
• and, more importantly, because their employers operate in the context of a free market themselves.

That last point is crucial. A business cannot survive without customers and it cannot attract customers unless it has products and services that those customers want to purchase. The customers of a business voluntarily choose to spend their money on that business over its competition. The entire system is characterized by this: individual liberty. A free market business does not engage in force to gain revenue.

Someone employed by the state as a teacher, a mailman, a security guard, or a park ranger is providing a lawful, moral, non-aggressive, non-intrusive service that is in the same manner also provided by the free market.

How do state-employed teachers, mailmen, security guards, and park rangers compare to those working in a free market? While they and their employers still retain most of the freedom described above to choose and leave jobs and hire and fire employees, there is one crucial difference. They are paid by the state and the state pays them with tax money. The state engages in force to gain revenue.

Taxes are theft, wealth taken from citizens through the threat of violence against them and their property. The state does not and cannot respond to market demand for the services it offers (or forces on us) the same way a private entity can and does. Funding levels for the park service are based at least as much on political expediency as the reality of the service's needs. Anyone paying attention to the public school financing debacle in Texas knows how teachers are funded is utterly divorced from their value. Assuming Mr. Vance is euphemistically referring to the state's law enforcement officers as "security guards," I have to point out that the very important service they are supposed to provide (securing us from crime) is all-too often engaged in of violating the very basic crimes of aggression, coercion, theft, and fraud. I've yet to meet any state-employed mailmen because the United States Postal Service is a federal agency. Regardless, I'd be just as opposed to a Texas Department of Postal Service as I am to the USPS. By what right do these entities operate at the expense of everyone else?

Which brings me to the final point.

The larger question of whether a Christian (or anyone opposed to the federal leviathan) should work for the state is not at issue.

Why? What is the difference between the federal leviathan and the individual state leviathan? Does one entity respect the people living under it better than the other? Is there something about Texas, New Hampshire, Oregon, Florida, or North Dakota that make those states more moral than the United States Government?

Of course not. They are all governments and they are all actively engaged in forcing us around, taking away our time and wealth, and attempting to substitute their judgment for ours on an ever-expanding set of issues. I don't bestow upon the governments of New Mexico, Wisconsin, or Ohio any more legitimacy or benevolence than the USG. Why should I? They all operate on the same principle: the individual should be subordinated to the collective for altruistic, utilitarian, and pragmatic reasons. Sure, Americans have the choice of living in one of 50 states and a number of sub-units throughout this country. That doesn't mean there is a free market of government in action. It just means you get to pick which bureaucracy gets to tamper with you and the things you value.

This is the first time I've encountered Mr. Vance's writing so I'm unfamiliar with his political philosophy. But if what he has revealed here is any indication, I think I'll have some problems with it in the future.

Posted by Drizzten at October 13, 2004 03:50 PM